Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I really applaud the gentleman for taking this time and an hour. I would just try to enlarge the context, because it is clear that this Nation has an economy that is at risk. As my colleague well knows, the number of Americans that are now below the poverty line is historic in terms of its numbers. In addition to that, we have record job losses ever since 2001. We have lost in a net way over 2 million jobs; but most importantly when we talk about these exploding deficits, it is important to remember that when this President came to office there was a $5.6 trillion surplus projected for the year 2011.

Today, when we project forward to 2011, we are talking about a deficit, an accumulated deficit in that space of time in excess of $2 trillion. We have lost somewhere out there $8 trillion, some $8 trillion; and now we are continuing to add to that debt that will have to be paid, that becomes a drag on our economy because we have to pay interest, as my colleague well knows, on that debt. So these points that the gentleman is making, I think, are very important.

And clearly those that are viewing us here tonight and those of us that are speaking have to understand that the sacrifice is unfortunately not just about young men and women who are giving their lives and are being wounded and will suffer themselves personally for the rest of their lives; but almost as important, the American economy and future generations of Americans are going to suffer economically because of what we are doing.

I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I think it is ironic when I hear representatives of the administration say we do not want to load down the Iraqi people with debt. Well, I wish that they would share the same concern for the American people because recent reports in the media indicate that here in the United States poverty has increased dramatically. More than 1 million Americans, an additional 1 million Americans are now below the poverty line. That is a historical first, the median income, the median household income, that is halfway if you count all of the households in the United States, right at the 50 percent mark, the median income for an American family has gone down for 2 consecutive years. Ironically, there has been a significant increase in the number of millionaires. That went up some 14 percent. Of course, they have benefited from the recent series of tax cuts put forth by the President and enacted by this Republican Congress.

But debt, the deficit, is breaking all historical records. This year it will exceed $500 billion, and we are not talking about this particular supplemental, this so-called war supplemental. So when we talk about debt, let us remember the American people because we are going to have to answer to those people when they ask us who pays the bill. Well, it is you folks and your children and grandchildren, and possibly your great grandchildren because while we were projecting a $5.6 trillion surplus, we are now looking at a $3.3 trillion public debt.

Let me tell you what the cost of that $87 billion will do to the communities that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and I both represent. The $87 billion in additional war spending will cost Massachusetts taxpayers $2.6 billion. If that money were spent on other priorities in our home State, it could pay for $334 million for school construction resulting in over 8,000 new jobs; almost 1,900 new affordable housing units creating 4,500 jobs; $445 million for local and State roads and bridges, creating 10,000 new jobs; and 9,300 new firefighters; and health care coverage for 150,000 people in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts who are not currently receiving it. That is what it means to our home State, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, we talked earlier about the support that France and Russia and Germany provided Saddam Hussein. That particular chart represents the support that previous Republican administrations provided to Saddam Hussein from 1982 to 1990. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Just trust us. That is what the administration is saying. Just trust us.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) for bringing this up.

I would close by saying it is absolutely obligatory for the administration to recognize and to insist, in consultation with Attorney General Ashcroft, to go forward and to appoint a special counsel, because any decision that is reached by the Department of Justice, clearly, will raise questions as to, not just its thoroughness, but whether it was done to protect certain individuals, whomever they may be, in the White House.

Sometime in the near future, if there is no action to appoint a special counsel, I know that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), and I am sure the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and myself, who serve on the Committee on the Judiciary, will file a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that there ought to be a special counsel in this case.

This is not an administrative matter. This is far more serious than just a simple felony. I agree with the President's father, who uttered these words, this is President George Herbert Walker Bush, ``I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the

trust by exposing the names of our agents. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.''

This is about treason. This is not a simple misdemeanor. This is not about having the President take someone into the wood shed and admonish him or her. The American people have to understand that there are no traitors in this administration or in this White House. And that is going to be absolutely a precondition, to have an appointment of a special counsel to maintain the integrity of the Presidency, of the executive branch, and the Department of Justice.

If my friend would yield for just a moment.

I thought what was particularly ironic was that the day before, on ``Meet the Press,'' President Bush's Vice President, Dick Cheney, said something entirely different. He made statements in which the only reasonable inference that one could draw is that somehow al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, had a relationship with Saddam Hussein. I want to compliment the President of the United States finally for being forthcoming on that and ending that assertion that I think has caused great confusion among the American people.

Could I just go on for one minute, because, as you did, I witnessed the colloquy among our good friends, the Republicans from the other side of the aisle, and their discussion about Iraq. I have obviously significant disagreements. But I believe there is one thing we can agree on, that our men and women there have acted professionally, have reflected great pride on the military, and, in fact, on a number of occasions have acted heroically. But what I would do is to challenge them that when these men and women return as veterans and are no longer part of the military but assume that honored title ``veterans,'' that we do not disrespect them. Because as you well know, this administration and this Republican Congress failed to support adequate funding for veterans health care benefits to the tune of $1.8 billion. I wish one of them were here right now. In addition to that, if we are concerned about our veterans, if we are concerned about the men and women that are serving in Iraq today when they come home, it is important that we address the issue of disability for those that have been wounded in combat.

This is a story from yesterday, maybe today's, Miami Herald. I think it is important that the American people know this:

``Three months ago, the Republicans stalled a vote on a bill to erase a century-old injustice whereby the money that disabled military veterans collect in disability pay from the Veterans' Administration is deducted dollar for dollar from their military retirement pay.'' This, I daresay, is unacceptable, given the fact that we have a foreign policy that is creating more and more veterans. While we can praise them here on the floor of the House, there is currently right here in this Chamber a place to sign a so-called discharge petition that would redress this injustice, this travesty.

Let me continue with this story that appeared in the Miami Herald:

``A group of 401 retired generals and admirals signed a letter to President Bush earlier this month urging him to do the right thing by changing a law that penalizes disabled military retirees. In the words of one veteran, if George Bush only knew how deep and bitter the sentiment over this issue really is, he would immediately order his stooges and henchmen to back off and do the right thing. It will definitely be out the door in 2004 for everyone who did not support disabled military retirees.'' I daresay that there are close to 200 Members of this body that have signed that discharge petition, and it is my understanding there is only one Republican Member of the House of Representatives that has done so. That is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman how many American jobs, 5 billion-plus that we are sending to either construct or upgrade the electric grid in Iraq, how many American jobs will that generate?

Mr. Speaker, I have hospitals in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that, because of the cuts to Medicaid, are on the verge of closing and our people are suffering.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to offer another amendment too along with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) which would provide $1.8 billion for our veterans, for American veterans who are currently fighting in Iraq so that when they come home, they will have the health care that they need and that they deserve.

Does the gentleman have any details on this plan?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield for a moment before he leaves the floor, what I find particularly ironic is that it is the so-called Iraqi Governing Council that is really supporting our premise. They think that the administration is overspending. Stop for a moment and we should explain to those that are watching us here this evening that it was Secretary Rumsfeld and this administration that appointed the governing council.

According to a story that appeared in The New York Times yesterday, they are coming to Congress. They are going around the administration. They are getting frustrated. They are coming directly to the legislative body; and according to this particular story that appeared, again, in yesterday's New York times, they are coming to argue that American taxpayers could save billions of dollars on Iraq's reconstruction by granting sovereignty more rapidly. In interviews, the Iraqi leaders said they plan to tell Congress about how the staff of L. Paul Bremer, the American occupation administration, sends its laundry to Kuwait, how it costs $20,000 a day to feed the Americans at Al- Rashid Hotel in Baghdad, how American contractors charge large premiums for working in Iraq, and how across the board the overhead from supporting and protecting the large American and British presence here is less efficient than granting direct aid to Iraqi ministries that operate at a fraction of the cost.

One member of the governing council made this statement: he estimated that in some cases the savings could be a factor of 10 where, and these are his words, our appointee to the group that is commonly described as the governing council, he said where they spend $1 billion, we would spend $100 million. What are we doing?

If Mr. Emanuel could tell us how many tax dollars from the United States are going to Iraq to construct or rehabilitate schools in Iraq. What is the dollar figure?

Mr. Speaker, it does border on the incredible when we just hear our friend, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), talk about the issue of impact aid in those school districts which provide education for the children of military personnel, when we reflect on the $1.8 billion underfunding for health care, when we think about the fact that this Republican Majority is continuing to penalize disabled veterans, and now this, this $8 per day to feed veterans that are in our hospitals after combat in Iraq. I cannot imagine anything so obscene.

Mr. Speaker, back in the early 1930s there was a very famous march in Washington, and it was the march of the veterans to decry the way they were being treated. We are getting to the point where there will be another march of the veterans on Washington unless this House and this President take action.

By unanimous consent.

And today, from the reaction of the United Nations, it was clearly that $60 billion from the rest of the world is a pipe dream.

In addition to that, earlier we heard from our Republican colleagues, and they were making the comparison with FDR and how he excited the American people and made a commitment to peace. And yet what a difference, because FDR asked the American people if they would accept a war tax. And yet we have this administration doing exactly the opposite, creating deficits that are looming so large that all economists, from the right to the left and in between, are saying we are on the cusp of real economic danger. We are looking at a bleak economic future if we continue down this road. So any comparison between President Bush and the conduct of FDR, I dare say, is not apropos.

I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) for everything he has done. This is, I think, our 11th week; and as has been said over and over again, there will not come a week when we are not here to ask those questions because it is our responsibility, it is our patriotic duty; and I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I rise in support of H.R. 49 for the reasons that have been enumerated by the subcommittee Chair and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the Chair of the full committee. I want to acknowledge the leadership of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the Chair of the full committee.

I also want to express my appreciation to the subcommittee Chair, my good friend, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), for his kind words and his sincere efforts to see that Congress gives full consideration to the issue of taxation of remote sales. I thank him for scheduling a hearing on this issue and look forward to working with him to see that it is a productive exercise. As the gentleman knows, I will be introducing legislation in the near future, together with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), which would authorize the States that have worked so hard to simplify their sales taxes to collect sales taxes on remote sales to in-state purchases.

As we all know, the States are confronting their worst budget crises since the Great Depression. A declining economy, spiralling Medicaid costs, and the erosion of their tax base have left them with a collective deficit of some $100 billion. Governors of both political parties face a difficult choice between unpopular tax increases and drastic cuts in Medicaid, education, public safety and other essential services, or all of the above.

I appreciate the concern of the sponsors of the bill, that without a continuation of the moratorium on Internet access taxes, some States might be tempted to help make up their shortfalls by enacting such taxes. At the same time, we should be as concerned about the fact that States are losing tens of billions of dollars each year because taxable transactions on which they rely for half their revenues are increasingly taking place over the Internet. Some are not concerned, such as one individual, Mr. Grover Norquist, who testified at a hearing in support of this bill, and said that he wants to ``shrink government until we can drown it in the bathtub.'' He stated, ``I hope a State goes bankrupt.''

Well, unless you agree with him, the money has to come from somewhere. Uncollected sales taxes on Internet purchases cost the States more than $16 billion in 2001. Unless there is a system in place that enables States and local governments to collect these taxes, their annual losses from online sales will grow to some $45 billion by 2006 and $66 billion by 2011, with total losses coming to nearly half a trillion dollars by that date.

What does this mean for individual States? Well, just to cite a few examples, my home State of Massachusetts lost $256 million in 2001, and its losses will climb to over $1 billion by 2011. Tennessee lost $450 million in 2001, and by 2011 its annual losses will grow to $1.8 billion. Florida, which relies on the sales tax for more than one-half of its annual revenues, lost $1.2 billion in 2001, with its losses estimated to quadruple to nearly $5 billion just 10 years from now. Texas lost $1.4 billion in 2001 and stands to lose $5.6 billion by 2011.

These losses are magnifying the fiscal problems of the States, which are already experiencing, because of increased costs and shrinking revenues, losses. Additionally, by failing to ensure sales tax equity and fairness between remote sellers and Main Street merchants, we are putting at risk the thousands of small businesses that sustain our economy and contribute so much to our neighborhoods and our communities.

As former Governor Engler of Michigan said the last time we considered this issue, ``It is time to close ranks, come together and stand up for Main Street America. Fairness requires that remote sellers collect and pay the same taxes that our friends and neighbors on Main Street have to collect and pay.''

So, Mr. Speaker, while I support the moratorium on Internet access taxes and I support H.R. 49, I think it is important that we get our priorities straight. The Quill decision, which prompted this particular proposal, prohibited a State from collecting sales taxes from out-of- state businesses that do not have a physical presence in that State. But the court said that Congress could authorize the States to collect these taxes once they have modified their taxing systems to alleviate the burdens placed on Internet commerce by multiple taxing jurisdictions.

The States have made substantial progress over the past year in developing a simplified, efficient, and technologically neutral system for the taxation of goods and services that can meet that test. Once a sufficient number of States have implemented the streamlined sales and tax agreement, Congress should move expeditiously to consider our legislation authorizing them to require remote sellers to collect and remit sales and use taxes on in-state sales. The States, I believe, are meeting their responsibilities, and hopefully we will meet ours.

Mr. Speaker, good evening, and I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) again for being the driving force behind our weekly efforts to raise questions that we believe have to be answered to educate the American people and to educate Members of Congress as to what direction prospectively we should undertake.

I think for a moment, though, we should go back and review our earlier call to the President to agree to an independent commission to examine the intelligence that was the basis for American military intervention into Iraq because there continue to be questions raised by senior members of the administration, and if the gentleman will remember, our insistence on an independent commission was to depoliticize such an effort. I think we

had discussed here one evening the possibility of the commission that was chaired by two former Senators, one a highly-respected Republican from New Hampshire, Warren Rudman, and another former Democratic Senator from Colorado, Gary Hart. They chaired a commission which tragically foretold almost in a way that eerily predicted the tragedy that beset America on September 11 and the need to address it.

I think it is important to note that that particular commission filed its report some 8 or 9 months before September 11. In fact, I think the exact date was on February 15, and unfortunately no action was taken on that particular report. I do not mean to suggest that it would have in any way forestalled September 11, but I guess the answer to that rhetorical question is that we will never know if we had acted earlier, both Congress and the Bush-Cheney Administration.

But in any event, that independent commission, for example, would address such questions as to the purported links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. I believe that most Americans that are conversant with the intelligence have reached the conclusion that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that would link al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein and that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with September 11. Was he an evil tyrant, a despot that wreaked havoc on his people? Of course. I think there is unanimity among the American people and Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle that, yes, the world is better off by having Saddam Hussein out of power. But I think it is important not to just simply accept the fact that there is linkage between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein because, again, most intelligence reports and intelligence analysts have been very clear that no such intelligence exists.

However, this past weekend, I do not know whether the gentleman had an opportunity to hear the Vice President again suggest, not directly but suggest, that somehow Saddam Hussein was behind September 11. He raised the issue, for example, of the ring leader, the operational ring leader of al Qaeda and its attack on September 11, an individual by the name of Mohamed Atta as having met a senior Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague, Czechoslovakia, when our own FBI has indicated that there are documents that establish that Mohamed Atta was, in fact, in the United States during the time involved. And what I found particularly disturbing is that that senior Iraqi intelligence officer whom it was alleged that Mohammed Atta of al Qaeda met with in Prague, Czechoslovakia in April of 2001, 4 or 5 months before September 11, he has been captured. He has been captured by the American military, and media reports indicate that he refuted the claim, that he was very clear, he never met with Mohamed Atta. And all intelligence analysts that have spoken on this particular issue or have had conversations with Members of Congress indicate that there is no basis in fact for that allegation, and yet the Vice President, when interviewed by Mr. Tim Russert on Meet the Press, raises that issue again. I am sure there is confusion among the American people when they read well-respected journals, when they listen to thoughtful programs on these particular issues, and while not without some equivocation, the Vice President of the United States continues to use the Mohamed Atta meeting in Prague as a basis to establish a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

Certainly.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, there was a report today, a front-page story in my hometown newspaper, the Boston Globe, and just let me read an excerpt. ``Multiple intelligence officials said that the Prague meeting, purported to be between Atta and a senior Iraqi intelligence officer by the name of Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, was dismissed almost immediately after it was reported by Czech officials in the aftermath of September 11 and has since been discredited further. The CIA reported to Congress last year that it could not substantiate the claim while American records indicate Atta was in Virginia Beach, Virginia at the time, the officials said yesterday. Indeed, two intelligence officials said yesterday that Ani himself,'' this senior Iraqi intelligence official, ``now in U.S. custody, has also refuted the report. The Czech Government has also distanced itself from its original claim.

``A senior defense official'' in this particular administration ``with access to high-level intelligence reports expressed confusion yesterday.'' A senior defense official within the administration himself expressed confusion ``over the Vice President's decision to reair charges that have been dropped by almost everyone else.'' He said, ``There isn't any new intelligence that would precipitate anything like this,' the official said, speaking on condition he not be named.''

But this underscores the need to have this independent commission. Again, the prototype is there, the Rudman-Hart Commission that did such an outstanding job in terms of depicting the threat of a terrorist attack against the United States months before September 11, statements like that that were made on Meet the Press create confusion. Let us be clear, there is no one, it would appear, in the administration other than the Vice President that would not agree that this piece of evidence has been discredited. Why create confusion? Let the case for the military intervention rise and fall on the facts. That is all we ask. And as we have said consistently among ourselves during the hour that we spend here, some of us supported the President in terms of the request for a resolution authorizing the military intervention. Others of us disagreed. But let us eliminate the confusion. Let us just get to the truth, the truth with no political overtones, the truth so that the American people can have confidence in the integrity of our intelligence. Let us not continue to reair, as the report in the Globe indicated, a piece of evidence that, yes, this administration relied on substantially as establishing a link that somehow Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. I mean it is not right, and it is not fair to the American people. I mean prominent antiterrorism experts such as Vincent Cannistraro that many of us have observed on CNN and other news shows and is well-respected among his colleagues, he is a former CIA agent and I am quoting him, said that Cheney's ``willingness to use speculation and conjecture as facts in public presentations is appalling. It's astounding.''

Well, I do not know, but I do know this: this underscores the need to depoliticize as we go into a Presidential campaign a review of the intelligence in the information that led this administration to launch a war. And that received considerable support from Congress.

Because today at a hearing in the Committee on International Relations, a subcommittee hearing on the Middle East, Undersecretary John Bolton stated that, relative to Syria, all options were on the table, including regime change. And that was the position of the President and the administration. He was testifying relative to Syria and its weapons of mass destruction. So I

presume that includes a military option.

Is this administration going to have any credibility if it goes before the international community and indicates that we will exercise that military option in the case of Syria? And what about North Korea? What about Iran?

We have got to sustain our credibility. And the best way to do it is to have an independent commission comprised of prominent Americans whose credibility is unimpeached, who are not, as we all are, impacted or influenced by the politics of an election campaign, whether we be Democrat or whether we be Republican. The American people have a right to the unvarnished truth.

Mr. Speaker, the estimates that we as Members of Congress were provided by the administration. If my colleagues remember, the head of the office of OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, which is an arm of the White House, informed us that the cost of the war was going to be $50 billion. Well, the truth, and this is what the American people have to understand, we are already at $166 billion, and that is the down payment.

But I would say to the gentleman, the truth is, that is a down payment.

We are on our way, folks, we are on our way to $1 trillion.

Mr. Speaker, I will yield on that, to my good friend from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) and a member of Iraq Watch.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if you saw ``Meet the Press'' this last Sunday, but again the Vice President refuted the need that was expressed by the Army Chief of Staff, General Shinseki, that several hundred thousand troops were necessary to bring stability. We have what would appear to be a position that is intransigent, that is in denial, if you will.

If I can for just one moment bring something up that I found particularly ironic, Secretary of State Colin Powell this past week visited Halabja, which is where some 5,000 Kurdish Iraqis lost their lives because of the use of chemical weapons by Saddam Hussein. The Secretary asserted that in this little farming town nestled in Iraq's barren northern mountains, this was ample evidence that former President Saddam Hussein's government possessed weapons of mass destruction and justified, and justified the U.S. decision to go to war. That occurred in 1988 and it was despicable. And what should have occurred was the international community should have responded at that point in time, convened a war crimes tribunal, affected the arrest of Saddam Hussein and brought him to justice for that.

The President at that time was this President Bush's father, or rather in 1988 it was President Reagan. The now-Secretary of State was the then-National Security Advisor to President Reagan.

I find such irony in that because it was many of the same individuals who approached Saddam Hussein to indicate that they were tilting towards the Saddam Hussein regime in its war against Iran. It is the now-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld who is the special envoy who went and shook the hand of that thug Saddam Hussein in 1982. He was then taken off the terrorist list; Saddam Hussein was taken off the terrorist lists, and that opened up opportunities for the Iraqi regime.

In 1984 full diplomatic relationships were opened between the United States and Iraq. In 1986, in 1986 we installed an embassy in Baghdad. The American people should know that. In 1988, in 1988 this heinous crime was committed against the Iraqi Kurds in the town of Halabja, and here we are some 15 years later hearing the Secretary of State suggest that this was the evidence, the predicate, if you will, to our intervention.

Now, the story does not end there. The story does not end there. Because it was the President's father, the Bush administration according to a Congressional Research Report that blocked congressional action, that blocked congressional action to impose sanctions on Iraq for committing that crime against the Iraqi people.

Let me read because I think it is important that the American people hear this. I have never heard it stated. This is our own Congressional Research Service, an independent body: ``In late 1988 after reports that Iraq had used chemical weapons against the Kurds, the Senate on September 9 passed by voice vote to impose financial and trade sanctions and severe restrictions on the transfer of technology to Iraq. On September 27, the House passed a bill by a vote of 388 to 16; but the bill was not taken up by the Senate. The bill would have prohibited sales to Iraq of any munitions-listed items and called on the President to place import and export restrictions on Iraq, end credit and loan guarantees, and oppose multi-lateral assistance to that country if Iraq did not stop using chemical weapons and agree to international inspections.''

Similarly, in May through July of 1990, just before the first Gulf War, the administration helped block action or defeat several measures in both Houses that would have restricted U.S. sales credits, loan guarantees, insurance support in international lending institutions, and trade preferences for Iraq.

The administration helped block action. Of course we knew that he used chemical weapons. In 1990 we knew. And what did we do about it then? We blocked congressional action, the then-administration blocked congressional action.

So the irony of the Secretary of State being in Halabja and suggesting that that was the predicate for military intervention, what irony.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the brave men who fought to preserve the ideals of liberty and freedom from oppression that threatened to engulf the entire Korean peninsula back in the summer of 1950. On Sunday, July 27, 2003, in the town of Abington, Massachusetts, veterans of the Korean War, their families and fellow citizens will gather to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the end of what is often called ``The Forgotten War.'' But in truth it was anything but. The fighting, death and destruction was no illusion but a cold hard fact. Over 50,000 Americans were killed, wounded or taken prisoner. Our allies, the South Koreans, and the other countries that fought with us under the umbrella of the United Nations, also suffered. From the Pusan Perimeter and Inchon to the Chosin Reservoir and Pork Chop Hill, so many of our husbands, fathers, sons and brothers made the ultimate sacrifice to ensure that Koreans can have the same advantages and freedoms we enjoy here at home.

Representative of the sacrifices of this group of heroes is Congressional Medal of Honor recipient and former Massachusetts Commissioner of Veterans Services, Thomas Hudner. Born in Fall River, Massachusetts in 1924, Mr. Hudner attended the prestigious Phillips Academy and then enrolled in the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis. Trained to be a Naval Aviator, Lieutenant (jg) Hudner received orders to go to Korea, where his ship, the USS Leyte, arrived in October of 1950. Though enemy naval units were not a major threat, providing support to U.N. ground forces was still dangerous.

The character and mettle of the man was fully revealed on December 4, 1950, when on a mission, the aircraft flown by Ensign Jesse Brown went down in the mountains of North Korea. After confirming that Ensign Brown initially survived the crash, the flight leader radioed for assistance and the Marines dispatched a helicopter. Fearing that the fire now enveloping his friend's plane--or the enemy that was in the area--would reach him first, Lieutenant Hudner, at the risk of his own life, performed a wheels up crash landing of his aircraft and tried to rescue Ensign Brown. The hope was that both could then escape the area aboard the arriving helicopter. Fighting against snow, sub-zero temperatures and enemy forces, Hudner tried to put out the fire and save his comrade. Unfortunately, the injuries suffered by Brown were fatal. For his bravery and courage Thomas Hudner was decorated with the Congressional Medal of Honor by President Truman in 1951.

After the war, Thomas Hudner continued his military career in the Navy until his retirement in 1973. He continued to live and work in the Boston area. Like others of his generation, when our country needed them, they answered the call. They did their duty, saved and preserved the freedoms we cherish today and returned home to raise their own families during one of America's greatest eras of prosperity. Their legacy is the peace, security and opportunity of today's America. It is a gift so precious we can never repay them except by promising each other to never forget and always remain vigilant. It has been 50 years since the guns fell silent across the cease fire line in Korea. The passing of time has thinned their ranks, but the memories of their deeds in fighting for the liberty we enjoy today will never fade. God bless the men of the Korean War generation, their families and the United States of America.

Mr. Chairman, let me respond to the gentleman from Florida for 1 minute regarding his observation that this was Castro's priority. I do not necessarily believe the words of Fidel Castro. I honestly wonder if this crackdown that we all condemn was a canard to continue the policy of the Castro government to use the ban on travel and the economic embargo as an opportunity to sustain the government and the regime in power. But, as others have indicated, 40 years, more than 40 years and counting of a failed policy that has brought about no change in Cuba. That cannot be denied.

The magnitude of the failure of this policy is so colossal that it is inconceivable that we continue to pursue it. Because while it has not benefited the Cuban people, it has also diminished American freedoms. As the former Supreme Court Justice William Douglas once said, and I am quoting, ``Freedom of movement is the very essence of our free society, setting us apart. It often makes all other rights meaningful.''

Imagine travel police who tell you where you can go and how much you can spend when you are there, even if you simply want to scatter the ashes of a beloved parent like one American citizen did. That does not sound like America travel police, but it is. That is the reality. We have our own travel police. It is called the Office of Foreign Asset Control, or OFAC. They decide who will go to Cuba and who does not. They insist that you account to them what you did there when you arrived and what you spent. If they do not believe you, they can punish you. They have even threatened to garnish Social Security benefits from one individual.

We should all be offended as Americans by this policy.

So yes, this debate today is about democracy. It is all about democracy; our democracy as well as democracy in Cuba.

This amendment would end this affront to American liberty and American rights. What makes the curtailment of this freedom of Americans so particularly repugnant is the hypocrisy of the policy. For example, and others have alluded to it: Americans can travel today to Iran, to North Korea, the remaining members of the axis of evil club. And remember when Saddam Hussein was in power, you could go to Baghdad and use your American Express card. You cannot do it in Havana.

Those who would maintain the status quo and continue to deny Americans the freedom to travel proclaim that all Cuba has to do is to conduct free and fair elections, legalize all political parties, allow freedom of the press and association, permit the existence of independent labor unions, and then, we will restore to Americans their freedom to travel. Those are worthy goals.

Well, if the rights of Americans to travel are predicated on these standards, then how about Egypt, a one-party State where elections are a sham, where political and religious dissent is repressed, and freedom of the press is restricted. But for Egypt, the penalty, the penalty is $2 billion worth of American foreign aid every year.

What about Saudi Arabia, one of the most repressive regimes on earth according to our own State Department, where women can not drive, and where American soldiers could not practice their religion openly on Saudi soil.

Well, I have seen women driving in Cuba, and I have attended mass in Havana with Cuban dissidents. And 15 of the terrorists who attacked the United States on September 11 were from Saudi Arabia. There was not a Cuban among them. And yet, some of the most ardent proponents of the Cuba travel policy today vote for United States assistance to Saudi Arabia. Is it not time to end the hypocrisy? We ought not to be the land of the licensed, but the land of the free. Support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I want to point out that I find it somewhat ironic that when we speak of the wives of Oscar Chepe and Hector Palacios, prominent leaders in the dissident movement in Cuba who are currently incarcerated in Cuban jails, for whom my colleague and I and members of the Cuba Working Group have advocated strenuously for their release and will continue to do so, that when references to their spouses are made, it is left to be suggested that they support the ban on travel, when the contrary is true.

Let me quote from Miriam Leiva, the wife of Oscar Espinosa Chepe: ``The visits of hundreds of thousands of North Americans to Cuba could contribute to the exchange of ideas and the progress of democracy.'' I know we all share that. Let us support this.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

This is a very simple amendment, Mr. Chairman. It does exactly the same thing as the one that I and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and

others offered last year and which passed the House overwhelmingly. It prohibits enforcement of the cap on remittances that can be sent to families in Cuba.

Not many people, I believe, are aware that an aspect of current policy regarding Cuba imposes limits on family charity. Let me just say that again. It is American policy to restrict the amount of financial support that Cuban Americans can send to their families on the island. U.S. law prohibits Americans from giving more than $1,200 a year to their Cuban families. I would suggest that this is shameful, especially for a Nation of immigrants like we have here in the United States.

Is there anything that defines American history or our heritage more than a first-generation family sending money back to the old country to buy food or medicine or clothing for loved ones in need? Such assistance is particularly critical in Cuba. Dollars from American relatives can make a huge difference in the quality of life for a Cuban family. One would think that American policy would be to encourage family assistance; but instead, the law, our law, views Cuban Americans who give too much help to their families as common criminals who can be fined up to $55,000 and sentenced to up to 10 years in prison.

Now, as the Treasury Department will readily tell us, the limits on remittances are rarely enforced. And after the House spoke so clearly last year on this particular amendment, the administration began to allow Cuban Americans who visit the island to bring more money with them. I think the amount is some $10,000, although it did retain the $1,200 limit per household per year. So I would suggest or conclude that even the White House recognizes that this policy is a pointless charade, which begs the question: Why have any limits on remittances at all?

It is important to understand this policy does nothing to hurt the Cuban Government. Nothing. Instead, it punishes American citizens by forcing them to violate the law, and as we have heard elsewhere today, causes disrespect for the rule of law. And it punishes their relatives in Cuba by denying them the opportunity for a better life because, and it cannot be repeated often enough, this money does not go to the Cuban Government. Remittances are direct aid to families in Cuba from ordinary people who care to ordinary people in need.

It is the official policy of the United States that you should only do just so much. This is wrong and it is unacceptable. Last week, President Bush said, and I am quoting him, ``Millions of acts of decency and kindness help define the true worth and the true strength of this great American Nation.'' We all agree with those sentiments. Our government should never seek to limit the kindness and the decency of the American people.

Ending the limit on remittances is one of the most kind and decent things we can do for the people of Cuba and for Cuban Americans here in the United States. We should do this. Support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Chairman, what is the time remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

(Ms. SOLIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I agree with the gentleman, those prisoners should be released, and we will continue to work hopefully to secure their release. At the same time, the gentleman cannot deny the level and magnitude of the human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia, and we have to be equally as ardent and vociferous in our condemnation on what occurs in that society. We have to have a policy that is devoid of hypocrisy.

Let me go to the amendment very briefly. The reality is that Cuban Americans who travel to Cuba, and there are many of them and they go there frequently, they pour out of the Jose Marti Airport and embrace their relatives there. And the reality and truth is they do bring dollars with them far in excess of $1,200 a year, and I know if I had family in Cuba, I would do the same because family is first.

I recognize the Cuban community and the Cuban-American family believe in a sense of fairness. This is not to increase revenues for any government, it is to take care of people, families. When you are in Cuba and you are there and you are visiting not just with dissidents but ordinary Cubans, they tell you this is a life line to survive, and that is why we bring this amendment to legitimatize what is going on. We know the Treasury Department does not enforce this particular remittance, but it is to legitimatize the reality and support families everywhere.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), who has led this particular conversation for some many weeks now.

My memory is that last week there were reports in many of the leading newspapers in this country that the President would come forward with a supplemental budget in the neighborhood of some $80 billion; and this past Sunday, the American people and Members of Congress learned for the first time that that budget request would be for some $87 billion. That is an astounding figure.

Clearly, we are on the verge of adding to a deficit that was estimated for the fiscal year of 2004 to be some $480 billion. The way we are heading, it is now in excess, with this request, of some $540 billion. That is disturbing, the long-term implications for what we have to look forward to in terms of an economic recovery. $87 billion, I think it is interesting to note, exceeds the following that were items in the President's budget.

This $87 billion we have discussed here is a supplemental budget. This is in addition to the $79 billion that this Congress approved, it seems like just a short time ago, though it was several months ago. The entire request for the year for homeland security was $41 billion. This supplemental request is double that amount. More than double.

Health and Human Services, $66.2 billion. And that $66.2 billion, we should note, includes $27 billion for the National Institutes of Health, which is so critical to advancing discoveries for such scourges as cancer, heart disease, et cetera, et cetera.

This $87 billion supplemental request exceeds the total amount allocated or budgeted for the Department of Education. The Department of Education budget was some $53 billion.

It is almost three times the amount that has been appropriated for the State Department in foreign aid. That figure is some $27 billion.

For highway and road construction in the United States, $30 billion.

The only aspect of the President's budget that this particular supplemental request does not surpass are the proposed tax cuts of some $107 billion.

This says to me, and I know it says it to my friend as well, that the costs were vastly underestimated; and now we face a difficult moment in our economic life where this recovery, if we can call it a recovery, is certainly a jobless recovery. This past month, in August, it was reported that here in the United States an additional 93,000 jobs, American jobs, were lost. This supplemental request of $87 billion certainly will not add to the number of jobs and the number of Americans that are employed.

Well, Mr. Speaker, if my friend would yield for a moment, of course that is absolutely aberrational in American history. In fact, during World War II, President Roosevelt asked the American people to accept a tax increase. We are not here even suggesting that this evening. But I think what we have learned is, unfortunately, the estimates that have been put forth by the administration were absolutely inaccurate, underestimated, and represented a scenario that was totally unrealistic.

I would remind my friend that Under Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz, back in March, told Congress that, and I will quote him, ``We are dealing with a country that can really refinance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.'' And relatively soon.

What I find fascinating is that this Congress, on a bipartisan basis, is expressing its dismay. To quote from a story that appeared in the September 9 issue of The New York Times, and this is when representatives of the administration were appearing before a Senate committee, a prominent member of that committee, Senator McCain of Arizona, was dissatisfied with an answer from Mark Grossman, the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs on how long it would take for more troops from other countries to arrive in Iraq

under United Nations auspices: `` `I am not asking for precisely what day,' Senator McCain said. `I am asking of a matter could you tell me years?' Mr. Grossman replied that should the Security Council resolution pass in the next few weeks, I can't imagine that it would be years. 'that precision is not really satisfying,' said Senator McCain.''

The level of incompetence in terms of the postwar, postmajor come- back phase, I should say, of what would be required of America, American taxpayers and American military personnel, the magnitude of that incompetence can only be described as colossal; and it has cost America its sons and badly needed revenue to meet our own domestic needs. As I indicated earlier, when I was reading through the monies available for Homeland Security, for Health and Human Services, for Education, for the functioning of the State Department in foreign assistance, this supplemental budget, by itself, exceeded all of the monies allocated for those needs.

What we know now and what we should have known is that you simply cannot have tax cuts, guns, and butter too; yet here we are tonight faced with a proposal that is really a price tag. There is no plan. The questions that the gentleman posed earlier in terms of how long will our troops be required there, when will Iraqis assume control of their own destiny and devested with the power that is necessary have not been provided.

I think that the White House and the administration and the Department of Defense have to be prepared to respond to those questions. Otherwise, I cannot imagine this body and the United States Senate approving a request that would provide the White House with a blank check. It just simply will not fly.

Mr. Speaker, I call it the no plan.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, let me say that $1.8 billion underfunded does not include the fact that this administration, within the past year, has denied access to health care benefits that this Congress in 1996 mandated for all veterans.

Now we have a situation where the administration is encouraging no outreach, do not tell. They have a do-not-tell policy.

I think that is so important to repeat. And we should say it slowly so that those in the viewing audience hear it clearly. And I would challenge any member of this branch to come forward and rebut it. If you earn over $25,000 and are a combat veteran, and you are described as a Priority 8 veteran, and understand there are hundreds of thousands that fall within that classification, you cannot enroll in a veterans health care program in this country. That is more than shameful; it is unconscionable.

We sent these young and women to war, and when they come back, we dishonor them, we disrespect them.

I cannot agree more. There has to be, as a precondition, serious consideration of this supplemental budget request for $87 billion and an honest and sincere effort to restore the $1.8 billion, $2 billion, whatever that number be, to provide those veterans the kind of services that they are entitled to and that they defended this country so bravely to secure for future veterans.

While we are talking for a moment about the military, it was the Congressional Budget Office that identified a looming problem. In March, we will have to start withdrawing most of our troops in Iraq if we want to maintain an acceptable level of military readiness. That is on the horizon. As the gentleman from Washington indicates, I do not see other nations rushing to provide a coalition, a genuine coalition that will provide the kind of security and stability that is necessary for the reconstruction of Iraq. I am sure many in the audience and those of you here

tonight have noted in the most recent edition of Time magazine on the cover, Are We Stretched Too Thin? I daresay if you listen to General Schwarzkopf, if you listen to our military leaders who will speak in private, they will say we are stretched very, very, very thin. And here we are, contemporaneously with addressing this issue, we are now in the process of discussions that we cannot predict how they will go relative to the threat of a nuclear North Korea.

Some statements have been made by members of this administration that the military option has not been removed from the table. What are we talking about?

Let me ask the gentleman, does this mean that at some point in the future, if we continue to have a foreign policy that creates these significant needs for military personnel, that some day on the floor of this House we will be debating the necessity for a draft?

It is time to ask these kinds of questions.

I think it is important that we stress that this is not just Democrats that are posing these questions. This past week on, I think it was the ``CBS Early Show,'' someone who understands combat, someone who was in war and who is a decorated veteran of the Vietnam conflict, Chuck Hagel, Republican from Nebraska, said this: ``The administration has done a miserable job of planning the post-Saddam Iraq.''

The administration has done a miserable job of planning the post- Saddam Iraq. That is Senator Hagel. We all know Senator Hagel. Everybody in Congress respects and acknowledges his integrity, but he was right too. Maybe we failed in our responsibility collectively. I am talking about the House as well as the other branch. Because he pointed out that we allowed the administration to treat us like a nuisance. We did not ask the questions. Some of us did. But no, in the heat and in the vast amount of publicity that was attendant to the President and Vice President Cheney and Under Secretary Wolfowitz's natural access to the media, people did not ask the tough questions. Well, not this time.

Not this time. We want a plan, and we want all of the answers.

I can remember Secretary Feith coming in front of the Committee on International Relations. I asked him, give me just an idea of the costs to rebuild Iraq. He said, I do not have any answers.

And does that include the $2 billion necessary for veterans health care benefits.

Mr. Speaker, if I could make a final concluding remark, and then I will then defer to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel). There was a report today, or rather Monday, in The Washington Post that the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, when he was concluding his 4-day trip to Iraq and Afghanistan, complained that critics of the Bush administration's Iraq policy are encouraging terrorists and complicating the war on terrorism. Give me a break.

Yes. Give me a break. We are going to ask the question.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, while we were back in our districts working this past month, I am sure the gentleman noticed the announcement put out by the Congressional Budget Office in terms of the deficit that is accruing day by day on the future of the American taxpayers. If my colleague knows the number, I would like to hear it.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that my colleague is wrong, my dear friend from Philadelphia. The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, predicts the deficit for the next fiscal year will be $480 billion, $480 billion. And in the course of the past several years, just this past year, 1.4 million Americans fell below the poverty line. And my colleague is speaking tonight in terms of just simply for the reconstruction of Iraq, rebuilding Iraq, if you will, $20 billion a year for 5 years.

Mr. Speaker, what was the cost to our economy of the blackout that I think was of a 12- to maybe 24-hour duration, what was the cost?

Billions of dollars, and yet we cannot find the money here to invest in America.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield for just a moment. As he refers to that particular incident, I want to take a moment to express my most profound condolences to a particular family, the Caldwell family of Quincy, Massachusetts, which is my hometown, the birthplace of John Adams and John Quincy Adams. The Caldwell family lost their son, their brother, in that particular incident. The war has come home to Quincy and to the United States.

I do not think anybody doubts that at all.

Mr. Speaker, my friend knows that he will have three colleagues that will be cosponsoring that particular amendment with him. And I daresay that when my colleague alluded earlier to the proposal to provide universal health care coverage for half of the Iraqi population as well as 100 percent maternity coverage for Iraqi women, maybe, just maybe, we could convince our colleagues in the House to restore the $95 billion that they cut from the Medicaid.

Those that will be employed by Halliburton in Iraq will be Iraqis. They will not be Americans. The low-wage jobs and the medium-wage jobs will be Iraqis. Meanwhile, as earlier stated, in this country we have lost 3 million jobs. And ironically, of course, the unemployment rate is going down by two-tenths of a point from 6.4 to 6.2 percent because we are not counting people anymore.

We now have a new category called the discouraged worker because he or she has been looking for a job, whether it be in Ohio, Massachusetts or Hawaii or Pennsylvania, and as has been indicated, those manufacturing jobs are leaving this country daily. They cannot find a job. They are discouraged and their unemployment has been exhausted, so they no longer count as American workers. They are discouraged workers.

Mr. Speaker, let me just segue into an observation that was made by the general who successfully commanded the coalition, the true coalition of the willing in Gulf War I, and that is General Schwarzkopf, and he was recently interviewed. It was on one of the Sunday morning magazines and he was talking about the troops and his concern for the morale of the troops and the suggestion that more troops are needed to provide stability and security before this particular White House can rebuild Iraq.

I am just going to quote some excerpts from his statement. This is General Schwarzkopf. ``I do not think, based on the information we are hearing ahead of time, that anybody thought Iraq was going to be anywhere near as tough an egg to crack as it has become. We did not have a rotation policy at that time.'' He was talking about rotating American military personnel in and out. ``We were just going to go in, the people were going to throw flowers at our feet, and everybody was going to welcome democracy and we were all going to go back home. But I think we really became very surprised by the amount of resistance we have run into since. The number of deaths that has been inflicted on our troops, and it happens every day, and that has a very, very eroding effect on the morale. Believe me, when someone is shooting at you and you cannot shoot back, I know from experience because I have been through that.'' That is General Schwarzkopf.

What are we doing? What are we inflicting on the American military?

We have all sponsored a resolution urging the President of the United States to seek a new United Nations resolution making the United Nations part of the solution, under the command of the U.S. military when it comes to the security issue, but making them part of this enormous effort of nation-building because that is what this administration is about; it is about nation-building. And the costs, and we hear it again and again. We talk about $4 billion a month.

As Members know, and we have been joined by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), that $4 billion a month, that $50 billion a year is just

for a military presence. It does not involve rebuilding Iraq. It does not involve nation-building. This White House, this administration, upon coming to office, derided nation-building, and yet they have embraced nation-building in a magnitude that is mind-boggling; and some within the administration, some within the administration, not Secretary Powell, because I understand he is attempting to negotiate a new U.N. resolution, but some want to go it alone. We cannot afford it either in terms of American lives or American dollars. We are going to go broke.

The gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) mentioned Gulf War I under the leadership of the father of the current President. He did create a true coalition. The cost of that war to the American people, the total cost, was a little over $4 billion. That is the cost of just sustaining our military presence in Iraq now for a month, and we are going to be there for years.

Those questions are not being posed. And that same story that was quoted yesterday that the gentleman quoted from, the funeral of that particular Ayatollah who was a moderate leader among the Shiite community in southern Iraq, where some would suggest there has been stability and some limited progress has been made, things are beginning, they are in the process of falling apart.

A piece of that story that the gentleman did not read is extremely disturbing when it comes to our role. His brother's clarion call resounded with the crowd. I am quoting from that same story. Mourners who came from as far away as Basra and Baghdad beat themselves with chains in the traditional ritual for mourning religious martyrs and chanted ``death to America.''

We have to be listening very, very carefully. There is a growing anger, not just in the so-called Suni triangle, not just in Tikrit, but all over Iraq in terms of the American presence. That is why I would suggest it is absolutely critical that we internationalize the presence.

I know we are winding down, but before we do, I think we would be remiss if we did not note the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan. In the future, I would hope we would include Afghanistan, because those same brave young men and women are in Afghanistan. Two stories today, Associated Press. The Taliban are no longer on the run and have teamed up with al Qaeda once again, according to officials and former Taliban, who say the religious militia has reorganized and strengthened since their defeat at the hands of the U.S.-led coalition nearly 2 years ago.

And now the administration is talking about doubling the aid from $900 million to almost $2 billion. I daresay that will be insufficient, but remember this, it is costing us $11 billion a year to maintain a military presence in Afghanistan.

Offered By: Mr. Delahunt

Amendment No. 2: Page 157, insert the following after line

2:

Sec. 742. None of the funds made available in this Act may

be used to enforce any restriction on remittances to

nationals of Cuba or Cuban households, including remittances

for emigration expenses, covered by section 515.570 or

515.560(c) of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, other

than the restriction that remittances not be made from a

blocked source and the restriction that no member of the

payee's household be a senior-level government official or

senior-level communist party official.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I must admit, however, I do so with some ambivalence, for I share many of the concerns that have been articulated by the proponents. They are right about the balloon effect, because even as coca cultivation declines in Colombia, we are seeing an increase in Peru and Bolivia. I also share their concern about human rights abuses, about the relentless assault on labor leaders and human rights workers, and about military ties to the paramilitaries. It is reported in our own Department of State country reports. But it would be unfair not to acknowledge that there have been sincere efforts made by the Uribe administration to address these issues and some progress has been made.

Furthermore, I believe that the Colombian people, particularly the economic elite, as has been alluded to earlier, should be doing more. Unfortunately, the conflict is being currently fought by poor Colombians and paid for to a substantial degree by American taxpayers as indicated by the ranking member of the full committee. And while I applaud the initiative of President Uribe to levy a war tax, that was a one-time event. There has to be a permanent revenue stream of new

money generated by the Colombian people themselves. The percentage of GDP spent on the security forces is still much lower than in other Latin American countries which do not have to confront such a vicious internal conflict. I submit that a new permanent war tax paid by Colombians ought to be a condition of continued American assistance.

But I would suggest that it is not in our interest at this point in time to reduce aid to Colombia. It is important to note that President Uribe has made a firm commitment to fight illegal armed groups, all of them, not just the FARC and the ELN, but also the paramilitaries. And it cannot be denied that the Colombian military has been much more aggressive in dealing with these right-wing paramilitary groups since the Uribe administration has come to power. Many believe that this has resulted in a cease-fire and the beginning of a peace process with the largest faction, the so-called AUC. So now at least there is the possibility of a peace accord with this particular group. If there is a chance to remove one of the armed groups from this conflict, we must take it.

To cut aid just as this process is beginning would send a very bad signal, even if an unintentional one. In fact, we should be increasing aid substantially because it is in our national security interests to do so. Remember, the entire amount we spend on all of Latin America in a year is less than the amount we are spending in a single week in Iraq. Our aid should be more balanced, should be directed to help develop democratic institutions, support human rights and encourage social and economic development in our own hemisphere, especially in Colombia. For if we are ever going to do anything that will substantially and permanently reduce the flow of cocaine and heroin into the streets of the United States, stability and healthy democratic institutions are essential. And peace is a prerequisite for that stability.

That is why I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment of my friend from Massachusetts.

Could I interrupt on that point, because it does follow an item that I read today in the New York Times. The President, while meeting with the Italian Prime Minister, accused both Syria and Iran of continuing to harbor and assist terrorists; and he warned those two nations that they would ``face consequences.'' I do not know what that means, but I am definitely concerned when I hear that language.

By the way, I think it should be noted, because I know our friend from Chicago has made the point again and again about the cost of the war and the need for international assistance, he did not discuss, according to the Time's piece, Italian troops coming to Iraq to assist and replace American troops. I would have hoped that he would have done that.

But while we are talking about Syria, in the words of the President, I do not know if you are aware, but recently an Under Secretary of State by the name of John Bolton was to testify before the House Committee on International Relations, which the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) and I serve on.

There was a report in the Miami Herald, and let me read certain excerpts from that report, because we are talking about credibility, the credibility of the President of the United States and the credibility of the administration.

Mr. EMANUEL. That is the testimony that was withdrawn, if I am not mistaken?

Mr. DELAHUNT. It was withdrawn because of the CIA insistence that it was exaggerated testimony. This gentleman, who is a leading neo- conservative, or a leading hawk, within the administration, also said back in May of 2002 that Cuba had a bio-weapons program that was being developed. At that point in time, neither Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, nor General Gary Speer, in charge of the Southern Command, would support that statement. They talked about capabilities.

But just for one moment, if my friends will indulge me, because I think this is important, because we are talking about Syria, because the President of the United States said today they will face consequences, I hope he is getting sound intelligence.

But this is what the Miami Herald said last Tuesday. I am just going to read some excerpts: ``In a new dispute over interpreting intelligence data, the

CIA and other agencies objected vigorously to a Bush administration assessment of the threat of Syria's weapons of mass destruction that was to be presented Tuesday on Capitol Hill. After the objections, the planned testimony by Under Secretary of State John Bolton, a leading administration hawk, was delayed until September. The CIA and other intelligence agencies said the assessment was exaggerated. Bolton's planned remarks caused a revolt among intelligence experts, who said they thought they inflated the progress Syria had made in its weapons programs, said a U.S. official who is not from the CIA but was involved in the dispute. The CIA's objections and comments alone ran to 40 pages.''

Mr. EMANUEL. One of the things that the bipartisan commission would look at, in my view, the reason the President said it was important that we had to go to war now, we could not wait another 2 weeks for maybe a possible U.N. resolution to get other countries and persuade them, was the imminent capability, I think he said in one speech, that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had the capability in 45 minutes of deploying a weapon of mass destruction.

The two criteria, this was done in a New Republic article that I thought was excellent, two essential pieces of the State of the Union backing up the nuclear threat of Iraq that the President delivered here: One was the infamous 16 words about the Niger memo which clearly proved there was no attempt, well, it proved that that documentation to that ``approach to Niger'' was inaccurate.

Second was the famous tube acquisition. In both cases the CIA said both, A, the tubes were not for nuclear capability because they were both coated with chemicals; and second, the acquisition of Niger for uranium or the yellow cake material, this memo was inaccurate, that this event did not occur.

In fact, today on the NBC Nightly News they showed three separate stories about the forgery and how anybody at any point could have easily, just by checking on Google, realized it was not correct because the name at the bottom by the government official of Niger was not accurate. The dates were not accurate. Just looking at it, anybody, not even with intelligence background, could have seen that.

So the two pieces of essential evidence supporting the fact that Iraq was on the threshold of nuclear capability did not meet the standard of both our intelligence community and, in fact, one can say it does not meet even a laughing standard out there in the international community. Hopefully, this will require an investigation of whatever body was formulated of eminent Americans would get to what happened, how did the President put it in his speech, who put it in his speech, who convinced and weighed in on the intelligence community?

I have worked on a few State of the Unions in my time, and I can see this back and forth, and I can see exactly if the White House wants something, and time and again you pressure an agency, time and again you have somebody pushing back, the ultimate compromise that squeezes out of the pressure is, we will say the British said it. So the CIA and the intelligence community who is resisting does not need to own this.

It was desire and a need for a political purpose to have that in the speech, to give the speech some immediacy, some urgency to the moment. That may have happened, may not have happened, but until we have an independent investigation or inquiry or whatever body looks at this, we will always have questions about America's credibility that will then, I think, hamper, not limit, whether Syria is or is not. Syria, we know they are harboring terrorists; whether they are developing weapons of mass destruction we do not know.

We need in the international community, it is clear, given we have 21 units stationed around the world of which I think 16 or 18 are in Iraq, America's military capability, not that they could not muster and respond to another situation, they could, but we are clearly spread very thin; and to convince the world community of the importance of what we see in Iraq, of what we see in North Korea, that North Korea being very relevant today, we cannot afford to have a credibility gap about the President's word, we cannot, as Americans, regardless of your political background.

So I say I would hope that this body of eminent Americans would look at the two points that substantiate the claim that Iraq was on the threshold, not on the threshold, had the ability, that is what the speech and the words say, in 45 minutes could launch a weapon of mass destruction. The nuclear pieces of that clearly did not pass the basic smell test.

Mr. HOEFFEL. You know what the real crime of this is, the really bad impact of this credibility gap that we are talking about that has been developed because of the exaggeration of the threat of weapons of mass destruction is in an age of terror, which we are certainly in, you can argue very persuasively that there will be times when a nation must act preemptively if faced with an imminent threat to protect itself.

We are not dealing, as we all know, with a traditional enemy where you see the ships amassing in the harbor or the armies amassing on the border; that if you are faced with an imminent threat from a terror source you may have to act preemptively, but you must have intelligence that you can rely upon.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Let me ask a question. According to this new doctrine articulated by President Bush, what are the new criteria for a preemptive strike? I have asked that question of experts. I have asked that question of administration representatives. I have asked those questions of people on the street. I do not know what those criteria are.

Are they clear and present danger? What is the amount of evidence that is enough to launch a military strike against a nation? Do we have evidence that Saddam Hussein was prepared to attack the United States either through Iraqi military forces or through the use of terrorist organizations?

Mr. EMANUEL. One of things that has surprised me, I come from the view there is no doubt if you look at the past of Saddam Hussein's actions. He has used chemical weapons on his own citizens. He has used them in the war on Iraq. He has engaged in a series of attempts to repress a regime.

Why would the administration conjure up a threat? Why would you in the State of the Union, in which you are on the threshold of war, decide to go with evidence that was not good enough for the Secretary of State to use a week later, that in October it was taken out of your speech by the various intelligence agencies?

To me, this is still one of the great mysteries. What was it that decided we were going to go on the flimsy evidence of this Niger memo that anybody within 1 minute of sitting down, as clearly on tonight's story on NBC News, they realized if you just looked at it and they looked at people that looked at it independent of our intelligence community.

MR. DELAHUNT. I would like to ask the question, if I could, to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), can you or can the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) articulate clearly and definitively for us and for the Americans, for us, those of us who were watching it, what are the standards, what are the criteria under the Bush doctrine of preemption?

I dare say that if we expended the amounts of resources that we will be expending in Iraq for security and for reconstruction that we could have a prescription drug benefit plan, not just for seniors in this country, but for just about every American. My friend from Washington is here.

My colleague is aware under the administration of his father, back in the late 1980s and almost to the inception of the 1990 war, invasion by Iraq against Kuwait, that that administration was actually transferring dual technologies to Iraq and that it was under the Reagan-Bush administration that Saddam Hussein was taken off the terrorist list; that in 1986 it was the Reagan-Bush administration that installed an embassy in Baghdad; and that during the course of that war, during the course of that war, it was the Defense Intelligence Agency that was providing the Iraqi Army with intelligence; and that it was that administration that provided billions of dollars of agricultural credits to Iraq; and it was that administration that when this Congress, the Congress, a Democratic Congress back in 1989 and 1990 passed legislation which would have imposed sanctions on the Saddam Hussein regime for using chemical weapons against their own people, blocked the passage of those sanctions. Is my colleague aware of that?

Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, I am certainly aware of it.

I tell my colleague what perhaps I was not aware of, and I was stunned when I heard our Secretary of Defense say this the other day. I was stunned. He said that we went to war not based on new intelligence, but by a new impression we had after September 11. We all had the new mindset after September 11. It is clear about that, but the impression this administration gave to the American people, consciously I believe, is that there is a new round of intelligence that necessitated this preemptive attack. Our Secretary of Defense came and told us there was no new intelligence that did not exist through the whole decade of the 1990s to justify the preemptive war. I was stunned when I heard that, when we heard the administration for 4 months tell us that there was all this imminent threat that was going to occur.

I will mention another thing, perhaps unsolicited advice to this administration. They are on the cusp of making some bad decisions. I do not like to use the word ``cover-up'' because it is too weighted with emotion; but they are not helping figure out what happened here, and there is great danger. I will give my colleagues an example.

Ambassador Wilson, the ambassador who blew the whistle on the uranium yellow cake, the forgery that ended up in the State of the Union speech, I just heard on NBC News tonight, his wife, her sort-of security clearance was jeopardized at the CIA because somebody sort of outed her, if you will, about her CIA contact which essentially could devastate her career. That kind of shenanigans is not going to be helpful to this administration. That is why we need a clear, publicly oriented, bipartisan review, above the table, nobody playing games with this. This is what America needs.

Madam Speaker, I want to tell my colleague something that might surprise him. You have heard of Pat Buchanan?

Very conservative Republican.

A commentator I am sure that many of those that are viewing are aware of. This is what he had to say in an op-ed piece that was printed today.

In ruthless candor, these are his words, President Bush does not have the surplus of resources, military, strategic, financial, political, to hold the empire. As some of us predicted a decade ago, the compulsive interventionism of the Bushites might lead to imperial overstretch. Something has to give. It is going to be the empire. From here on it begins to recede. Either President Bush starts discarding imperial responsibilities we cannot carry and bringing the troops home or his successor will.

That is not me. That is Patrick Buchanan.

Madam Speaker, I want to ask a question, because I think that was an excellent point. But there is such a thing, as the gentleman knows, but maybe the viewers do not, as a National Intelligence Estimate, and that is all of the information on a particular crisis that is drawn from all of the agencies that possess intelligence in the United States Government. That was done, and it was concluded in October of 2002.

Now, the President's State of the Union address was on January 28 of 2003, some 3 or 4 months later. Within that National Intelligence Estimate it has been reported, and we have no reason to disbelieve it, that there was significant expressions of doubt; that particularly the Department of State insisted on a footnote which said we have serious reservations about the credibility of this, and they were referring specifically to the securing of uranium from that west African country of Niger.

So let me ask this question of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), who served in the previous White House. Did President Clinton read the National Intelligence Estimates when he was faced with crises?

Mr. EMANUEL. Well, Madam Speaker, first of all, the National Intelligence Estimate is based on the National Security Intelligence Entities, the Defense Intelligence Entities, the CIA, and I think, if I am not mistaken, FBI contributes to that. So there are four separate entities that get funneled through to the National Security Council that then present that document.

Did President Clinton read it?

Then tell me how this President can have any doubt.

I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his leadership. Let me echo the sentiments expressed by the gentleman from Washington. Unfortunately, this past week India stated that they would not provide a division of troops to help us win the peace. It is becoming clear that we are going alone, and maybe this is the problem of a particular brand of foreign policy. I know that we all are working together; we are in the process of drafting a letter to the President requesting that he go to the United Nations and seek a resolution internationalizing the security and reconstruction efforts in Iraq. I would hope all Americans would call our offices, would call the offices of our colleagues.

I would close with the words and the admonition of Tony Blair that was so eloquent in his speech this past week. He was speaking about the tensions between Europe and the United States. He said: ``Don't give up on Europe. Work with it. Europe must take on the anti-Americanism that sometimes passes for political discourse. And what America must do is show that partnerships must be based on mutual respect and persuasion, not on command. America must listen as well as lead. And then the U.N. can become what it should be, an instrument of action as well as debate.''

Mr. HOEFFEL. The Iraq Watch is alive and well. I thank the colleagues for being here this evening. We will be back next week.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague put it also today, India has made a decision through its democratic process that it will not send troops unless there is a United Nations resolution. What I am very, very concerned about is, are we going to end up in Iraq with a vast majority of troops assigned there to ensure security and stability as Americans?

We have heard from the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, that there will be additional foreign troops sent to Iraq, but when we ask the question where are these troops coming from, what are their numbers, we are met with silence basically. Again, there are reports coming from military sources that indicate that if the situation continues to deteriorate in Iraq we very well might need double, double, the number of troops to ensure again stability and security for the Iraqi people.

And there were never any answers to those questions.

As far as the eye can see.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that those estimates, and my colleague just used them of $50 billion, are based on what we know today. The reality is, back in April, Secretary Rumsfeld recently acknowledged that the amount of dollars necessary, simply for the military presence, put aside the cost of reconstruction, that estimate has doubled from some $2 billion to $4 billion a month. I dare say that I would not be surprised if 6 months from now we find that that $4 billion estimate has mushroomed to a significantly higher amount.

I think we also owe a debt to the recently retired General of the Army, General Shinseki, who when he mentioned that at least 200,000 troops was necessary to ensure peace and stability in Iraq, that estimate by the General was dismissed, in fact derided, by Secretary Rumsfeld, who mentioned a figure of 125,000. This is beginning to remind me of those CBO estimates, about surplus, of trillions of dollars of surpluses on an annual basis that have turned into deficits as far as the eye can see.

So, again, the number of troops and the estimate of just the cost of sustaining a military presence there is $4 billion.

Do they really say that in Chicago?

Mr. Speaker, can I just add to that?

I was interested in the comments that were made by representatives of the administration during the course of the past 3 or 4 days, including the statement obviously by the director of Central Intelligence.

Unfortunately, as my colleague points out, the statements themselves I think create more confusion. There is more ambiguity and less clarity now as to what happened. So while it might be that George Tenet, the director of Central Intelligence, ought to have made a comment about the inclusion of the accusation relative to the West Africa country of Niger, I guess the question is, who put those words in there to begin with? Who put it in there?

I will tell my colleagues what I find. I think the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that we have different agencies or individuals within the agencies that have access to information, that we are not communicating with each other. And that should really profoundly disturb all of us in the aftermath of the tragedy of September 11 because we should have learned from the attack on the United States on September 11 that cooperation and coordination are essential.

For example, the gentleman from Illinois references the President made a speech on October 7 in Cincinnati. There was a reference to the purchase of highly enriched uranium from Niger. During the course of the review of that particular speech, the CIA correctly warned the President not to use that intelligence in that particular speech. Maybe he forgot about that particular process. Maybe he was unaware of it.

It is as if the right hand did not know what the left hand was doing. It is as if nobody is in charge. That is the only reasonable conclusion that one can infer from this murky explanation, this passing almost a legalistic argument.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is absolutely essential that the American people receive the answers to that question and to all the other questions that have been offered. Earlier this evening the gentleman from the other side of the aisle mentioned the talk shows and the statements that are being made have a political context to them.

We have been here, as the gentleman well knows, for 5 weeks posing these questions. This is not motivated by Democratic intent to secure political advantage. If we did not do this, we would be abrogating our responsibility within our system to find the truth. It is about a search for the truth, and I dare say it is now time for the President of the United States and Congress to come together to create an independent commission, not one that has partisan overtones, but one, for example, that served this country well under the leadership of two former Senators, a Republican from New Hampshire, Warren Rudman, and a Democratic from Colorado, Gary Hart, who I think made an extraordinary contribution by a year's worth of hearings, even more, which ended up with a product that tragically predicted what occurred on September 11. We need that because I do not want to hear on this floor accusations about partisanship. This is about the future of America. That is what this is about. This ought not be about politics. Let us depoliticize that now and let the Republican and the Democratic leadership with the White House create an independent commission to reveal to the American people the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) is familiar with the report that was printed last week in The New York Times that a senior intelligence agent, Iraqi intelligence agent by the name of Ahmed Al-Ani was arrested. I imagine the gentleman does remember, however, that some suggested he had met in Prague and the Czech Republic with Mohammed Atta, who was the ring leader in the attack on the United States back on 9/11. That appeared in the media and administration officials said that that evidence held up. That alleged meeting occurred in April 2001, 5 months before 9/11.

Since then, most intelligence agencies, both American and allies, have cast doubt on the credibility of that purported meeting; but it was used by administration officials to argue there was an alliance of some sort between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. And of course we all know that the rationale for the attack on Iraq was based on two premises: Saddam Hussein had in his possession weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons or close to achieving the development or the possession of nuclear weapons, and that he could provide and was purportedly inclined to use terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda for the use of those weapons against the United States.

So that theory, as the gentleman suggests, was crucial, that fact of the alleged meeting was crucial to that particular theory. But again, there is serious doubt as to whether that meeting occurred.

It is interesting to note that both the FBI and the CIA investigated and could find no evidence whatsoever that at the pertinent times did Mr. Atta leave the United States to go to the Czech Republic for that meeting. However, it did serve the purpose of creating a sense of urgency that quick action had to be taken against Iraq.

The gentleman indicated that some, and very few, have questioned the patriotism of those who ask the questions that are being posed here tonight. It is my feeling and my position that it would be a failure, it would be unpatriotic not to pose these questions. And as others have indicated, this is not about partisanship. None of us here tonight and in the course of the past 4 or 5 weeks have indulged in partisan sniping. But I do believe that the President is at a particular moment in terms of his administration that he should intervene and stop the sniping that is occurring within the administration, among individuals and agencies.

I mentioned earlier that a senior Iraqi intelligence agent who was arrested last week, who purportedly had that information meeting with Mohammad Atta, in that same report in the New York Times there was an attack on the CIA by Mr. Richard Perle who currently serves on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. I know the gentleman from Hawaii is aware that he resigned as chairman of the board because of potential conflict of interest concerns that he had since many of his private business clients stood to profit from contracts dealing with the reconstruction of Iraq.

It should be noted that Mr. Perle is considered a leader among the so-called neo-conservative bloc in the administration. He also has close ties with certain Iraqi exiles, such as Ahmed Chalabi. And it is true, and this should be stated very clearly, he advocated in an article that he wrote for the New York Times shortly after September 11 that the U.S. must strike at Saddam Hussein. So he is clearly predisposed towards the policy that was effected by this administration. My understanding is he was one of the most significant proponents of the war in Iraq.

Now, however, with the capture of this individual, Al-Ani, he fears that if the CIA conducts the interrogation that they will play down evidence that the alleged meeting with Mohammad Atta ever occurred. With all due respect to Mr. Perle, that is a very serious charge that impugns the integrity of men and women in the CIA that risk their life in behalf of their country every day of the year.

Of course, the CIA properly responded in my opinion that they need to be presented with something other than the opinions of Mr. Perle and his suspicions; and they claim, and I have to agree, that he sounds to be more predisposed to a certain conclusion than anyone they are familiar with.

This quote that I read was he is just shopping for an interrogator who will cook the books to his liking. We cannot have that sniping going on. It is time for the President to take charge and to intervene, be forthcoming, reveal all of the information. Presumably the interview with Mr. Al-Ani has occurred already. Let the American people know. Maybe he did have a meeting with Mohammed Atta; maybe he did not. But it is time to let the American people know.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to pick up on that to end grudge diplomacy. Let us get past that. Let us move on. Let us understand that the only way we can bring stability to Iraq without breaking the bank and without putting at risk the lives of American military personnel is to bring in our traditional allies, whether they be the Germans or the French. Let us put that in the past. Otherwise, we are going to see these deficits that I referred to earlier balloon into numbers that will absolutely be a drag of incredible magnitude on the American economy.

Mr. Speaker, I will just follow the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) by saying that when I first heard the President in response to attacks on U.S. soldiers in the way that he does suggest bring them on, I remember wanting to say to the President that what we should be doing, President Bush, is to bring allies on to this coalition and make it a genuine coalition of democracies to assist in terms of the reconstruction so that American taxpayers do not bear the burden almost exclusively and that American men and women who have served admirably can come home.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana, my friend, who has demonstrated a commitment that is extraordinary in terms of this particular issue and to the people of Colombia. I hope that everyone that is watching tonight and listening to the gentleman's Special Order takes note.

Much of what the gentleman said, practically all of what the gentleman said I agree with. And I think it is important to understand that the commitment to Colombia has to be a sustained commitment. Unfortunately, those of us who enjoy the benefits of this country are sometimes susceptible to a lack of patience. This is not a problem that is going to go away overnight in Colombia, but I think that the gentleman made the link that absolutely cries for patience by the American people and by the Congress, and that is that here in the neighborhoods of the United States, there are young people and people of middle age that have been addicted to narcotics and have led lives that reduce them to hostages and prisoners in their own body. And if we are ever going to address that problem and the link that it has to crime and violence in the United States, our commitment has to be sustained.

I felt the need to say that. I know the gentleman has been on the floor. I am here with some colleagues to address a separate issue, but I want to applaud the gentleman's efforts. We have worked a long time on this particular issue, and I believe that the Colombian Government is making great strides. The gentleman pointed out that the Colombian Government is making strides in terms of human rights.