Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, last night the President gave his State of the Union address to the Nation and to the Congress; and he brought up, rather surprisingly, weapons of mass destruction. The President said that American inspectors have ``identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities'' in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what a weapons of mass destruction-related program activity is. I would like to find out. I do know this: it is not weapons of mass destruction. We have not found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. David Kay, the American inspector, has not found them. The international inspectors did not find them.

Like many Members of this House, I voted in favor of the war in Iraq. I did so in order to disarm Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction. I am glad that we have defeated Hussein. I am glad he is in our custody. We and the Iraqi people are better off with him in custody. He was a murderous tyrant. But we have not found the weapons of mass destruction, and it is clear that an extraordinary amount of exaggeration and deception occurred from the White House on the subject of weapons of mass destruction before we went to war in order to win congressional support for going to war.

The President talked last night about our international coalition. The President would like us to believe that we have a broad-based and effective international coalition in Iraq to move forward with securing what is still an unstable country and to move forward with reconstruction. He listed a long number of nations that have supplied some number of troops to the efforts in Iraq.

The fact is that well over 90 percent of the troops in Iraq are American. About 95 percent of the money being spent in Iraq is American taxpayer dollars, well over $160 billion to date. The fact is that we did not turn effectively to our traditional and historic allies and move forward with the international community in order to build a coalition to defeat Hussein in Iraq.

The President, when he won his authority to go to war, made a number of commitments. He said that he would exhaust diplomatic options before going to war. He did not. He said he would allow the international inspectors the opportunity to complete their work in Iraq. He did not. He said he would go to the United Nations and build a coalition, and he did not. And now the President would still have us believe that we are on a successful hunt and are turning up weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as part of a broad-based coalition in that country, and neither of those statements is true.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that the arrogance, the unilateralism, and the cowboy diplomacy of the President and the White House have made our challenges in Iraq much harder than they should have been and have made our war on al Qaeda and terror riskier and harder than it should be.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent for four votes on Wednesday, November 19, 2003. Had I been present, I would have cast my votes as follows:

Rollcall No. 641 (H. Con. Res. 288): ``aye.''

Rollcall No. 642 (H. Res. 393): ``aye.''

Rollcall No. 643 (H. Res. 423): ``aye.''

Rollcall No. 644 (H.R. 3140): ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight with my colleagues to resume the Iraq Watch we have been conducting almost every week on the floor since sometime last spring. I believe it was April that we started speaking every week on the floor about our concerns about our policies in Iraq, trying to ask questions, trying to seek answers from the administration regarding the policies that we have been pursuing. Also, we have been suggesting changes that we would like to see in those policies. Of course, a lot has happened in Iraq since last spring, since the very impressive and brave work of our military men and women, the impressive victory that they won over Saddam Hussein, a victory no one thought was in doubt, but everyone was happy to see with minimal loss of life. We thought that the military performed with great courage and great skill.

Since that time, of course, it has become clear as the military battle was conducted, the planning for and the actual reconstruction and security of Iraq has been very poor. We have all been disappointed in the difficulties. The continuing casualties have been heartbreaking. The inability to get the American-appointed Governing Council to work effectively to try to bring the Iraqi society together has been disappointing. I think the Bush administration finally understands they need to change their plan for the ultimate creation of a new government and a representative democracy and hopefully a pluralistic society in Iraq.

Recently the administration has announced a change. They will no longer ask that the Governing Council in Iraq be responsible for writing a new constitution and holding new elections before America gives up authority for the reconstruction and the occupation of Iraq.

Instead, Mr. Speaker, we are now putting time limits on our occupation. We have apparently announced that we will give to the Iraqis the responsibility for their reconstruction next summer, although the President has been clear, and I agree with the President that we must continue to keep our forces there to make sure the tyrants and the murderers do not come back if the Iraqi democrats-to-be fail to move forward and secure their country.

The question is what is the best policy for this country? How do we best achieve a stable and secure Iraq, which is a goal all of us share? How do we best achieve the creation of a pluralistic society? How do we best establish a representative government based upon principles of self-government and tolerance and cooperation with the rights of women protected, with sharing of responsibility between the three great ethnic groups in Iraq, the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds? How do we best achieve this in the face of a security threat in Iraq where our troops are not safe, where the guerilla attacks against our troops continue, where there is no Iraqi Army yet ready to step forward to provide for its own security, where the Iraqi police are not yet capable of providing for security domestically? How do we best proceed?

Some fear that the President after holding on to power and not allowing the Iraqi Governing Council or any other group to have any decision-making power, some fear that the President now is moving too quickly to give up power to the Iraqis; and I think it is a very legitimate question because if we leave too early, if we leave a vacuum in any way in Iraq, only bad things can happen, whether Saddam Hussein or his followers attempt to come back, whether a new group of lawless thugs attempt to take over, whether forces from other countries attempt to infiltrate and take over Iraq, none of that would be good. None of that would be good for the Western democracies; none of that would honor the sacrifices that brave young Americans have made, including those who have made the ultimate sacrifice and have died serving their country.

A premature departure from Iraq by this country could lead to a less stable country in Iraq. It could lead to a less stable Middle East. It could allow Iraq to become a haven for terrorists, which is a process, unfortunately, already under way, a haven which did not exist when Saddam Hussein was in power. As murderous a tyrant as he was, he operated in a secular fashion and did not

apparently have relationships with the religious fundamentalists and extremists that form al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. But now with the instability in Iraq, it has become a magnet for those who want to attack Americans and disrupt the search for peace in the Middle East.

It is my view, Mr. Speaker, the way to best achieve our national goals in Iraq is to recognize that while this country is uniquely capable of winning military victories and facing down tyrants and working for the liberation of oppressed people, we are perhaps not best suited for nation-building; that we are probably not using our resources and our skills to our highest potential when we get bogged down in having to administer a country. It is admirable that we are willing to pay for the reconstruction or some of the reconstruction of a nation, and that is a great and wonderful American tradition of rebuilding vanquished foes and those less fortunate. But how do we best achieve this stabilized society, representative government and the creation of a pluralistic society where tolerance and economic freedom and personal liberty can flourish?

I am here tonight to say that I continue to believe that we should turn to our multinational organizations such as the United Nations, NATO, and others, to help us with nation-building in Iraq. I would point out that the United Nations is perhaps uniquely qualified through experience and organization to be responsible for reconstruction and nation-building.

In fact, this is what the United Nations was created to do in 1945. I fear that an almost irrational opposition to the notion and the concept of the United Nations from some on the other side of the aisle is preventing this country from calling upon the United Nations to assume this burden. There are many reasons why I would like to see this happen. It is not only to get out from under the financial burden of reconstructing Iraq on our own. It is partly that; it is also partly to share the responsibility for the reconstruction of Iraq. It is to share the credibility that is needed, to call upon other nations and multilateral organizations like the United Nations to provide the stability and take away from the equation some of the animosity that has wrongfully built up against America, but nonetheless exists in some part of the world.

Frankly, the United Nations is designed to do this kind of work. It is designed to relieve the United States from taking on all of the burden of reconstructing a country and building a new Nation. If we turn to the United Nations, we will still be the senior partner. We pay 25 percent of the bills of the United Nations. We will still have tremendous influence over what happens, but we would be in a position where the responsibility and accountability and the burden of reconstruction would be shared with an organization that is created to do that very thing.

Secondly, I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that anyone, the United States, the United Nations, or anyone else, will have success in the stabilization of Iraq, not the least of which I would include the Iraqi Governing Council itself, unless we establish security in Iraq, and that has not been done. Again, I think it is asking too much of our American military to become a long-term occupying power, to have our young men and women serving in what, in parts of Iraq, seems to be, literally, a shooting gallery, with 20 or 25 daily attacks on American Forces and our Coalition Forces. We are not in a position to have secured Iraq. We clearly need more troops to do that. Yet, in my view, it should not be America's burden to send more troops.

So I would say that it is by far the best strategy to turn to NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which is a military organization, to provide security in Iraq. NATO, of course, historically never fired a shot, was designed as a defensive alliance to keep the world safe from any hostility from the Soviet Union. In the conflict in Kosovo, the NATO forces were used for the first time out of the traditional confines of Europe, or at least on the southern stretches of Europe, used for the first time in a proactive way to defeat another tyrant, another dictator, Milosevic, in Kosovo. And NATO performed brilliantly and was able to liberate that country from the abuses of that dictator and has also now moved into Afghanistan to take over some of the security functions in that country. I believe that NATO would be the appropriate international organization to provide security in Iraq while we turn to the United Nations to take primary responsibility for the reconstruction of Iraq.

Now, none of this will happen, Mr. Speaker, none of this will happen until the United States is willing to give up some authority in Iraq. We cannot continue to call all of the shots in Iraq and expect our traditional allies to send troops or money or advice or anything else. It is time for us not just to put Iraqis back in charge, because it is not yet clear Iraqis are able to be back in charge, particularly, with the insecure conditions that exist there; but it is time for us, in concert with our traditional allies, in concert with international organizations that we created at the end of the Second World War, that we established for the very purpose of Nation-building. Nation-building was not a phrase then, it is a newer phrase, but the concept is exactly why NATO was established, and, particularly, why the United Nations was established. It is time for us to use our diplomatic skill to give up the necessary authority and responsibility, to share the obligations with these two international organizations, so that we can more quickly and more effectively and more safely stabilize Iraq, establish a pluralistic society, and move them towards self-government.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn to my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), one of the senior members of the House Committee on International Relations and a founding member of Iraq Watch, my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman refers to the latest plan as the French plan. The New York Times on Sunday, in looking at the plan that they characterize as throwing the problem to the Iraqis, called it the ``hot potato plan.'' French, hot potato french fries perhaps, whatever.

Mr. Speaker, may I interrupt the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) again?

There was additional polling information made available over the weekend from a European pollster, I do not know the name, saying that a majority of citizens in virtually every European country except, I believe, Italy, view the United States as the most likely country to start a war or to create instability. Now, I reject that view completely. We are the peacemakers and we are not the war makers; but I wanted to emphasize the gentleman's point that something has gone wrong with the way we are viewed by our friends around the world, let alone how we are viewed by our enemies. I am not so concerned about how the enemies look at us, but when the Western European democracies have a negative view of our President and our country, a negative view that I do not share, but that they have come to that conclusion, something is dramatically wrong.

Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) mind if we bring our colleague into the conversation?

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman. The problem is not with our troops. It is with the policymakers and our planners here in Washington.

I referred earlier to the New York Times article this Sunday. They entitled it ``Iraq Goes Sour.'' And I take issue, actually, with one of the claims they make here. They blame the intelligence agencies for the failures to understand what was actually happening in Iraq. The editorial said, for example, the Central Intelligence Agency we now realize had no idea what was going on inside Iraq. They continue, the CIA's estimate regarding weapons of

mass destruction were basically worst-case scenarios of what the Hussein regime might have been up to in the interim, in 1998 when inspections were cut off.

They continue, that was apparently a mistake, if an understandable one. The reality I think is different. I think that while the intelligence agencies clearly did not get it right, they were telling the policymakers last fall before Congress voted on whether or not to authorize the war, they were telling the White House that there was great uncertainty about what Hussein had and what he did not have. We know that now. We did not know it then.

This past Spring, 6 months after we voted, and after the war was fought and won, at least according to the President's proclamation on May 1, at least the military's battle was won, if not the guerilla battle. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence made available to rank and file members 18 or 20 boxes of intelligence information, most notably the Defense Intelligence Agency report of September 2002. And then the great summary report the national intelligence estimate of October of 2002. And I have read the executive summaries of those documents. It is very long, and I spent a couple of hours reading it. It would take days to read all of those boxes, but those summaries which are still classified are replete with uncertainties, with the agencies saying, well, we believe he has got this. We believe he has got that but we are not sure. He had this amount of weapons in the past and we are not quite sure where they are today.

They have made the case, as the Vice President has said, that Hussein was trying to do certain things, but they were full of uncertainty. And my objection is none of that uncertainty was communicated to Congress and to the American people. The President and all of his people, and I want to give an example in a second, told us with complete clarity and certainty that Hussein had these weapons. We knew where they were. We knew how much they weighed. We knew everything about them. We were going to get them and we could not trust him for another moment. And it is my view that it is not the intelligence agencies that failed, but the politicians.

Mr. Speaker, let me introduce our colleague who has been waiting patiently. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

I believe our hour is up. I thank all of my colleagues for taking part in Iraq Watch tonight, and we will be back next week.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent for votes on Tuesday, November 4, 2003. Had I been present, I would have cast my votes as follows:

Rollcall No. 602 (H. Con. Res. 176): ``aye.''

Rollcall No. 603 (H. Con. Res. 94): ``aye.''

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2443, the Coast Guard and Marine Transportation Act of 2003.

This legislation highlights the need to expand our Coast Guard aviation assets to fight the war against drugs. I strongly support the provision in this measure which permits the Coast Guard to establish a West Coast fleet of HITRON drug interdiction helicopters. This provision will afford the Coast Guard the opportunity to select a new state-of-the-art, multi-mission helicopter to assist in its drug interdiction efforts.

The HITRON MH-68A Sting Ray was designed, built, and maintained by the Agusta Aerospace facility in Philadelphia. Constructed on the frame of an A109E Power civilian helicopter, the Sting Ray employs state-of- the-art navigation, communication, and avionics equipment.

In 2000, eight Sting Rays were leased to the Coast Guard for the purpose of establishing an armed HITRON Squadron in Jacksonville, specifically for drug interdiction efforts. This Fleet has enjoyed a fabulous success rate in its missions.

HITRON aircrews have interdicted 30 tons of illegal drugs on the high seas valued at more than $2.1 billion. In addition, the Sting Ray is the only Homeland Security helicopter authorized for airborne use of force over civilian populations. Since September 11, the Sting Rays have also been pressed into port security service for all U.S. ports and associated waterways.

Therefore, I am pleased to support H.R. 2443 which accommodates the leasing and stationing of six HITRON helicopters in Southern California. The failure to establish a permanent West Coast Fleet will result in a serious shortage of armed assets for drug interdiction and homeland defense.

Thank you for your consideration of this important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) for yielding me time and for his leadership on the subcommittee that has brought this bill forward. I want to also thank the Chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), and also the Chair and ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans).

This bill, H.R. 1516, is very good legislation that will create new cemeteries across this country of ours, particularly in southeastern Pennsylvania where a tremendous need for a new veterans cemetery has been demonstrated throughout the years.

In southeastern Pennsylvania, nearly 300,000 veterans live over 65 miles from the closest veterans cemetery. And in that congested part of the State, the travel time to that open cemetery is long and arduous. And this veterans cemetery located somewhere in southeastern Pennsylvania will be a tremendous service to the families of veterans and a great way of honoring the service of those who have given so much to this country.

Mr. Speaker, I really stood up to, in addition to indicating my support for the bill, my second purpose was to compliment the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach) for the great job he did in breaking the logjam that existed over this issue.

My predecessor, Jon Fox, and then I, introduced legislation in prior Congresses to establish a new veterans cemetery at Valley Forge National Historic Park, which is still a site that I would love to see chosen for this cemetery. But there are some legitimate objections to that park, and the dispute that we got into was sidetracking this proposal.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach) was able to figure out a way to break that logjam by creating a commission and giving the veterans commission some leeway to pick the appropriate site in consultation with veterans organizations back home. As we have moved forward, other areas of the country have decided this is also the right way to go, and so we have before us today a very sound bill that will establish new cemeteries. And that is what we are trying to do, not fight over locations and get hung up on various procedures, but to actually get the job done. So I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach). It was a pleasure to work with him. I was proud to be the leading Democratic co-sponsor of H.R. 1516 when the gentleman brought it forward.

I have spoken with our former colleague, Mr. Jon Fox. He is thrilled with the progress on this; and, frankly, Senator Specter in the other body has greatly helped move this forward. So it has been a good bipartisan approach.

Again, I thank the Chair, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), for their great work. And we will be able to provide wonderful service now, hopefully in the next 4 years, in these new locations to create new veterans cemeteries to honor the veterans that have served this country and to remember the need to help their family members and their friends have the convenience of a veterans cemetery that is local to them and easy for them to get to to continue to honor these veterans for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent for votes on Monday, October 20, 2003, due to a scheduling conflict in my district. Had I been present, I would have cast my votes as follows:

Rollcall No. 563 (H. Res. 356): ``aye''; rollcall No. 564 (H. Res. 400): ``aye''; rollcall No. 565 (H.R. 3288): ``aye.''

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I believe we need more information about our situation in Iraq. I would like to offer an amendment to add additional requests for information to a section of the bill that the Appropriations Committee added, appropriately so, an amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) that requires the President to submit quarterly reports to Congress on military operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq. I think the committee did the right thing. I think we should ask for more information. And so my amendment would add additional requirements to three sections of the reporting provision already in the bill.

One provision in the bill asks for a description of progress made toward the holding of free and fair elections. My amendment would add to that section a schedule for the transfer of power to the Iraqi people, including the drafting of an Iraqi constitution.

A second section already in the bill asks for a description of the extent of international participation in the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq, including the amount of provision for financial assistance. I would add a schedule for the provision of financial assistance from other nations and from the United Nations be added as a requirement.

And, finally, a section of the bill asks for the number of Armed Forces deployed in connection with Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom be reported quarterly. I would

add to that section an estimate on how long our troops, including the National Guard and Reserves, will remain in Iraq and the progress being made in replacing them with troops from other nations or from U.N. peacekeepers.

I think these reports on a quarterly basis would help us understand the situation in Iraq, would help this Congress fulfill our constitutional duties of oversight and would help us better exercise our power of the purse. I am concerned that we have not had an adequate and a concrete plan to win the peace in Iraq. Our soldiers performed brilliantly and bravely and the military victory was a rousing success. I am concerned that we are not winning the peace. And we have a number of national goals in Iraq. We need to stabilize the country; we need to support and better protect our troops; we need to establish a pluralistic society and a representative self-government; we need to internationalize the construction and the security in Iraq; we need to put Iraqis quickly back in charge of Iraq. For us to do our job appropriately and to exercise our oversight and exercise our power of the purse, we need more information. I would ask the House to approve this amendment that would give on a quarterly basis more information to the Congress.

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

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

I thank the gentleman for his comments. Just two quick comments. I gave credit to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for this amendment in committee. The gentleman gave credit to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey). Whoever deserves the credit should get it, because the Committee on Appropriations did a good job with that. Regarding the requirement of an estimate of the period of time, I am asking for an estimate, not an ironclad statement of future requirements because I know that is difficult. And as part of my language also, a description of the progress of bringing other troops in, I think that is all part of trying to get quarterly reports to the Congress so we can better understand what is happening. I thank the gentleman for his cooperation and his leadership.

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

Offered By: Mr. Hoeffel

Amendment No. 55: In section 2212(b) (relating to report on

military operations and reconstruction efforts), strike

paragraphs (7) through (9) and insert the following:

(7) A description of progress made toward the establishment

of an independent, sovereign, and democratic government for

Iraq, including an estimated schedule for the drafting of a

constitution and the holding of free and fair elections.

(8) A description of the extent of international

participation in the stabilization and reconstruction of

Iraq, including the amount and schedule for the provision of

financial assistance by other countries and international

organizations.

(9) The number of members of the Armed Forces (including

national guard and reserve troops) deployed in connection

with Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom,

an estimate of the period of time for which such forces will

be deployed, and a description of progress made in replacing

such forces with international or foreign peacekeeping units.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Pennsylvania State Nurses Association (PSNA) which is celebrating its 100th anniversary on October 17, 2003.

PSNA first met in 1903 with the purpose of supporting Pennsylvania's nurses, and the association quickly worked to establish standards of licensure and education. In its 100 years of service, PSNA has transitioned from a graduate nurses association to a union and finally to a professional organization representing all registered nurses. Through its responses to changing times PSNA has shaped the nursing profession. In its early days, PSNA advocated for the profession and for women. During times of national crisis the organization has provided support to those who needed it. In the days after the tragic events of September 11th PSNA coordinated volunteers willing to provide nursing care to the victims of the terrorist attacks.

Registered Nurses play a vital role in the delivery of quality and effective healthcare. PSNA continues to take a leading role in a changing industry. I congratulate the Pennsylvania State Nurses Association on its 100 years of service and support to Pennsylvania's Registered Nurses, and wish them many more years of continued success.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be back on the House floor for another hour of what we are calling the Iraq Watch. This is a weekly effort that I have been engaged in with three colleagues for about 2\1/2\ months to raise questions each week about our policies in Iraq.

Before I get into the meat of this week's discussion, I am happy to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), who is discussing an Iraq-related matter. I am anxious to hear the remainder of his remarks.

(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his statement and for reading the letter to Mr. Rove. I congratulate the gentleman on his well-reasoned and well-researched document.

I would like to advise the gentleman of my deep concern about this leak that has been so unfair to the wife of Joseph Wilson and to tell the gentleman that Mrs. Plame, Valerie Plame, the wife of Mr. Wilson, that her parents are my constituents in suburban Philadelphia. They were recently interviewed by a local newspaper, and her father, Mr. Plame, expressed his great indignation and outrage that his daughter's cover was blown by this leak. He is demanding that the people accountable be held responsible and that appropriate penalties be levied upon them. He was quite eloquent in his anger and frustration that his daughter's career as an undercover operative for the CIA has been compromised.

I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan for bringing this matter to the floor. I must say your approach, which is asking for Karl Rove's resignation, is one that I would be delighted to see happen. It probably has about as much chance of succeeding as Rush Limbaugh getting a Diversity Award from the NAACP, but it would be something remarkable if someone in this White House would take responsibility for what is not just an illegal act of blowing the cover of a covert agent, but a morally reprehensible act.

I thank the gentleman, and I yield to the gentleman for further comments.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the need for an independent investigation by a special counsel. I do not think for a minute that the Justice Department is able to appropriately investigate this leak that allegedly comes from the White House. I do have faith in the career prosecutors at the Justice Department, as I know the gentleman does. But as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) pointed out a few minutes ago, there is a preexisting political relationship between Mr. Ashcroft, the Attorney General, and Mr. Rove, and for which Mr. Ashcroft paid Mr. Rove some $700,000, appropriately done, in the course of several political campaigns. But clearly, that relationship alone should disqualify Mr. Ashcroft from being in charge of this investigation of potential leaking.

I would say to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), we have started on Iraq Watch with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) reading this evening a letter to Karl Rove asking him to resign his position, and the gentleman from Michigan was here for a 5- minute speech, and we have dragged him into the Iraq Watch this evening. We are glad that he is here, and he has made a major contribution. I am happy to yield to my good friend and cofounder of the Iraq Watch, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) for his comments.

Before I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), and we are delighted that he has joined the Iraq Watch this evening, but first, we have actually talked about two different special prosecutors here, or one special counsel, I should say, to review these allegations of a leak from the White House. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) has brought up again the general opinion of the Iraq Watch that we need to have a bipartisan and independent study of our intelligence-gathering regarding Iraq and the use to which that intelligence was put.

I agree with both of my colleagues on that, although I just want to say once again that while we do not want to be political, we want this to be bipartisan as it is important for our national security interests; this Member of Congress, I have made up my mind about whether or not we were misled by the intelligence presented by the administration. I was misled. I was given exaggerated information. I was given misleading information.

The President and all of his top advisors in September and October of 2002 stated with complete certainty that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons, had biological weapons of mass destruction, was reconstituting a nuclear weapons program, was going to give these weapons to al Qaeda. It turns out that not only have they not been able to find weapons, as all Americans know, but it has come out this past spring, 6 months after these statements were made, that the classified intelligence being given to the White House last fall at the time of these statements was filled with uncertainty.

The intelligence agencies were telling the President and telling the President's people they were not sure what Hussein had. The defense intelligence agency report of September 2002 said there is no reliable information, and I am quoting, ``No reliable information on whether Iraq is producing or stockpiling chemical weapons, or whether Iraq has or will establish its chemical agent production facilities.'' No reliable information, according to the defense intelligence agency.

Yet at the same time, the President is saying in the Rose Garden, September 26, 2002 that ``the Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi regime is building the facilities necessary to make more biological and chemical weapons.'' That is the President's statement at the very time that his intelligence agencies were saying there is no reliable information. And again, before I turn to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), who is waiting patiently, I was briefed with other Members of Congress on October 2, 2002, in the White House, one of many such White House briefings that many of us took advantage of. I was with perhaps 20 Members, a bipartisan group. The briefers were Condoleezza Rice and George Tenet, and they stated with complete certainty on October 2, 2002, that Hussein had these weapons, that he had biological weapons, chemical weapons, reconstituting nukes, the whole litany. And yet they both had access at that time to classified information, some of it coming from Mr. Tenet's own agency, the CIA, that was indicating great uncertainty about the status of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program.

Now, we see Condoleezza Rice appointed this past weekend by the President to head up an Iraq stabilization group at the White House, because the President is concerned that too much bureaucracy is getting in the way of our program. If there is any bureaucracy in the way of our program, it is the President's bureaucracy. Congress did not set up any bureaucracy to frustrate him. He is working through the

Defense Department. Most of us think he ought to be working through the State Department and not the Defense Department. We can get into that in more detail in a few minutes. But the credibility of the administration is at stake. A huge credibility gap has grown up between the President's statements and what he was being advised, the classified information he was getting at the time he was saying with such certainty, which we now know was uncertain, and his top officials, including George Tenet and Condoleezza Rice, have the same credibility gap surrounding them. It is bad for the administration. It is bad for the Nation to have these problems.

I thank the gentleman for getting me off on this rant. You have triggered some of my frustrations.

Let me at this point turn to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio). I believe he has another aspect to discuss as to the situation in Iraq.

Did the gentleman see over the weekend the New York Times article that set forth in great detail how overstated the administration's claims were regarding Iraqi oil revenue? It fits exactly into the point the gentleman is making.

I agree with Mr. DeFazio. And I thank the gentleman from Oregon for reminding us that whatever we do in Iraq, whatever we spend there is borrowed money. Because our fiscal house is in such disorder, we are required to borrow every penny of what we spend.

There is agreement in a broad way about the need to support our troops, to make sure they get the support they need, if, as the gentleman said, they need improved protective gear.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to add to the gentleman's comment there. I share your outrage and admire your outrage over the continuing deaths from guerilla opposition and warfare in Iraq. And I remind my colleagues in Iraq Watch and Members of the House and members of the American public that are seeing this, that the President, last July, was asked after about 25 American soldiers had been attacked and assassinated after the May 1 declaration that major hostilities were over, he was asked in July, do we have enough force in Iraq to protect our own force? Are our own people safe enough? Do we have adequate force to protect our own troops? And he said, in what I believe to be the most reckless statement any American President has ever made, he said, Yes, we have enough force. We can stop the guerillas. Bring them on. Bring them on, he said.

And since that day, I am sad to report, adding the three dead Americans that the gentleman referenced, we have lost 65 American soldiers due to hostile attacks, assassinations, guerilla activity by the opposition in Iraq. And I wonder what the President would say to those 65 families who may ask him, Mr. President, do we have enough force to protect our own force? What about my family member, Mr. President? I do not know what the President would say to those 65 families.

I think my colleagues would agree that the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) is a passionate and eloquent and excellent addition to our efforts here. I thank the gentleman for being here.

We have been joined by our colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman. I know the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) has a comment.

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

We have about a minute and a half left to go. Any final comments from any of my colleagues?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for another lively discussion during the Iraq Watch. I think we all agree that we need the President to level with the American people. We need information. We need a plan. We need a plan for institutionalizing the situation in Iraq, both the security and the reconstruction. I said institutionalizing. I meant to say internationalizing. That is, I think, a goal that the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is talking about, including what kind of donor support we will get from the international community.

We need to know how to get Iraqis back in charge of Iraq and how soon that will happen, and we need an exit strategy for the United States. We do not want to leave and leave a vacuum. None of us want to do that, but we need to know what is in store, how much

time and how much money and the future prospects.

We are out of time. I thank my colleagues. The Iraq Watch will be back next week, and I thank the Speaker for his cooperation.

Madam Speaker, the Iraq Watch is back tonight. We look to have an interesting discussion in store for the next hour. We have been holding these hours of debate on Iraq for the past 2 months or so, once a week, in which we gather on the floor to talk about our policies in Iraq, suggest changes, as we would recommend changes in those policies, and ask questions to try to learn for the Congress and for the American people what the administration's plans are in Iraq.

I would like to open up briefly this evening with a brief report on the appearance by Ambassador Paul Bremer before the Committee on International Relations on September 25. He came before the committee to justify the administration's request for $87 billion of military occupation and reconstruction dollars in Iraq.

I asked the Ambassador, who I think is a fine public servant who is doing the best he can, a career diplomat, one of America's finest, but I believe his political masters are making it difficult for him to give us the information which I believe Congress is entitled to. I asked the Ambassador when we would get timetables and information and when would the President level with the American people about plans to internationalize the security challenges and the reconstruction challenges in Iraq, when we would get timetables and plans for giving the Iraqi government back to the Iraqis, and when would we get an exit strategy; when would the administration tell us when they believed we could bring our troops home and what standards we would want to achieve in Iraq before making that decision, and how would we know if we were succeeding or failing with those goals.

The Ambassador could not answer those questions. He said in his opening statement, ``We have a definite plan with milestone and dates,'' and I asked him about that. First off, he was only talking about how to spend the $87 billion. But, secondly, that definite plan with milestone and dates that he referred to in his opening statement is not yet available for Congress. He may have the milestones and dates, the administration may know what the milestones and dates are, but he could not tell the Committee on International Relations, or any other committee in Congress, what those milestones and dates are. So it was not really a successful explanation to our committee about what is coming down the pike and what the administration plans in Iraq.

He did say with some pride that 61 countries have pledged their support for reconstruction in Iraq. I asked him how much that pledge amount totaled, and he said $1.5 billion. Now $1.5 billion is a lot of money, but from 61 countries it is not much of a contribution. If we compare it to what we have spent and will spend in Iraq, it is less than 1 percent of what America is spending on the military occupation and on the reconstruction. And if we only add up what America is spending on reconstruction, what we have already spent and what the President is asking, this $1.5 billion from 61 countries is only about 5 percent of what we will spend and have spent on reconstruction.

Clearly the administration has not received from the international community anything close to what we ought to get in terms of their financial support for reconstruction and for what we are trying to do in the name of freedom and liberty in Iraq.

I would suggest that the heavy-handed diplomacy, the arrogance, the unilateral approach of this administration has resulted in our allies and international organizations not yet stepping up to the plate.

I would simply say that I believe that the $87 billion needs to be handled separately by the Congress; and I would suggest that while we need to grant that money for the support of our troops in the field, that the part of that request, some $21 billion that is designed for reconstruction costs in Iraq, should be handled differently. I believe we ought to provide those dollars as loans to Iraq and not as outright grants to be repaid by Iraqi oil revenue. Everyone believes within 2 or 3 years the Iraqi oil industry will be generating at least $2 billion a year in revenue, hopefully within a few years up to $3 billion to $5 billion in revenue. And Iraq has the ability to repay loans, and I believe our reconstruction aid should be in the form of loans. Some have said that this would only put Iraq further in debt, and international organizations and our allies have already lent $200 billion to Iraq when Saddam Hussein was in power and they would not take kindly to us creating more debt.

Well, if we give this money as loans, it is my view that we should be the first in line for repayment. If the French and Germans and Russians do not like that and feel they have a higher claim on repayment of the money they loaned to Saddam Hussein, let them find Saddam Hussein and ask him for the money. We are the ones that pushed him out of office and have made that investment. I believe we should not put our country deeper into debt, and it should be loans, not grants.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a senior member of the Committee on International Relations.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman, and we look forward to hearing more about the chart. We will now turn to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

I thank the gentleman for his eloquent comments. I am happy to recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) for his comments.

Before yielding to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), I want to compliment the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for waging this fight with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) in the Committee on Armed Services, and inform them that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and I waged the same fight in the House Committee on International Relations with the same pathetic response and result, that it was approved with a negative recommendation to the floor.

I share the gentleman from Hawaii's (Mr. Abercrombie) outrage at that. And the Republican leadership of the committee and the rank and file on the committee took great delight in saying to the Democrats they just have to ask questions and they can get answers and come back later this afternoon. This was last Thursday, September 25, and ask Paul Bremer and they will get all the information they need about the administration's plans in Iraq. And as I said at the beginning of Iraq Watch tonight, we went back and asked Mr. Bremer questions, and we did not get answers at all. It was just more, We do not know, we have got our plans and our timetables but we will not tell you what they are, and it is a sad day for Congress when we cannot get information that we need to make a decision.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for his comments and eloquence, and I want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for joining us in the Iraq Watch tonight from the Committee on Armed Services. They have reinforced us, and we are glad that they are here.

Before going to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who has been waiting very patiently, her second appearance I think with Iraq Watch and we welcome her back.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for putting a human face on what we are discussing. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Just for a moment, Congress Meehan, I want to join you in that. I had sitting next to me at a weekend event Saturday a father who had lost his 19-year-old. He was sitting next to one of our well-known POWs who suffered, Shoshanna Johnson. He got a chance to sit next to her. He happened to be a constituent of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones). And without the details of it, he just simply wanted to sit next to someone who had returned. His son did not. She happened to have known his son and was able to share with him some of those, unfortunately, last hours of his life. The parent was just grappling to have some connection to that young boy who no longer lives, who had a future.

I am disturbed by commentators, media, administrations saying it has been 200. No, this is not Vietnam. We lost, as I understand it, 50,000. But what we are trying to do on behalf of the American people is to not have this be a Vietnam. In Afghanistan we hear that the Taliban is reorganizing and coming back.

So that young man's life was not in vain, we have got to be able to ask the hard questions of this administration: What are you doing in Afghanistan to make sure that we have a victory and what are you doing in Iraq? Because fathers and mothers and relatives are coming and sitting next to people and going to churches and synagogues and parishes to try to find comfort about their deceased loved ones. We should not diminish what it means to lose a child.

That is why this discussion is so vital, and that is why I think it is imperative that we have answers from the administration to pay tribute to those who have given the ultimate sacrifice.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank our colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), particularly for her enumeration of conditions that you want to see the administration provide before we vote for the requested money; and I think that is a fundamental theme that we have to provide for.

If the gentleman from Washington does not mind, I will yield the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), a regular participant in Iraq Watch.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) for bringing up this very important matter about Mr. Wilson. I assume the gentleman understands about what he was describing. The blowing of a CIA cover is a Federal offense. It is illegal. It is dangerous and wrong and morally reprehensible.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. DelaHunt).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I now yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the Members here tonight. Iraq Watch will be back next week.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 45 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, October 1, 2003, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, we have come back to the floor this evening, the Iraq Watch has come back to the floor, and we are glad to be back. There is new information to discuss, the President's speech today at the United Nations to review. I am looking forward to the next hour, joined by my colleagues, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland); and I know others are on the way.

I would like to just start, though. The previous hour was taken by three distinguished Members of the other side of the aisle speaking about Iraq. I listened carefully to what they said and found myself in agreement with many of their comments. Certainly their frustrations that the press does not accurately report the good news, tends to report and dwell on the confrontations and the failures. That obviously is something we have broad bipartisan agreement on, the failures of the media to cover things the way we would like them to be covered. I would hope perhaps tonight could be the beginning of a more bipartisan discussion during this Special Order when we give our Iraq Watch hour. Perhaps in the future, the Republican Members could join us, not in a confrontational way, but in a way to see if there is common ground and, if we have disagreements, to develop those more fully. The purpose of Iraq Watch is to ask questions about our policies in Iraq, to see if there cannot be more information solicited for the Members of Congress and for the general public and to suggest policy changes that we think are necessary. Perhaps we can do that with our Republican friends in the future.

Let me take a few moments before turning to my colleagues to respond to the President's speech today in the United Nations. I should not say ``respond,'' comment upon the President's speech. He essentially gave a summary of our role and our spending in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in the worldwide fight against AIDS and in measures to fight the traffic in humans and the sex trade. He also challenged the member nations of the United Nations to do more and join us in these efforts. It was a wonderful opportunity for the President to set forth our challenge to the United Nations, our desire for them to be involved in Iraq, to step forward, to provide leadership for the reconstruction and the security that clearly needs to be done in Iraq.

Yet the President, from my point of view, did not achieve that. I found his remarks to be flat and uninspiring. He did not set forth the role that the United Nations could assume in Iraq. He did not discuss the parameters of that role. He surely did not discuss the power- sharing that the United Nations member states have indicated they want to share in order to assume the major role in Iraq in terms of their reconstruction and their security needs. In fact, he made it clear in a reference to America working to submit a new resolution to the Security Council to bring in the U.N., the President's vision is for the United States to stay in control of the occupation in Iraq.

I think one fundamental question Congress has to ask as we consider the $87 billion request the President has made, does the United States have to be in charge of the reconstruction?

Why should the United Nations not be in charge of the reconstruction and the new governance and the security? That would require the U.N. to step up to the plate, and perhaps they will not. If they do not, then we must finish the job ourselves, because surely we cannot leave a vacuum in Iraq. We must make sure that the innocent civilians of that country have an opportunity to move forward in a pluralistic way toward freedom, toward self-government, hopefully toward democracy as soon as possible. But why does the President refuse to consider the notion that the United Nations be given the primary responsibility, if they will assume it, to reconstruct Iraq, to provide security and bring a new governance forward? From my way of thinking, that is why there is a United Nations.

The President in his campaign for office scorned the notion of nation-building. He did not want to do it. Yet that is exactly what he wants America to do, primarily be in charge of nation-building in Iraq. I would suggest we consider a larger role for the United Nations. It was interesting the other day, the President sort of quickly, without any warning, finally indicated that he believes that Saddam Hussein was not behind the terror attacks of 9/11. He indicated that there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was behind, or responsible for, those horrible attacks on 9/11.

I will indeed.

Before I go to the gentleman from Illinois, who has got important information about his American Parity Act and before we come back to discussions of the veterans, let me just quickly return to the point that I yielded to the gentleman from Massachusetts on, his absolutely accurate comments about the President obviously responding to the Vice President's comments when the Vice President tried to once again weave that web that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. It reminds me of that movie ``A Bridge Too Far.'' I would suggest that the President finally leveled with the American people about that because the Vice President made a comment too far. He just said it once too often and the press was paying attention and the President decided he had to say what we have all known, that there is no evidence of that connection between Hussein and 9/11.

But if you look at the President's speech today to the United Nations, he did it again. As another President said, ``There he goes again.'' There were several references when the President talks about the regime of Saddam Hussein cultivating ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction, and nations are more secure because an ally of terror has fallen. Saddam Hussein is a murderous and evil man who was willing to use weapons of mass destruction against innocent civilians. He did it against his own Kurds. He did it against innocent Iranians. But there is no evidence of the so-called ties to terror.

It seems to me, before I yield to my colleagues, that one of the most fundamental things we need from the White House is for the President to level with the American people. The situation in Iraq and with Hussein was bad enough. It does not have to be exaggerated. We do not need to continue to try to make connections with terror that simply do not exist. Hussein is evil enough on his own. And every time a bogus claim is made or an exaggeration is made by the administration and by the spokesmen for the administration, it weakens the President's credibility, it weakens the national credibility, and it does not help us accumulate the international support that we need to internationalize the reconstruction of Iraq and to get the Iraqis back in charge of Iraq, which must be our two primary goals.

I thank the gentleman for being patient with me, and I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman does not mind a friendly correction, he hopes to offer the amendment. I know he will try to offer the amendment, but the House Committee on Rules is unlikely to allow any amendment to be offered to that bill.

And many of them do not get that.

I just wanted to add to the gentleman's comments that the reference to Afghanistan is important because we have been distracted from the challenge in Afghanistan because of our commitment in Iraq, and things are not going so well in Afghanistan these days. The Taliban is reforming, President Karzi is having a difficult time with security outside of the capital city of Kabul, and clearly we did not get the job finished in Afghanistan, where al Qaeda was clearly located and where the Taliban was allowing al Qaeda to flourish.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

We have been joined by the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie). Aloha.

I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for joining us. She adds great wisdom and enthusiasm to the discussion. I hope you will be here every week with us. We plan to continue this for the duration.

I know there is one of our colleagues who has been patiently waiting who has not spoken yet. First the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) has a quick point to make.

I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel). He has done a magnificent job with this fiscal analysis of the requested money for reconstruction in Iraq. It is a fascinating comparison that I think all of America needs to pay attention to. You made a reference to wanting to ask Paul Bremer these questions directly. I know the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and I will have an opportunity on Thursday when he appears before the Committee on International Relations, and maybe we will have a chance to use some of your material, and we will credit you and ask the appropriate questions.

Let me now yield to our colleague the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that point. It is very well taken.

We have about 2 minutes left this evening in our Iraq Watch. I would summarize my thoughts based upon what all of us have said, and the President's speech today, it is clearer than ever before that the President needs to do three things. First, he needs to level with the American people about the costs, about the timetables, about what we are getting into. Secondly, we need a plan on how he is going to internationalize the reconstruction and the security challenges in Iraq, and how he is going to get Iraqis back in charge of Iraq; how long will it take, when will we know it is going to happen. The third thing we need is an exit strategy. We cannot leave until these other things happen, or until the United Nations steps up in a real way to do it. If they do not step up, we have to stay and do it. How will we judge our progress? When will we know when it is time for us to leave?

We have 1 minute left, I think. Any comments from my colleagues?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for the promotion they have given me this evening, but we are all equal in the Iraq Watch, and we will be back next week; and I thank the Speaker for his cooperation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to start another of the Iraq Watches that we have been conducting for the past 2 months or so. The first night of each week that we are in session, a group of us come to the floor to talk about Iraq, to talk about the fortunes of our fighting forces and our relief workers who are toiling in that country. We talk about the problems that we see, we suggest changes in our national policy, we ask questions of the administration and seek answers, both for the Congress and for the American people. I have been joined each week, and I will be as well tonight, by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel). We have often been joined by other Members. We would welcome all Members of the House to participate tonight or in future Iraq Watches. Democrats and Republicans are welcome to participate during this hour of discussion.

Mr. Speaker, recently the President has sought $87 billion for fiscal year 2004 to pay for our military operation and reconstruction activities in Iraq. That number is larger than rumored a couple of weeks ago, caught most Members of Congress by surprise, although we knew a big request was coming certainly, on top of the $79 billion requested and approved last April for fiscal year 2003. Many of us feel that we need more information from the administration at this point before dealing with this supplemental request for $87 billion for activities in Iraq. No one in this Congress wants to do anything that hurts the troops in the field. Of all the things going on regarding Iraq, the diplomacy, the reconstruction, the comments about weapons of mass destruction, the comments about our allies, the activities of the Ambassador, Mr. Bremer, of all the things happening in Iraq, the only truly good thing is the behavior of the troops. Our young men and women in uniform have performed brilliantly during the period of time when active warfare was under way and during the period of time after victory was declared by the President but the guerrilla war has continued and over 100 Americans have been attacked and assassinated by those guerrilla warfare tactics in Iraq, the men and women of the Armed Services have really performed brilliantly and have done all Americans proud. So the issue is not whether we support the troops in the field. We all do. Of course we do. And we also want to make sure that we live up to our commitments, that we see this challenge through. Some of us who engage in Iraq Watch, such as myself, voted in favor of the military authority sought by the President last fall. Some of us voted no. But all of us understand, now that the military activity has occurred, we have an obligation to see this process through. We cannot cut and run. We cannot leave Iraq with no functioning government. We cannot leave a vacuum, a power vacuum that would allow the bandits and the bad guys to resume power using the weapons that they have and once again subjugate innocent Iraqi civilians. But in the face of this very large request for $87 billion, about two-thirds of which would go to our military operations and about one-third of which would go to reconstruction costs, many of us in Congress feel that we need more information from the administration.

I would put into three categories the questions that we have and the information we are seeking: The first is simply more information on the cost of our activities, the length of time that the military operations would be expected to continue, the length of time that the reconstruction would last, accurate information regarding the whereabouts of the weapons of mass destruction, the casualty lists of American soldiers wounded and otherwise incapacitated in Iraq. We need more good information about what is happening over there, and we need the full truth about the problems and the bad information that is happening there. The administration has not been as

forthcoming as most of us would like it to be over the past 6 months. And now that an $87 billion request has been made for the upcoming fiscal year, this is the time surely for President Bush to come clean with Congress, to level with the American people, to provide answers to these questions, to provide as much information as possible regarding not only the current activity in Iraq but what he foresees coming down the pike in terms of cost, timetable, manpower needed, resources needed, what the prospects are for being joined by allies and friends. We need more information.

Secondly, related to that but I think a second category, we need a specific plan for what will be happening in Iraq, really in two parts. One for the internationalization, if you will, of the activity there and the second half of the plan would be how to get Iraqis back in charge of Iraq. In order to internationalize the operations, we need to turn to our traditional friends and allies, to international organizations such as the United Nations, perhaps NATO, to seek their support, to seek their manpower, to seek their dollars and their resources to help rebuild Iraq, to help empower the people of that country economically and to bring a new government and a new freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people. I do not believe America should try to do that alone. I do not believe we have got the resources to adequately do that when we are facing the huge budget deficits that we already face in this country. We need our friends and allies to be involved. Of course we all remember the virtual stiff-arm that the President gave to our friends and allies in the run-up to the military activity in Iraq. There was an arrogant unilateral approach to our diplomacy, what I called at the time a cowboy diplomacy that indicated to our friends and allies that we did not need their help, that we could go it alone, that they should get out of the way, particularly the old Europe, as the Secretary of Defense characterized it, and allow us to do our thing without a lot of hassle from our pesky allies. Of course it is those ``pesky allies'' that we are going to now, that the President is seeking support from, that the President is hoping by going to the United Nations that he can attract into what seems to be a quagmire in Iraq.

So we need a plan here. We need more than the President saying, we're going to go to the U.N. and seek their support. We need to know how that support will be put together, how much of it we need, how much of it we have a realistic chance of securing, what it will take to get the United Nations fully engaged. It seems to me that one thing it will take is to allow the United Nations to do its job as a peacekeeper and a reconstructor and a redeveloper of nations, as a nation-builder, if you will. Because that is what the United Nations is there for, to nation-build, a concept that was disparaged by the President when he was running for office but a concept that he now embraces, although not by name, as he is urging that America, virtually alone, undertake nation-building in Iraq. Most of us would like to see this process internationalized. We need to see a plan from the President to figure out how to do it, how long it will take and how much it will cost.

The second part of the plan we need is to determine how to get Iraqis back in charge of Iraq. It will not be easy to do that. Iraq does not have a tradition of self-government. It does not have a tradition of democracy. I believe that all people in the world are capable of self- government. I think all Members of the Congress believe that, but those that do not have a tradition of it, those that have dealt with powerful elites in their country that have abused average citizens, recognize that they need assistance. They need assistance building the institutions of liberty and democracy, institutions like a free press, institutions like a free and corruption-free court system, institutions such as a civil society, documents like a Constitution, a written Constitution that all members of a country, all groups within a country have a stake in and have a role in determining. All these things have to be accomplished in Iraq and we need to know how to do that, how to build these institutions of liberty.

We need to know a timetable: How long is it likely to take to get Iraqis back in charge of Iraq? What will it cost? How much support do we need? How much training must there be? How much do we need to expand the existing interim governing committee that has been created? Who else needs to be involved in establishing that group, to give it more credibility and a greater representation from all segments of Iraq? So we clearly need, after we get more information from the President of the United States and after he develops and gives us a plan for both the internationalization of the reconstruction and how to get Iraqis back in charge of Iraq, the third thing that we need is an exit strategy, when can we leave, how long must we stay and how much will it cost us to do the things that are needed?

As I said at the outset, all of us, whether we voted for or against the war in Iraq, understand now that we have conquered the nation. In a rather crude phrase, we now own the nation. We cannot walk away. We have a moral obligation to see this situation through, to make sure that there is a stable and representative and hopefully democratic government in Iraq before we leave or the Western powers leave. But we also need to know from the President before we vote this $87 billion what that exit strategy is and how long he thinks it will take and what standards we want to accomplish in achieving the status that would allow us to leave. And how will we measure our progress toward that date when we can leave? We have to know where we are going in order to get started. At least I would recommend that. It seems like an awful lot of what has happened in Iraq got started without knowing where we are going and we should not allow that to continue any further. Keep in mind, this war was waged at a time of our choosing and it would seem to me that the American military and the administration would have done a better job with the planning for both the war and the postwar activities. One thing Congress has not done well regarding Iraq in the last year is require that information to be divulged and the plans to be articulated and the exit strategy to be set forth. The one great power Congress has, the one great constitutional power is the power of the purse. We control the pursestrings. We determine how much money is spent. That power ultimately, slowly but ultimately brought the Vietnam War to a close a generation ago. We must exercise that power of the purse now, responsibly, in a way that is true to American ideals, that keeps our commitments to the people of Iraq but nonetheless that clearly sets forth our constitutional requirements and obligations to control the pursestrings, to make sure we know how American taxpayer dollars will be spent and make sure that those dollars are spent pursuant to full information from the White House, a plan from the White House on how to internationalize the reconstruction and how to put Iraqis back in charge of Iraq, and, finally, spending money pursuant to an exit strategy.

When will it end and how will we know that it has ended? I call upon the President to give that information to the Congress in order for us to cast an educated vote on his request for $87 billion.

At this point I have been joined by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), my colleague and senior member from the House Committee on International Relations and an eloquent member of the Iraq Watch. I welcome the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that there is very little confusion among the American people about that. Unfortunately, the polls show that two thirds of Americans believe that Hussein was behind 9/11, even though as the gentleman from Massachusetts has correctly pointed out there is not a shred of evidence that Saddam Hussein, as evil as he is, there is no evidence that he was behind 9/11. But the administration has repeatedly suggested it. The Vice President's television appearance on Sunday was one of a long series of such suggestions. The President himself in his speech of a week ago wanted people to believe that stopping the terrorists in Iraq was part of dealing with the people that have led to 9/11, and it is a repeated theme of the administration, and it is a shame. I can only conclude that it is not only a misleading effort to make a false connection, but it is an intentionally misleading effort, and this is a tough situation. It is tough enough to try to find out what happened. It is very unfortunate that the American people have been fooled in that way. Hussein is bad enough. We should deal with him for his own evil record, and we do not need to fool people or to draw false conclusions, and I commend the gentleman for pointing out in great detail this problem.

Mr. Speaker, before we introduce some colleagues that have joined us, I want to echo the gentleman's comments and join his call for an independent commission to review the intelligence that was collected and analyzed before we went to war and to review the use that that intelligence was put to.

I can tell this House that I attended a briefing with about 20 Members of the House, a bipartisan group on October 2, 2002, at the White House in the Roosevelt Room where George Tenet and Condoleezza Rice briefed this bipartisan group of Members.

And the representations were made by those two leading members of the administration that with complete certainty they were sure that Saddam Hussein had an active weapons of mass destruction program, that he had an active biological weapon component, an active chemical weapons component, that he was restarting a nuclear component, that he was quite likely to be giving these weapons to terrorists and the rest. And there was no uncertainty expressed whatsoever.

We have now learned, as reports have been declassified, that the White House was being told in a September, 2002, Defense Intelligence Agency report and in an October, 2002, National Intelligence Estimate that there was great uncertainty among the intelligence agencies, including Mr. Tenet's CIA.

The parts that had been declassified have been reported in the press, phrases such as ``no credible evidence existing of an Iraqi chemical weapons program.''

I have read those reports that the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has made available to Members that have not yet been declassified.

While none of us are free to quote what we have seen, we can talk about our conclusions. And just as the published reports have indicated, what I read was full of uncertainties, expressed hesitations, ``we are not sure about this,'' ``we are not sure about that.'' But that is not at all what the administration figures were telling Congress in private briefings or to the American people in public statements, repeated as recently as Sunday, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) said, the Vice President repeated.

So we need a bipartisan, independent commission to study the intelligence and its usage before the fighting started in Iraq, because it is hard to conclude anything other than the Congress and the American people were not told the full truth; that we were told things existed with complete certainty, that the administration was telling them that, when in fact when they were making those claims there was great uncertainty.

I would like to ask the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) to share a few words.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments, as always. We have been joined by our colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman remember that Lawrence Lindsey of the White House Budget Office lost his job when he suggested that the war in Iraq would cost between $100 and $200 billion? And as the gentleman says, that is exactly what it has cost to date, yet he got fired for telling the truth.

That is right.

The occasionally late, but always eloquent and passionate member from Hawaii.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for joining me this evening. The Iraq Watch will be back next week.