Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to join the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith). As one can see, the aura that he exudes when he comes to speak about Social Security must have been so powerful that the rays literally leapt out and said to me, say that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) is coming.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfortunate that the discussion here has gone off in directions about what constitutes patriotism or what constitutes the proper recognition of the defense of democracy, because that is how all this argument started.

Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to the Members that this issue deserves a full discussion and not just on the floor. We would not be here and there would not be a motion to recommit, which will be made shortly, I can assure you, if we had a full discussion about this and then had gone, probably where it should have gone, to the Committee on the Judiciary, if it needed to go at all, or a decision could have been made as to whether that was the proper venue.

I, too, can have recollections about what happened during Vietnam. I daresay that a lot of people on the floor, Members of this Congress, were not involved in any of that. I know what the first amendment is all about, and I do not think the first amendment says that the Secretary of Defense gets to decide what other people get to say or do in this country under threat of some kind of sanction. To the degree or extent that someone is prevented access that they are entitled to, they have recourse in the courts. That is what we do in a democracy.

I do not notice that it is our job, certainly not in the Committee on Armed Services, to turn over to the Secretary of Defense, any Secretary of Defense, the opportunity to be a prosecutor and a judge and a jury and a sheriff all at the same time.

Now, the facts are, as to the origin of this argument today, that there apparently have been instances in which people disagreed, apparently in some law schools in particular, disagreed with the ``don't ask/don't tell policy'' of the United States Armed Forces. This has nothing to do with what people said or did not say about the Vietnam War. It has nothing to do with what any particular Member's view of that American involvement in the Vietnam war was, let alone the war on terror or anything else. What it has to do is with the present policy, whether you agree with it or not, with the armed services.

Now, if the Armed Services say they want equal access, what was being said apparently by the people at these various schools was that they did not have equal access to being able to join the Armed Services or the Department of Homeland Security, I suppose, or the CIA. Now that needs to be discussed, and it is not going to be discussed in 3 minutes or 5 minutes or 2 minutes here on the floor. It is not even going to come up.

Now I could not find the proper way to make a motion to try to get this before the Committee on the Judiciary so we could have a discussion on what the proper sanctions might be, if they were needed at all, with respect to gaining access for the ROTC or anybody else that want to recruit. I am in favor of that. Those of us who oppose this bill are in favor of it.

I resent on proper grounds here in the House being categorized as someone who somehow wants to thwart the war on terrorism or does not have the correct view on the Vietnam War because I am trying to defend the first amendment and because I would like to see these discussions held in a manner and in a place and in a venue which is appropriate to the circumstances. We need to talk about such issues as to whether everybody in this country is going to be treated equally with respect to being able to join the military

or participate in the Department of Homeland Security or defend our security interests through the CIA and whether they can be hired on the basis of their ability and what they have to offer rather than on what they look like or what their sexual orientation is or anything else. This is not the bill to do it, and it is certainly not the Secretary of Defense who should be doing it.

So what I am asking here is that the Members try to exercise some common sense, some common legislative sense, give us an opportunity to take up this serious issue, which does need addressing, and address it in a manner that will resolve it under constitutional methodology that is worthy of this body.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I do not dispute that. We did not dispute it in committee. When the issue was raised in committee, what I said is that this issue does need to be resolved so that access is possible, ``Is this the best way to do it?'' Inasmuch as we had to make a decision on the spot, my contention was, and I believe many of us who are forced now, we are forced because the bill is on the floor under a closed rule, I have no choice but to try and oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, I accept everything that the gentleman just said. It is making my point. The reason this bill is on the floor is because the courts ruled that the Secretary of Defense had no basis for making this decision. That is the reason the bill is on the floor.

I realize a lot of Members and their staffs are listening to this discussion in their offices, and they cannot be on the floor because they have other duties; but I am asking them to pay attention to why the bill is on the floor. This bill gives the Secretary of Defense the basis. We are creating another problem instead of solving the problem which is really before us, which is access for ROTC and/or military and other recruiters. If Harvard or any other school is preventing them from coming on, is there no access to the courts? You mean no law exists in the United States to allow people to have proper access? Of course it exists.

The reason for this bill is to make the Secretary of Defense the arbiter of how this is going to take place, even up to the point of getting certification from the school that the Secretary of Defense is satisfied that equal access, et cetera, is going to be provided.

My point is that we are doing this all wrong. If we really want to solve this issue of openness and access and discussion that needs to be taking place and to have the ROTC or the CIA or the Homeland Security Department or whoever it is have access and dialogue and discussion on a civilized basis as to how it should take place, that is available to us. This is not the way to do it. This bill merely enables the Secretary of Defense to be judge and jury over that process, and it will generate a whole new slew of lawsuits that will not solve the question nor even address the question that is before us as to how do we achieve this access. I want that access.

I think it is very unfortunate that the bill is being posited to the body in such a manner that those of us who oppose it seem to be in favor of terrorism or approving arbitrary dislocation of legitimate endeavors to recruit for the ROTC or anybody else. That is not true. On the contrary, I raised the issue in the Committee on Armed Services precisely on the point that I am a libertarian on the issue of free speech and access, and I believe everybody should engage in dialogue and confrontation of the issues in a positive way that gives everybody a chance.

The reason the argument takes place in the first place is that people who are defending those who are prevented from having access to the armed services, apparently those who are gay or lesbian or transgender or whatever other category we are getting into these days, I cannot keep up with every permutation that apparently exists in terms of gender and sexual orientation, but that is not a reason to make the Secretary of Defense the arbiter of it. I do not think, despite his great wit and great perception and depth of interest in world history and events, that the Secretary of Defense is necessarily up on all the latest in transgender fashions. And so I do not think that this is a proper forum nor a proper venue to try and resolve this issue.

My request, Mr. Speaker, of the body is that we give a chance for a motion to recommit to be made so that we can address the issue of access as opposed to addressing the issue which the bill moves toward giving a basis for the Secretary of Defense to make this decision. Let us not confuse the access apple with the orange of the first amendment of the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as was indicated by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), the previous speaker, I think all we would like to have here and the reason for recommittal motion is to have some hearings. As the chairman, and I do not if he is still on the floor or not, the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services Committee knows, I have the greatest respect for him and the greatest respect for the bipartisanship that exists on the Committee on Armed Services.

The issue here and the only reason this bill is on the floor is that a court determined that the Secretary of Defense did not have a basis in law for being able to make some of the kinds of decisions which the bill in front of us allows the Secretary to make. The issue involved here is one of access. It is one of equal treatment. The arguments of whether one accepts them or do not accept them have been made that the armed services, I suppose by extension of the bill, the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA, are not allowing equal access to every American and at least in some instances on the basis of their sexual orientation. There may be other issues that are raised in that regard, too. That is worthy of discussion, surely. Whether or not then this bill constitutes a proper response to that difficulty to the degree that it exists is the issue.

The reason I am asking for a vote on recommittal with instructions is not

because I oppose or anyone else, I believe, opposes equal access either for recruitment purposes or other purposes of discussion and dialogue but rather that this bill does not address that fundamental issue and, in fact, will only engender a new series of lawsuits and it will fail to accomplish that which is really the bottom-line, fundamental issue here before us, which is how do we appropriately address the first amendment in the context of recruitment, whether it is for a Federal Government agency of any kind, let alone whether or not the Secretary of Defense should be the arbiter in that regard.

So, Mr. Speaker, with that I am asking that the body vote to recommit with instructions so that we can properly address this serious issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman might find it interesting, with regard to the points that he has just been making and the possibility of oil exploration, I believe was the phrase that was used, mapping of fields, potential drilling areas and so on. Well, does the gentleman recall that while we were unable to prevent looting, mass looting not just of the Baghdad museums, the history of the entire Middle East, really the Mesopotamian history there, but unable to stop looting in virtually every area of Baghdad and throughout Iraq, hospitals, schools, businesses, everywhere, was it not interesting the Oil Ministry was guarded? And I wonder how that took place. I wonder what the emphasis was.

Would the gentleman be interested in a story from USA Today of March 29, Monday, as follows: ``In 2002, troops from the Fifth Special Forces group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment in Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures. The CIA was stretched badly in its capacity to collect, translate, and analyze information coming from Afghanistan. When the White House raised a new priority, it took specialists away from Afghanistan in an effort to ensure Iraq was covered.''

USA Today added, ``Those were just two of the trade-offs required because of what the Pentagon and the CIA acknowledged is a shortage of key personnel to fight the war on terrorism,'' not the engagement in Iraq, the war on terrorism that we hear about all the time. ``The question of how much those shifts prevented progress against al Qaeda and the other terrorists is putting the Bush administration on the defensive.''

Troops with the capacity to hunt Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan were removed and sent to Iraq. Now I believe the gentleman will observe there is a renewed emphasis on catching and capturing or killing Osama bin Laden, as if this had been put into limbo for some period of time.

I wonder if the gentleman would observe, as I do, that there may be more than a coincidence here with respect to what he has just been sharing with us?

If the gentleman will yield further, the people from Poland may be having second thoughts after today's activities. I do not know if the gentleman is aware that in Iraq today, those soldiers, part of the contingent from Poland, came under assault from those who, and I almost hesitate to say because it sounds as if I am making an ironic comment, and that is not really my intention, the situation speaks for itself, they were assaulted by those who are complaining that their applications to be police officers were not being properly processed. So, apparently, the people who want to be the police officers are now engaged in gang assaults in Iraq; and in this instance it happens to be against those who have been sent there from Poland. I think this is only a precursor of those things which are to come.

If the gentleman will yield further, that is precisely the point. In the context which

you mentioned of the Vice President, Mr. Cheney, indicating that we should pay the closest attention and give the highest credibility to the idea that links, and those are the phrases of choice of the Vice President, Mr. Cheney, links on the most peripheral basis, links on the periphery must be nonetheless taken very, very seriously.

I hope the gentleman agrees that is a fair characterization of what Vice President Cheney has been doing, that the most elliptical connections must be taken with all seriousness. At the same time, he denies his links and connections to the Halliburton Company, to the oil companies that he has served slavishly throughout his career, have anything to do with the decisions that have been made with respect to Iraq, with the decisions, political decisions, made with respect to invading that nation.

If the gentleman will yield on that point, and looking, I might add, for an opportunity to deny that ongoing sanctions would prevent, should those weapons actually exist, their utilization, either against us, certainly, or against neighbors, other than by assertion.

If the gentleman will yield, perhaps he could spell the word democracy for me. I believe it is spelled O-I-L. I believe they are synonymous with the gentleman to whom you are referring.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield a moment before he continues on that point. The gentleman cited a part which implied, or not implied but I believe explicitly stated was true with respect to utilization of poison gas on Iraqis, more particularly Kurdish Iraqis. Does the gentleman know, and if he does not, perhaps he would find it of worthy interest to pursue, whether or not that gassing or the reference to it took place before or after the first Bush administration was in Iraq doing business with Saddam Hussein? And, if I am not mistaken, the person representing George Herbert Walker Bush and his administration is the present Secretary of Defense.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield on that point, my reference to that is not to disparage anything that the Secretary did in pursuance of policies which he was clearly following with respect to his service in the first Bush administration, but rather to illustrate that it is at best a bit tiresome, if not hypocritical, for the present Bush administration to cite that as if the United States was some innocent standby observer, shocked at the fact that this took place, disturbed that it had taken place, doing anything in the way of diplomatic activity to indicate that we disapproved of it in any way, shape, or form. Quite the contrary.

What the United States did is stand by and not try to ``complicate'' the issue, and I say that with quotation marks around it, by making, from what I am best able to determine, any kind of significant demurer with respect to what Saddam Hussein had done in that instance.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I would contend to him that it is not incomprehensible if the intention all along was to go into Iraq and to go into Iraq at the expense of the war on terror in Afghanistan. We can see what the results are.

I would quote to the gentleman from the Financial Times of Monday, a report which indicated that a United Nations body will warn this week that Afghanistan is in danger of reverting to a ``terrorist breeding ground.'' That is the phrase utilized in the Financial Times story characterizing the United Nations' report, that Afghanistan is in danger of reverting to a terrorist breeding ground with an economy dependent on the illegal drug trade, unless the international community significantly increases development funding for the war-torn country.

Now, we have billions and billions and billions, tens of billions of dollars to be expended in Iraq at the present time with its economy in collapse, except, we are told, for its ability to produce oil. The economy in Afghanistan is now reverting to the pre-Taliban days. If the gentleman will recall, we supported the Taliban to the tune of $40 million because it was involved in eradicating the drug trade. The drug trade has come back with a vengeance. It is now supplying funding in the absence of any international effort being made in Afghanistan and, as a result of the switch in emphasis on terrorism from Afghanistan to Iraq, particularly in the wake of what I contended to the gentleman at the beginning of my statement that it was deliberate. It is not incomprehensible if it is a deliberate policy of the administration to find a methodology of presentation to the country sufficient to raise the fear factor to a level that would allow this invasion to take place. That was the purpose and the intent all along, and the result that the

administration has to be held to account for is that Afghanistan now is reverting to a status in which it could be called a terrorist breeding ground in a United Nations report.

Hopefully, September.

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield on that point, I would contend and do contend that the biggest supporter of the invasion in Iraq was Osama bin Laden. It does not take a cracker-jack specialist in strategy to understand that when your enemy, i.e., the United States of America, is addressing all of its attention, its military prowess, and its funding in a direction opposite from where you are, that that is, in fact, very good for you.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield on that point, I will point out in turn that come June 30 you are going to see what it is like to be alone. We are going to be cut loose in less than 100 days in Iraq, not just in Baghdad, but in Iraq; and our Armed Forces there will be adrift. There will be no one to report to.

We have no status of forces agreement with anyone that can be enforced. We have no idea with whom we would enforce such an agreement. All our armed services, all our Armed Forces in Iraq after June 30 will be left to fend for themselves and make decisions on the spot as to what they will do and how they will operate and who they are working for and with. There will be no operative government whatsoever, and this is being done entirely for political reasons because of the utter failure of this operation.

The gentleman will recall that I indicated back at the time of this invasion that this would not be a war, that this would be a lightning attack on Baghdad, and then the war would start. I trust the gentlemen, both of them, will recall me saying that; and I think it was quite clear to those of us serving on the Committee on Armed Services that was going to be the result, and even then we indicated as a result of the testimony of people like General Shinseki and others, upon whom we have relied to good effect in the past, that unless we were properly prepared with the logistics, even that lightning attack would suffer casualties and set us in circumstance less than what we could be in terms of the military might of this country.

That is precisely what happened. That lightning attack was accompanied by consequences in terms of supply and logistics which harmed us and harmed those who served in that attack, and then the war began, and we are suffering from that kind of war right now, as we speak tonight; and on June 30, I can assure you that the level of combat in terms of what the United States is going to suffer is scarcely beyond imagination

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield on that point, all this is true, and I think we have to reiterate it, but that is retrospective. Prospectively, I think we have to look at June 30, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that when we have the opportunity next to come before you, Mr. Speaker, that we will be able to address that question.

Mr. Speaker, on March 25, 2004, because of my leave of absence, I was unable to vote on legislation. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows:

Rollcall 84, Previous Question on H. Con. Res. 393, ``no'';

Rollcall 85, H.R. 3786, allowing the Treasury to print documents for foreign governments, ``yes'';

Rollcall 86, H.R. 2993, Extend the Commemorative Coin Act, ``yes'';

Rollcall 87, H.R. 254, North American Development Bank, ``yes'';

Rollcall 88, H. Con. Res. 393, Budget Resolution, Congressional Black Caucus Substitute, ``no'';

Rollcall 89, H. Con. Res. 393, Stenholm/Blue Dog Substitute, ``yes'';

Rollcall 90, H. Con. Res. 393, Spratt/Democratic Substitute, ``yes'';

Rollcall 91, H. Con. Res. 393, H. Con. Res. 393, Final Passage, ``no'';

Rollcall 92, H.R. 3095, Allowing Local Officials to Order the Lowering of the U.S. Flag to Honor Deaths of Current or Past Local Government Employees, ``yes''.

If the gentleman will yield, the gentleman makes reference to the question of a grand jury. I believe that if one takes an oath to speak before a committee of the Congress or one that is authorized by the Congress and the executive, that one is subject to perjury. I believe that is the case.

I would have to defer to the gentleman from Massachusetts, I suppose, on the question of prosecution of that, but we have a commission now, the so-called 9/11 Commission, which is now meeting, and there have been severe criticisms that amount to open accusations that Mr. Richard Clarke, referred to in various ways by different officials in the administration as someone who apparently, if one is to believe the designations attached to him by members of the administration, is lying. Not distorting, not misinterpreting, not misunderstanding, not having a different point of view, not engaged in an academic exercise of confrontation and different contending visions of what might have taken place, but on the contrary, specifically that Mr. Clarke is lying, that he is not telling the truth.

I believe Mr. Clarke is going to testify to the Commission tomorrow. I am not familiar with whether or not the witnesses taking the stand there in front of that Commission are under oath. But given the seriousness of the circumstances, I certainly hope that they are.

If the gentleman will yield on that point, I have no difficulty with that. My point here was in response to the gentleman from Washington's observation that there is at least one grand jury meeting right now.

That is what I say, at least one meeting now. Perhaps there may be more. My point is that there are so many accusations with respect to why, how, when, should we, et cetera, having to do with Iraq that you simply cannot continue to assassinate the personalities or the characters of the various individuals that we have been citing and at some point not say, look, somebody's either telling the truth or not, and let's put it to the test.

Madam Speaker, point of inquiry to the Chair. So that we can be sure that we do not violate any of the rules, I believe the gentleman was not making specific reference. He was referring to an article by way of reference. He was not referring directly. He was reporting something else.

If the gentleman will yield, because I do not want to incur the ire of the Chair, I think what we need to do here, and perhaps the Chair can enlighten us if we are in violation, if we would refer to a Senator unnamed who happened to be running for President at a particular time, people can make their own reference. Is that allowed?

We do not want to violate anything. We would not refer

to a particular Senator, but at least one Senator ran for President in the last election. Can we do that? Can we at least refer to the fact that there was a Senator who ran in the last election?

I thank the Chair. I appreciate the Chair taking the time to make that clear.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that point?

Madam Speaker, it is quite clear that Mr. Kay is clearly taking the high road in terms of his characterization of what took place and is giving the broadest benefit of a doubt with respect to whether there were misinterpretations or misunderstandings as to what the true facts were and what the implications of those facts were in terms of whether we went into Iraq or not.

Others have a different interpretation. I quite agree with the gentleman that this is the most profound issue that we have faced perhaps in our lifetime because we have to go all the way back to the Nixon Administration to find a situation in which there was a deliberate misleading of the American people as to what the facts were with a given situation, in this instance the general question of Watergate, everything that that implied and involved. But at least there what was being done was a cover-up, essentially, of rather sordid and almost banal and mundane political machinations. The rather sad spectacle of the President of the United States engaged in third-rate theatrics, burglaries, false presentations as to where money came from and where it went and so on, sordid and stupid and tawdry.

But in this instance, I would posit for my friend and for those who are listening, in this instance we have accusations made that there was a deliberate undertaking geared towards moving this Nation to war, a preemptive war, based on information and perspectives presented to the American public which were untrue, were known to be untrue, and were in fact the ideological leanings of a small group of people determined to take this Nation into war with Iraq regardless of whether it served either the strategic interests of this Nation or whether it satisfied anybody's definition by any measure of the truth.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, he was publicly rebuked, the chief of staff of the Army who had come up, I will tell the Members, from the ranks. I happen to know about General Shinseki because he is a true son of Hawaii. The son of humble people whose family was interned in World War II for the crime of being Japanese Americans, who served our country from the ranks on up to becoming chief of staff of the Army, was rebuked by this little man.

Hans Blix.

If the gentleman will yield, the gentleman might be interested in the view of former President Carter in that regard.

In an interview today in the Independent, the British newspaper, the Independent reports that President Carter ``strongly criticized'' Mr. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair ``for waging an unnecessary war to oust Saddam Hussein, based on lies and misinterpretations.''

This is not me speaking; this is former President Carter. This is not a reporter giving an editorial point of view. This is former President Carter.

I will repeat: ``for waging an unnecessary war to oust Saddam Hussein, based on lies and misinterpretations. There was no reason for us to become involved in Iraq recently. That was a war based on lies and misinterpretations from London and from Washington claiming falsely that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9-11 attacks, claiming falsely that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And I think that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair probably knew that many of the allegations were based on uncertain intelligence. A decision was made to go to war. Then people said, let's find a reason to do it.''

Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield on that point, there is a lesson for all of us, and I think we have all said tonight, and if I have not said it yet, I will certainly reiterate the gentleman's point that we all make mistakes, we all have our weaknesses, we all have our elements of shortsightedness. But I will tell my colleagues this: as much as I opposed this attack on Baghdad and, as I

termed it at the time that a war would break out after we made this dash to Baghdad which is, in fact, what happened, as much as I opposed that, we bear responsibility too. And I want to indicate to people that we are down on this floor not just because we need to hear ourselves talk; we are down on this floor because this Congress needs to be accountable too. The very questions that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) has been asking, this Congress should have been asking. We should not have allowed ourselves to be pushed into doing the most profound and fundamental thing that any Congress can do and that any President can do, which is take us into war. This should be a lesson to all of us, including and perhaps starting with the Congress.

The Constitution says only the Congress can declare war. When did it happen that we turned it over to the President to make his or her own decision on that issue? We have a responsibility, too; and I want to indicate to everybody, at least for this Member, and I think I am probably speaking for the other Members on the floor here, we intend to come back here, not because we are doing penance, but because we are doing oversight, the oversight that we should have done before. Maybe the same conclusion would have been arrived at, I do not know, I doubt it; but we should have been doing these things.

No commission should be looking into this right now. The plain fact is we should be looking into it, and that is what this Iraq Watch is going to do. We may not have the benefit of having the President in front of us or Mr. Cheney or others, but we have the benefit of understanding what the revelations have been and what their meanings are and to search for the truth, and that is our obligation. And I hope that if nothing else comes out of all of this, that in future the Congress will take seriously its obligation and carry forward on the understanding that only the Congress can declare war; and it should be only done over the most thorough and complete examination as to what has taken place and what the strategic and moral interests of the United States are.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 50 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, March 24, 2004, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 364, a resolution to recognize the decades of strategic partnership between the United States and the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

In 1947, the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) became one of six entities in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands established by the United Nations with the United States as the Trustee. This began a decades long relationship between the United States and RMI that has proven to be resilient and enduring.

In particular, I'd like to highlight the United States nuclear testing program in RMI which began in 1946. Over the years, the United States detonated 67 nuclear weapons on the islands of Bikini and Enewetak. These tests comprise 80 percent of all atmospheric tests conducted by the United States and allowed a majority of all tests to be conducted as far from densely populated areas as possible. This testing includes the detonation of Bravo, the most powerful hydrogen bomb ever tested by the United States, on Bikini Atoll. Radiation from the test forced the evacuation of Marshallese and U.S. Military personnel on Rongelap, Rongerik, Utirik and Ailinginae.

Over the years, the Marshallese have faced very serious consequences as a result of the nuclear testing. The health and property effects have proved to be extensive and in many cases, immeasurable. The United States has recognized this and set up a fund to compensate those affected by the testing. However, the consequences of this testing, especially the health of the Marshallese people, continue to be impacted.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that our countries will continue to work on this issue and find a resolution. I also have no doubt that the relationship between our governments will continue to be productive and mutually beneficial.

Last year, this body worked on reauthorizing the Compacts of Free Association, an agreement between the United States and RMI, to continue our defense and economic alliance that has benefited both countries for 17 years. As a result of this work, the United States and RMI will continue this alliance for another 15 years.

I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing our relationship with RMI and commend their dedication to international peace and security.

Mr. Speaker, the Governor of my State recently went on a trip to Iraq. When she returned, she announced that the President's Iraq policy should not be the subject of political discussion. That suggestion is as problematic as it is unrealistic. Foreign policy and defense policy are always legitimate topics of political debate. That's how we do things in a democracy. The voting public has every right to a full and open airing of different points of view--especially when the lives of our service members and the treasury of our Nation are being committed.

Now, with this resolution it seems the Republicans want it both ways. They tell us Iraq policy is out of bounds for political discussion, and at the same time they present us with this resolution. This document amplifying the administration's spin is nothing less than an election- year endorsement of the President's Iraq policy. It will no doubt be denied that it has anything to do with politics. In fact it's blatantly political. It's transparently political. It's in-your-face political.

Our troops deserve better than this cursory salute swaddled in suffocating layers of political celebration. They've earned our gratitude for their patriotism, courage and spirit of sacrifice. More to the point, they deserve a solid commitment to their well being and the well being of their families. But that is something the majority refuses to do. Last week in the House Budget Committee, Mr. Edwards and others proposed some simple measures along these lines: TRICARE for reservists; a boost in imminent danger pay; improved military housing; higher pay for senior enlisted personnel; increased family separation allowance; and more funding for family support centers.

All of this is to be offset by a very modest rollback in the tax bonanza we granted to people making a million dollars a year and more. The majority's response? Forget about the troops--our allegiance is to people making a million or more. I don't have any statistics, but I suspect there aren't too many millionaires serving in Iraq or en route.

So let's not pretend this resolution has nothing to do with politics. It's about the politics of deception underlying this war. It's about the politics of delusion that we can remake the world in our own image. It's about the politics of desperation flowing from the realization that we're becoming stuck in a no-exit quagmire.

As for the troops, they're getting thin rations from the majority in this House. Saying you support the troops is easy. The issue here isn't whether anyone in this House supports the troops. We all do. The issue is whether we can fashion a policy worthy of their valor, dedication and sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) would yield, one can only have that kind of a dialogue if we can entertain a legitimate political discussion on the issue. When those who are trying to bring these facts forward, those who have this perspective are enunciating it, are in turn denounced for failing to support our troops, denounced for failing to want to carry forward the war on terrorism, as it is always referred to, are denounced for presumably being unwilling to face up to the cold hard realities of what constitutes terrorism and its origins, then it is very difficult to do as the gentleman suggests.

I had the experience of having the Governor of my State of Hawaii taken to Iraq for purposes that are beyond my ability to understand, other than when she came back she announced that President Bush's Iraq policy should not be the subject of political discussion, that we should not politicize the war.

Now, that suggestion is as problematic, I suggest to the gentlemen in turn, as it is unrealistic. Foreign policy and defense policy are always legitimate topics for political debate. That is how we do things in a democracy. Unfortunately, today we had a resolution ostensibly addressing these issues 1 year after the invasion of, or the attack on, Baghdad, as I term it, after which a war started. The voting public has every right to a full and open airing of different points of view.

We did not get to do that today. We were unable to attempt to amend the resolution dealing with these issues. It is most particularly pertinent, I think, when we are dealing with the lives of our servicemembers and the Treasury of our Nation. The resolution that ostensibly addressed these issues today very firmly supported by the Vice President, as you mentioned who, by the way, in my judgment is the most sinister Vice President we have ever had since Aaron Burr, this resolution tells us that the Iraq policies are out of bounds for discussion. We were not permitted to make amendments or to attempt to pass amendments with regard to this resolution.

The document simply amplified the administration's viewpoint, an election-year endorsement of this policy. It will no doubt be denied and is being denied even now, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this has anything to do with politics. In fact, it is blatantly political; it is transparently political. It is in-your-face political.

Our troops deserve better than this cursory salute swaddled in suffocating layers of political celebration. Our troops have earned our gratitude for their patriotism, their courage, and their spirit of sacrifice, something particularly missing from this debate today.

More to the point, they deserve a solid commitment for their well- being and the well-being of their families. This is something that the majority today refused to do and has refused to do.

Last week in the budget committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and others proposed some simple measures along these lines. I want to recite them to you: Tri-care medical service for reservists, a boost in the imminent-danger pay, improved military housing, higher pay for senior enlisted personnel, increased family separation allowance, more funding for family support centers. All of this to be offset by a modest roll-back of the tax bonanza that we granted to people making $1 million a year and more.

What was the response of Mr. Cheney and his party? Forget about the troops. Our allegiance is to people making $1 million a year or more.

I do not have any statistics, Mr. Speaker; but I suspect there are not too many millionaires serving in Iraq or going soon.

Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield on that point? My contention is that it is one thing to argue about politicizing the war. This resolution today politicized support for the troops. The characterizations that were implicit and explicit in the discussion today made it clear that not voting for this resolution somehow called your patriotism into question, somehow called your support for the troops into question, somehow called into question your capacity, ability, in fact, even your desire to conduct a war against terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I believe that we have just a minute left. Perhaps you would like to sum up.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts. Again, Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman indicated, this is Iraq Watch. Several Members, some of whom voted for the resolution with respect to the attack in Iraq and some who did not, have been participating. The reason being that we find ourselves in a situation today where we are arguing about such things as budget, arguments taking place right now, both in the Republican Conference and in the Democratic Caucus. We find ourselves coming up on what might be termed the anniversary of the Iraq invasion. It is the anniversary. The question is before us as to what has been accomplished, what was involved; and I think, Mr. Speaker, I want to set a perspective before my colleagues and hopefully those in the American public who are viewing this evening.

There has been an increase, both in terms of discussion and in terms of reporting about activity on the Pakistan-Afghani border. There is speculation in the press, speculation in our communities across this country as to the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and his cohorts; a flurry of reporting taking place that there is increased activity, sensors being placed, special forces being brought together, strike forces, including Pakistani troops, American troops, CIA operatives. The question becomes this, Mr. Speaker: Why now? Why has this not been going on since September 11, 2001? Why is it taking place 6, 8 months before an election? Where is the justification for what took place in Iraq as a diversion from going forward on the Afghan-Pakistan border to capture or eliminate Osama bin Laden and his cohorts? What is the justification as we come up on the year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq of not bringing hostilities to a conclusion in Afghanistan and Pakistan with respect to the attack that was made on the United States?

There is a cover here that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) has to his immediate right from Time Magazine, with a picture of Mr. Bush facing himself, a mirror image, if you will, that says, believe it or not, Does Bush have a credibility gap? I cite that not because I am interested in what Time Magazine has to say by way of cute phrasing or what they consider to be a provocative title or visual, but, rather, that the question is one that needs to be answered as we approach this anniversary of the attack on Iraq. Why are we involved now in expedited activity and an expedited increase in intense activity on the Afghan-Pakistan border to capture or eliminate Osama bin Laden? What have we been doing for the past 2 years?

Well, I can tell my colleagues what we were doing. We were diverting our attention from those who attacked us on September 11 and instead preparing ourselves and ultimately carrying through an attack on Iraq, which has turned into a disaster, an unmitigated disaster for this country. We have not captured Osama bin Laden, we have not stopped or eliminated the Taliban threat in Afghanistan, we have not come to a conclusion with respect to the stability of Pakistan, and we have created a situation in Iraq which is headed for political, economic, and social disaster.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield on that point, quoting from Reuter's Monday, yesterday, story about Jeremy Lovell, quote, ``George W. Bush and Tony Blair probably knew that they were exaggerating the threat from Iraq when they were making the case for war, according to former chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix. The U.S. President and the British Prime Minister ignored the few caveats and reports from intelligence services on Iraq's nuclear, chemical or biological weapon programs.''

He writes in his account of the months leading up to the U.S. invasion. Blix says it was ``Probable that the governments were conscious that they were exaggerating the risks they saw in order to get the political support they would not otherwise have had.''

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, following on that point, quoting Mr. Kay, and, again, quoting Mr. Hans Blix, who was the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency from 1981 until 1997 and later the chief of the United Nations Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission until 2003, a person without peer, someone who has the background and the professional experience second to none in this area, I quote him: ``I am not suggesting that Blair and Bush spoke in bad faith, but I am suggesting that it would not have taken much critical thinking on their own part or on the part of their close advisors to prevent statements that misled the public. It is understood and accepted that governments must simplify complex international matters in explaining them to the public in democratic states. However, they are not vendors of merchandise but leaders of whom some sincerity should be asked when they exercise their responsibility for war or peace in the world.''

Mr. Speaker, I wish that I had a bit more faith in the idea that there would be a positive response to the questions the gentleman is posing and the observations that he is making.

The difficulty is we operate in a parallel universe. The Secretary of Defense is going to filter everything through the medium of his own perceptions, his own self-delusions. We are not going to see this. This is going to have to be resolved in the political world in the United States.

Let me offer this example of the parallel universe that I am speaking of. In the March 15 Time magazine, an interview has been conducted with the administrator, Mr. Paul Bremer. Asked, to ``whom exactly are you handing over sovereignty'' in Iraq? Bremer said, ``The spaces are not filled in. We will hand over to a sovereign Iraq government on June 30. The shape and structure of that government is not yet defined. When we get finished with the transitional administrative law, we will turn to a broad dialogue with Iraqi politicians, provincial governors, local councils, ministers, a variety of people to try to figure out the best and most effective way to bring in the government. We do not know what that is yet.''

I submit that is such a startling statement of complete incapacity to understand what it is that is taking place. That is why I say we are living in a parallel universe. How is it possible for the American people to have any confidence when they are sending men and women of the armed services to Iraq, putting them in harm's way as a result of policies of this administration? How is it possible for us to expect anything else but the killing and grievous wounding of those military personnel in such an atmosphere, in which the administrator on behalf of the government of the United States is saying, ``When we get finished with the transitional administrative law, we will turn to a broad dialogue, a variety of people, to try to figure out the best and most effective way to bring in the government. We do not know who that is yet.''

The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) was not at hearings in the Committee on Armed Services that I attended. I asked the same question within recent weeks, Exactly what is it that we are doing? Who are we turning this government over to? What is the authority? And what is the obligation that we have and our troops have? What authority does this governing entity that we are turning over to have? What authority does it have? What obligations does it have? Do we have a status of forces agreement? And with whom do we have a status of forces agreement? And whom will enforce the status of forces agreement?

We are coming up on June 30, and yet the press having asked these questions, at least Time magazine having asked the question, prints it as if that answer was good and sufficient unto the question. We are about to engage in a situation in which we are going to have a farce take place of a presumed turning over of authority with a president, will he stand up, I do not know if he will get on a carrier, but will he stand up somewhere on a field in Iraq and say, Mission accomplished too, because this government has now come into being?

I know what a government is. I think I know what the obligations and responsibilities of a government are, but I have yet to have a straightforward, clear-cut answer as to what the relationship of the United States military, let alone the United States Government, is going to have with this new governing entity on June 30.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, in 10 days time it will be 1 year.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, that is precisely what a dialogue and discussion of a political nature is about in the United States of America. We will get accountability, and that accountability will be taking place. There is both the request for it and the demand for it. And, in fact, we will have an accounting and that accounting will be taking place in November. That is how we settle things in this country.

Not the way things are going to be settled in Iraq, I am sorry to say. Here is a headline from the Monday Washington Post: ``The Iraq council signs interim constitution. Powerful Shiite cleric criticizes new law.''

Without going into all the details of the signing of this document by a hand-picked group of people by the United States of America, the observation made in the course of a discussion of what the Shiite council members would seek by way of amendment or an addendum to the interim constitution when that government assumes its sovereignty on June 30, quoting from the article in The Washington Post, ``Although the U.S.-led occupation's authority is set to transfer political power that day, i.e. June 30, it is likely to maintain a military presence in Iraq for years to come.''

That is what we have to face. This is a question of deliberate policy. This is a question of judgment. And the judgment that is made by the American people in the voting booth is their sentence, is what they pass on that judgment. This is the conclusion that they come to.

Our obligation, it seems to me, here in the House of Representatives, in the time allotted to us and in the arena given to us by these special orders, is to try to lay before the American people what the consequences are of these policies, these judgments that were made, and the consequences of the action taken as a result of those judgments.

Mr. Speaker, the sad part about it for me is that the vehicle we have for this, once you are outside of the political arena per se, is journalism, is the various media, electronic, written and otherwise. They are the ones that are falling down. They are the ones not asking the hard questions and allowing this kind of situation to develop without any kind of adequate inquiry. So it remains for us to do it here.

We have to have an understanding here that what is taking place in Iraq today is the direct result of decisions taken based on judgments made and responsibility that has to be taken for those judgments. The fact that no one has been fired, the fact that no one has been brought to account is something that should not be a shock to anyone. Nobody is going to take responsibility for this unless the American people demand it in the voting booth.

Mr. Speaker, we do know one thing, we have competition in Ohio for who is going to build those highways; but in Iraq we know it is going to be Halliburton and the rest of the hand- picked construction companies which will be pocketing the profits.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the trenchant commentary that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) just presented to us, I too am aware of the designation by Mr. Bush by those who are protesting or are concerned about the outsourcing of jobs overseas, the loss of jobs, the jobless recovery as being economic isolationists.

I would suggest to Mr. Bush that if you want to see someone who is isolated economically, just take a look at somebody who is unemployed. Then you are going to understand what true isolation is, where you are bereft of any capacity to pay your bills, to meet your obligations, to know that you will have healthcare, to be able to take care of your elderly parents, to have some semblance of dignity. The true economic isolate in this country is the person who is unemployed.

As we conclude then, I might add, however, there are plenty of jobs for those who want to take them up over in Iraq working for Halliburton or working for one of the other companies that got the preferential treatment. So I think when we come to our next ``Iraq Watch,'' we should have well in mind what the consequences have been for the American people, the American taxpayer, the American soldier.

Will the gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. On that exact point, if we were just reciting a litany of errors made in the sense of an honest misreading after a genuine inquiry, that would be one thing, but the really shocking evidence to the contrary is now coming out. In fact, we even see reports about where was the press? Why was this taking place? And it turns out the source for much of this information, not just for those in the intelligence agencies, but from those reporting on it, was coming from the same sources.

The general public listening to us might say, well, that is all well and good for you folks in the Congress to be mentioning these things now, to be commenting on it now, but we had no access to that. We were not privy to that kind of inquiry on the basis of a position in the Congress where we could actually ask in depth in closed briefings and hearings as to what the source of this information was. Yet we find now in the Washington Post just 2 days ago a report taken from the London Telegraph on commentary from Ahmad Chalabi. That name has been on this floor previously. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) has examined Mr. Chalabi's career in detail. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), I believe, has done the same.

Mr. Speaker, let me explain what Mr. Chalabi admitted to. He is now on the Governing Council. This is the body upon which the United States is presently relying. This is the body upon which the United States is presently conducting policy in terms of their being able to take over on June 30, this arbitrary date that has been set by the Bush administration.

He now lays claim to the following. He was accused of peddling phony tips about Iraq's weapons, the very thing that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) has been speaking of. Again quoting from the Washington Post, he shrugged off charges that he had deliberately misled U.S. intelligence, We are heroes in error.

He told the Telegraph in an interview Wednesday in Baghdad, As far as we are concerned, we have been entirely successful. Our objective has been achieved. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important.

Quoting it now from the Washington Post, not even to the families of all the killed and wounded?

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat then for those who may be tuning in and trying to get the context here. Let me repeat exactly what Mr. Chalabi said, our champion in Baghdad, the person upon whom is the principal resource apparently for the intelligence that was delivered to the President, delivered to the Congress, and apparently delivered to reporters who were all supposed to be checking sources.

Part of the thing that we need to remind ourselves and remind the public of is that we are dependent upon the professional integrity of journalists as well. We are dependent upon it. We are certainly the object of it often enough. We are dependent on them checking their sources to make sure that they are reliable. Let me repeat what he said.

The reason I want to do that is that this is as cynical and sinister a pronouncement as I have heard in my political lifetime. I am quoting Mr. Chalabi, as reported in the Washington Post, We are heroes in error. As far as we are concerned, we have been entirely successful. Our objective has been achieved. That tyrant Saddam is gone, and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the question now then becomes, unless I missed something, this Chalabi is a hired gun. This Chalabi is a creature of the administration. He has no executive authority here. He has no voting power. He does not make recommendations to the President of the United States as an adviser, other than as a hired hand. Where was the verification? This man has a vested interest in getting this country into war in Iraq.

What bothers me, what distresses me is that what he was saying fits very conveniently into the ideology and the philosophy and the foreign policy desires of some of the people who have been most adamant in advocating war with Iraq before the weapons of mass destruction principle was laid down as the foundation for war with Iraq.

It is not as if it is a conspiracy. It is not as if it is a hidden plot. It is not as if it is some diabolical machination taking place in secret. Matter of fact, we have had dialogue. I have had dialogue and discussion personally with those who advocated this, like Mr. Perle, Mr. Kristol, Mr. Boot, Mr. Woolsey, who himself was head of the CIA. They published their articles. They have their books written. They have had this position for some time.

So it is not as if this is something that I have suddenly discovered or others have suddenly discovered and now are shocked. I am not. What shocks me is that people would take ostensible information or intelligence and assume it to be true without checking it out thoroughly, precisely because it fit what they would like it to be.

I know when somebody is telling me something I want to hear, something I would like to be true, something I hope is going to take place, I know that a little bell goes off, a little tremor takes place in me saying, wait a minute, let us make sure that I am not being told something because I want to hear it, because I would like to believe it, because I want it to be so, particularly when the consequences are going to be those of life and death.

When you are making a recommendation and have the authority, particularly as President of the United States, as the Commander in Chief, have the capacity and the authority to act on that recommendation and to make it in turn to the people of this country, then it is incumbent upon you, more than perhaps any other person in this Nation, to be absolutely sure you know what you are talking about, what your sources are and how reliable they are, not just because someone has told you what you want to hear, but because you know it to be factual and the implications to be clear in terms of war and peace.

Mr. Speaker, if I may ask the gentleman from Massachusetts, who did the hand picking? Who did the hand picking? He did not pick himself. Is there someone in the administration, are there a group of people in the administration?

Perhaps the gentleman can enlighten me by answering that question.

Mr. Speaker, I have never seen a picture or any film of Mr. Chalabi when he was not smiling and when he did not have the smuggest look on his face and when he did not have the demeanor of someone who had pulled off a coup, when he did not have a patronizing attitude towards those doing the interview. I can understand why. He has played us for saps and suckers, and the result is we have dead and wounded, grievously wounded. The result is the sacking of the Treasury of the United States, and the result is that we have had people whose ideological bent in the administration was such that they wanted to go to war using each other, Chalabi using them, them using Chalabi, in the most cynical fashion, the result of which we now see before us.

He said, and I remind Members and those listening to us, what was said before is not important. That which became the justification for what we did is not important. He got what he wanted. Those who wanted to have war with Iraq got what they wanted. They are not paying the price. They are not the ones who have to suffer for the rest of their lives either by having grievous wounds or by having the irretrievable loss of someone that they love as a result of this.

The question for us and the question that we have to ask not just ourselves but the American people are going to have to ask, is, is this going to be allowed? Is this going to be something that we are going to pass off? The fact that the Newsweek cover that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) referred to in his remarks just previously could have a headline, ``How Dick Cheney Sold the War,'' the crass indifference of a headline like that in terms of its implications, as if you sell a war, not that you are driven into it, not that necessity forced you to come to that sorry and reluctant conclusion, but rather how you sold the war.

Nothing, I think, could be a commentary more persuasive to me of how this has been manipulated, how this has been maneuvered in a way that discredits this administration, discredits Mr. Cheney in that role. He has yet to come to grips with it, and the White House and the administration as a whole has yet to come to grips with it, because if my information is correct and the information given to The Washington Post is correct, and this is something that one would have the opportunity to see whether it is correct unless it has changed since its publication on February 22 was that the Web site for the White House, the White House official Web site cites the same false information today. It has not changed since March. I quote from the Web site of the White House as of February 22: ``The United Nations and U.S. intelligence sources have known for some time that Saddam Hussein has materials to produce chemical and biological weapons, but has not accounted for them: 26,000 liters of anthrax, enough to kill several million people; 38,000 liters of botulism toxin; 500 tons of sarin mustard and VX nerve agents; and 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents.'' And finally: ``He recently sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa, according to the British Government.''

These are the same lies and the same fabrications, the same prevarications, the same falsehoods, the same misleading directions that took us into this war and continue to be repeated in the face of the knowledge that we know them not to be true.

How could it be that these continue to be repeated? Is it any wonder that Mr. Chalabi laughs at us? Is it any wonder that he adopts a smug disposition when we continue to support him, we continue to pay him, we continue to support the policies that he espoused, and he is able to say what was said before is not important because obviously there are no penalties attached to it?

Mr. Speaker, where does the money come from?

Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Chalabi and his cohorts are paying this kind of money, what is the principal source of income that we have already enunciated for Mr. Chalabi and his friends?

In other words, the U.S. taxpayers are paying this guy to in turn pay lobbyists in Washington to advocate his position and influence Members of Congress.

If the gentleman will yield, not having seen the article, does the article go on to elucidate for us who these individuals are who are doing the lobbying? Are there firms here? Are there American firms who are going to come to Members of Congress and advocate on behalf of these individuals our appointees?

Would the gentleman consider submitting that article for the Record so that those who want to read the article in the Congressional Record subsequent to our discussion tonight will know all of the details?

Mr. Speaker, I will ask to have the article that the gentleman from Pennsylvania is referring to entered into the Record as part of our deliberation.

[From Roll Call, Feb. 24, 2004]

Iraqi Money Flows

(By Brody Mullins)

Several well-heeled Iraqis who hope to play central roles

in Iraq's emerging government have launched lobbying

campaigns in Washington to influence the Bush administration

and Congress as they work to shape a permanent government in

Iraq.

The group of Iraqis, which include three members of the

U.S.-created Iraqi Governing Council, are spending as much as

$100,000 per month on lobbying firms and public relations

agents to press U.S. officials to create a modern, democratic

government that is not dominated by Islamic conservatives.

``It's like they are running for president,'' said one U.S.

official of the competing public relations efforts in

Washington.

The three Iraqis began their public relations efforts in

Washington more than a decade after another Iraqi member of

the Iraqi Governing Council--Ahmed Chalabi--began cultivating

close ties to now-Vice President Cheney and other key

administration officials.

According to forms filed with the Justice Department, Ayad

Allawi, a member and former president of the Iraqi Governing

Council, has begun an expensive lobbying and public relations

effort to press U.S. officials to build a modern democratic

government that builds on Iraq's existing foundations.

Allawi has already paid more than $300,000 to Washington

from Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds LLP to help open

doors on Capital Hill and at the White House.

Allawi also hired a former U.S. ambassador to coordinate

his Washington effort and a New York advertising firm that

once worked for the Beatles to manage his image in the United

States.

The public relations effort, which could top $1 million

this year, is funded by Mashal Nawab, an Iraqi-born physician

who is a ``close friend and admirer'' of Allawi, according to

the Justice Department forms.

Adnan Pachachi, another member and former president of

Iraq's interim government, has also signed up a Washington

public relations firm to help him get his message across to

the Bush administration and Congress.

F. Wallace Hayes, working on a pro bono basis for now, will

write press releases for the 70-year-old Pachachi that

``promote democracy in Iraq,'' according to the Justice

Department forms.

Meanwhile, Baqir Jabor, an Iraqi exile appointed by the

United States to run Iraq's housing and construction

department, has asked former Rep. Bob Livingston (R-La.) and

his influential Washington lobbying firm to help arrange a

series of meetings with the Bush administration during his

upcoming visit to the United States.

Officials at Livingston Group said Jabor is not a formal

client of the firm. Other details of Livingston's work with

Jabor are not yet available because Jabor first asked

Livingston for help only last month.

The new public relations campaigns in Washington come as

the Bush administration struggles to complete an interim

constitution for Iraq by the end of the month in order to

turn control of the government over to Iraq this year.

In the past few days, it has become clear that the United

States will fail to meet both deadlines.

Over the weekend, the Kurds in northern Iraq--which

comprise 20 percent of the country--rejected key parts of the

constitution. Meanwhile, Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator

in Iraq, acknowledged last week that it is unlikely that Iraq

will be able to hold an election for at least another year.

By hiring lobbyists in Washington, the Iraqi leaders hope

to one day play a central role in the emerging government.

The Iraqis who have hired lobbyists are each former exiles

who want the United States to create a democratically elected

government.

Iraq's Shiites make up as much as 60 percent of the country

and are better organized than their political and ethnic

rivals, the Kurds and the Sunnis.

The leader of Iraq's Shiite conservatives, Grand Ayatollah

Ali al-Sistani, hopes to schedule quick elections, knowing

that he and his allies would dominate the government if

elections are held soon.

Allawi, Jabor and Pachachi share another rival in Chalabi.

But unlike the Iraqi newcomers to Washington, Chalabi has

worked for years in Washington cultivating friendships with

key players like Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle.

Since 1986, Shea & Gardner has represented Chalabi and his

Iraqi National Congress in Washington for about $10,000 a

month. One of the partners at Shea & Gardner is James

Woolsey, the former CIA director.

Chalabi also gets help from Francis Brooke, a political

consultant, and Riva Levinson of BKSH & Associates, the

Washington firm founded by Charles Black, a long-time ally of

President Bush.

Those contacts have paid off: At this year's State of the

Union address, Chalabi sat in the VIP box with first lady

Laura Bush.

Chalabi also was one of the few Iraqis permitted to meet

face to face with Saddam Hussein in his cell in the hours

after his capture in late December.

Chalabi has long been considered the favorite of Defense

Department officials to lead Iraq's new government.

However, his star appears to be fading as Pentagon

officials question some of the military intelligence he

provided before the war and as Iraqis increasingly view

Chalabi as a pawn for the United States.

Meanwhile, the State Department is thought to favor

Pachachi, while the CIA backs Allawi. His main opponent in

Washington is thought to be Chalabi, a distant relative.

Though Chalabi and Allawi both oppose an Iraqi government

run by Islamics, they split over the structure of a new

secular government.

Chalabi would like to rid the country of anything to do

with Hussein's Baath Party, while Chalabi--a member of the

Baath Party before it was hijacked by Hussein in the 1970s--

believes the new government should be built upon the existing

foundations.

``There are options available to make use of the civil

structures that are available in Iraq rather than throwing

everything out,'' said R. Paul Stimers of Allawi's lobbying

firm, Preston Gates.

Allawi, a neuroscientist by training, survived a vicious

assassination attempt in the late 1970s when Hussein allies

tried to axe him to death in his sleep. He later became a

source of important--and sometimes suspect--intelligence

information to the CIA.

After the war, he was appointed to the interim Iraqi

Governing Council and tapped to take charge of security for

the country.

In Washington, Allawia and his British benefactor last fall

hired Patrick Theros, a former U.S. ambassador to Qatar, to

build his base of support among key Members of Congress and

the Bush administration.

Theros runs a consulting firm, Theros & Theros, with his

wife and son out of their home in a leafy section of

Northwest Washington.

With a total monthly budget that began at $122,000, Allawi

brought on New York public relations agency Brown Lloyd James

Ltd.--a firm that once represented the Beatles--for $12,500 a

month.

For lobbying work, Allawi tapped Washington lobbying shop

Preston Gates for $100,000 a month, though the firm has since

lowered its monthly retainer to less than $50,000.

According to contracts filed with the Justice Department,

the firms will help Allawi ``gain U.S. government support for

his policy suggestions for Iraq'' by ``explain[ing] his views

on the security and political situation in Iraq.''

Theros, who is making about $10,000 a month from Allawi,

plans to attend ``public forums, seminars, events and

meetings which represent an opportunity'' to express Allawi's

ideas.

Allawi's lobbying effort was expected to end this spring

when the United States was

expected to hand control over the government to Iraq.

But with the prospects of meeting that deadline dim, the

lobbying and public relations campaign is expected to

continue.

If the gentleman will yield, I want to make sure I understood really, because I have had some conversations with Mr. Woolsey. They were affable. I considered them informative and straightforward. I just want to make sure. You mean when he was talking to me about these issues, he was part of a firm that was being paid $10,000 a month by one of the individuals, by Chalabi himself?

That was never revealed to me. I must say, and I want it on the record, that I resent that. If I knew that at least, that is okay. I am an adult. I am perfectly capable of differentiating between someone's sincerely held views and business associations they might have. If somebody represents to me that, look, I just want to tell you that we have a business relationship with this person, but I hope you will grant me that I am speaking to you, giving you my best and sincerest personal judgment regardless of my connection, I can accept that, and I would have, surely, because I like to think that I am a person, I hope, of some integrity, and I would do the same. If I have strong views about something, I will certainly tell people the whys and wherefores of it. But as a Member of Congress and having had conversations with Mr. Woolsey concerning some of these issues, not to have that kind of information, I think, is a subterfuge.

I am sorry to say it. It pains me. It pains me to say that. What you just said to me is, in fact, shocking. If people want to be cynical about it or think that I am just making some rhetorical flourish, they can think so, but it is not. I do not conduct my affairs that way. I do not deal with other people that way. I feel personally offended, to tell you the truth, that such a thing could take place. I had no idea that there was that kind of relationship, because I think that might have colored what was said to me.

If the gentleman will yield further, Mr. Woolsey has appeared on television numerous times as a commentator. He has been introduced as the former head of the CIA. I have seen him often making commentary and being asked for his perspective, and never once have I heard on any of those television shows, never once, unless I missed it, maybe I tuned in in the middle, maybe there is something that I missed, but I do not believe ever once on any of those shows that any of those hosts ever indicated that he is being paid by a member of the Governing Council, or that his firm is being paid by a member of the Governing Council, and that therefore, at the very least, on the basis of full disclosure that we should know that so that you can take that into account if you think that is pertinent with respect to what he is saying.

I wonder if the hosts of some of these television shows and radio shows and even those newspaper columnists who are quoting Mr. Woolsey are aware or whether they have made the inquiry as to whether or not such a situation exists. What bothers me as a Member of Congress, does this mean that I have to ask every single person that speaks to me, every single person with whom I have a conversation for a list of particulars as to what their associations are before I engage in a conversation or can expect on my part to receive information that is the best judgment of this person rather than the paid retorts and paid- for positions of someone who is in the hire of somebody else?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield again to me, the newspaper article, again, I am presuming that it is accurate. Does it indicate that this is a current relationship?

Mr. Speaker, I realize I am taking time up here, but I am genuinely upset and shocked by this because I feel personally used. I mean, some of these conversations took place on official trips of the United States Government.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say in that regard that this is my 30th year in public service. I have made friendships and conducted business, legislative business, and evolved personal relationships over those 30 years with a great number of individuals. I have particularly valued those who are sometimes disparagingly referred to as special interests or lobbyists as if that is seen by many people as a derogatory term or a term of denigration. And I do not see it that way. I want to make it clear in terms of my expressed disappointment with regard to this revelation about Mr. Woolsey; and now I guess I am going to have to wonder about everybody else too that I have a conversation with, I am not trying to keep people from making a living.

It does not bother me any. As I say, I have friends who lobby on behalf of what are called special interests. We all have special interests. We are a multiplicity of special interests. One has only to read the Federalist Papers to understand that. In fact, it can be seen as the bulwark of a democratic republic because we do have factions and many interests competing with one another for attention and for approbation. There is no question about that. The only question to be answered in that is do we know that, do we know who they are and what they are and why they are and so on so we can discern what the difference is?

I have no problem with people who are our friends, personal and otherwise, making their positions known to me or to anyone else in the Congress or anywhere else in public office. What bothers me is when positions are represented to us and we do not know that someone, in fact, is a paid representative, particularly on issues of war and peace, life and death. The folks know and the Speaker knows that I am a member of the Committee on Armed Services and those are the kinds of things we vote on every day, and I think every member there, regardless of party, takes seriously, deadly seriously, I might say without any sense of irony attached to it, take seriously their responsibility.

But we are dependent in the Congress on getting good information. The President of the United States is dependent upon getting good information and making solid judgments based on that information. Anybody who fails to give the best possible information with the fullest knowledge behind it and the resources is undermining the Constitution of the United States and failing their responsibilities as a citizen. In this regard, then, I feel ill used in this process by Mr. Woolsey, and I feel very definitely that the press and the Congress need to make inquiries of everybody who comes before us presenting that information and perspective to us upon which we have to act in matters of life and death. Everybody has to have the fullest inquiry made of them as to what their sources of income are and what their sources of information are, whether they are tainted.

Can we conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that, at least for the three of us I think I can speak, there will be openness and transparency and accountability on this floor.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I do think it deserves a bit of reiteration that the Iraq Watch has been meeting some months now, and that the record is fully available, not only through the normal aspect of the Congressional Record, which is available to the population of the United States nationwide, but it is also available, I know, on the Web site that I have set up, and I believe other Members can do the same should they wish. What I am doing now for those who are listening and have an interest, it now is on my Web site. The Iraq Watch in its entirety appears.

So we have a kind of cyber-archive now of what we are doing with Iraq Watch. And it will be interesting, I think, in time to come to go back over it and see where we were, where we were going. Not because we are standing here on the sidelines, merely commenting as we go along, but rather we are trying to stimulate debate, trying to stimulate discussion, trying to stimulate the body politic through the means available to us here in the House.

We are the people's house. For those who just may be tuning in now, going down the cable channels and seeing C-SPAN, what are they talking about tonight, we are talking about our sons and daughters. We are talking about the blood and treasure of the United States. We are talking about the basic values of this country. We are talking about whether we are falling into the trap of a neo-imperialism, a 21st- century version of imperialism that would be anathema to values of the United States, the United States as we have known it and as we have wanted it to be.

And in that context, I would like to read an excerpt from David Fromkin's new book called: A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East.'' Again, for those who, and I will repeat it at the end of my excerpt as well, David Fromkin's ``A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of a Modern Middle East.''

And I am quoting:

``Churchill, when he took office as Colonial Secretary [1921], brought with him a broad strategic concept of how to hold down the Middle East inexpensively. While he was still Secretary of Air and War [1919-20], Churchill had proposed to cut Middle East costs by governing Mesopotamia,'' which essentially is modern-day Iraq, ``by means of airplanes and armored cars. A few well-protected air bases,'' he wrote at the time, ``would enable the Royal Air Force to operate in every part of the protectorate and to enforce control now here, now there, without the need of maintaining long lines of communication, eating up troops and money.

``Viewing imperialism as a costly drain on a society that needed to invest all of its remaining resources in rebuilding itself, the bulk of the British press, public, and Parliament agreed to let the government commit itself to a presence in the Arab Middle East only because Winston Churchill's ingenious strategy made it seem possible to control the region inexpensively.

``Thus the belief, widely shared by British officials during and after the First World War, that Britain had come to the Middle East to stay at least long enough to reshape the region in line with European political interests, ideas, and ideals, was based on the fragile assumption that Churchill's aircraft-and-armored-car strategy could hold local opposition at bay indefinitely. In turn, that assumption was another expression of the underestimation of the Middle East that had typified British policy all along. It had shown itself when [Foreign Secretary Edward] Grey disdained the offer of an Ottoman alliance in 1911; when [Prime Minister Herbert] Asquith in 1914 regarded Ottoman entry in the war as being of no great concern; and when [War Minister Horatio] Kitchener, in 1915, sent his armies to their doom against an entrenched and forewarned foe at Gallipoli in an attack the British Government knew would be suicidal if the defending troops were of European quality, Kitchener's fatal assumption being that they were not.

``In 1922 the British Government had arrived at a political compromise with British society, by the terms of which Britain could assert her mastery in the Middle East, so long as she could do so at little cost. To British officials who underestimated the difficulties Britain would encounter in governing the region, who indeed had no conception of the magnitude of what they had undertaken, that meant Britain was in the Middle East to stay. In retrospect, however, it was an early indication

that Britain was likely to leave,'' unquote, from David Fromkin's ``A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottomon Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East.''

Mr. Speaker, I am suggesting there is a direct parallel. I am suggesting that the history of the Middle East is not something that just suddenly occurred in 1990, or 1989 and 1990, with Saddam Hussein moving into what is now Kuwait.

I suggest that there is a history here, a long history here, a detailed history here. I suggest that mistakes were made in the past as to what could and could not be done in the Middle East, particularly in the area known as Mesopotamia; in other words, modern-day Iraq. And they are well on the way to making the same mistakes over again for the same reasons that they were made before, because we think that we can impose a United States' version of a 21st-century imperialism, and that all of the cards will fall on the table in place, that everything will operate as we wish it to operate and that we can in fact control events.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, is he aware that when Ayatollah Seestani sent people into the street or encouraged people to go into the street in these demonstrations, that the cry was one man one vote?

Mr. Speaker, it is of course one man, one vote, because our governing council recently ruled that women would no longer have the political rights that they had under Saddam Hussein. We are going to take a step backward from Saddam Hussein's government who, at least on paper, had women as the equal of men when it came to their political rights.

So if the governing council that we appointed has its way, it will retreat from that which we have struggled to achieve in the United States. You may have ethnic equality, you may have racial equality, but you are not going to have gender equality. That is for sure. They really mean it when they say one man, one vote.

Mr. Speaker, oh, yes, I can tell the gentleman right now, there are women's groups organizing all over Iraq at the present time, demanding that they get their rights back from the group that we are supporting which is supposedly bringing them democratic freedom.

So the plain fact of the matter is that not only is this call out in the street for direct elections, but they are, in fact, utilizing the concept of a single person and a single vote, hopefully.

Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult for Mr. McClellan or anyone else to do that when the President himself in the space of the last week or so has indicated at least twice that he did not know the facts, that he was anxious to find out what the facts were, that he too, presumably meaning ``in addition'' would like to find out what was going on or what had happened.

Now, this is the President of the United States. Hundreds of people are dead, thousands of people have been grievously wounded.

Speaking of the prestige that the gentleman referred to, that has been literally destroyed the world over. We now have the Secretary, the spectacle, the spectacle of the Secretary of the State now wondering whether or not he would have made the same recommendations had he had other information, at the same time when many of us here were saying, let us take a deep breath, let us be sure we know what we are doing. The inspections are working; the inspections were underway.

We were not getting the information back that the administration wanted to hear. That is the difficulty. My memory is not in such difficult straits that I cannot recall what happened during those times. I realize we are now at a point that would understand only too well where inconvenient thought is shoved down the memory hole. We simply put it out of sight and pretend it did not happen. The plain fact of the matter is that there were cries all across this country, an outcry all across the country saying that the inspection process has not yet completed its task. We need to do that at a minimum before we go to war.

It is one thing for people to talk about supporting the troops. It is one thing to talk about whether the definition of imminent is the same for everybody across the spectrum, but you cannot say that a political policy which has failed to do the minimum necessary before there is a commitment to war is something that needs to be defended in the name of defending the troops.

Mr. McClellan or the President, neither Mr. McClellan speaking for the President nor Mr. Bush can get off that easy, nor can they claim that this is a situation that needs now to be explored in the aftermath of this tragedy.

I submit that we are now in a situation that needs further explanation. My understanding now is that we have announced that we are going to be leaving on the 30th of June of this year. We are now in February. March, April, June. We are talking about in 100 days we are ostensibly going to turn over authority to somebody or something in Iraq. Is there anybody here who can tell me who is going to have authority, what institutional framework or structure is going to exercise that authority? I cannot find out who it is.

Is it going to be United Nations inspectors? No, they have been told they were inadequate. Is it going to be United Nations observers or administrators in some form? They left. I understand that the United States now in

some fashion is in discussions with them as to whether they will come back in. To do what? With whom?

It is very interesting, one need only go to this issue of the New York Times Magazine for February 1, this past Sunday, and this article on what the Shiites really want. A quote from a U.S. official, ``We can fight the Suunis, but we cannot fight the Shiites, not if they organize against us. There are too many of them.''

Is that what we have been reduced to? Is that what the policies are involved here? If you want to talk about imminent danger, how about the imminent danger of people demanding direct elections so that they can conduct their own affairs.

This is the situation that we find ourselves in today. This is the situation that we have to confront. This is a situation that will not allow us to continue to merely stand on the side and observe the President trying to get the facts. He should have had the facts before he committed us into war. And he should get the facts now on what it takes in order for us to be able to exert such influence as we can in a positive way now that we have entered into this imperialist dream of imposing our authority on Iraq in the wake of Saddam Hussein's capture.

If the gentleman would yield, I think I can provide you with an answer of what a weapons of mass destruction-related program activity was.

I will be happy to do so. What we have discovered, we said if we can only get to those Iraqi scientists, they have the answer, which was just what was going to happen with the U.N. inspectors. What did we find out when we got to those scientists? The scientists told us that they were destroying the weapons of mass destruction and that the program activity was destroying the weapons of mass destruction. That is what the activity was, and these scientists were doing it, and they had papers to show it. If we could just get to the papers of those Iraqi scientists, that would tell us what happened. Yes, they destroyed the weapons of mass destruction.

What Saddam Hussein was doing, a ruthless lying dictator, was ruthlessly lying about what he was doing. He wanted to give the illusion that there were these weapons, because he wanted to give the illusion that he was some great and powerful dictator, and we were buying it. That is the problem here is that we are actually relying on the veracity of a lying, ruthless dictator.

Maybe part of the reason for that is we have been relying on his goodwill all along anyway. If I have to hear one more time about weapons that were used on his own people, I would like to ask the President, was that before or after the Secretary of Defense in another capacity was congratulating him for it and getting his picture taken with him and shaking his hands? Was that before or after this country was giving approval to Saddam Hussein to use those weapons and making certain that he knew that that was not going to interfere with our support, tacit or otherwise, for his war against Iran?

So, yes, there were program activities all right, program activities that we needed to know about in detail so that we could present an accurate and truthful picture to the American people.

We would be up to our eyeballs in it.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, having been a probation officer at one time in my checkered career, I can tell my colleagues a little bit about con men and how they operate. I will tell you how a con succeeds. A con succeeds not because of the special insight of the one perpetrating the con. The person who does that, the con man, is not depending even on his own skill. He is depending on the desire of the other person to have the conclusion that they want to have come out. It is preordained they want the con. You cannot succeed with a con unless the other person is playing into it with you. They think they are getting something for nothing, or they think that something they want very much to be real is actually going to happen. You are going to win; you are going to succeed; you are going to be able to work the angle; you are going to be able to get something that somebody else does not have.

All you have to do is look at the record of the desire of the advisers to Mr. Bush and their determination to reenter the Middle East along the same lines as I read from the Churchill imperial era, and to come back into with their version in the 21st century, they want those weapons to be there. They wanted to take any scrap of information that came in and turn it into proof positive that what they wanted to do and the policies they wanted to follow of going in there and having a war with Iraq was something that was substantiated by the information that they were getting. It did not matter that it may have gone the other way. It did not matter it was ambiguous, tenuous, or that it was fragments.

What mattered was, is something was being said about it, and they were bound and determined to turn that into information which could be construed as being supportive of having to go to war. No matter what happened, they were going go to war.

I find it very, very instructive that the Secretary of the Treasury's book that has just come out has been denounced along with him. He apparently has turned into an apostate, too, in the process simply by saying that these impressions and his honest impression as related in his book was that from the moment he entered service to the Bush administration, that they were determined to go to war; that no matter what happened they were going to go to war.

So as we take a look at this and see what happened in the past, that, it seems to me, is prelude to the future. And so I suggest for our upcoming Iraq Watches that we take up the question, then, of what is going to happen on June 30; who are we going to be dealing with; what are the circumstances under which authority is to be turned over in Iraq by the United States; is this going to be yet another election ploy? Because the Bush administration is trying to use support for troops being synonymous with support for the war for election year purposes now, and I am very anxious to find out whether this transfer of authority is also going to be used for election purposes or are we going to actually be able to do something that will advance democracy in Iraq. I think we need to concentrate on that.

And none likely to come.

Mr. Speaker, on January 27 and January 28, 2004, I was unavoidably unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows:

Rollcall 6, H.R. 1385, Postage Stamp to benefit breast cancer research, ``yes.''

Rollcall 7, H.R. 3493, Medical Devices Technical Corrections Act, ``yes.''

Rollcall 8, Baldwin Substitute to S. 1920, federal bankruptcy law, ``yes.''

Rollcall 9, Motion to Recommit S. 1920, federal bankruptcy law, ``yes.''

Rollcall 10, Final Passage S. 1920, federal bankruptcy law, ``no.''

Rollcall 11, Motion to Instruct Conferees, ``yes.''

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, being detained in my district today on official business, had I been present and voting, I would have voted as follows:

Rollcall 2, H. Res. 492, Honoring the contributions of Catholic education, ``yes''; rollcall 3, H. Res. 491, Regarding the benefits of mentoring, ``yes''; rollcall 4, H. Res. 490, Recognizing the achievements of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the Mars Exploration Rover Mission, ``yes''; and rollcall 5, H. Res. 489, Honoring the late Senator Paul Simon, ``yes.''