Neil Abercrombie

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

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

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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. ABERCROMBIE. 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. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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. ABERCROMBIE

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

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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. ABERCROMBIE. 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. ABERCROMBIE. 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.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, where does the money come from?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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.