Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 78 (Tuesday, June 14, 2005)

[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 78 (Tuesday, June 14, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6590-S6595]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this is, indeed, an exciting time and
moment. We have an 8-billion-gallon national renewable fuel standard
that is going to be part of the Senate Energy bill. A previous bill I
sponsored with Senator Lugar and 18 other Senators serves as much of
the basis for what we now have before us. This amendment takes us a
bold step closer to improving the Nation's energy security, domestic
and farm economy, and our environment.
To say we have a growing problem with energy in this country is an
understatement. Today, about 97 percent of our transportation fuel
comes from oil, two-thirds of that from foreign sources. This excessive
dependence on petroleum undermines our national security, as we all
know, and it reeks havoc on consumers who are now dealing with record-
high gasoline prices. Our policy today costs us jobs. There are 27,000
lost U.S. jobs for every $1 billion in imported oil. Our present policy
damages our environment with fully one-third of the greenhouse gases
now coming from vehicle emissions alone.
And the truth is, the problem is not going away, it is only getting
worse.
Right now we are importing 60 percent of our oil from foreign
countries. That percent is expected to increase, not decrease, to about
70 percent by 2025.
According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, America spends
$200,000 per minute on foreign oil, or $13 million an hour. And more
than $25 billion goes to the Persian Gulf imports alone. A study by the
Department of Energy found that our dependency on oil from unsteady
regimes outside our borders has cost the country an astonishing $7
trillion over the last 30 years, measured in current dollars.
If these figures are not disturbing enough, here is one more.
According to the National Defense Council Foundation, the economic
penalties of America's oil dependence are between $297 billion to $304
billion annually.
The Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, using this data,
calculated the hidden costs at the gas pump. Everyone thinks we are
paying around--I heard my friend from New York say in New York the
price of gas is $2.25, in Iowa it is around $2.03, $2.05, and around
here it is about $2.10 a gallon. That is what we think we are paying.
But the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, using the data
about the hidden costs, has determined that the real cost of a gallon
of gas at the pump is more than $7 a gallon. A typical tankful of gas
really would cost more than $140.
What are those hidden costs? Add up what we are spending in the
military alone in the Mideast and you come pretty close to the figure.
We have a choice. We can stand by, feed our addiction to foreign oil,
or we can make a decisive shift now toward clean domestic renewable
fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. This will allow us to wean the
U.S. economy from its dangerous level of dependence on foreign oil that
is a clear and present danger to our economy and national security.
The renewable fuels standard will more than double the amount of
ethanol and biodiesel in our fuel supply by 2012. It will firmly commit
our Nation to clean, secure, diversified sources of domestic energy,
not in some distant future but immediately in the years ahead.
Domestic ethanol production grew 21 percent in 2004 to more than 3.4
billion gallons. I might just add, ethanol was introduced seamlessly in
California and New York, where it helped to buffer rising crude oil
prices.
I know my good friend from New York had to leave, but I have since
found out that right now there are two large production ethanol plants
planned for construction in the State of New York; two big ones, one
that is 100 million gallons a year, the other a bit smaller, being
constructed right now in New York and more to come online later on.
Why is that? Because the technology is developing at a rapid pace to
produce ethanol, not just from corn or sugar but from underutilized
materials such as cornstalks, wood waste, cellulosic material, all
kinds of biomass feedstocks.
So what we are doing makes sense. With an 8-billion-gallon renewable
fuels standard, we establish a strong floor for the time frame under
consideration. The fact is, we will have no trouble whatsoever
producing enough ethanol to meet this standard. As I said, the industry
already has the capacity to produce nearly 4 billion gallons of ethanol
a year.
I will be frank. A lot of this does come from my State of Iowa. We
lead

[[Page S6591]]

the Nation in biofuels production. I am proud of that. I am proud of
the fact that 11 of the 16 ethanol plants in my State are predominantly
owned by farmers. We have biodiesel plants as well. Biofuels plants are
being built in many other places, too, but also in my State.
These farmer-owned biofuels plants are adding value to our rural
economies. According to a recent study, each typical ethanol plant
creates 700 jobs, expands the local economic base by more than $140
million, and provides an average 13-percent annual return on investment
over 10 years to a farmer investor.
Iowa's 16 ethanol plants and 3 biodiesel plants, with more on the
way, serve as local engines of economic growth. Our ethanol plants are
expected to contribute $4 billion annually to the State's economy once
all are in production, with more than 5,000 direct and indirect jobs.
Once all of the plants are online, the industry will utilize about 500
million bushels of Iowa corn each year.
That was just for Iowa. Nationally, this renewable fuels standard is
expected to create over 200,000 new jobs and add nearly $200 billion to
our gross domestic product. Within 10 years, this standard will replace
more than 3 billion barrels of foreign oil, more to reduce import
dependence over this time than the economically recoverable oil in the
Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, before production even begins there.
I say again to my friend from New York, there is a choice. We can
continue to spend our money--approximately $25 billion a year--in the
Persian Gulf, or we can start spending it at home, not just in Iowa but
in Georgia, New York, Illinois, and all over this country, where we are
going to see these plants being built.
So we know that renewable fuels are good products. We know we can
meet the demand. We know that it will help us in a lot of ways.
The Consumer Federation of America came out with a study just a month
ago that found consumers could save as much as 8 cents per gallon if
more ethanol were blended into the Nation's fuel supply. Well, I bet my
friend's moms who are driving kids to school, as he mentioned, would
like to save 8 cents per gallon as they buy their gasoline.
A story in the New York Times over the weekend reported that
consumers in my home State of Iowa are saving up to 10 cents per gallon
with ethanol blended gasoline. I will bet consumers in other States
would like to have that same savings.
I have heard one other comment made about this renewable fuels issue
saying it is going to be bad for the environment. That is not true.
First, it is renewable. It is made from homegrown renewable materials,
not pumped out of wells half a world away and shipped to us. When is
the last time one ever heard about an ethanol spill killing birds,
marine life, or polluting coastlines? The answer is never, and it never
will happen because ethanol is nontoxic and it is biodegradable.
Here is something else that my colleagues hear a lot about, that it
takes more energy to produce it then is gotten out of it. Again,
nonsense. Ethanol is energy efficient. Every 100 Btus of energy used to
produce ethanol--that includes the planting, the harvesting, the
cultivating, the processing--yields 135 Btus of ethanol. So 100 Btus
in, 135 out. By comparison, the same 100 Btus of energy used in the
transportation, shipping, and refining of oil yields only 85 Btus in
gasoline.
Someone might ask: Well, why is that? Very simply, sunlight is free.
The rain is free. These things grow. Sunlight and nature are being used
as free assets to get ethanol. So just from an energy efficiency
standpoint, we ought to be moving ahead aggressively.
Lastly, my friend also said something about emissions. Well, the fact
is ethanol reduces key emissions such as carbon monoxide, particulates
that cause smog. In a recent study by the Argonne National Lab, ethanol
was found to significantly lower carbon dioxide emissions, the main gas
contributing to global warming.

A lot of people in this body want to address the issue of climate
change. Yet some fail to see how biofuels are an essential component of
any greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategy. Keep in mind, when
ethanol is burned, is carbon dioxide being put out there? Yes, it is.
So you might say that adds to greenhouse gases, but keep in mind, that
the corn plant or that tree or whatever it is that is grown that one
gets the ethanol out of, it is taking carbon dioxide out of the air.
Not true of the oil that is pumped out of the ground. It puts carbon
dioxide into the air but never takes it out. That is why renewable
fuels are so important for our environment. Yes, it would put carbon
dioxide in the air, but as it grows, using that sunlight and rain to
grow, it takes carbon dioxide out.
The renewable fuels standard is sound public policy. It is a key part
of any plan to wean our Nation off of foreign oil. Contrary to what my
friend from New York said--I am sorry he had to leave--there is a
built-in flexibility through a system of tradable credits for oil
refiners who exceed their minimum requirement. It includes waiver
language from the requirements of the renewable fuels standard for a
region or a State if circumstances warrant it. It rewards production of
emerging biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol that provide tremendous
value to our country, our farmers, and the environment.
Again, these and other provisions are all in the renewable fuels
standard amendment that is being offered to the energy bill. That is
why it is so important that we keep the standard in there, that we move
ahead, wean ourselves off of Persian Gulf oil, clean up the
environment, and put the money in this country. Let us spend our money
developing energy in America rather than over in the Persian Gulf.
I yield the floor, and I thank my colleague from Illinois.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). The Senator from Illinois is
recognized for up to 25 minutes.
Mr. DURBIN. Let me thank my colleague from Iowa. He and I have
something in common: We are interested in alcohol fuels, ethanol and
diesel. We understand these are homegrown. You don't have to wait for
the OPEC cartel to decide to send them to you. We grow the corn in the
field, and one out of every six bushels of corn that is grown in
America creates ethanol, alcohol fuel.
Earlier, my colleague and friend from New York was talking about,
What could this possibly mean to farmers? He doesn't understand the
mechanics of the market. More demand raises prices. Demand for corn to
use it to create ethanol and alcohol fuels will help farmers. As
farmers receive higher prices for their corn, there are lower payments
in the Federal programs. The taxpayers are going to benefit as well.
Mr. HARKIN. That is right.
Mr. DURBIN. What the Senator from New York failed to note--and I was
about to interrupt him, but since I live with him, I interrupt him all
the time--I just live with him in Washington, incidentally; there is a
family situation otherwise. What I was going to remind him was when
these trucks are coming in with ethanol into New York and getting
stalled in traffic and burning up their fuel, if they have ethanol in
their tanks, there is less pollution in his beautiful New York City. So
we have another added benefit here--not just more income for farmers
and less in payments by taxpayers for farm programs but cleaner air and
less dependence on foreign oil.
I hope Senator Harkin and I can take this on as a class project, to
try to work on Senator Schumer from New York. He is a very delightful
man and does a great job for his State, but he needs some very
fundamental education on corn and ethanol and what it means for
America.
Mr. HARKIN. I join with the Senator. We will do a little educating
for him.
Mr. DURBIN. This is probably a task we should not undertake because
it is momentous, but we will try anyway. This is the Energy bill. It is
a big bill, as you can tell. I sat down and did something kind of
unique: I decided to read it, just to decide what we are voting on. I
don't say that entirely in a negative fashion because some of this is
so technical, you need to have staff go through and figure out exactly
what is happening in this bill.
The one thing that is most important about this bill is not the fact
that Senator Domenici of New Mexico has worked so hard on it with
Senator Bingaman and done such a good job on a bipartisan basis to
bring it to us. That is a positive thing, and I complimented Senator
Domenici about it

[[Page S6592]]

earlier. What is troubling about this bill is it is setting out to
establish:

the enhancement of the energy security of the United States.

Since it is setting out to establish America's energy policy, you
would think to yourself, How do most Americans come in contact with
energy each day? Certainly when you flip the lights on in the morning
or in the evening, you come in contact with electricity, but equally
so, when you get into that car or into that truck or on that bus, you
are in contact with the energy policy of America.
If that is an important part of our life experience with energy, if
over 60 percent of all the oil we bring into the United States is used
to fuel vehicles, trucks and cars, you would just assume that a large
part of this bill of almost 800 pages must be devoted to the whole
question of the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks. Isn't that obvious?
Wouldn't that be one of the first things?
Sadly, you are going to have to search long and hard to find any
reference in here to the fuel economy and fuel efficiency of cars and
trucks in America. The question I have asked over and over again is,
How can you have an honest energy policy for America and not talk about
that? How can you really have a policy that reduces our dependence on
foreign oil if we do not talk about more fuel-efficient cars and
trucks--more conservation?
I don't think you can. The only provision in this bill that addresses
that, in the most indirect and oblique way, says that over the next 10
years, we will reduce the demand for oil in America by 1 million
barrels a day. That is a good thing. I support that. It doesn't spell
out how we will do it. Frankly, it doesn't reflect the ambition we
should have in putting together this bill because we can do better. We
can do a lot better.
Tomorrow, Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington is going to offer the
amendment from the Democratic side about energy policy. It is our lead
amendment. The reason it is our lead amendment is we believe it gets to
the heart of the question. Here is what we believe in our Democratic
Senate caucus. We think we should add to this bill language which says:
Over the next 20 years, we will reduce our dependence on foreign oil in
America by 40 percent.
Frankly, I think we can do better, but we establish a standard of 40
percent. Today, 58 percent of all of the oil that we burn each day in
America comes from overseas--58 percent. Unchecked, unchanged, it is
estimated that in 20 years, it will be 68 percent. More than two out of
every three barrels of oil will be imported into the United States.
If the Democratic amendment is adopted--and I hope it is, on a
bipartisan basis--if we reduce the foreign imports by 40 percent over
the next 20 years, the number will go from 58 percent to 56 percent.
That is still too high, but to do nothing means that our dependence on
foreign oil will grow.
Depending on foreign oil means depending on the people who own it. I
do not want my future, the future of my children or grandchildren, in
the hands of the Saudi Royal Family. That is what their future will be
tied to--in a world where there will be even more competition over OPEC
oil.

You cannot pick up a magazine or an article anywhere that does not
refer to the growth of China and its economy. They are just sucking
away jobs from America, to paraphrase Ross Perot, and creating new
opportunities for jobs in a country that is deficient in energy. So
they are looking all over the world to find where they can import gas
and oil so they can fuel the growing Chinese economy.
What it means, of course, is China will be our competitor for that
oil in the years to come. If we do not take care to reduce our
dependence on foreign oil, we will find ourselves in a predicament even
worse than today, where the cost of oil will be increasing because of
increased demand for limited resources, and our dependence will be
increasing at the same time. What a recipe for economic disaster in
America.
I will tell you one thing that is troubling. Remember the only
provision in this bill related to fuel efficiency that I mentioned
earlier that wants to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by a million
barrels a day? We just got an official statement from the Bush White
House today--they oppose that provision. They want to take it out of
the bill. That is the only provision in the bill relative to fuel
efficiency and fuel economy, and they want to have it taken out of the
bill.
This is the same administration that does not concede the fact that
there is global warming, the same administration which last week had to
dismiss a man who was doctoring environmental documents and statements
to make it look as if there is no threat of global warming. This same
administration says they want to take out the only provision in the
bill that would move us toward less dependence on foreign oil. What are
they thinking? This is the leadership in the White House?
The President can walk, literally hand in hand, with a Saudi prince
at his ranch in Texas, but does America want to walk hand in hand with
a Saudi prince for the next 20 years? Not me--no. I want to see us move
toward energy independence. It is not likely we will reach it in its
entirety in my lifetime, but don't we owe it to future generations to
lessen our dependence on foreign oil?
Which moves me to a second topic, which is related. That dependence
on foreign oil draws us into a lot of predicaments around the world.
Ask the 150,000 American soldiers in Iraq today. Ask whether we would
be as focused as we are on the Middle East and its stability if we were
not dependent on those oil tankers every single day leaving that
Arabian peninsula, the Arabian area, coming into the United States with
this oil we need so desperately. I do not think it is likely we would
be there with that much intensity of feeling. But we are there.
Because of our dependence on foreign oil, we have been drawn into a
conflict, now more than 2 years in length, with no end in sight. I was
one of 23 Senators who voted against the Use of Force Resolution that
authorized President Bush to invade Iraq. That was not because I had
any sympathy for Saddam Hussein--I never have had--but because I
believed this administration had misled the American people about the
real threat in Iraq. It turns out afterward we were misled, there were
no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear weapons, no connection with
9/11. It turns out the threats we were told existed did not exist. The
American people were misled.
Sadly, this administration took the best military in the world and
invaded Iraq and very quickly made short order of Saddam Hussein and
his troops but didn't know what to do next. They won the war. They
couldn't figure out how to win the peace. And we still pay the heaviest
possible price every single day because of their lack of preparedness.
Think about it. Over the weekend, the number of American soldiers
killed in Iraq in combat now has reached about 1,700--1,700 of our sons
and daughters have given their lives in Iraq, with no end in
sight. Soldiers sent into battle by an administration which has
received every penny they have asked for from Congress to supply our
troops. Soldiers sent into battle, killed, still today, in unarmored
humvees. Soldiers without body armor. Soldiers without the proper
equipment.

I have been there. I have seen it. I have heard it. I have talked to
these soldiers. I know a few weeks ago in Iraq this was the case. That,
to me, is a tragedy and a travesty.
What is also troubling is that this Congress is afraid to even ask
the hard questions of this administration. When was the last time we
had a serious hearing on Capitol Hill about the contract abuses of
Halliburton in Iraq? We will have to search the Congressional Record
long and hard to find there has not been such a hearing. We do not get
into that issue. When was the last time we had a hearing on Capitol
Hill about the serious problems we are having in recruiting new
soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen? That is a big problem. The best
military in the world needs the best men and women. Why is it they will
not join the ranks to fight in this war in Iraq and Afghanistan? That
is worth a hearing, isn't it? We are still waiting for it.
There will be a hearing tomorrow--and I commend the chairman of the
Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Arlen Specter--to discuss some of
the basic issues about a very serious problem that we face.

[[Page S6593]]

Mr. President, there has been a lot of discussion in recent days
about whether to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. This
debate misses the point. It is not a question of whether detainees are
held at Guantanamo Bay or some other location. The question is how we
should treat those who have been detained there. Whether we treat them
according to the law or not does not depend on their address. It
depends on our policy as a nation.
How should we treat them? This is not a new question. We are not
writing on a blank slate. We have entered into treaties over the years,
saying this is how we will treat wartime detainees. The United States
has ratified these treaties. They are the law of the land as much as
any statute we passed. They have served our country well in past wars.
We have held ourselves to be a civilized country, willing to play by
the rules, even in time of war.
Unfortunately, without even consulting Congress, the Bush
administration unilaterally decided to set aside these treaties and
create their own rules about the treatment of prisoners.
Frankly, this Congress has failed to hold the administration
accountable for its failure to follow the law of the land when it comes
to the torture and mistreatment of prisoners and detainees.
I am a member of the Judiciary Committee. For two years, I have asked
for hearings on this issue. I am glad Chairman Specter will hold a
hearing on wartime detention policies tomorrow. I thank him for taking
this step. I wish other members of his party would be willing to hold
this administration accountable as well.
It is worth reflecting for a moment about how we have reached this
point. Many people who read history remember, as World War II began
with the attack on Pearl Harbor, a country in fear after being attacked
decided one way to protect America was to gather together Japanese
Americans and literally imprison them, put them in internment camps for
fear they would be traitors and turn on the United States. We did that.
Thousands of lives were changed. Thousands of businesses destroyed.
Thousands of people, good American citizens, who happened to be of
Japanese ancestry, were treated like common criminals.
It took almost 40 years for us to acknowledge that we were wrong, to
admit that these people should never have been imprisoned. It was a
shameful period in American history and one that very few, if any, try
to defend today.
I believe the torture techniques that have been used at Abu Ghraib
and Guantanamo and other places fall into that same category. I am
confident, sadly confident, as I stand here, that decades from now
people will look back and say: What were they thinking? America, this
great, kind leader of a nation, treated people who were detained and
imprisoned, interrogated people in the crudest way? I am afraid this is
going to be one of the bitter legacies of the invasion of Iraq.
We were attacked on September 11, 2001. We were clearly at war.
We have held prisoners in every armed conflict in which we have
engaged. The law was clear, but some of the President's top advisers
questioned whether we should follow it or whether we should write new
standards.
Alberto Gonzales, then-White House chief counsel, recommended to the
President the Geneva Convention should not apply to the war on
terrorism.
Colin Powell, who was then Secretary of State, objected strenuously
to Alberto Gonzales' conclusions. I give him credit. Colin Powell
argued that we could effectively fight the war on terrorism and still
follow the law, still comply with the Geneva Conventions. In a memo to
Alberto Gonzales, Secretary Powell pointed out the Geneva Conventions
would not limit our ability to question the detainees or hold them even
indefinitely. He pointed out that under Geneva Conventions, members of
al-Qaida and other terrorists would not be considered prisoners of war.
There is a lot of confusion about that so let me repeat it. The
Geneva Conventions do not give POW status to terrorists.
In his memo to Gonzales, Secretary Powell went on to say setting
aside the Geneva Conventions ``will reverse over a century of U.S.
policy and practice . . . and undermine the protections of the law of
war for our own troops . . . It will undermine public support among
critical allies, making military cooperation more difficult to
sustain.''

When you look at the negative publicity about Guantanamo, Secretary
Colin Powell was prophetic.
Unfortunately, the President rejected Secretary Powell's wise
counsel, and instead accepted Alberto Gonzales' recommendation, issuing
a memo setting aside the Geneva Conventions and concluding that we
needed ``new thinking in the law of war.''
After the President decided to ignore Geneva Conventions, the
administration unilaterally created a new detention policy. They claim
the right to seize anyone, including even American citizens, anywhere
in the world, including in the United States, and hold them until the
end of the war on terrorism, whenever that may be.
For example, they have even argued in court they have the right to
indefinitely detain an elderly lady from Switzerland who writes checks
to what she thinks is a charity that helps orphans but actually is a
front that finances terrorism.
They claim a person detained in the war on terrorism has no legal
rights--no right to a lawyer, no right to see the evidence against
them, no right to challenge their detention. In fact, the Government
has claimed detainees have no right to challenge their detention, even
if they claim they were being tortured or executed.
This violates the Geneva Conventions, which protect everyone captured
during wartime.
The official commentary on the convention states:

Nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law.

That is clear as it can be. But it was clearly rejected by the Bush
administration when Alberto Gonzales as White House counsel recommended
otherwise.
U.S. military lawyers called this detention system ``a legal black
hole.'' The Red Cross concluded, ``U.S. authorities have placed the
internees in Guantanamo beyond the law.''
Using their new detention policy, the administration has detained
thousands of individuals in secret detention centers all around the
world, some of them unknown to Members of Congress. While it is the
most well-known, Guantanamo Bay is only one of them. Most have been
captured in Afghanistan and Iraq, but some people who never raised arms
against us have been taken prisoner far from the battlefield.
Who are the Guantanamo detainees? Back in 2002, Secretary Rumsfeld
described them as ``the hardest of the hard core.'' However, the
administration has since released many of them, and it has now become
clear that Secretary Rumsfeld's assertion was not completely true.
Military sources, according to the media, indicate that many
detainees have no connection to al-Qaida or the Taliban and were sent
to Guantanamo over the objections of intelligence personnel who
recommended their release. One military officer said:

We're basically condemning these guys to a long-term
imprisonment. If they weren't terrorists before, they
certainly could be now.

Last year, in two landmark decisions, the Supreme Court rejected the
administration's detention policy. The Court held that the detainees'
claims that they were detained for over two years without charge and
without access to counsel ``unquestionably describe custody in
violation of the Constitution, or laws or treaties of the United
States.''
The Court also held that an American citizen held as an enemy
combatant must be told the basis for his detention and have a fair
opportunity to challenge the Government's claims. Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor wrote for the majority:

A state of war is not a blank check for the President when
it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens.

You would think that would be obvious, wouldn't you? But yet, this
administration, in this war, has viewed it much differently.
I had hoped the Supreme Court decision would change the
administration policy. Unfortunately, the administration has resisted
complying with the Supreme Court's decision.

[[Page S6594]]

The administration acknowledges detainees can challenge their
detention in court, but it still claims that once they get to court,
they have no legal rights. In other words, the administration believes
a detainee can get to the courthouse door but cannot come inside.
A Federal court has already held the administration has failed to
comply with the Supreme Court's rulings. The court concluded that the
detainees do have legal rights, and the administration's policies
``deprive the detainees of sufficient notice of the factual bases for
their detention and deny them a fair opportunity to challenge their
incarceration.''
The administration also established a new interrogation policy that
allows cruel and inhuman interrogation techniques.
Remember what Secretary of State Colin Powell said? It is not a
matter of following the law because we said we would, it is a matter of
how our troops will be treated in the future. That is something often
overlooked here. If we want standards of civilized conduct to be
applied to Americans captured in a warlike situation, we have to extend
the same manner and type of treatment to those whom we detain, our
prisoners.
Secretary Rumsfeld approved numerous abusive interrogation tactics
against prisoners in Guantanamo. The Red Cross concluded that the use
of those methods was ``a form of torture.''
The United States, which each year issues a human rights report,
holding the world accountable for outrageous conduct, is engaged in the
same outrageous conduct when it comes to these prisoners.
Numerous FBI agents who observed interrogations at Guantanamo Bay
complained to their supervisors. In one e-mail that has been made
public, an FBI agent complained that interrogators were using ``torture
techniques.''
That phrase did not come from a reporter or politician. It came from
an FBI agent describing what Americans were doing to these prisoners.
With no input from Congress, the administration set aside our treaty
obligations and secretly created new rules for detention and
interrogation. They claim the courts have no right to review these
rules. But under our Constitution, it is Congress's job to make the
laws, and the court's job to judge whether they are constitutional.
This administration wants all the power: legislator, executive, and
judge. Our founding father were warned us about the dangers of the
Executive Branch violating the separation of powers during wartime.
James Madison wrote:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and
judiciary, in the same hands may justly be pronounced the
very definition of tyranny.

Other Presidents have overreached during times of war, claiming
legislative powers, but the courts have reined them back in. During the
Korean war, President Truman, faced with a steel strike, issued an
Executive order to seize and operate the Nation's steel mills. The
Supreme Court found that the seizure was an unconstitutional
infringement on the Congress's lawmaking power. Justice Hugo Black,
writing for the majority, said:

The Constitution is neither silent nor equivocal about who
shall make the laws which the President is to execute . . .
The Founders of this Nation entrusted the lawmaking power to
the Congress alone in both good times and bad.

To win the war on terrorism, we must remain true to the principles
upon which our country was founded. This Administration's detention and
interrogation policies are placing our troops at risk and making it
harder to combat terrorism.
Former Congressman Pete Peterson of Florida, a man I call a good
friend and a man I served with in the House of Representatives, is a
unique individual. He is one of the most cheerful people you would ever
want to meet. You would never know, when you meet him, he was an Air
Force pilot taken prisoner of war in Vietnam and spent 6\1/2\ years in
a Vietnamese prison. Here is what he said about this issue in a letter
that he sent to me. Pete Peterson wrote:

From my 6\1/2\ years of captivity in Vietnam, I know what
life in a foreign prison is like. To a large degree, I credit
the Geneva Conventions for my survival. . . . This is one
reason the United States has led the world in upholding
treaties governing the status and care of enemy prisoners:
because these standards also protect us. . . . We need
absolute clarity that America will continue to set the gold
standard in the treatment of prisoners in wartime.

Abusive detention and interrogation policies make it much more
difficult to win the support of people around the world, particularly
those in the Muslim world. The war on terrorism is not a popularity
contest, but anti-American sentiment breeds sympathy for anti-American
terrorist organizations and makes it far easier for them to recruit
young terrorists.
Polls show that Muslims have positive attitudes toward the American
people and our values. However, overall, favorable ratings toward the
United States and its Government are very low. This is driven largely
by the negative attitudes toward the policies of this administration.
Muslims respect our values, but we must convince them that our
actions reflect these values. That's why the
9/11 Commission recommended:

We should offer an example of moral leadership in the
world, committed to treat people humanely, abide by the rule
of law, and be generous and caring to our neighbors.

What should we do? Imagine if the President had followed Colin
Powell's advice and respected our treaty obligations. How would things
have been different?
We still would have the ability to hold detainees and to interrogate
them aggressively. Members of al-Qaida would not be prisoners of war.
We would be able to do everything we need to do to keep our country
safe. The difference is, we would not have damaged our reputation in
the international community in the process.
When you read some of the graphic descriptions of what has occurred
here--I almost hesitate to put them in the Record, and yet they have to
be added to this debate. Let me read to you what one FBI agent saw. And
I quote from his report:

On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find
a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the
floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated
or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24
hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been
turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the
room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold. . .
. On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned
off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well
over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the
floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently
been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On
another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably
hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the
room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee
chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile
floor.

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent
describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you
would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets
in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no
concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the
action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. It is not too late. I hope we will learn from history. I
hope we will change course. The President could declare the United
States will apply the Geneva Conventions to the war on terrorism. He
could declare, as he should, that the United States will not, under any
circumstances, subject any detainee to torture, or cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment. The administration could give all detainees a
meaningful opportunity to challenge their detention before a neutral
decisionmaker.
Such a change of course would dramatically improve our image and it
would make us safer. I hope this administration will choose that
course. If they do not, Congress must step in.
The issue debated in the press today misses the point. The issue is
not about closing Guantanamo Bay. It is not a question of the address
of these prisoners. It is a question of how we treat these prisoners.
To close down Guantanamo and ship these prisoners off to

[[Page S6595]]

undisclosed locations in other countries, beyond the reach of
publicity, beyond the reach of any surveillance, is to give up on the
most basic and fundamental commitment to justice and fairness, a
commitment we made when we signed the Geneva Convention and said the
United States accepts it as the law of the land, a commitment which we
have made over and over again when it comes to the issue of torture. To
criticize the rest of the world for using torture and to turn a blind
eye to what we are doing in this war is wrong, and it is not American.

During the Civil War, President Lincoln, one of our greatest
Presidents, suspended habeas corpus, which gives prisoners the right to
challenge their detention. The Supreme Court stood up to the President
and said prisoners have the right to judicial review even during war.
Let me read what that Court said:

The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers
and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the
shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times,
and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more
pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man
than that any of its provisions could be suspended during any
of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads
directly to anarchy or despotism.

Mr. President, those words still ring true today. The Constitution is
a law for this administration, equally in war and in peace. If the
Constitution could withstand the Civil War, when our Nation was
literally divided against itself, surely it will withstand the war on
terrorism.
I yield the floor.

____________________