[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8306-8310]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                               IRAQ WATCH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) is 
recognized for half the time remaining before midnight, approximately 
40 minutes.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I come before the House this evening in 
this special order representing those of us who have participated in 
what we have termed ``Iraq Watch.''
  For some period of time now, several of us have come before this 
House to try to analyze in a hopefully dispassionate way but in an 
informative way what is taking place in Iraq and what the implications 
are for us here in the House of Representatives, and by extension for 
the Nation in terms of the political ramifications.
  I come here tonight by myself because the other members of Iraq 
Watch, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Strickland), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), and others who 
have joined us periodically are otherwise occupied this evening. But I 
come here representing those who have participated because of the 
seriousness of the issues that are now confronting us with respect to 
Iraq.
  I have before me, Mr. Speaker, a copy of the May 3, 2004, issue of 
the New Yorker Magazine entitled ``Torture at Abu Ghraib.'' I cite 
this, Mr. Speaker, because I am afraid we are going to hear this phrase 
on more than one occasion in the days to come. It is written by Seymour 
Hersh, subtitled ``American Soldiers Brutalized Iraqis, How Far Up Does 
the Responsibility Go?'' I am citing this to the Members this evening, 
Mr. Speaker, because this is the only comprehensive report that I, as a 
member of the Committee on Armed Services, and as a Member of the 
House, have been able to get. I was intrigued by it because it mentions 
two reports. The speaker before me, the gentleman from New York, 
mentioned a report written by Major General Antonio Taguba, who happens 
to be by coincidence from Hawaii, but he did not mention nor have many 
other venues that I have observed, television, radio, newspapers, 
articles, et cetera, another report. The report from General Taguba 
being completed in February of this year, but that followed on a report 
that was written and submitted in November of last year, November of 
2003,

[[Page 8307]]

by the Provost Marshal of the Army, the chief law enforcement of the 
Army, General Provost Marshal Donald Ryder.

                              {time}  2245

  I think that I can begin to account for the tone, at least the 
summary of the tone as far as it has been delivered to us, which is one 
of outrage. I withdraw that. That is my characterization.
  But let me put it this way: I believe it is fair to say if Mr. 
Hersh's summary is correct, that General Taguba's report was, at a 
minimum very, very intense, and that Mr. Hersh stated as follows: Its 
conclusions about institutional failures in the Army prison system were 
devastating. I think that is a fair summary.
  The reason I am citing this to you, Mr. Speaker, is that at a meeting 
this afternoon, at a briefing this afternoon, convened under the 
direction of the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), chairman of 
the Committee on Armed Services, under his auspices, officers appeared. 
Given the nature of the hearing, the secret nature of the hearing, 
again, for good and sufficient reason, I cannot cite to you and will 
not cite to you the exact dialogue that took place, nor those who were 
involved in it.
  But, suffice to say, it was confirmed to me in that hearing, I should 
say in that briefing, that there was indeed a report given to General 
Sanchez, the Supreme Commander in Iraq, in November of last year, and 
that General Ryder, according to Mr. Hersh, indicated in November, and 
this is important. The reason we are going through this now and the 
reason I am going through this recitation is these incidents did not 
just happen. They did not just appear out of nowhere.
  This is not something that the Army was aware of only in February of 
this year, that there was some kind of shock recognition by the Army 
that this was taking place in February. Because General Ryder clearly 
warned, quoting now from the Hersh article, ``that there were potential 
human rights training and manpower issues system-wide that needed 
immediate attention.''
  It also discussed serious concerns about the tension between the 
missions of the military police assigned to guard the prisoners and 
intelligence teams who wanted to interrogate them.
  Again, I will go on, another quotation: ``Army regulations limit 
intelligence activities by MPs to passive collection.''
  I think this is an important point, because I see some of these 
National Guard people who have been identified and who have had their 
pictures on television and are being pointed out and being looked to 
for responsibility. I think it is important for those who may not be 
familiar with the situation in prisons, Army prisons, military prisons, 
that Army regulations limit intelligence activities of MPs to passive 
collection.
  Something obviously went awry here. There was evidence, according to 
the Ryder report, evidence going back as far as the war in Afghanistan. 
Now we are going back even previous to 2003. We are talking about post-
9/11 and the attack on the Taliban forces in Afghanistan.
  According to the Ryder report, as reported by Mr. Hersh, the MPs had 
worked with intelligence operatives to ``set favorable conditions for 
subsequent interviews,'' a euphemism, according to Mr. Hersh, for 
breaking the will of prisoners.
  Now, Mr. Hersh indicates that the Ryder report called for the 
establishment of procedures to ``define the role of military police 
soldiers, clearly separating the actions of the guards from those of 
the military intelligence personnel.''
  I am citing this detail to you, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is 
very important to establish a context here.
  General Ryder is the Provost Marshal of the Army. He is the chief law 
enforcement officer of the Army, and he in his report indicated serious 
questions with regard to the management and operation of the prison 
system, and indicated serious reservations about the kinds of 
expectations of the MPs with regard to military intelligence activity.
  Major General Taguba in his report, and, again, I am relying on the 
Hersh document because, to the best of my knowledge, these reports were 
not made available even to the intelligence committees, let alone to 
the Committee on Armed Services, either in the other body or in the 
House of Representatives.
  General Taguba was reported as saying, ``Unfortunately, many of the 
systemic problems that surfaced during Major General Ryder's assessment 
are the very same issues that are the subject of this investigation.''
  It amounts to an indictment, Mr. Speaker. I do not know any other way 
to put it. That is why I say I feel so badly coming down here today. 
Believe me, this brings no sense of satisfaction to me, to have to 
report this to you.
  If the Army was aware at the highest levels of the difficulties and 
challenges that existed, let alone the possibility of abuses or even 
undermining of good order within the Army in terms of what is expected 
of its personnel in the prison system, and was aware of that in the 
fall of 2003, it can hardly have come as a surprise then if General 
Taguba was exercised by what he found taking place in February of 2004.
  If indeed General Taguba's report is as detailed and as explicit and 
its recommendations as clear as it appears to be in the summary given 
to us in Mr. Hersh's article, how is it possible for the Secretary of 
Defense, who, after all, is in charge of the uniform military, and the 
Speaker is well aware of our constitutional circumstances here. The 
civilian authority is in charge with regard to what the policies of the 
United States military are going to be. How is it possible for the 
requisite authority in the Department of Defense not to be aware of 
what these issues were?
  It is very difficult for me to believe that General Sanchez kept this 
to himself, or that General Sanchez failed to act on the clear warning 
that General Ryder, his chief law enforcement officer, expressed to him 
in writing in November of last year. It is difficult for me to believe 
that there was not some awareness in the Department of Defense that 
there were possibilities here for disaster, political and military 
disaster.
  Mr. Speaker, it is fair, I suppose, for someone to ask, well, yes, of 
course we can see why you might be upset as a Member of Congress that 
you were not informed. And I am, I can assure you of that. In fact, I 
will cite to you, Mr. Speaker, in a few moments a letter received by 
the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton), from the Secretary of Defense, that at best misleads, 
deliberately misleads the ranking member in questions that he had about 
private contractors, and at worst is a deliberate subterfuge and 
challenge to this Congress. Not to Democrats or Republicans. I am 
talking about a challenge to Congressional authority.
  I tell you, Mr. Speaker, we are walking on the edge of fascism in 
this country if the executive or executive departments think that they 
are able to make decisions absent the direction and will of the 
Congress of the United States. For good or for ill, Mr. Speaker, you 
and I are elected by the people of this country. Secretary Rumsfeld is 
not elected by anybody. He is an appointment and serves only because he 
has been approved by the Congress of the United States, in this 
instance the will of the other body as embodied in their charge in the 
Constitution.
  For good or for ill, the people of this country have put their faith 
and trust in us to make those decisions. We have clear jurisdictional 
lines in the Committee on Armed Services. We have clear admonition 
under the Constitution as to what our duty is and our obligation is 
under that Constitution with respect to funding and managing the United 
States military.
  For any executive, or anyone in the executive branch, to assume that 
he or she can take legislative authority unto themselves, particularly 
when it comes to oversight, is something that is anathema to the 
constitutional order.

[[Page 8308]]

Executive authority, ruling by executive authority, has a fascist tinge 
to it that I find very, very troubling. I do not think it can be 
excused by the idea that we would be better off without knowing.
  I do not know if this is true, Mr. Speaker. I have only the media 
representations to me, seen in fleeting images and heard in passing 
tonight. But if I understood correctly and if the information is 
correct, the President of the United States found out about this from 
the media. The President of the United States was not informed that 
these issues were already underway and about to break in the public 
press.
  We are told, at least I am informed, again by media presentation, 
because we have not had any briefing or explanation of this in the 
Committee on Armed Services to my knowledge or to the Congress as a 
whole, that General Myers, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
in fact asked a broadcast network, I believe the CBS network, not to 
publish or broadcast news of these events that it had before it and was 
prepared to bring forward.
  This is a startling development in our country, that this kind of 
censorship can take place, because we are not talking here about 
putting members of the United States military in harm's way because of 
the revelation of immediate plans of attack or the assumption of 
military planning that would otherwise bring aid and comfort or 
information to forces that might attack us or do us harm. This was not 
an instance of that.
  On the contrary, if what has been presented so far is true and is an 
accurate reflection of what took place, these are clear violations of 
regulations in the good order in the United States military and a 
severe blow to the activities of the United States with respect to the 
reconstruction of the physical facilities in Iraq and the establishment 
of civil government in the wake of the collapse of the Hussein regime.
  It strikes me that when the ranking member makes a request, as he did 
on April 2, and the ranking Member, as you know, is the senior minority 
member, in this instance the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). He 
serves as the senior Democratic member on the Committee on Armed 
Services under the leadership of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Hunter).
  On April 2 Mr. Skelton wrote a letter to Mr. Rumsfeld, the Secretary 
of Defense. I would like to quote it to you in some length.
  ``Dear Mr. Secretary. I would like to first extend my sympathy and 
display over the recent brutal killings in Fallujah. All of the 
killings in Iraq, both of our troops and of contractors and civilians, 
have been unacceptable and tragic, but the murder and desecration of 
the four Americans working for Blackwater USA was particularly 
barbaric. I would hope that plans are being prepared for a measured but 
powerful response. One of the issues raised by this tragedy is the role 
played by private military firms such as Blackwater.

                              {time}  2300

  ``Media reports indicate at the time of the ambush the personnel in 
question were providing security for a food delivery convoy. I 
understand that Blackwater provides personal security for Ambassador 
Paul Bremer. I would like to request that you provide my office with a 
breakdown of information regarding private military and security 
personnel in Iraq.''
  That bears repeating, Mr. Speaker: ``I would like to request you 
provide my office with a breakdown of information regarding private 
military and security personnel in Iraq. Specifically, I would like to 
know which firms are operating in Iraq, how many personnel each firm 
has there, what specific functions they are performing, how much they 
are being paid, and from which appropriations account. Additionally, I 
would like to understand what the chain of command is for these 
personnel, what rules of engagement govern them, and how disciplinary 
or criminal accusations are handled, if any such claims are levied 
against them.''
  This is in April, early April. These questions, these measured, 
sober, serious questions regarding the privatization of this war are 
being asked by the senior minority member of this House of the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  ``Firms like Blackwater are clearly serving important functions in 
Iraq and putting themselves at risk. It is important that the Congress 
have a clear sense of the roles they are playing so that we can conduct 
effective oversight. I appreciate your assistance in this matter. 
Sincerely, Ike Skelton, Ranking Democrat.''
  I think by any measure, Mr. Speaker, this would be seen as a letter 
that, as I have already indicated, is sober and serious and measured in 
its content and specifically and particularly on the mark with respect 
to the role and responsibility of private contractors.
  Why am I bringing that up? Because it appears, Mr. Speaker, that 
there are serious instances of perhaps a blurring of institutional and 
responsibility lines, with private contracting, military intelligence, 
and the conduct of the prison guards and those in charge of the Army 
prisons.
  Why I am particularly exercised even more than I was this afternoon? 
Because I thought this afternoon, well, we have to try and determine 
where we are going to go, and I put out a release to that effect in 
order to answer to my constituents as to what the thoughts were on this 
issue at this time. I thought, well, we better be careful about making 
grand pronouncements about what we need to do and where we are going to 
go until we find out all of the facts and see where they lead. But I 
will tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I have come to the conclusion 
that the Secretary of Defense has to think very seriously about 
resigning. I have come to that conclusion only since this afternoon, 
late this afternoon, early this evening, rather, when I became aware of 
the answer to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) dated May 4, 
the date that I received this, May 4 is printed on here; whether it was 
written May 4 or whether it was received in the office of the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) on May 4 is difficult for me to determine. 
It may be that that is a stamp to indicate to my office that it was 
received in my office on May 4.
  But here is the answer given by Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of 
Defense: ``Thank you for your letter of April 2 regarding private 
security personnel. A discussion paper provided by the Coalition 
Provisional Authority responding to the points that you raised is 
attached,'' and it is.
  Now, here is the answer given by the Secretary of Defense with regard 
to private companies, knowing, knowing now, this is April, knowing 
about the report of November 5, knowing about the 30-plus or 35 
investigations under way, according to reports that we have received in 
the press, which I think reflect accurately some of the conversation 
that was held this afternoon. Multiple, let me put it this way, 
multiple investigations under way. Knowing that, knowing that he had 
the report of General Taguba before him, knowing that this material had 
been deliberately asked to be censored and withheld from publication in 
the network news.
  Here is what he says: ``Some private security companies called PSC, 
private security companies, under contract in Iraq provide, one, 
personal security services for senior civilian officials, as well as 
some visiting delegations. Two, they also provide physical security for 
nonmilitary facilities inside the green zone and convoy protection for 
nonmilitary goods. Three, they provide protection for government 
support teams consisting of Coalition Provisional Authority personnel 
and government contractors who team with local Iraqi officials to 
develop local government structures and functions.''
  Not a word, Mr. Speaker, about the role of private contractors and 
military intelligence or in the prison system. How is it possible for 
the Secretary of Defense not to mention this, given the context in 
which this answer was given to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton)? That is why I am so exercised about the contempt that the 
Secretary is showing for the Congress and yes, indeed, for the 
President

[[Page 8309]]

of the United States. How is it possible for the Secretary of Defense 
to face Mr. Bush, let alone this Congress, and say that he 
deliberately, I cannot think of any way else to characterize it, 
deliberately kept us from understanding what it was that these private 
contractors were doing in this prison context.
  He goes on to say: ``It is my understanding that most of these 
private security companies doing business in Iraq do not work directly 
for the U.S. Government.'' Well, who are they working for then? They 
work under subcontracts to prime contractors to provide protection for 
their employees, as if there is some benign presence. We are in the 
middle of a war on terror, we are told. We are in the middle of a war 
in Iraq. The Speaker is well aware that I characterized this more than 
a year ago in May when we returned, when we were among the first group 
to go with the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), some of us went 
with him, among the first group to enter Baghdad after the initial 
attack on Baghdad and some of us said, yes, there was an attack on 
Baghdad and now the war is starting.
  Unfortunately, that has proven to be only too true, for the Secretary 
of Defense to pretend in the middle of a war situation in which our 
troops are put at risk, that somehow, there is this semi-benign 
presence in Iraq, of private contractors to go about their business 
without the supervision or the oversight of the Department of Defense 
and the United States military. I mean, it is an insult.
  ``A draft CPA order, Coalition Provisional Authority order, on 
regulating the private security companies which will require certain 
data from each firm has been prepared with input from the Iraqi 
Ministry of the Interior.''
  I mean, the contempt of this letter is incredible.
  ``The Iraqi Ministry of the Interior and Ministry of Trade will be 
largely responsible for the administration of this and any revisions 
that may be promulgated by the Iraqi interim government after June 30. 
Finally, the Department of Defense is drafting uniform guidance 
regarding private security companies employed in Iraq under contract 
using U.S. appropriations.''
  It is as if it does not even exist at this point.
  ``I hope this is useful. We can provide additional information or 
briefing if you would like.''
  Then we have a summary here in the attachment which includes a list, 
Mr. Speaker, of the private security companies operating in Iraq.
  Now, I believe that there was a company called CACI. I do not 
precisely have that because I do not have the report here; I am looking 
for it in this list of private security companies operating in Iraq. 
Perhaps it is listed here, but I cannot find it among the 60, the 60 
companies that are listed here. It may be that I am not sufficiently 
conversant with the actual names and acronyms of the security companies 
that were working intelligence privately in Iraq. I would be more 
familiar with it had we been briefed on it, had we been given the 
information, as is not only our right, but our obligation to have in 
the Committee on Armed Services.

                              {time}  2310

  I cannot find it. It is very, very difficult for me to believe that 
we are in a situation, post-Watergate in which it is necessary to know 
the answer ahead of time in order to ask the right question. It seems 
to me the questions posed by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) 
are clear enough. It seems to me that the answer here, while probably 
technically correct, leaves out valuable information. This is clearly 
not an exhaustive list of the private companies that were involved.
  I concentrate on this, Mr. Speaker, because I think we face a serious 
crisis here in the Congress. If we are going to allow the executive to 
conduct this war in our name, the name of the people of the United 
States, and we constitutionally have not only the authority, but the 
responsibilities of legislating the policies associated with arming and 
supporting our military, our United States military as well as 
establishing the policies of this Nation to be carried out by the 
executive. The executive does not tell us what to do. We again, for 
better or for ill, are given and required by the Constitution to 
exercise that legislative authority.
  The legislation we have put together, the policies that we have 
assume by virtue of a majority activity in both Houses of this 
Congress, are what constitutes the policies of this country that will 
be carried out by the executive. The executive can inform of his or her 
desires in this regard, but we are the ones that have to decide this. 
We are the ones that have to exercise the oversight.
  So I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that these are very, very serious 
allegations. No question about that. I do not come here this evening 
speaking with any kind of relish or enjoyment of what is required of us 
here. But I can tell you I was a probation officer in my life. I have 
been an officer of the court. I have had professional responsibilities 
in county jails, in San Quentin Prison. I know what it is like to have 
to conduct drug tests. I know what it is like to appear at a booking 
desk every morning year in and year out. I know what is involved in 
investigations in arrests and prosecutions.
  I know what is involved in making reports on what needs to be done 
and how it should be done and what the conducts of officers of the 
courts are with respect to the management and maintenance of jails and 
prison systems.
  I have legislative responsibilities with regard to how prison systems 
are run and under what circumstances and what is required of the 
personnel as a legislator. I have been the chairman of a committee with 
responsibility for the police departments in Honolulu, the Honolulu 
Police Department, under the jurisdiction of the committee that I was 
privileged to serve on and chair in the city and counties of Honolulu. 
I understand what is at stake in prison system, and I know this from my 
own personal experience, what is required in a prison system is, first 
of all, certainty, certainty.
  You must know from the top to the bottom exactly what the rules are. 
Certainty and activity. Those are the two fundamentals. Once you have 
those established in a prison system, then you know where you stand. 
Nobody can talk to me about failure to train some National Guard 
operatives on the jail cell level and tell me that they were operating 
on their own. That does not happen, Mr. Speaker. It does not happen in 
the county jail. It does not happen in a state prison. And it does not 
happen in a Federal prison system. Certainty from top to bottom is 
required. If it does not exist that is failure of leadership that has 
to be accounted for and responsibility has to be taken.
  So far as I can see right now, there is some reprimands being handed 
out. There are some court-martials being held at the lowest possible 
level. And yet we have two reports, the Ryder report and the Taguba 
report, that I do not believe for a moment did not see the light of day 
at the general officer level and at the highest levels of the 
Department of Defense.
  If it is true that the President of the United States was not 
informed by his Secretary of Defense as to what the situation was and 
what was likely to happen, that is dereliction of duty on the part of 
the Secretary vis-a-vis the President of the United States. It is far 
worse in my estimation that you let down the person who has entrusted 
you, entrusted you with the responsibility for carrying out the 
executive policies of this Nation.
  It is bad enough that the Congress of the United States was not 
informed. But they have the President of the United States left in the 
dark on something that was sure to have incredible negative 
ramifications with respect to Iraq and the position of the United 
States is unforgivable. It is intolerable. But I know as sure as my own 
experience indicates, that it is not possible for the leadership at the 
levels that I have discussed not to have been aware that at minimum the 
possibilities of this disaster was there and needed to be addressed. At 
a minimum. And worse, that they knew it was going on and tolerated it.

[[Page 8310]]

  We need to have a full exposure of exactly who knows what. Not 
because, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to have some kind of a media field day 
or some kind of a tabloid extravaganza, but because the very 
responsibility of this Congress is at stake. Either we are informed, 
Mr. Speaker, about what the situation is and where we are going so that 
we can make a decision with regard to oversight or we are not.
  So, Mr. Speaker, in conclusions, I want to ask you in your role as 
Speaker, to acknowledge the facts that this is a requirement of the 
Congress of the United States, that we exercise oversight on behalf of 
the people of this Nation and the values of this Nation. If we do not 
do it, Mr. Speaker, who is going to do it?
  It is apparent that no one wants to take responsibility in the 
Department of Defense. No one wants to take responsibility in the 
military at the present time. No one is exploring right now exactly 
what the boundaries were or were not. No one is examining the role of 
private security corporations in the intelligence gathering on behalf 
of the United States military and on behalf of the security interests 
of this Nation. No one asked me about it, I can assure you on the 
Committee on Armed Services as to whether I thought that was a good 
idea. I cannot speak about the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence, but I am hard pressed to think that the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence, Republican or Democrat, this has nothing to 
do with the partisan nature of any kind of political discussion we 
might be having, but it is difficult for me to believe that anybody on 
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence sanctioned such a thing 
or that there was knowledge of it in the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence or that it would not have been shared with the Office of 
the Speaker at a minimum with the leadership of both sides of the 
aisle.
  We have to have an understanding of whether our role as overseers of 
the United States strategic interests is going to be honored. If we do, 
then perhaps we can reestablish some credibility. If we do not, then I 
fear that the role that Secretary Rumsfeld has assumed for himself, 
namely, chief operating officer of the United States, without any 
responsibility to the chief executive of this Nation, the President of 
the United States, or any responsibility to the Congress of the United 
States. He gets to decide what we will do and what we will not do. He 
gets to decide whether or not this country is going to be put into a 
series of circumstances and situations that are totally untenable in 
terms of the values of this Nation or what the goals and aspirations we 
have with regards to our security interests and the peace of the world.
  I think that we need to have a clear understanding that unless the 
Secretary can answer these questions he has to consider resigning. He 
has to consider whether or not we are going to have a cleansing of the 
way in which this war is being conducted, in the manner in which it was 
being reported to us in the Congress and by extension to the people of 
the United States.

                              {time}  2320

  I appreciate the fact, Mr. Speaker, that these are difficult 
questions, that I have only been able to present a summary of what is 
at stake here; and I appreciate your patience and forebearance as I 
have enunciated it.
  I do think very, very clearly, Mr. Speaker, that there this is 
something that has to be addressed, and I would hope that the 
leadership of the House, both majority and minority, will settle on the 
proper venue, which I personally believe to be the Committee on Armed 
Services, but perhaps a joint committee situation, in which these 
issues are explored; and I hope that the Secretary of Defense will be 
able to answer adequately what his responsibility and obligation is.

                          ____________________