[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 8559-8572]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 627, DEPLORING ABUSE OF PERSONS 
                    IN UNITED STATES CUSTODY IN IRAQ

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 628 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 628

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the resolution (H. 
     Res. 627) deploring the abuse of persons in United States 
     custody in Iraq, regardless of the circumstances of their 
     detention, urging the Secretary of the Army to bring to swift 
     justice any member of the Armed Forces who has violated the 
     Uniform Code of Military Justice, expressing the deep 
     appreciation of the Nation to the courageous and honorable 
     members of the Armed Forces who have selflessly served, or 
     are currently serving, in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and for 
     other purposes. The resolution shall be considered as read 
     for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the resolution to final adoption without 
     intervening motion or demand for a division of the question 
     except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
     by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
     on Armed Services; and (2) one motion to recommit which may 
     not contain instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as 
I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time 
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 628 is a closed rule providing for the 
consideration of House Resolution 627, deploring the abuse of persons 
in United States custody in Iraq, regardless of the circumstances of 
their detention, urging the Secretary of the Army to bring to swift 
justice to any member of the Armed Forces who has violated the

[[Page 8560]]

Uniform Code of Military Justice, and expressing the deep appreciation 
of the Nation to the courageous and honorable members of the Armed 
Forces who have selflessly served, or are currently serving, in 
Operation Iraqi Freedom, and for other purposes.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for 1 hour of debate in the House, 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Armed Services. The rule provides one motion 
to recommit, which may not contain instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, Members of this House, and indeed millions of concerned 
Americans, have been appalled by reports that Iraqi prisoners have been 
severely mistreated by their U.S. captors. President Bush has rightly 
pledged to ensure that those responsible for this abuse are brought to 
justice, and that process is already under way.
  Mr. Speaker, in a society like ours that prides itself on its 
commitment to civil and human rights, there is no place for the sorts 
of atrocities depicted in recent days in newspaper and television 
accounts from Iraq.
  Thankfully, it appears that the reported abuses have been the 
exception, rather than the rule, during this conflict. But that does 
nothing to excuse those who carried out or permitted the acts in 
question to take place. They must be punished swiftly and surely.
  At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we must not permit the outrageous acts 
of a relative few to stain the service of more than 100,000 of our 
brave American men and women who are risking their lives every day in 
the cause of freedom. They are doing what is right, and they are doing 
it the right way. Their services make us all proud to be Americans.
  Therefore, in addition to strongly condemning the acts of abuse by 
U.S. personnel against Iraqi prisoners, House Resolution 627 also pays 
tribute to the selfless service of our men and women in uniform.
  Mr. Speaker, the President has spoken loudly and clearly on this 
subject, and it is imperative that we in the House do the same. 
Accordingly, I ask my colleagues to support both the rule and House 
Resolution 627.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me 
the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here this morning to carry out a very grave duty. 
We are here to express the horror felt by the American people upon 
seeing the graphic images and learning of the torture, abuse, 
brutalization, and humiliation of Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib 
prison.

                              {time}  1130

  We are here to condemn such acts.
  But we are also here to do much more. We need to make clear that this 
Congress not only condemns these actions, but demands a full 
investigation and accountability for those who perpetrated these acts, 
those who ordered these acts, those who turned a blind eye to these 
acts, and those in the chain of command who failed to act upon repeated 
warnings and reports of abuse of Iraqi detainees.
  Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that the overwhelming majority of our 
uniformed men and women currently on active duty in Iraq, Afghanistan 
and elsewhere carry out their duties in an exemplary manner. They have 
represented the United States in perilous times with great distinction 
and great honor. And it is critical that Congress not blindly accept 
the scapegoating of a few enlisted men and women when there is a much 
more serious, troubling, high-ranking, and systemic problem that needs 
our most serious attention.
  In December last year, Human Rights Watch issued a searing report on 
inhumane conditions and abuses of detainees under U.S. authority in 
Afghanistan.
  We now know from the media that the International Committee for the 
Red Cross has also been urging U.S. military authorities to make 
substantial changes on how detainees are treated at prison facilities 
throughout Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a grave and serious crisis, and I do not use the 
word ``crisis'' lightly. It is a crisis for our relations with the 
people of Iraq. It is a crisis for our relations with our allies. It is 
a crisis for our intentions to create a stable and more democratic 
Middle East. It is a crisis for our Armed Forces, whose honor has been 
stained by these revelations. It is a crisis for our Nation whose 
honor, intentions, reputation, and moral authority are now suspect 
throughout the world. It is a crisis for the safety of our troops in 
the field and the safety of our homeland.
  Mr. Speaker, I fear for every American, military and civilian, who is 
now held captive in Iraq. For how can we demand standards for the 
humane treatment of our own citizens when it appears to many that we 
have turned our backs on those very standards and international law in 
our treatment of foreign detainees?
  Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to carry out its own thorough 
investigation, not just about what happened at one isolated prison in 
Iraq, but in the breakdown in chain of command and the context within 
the Armed Forces that created such a climate for these crimes to take 
place.
  I believe the conditions that led to abuse were created at the very 
top when our Secretary of Defense announced early in the war against 
terrorism that the Geneva Conventions would not apply to many of our 
actions, especially those concerning detainees.
  I believe the conditions that led to abuse were created at the very 
top when independent monitors were denied access to prisons and 
detention facilities.
  I believe the conditions that led to abuse were created at the very 
top when decisions were made to assign troops, many of whom were 
inexperienced in prisoner treatment and the rights of prisoners, rather 
than to troops who have been trained for such duty.
  I believe the conditions that led to abuse were created at the very 
top when information and reports were withheld from the relevant 
intelligence, defense, and foreign policy Congressional committees 
regarding these abuses.
  Mr. Speaker, I also believe that this Congress needs to take a hard 
and serious look at the use of private contractors engaged in 
interrogation of prisoners and ensure that their role in these abuses 
is fully investigated and punished.
  But even more importantly, I believe the President of the United 
States must act. The President must demonstrate exactly how serious the 
United States is about changing the conditions that led to these 
abuses.
  The President prides himself on being a plain-spoken, straight-
shooting man of action. This moment desperately calls for some plain 
speaking and accountability. Anonymous leaks to the news media about 
the President of the United States ``privately chiding'' the Secretary 
of Defense simply will not do.
  Mr. Speaker, Donald Rumsfeld needs to resign as Secretary of Defense, 
and if he does not do so, President Bush should fire him. No other 
action, no other words would send as strong a signal to the world that 
the United States is serious about fixing what is wrong in Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, I regret that this resolution required a rule for 
debate. I regret that unanimous consent could not be obtained. But I 
firmly believe that this resolution needs to assert the oversight 
responsibilities, our own accountability, and investigate these abuses 
and the systems that created a climate of abuse. We cannot call for 
accountability by others and then shirk our own responsibilities. I 
firmly believe that we must investigate the roles of both our uniformed 
personnel and private contractors in these abuses, and I would have 
hoped that the majority would believe the same.
  Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of this debate, I will move the 
previous question. If defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule 
allowing for the consideration of an amendment to be

[[Page 8561]]

offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking 
member of the House Committee on Armed Services, affirming the need for 
a bipartisan congressional investigation to be conducted immediately 
into these allegations of abuse, including those by civilian contractor 
personnel and into systemic chain of command and other systemic 
deficiencies that contributed to such abuse.
  I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in 
this effort to affirm the need for the Congress to carry out its 
constitutional duties of oversight.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me this time. I rise today in 
strong support of both the rule and the underlying resolution.
  I believe most Americans, as I was, were extremely upset by the 
images they saw on television of prisoner abuse in Iraq, and the 
horrific actions just defy everything that America stands for and 
Americans stand for: goodness, decency, fairness, compassion.
  The perpetrators of these dastardly deeds must be swiftly brought to 
justice and severely punished for their actions.
  America and our allies liberated Iraq from a despot. Mr. Speaker, our 
soldiers are very sincerely over there helping to restore basic 
services to Iraq and make life for the Iraqi people much better, and 
they are doing it at serious risk to their own lives. A few sick people 
in the military have set back our efforts for peace in the Mideast and 
around the world for who knows how long. They have destroyed all of the 
good relationships our soldiers and others have established in Iraq. 
And the majority of our service men and women are very good, decent, 
patriotic Americans, very honorable.
  So we must not allow these actions by a few to overshadow the 
goodness of the majority of Americans or of our soldiers, or the effort 
to win the war on terror. We cannot close the book on terror until we 
close this chapter on Iraq.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings), a member of the Committee on Rules and the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and my 
good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for 
yielding me this time. This morning he and I and the other members of 
the Committee on Rules who are here met at 7 o'clock a.m. to discuss 
this resolution.
  Now, the simple fact of the matter is, it is important for us to 
recognize that the American military has no peers. It is also important 
for us to recognize that most of the men and women, the great majority 
of the men and women in the military are not the kind of people that 
are now being investigated and that we see so widespread, and are not 
the kind of people that would abuse people in the circumstances that 
the detainees found themselves.
  It is unfortunate that this matter does not come to the floor under 
unanimous consent. It does have, as I pointed out this morning, one or 
two flaws that could easily have been corrected had the majority 
determined that it was proper to do so.
  One of those flaws allows itself to come forward in one paragraph 
which reads, ``Whereas the Congress was not fully informed of the 
existence,'' and that is true, ``or the seriousness.'' But it does not 
say what I think it should say, and that is that we decried the fact 
that for too long, this was in the hands of military higher-ups who did 
not deem the oversight responsibilities of Congress important enough 
for them to bring the matter forward.
  Additionally, this is a resolution about horrors that took place 
inside a prison. This is not a proper place, in my judgment, for us to 
be bragging about anything concerning the conditions being better after 
the removal of Saddam Hussein.
  Additionally, it is that these abuses, as offensive as they are, need 
to be put in perspective with regard to the ongoing military effort.
  I would urge everybody to take a deep breath and to realize that no 
American, Republican or Democrat, would allow for this kind of conduct, 
and no one from the President on down does not feel sorry that this 
occurred, and all of us should be in a position to do as the general 
who now is in charge of this prison did, and that is, apologize not 
only to the detainees that this occurred to, but to the others who 
likely feel that America has lost its moral authority.
  America will never lose its moral authority, because in this body and 
in the White House and in the Secretary of Defense's office, and in the 
Secretary of the Army's office, justice will come to those who took 
advantage of others in circumstances that were not proper.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the distinguished 
chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in the 
House.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have always known that the war on terrorism was going 
to be lengthy and difficult. President Bush told us that from the very 
beginning.
  Americans everywhere have girded up for a sustained conflict across 
the globe, around the world. We have great and justifiable pride in our 
troops and all they have accomplished. We have accepted the necessary 
sacrifices in the war on terrorism with a heavy, but a resolute heart 
in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.
  However, it is impossible to accept the apparently isolated, but 
nonetheless totally deplorable instances of blatant prisoner 
mistreatment that have surfaced in the past week. These actions, 
particularly when contrasted with the courageous and honorable 
decisions made day in and day out by the vast majority of our American 
soldiers in difficult circumstances, must be strongly condemned.
  The charges of abuse will be examined fully and immediate corrective 
measures taken to prevent against their reoccurrence. That is assured. 
No equivocation can be tolerated. Wrong is wrong. The international 
community will be watching America's actions closely, and now is the 
time to demonstrate anew that the American soldier respects the rules 
of engagement and always values justice and humane treatment of 
detainees and prisoners. We all abhor the slaughter and maiming and 
carnage of innocent victims, which, of course, is the terrorists' 
hallmark.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today because our military has worked too hard 
and accomplished too much to be stained by the actions of a few. By 
acknowledging that this is a tremendously hurtful anomaly in an 
otherwise impressive effort, I hope that justice may be swiftly served 
and the trust in America restored.
  The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence routinely and 
regularly oversees interrogation activity for intelligence purposes, 
and we are giving comprehensive attention, of course, to these newly-
discovered abusive treatment cases. In fact, as we speak, our committee 
is receiving briefings upstairs and asking some very tough questions, 
and I will return to that meeting forthwith.
  The conduct of appropriate and professional interrogation is 
extremely important to the successful prosecution of the war on 
terrorism and the protection of our troops and citizens at home and 
abroad.

                              {time}  1145

  Terrorism is a bad thing, and interrogation on a proper level of a 
terrorist is an important tool for us to preempt the mischief that they 
can cause us.
  This rule brings forward a clear resolution that supports the views I 
espouse and that other Members have espoused articulately. I urge 
passage for this rule and for this resolution.

[[Page 8562]]


  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern) for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. This 
resolution condemns abuse, but presents glaring and unacceptable 
omissions. The boiler-plate language offers no apology, does nothing to 
ease the international tensions, and calls on the Department of 
Defense, quite frankly, to investigate itself.
  The resolution is insufficient on all three grounds. We need a full-
scale bipartisan congressional investigation into these charges and 
their devastating international consequences and also the role of 
private contractors in this war. I hope that these horrible human 
rights abuses are not just the tip of an iceberg.
  Tens of thousands of American troops are serving with great courage. 
These outrages do not typify their behavior; but they do, they do 
endanger their lives. As for those accused and others, I quite frankly 
worry about our young men and women in uniform who are being 
dehumanized.
  These young men and women are being dehumanized. They are being 
dehumanized by the policies of the Bush administration and a war that 
allows them to cross this threshold.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this resolution presents really a very false 
portrait of Iraq, one that is safe and secure and prosperous. I urge 
Members to vote against this rule. This really is not about a handful 
of photographs. It is about the failures of leadership at the very 
highest levels.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), the distinguished Republican 
Conference chairman.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying 
legislation. I rise in sadness and regret. The behavior of the soldiers 
charged with misconduct and abuses of prisoners in Iraq, to use the 
President's word, is abhorrent.
  The Iraqi people are beginning new lives of liberty and freedom. They 
are just beginning to shake off the dread of years of torture and 
abuse. They are only just beginning to sleep soundly, without fear of 
midnight kidnappings. They are only just beginning to express their 
views on politics and social issues. Our whole country is appalled and 
disgusted by the reports of this insane abuse.
  I send my deepest sympathy and regret to these Iraqis who, in such a 
tender moment, are forced to see scenes of abuse that I can only 
imagine bring to the surface old fears, old nightmares, and old wounds.
  The actions of a few are sure to have long-term implications of 
mistrust in the Middle East. Our message is clear: we are devastated. 
We went into Iraq because Americans reject evil and embrace liberty. 
The heart of American values is founded in respect for one another, in 
fairness and a love for freedom.
  Today we should ask ourselves what can we do to rebuild the trust and 
confidence in the hearts and minds of those we want to help. Unlike 20 
years of unavenged, unstoppable evil at the hands of Saddam Hussein, 
this abuse will not be tolerated. It will not be brushed over. It will 
not be excused.
  I join my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives and condemn 
these acts and support immediate, meticulous investigations into the 
abuse reports, full disclosure of abuses committed, and justice served 
to those men and women responsible.
  Every day the men and women of our Armed Forces are putting their 
lives on the line because they believe in their mission and they are 
devoted to their duty. They also have been hurt by these senseless, 
shameful acts. We cannot falter in our support for thousands of troops 
who now more than ever require reenforcement, support and prayers from 
their government, their friends, and their families at home.
  I would ask the American people, Iraqis who have tasted liberty, and 
freedom-loving people across the world to renounce the reprehensible 
deeds of a few and look forward. I ask them to renew their support in 
the brave efforts to free Iraq and our efforts in the war on terrorism, 
and for the men and women of our Armed Forces who sacrifice daily in 
defense of honor, justice, and democracy.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the very 
important legislation it enforces.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, this outrage cuts to the bone, not just 
because it damages our international relations, but because it damages 
basic tenets of American values. And when you have such a deep wound, 
self-inflicted, you cannot have half measures. And this resolution is 
weak tea when we need strong medicine; and it is inadequate, and this 
rule should be defeated for that reason.
  Where in this resolution is there a call for the obvious need for an 
investigation of the private contractors who are making hundreds of 
thousands of dollars, who are involved in this outrage, who are outside 
the chain of command, who are not subject to military justice? Why will 
the Republican Party not join us in investigating those private 
contractors and putting this in this resolution? Why is there nothing 
in this resolution about the need for an international opening up of 
our system so that we can regain credibility? Why is there not in this 
resolution an accounting for the Iraqi people of who is in there? And 
lastly, where is the resignation for Donald Rumsfeld?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Hastings) has 19 minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has 17 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this resolution will be minimally useful at 
best.
  I intend to vote for it. But it falls far short of what this House 
ought to be doing today.
  Lou Dobbs two days ago on CNN I think said it best when he said that 
the reason the Commander in Chief needed to make a public apology for 
what happened in the prisons in Iraq was not just because that conduct 
was offensive to the Arab world but because it was offensive to basic 
American values. And I think Mr. Dobbs had it dead right.
  Later on in that same program, Anthony Cordesman, a well-known 
defense expert, made the observation that the worst thing about this 
from the standpoint of American troops is that because the pictures 
associated with these violations of human rights will have inflamed the 
Arab world, that unfortunately it is likely that additional Americans 
will die because of that. And unfortunately, he also had it dead on.
  This resolution needs to be amended, and there will be an effort to 
do that, to amend it to affirm that we need a bipartisan congressional 
investigation to conduct an investigation into these allegations of 
abuse, including those by U.S. civilian contractors and other 
civilians, and an investigation into the chain of command and other 
systemic deficiencies including the command atmosphere that may have 
contributed to such abuse. That is the minimum that is necessary.
  Now, months ago I called for the resignation of the Secretary of 
Defense because I think the conduct of the civilian leadership of the 
Defense Department in conducting the affairs in Iraq after the war was 
spectacularly incompetent. So I do not need to go into that today.
  Mr. Speaker, the following is an article from a Washington Post 
editorial on Mr. Rumsfeld's performance on this issue.

[[Page 8563]]



                [From the Washington Post, May 6, 2004]

                     Mr. Rumsfeld's Responsibility

       The Horrific abuses by American interrogators and guards at 
     the Abu Ghraib prison and at other facilities maintained by 
     the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan can be traced, in 
     part, to policy decisions and public statements of Secretary 
     of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld. Beginning more than two years 
     ago, Mr. Rumsfeld decided to overturn decades of previous 
     practice by the U.S. military in its handling of detainees in 
     foreign countries. His Pentagon ruled that the United States 
     would no longer be bound by the Geneva Conventions; that Army 
     regulations on the interrogation of prisoners would not be 
     observed; and that many detainees would be held incommunicado 
     and without any independent mechanism of review. Abuses will 
     take place in any prison system. But Mr. Rumsfeld's decisions 
     helped create a lawless regime in which prisoners in both 
     Iraq and Afghanistan have been humiliated, beaten, tortured 
     and murdered--and in which until recently, no one has been 
     held accountable.
       The lawlessness began in January 2002 when Mr. Rumsfeld 
     publicly declared that hundreds of people detained by U.S. 
     and allied forces in Afghanistan ``do not have any rights'' 
     under the Geneva Conventions. That was not the case: At a 
     minimum, all those arrested in the war zone were entitled 
     under the conventions to a formal hearing to determine 
     whether they were prisoners of war or unlawful combatants. No 
     such hearings were held, but then Mr. Rumsfeld made clear 
     that U.S. observance of the convention was now optional. 
     Prisoners, he said, would be treated ``for the most part;'' 
     in ``a manner that is reasonably consistent'' with the 
     conventions--which the secretary breezily suggested, was 
     outdated.
       In one important respect, Mr. Rumsfeld was correct: Not 
     only could captured al Qaeda members be legitimately deprived 
     of Geneva Convention guarantees (once the required hearing 
     was held) but such treatment was in many cases necessary to 
     obtain vital intelligence and prevent terrorists from 
     communicating with confederates abroad. But if the United 
     States was to resort to that exceptional practice. Mr. 
     Rumsfeld should have established procedures to ensure that it 
     did so without violating international conventions against 
     torture and that only suspects who truly needed such 
     extraordinary handling were treated that way. Outside 
     controls or independent review could have provided such 
     safeguards. Instead, Mr. Rumsfeld allowed detainees to be 
     indiscriminately designated as beyond the law--and made 
     humane treatment dependent on the goodwill of U.S. personnel.
       Much of what has happened at the U.S. detention center in 
     Guantanamo Bay is shrouded in secrecy. But according to an 
     official Army report, a system was established at the camp 
     under which military guards were expected to ``set the 
     conditions'' for intelligence investigations. The report by 
     Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba says the system was later 
     introduced at military facilities at Bagram airbase in 
     Afghanistan and the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, even though it 
     violates Army regulations forbidding guards to participate in 
     interrogations.
       The Taguba report and others by human right groups reveal 
     that the detention system Mr. Rumsfeld oversees has become so 
     grossly distorted that military police have abused or 
     tortured prisoners under the direction of civilian 
     contractors and intelligence officers outside the military 
     chain of command--not in ``exceptional'' cases, as Mr. 
     Rumsfeld said Tuesday, but systematically. Army guards have 
     held ``ghost'' prisoners detained by the CIA and even hidden 
     these prisoners from the International Red Cross. Meanwhile, 
     Mr. Rumsfeld's contempt for the Geneva Conventions has 
     trickled down: The Taguba report says that guards at Abu 
     Ghraib had not been instructed on them and that no copies 
     were posted in the facility.
       The abuses that have done so much harm to the U.S. mission 
     in Iraq might have been prevented had Mr. Rumsfeld been 
     responsive to earlier reports of violations. Instead, the 
     publicly dismissed or minimized such accounts. He and his 
     staff ignored detained reports by respected human rights 
     groups about criminal activity at U.S.-run prisons in 
     Afghanistan, and they refused to provide access to facilities 
     or respond to most questions. In December 2002, two Afghan 
     detainees died in events that were ruled homicides by medical 
     officials; only when the New York Times obtained the story 
     did the Pentagon confirm that an investigation was underway, 
     and no results have yet been announced. Not until other media 
     obtained the photos from Abu Ghraib did Mr. Rumsfeld fully 
     acknowledge what had happened, and not until Tuesday did his 
     department disclose that 25 prisoners have died in U.S. 
     custody in Iraq and Afghanistan. Accountability for those 
     deaths has been virtually nonexistent: One soldier was 
     punished with a dishonorable discharge.
       On Monday Mr. Rumsfeld's spokesman said that the secretary 
     had not read Mr. Taguba's report, which was completed in 
     early March. Yesterday Mr. Rumsfeld told a television 
     interviewer that he still hadn't finished reading it, and he 
     repeated his view that the Geneva Conventions ``did not 
     precisely apply'' but were only ``basic rules'' for handling 
     prisoners. His message remains the same: that the United 
     States need not be bound by international law and that the 
     crimes Mr. Taguba reported are not, for him, a priority. That 
     attitude has undermined the American military's observance of 
     basic human rights and damaged this country's ability to 
     prevail in the war on terrorism.

  Mr. Speaker, I would just make this observation. The Congress has 
only two real abilities to effect events. The first is to use the power 
of the purse, and preliminary to doing that, to ask the right questions 
about what the intent of our government is before we get into something 
like Iraq. The Congress, unfortunately, settled for spongy answers 
beforehand.
  But the second power that Congress has is the power of investigation. 
At least after the fact, this Congress ought to investigate from top to 
bottom what contributed to this outrageous chain of events that has 
been such a disgrace to our ability to stand up for basic American 
values. At least if we do that, we can try to ensure that something 
like this never happens again in the name of the United States of 
America.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is sad that the resolution before U.S. today is as 
close as we can get to having a full and open debate on the tragedy 
that continues to unfold in Iraq.
  Yes, this is about failure of leadership in the Department of Defense 
from Secretary Rumsfeld and the team that was unable, after winning the 
war, to win the peace, a Department that cannot communicate with its 
own Department of State, let alone the Congress. But it is about more 
than the failure of the administration and the Department of Defense.
  What we should be debating today is the failure of Congress. We 
should be having hearings dealing with these issues on armed services, 
international relations, appropriations, government operations.
  Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues do themselves no favor rushing 
this to the floor and refusing to deal with the responsibilities of 
congressional oversight. When our Republican colleagues do not permit 
us to do our job, it does not help them politically. What happens is 
that this is forcing us to rely on reporters from the New Yorker & from 
CNN. The avalanche of reports now coming out show the Department of 
Defense knew about this, even if the top brass had not bothered to read 
the reports. This should have been shared with members of Congress, and 
we should have been helping them do their job.
  It is not just the brave men and women on the front lines in Iraq who 
are being shortchanged by failures of Congress & the Administration. We 
are shortchanging the American public, wasting their Treasury, putting 
Americans at risk, and undermining their confidence in their government 
doing its job and giving them straight answers.
  I strongly urge the rejection of this rule and that this morning we 
start doing our job as Members of Congress to give the American public 
the information they deserve.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is written as if the 
administration's war in Iraq was right from the beginning and now is 
basically going well, and neither is correct.
  It is written as if support of the troops is an issue. It is not. We 
fully support our troops.
  What is at issue is the appropriate response of this House to the 
horrendous conduct illustrated in the graphic pictures of prisoner 
abuse.
  What is in issue is the appropriate response of this House to the 
American people and to this House hearing the truth on TV while it was 
sitting undisclosed on the desk of high administration officials.
  The proper response for this House is not just to pass resolutions 
but to be an active force in facing up to what is

[[Page 8564]]

happening in Iraq and its consequences for our Nation and the world.

                              {time}  1200

  When it comes to events in Iraq, the majority in this House can no 
longer simply rubber stamp all of the actions of this administration or 
pass the buck to it or the Senate.
  Turn down this rule so we can add an amendment requiring this House 
to step up to its responsibilities.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, all of us on both sides of the aisle 
come to the well and to discuss the different events on this 
resolution.
  First of all, I am very, very proud of the men and women that serve 
in our armed services, and I served with in Vietnam and all the 
conflicts up to that point, but time has witnessed a sine wave of 
activities.
  In business we had Enron. We have had a Member of this body sexually 
abuse a page. We have had a Nixon break-in and impeachment of a 
President. Harassment in our military academies and we look at the 
scandal in the Catholic church, but Mr. Speaker, there are good people 
in Enron, there are good Members of Congress. The harassment in our 
military academies, most of those men and women serve honorably, and 
the same thing in the Catholic church, but good people is not the 
question here.
  The question is what happened in our interrogation facility, and I 
sit and I questioned myself, what are the key reasons why everybody is 
so upset? What factors bother us? One thing, leadership at the point of 
infraction, and secondly, the timeliness. Let me give my colleagues a 
good example.
  I had an admiral that brought us, his commanding officers, together, 
and said if I have a single commanding officer that gets busted with a 
DUI or DWI, I am going to fire you, and not a single CO received a DUI 
or DWI. If they went to a party, they had a designated driver. Prior to 
that, many of the commanding officers got picked up for a DUI or DWI.
  I would bet, Mr. Speaker, that no one at that prison sat those kids 
down and said this is the expected conduct. I just witnessed from the 
services all kinds of paper, all kinds of rules, people that had been 
there to investigate, look at the different things that go on, but I 
want to tell my colleagues, not a single officer sat down with those 
sergeants, with those people and said if this is your conduct these are 
the consequences, like that admiral did with us and the DUI's. The 
breakdown was at the point of leadership at the prison.
  Secondly is the timeliness. I had a squadron and I had exceptions to 
the chain of command. My friend over here the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel) knows about the chain of command. He was in the service, 
but as commanding officer, a person could walk into my office, past my 
chief, past my division officer, past my executive officer for several 
things: any known sexual abuse, because I had women in the squadron; 
anything racial, even verbal, because it could destroy the unit; any 
known drugs within the unit; the thing that I have recommended to the 
military, anything, any conduct that would affect the unit, negatively, 
the Services or United States of America, and I think those two things 
were overlooked in this case, that it did not go up the chain of 
command fast enough. There was not enough action taken, and that there 
was a breakdown in leadership and cutting through the chain of command.
  The last thing I would recommend to our military is that when they 
have something so critical that is a blight on the United States of 
America, that we sit down and we take care of this, but let us not 
forget the people that serve us are the best of the best, and yes, 
there are Enrons, there are Catholic churches, there are others, but 
the majority of our people are very good people.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn the 
alleged abuse of prisoners in Iraq. We must take every step possible to 
investigate the shocking allegations, punish any perpetrators, re-
examine our entire system of interrogation and confinement to prevent 
such occurrence from happening in the future.
  I have called on Attorney General Ashcroft to begin an investigation 
of abuses committed by private military contractors in Iraq. I 
circulated this letter to all of my colleagues for review. A hundred 
Democrats have signed on so far. I hope all my colleagues will join me 
in this effort.
  In the year 2000, Congress passed the Military Extra Territorial 
Jurisdiction Act, which allows the Justice Department to investigate 
and prosecute criminal action by contractors abroad that are in the 
employ of the United States Government. This Congress granted the 
Attorney General this authority for this exact case.
  Attorney General Ashcroft has the ability to investigate and 
prosecute any criminal abuse by private contractors. I urge him to 
begin his investigation immediately.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  We come today together as a unified body, 435 Members of the people's 
House, without any question about condemning totally unacceptable 
behavior, and I support this rule very strongly because it is most 
appropriate that we come to the floor and say today our unanimous 
condemnation of behavior we do not accept under any circumstances.
  We need to maintain a focus that says to the American people and even 
more importantly the rest of the world that in a free society, where 
men and women can come to the well of the House and express their 
opinion on any subject, there are many countries around the world where 
freedom does not exist, but in our free society, the home of the free 
and the land of the brave, we have the right to stand up and speak out 
when something goes wrong.
  In the land of freedom, we have responsibility. People are 
accountable for their actions, and the perpetrators of these deeds will 
be punished. This is the issue today. So now is the time to stand up 
and express our joint outrage for what has happened.
  We also need to make sure, and ironically, as I waited to speak, I 
received a message from Daniel Metzdorf, an 82nd Airborne trooper who 
lost a leg fighting for the freedom that we all want for Iraq, got a 
message, wanted to know how I am doing. He is the one that lost a leg.
  We cannot lose the focus today, as we speak out against this 
contemptible behavior that 99.9 percent plus are wonderful men and 
women in uniform who are seeking to bring freedom to Iraq, to give them 
the opportunity to express their opinion. Yes, the rest of the world, 
we have made a mistake here and we all agree but we will not accept it.
  Whatever steps are necessary to follow up our condemnation today of 
these despicable acts, we will, as Republican, Democrats, in a 
bipartisan manner, we will get to the bottom of it. The perpetrators 
will be punished. We will see that it does not happen again. Justice 
will be served. Freedom will be protected.
  We are here to do the right thing. That is what America is about, but 
please do not lose sight of what is being done for us, for Iraq, the 
rest of the world by these men and women in uniform who are seeking to 
provide freedom and justice for all the world.
  Mr. Speaker, again I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings) for the time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against this rule. 
We can do better. We can do much better as a Nation and as a people.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart, but my conscience is 
clear. I am so sick and tired of seeing

[[Page 8565]]

so many of our young men and our young women die in Iraq. I am deeply 
troubled by the acts that some of our soldiers committed against the 
prisoners of war in Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues today, we must take a good and 
hard look at the leadership of this Nation, the leadership of this 
government, the leader of this government, the person who was in 
charge. I say to my colleagues today, we must hold the leadership, the 
President, the Secretary of Defense, the Vice President, hold them 
accountable for mistake after mistake we have committed in this war, 
and we must hold them accountable for the unjust torture of prisoners 
of war.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of who committed these unbelievable 
acts. It is not a question of who, but what. What led to this flagrant 
disregard for the humanity of our fellow human beings? Those at the 
highest level of this government, the President, the Vice President, 
the Secretary of Defense, they all have created the climate and the 
environment that led to these abuses. What happened to those prisoners 
is a reflection on our soul, on our values.
  American citizens smiling as they humiliate citizens of Iraq! There 
must be a sense of righteous indignation in America about what happened 
in those prison cells, and there must be a sense of righteous 
indignation in this Congress against these unspeakable acts. Does it 
profit a great Nation to gain a whole world or win a war and lose a 
soul?
  Mr. Speaker, I have said it in the past and I say it again today. War 
is messy. It is bloody. It tends not to just hide the truth, but to 
sacrifice the truth. Why did it take so long, so long for us to get 
this information? Why did not Mr. Rumsfeld, why did not the President 
inform the Congress? Why did officials at the highest levels of 
government try to hide these criminal acts against humanity? Why did 
they try to cover it up?
  Mr. Speaker, we have made mistakes, yes, but it is not enough to 
issue an apology. It is not enough to say we are sorry--and we should 
apologize. We should say we are sorry.
  The handwriting is on the wall, Mr. Speaker. It is time for us to 
close this very dark and sordid chapter of our history. It is time for 
the Secretary of Defense to go. He must leave.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield as 
much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule.
  Last night, I stood here in the well following the speech that my 
friend from Georgia gave and he has delivered the same speech, and I 
want to say to my friend from Georgia, while addressing the Speaker 
according to the rules of the House, that righteous indignation is 
something that every single one of us, every single one of us has 
demonstrated by the support of this resolution. We are all outraged at 
the photographs that we have seen, and we believe that it is 
reprehensible that these kinds of actions should take place.
  Dating back to 1785, the framers of our Constitution, Benjamin 
Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and others, focused at 
that point on the importance as we deal with conflicts of recognizing 
the human rights of even our adversaries, and that is why it is so 
important for the United States of America, which is the only Nation on 
the face of the earth that could do this kind of work, to step forward, 
and yes, liberate the people of Iraq, send a positive message for the 
cause of freedom throughout the entire world, but at the same time, 
recognize those important rights that do date back to 1785 and the 
founding of the United States of America.
  We do, as my friend from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) stated very 
eloquently, need to realize why it is that we are in Iraq. We are there 
because of the global war on terrorism. We are there because this is 
part and parcel of the global war on terrorism.
  There are 135,000 American troops who are part of this very important 
international coalition, and we have seen tremendous success.

                              {time}  1215

  It is important for us to support this resolution, but it is also 
very important for us to realize that any sign of weakness from the 
United States of America as we proceed with resolve in dealing with 
these terrorists in Iraq, any sign of weakness emboldens those 
terrorists. That is why, yes, we are going to ensure that anyone who is 
responsible for this and is convicted under the Uniform Code of 
Criminal Justice is in fact going to go to jail because they are 
criminals.
  At the same time, we must realize that, as the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Hayes) said, there are 135,000 courageous men and women 
in the U.S. Armed Forces who are seeking to win this war and we need 
to, with this resolution that the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Hunter) has put together, underscore and demonstrate the solidarity and 
resolve of the American people and the United States Congress behind 
our men and women.
  Support this rule, support this resolution, and let us move forward 
and make sure that we do resolve this very difficult situation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, well, it is obvious from this resolution 
to me that the days of the ``buck stops here'' are dead and gone. Oh, 
yes, it takes occasion to single out those individuals who do have 
blame for abusing in the most horrendous way our prisoners. But nowhere 
in here does it say that those who are in the leadership of this 
mission in Iraq hold any responsibility whatsoever.
  I looked through this carefully, and it seems that they want to limit 
it to a few individuals that they will go after. And by the way, not 
just the right individuals. There is no mention in this of the private 
military contractors, individuals who for profit are in those prisons 
that we know are under investigation, may even have been giving orders, 
companies like Titan and CACI that were hired to be in those prisons 
that are not part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Where are we 
going to point our fingers at them and hold them accountable?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Armed Services and the author of this resolution.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I think it is time for us to refocus. The 
focus should be on the fact that we have had over 300,000 Americans in 
uniform serving in this theater. The vast majority of them have served 
honorably and courageously, I would say to my colleague who just spoke 
who said, sure, we have some criminal acts, but why can we not convict 
more people up the chain of command for those acts.
  The facts are in this country when somebody commits a criminal act, 
they are held accountable for that act. They are being held 
accountable. I want to remind my colleagues once again of the numbers. 
The numbers are 300,000 Americans serving honorably in Iraq. The 
numbers further at this point are that six of them have been 
recommended for criminal prosecution under UCMJ for these acts.
  Once again, I saw in The Washington Post this morning that picture of 
that same lady undertaking a reprehensible act with respect to a 
prisoner. We have seen thousands of pictures. The ones that I have seen 
at least that have come forward all have the same several individuals. 
My point is 300,000 people serving honorably, over 3,000 Purple Hearts 
awarded, thousands of Bronze Stars awarded, 127 Silver Stars awarded 
for valor, four Distinguished Service Crosses or Navy Crosses awarded 
for valor in this war, and our troops in contact right now.
  So while we have potentially six bad apples, and I want to set the 
record straight, three have been recommended to the court martial 
convening board for court martials. It is the convening board's 
decision whether or not those court martials go forward and when. So

[[Page 8566]]

three out of the six who have been recommended for court martial under 
article 32 are now before the court martial convening authority. That 
is six people.
  Sure, investigations may show more people, but they do not show 
thousands of people. They do not show tens of thousands of people, and 
what the record in Iraq does reflect is 300,000 courageous Americans 
serving our country.
  One other thing that we put in this resolution, while all of this 
national media and international media is going to the six, to the six 
bad apples who have been identified so far, and the careers have been 
ended of about seven superior officers up through the chain of command 
up to the general who is the brigade commander, not because they knew 
anything about it, in fact, in some cases probably because they did not 
know anything about it, but because it was on their watch it happened, 
those careers have been ended.
  We have thousands of acts of compassion and nation-building and 
government-building carried on by the men and women who wear the 
uniform of the United States. They have started city councils, repaired 
sewage lines, and inoculated kids so they will not get sick. They have 
done great things, and we put that in this resolution because they 
deserve a little attention, not just the six bad apples.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, we all know what is going on out here 
today. We are passing a CYA resolution to limit the damage. The 
Christian Science Monitor carries the story of Mr. Miklaszewski from 
NBC News who asked the question of a Pentagon official about the 
soldiers involved. He said, ``You mean the six morons who lost the 
war?''
  The decision has been made in the Pentagon what they are going to do 
to those six, but this resolution does not go wide and deep like it 
ought to. This was not six young people that we are going to blame and 
make scapegoats and send them out in the wilderness. This has to go all 
of the way to Mr. Rumsfeld, the Secretary of War.
  A Scottish newspaper, the Sunday Herald, said, ``The pictures that 
lost the war. The grim images of American and British soldiers 
torturing Iraqi prisoners has taken the moral high ground from Blair 
and Bush.'' And the article finishes with a quote from Lieutenant 
Colonel Retired Bill Cowan of the United States Marines, ``We went to 
Iraq to stop things like this from happening; and, indeed, here they 
are happening under our tutelage. If we do not tell this story, these 
kinds of things will continue and we will end up getting paid 100 or 
1,000 times.''
  The other side can try and limit the damage here with this and say 
let us keep it in the Secretary of the Army, but the fact is that the 
world knows much more broadly.

                 [From the Sunday Herald, May 2, 2004]

                     The Pictures That Lost The War

                            (By Neil Mackay)

       It's an image that would do Saddam proud. A terrified 
     prisoner, hooded and dressed in rags, his hands out-stretched 
     on either side of him, electrodes attached to his fingers and 
     genitals. He's been forced to stand on a box about one-foot 
     square. His captors have told him that, if he falls off the 
     box, he'll be electrocuted.
       The torture victim was an Iraqi and his torturers were 
     American soldiers. The picture captures the moment when 
     members of the coalition forces, who styled themselves 
     liberators, were exposed as torturers. The image of the wired 
     and hooded Iraqi was one of a series of photographs, leaked 
     by a horrified U.S. soldier inside Saddam's old punishment 
     centre, Abu Ghraib--now a U.S. POW camp.
       When the images were flashed around the world by America's 
     CBS television network last Wednesday, there was a smug 
     feeling within the U.K. that British troops would never 
     behave like that to their prisoners. But on Friday night, the 
     U.K. was treated to images--courtesy of the Daily Mirror--of 
     British soldiers urinating on a blood-stained Iraqi captive, 
     holding guns against the man's head, stamping on his face, 
     kicking him in the mouth and beating him in the groin with a 
     rifle butt.
       The pictures of U.S. soldiers torturing their captives have 
     the added horror of sexual abuse. In five of the 14 images 
     that the Sunday Herald has seen, a female soldier--identified 
     as Lynndie England, a 21-year-old from a West Virginia 
     trailer park--is playing up to the camera while her captives 
     are tortured. In one picture, she's smiling and giving the 
     thumbs-up. Her hand rests on the buttocks of a naked and 
     hooded Iraqi who has been forced to sit on the shoulders of 
     another Iraqi prisoner.
       In another, she is sprawled laughing over a pyramid of 
     naked Iraqis. A male colleague stands behind her grinning. 
     Later, she's got a cigarette clenched between grinning lips 
     and is pointing at the genitals of a line of naked, hooded 
     Iraqis. A third snap shows her embracing a colleague as a 
     naked Iraqi lies before them.
       In other pictures, two naked Iraqis are forced to simulate 
     oral sex and a group of naked men are made to clamber on to 
     each other's backs. One dreadful picture features nothing but 
     the bloated face of an Iraqi who has been beaten to death. 
     His body is wrapped in plastic.
       Other pictures, which the world has not seen, but which are 
     in the hands of the U.S. military, include shots of a dog 
     attacking a prisoner. An accused soldier says dogs are ``used 
     for intimidation factors''.
       There are also pictures of an apparent male rape. An Iraqi 
     POW claims that a civilian translator, hired to work in the 
     prison, raped a male juvenile prisoner. He said: ``They 
     covered all the doors with sheets. I heard the screaming . . 
     . and the female soldier was taking pictures.''
       The British pictures show a hooded Iraqi aged between 18-20 
     on the floor of a military truck being brutalized. According 
     to two squaddies who took part in the torture, but later blew 
     the whistle, the Iraqi's ordeal lasted eight hours and he was 
     left with a broken jaw and missing teeth. He was bleeding and 
     vomited when his captors threw him out of a speeding truck. 
     No one knows if he lived or died.
       One of the British soldiers said: ``Basically this guy was 
     dying as he couldn't take any more. An officer came down. It 
     was `Get rid of him--I haven't seen him'.'' The other 
     whistle-blower said he had witnessed a prisoner being beaten 
     senseless by troops. ``You could hear your mate's boots 
     hitting this lad's spine . . . One of the lads broke his 
     wrist off a prisoner's head. Another nearly broke his foot 
     kicking him.''
       According to the British soldiers, the military police have 
     found a video of prisoners being thrown from a bridge, and a 
     prisoner was allegedly beaten to death in custody by men from 
     the Queen's Lancashire Regiment. Although there is a debate 
     about the veracity of the images, Armed Forces Minister Adam 
     Ingram said that if the pictures were real, they were 
     ``appalling''. A Downing Street spokesman said Tony Blair 
     expected ``the highest standards of conduct from our forces 
     in Iraq''. The U.K.'s most senior army officer, General Mike 
     Jackson, said that if the allegations were true then those 
     involved were ``not fit to wear the Queen's uniform.'' The 
     Defense Ministry is in crisis over the pictures as top brass 
     know they ruin any hope of U.K. forces winning Iraqi hearts 
     and minds.
       The U.S. torture pictures were taken by members of the 
     American 800th Military Police Brigade sometime late last 
     year. Following an investigation, 17 soldiers were removed 
     from duty for mistreating captives. Six face court martial. 
     Brigadier General Janice Karpinski, who ran Abu Ghraib and 
     three other U.S. military jails, is suspended and faces court 
     martial. Prior to the relevations, Karpinski assured the U.S. 
     media that Abu Ghraib was run according to ``international 
     standards''.
       Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, deputy director of 
     coalition operations in Iraq, said he was ``appalled''. He 
     added: ``These are our fellow soldiers. They were the same 
     uniform as us, and they let their fellow soldiers down. Our 
     soldiers could be taken prisoner as well--and we expect our 
     soldiers to be treated well by the adversary, by the enemy--
     and if we can't hold ourselves up as an example of how to 
     treat people with dignity and respect . . . we can't ask that 
     other nations do that to our soldiers as well. This is wrong. 
     This is reprehensible. But this is not representative of the 
     150,000 soldiers over here.''
       But these soldiers aren't simply mavericks. Some accused 
     claim they acted on the orders of military intelligence and 
     the CIA, and that some of the torture sessions were under the 
     control of mercenaries hired by the U.S. to conduct 
     interrogations. Two ``civilian contract'' organizations 
     taking part in interrogations at Abu Ghraib are linked to the 
     Bush administration.
       California-based Titan Corporation says it is ``a leading 
     provider of solutions for services for national security''. 
     Between 2003-04, it gave nearly $40,000 to George W. Bush's 
     Republican Party. Titan supplied translators to the military.
       CACI International Inc. describes its aim as helping 
     ``America's intelligence community in the war on terrorism''. 
     Richard Armitage, the current deputy U.S. secretary of state, 
     sat on CACI's board.
       No civilians, however, are facing charges as military law 
     does not apply to them. Colonel Jill Morgenthaler, from 
     CentCom, said that one civilian contractor was accused along 
     with six soldiers of mistreating prisoners. However, it was 
     left to the contractor to ``deal with him''. One civilian 
     interrogator told army investigators that he had

[[Page 8567]]

     ``unintentionally'' broken several tables during 
     interrogations as he was trying to ``fear-up'' detainees.
       Lawyers for some accused say their clients are scapegoats 
     for a rogue prison system, which allowed mercenaries to give 
     orders to serving soldiers. A military report said private 
     contractors were at times supervising the interrogations.
       Kimmitt said: ``I hope the investigation is including not 
     only the people who committed the crimes, but some of the 
     people who might have encouraged the crimes as well because 
     they certainly share some responsibility.''
       Last night, CACI vice-president Jody Brown said: ``The 
     company supports the Army's investigation and acknowledges 
     that CACI personnel in Iraq volunteered to be interviewed by 
     army officials in connection with the investigation. The 
     company has received no indication that any CACI employee was 
     involved in any alleged improper conduct with Iraqi 
     prisoners. Nonetheless, CACI has initiated an independent 
     investigation.''
       However, military investigators said: ``A CACI 
     investigator's contract was terminated because he allowed 
     and/or instructed military police officers who were not 
     trained in interrogation techniques to facilitate 
     interrogations which were neither authorised nor in 
     accordance with regulations.''
       One of the U.S. soldiers facing court martial is reservist 
     Staff Sergeant Chip Frederick--the equivalent of a part-time 
     territorial army squaddie. In civvy street, he was a prison 
     warder in Virginia. Frederick has said he will plead not 
     guilty and blame the army for the torture at Abu Ghraib. ``We 
     had no support, no training whatsoever,'' he said, claiming 
     he had never been shown the Geneva Convention. ``I kept 
     asking my chain of command for certain things like rules and 
     regulations and it just wasn't happening.''
       Frederick also blamed the intelligence services for 
     encouraging the brutality. Among the agencies coming to the 
     prison were ``military intelligence'', said Frederick, 
     adding: ``We had all kinds of other government agencies, FBI, 
     CIA.''
       In letters and e-mails home, he wrote: ``Military 
     intelligence has encouraged and told us `Great job'.'' He 
     added: ``They usually don't allow others to watch them 
     interrogate. But since they like the way I run the prison, 
     they have made an exception . . . We help getting [the PoWs] 
     to talk with the way we handle them . . . We've had a very 
     high rate with our style of getting them to break. They 
     usually end up breaking within hours.''
       Frederick said prisoners were made to live in cramped 
     windowless cells with no clothes, running water or toilet for 
     up to three days. Others were held for 60 days before 
     interrogation. He said one prisoner with a mental health 
     condition was ``shot with non-lethal rounds''. An 
     interrogator told soldiers to ``stress one prisoner out as 
     much as possible [as] he wanted to talk to him the next 
     day''. Frederick also said one prisoner was ``stressed so bad 
     that the man passed away''. Prisoners were covered in lice 
     and some had tuberculosis. None were allowed to pray. 
     Frederick said his commander sanctioned all this.
       The former commander of Guantanamo Bay prison, Major 
     General Geoffrey Miller, has now been made deputy commander 
     for containment operations to overhaul the Iraqi detention 
     centres.
       Frederick, unlike mercenaries, faces jail and being thrown 
     out of the army. His lawyer, Gary Myers said: ``The elixir of 
     power, the elixir of believing that you're helping the CIA, 
     for God's sake, when you're from a small town in Virginia, 
     that's intoxicating. And so, good guys sometimes do things 
     believing that they are being of assistance and helping a 
     just cause . . . and helping people they view as important.''
       Kimmitt admitted: ``I'd like to sit here and say that these 
     are the only prisoner abuse cases that we're aware of, but we 
     know that there have been others.''
       This also applies to Britain. A Sunday Herald investigation 
     has found that at least seven civilians have died in British 
     custody in Iraq.
       Describing the images of abuse as an ``atrocity'', Abdel 
     Bari Atwan, editor of the newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi, said: 
     ``The liberators are worse than the dictators.'' His 
     sentiments have been echoed around the world. It is hard to 
     find a country or agency that hasn't condemned the torture of 
     Iraqi prisoners. From the Red Cross to the UN and from 
     Amnesty to the coalition's loyal ``deputy in the Pacific'', 
     the Australian premier John Howard, the world is united in 
     horror against the actions of the US and UK forces.
       The awful cost of these acts of barbarism by Britain and 
     America is summed up by ex-US Marine Lieutenant Colonel Bill 
     Cowan: ``We went to Iraq to stop things like this from 
     happening, and indeed, here they are happening under our 
     tutelage . . . If we don't tell this story, these kind of 
     things will continue, and we'll end up getting paid back 100 
     or 1000 times over.''
                                  ____


           [From the Christian Science Monitor, May 4, 2004]

                    ``Six Morons Who Lost the War''

                             (by Tom Regan)

       Regardless of the outcome of the now multiple 
     investigations into prisoner abuse at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib 
     prison, politicians and media around the world say the United 
     States' image has suffered a serious blow. Sen. Joe Biden (D) 
     of Delaware said on Fox News Sunday that ``This is the single 
     most significant undermining act that's occurred in a decade 
     in that region of the world in terms of our standing.''
       The Associated Press reports that a senior Bush 
     administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, 
     said the photos (of U.S. soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners) 
     hurt the U.S. efforts to win over an audience that is already 
     deeply skeptical of U.S. intentions. Arabs and Muslims, the 
     official added, ``are certain to seize upon the images as 
     proof that the American occupiers are as brutal as ousted 
     President Saddam Hussein's government.''
       Officials at the Defense Department are also said to be 
     ``livid,'' and well aware of the damage that has been done by 
     the incident, according to NBC News' Pentagon reporter Jim 
     Miklaszewski. Speaking on the Imus in the Morning radio/MSNBC 
     program Tuesday, Mr. Miklaszewski said he asked a Pentagon 
     contact about the soldiers alleged to be involved, to which 
     the Pentagon official replied, ``You mean the six morons who 
     lost the war?''
       The Chicago Tribune reports that other experts agree with 
     this assessment. ``The United States already had a huge 
     perception problem in the Arab world,'' said Stephen Walt, a 
     professor of international affairs at Harvard's Kennedy 
     School of Government. ``This is only going to reinforce the 
     belief that the United States is anti-Arab and anti-Muslim, 
     whether it's true or not.''
       As the Financial Times noted, even before the incidents at 
     Abu Ghraib, opinion polls taken in Iraq and other Muslim and 
     non-Muslim nations ``indicated an almost global nadir of U.S. 
     credibility and popularity.'' And the Times reports that the 
     U.S.'s much hailed public relations campaign in the Middle 
     East is ``floundering.''
       The New York Times reported late last week that Margaret 
     Tutwiler, the woman who was put in charge of the program to 
     make changes in the U.S.'s ``public diplomacy effort'' 
     announced she was leaving the job to take a position with the 
     New York Stock Exchange. The Financial Times also reports 
     that experts on the Middle East say public relations programs 
     or new pro-US TV channels will not change the way people in 
     the Arab world feel. ``It is not the case that Arabs and 
     Muslims feel antipathy towards the U.S. because they are 
     being brainwashed by Al Jazeera or reading state-controlled 
     media in Egypt--it's American policy,'' said Samer Shehata, 
     professor of Arab politics at Georgetown University. 
     ``Regardless of how many radio stations you have that play 
     great music, or TV stations like al-Hurra, as long as U.S. 
     policy--whether it be in Iraq or Palestine--remains the same 
     you are not going to win hearts and minds.''
       Rashid Khalidi, director of the Middle East Institute at 
     Columbia University, echoes this view. ``I think the United 
     States is less respected at the end of these 13 months than 
     it has ever been,'' he said. ``Never has a country with such 
     unlimited power been so pitifully unable to affect outcomes. 
     Ruthless, murderous terrorists can strike at will in the 
     United States and the U.S. can't take Fallujah?''
       In the same article, by Agence-France Presse, Robert 
     Leiber, professor of government and foreign service at 
     Georgetown University, argues, however, in favor of keeping 
     ``things in perspective.'' ``The photographs and, more 
     importantly, the acts themselves are harmful to the cause of 
     helping the Iraqis form a stable and democratic country,'' 
     Leiber said, but he noted that such treatment is contrary to 
     U.S. policy. ``We must keep in mind that, although this has 
     been an ugly business, it pales in comparison to what Saddam 
     (Hussein) did to his own people over 30 years,'' he said.
       Unfortunately, many others believe that the damage has 
     already been done. The allegation of mistreatment of 
     prisoners ``makes the U.S. and coalition forces a legitimate 
     enemy in the eyes of more Arabs than was the case before,'' 
     said Anthony Cordesman, an expert on Middle East security 
     issues at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
       Mr. Cordesman, in another interview with Reuters, said the 
     mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners also hurts the war on terror. 
     ``Those Americans who mistreated the prisoners may not have 
     realized it, but they acted in the direct interests of Al 
     Qaeda, the insurgents, and the enemies of the U.S.'' ``These 
     negative images validate all other negative images and 
     interact with them,'' he [Cordesman] said in a statement, 
     citing ``careless U.S. rhetoric about Arabs and Islam,'' 
     failures to stabilize Iraq, continued Israeli-Palestinian 
     violence and fears the United States is out to dominate the 
     Middle East.
       The Miami Herald, in an editorial, writes that the exposure 
     of abuse at Abu Gharaib can ``seriously damage'' the success 
     of US operations, both militarily and otherwise, in Iraq. It 
     is too bad that the response so far, from President Bush's 
     perfunctory indignation to General Myers' blaming a few 
     wayward soldiers, badly misses the mark. The whole premise of 
     the US invasion of Iraq (as

[[Page 8568]]

     currently construed) is to rid the Iraqi people of a brutal 
     dictator and create a foothold for democracy in the Middle 
     East. The senseless humiliation and abuse of Iraqi 
     prisoners--many of whom were civilians and have since been 
     released without charges--is an indelible stain on that 
     endeavor.
       Yet in the end, The Christian Science Monitor reported 
     Monday, this latest incident may not have made all that much 
     difference to many in the Arab world because their opinion of 
     the US had already sunk as low as it could. That is why, 
     argues Rami Khouri, a Jordanian political analyst and editor 
     of Lebanon's Daily Star, the only thing that will 
     substantially change the US's image in the Muslim world, is a 
     change of policies. ``They [the US] have to be more even-
     handed in the Arab-Israeli issue, be less militaristic in 
     addressing regimes they don't like, be more consistent in 
     promoting democracy everywhere not only in a few places,'' 
     Khouri says. ``They can turn their image around, but only if 
     they turn their policies into more consistently fair and 
     reasonable ones.''

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I agree that the great 
majority, overwhelming majority of Americans serving in Iraq, military 
and civilian, are honorable people who have gone to great risk. They 
are among the victims of these outrages. It is a shameful thing that 
their bravery, their good work, their integrity has been besmirched. We 
owe it to them to do a full investigation.
  We heard reference to the six. I hope it is only six, but I am 
skeptical. Months ago I would have said it would not be six. Had these 
accusations been made months ago, I would have said, no, Americans do 
not act like that. We now have to acknowledge, tragically, sadly, 
heartsickeningly, that we do; and we owe it to everyone to have a full 
investigation. But we owe something more. We owe the people of this 
country and the people of adherence to the democratic process.
  What troubles me about this resolution is the persistence of the 
Republican majority in a pattern of using the rules of this House and 
their small majority to frustrate open democratic procedures. We have 
had a terrible blow to this country. We hope it was perpetrated only by 
a few, but the incompetence and indifference of superiors clearly 
contributed to it.
  We owe ourselves and the American people a full investigation. We are 
not even allowed under the majority's rules to put forward a motion 
calling for such an investigation. The other side of the aisle has 
already decided it is only the six. We are abusing the democratic 
process here.
  We are trying to teach the people of Iraq about democracy. One of the 
things we have been worried about is that a particular majority, the 
Shia, might not understand the importance of minority rule. We are 
trying to get them to understand how you do that difficult thing of 
reconciling majority control and majority's right to decide with full 
minority participation.
  The majority, Mr. Speaker, are giving them exactly the wrong example 
of how to do that. I suppose we ought to say to the people of Iraq who 
watch this narrow majority, for partisan purposes refuse to allow an 
open debate on this extraordinary issue. Please do not try this at 
home. We are giving them exactly the wrong example of how to proceed. 
This is a chance to show democracy. Yes, some people made a mistake. 
Let us throw this open and do everything possible to purge ourselves of 
this error and not appear to be cutting it off.
  So we are compounding the terrible misdeeds of that certain number of 
people, and we do not know how many in the prisons, by a partisan 
manipulation of the process. The other side of the aisle is doing a 
terrible thing.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, let me just answer the gentleman who has 
just spoken. There are three investigations going on right now. There 
is a CENTCOM investigation, a criminal investigation going on right 
now. If there are other people involved beyond these six, those people 
will be picked up in that investigation. There is also a Department of 
the Army investigation and a Department of the Navy investigation going 
on.
  Further, let me say to my friends, the ranking member, the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and I worked on this together. The 
Committee on Armed Services was the appropriate standing committee to 
do this. We worked on this until late last night, and the people who 
vetoed what we thought we had an agreement on were the Democrat 
leadership.
  Let me tell Members the two paragraphs they vetoed. They wanted to 
kick out the two paragraphs that referred to the good works in terms of 
providing food, providing education, providing medical capability to 
the Iraqi people that were given by our people in uniform. I thought it 
was appropriate since we have 300,000 people who have done right to 
continue to mention the fact that they have done some good things in 
Iraq. I think the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) agreed with 
that also.
  The Democrat leadership did not want to include those good things in 
this particular resolution, and that is why this had to come forward 
not under unanimous consent agreed to by the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton) and myself, but it had to come forward through the rules 
process.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would say two things. 
First, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the cosponsor, 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), are entitled to their 
decisions; but so is the whole House. It is the House that should 
decide whether paragraphs go in or out. I do not understand why the 
majority does not allow the House to vote.
  Secondly, I appreciate that some investigation is going on; but I am 
not a great believer in people investigating themselves and nobody 
else. I believe an outside investigation is necessary.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would simply say, 
before we knew about this, the criminal procedures were going forward. 
It was the United States Army soldier, not a press, not an IG who 
brought this forward. It was a United States Army soldier who brought 
this forward. Criminal investigations are going on, undertaken by the 
Army. The court martial process is in process.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter) apparently thinks that the Army has been the 
exemplar of good self-investigation. Many of us do not.
  But aside from that substantive issue, why is this not in a democracy 
a subject for full debate of the House, not a 1-hour constricted debate 
with no amendments allowed constructed by the majority?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleague that when the 
publicity flush is finished on what was done by who we have identified 
as some six individuals now, they will have received thousands and 
thousands, as much time and publicity as the 300,000 good Americans who 
have served this country, and as much attention from this Congress.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, all Americans have been horrified by the pictures and 
accounts of inhumane treatment of detainees in Iraq. The conduct in 
those pictures is absolutely intolerable, and the United States must 
take swift and decisive action to investigation and resolve this 
terrible incident and make sure it never happens again.
  While this resolution calls on the Secretary of the Army to conduct a 
full and thorough investigation into the allegations of mistreatment, 
take corrective action against those responsible and ensure that it 
never happens again, I believe Congress must also do its job and 
conduct its own investigation.

[[Page 8569]]



                              {time}  1230

  Mr. Speaker, Congress was never notified about the problems at Abu 
Ghraib prison, even though the Department of Defense had a report 
outlining the conditions there 3 months ago. As a partner in the War on 
Terror, Congress absolutely has not only the right, but the 
responsibility to investigate what went wrong up and down the chain of 
command.
  So today, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. 
If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule allowing for the consideration of an amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) affirming the need for bipartisan 
congressional investigations into these allegations are of abuse, 
including those by U.S. civilian contractor personnel or other U.S. 
civilians, and into the chain of command and other deficiencies that 
contributed to such abuse.
  Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker, voting ``no'' on the previous question 
will not prevent this House from voting on the underlying resolution, 
it will simply allow for the consideration of the Skelton amendment and 
allow the House to conduct a bipartisan investigation. It will allow us 
to do our job, what the people we represent expect us to do.
  Congress is a full partner in the war on terror. We need to do our 
job. We cannot call for accountability by others and then shirk our own 
responsibility. Let us do our part to resolve this awful situation and 
restore confidence and trust in our Nation and in our military.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the Record.

                 [From the New York Times, May 6, 2004]

                          Restoring Our Honor

                        (By Thomas L. Friedman)

       We are in danger of losing something much more important 
     that just the war in Iraq. We are in danger of losing America 
     as an instrument of moral authority and inspiration in the 
     world. I have never known a time in my life when America and 
     its president were more hated around the world than today. I 
     was just in Japan, and even young Japanese dislike us. It's 
     no wonder that so many Americans are obsessed with the finale 
     of the sitcom ``Friends'' right now. They're the only friends 
     we have, and even they're leaving.
       This administration needs to undertake a total overhaul of 
     its Iraq policy; otherwise, it is courting a total disaster 
     for us all.
       That overhaul needs to begin with President Bush firing 
     Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld--today, not tomorrow or 
     next month, today. What happened in Abu Ghraib prison was, at 
     best, a fundamental breakdown in the chain of command under 
     Mr. Rumsfeld's authority, or, at worst, part of a deliberate 
     policy somewhere in the military-intelligence command of 
     sexually humiliating prisoners to soften them up for 
     interrogation, a policy that ran amok.
       Either way, the secretary of defense is ultimately 
     responsible, and if we are going to rebuild our credibility 
     as instruments of humanitarian values, the rule of law and 
     democratization, in Iraq or elsewhere, Mr. Bush must hold his 
     own defense secretary accountable. Words matter, but deeds 
     matter more. If the Pentagon leadership ran any U.S. company 
     with the kind of abysmal planning in this war, it would have 
     been fired by shareholders months ago.
       I know that tough interrogations are vital in a war against 
     a merciless enemy, but outright torture, or this sexual-
     humiliation-for-entertainment, is abhorrent. I also know the 
     sort of abuse that went on in Abu Ghraib prison goes on in 
     prisons all over the Arab world every day, as it did under 
     Saddam--without the Arab League or Al Jazeera ever saying a 
     word about it. I know they are shameful hypocrites, but I 
     want my country to behave better--not only because it is 
     America, but also because the war on terrorism is a war of 
     ideas, and to have any chance of winning we must maintain the 
     credibility of our ideas.
       We were hit on 9/11 by people who believed hateful ideas--
     ideas too often endorsed by some of their own spiritual 
     leaders and educators back home. We cannot win a war of ideas 
     against such people by ourselves. Only Arabs and Muslims can. 
     What we could do--and this was the only legitimate rationale 
     for this war--was try to help Iraqis create a progressive 
     context in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world where that war 
     of ideas could be fought out.
       But it is hard to partner with someone when you become so 
     radioactive no one wants to stand next to you. We have to 
     restore some sense of partnership with the world if we are 
     going to successfully partner with Iraqis.
       Mr. Bush needs to invite to Camp David the five permanent 
     members of the U.N. Security Council, the heads of both NATO 
     and the U.N., and the leaders of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia 
     and Syria. There, he needs to eat crow, apologize for his 
     mistakes and make clear that he is turning a new page. 
     Second, he needs to explain that we are losing in Iraq, and 
     if we continue to lose the U.S. public will eventually demand 
     that we quit Iraq, and it will then become Afghanistan-on-
     steroids, which will threaten everyone. Third, he needs to 
     say he will be guided by the U.N. in forming the new 
     caretaker government in Baghdad. And fourth, he needs to 
     explain that he is ready to listen to everyone's ideas about 
     how to expand our force in Iraq, and have it work under a new 
     U.N. mandate, so it will have the legitimacy it needs to 
     crush any uprisings against the interim Iraqi government and 
     oversee elections--and then leave when appropriate. And he 
     needs to urge them all to join in.
       Let's not lose sight of something--as bad as things look in 
     Iraq it is not yet lost, for one big reason: America's 
     aspirations for Iraq and those of the Iraqi silent majority, 
     particularly Shiites and Kurds, are still aligned. We both 
     want Iraqi self-rule and then free elections. That overlap of 
     interests, however clouded, can still salvage something 
     decent from this war--if the Bush team can finally screw up 
     the courage to admit its failures and dramatically change 
     course.
       Yes, the hour is late, but as long as there's a glimmer of 
     hope that this Bush team will do the right thing, we must 
     insist on it, because America's role in the world is too 
     precious--to America and to the rest of the world--to be 
     squandered like this.
                                  ____


                [From the Washington Post, May 6, 2004]

                         Who Should Have Known?

                           (By Richard Cohen)

       This week the United States Army did the oddest thing in 
     this Age of Bush: It reprimanded six soldiers in connection 
     with the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal--not for what they did 
     but for not knowing what others were doing. An Army spokesman 
     put it this way: ``They should have known . . .'' If that's 
     the standard, then half the Bush administration will soon be 
     gone.
       Maybe first to get the accountability ax will be Defense 
     Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. He certainly should have known 
     that a scandal was brewing in Iraqi prisons, and he should 
     have bothered to read the Pentagon report detailing what went 
     wrong. Instead, the Pentagon tried to delay CBS's ``60 
     Minutes II'' from showing pictures of prisoner abuse and 
     then, in an amazing public relations offensive, sent the 
     chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Richard B. Myers, on three 
     Sunday talk shows to announce--a little bugle call here--that 
     he had not read the report either. It has been available 
     since March.
       As is almost always the case, the Pentagon did not tell the 
     State Department that a wee spot of trouble was coming its 
     way because, as we know, the Pentagon doesn't tell the State 
     Department anything. Who cares if a billion or so people in 
     the Islamic world have a snit? The Bushies hardly do 
     diplomacy anyway. It's for sissies. At a certain level--a 
     very high one--the Bush administration is as dysfunctional as 
     it is cocky.
       But if accountability is going to be the new order of the 
     day, there's no telling where things will wind up. What will 
     happen to CIA chief George Tenet, who assured the president 
     that Iraq was a virtual storehouse of weapons of mass 
     destruction? It was ``a slam dunk,'' the spy chief said. He 
     should have known otherwise, but he did not. No matter. 
     Instead of a reprimand, Bush always expresses confidence in 
     him and probably has given him a nickname, Slam Dunk George.
       Or take Condoleezza Rice. Should she have known that Bush 
     was blowing smoke when he told the Nation that Iraq had tried 
     to buy uranium from Niger? Yes, indeed. There was no such 
     nuclear program in Iraq, and it hadn't attempted to make that 
     uranium purchase. The CIA knew that, yet Bush said otherwise. 
     Once again, no reprimand. Instead, she was rewarded with more 
     sleepovers at Camp David.
       What about Dick Cheney? He was the leading hawk in the 
     White House, so anxious to go to war with Iraq that Secretary 
     of State Colin Powell characterized him as feverish. The vice 
     president repeatedly insisted that Iraq had ``reconstituted'' 
     its nuclear weapons program. Should he have known better? To 
     revert to Cheney talk, you betcha.
       Should Rumsfeld have known that stabilizing Iraq would 
     require more troops than he allotted? Gen. Eric K. Shinseki 
     had said so, but the Army chief of staff was brushed aside 
     and treated as an eccentric.
       Should Rummy and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, have known 
     that U.S. troops might not be universally greeted with 
     flowers, kisses and donations to the Bush reelection 
     campaign? It would have been prudent planning.
       Should they have known that Iraqi oil might not cover the 
     cost of the occupation? Probably. Should they have had enough 
     troops on the ground to prevent looting and a general 
     breakdown of law and order? Well, some might think so--but 
     not, apparently, the president.

[[Page 8570]]

       You and I can argue the wisdom of going into Iraq some 
     other time. What is not arguable, I think, is that the 
     invasion and occupation were marked every step of the way by 
     incompetence, smugness and repeated mistakes. Yet the only 
     people to feel the opprobrium of the White House are those, 
     such as Richard Clarke or Joseph Wilson, who had the nerve, 
     the gall, the immense chutzpah to question administration 
     policy.
       The new accountability could be a wonderful thing. It comes 
     a bit late in the game, maybe, and will almost surely be 
     limited to expendable underlings, but a supine Congress just 
     might get the idea and start asking some hard questions about 
     how things went so bad in Iraq. It might begin with Rumsfeld 
     and ask him a more pertinent version of that famous 
     question--not what did you know and when did you know it but 
     why, damn it, didn't you know it in the first place?
                                  ____


                            [From USA Today]

             Why Was Pattern of Abuse Ignored for so Long?

       The Bush administration swung into full damage-control mode 
     Wednesday, trying to quell a rising furor at home and abroad 
     over the shocking abuse of prisoners in Iraq by U.S. military 
     personnel.
       The general in charge of U.S.-run prisons in Iraq 
     apologized to the Iraqi people. Secretary of Defense Donald 
     Rumsfeld made the rounds of TV shows, claiming that the 
     mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison was an 
     aberration and pledging that those involved would be dealt 
     with swiftly and firmly. President Bush gave interviews to 
     two Arabic-language TV stations, calling the behavior 
     depicted in the photos broadcast on TV last week 
     ``abhorrent'' and counter to American values.
       The question none answered: What took so long?
       Documented complaints of mistreated prisoners in Iraq, 
     Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, date back two years, 
     including the cases of two Afghans whose deaths in 2002 were 
     recently ruled homicides.
       Unlike the Abu Ghraib mistreatment, those incidents were 
     not caught on film. The abuse was further obscured by the 
     still-lingering horror of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. But the 
     nation now risks paying a mighty price for its failure to 
     stand firmly in favor of international law and human dignity.
       Otherwise-neutral Muslims are enraged, aiding terrorists 
     and turning Iraqis against Americans. International support 
     for the war on terrorism has been undercut. At home, support 
     for Bush's attempt to bring peace and democracy to Iraq has 
     eroded. A Gallup Poll today shows the public's disapproval of 
     Bush's handling of Iraq has risen to 55%, the highest since 
     the war began.
       Ebbing support for the mission comes as the scandal keeps 
     expanding. U.S. officials reported Wednesday that the number 
     of prisoner deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan under 
     investigation or already blamed on U.S. captors has risen to 
     14. The deaths of two Iraqi prisoners are now considered 
     homicides, and 20 investigations are underway.
       Warning signs about abuses of Iraqi detainees had been 
     flashing for months:
       The Pentagon acknowledged this week that enough concerns 
     were raised last fall to prompt a ``top-level review'' of how 
     its Iraqi detection centers were being run.
       Abuses at Abu Ghraib were brought to the attention of 
     commanders in Iraq by a tip from an unidentified soldier in 
     January.
       A damning report by a general assigned to investigate the 
     charges has been lying around the Pentagon since March 3, 
     apparently without getting the attention of any top decision-
     maker. The report documented ``numerous incidents of 
     sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses.''
       The military brass could no longer ignore the problem last 
     week, when photos of U.S. soldiers gloating over naked 
     prisoners forced into degrading acts surfaced on CBS' 60 
     Minutes II. More details about the abuses, based on leaks 
     from the then-secret military report, appeared in The New 
     Yorker this week. Even then, the Pentagon shrugged off the 
     story as a case of a few renegade soldiers who already had 
     been punished. Worldwide outrage forced the Bush 
     administration to address the matter seriously.
       Some military personnel down the chain of command did the 
     right thing, notably the troops who blew the whistle at Abu 
     Ghraib and leaked photos to the media when superiors failed 
     to take stern action. But top commanders seemed more 
     concerned with keeping the scandal quiet than ensuring that 
     those who committed abuses would be punished and the 
     attitudes that allowed such behavior would not be tolerated.
       Defenders of the military say the abuse was the work of a 
     few sadistic prison officers and overzealous intelligence 
     agents in Iraq, and some already are being disciplined.
       Perhaps so. But their arguments do not explain a climate 
     that resulted in abuses from Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay.
       Now that the Pentagon has finally acknowledged the problem, 
     it needs to investigate thoroughly, punish those who 
     committed or tolerated abuses and implement safeguards to 
     prevent a recurrence.
       Those steps could begin to repair the enormous damage the 
     scandal has caused.
                                  ____


               [From the Los Angeles Times, May 4, 2004]

 When We're the Evildoers in Iraq: With Immoral U.S. Leadership, Is It 
              so Shocking To Find Torturers in the Ranks?

                           (By Robert Scheer)

       President Bush is again refusing to take responsibility for 
     any of the horrors happening on his watch. This time it is 
     the abuse of Iraqi prisoners carried out by low-ranking 
     military police working under the direct guidance of military 
     intelligence officers and shadowy civilian mercenaries. Our 
     president launched this war with the promise to the Iraqi 
     people of ``no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The 
     tyrant will soon be gone.'' What went wrong?
       The president has called the now-exposed pattern of 
     violence an isolated crime performed by ``a few people.'' Yet 
     the Pentagon's own investigation of the incident shows that 
     not only was the entire Abu Ghraib prison out of control, it 
     was the MPs' immediate military superiors who ``directly or 
     indirectly'' authorized ``sadistic, blatant and wanton 
     criminal abuses'' of the prisoners as a way to break them in 
     advance of formal interrogations.
       ``Military intelligence interrogators and other U.S. 
     government agency interrogators actively requested that MP 
     guards set physical and mental conditions for favorable 
     interrogation of witnesses,'' says the report. The report, 
     completed in March and kept secret until it was revealed on 
     the New Yorker website Friday, also stated that a civilian 
     contractor employed by a Virginia company called CACI 
     ``clearly knew his instructions'' to the MPs called for 
     physical abuse.
       Furthermore, in a statement released Friday, Amnesty 
     International reported that in its extensive investigations 
     into human rights in post-invasion Iraq, it ``has received 
     frequent reports of torture or other ill treatment by 
     coalition forces during the past year,'' including during 
     interrogations, and that ``virtually none of the allegations 
     of torture or ill treatment has been adequately investigated 
     by the authorities.''
       Recall that a key excuse for the U.S. invasion was to 
     ensure the safety of Iraqi scientists and others in the know 
     so that they might feel free to reveal the location of 
     weapons of mass destruction or evidence of Saddam Hussein's 
     potential ties to Al Qaeda. Shockingly, some of those 
     scientists are now in coalition prisons, even though the 
     weapons clearly don't exist.
       In this context, of course, it makes sense that U.S. 
     interrogators would feel enormous pressure to use any means 
     necessary to verify the absurd claims made so aggressively by 
     the president and his Cabinet before the war. Far from the 
     jurisdiction of the U.S. legal system, they apparently felt 
     quite free to approve techniques clearly banned by war crimes 
     statutes.
       Yet, astonishingly, weeks after the Pentagon's own damning 
     internal report on the torture at Abu Ghraib, and several 
     days after CBS' ``60 Minutes II'' broke open the story 
     worldwide by showing those horrific photos, Defense Secretary 
     Donald H. Rumsfeld still had not been briefed on the report, 
     a spokesman said Sunday. Similarly, the chairman of the Joint 
     Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard B. Myers, admitted Sunday that 
     he hadn't yet bothered to read the 53-page report filed by 
     Army Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, even though he had 
     successfully requested that CBS delay its ``inflammatory'' 
     broadcast. This shows far more concern for public relations 
     than for finding out the truth.
       How could it be that the top officials responsible for the 
     military were not themselves interested in keeping abreast of 
     the investigation--even after the story had exploded into a 
     global scandal?
       After all, an ambitious promise to bring democracy and the 
     rule of law to Iraq became the ex post facto rationale for 
     the invasion, once it became clear that the earlier claims of 
     weapons of mass destruction and Hussein ties to Al Qaeda were 
     a fraud.
       So it should have been a clear and high priority to make 
     certain that Iraqi prisoners incarcerated in Hussein's most 
     infamous prison did not receive the same brand of ``justice'' 
     the dictator had been doling out for decades. That they did 
     is now a deep and dirty stain on the reputation of this 
     nation.
       Yes, it's great that we are still worlds away from being 
     Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia or Hussein's Iraq.
       We are a free society in which, it is hoped, truth 
     eventually comes out, and thanks to what seems to be one 
     brave whistle-blowing soldier and a responsible officer to 
     whom he reported the torture, these crimes have come to 
     light. Those are the acts of true heroes, and we should be 
     proud of them.
       Yet, before we go overboard in celebrating our virtues, 
     let's admit that Americans too can be ``evildoers,'' 
     especially when we embrace, as the president consistently has 
     done, the terribly dangerous idea that the ends justify the 
     means.
       The ultimate cost of a foreign policy based on blatant 
     lies, and that equates military might with what is right, is 
     that the brute in all of us will not inevitably lie dormant.

  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment 
be printed in the Congressional Record immediately before the vote on 
the previous question.

[[Page 8571]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  This is an important resolution, and I think it is fitting we have 
this debate on this. But I would remind my friends on the other side of 
the aisle that we have a system here where we break down this big body 
into committees. That is the proper way we get to the heart of some of 
the issues that confront us. And I just talked to the chairman of the 
Committee on Armed Services, and they are going to have hearings on 
this. There will be probably several hearings as this process goes 
through, and I suspect that there will be probably some other 
committees that will find out if they will have jurisdiction and will 
look at that.
  So I just want to say that this is a start of a process that we need 
to address. Everybody is outraged by what happened over there with that 
small group of individuals in Iraq. That is not America, and we all 
know that. We all know that is not America, and that is why I think 
this resolution will be pass with strong bipartisan support.
  And I would say this, Mr. Speaker: I thought the President, in his 
two interviews with the Arab TV stations, said it very well. He was 
very forthright. And in many respects, what we are just saying here 
today is a message to the Iraqis and to the Middle East that our form 
of government and the form of government they are struggling to have, 
does not condone what went on, and I think that is a very strong 
message.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out a couple of 
things.
  First of all, hearings are not investigations, and a lot of us feel 
that what we are doing here is just kind of shirking our 
responsibility. So a vote for the previous question means a vote 
against bipartisan congressional investigations. No one on the other 
side has yet explained to us why, in fact, a bipartisan investigation 
is a bad idea, why we should not be allowed to do our job. That is what 
we are asking for here.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I 
appreciate what the gentleman is asking for, and as I mentioned in my 
remarks, we do have a committee system. The chairman of the committee 
said that there are going to be those investigations, and I suspect 
there will be others that will look at it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that 
we have a committee system, but it is not a substitute for debate and 
amendment on the floor of the House, even to debate whether or not we 
do this and the substance. The committee system should not be something 
behind which you hide to avoid debate that you might find 
uncomfortable.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would 
just remind my friend that we do not know what is going to come out of 
these hearings. There may be some legislation that comes out. It will 
go through the process, and if there is something, it will get to the 
floor and we will have that debate.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the 
gentleman the committees are the servants of the House, not the other 
way around. The committees exist to do the will of the House. The full 
democratic House does not wait for the committees.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

       In the resolution strike ``and (2)'' and insert the 
     following:
       ``(2) the amendment specified in Section 2 of this 
     resolution if offered by Representative Skelton of Missouri 
     or a designee, which shall be in order without intervention 
     of any point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall 
     be separately debatable for 60 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3)''
       At the end of the resolution add the following:
       Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in the first section of 
     the resolution is as follows:
       At the end of H. Res. 627 strike ``nation.'', insert in 
     lieu thereof ``nation;'' and add the following:
       ``(11) affirms the need for bipartisan Congressional 
     investigations to be conducted immediately into these 
     allegations of abuse, including those by U.S. civilian 
     contractor personnel, or other U.S. civilians, and into the 
     chain of command and other systemic deficiencies, including 
     the command atmosphere that contributed to such abuse.''

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of 
adoption of the resolution, and then on the motion to instruct 
conferees on H.R. 2443 by the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), 
and then on the motion to suspend the rules on H.R. 402 debated 
yesterday.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218, 
nays 201, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 147]

                               YEAS--218

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey

[[Page 8572]]


     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--201

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Baca
     Bono
     Boyd
     DeMint
     Greenwood
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Saxton
     Solis
     Tauzin
     Wilson (SC)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) (during the vote). Members are 
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1258

  Mr. HOEFFEL and Ms. ESHOO changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 147 I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________