[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12496-12501]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this is, indeed, an exciting time and 
moment. We have an 8-billion-gallon national renewable fuel standard 
that is going to be part of the Senate Energy bill. A previous bill I 
sponsored with Senator Lugar and 18 other Senators serves as much of 
the basis for what we now have before us. This amendment takes us a 
bold step closer to improving the Nation's energy security, domestic 
and farm economy, and our environment.
  To say we have a growing problem with energy in this country is an 
understatement. Today, about 97 percent of our transportation fuel 
comes from oil, two-thirds of that from foreign sources. This excessive 
dependence on petroleum undermines our national security, as we all 
know, and it reeks havoc on consumers who are now dealing with record-
high gasoline prices. Our policy today costs us jobs. There are 27,000 
lost U.S. jobs for every $1 billion in imported oil. Our present policy 
damages our environment with fully one-third of the greenhouse gases 
now coming from vehicle emissions alone.
  And the truth is, the problem is not going away, it is only getting 
worse.
  Right now we are importing 60 percent of our oil from foreign 
countries. That percent is expected to increase, not decrease, to about 
70 percent by 2025.
  According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, America spends 
$200,000 per minute on foreign oil, or $13 million an hour. And more 
than $25 billion goes to the Persian Gulf imports alone. A study by the 
Department of Energy found that our dependency on oil from unsteady 
regimes outside our borders has cost the country an astonishing $7 
trillion over the last 30 years, measured in current dollars.
  If these figures are not disturbing enough, here is one more. 
According to the National Defense Council Foundation, the economic 
penalties of America's oil dependence are between $297 billion to $304 
billion annually.
  The Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, using this data, 
calculated the hidden costs at the gas pump. Everyone thinks we are 
paying around--I heard my friend from New York say in New York the 
price of gas is $2.25, in Iowa it is around $2.03, $2.05, and around 
here it is about $2.10 a gallon. That is what we think we are paying. 
But the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, using the data 
about the hidden costs, has determined that the real cost of a gallon 
of gas at the pump is more than $7 a gallon. A typical tankful of gas 
really would cost more than $140.
  What are those hidden costs? Add up what we are spending in the 
military alone in the Mideast and you come pretty close to the figure.
  We have a choice. We can stand by, feed our addiction to foreign oil, 
or we can make a decisive shift now toward clean domestic renewable 
fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. This will allow us to wean the 
U.S. economy from its dangerous level of dependence on foreign oil that 
is a clear and present danger to our economy and national security.
  The renewable fuels standard will more than double the amount of 
ethanol and biodiesel in our fuel supply by 2012. It will firmly commit 
our Nation to clean, secure, diversified sources of domestic energy, 
not in some distant future but immediately in the years ahead.

[[Page 12497]]

  Domestic ethanol production grew 21 percent in 2004 to more than 3.4 
billion gallons. I might just add, ethanol was introduced seamlessly in 
California and New York, where it helped to buffer rising crude oil 
prices.
  I know my good friend from New York had to leave, but I have since 
found out that right now there are two large production ethanol plants 
planned for construction in the State of New York; two big ones, one 
that is 100 million gallons a year, the other a bit smaller, being 
constructed right now in New York and more to come online later on.
  Why is that? Because the technology is developing at a rapid pace to 
produce ethanol, not just from corn or sugar but from underutilized 
materials such as cornstalks, wood waste, cellulosic material, all 
kinds of biomass feedstocks.
  So what we are doing makes sense. With an 8-billion-gallon renewable 
fuels standard, we establish a strong floor for the time frame under 
consideration. The fact is, we will have no trouble whatsoever 
producing enough ethanol to meet this standard. As I said, the industry 
already has the capacity to produce nearly 4 billion gallons of ethanol 
a year.
  I will be frank. A lot of this does come from my State of Iowa. We 
lead the Nation in biofuels production. I am proud of that. I am proud 
of the fact that 11 of the 16 ethanol plants in my State are 
predominantly owned by farmers. We have biodiesel plants as well. 
Biofuels plants are being built in many other places, too, but also in 
my State.
  These farmer-owned biofuels plants are adding value to our rural 
economies. According to a recent study, each typical ethanol plant 
creates 700 jobs, expands the local economic base by more than $140 
million, and provides an average 13-percent annual return on investment 
over 10 years to a farmer investor.
  Iowa's 16 ethanol plants and 3 biodiesel plants, with more on the 
way, serve as local engines of economic growth. Our ethanol plants are 
expected to contribute $4 billion annually to the State's economy once 
all are in production, with more than 5,000 direct and indirect jobs. 
Once all of the plants are online, the industry will utilize about 500 
million bushels of Iowa corn each year.
  That was just for Iowa. Nationally, this renewable fuels standard is 
expected to create over 200,000 new jobs and add nearly $200 billion to 
our gross domestic product. Within 10 years, this standard will replace 
more than 3 billion barrels of foreign oil, more to reduce import 
dependence over this time than the economically recoverable oil in the 
Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, before production even begins there.
  I say again to my friend from New York, there is a choice. We can 
continue to spend our money--approximately $25 billion a year--in the 
Persian Gulf, or we can start spending it at home, not just in Iowa but 
in Georgia, New York, Illinois, and all over this country, where we are 
going to see these plants being built.
  So we know that renewable fuels are good products. We know we can 
meet the demand. We know that it will help us in a lot of ways.
  The Consumer Federation of America came out with a study just a month 
ago that found consumers could save as much as 8 cents per gallon if 
more ethanol were blended into the Nation's fuel supply. Well, I bet my 
friend's moms who are driving kids to school, as he mentioned, would 
like to save 8 cents per gallon as they buy their gasoline.
  A story in the New York Times over the weekend reported that 
consumers in my home State of Iowa are saving up to 10 cents per gallon 
with ethanol blended gasoline. I will bet consumers in other States 
would like to have that same savings.
  I have heard one other comment made about this renewable fuels issue 
saying it is going to be bad for the environment. That is not true. 
First, it is renewable. It is made from homegrown renewable materials, 
not pumped out of wells half a world away and shipped to us. When is 
the last time one ever heard about an ethanol spill killing birds, 
marine life, or polluting coastlines? The answer is never, and it never 
will happen because ethanol is nontoxic and it is biodegradable.
  Here is something else that my colleagues hear a lot about, that it 
takes more energy to produce it then is gotten out of it. Again, 
nonsense. Ethanol is energy efficient. Every 100 Btus of energy used to 
produce ethanol--that includes the planting, the harvesting, the 
cultivating, the processing--yields 135 Btus of ethanol. So 100 Btus 
in, 135 out. By comparison, the same 100 Btus of energy used in the 
transportation, shipping, and refining of oil yields only 85 Btus in 
gasoline.
  Someone might ask: Well, why is that? Very simply, sunlight is free. 
The rain is free. These things grow. Sunlight and nature are being used 
as free assets to get ethanol. So just from an energy efficiency 
standpoint, we ought to be moving ahead aggressively.
  Lastly, my friend also said something about emissions. Well, the fact 
is ethanol reduces key emissions such as carbon monoxide, particulates 
that cause smog. In a recent study by the Argonne National Lab, ethanol 
was found to significantly lower carbon dioxide emissions, the main gas 
contributing to global warming.
  A lot of people in this body want to address the issue of climate 
change. Yet some fail to see how biofuels are an essential component of 
any greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategy. Keep in mind, when 
ethanol is burned, is carbon dioxide being put out there? Yes, it is. 
So you might say that adds to greenhouse gases, but keep in mind, that 
the corn plant or that tree or whatever it is that is grown that one 
gets the ethanol out of, it is taking carbon dioxide out of the air. 
Not true of the oil that is pumped out of the ground. It puts carbon 
dioxide into the air but never takes it out. That is why renewable 
fuels are so important for our environment. Yes, it would put carbon 
dioxide in the air, but as it grows, using that sunlight and rain to 
grow, it takes carbon dioxide out.
  The renewable fuels standard is sound public policy. It is a key part 
of any plan to wean our Nation off of foreign oil. Contrary to what my 
friend from New York said--I am sorry he had to leave--there is a 
built-in flexibility through a system of tradable credits for oil 
refiners who exceed their minimum requirement. It includes waiver 
language from the requirements of the renewable fuels standard for a 
region or a State if circumstances warrant it. It rewards production of 
emerging biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol that provide tremendous 
value to our country, our farmers, and the environment.
  Again, these and other provisions are all in the renewable fuels 
standard amendment that is being offered to the energy bill. That is 
why it is so important that we keep the standard in there, that we move 
ahead, wean ourselves off of Persian Gulf oil, clean up the 
environment, and put the money in this country. Let us spend our money 
developing energy in America rather than over in the Persian Gulf.
  I yield the floor, and I thank my colleague from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). The Senator from Illinois is 
recognized for up to 25 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Let me thank my colleague from Iowa. He and I have 
something in common: We are interested in alcohol fuels, ethanol and 
diesel. We understand these are homegrown. You don't have to wait for 
the OPEC cartel to decide to send them to you. We grow the corn in the 
field, and one out of every six bushels of corn that is grown in 
America creates ethanol, alcohol fuel.
  Earlier, my colleague and friend from New York was talking about, 
What could this possibly mean to farmers? He doesn't understand the 
mechanics of the market. More demand raises prices. Demand for corn to 
use it to create ethanol and alcohol fuels will help farmers. As 
farmers receive higher prices for their corn, there are lower payments 
in the Federal programs. The taxpayers are going to benefit as well.
  Mr. HARKIN. That is right.
  Mr. DURBIN. What the Senator from New York failed to note--and I was 
about to interrupt him, but since I live with him, I interrupt him all 
the

[[Page 12498]]

time--I just live with him in Washington, incidentally; there is a 
family situation otherwise. What I was going to remind him was when 
these trucks are coming in with ethanol into New York and getting 
stalled in traffic and burning up their fuel, if they have ethanol in 
their tanks, there is less pollution in his beautiful New York City. So 
we have another added benefit here--not just more income for farmers 
and less in payments by taxpayers for farm programs but cleaner air and 
less dependence on foreign oil.
  I hope Senator Harkin and I can take this on as a class project, to 
try to work on Senator Schumer from New York. He is a very delightful 
man and does a great job for his State, but he needs some very 
fundamental education on corn and ethanol and what it means for 
America.
  Mr. HARKIN. I join with the Senator. We will do a little educating 
for him.
  Mr. DURBIN. This is probably a task we should not undertake because 
it is momentous, but we will try anyway. This is the Energy bill. It is 
a big bill, as you can tell. I sat down and did something kind of 
unique: I decided to read it, just to decide what we are voting on. I 
don't say that entirely in a negative fashion because some of this is 
so technical, you need to have staff go through and figure out exactly 
what is happening in this bill.
  The one thing that is most important about this bill is not the fact 
that Senator Domenici of New Mexico has worked so hard on it with 
Senator Bingaman and done such a good job on a bipartisan basis to 
bring it to us. That is a positive thing, and I complimented Senator 
Domenici about it earlier. What is troubling about this bill is it is 
setting out to establish:

     the enhancement of the energy security of the United States.

  Since it is setting out to establish America's energy policy, you 
would think to yourself, How do most Americans come in contact with 
energy each day? Certainly when you flip the lights on in the morning 
or in the evening, you come in contact with electricity, but equally 
so, when you get into that car or into that truck or on that bus, you 
are in contact with the energy policy of America.
  If that is an important part of our life experience with energy, if 
over 60 percent of all the oil we bring into the United States is used 
to fuel vehicles, trucks and cars, you would just assume that a large 
part of this bill of almost 800 pages must be devoted to the whole 
question of the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks. Isn't that obvious? 
Wouldn't that be one of the first things?
  Sadly, you are going to have to search long and hard to find any 
reference in here to the fuel economy and fuel efficiency of cars and 
trucks in America. The question I have asked over and over again is, 
How can you have an honest energy policy for America and not talk about 
that? How can you really have a policy that reduces our dependence on 
foreign oil if we do not talk about more fuel-efficient cars and 
trucks--more conservation?
  I don't think you can. The only provision in this bill that addresses 
that, in the most indirect and oblique way, says that over the next 10 
years, we will reduce the demand for oil in America by 1 million 
barrels a day. That is a good thing. I support that. It doesn't spell 
out how we will do it. Frankly, it doesn't reflect the ambition we 
should have in putting together this bill because we can do better. We 
can do a lot better.
  Tomorrow, Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington is going to offer the 
amendment from the Democratic side about energy policy. It is our lead 
amendment. The reason it is our lead amendment is we believe it gets to 
the heart of the question. Here is what we believe in our Democratic 
Senate caucus. We think we should add to this bill language which says: 
Over the next 20 years, we will reduce our dependence on foreign oil in 
America by 40 percent.
  Frankly, I think we can do better, but we establish a standard of 40 
percent. Today, 58 percent of all of the oil that we burn each day in 
America comes from overseas--58 percent. Unchecked, unchanged, it is 
estimated that in 20 years, it will be 68 percent. More than two out of 
every three barrels of oil will be imported into the United States.
  If the Democratic amendment is adopted--and I hope it is, on a 
bipartisan basis--if we reduce the foreign imports by 40 percent over 
the next 20 years, the number will go from 58 percent to 56 percent. 
That is still too high, but to do nothing means that our dependence on 
foreign oil will grow.
  Depending on foreign oil means depending on the people who own it. I 
do not want my future, the future of my children or grandchildren, in 
the hands of the Saudi Royal Family. That is what their future will be 
tied to--in a world where there will be even more competition over OPEC 
oil.
  You cannot pick up a magazine or an article anywhere that does not 
refer to the growth of China and its economy. They are just sucking 
away jobs from America, to paraphrase Ross Perot, and creating new 
opportunities for jobs in a country that is deficient in energy. So 
they are looking all over the world to find where they can import gas 
and oil so they can fuel the growing Chinese economy.
  What it means, of course, is China will be our competitor for that 
oil in the years to come. If we do not take care to reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil, we will find ourselves in a predicament even 
worse than today, where the cost of oil will be increasing because of 
increased demand for limited resources, and our dependence will be 
increasing at the same time. What a recipe for economic disaster in 
America.
  I will tell you one thing that is troubling. Remember the only 
provision in this bill related to fuel efficiency that I mentioned 
earlier that wants to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by a million 
barrels a day? We just got an official statement from the Bush White 
House today--they oppose that provision. They want to take it out of 
the bill. That is the only provision in the bill relative to fuel 
efficiency and fuel economy, and they want to have it taken out of the 
bill.
  This is the same administration that does not concede the fact that 
there is global warming, the same administration which last week had to 
dismiss a man who was doctoring environmental documents and statements 
to make it look as if there is no threat of global warming. This same 
administration says they want to take out the only provision in the 
bill that would move us toward less dependence on foreign oil. What are 
they thinking? This is the leadership in the White House?
  The President can walk, literally hand in hand, with a Saudi prince 
at his ranch in Texas, but does America want to walk hand in hand with 
a Saudi prince for the next 20 years? Not me--no. I want to see us move 
toward energy independence. It is not likely we will reach it in its 
entirety in my lifetime, but don't we owe it to future generations to 
lessen our dependence on foreign oil?
  Which moves me to a second topic, which is related. That dependence 
on foreign oil draws us into a lot of predicaments around the world. 
Ask the 150,000 American soldiers in Iraq today. Ask whether we would 
be as focused as we are on the Middle East and its stability if we were 
not dependent on those oil tankers every single day leaving that 
Arabian peninsula, the Arabian area, coming into the United States with 
this oil we need so desperately. I do not think it is likely we would 
be there with that much intensity of feeling. But we are there.
  Because of our dependence on foreign oil, we have been drawn into a 
conflict, now more than 2 years in length, with no end in sight. I was 
one of 23 Senators who voted against the Use of Force Resolution that 
authorized President Bush to invade Iraq. That was not because I had 
any sympathy for Saddam Hussein--I never have had--but because I 
believed this administration had misled the American people about the 
real threat in Iraq. It turns out afterward we were misled, there were 
no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear weapons, no connection with 
9/11. It turns out the threats we were told existed did not exist. The 
American people were misled.

[[Page 12499]]

  Sadly, this administration took the best military in the world and 
invaded Iraq and very quickly made short order of Saddam Hussein and 
his troops but didn't know what to do next. They won the war. They 
couldn't figure out how to win the peace. And we still pay the heaviest 
possible price every single day because of their lack of preparedness.
  Think about it. Over the weekend, the number of American soldiers 
killed in Iraq in combat now has reached about 1,700--1,700 of our sons 
and daughters have given their lives in Iraq, with no end in sight. 
Soldiers sent into battle by an administration which has received every 
penny they have asked for from Congress to supply our troops. Soldiers 
sent into battle, killed, still today, in unarmored humvees. Soldiers 
without body armor. Soldiers without the proper equipment.
  I have been there. I have seen it. I have heard it. I have talked to 
these soldiers. I know a few weeks ago in Iraq this was the case. That, 
to me, is a tragedy and a travesty.
  What is also troubling is that this Congress is afraid to even ask 
the hard questions of this administration. When was the last time we 
had a serious hearing on Capitol Hill about the contract abuses of 
Halliburton in Iraq? We will have to search the Congressional Record 
long and hard to find there has not been such a hearing. We do not get 
into that issue. When was the last time we had a hearing on Capitol 
Hill about the serious problems we are having in recruiting new 
soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen? That is a big problem. The best 
military in the world needs the best men and women. Why is it they will 
not join the ranks to fight in this war in Iraq and Afghanistan? That 
is worth a hearing, isn't it? We are still waiting for it.
  There will be a hearing tomorrow--and I commend the chairman of the 
Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Arlen Specter--to discuss some of 
the basic issues about a very serious problem that we face.
  Mr. President, there has been a lot of discussion in recent days 
about whether to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. This 
debate misses the point. It is not a question of whether detainees are 
held at Guantanamo Bay or some other location. The question is how we 
should treat those who have been detained there. Whether we treat them 
according to the law or not does not depend on their address. It 
depends on our policy as a nation.
  How should we treat them? This is not a new question. We are not 
writing on a blank slate. We have entered into treaties over the years, 
saying this is how we will treat wartime detainees. The United States 
has ratified these treaties. They are the law of the land as much as 
any statute we passed. They have served our country well in past wars. 
We have held ourselves to be a civilized country, willing to play by 
the rules, even in time of war.
  Unfortunately, without even consulting Congress, the Bush 
administration unilaterally decided to set aside these treaties and 
create their own rules about the treatment of prisoners.
  Frankly, this Congress has failed to hold the administration 
accountable for its failure to follow the law of the land when it comes 
to the torture and mistreatment of prisoners and detainees.
  I am a member of the Judiciary Committee. For two years, I have asked 
for hearings on this issue. I am glad Chairman Specter will hold a 
hearing on wartime detention policies tomorrow. I thank him for taking 
this step. I wish other members of his party would be willing to hold 
this administration accountable as well.
  It is worth reflecting for a moment about how we have reached this 
point. Many people who read history remember, as World War II began 
with the attack on Pearl Harbor, a country in fear after being attacked 
decided one way to protect America was to gather together Japanese 
Americans and literally imprison them, put them in internment camps for 
fear they would be traitors and turn on the United States. We did that. 
Thousands of lives were changed. Thousands of businesses destroyed. 
Thousands of people, good American citizens, who happened to be of 
Japanese ancestry, were treated like common criminals.
  It took almost 40 years for us to acknowledge that we were wrong, to 
admit that these people should never have been imprisoned. It was a 
shameful period in American history and one that very few, if any, try 
to defend today.
  I believe the torture techniques that have been used at Abu Ghraib 
and Guantanamo and other places fall into that same category. I am 
confident, sadly confident, as I stand here, that decades from now 
people will look back and say: What were they thinking? America, this 
great, kind leader of a nation, treated people who were detained and 
imprisoned, interrogated people in the crudest way? I am afraid this is 
going to be one of the bitter legacies of the invasion of Iraq.
  We were attacked on September 11, 2001. We were clearly at war.
  We have held prisoners in every armed conflict in which we have 
engaged. The law was clear, but some of the President's top advisers 
questioned whether we should follow it or whether we should write new 
standards.
  Alberto Gonzales, then-White House chief counsel, recommended to the 
President the Geneva Convention should not apply to the war on 
terrorism.
  Colin Powell, who was then Secretary of State, objected strenuously 
to Alberto Gonzales' conclusions. I give him credit. Colin Powell 
argued that we could effectively fight the war on terrorism and still 
follow the law, still comply with the Geneva Conventions. In a memo to 
Alberto Gonzales, Secretary Powell pointed out the Geneva Conventions 
would not limit our ability to question the detainees or hold them even 
indefinitely. He pointed out that under Geneva Conventions, members of 
al-Qaida and other terrorists would not be considered prisoners of war.
  There is a lot of confusion about that so let me repeat it. The 
Geneva Conventions do not give POW status to terrorists.
  In his memo to Gonzales, Secretary Powell went on to say setting 
aside the Geneva Conventions ``will reverse over a century of U.S. 
policy and practice . . . and undermine the protections of the law of 
war for our own troops . . . It will undermine public support among 
critical allies, making military cooperation more difficult to 
sustain.''
  When you look at the negative publicity about Guantanamo, Secretary 
Colin Powell was prophetic.
  Unfortunately, the President rejected Secretary Powell's wise 
counsel, and instead accepted Alberto Gonzales' recommendation, issuing 
a memo setting aside the Geneva Conventions and concluding that we 
needed ``new thinking in the law of war.''
  After the President decided to ignore Geneva Conventions, the 
administration unilaterally created a new detention policy. They claim 
the right to seize anyone, including even American citizens, anywhere 
in the world, including in the United States, and hold them until the 
end of the war on terrorism, whenever that may be.
  For example, they have even argued in court they have the right to 
indefinitely detain an elderly lady from Switzerland who writes checks 
to what she thinks is a charity that helps orphans but actually is a 
front that finances terrorism.
  They claim a person detained in the war on terrorism has no legal 
rights--no right to a lawyer, no right to see the evidence against 
them, no right to challenge their detention. In fact, the Government 
has claimed detainees have no right to challenge their detention, even 
if they claim they were being tortured or executed.
  This violates the Geneva Conventions, which protect everyone captured 
during wartime.
  The official commentary on the convention states:

       Nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law.

  That is clear as it can be. But it was clearly rejected by the Bush 
administration when Alberto Gonzales as White House counsel recommended 
otherwise.
  U.S. military lawyers called this detention system ``a legal black 
hole.''

[[Page 12500]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  What should we do? Imagine if the President had followed Colin 
Powell's advice and respected our treaty obligations. How would things 
have been different?
  We still would have the ability to hold detainees and to interrogate 
them aggressively. Members of al-Qaida would not be prisoners of war. 
We would be able to do everything we need to do to keep our country 
safe. The difference is, we would not have damaged our reputation in 
the international community in the process.
  When you read some of the graphic descriptions of what has occurred

[[Page 12501]]

here--I almost hesitate to put them in the Record, and yet they have to 
be added to this debate. Let me read to you what one FBI agent saw. And 
I quote from his report:

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

  If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent 
describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you 
would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets 
in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no 
concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the 
action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. It is not too late. I hope we will learn from history. I 
hope we will change course. The President could declare the United 
States will apply the Geneva Conventions to the war on terrorism. He 
could declare, as he should, that the United States will not, under any 
circumstances, subject any detainee to torture, or cruel, inhuman, or 
degrading treatment. The administration could give all detainees a 
meaningful opportunity to challenge their detention before a neutral 
decisionmaker.
  Such a change of course would dramatically improve our image and it 
would make us safer. I hope this administration will choose that 
course. If they do not, Congress must step in.
  The issue debated in the press today misses the point. The issue is 
not about closing Guantanamo Bay. It is not a question of the address 
of these prisoners. It is a question of how we treat these prisoners. 
To close down Guantanamo and ship these prisoners off to undisclosed 
locations in other countries, beyond the reach of publicity, beyond the 
reach of any surveillance, is to give up on the most basic and 
fundamental commitment to justice and fairness, a commitment we made 
when we signed the Geneva Convention and said the United States accepts 
it as the law of the land, a commitment which we have made over and 
over again when it comes to the issue of torture. To criticize the rest 
of the world for using torture and to turn a blind eye to what we are 
doing in this war is wrong, and it is not American.
  During the Civil War, President Lincoln, one of our greatest 
Presidents, suspended habeas corpus, which gives prisoners the right to 
challenge their detention. The Supreme Court stood up to the President 
and said prisoners have the right to judicial review even during war.
  Let me read what that Court said:

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

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

                          ____________________