Brownfield Cleanup Enhancement Act of 2003

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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.

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 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. 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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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. 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.

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

``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.''

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.

[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. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 628 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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 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. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).

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 asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), the distinguished Republican Conference chairman.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

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 asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

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.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

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. 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. 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 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. 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.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

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. 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.