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.

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, pursuant to House Resolution 628, I call up 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, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, during the debate on the rule, I think every Member who was listening to the debate as they listened to a number of speeches being made over and over, sometimes the same things being said by different Members, they understand the subject which we are addressing today, which is the criminal acts of what has been identified so far as six individuals, with three of them having been recommended under article 32 of the UCMJ to the court martial convening authority for general court martial for abuse of prisoners, assault, and dereliction of duty.

That is one of the purposes of this resolution, for this House to condemn those activities. Understand that the criminal prosecutions have not taken place yet, the trials have not been held and that we are not passing judgment at this point on people who are being focused on as potential defendants in these cases. But I thought it was important, Mr. Speaker, to talk about the other people, because the tendency of the media and the discussion has been to forget about the 300,000 uniformed Americans who are serving our country with bravery, with compassion, with ingenuity and doing great things, not in their own communities, but in communities thousands of miles away where the only reward they may receive is from a kid that they have given a soccer ball to like hundreds of the 101 Airborne members, or for people whom they have hooked up a water supply as people have done in all of the cities throughout central Iraq or children that have been vaccinated by American medics. The only thanks they are going to get, obviously, is not going to come from the American press at this point because the American press is fixated on what you might call the six bad apples who have been identified to date, and there may be more. We all know that.

But the 300,000 who served honorably, they are not going to get too much attention here because it is not in keeping with a good sound bite today if you want to get on television to talk about the good things that have been done in the country.

My great partner on this Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), was in full accord with this. We wanted to make sure that the good people got talked about and that this did not turn into the action of the demoralization of our fighting forces in Iraq.

So we wanted to talk about the good things they have done. And this resolution, and I would commend it to every Democrat and Republican, from the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and all of the others who may have had trouble or problems with this resolution, I would commend it to them to approve and to support and to vote for.

I just wanted to say, Mr. Speaker, I am looking at right now some of the untold stories; and I wanted to cite an untold story to you, a couple of them. It is true that there were abuses so far by six people who have been identified in this Abu Ghraib prison; but while that was going on, Gunnery Sergeant Jeffrey Bohr of the United States Marine Corps was awarded the Silver Star posthumously for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action against the enemy while serving as Company Gunnery Sergeant, Company A, 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, Regimental Combat Team 5, 1st Marine Division.

While moving through narrow streets toward the objective, the convoy took intense small arms and rocket-propelled grenade fire. Throughout this movement, Gunnery Sergeant Bohr delivered accurate effective fires on the enemy, while encouraging his Marines and supplying critical information to his company commander. When the lead vehicles of the convoy reached a dead end and were subjected to heavy enemy fire, Gunnery Sergeant Bohr continued to boldly engage the enemy while calmly maneuvering his Marines to safety.

Upon learning of a wounded Marine in a forward vehicle, Gunnery Sergeant Bohr immediately coordinated medical treatment and evacuation. Moving to the position of the injured Marine, Gunnery Sergeant Bohr continued to lay down a high volume of suppressive fire, simultaneously guiding the medical evacuation vehicle until he was mortally wounded by enemy fire.

Yes, we had abuses by some six people. We have had apparent abuses by some six people who are now going through the criminal justice system of the U.S. Army, which I think our Members will find moves a lot faster than the domestic justice system. But at the same time, Corporal Marco Martinez was undertaking actions which led to him being awarded the second highest award that our government can give for heroism, the Navy Cross.

So I thought I might take a little bit of this time that was intended to beat up the U.S. military, to congratulate some of those 300,000 people who have served U.S. so well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), one of our great veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address what the gentlewoman just said because she has made a mistake. She said that the 3-month-old investigation has only now come to light. I have in front of me the news release that I will give to the gentlewoman. As of January 16, which was 3 days after the soldier came forward and gave to his commanding officer the evidence that bad things were taking place at the prison, CENTCOM released a news release to every news agency in the world stating that an investigation has been initiated into reported incidents of detainee abuse.

So they announced to the world 3 days after the soldier came forward in January that an investigation had been started; and General Kimmet announced to the combined audiences of Fox News, MSNBC and CNN, by my calculations over 20 million people, on January 16 that an investigation had been started. Outside of that, nobody was told.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell the gentlewoman the entire world was told by this news release.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think this is a very important point. The soldier came forward on January 13 and gave this evidence to his commanding officer that prisoners were being abused. CENTCOM announced to the world through their official news release that they were investigating this 3 days later; and General Kimmet, who was before an audience of some 20 million people three days later, January 16, announced it was in fact being investigated.

So the statement that the investigation has just now come to light is not accurate.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I would say that the investigation, there are now six investigations ongoing, the investigation that was started has identified some six individuals. Those are all people wearing uniform.

If the investigation reveals further people who are civilian contractors, those people can be punished under the laws of the United States which have been extended to theater.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

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

I say to my good distinguished colleague I invite him to come to our committee hearing in which we are conducting oversight in this matter at 3 o'clock tomorrow afternoon, and I also remind him that we have now carried out by those people that we have trusted in uniform in the Iraqi theater and elsewhere, six investigations now ongoing into this particular matter, six investigations.

I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleague that we have three of the people involved in this who have been bound over to the court-martial convening authority for general courts martial, that is, for criminal prosecutorial activity, and to say to my colleague again, who has told me many times about how much he respects our people in uniform, that our people in uniform themselves, starting with the private who reported this, have six investigations ongoing. And I think part of our job is not just to have oversight, but also to trust to the honor and integrity of the people who wear the uniform, and we now have six investigations going forward.

So let us have this hearing tomorrow and see where we go from there, but

my feeling is we have good, competent, honorable people undertaking these investigations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), who cares so much about America's men and women in uniform.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

To address the distinguished majority whip, the distinguished majority whip, like the previous speaker, is wrong. The statement was put out by the Army on January 15 that this investigation was taking place, 2 days after the soldier came forward. And 3 days after the soldier came forward, it was given in General Kimmitt's address to the combined audiences of Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN. That is not turning a blind eye.

I will give the gentleman the notice. It was put out on January 14. He can look at it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my friend, you say some knew about this. The combined audiences of Fox News, MSNBC and CNN heard this in the daily briefing in January. So your statement that the administration turned a blind eye to it is not true. They initiated an investigation, once again initiated by General Sanchez, 3 days after the soldier came forward.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), a former member of the Committee on Armed Services, who is a colonel in the Army Reserve and was in fact a JAG officer at our POW camps in Gulf War I.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to reiterate the same thing that I have been stating, and that is that 2 days after the soldier in January reported to his superiors that abuses were taking place, the United States announced to the world in their press release that we were undertaking an investigation. And a few days after that, 4 days after the facts came forward, we announced to the combined audiences of Fox News, MSNBC and CNN, millions of people, that the investigations were taking place.

The investigations proceeded. We now have three individuals who are being recommended to the Court-Martial Convening Authority for court- martial for prisoner abuse, assault, dereliction of duty, and a large number of people in the chain of command have had their career ended, not because we found any connection between them and the acts, but because it was on their watch that these things took place.

I want to say just one thing about Mr. Rumsfeld before I recognize another speaker, Mr. Speaker. We have 135,000 good, hard-working, courageous uniformed men and women in theater. They are in contact in firefights on a daily basis. The job of the Secretary of Defense is to see to it that we win this war. He assigned to the legitimate, appropriate departments this investigation and told them to go forward, which they did, resulting in the criminal prosecution machine being set in motion under our court-martial authority, and he went back to trying to win this war. That is the appropriate action for the Secretary of Defense.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), a great member of the 173rd Airborne in the Vietnam War.

Mr. Speaker, I yield our remaining time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise with heavy heart, a heavy heart for two reasons. The first reason is that a group of American soldiers forgot that they were soldiers and they forgot that the middle name of a soldier is ``honor,'' in doing the despicable acts that they did in that prison. That breaks my heart. I know it breaks the hearts of Americans who saw those pictures and learned of those acts which border on the unspeakable.

But the seconds reason my heart is broken is that the occurrences happened between October and December of last year; they were reported in January of this year. A two star general in the Army, Major General Taguba was called to investigate and his report was rendered in February. And as ranking member on this committee, I found out about it this month, in May, not by any official sources, but through the news media.

Mr. Speaker, that also breaks my heart. We in Congress under the Constitution are the first of the three parts of government listed. We are the ones that raise the money and write the rules for those who serve in the military. We are an important part of the national security, and I think that we should be informed as quickly as possible when these very, very tragic occurrences happen.

Recently in the Wall Street Journal, on April 22, an administration official in response to the expenditure of appropriations funds regarding Iraq and the Middle East stated, ``If lawmakers do not ask questions, they do not get answers.''

Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent upon them to keep U.S. informed because we are the genesis of their funding. We are the genesis of the rules by which they in uniform operate and the defense of our Nation are concerned.

This error has become a mistake. The late John F. Kennedy once said, ``An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it. Without debate, without criticism, no administration, no country can succeed and no republic can survive.''

We seem, Mr. Speaker, to have forgotten that.

I support this resolution, and I think it is necessary. It is a shameful series

of acts. I support this resolution because it deplores and condemns the abuse of those in custody. And it is not just about isolated cases of abuse. This incident could very well be the tipping of the security and reconstruction of Iraq. I hope that is wrong. But if we lose the trust of the Iraqi people, if we lose their hearts and minds, we cannot bring anything else effectively to that part of the world.

We must win back the trust, the safety of our troops, and the future of these citizens of Iraq. For that reason, I support this resolution. It urges the Secretary of the Army and the appropriate military authorities to complete a thorough investigation to bring anyone who committed crimes to justice. This applies regardless of who committed the crimes, military personnel, government agencies or private contractors.

The Iraqi people must see U.S. taking swift and strong action. As a matter of fact, we here in Congress and our chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), has announced that we will have a hearing on this very subject tomorrow in the hearing room 2118 at 3 o'clock with Secretary Rumsfeld. I think that is the right thing for the gentleman to have called, and I thank him for it publicly.

It is an important role for U.S. to have continuing oversight of this issue. We do need, in addition thereto, a congressional inquiry by the staff on the broader policy issues that were raised by this incident. I will underline that.

Finally, I believe this resolution appropriately points out that so many of our troops have served honorably, and the chairman is correct on that, done extraordinarily well in difficult circumstances.

Not long ago I attended a funeral over here at Arlington Cemetery of a staff sergeant from the Fourth District of Missouri, which I am privileged to represent. And these soldiers who forgot that they were soldiers caused his death, in so many respects, to have been in vain. We have to correct this and make sure that those who pay the ultimate sacrifice will be remembered and will be honored for the work that they do in Iraq to bring stability and some sort of representative government there.

We have to look at the chain of command. We have to look at the command atmosphere that allowed these occurrences to happen. So for this reason and the reason that we were not told promptly and the fact that we need not only the hearing tomorrow, which I am pleased we will have, we need a thorough investigation to go forward on this subject.

We must be successful in Iraq. We must show not just the Iraqi people, we must show the world the values of our country. We need to. And one way to do it is to proceed to investigate this and make this a very transparent, clear picture for the world to see.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this time. It would be well for those in authority to understand the admonition that sat on the desk of the late President Harry S Truman: ``The buck stops here.''

Keeping that in mind, let U.S. move forward and do the right thing, for the Iraqi people, for those who served so honorably and so well, and for those who paid for the sacrifice of their service. Let this be a reflection of the decency and honesty and thoroughness of the values of America in what we do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), who is the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have remaining, please?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), who is the ranking member on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a senior member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member on the Committee on the Budget and also a senior member of the Committee on Armed Services.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the minority whip.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how many minutes are left.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I might say there was a serious attempt to have a bipartisan resolution today; but let me say that on this side we were not shown a draft until almost 6:30 last evening, and we were not permitted to share a copy with our leadership until 9:45. Our leadership was not given the opportunity to make a change on the draft that was given at that time, and we were not given a copy of the final version of the bill until after it had been introduced. When the leadership could not reach unanimous consent; we were not given the opportunity to offer an alternative, an amendment or even a motion to recommit. I was hoping we could do a better job of being bipartisan, but we are here and I intend to vote for this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.

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.