Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, point of order.

Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the point of order, because the point of order no longer lies, the phraseology having been withdrawn.

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

Mr. Speaker, I concur in the description given by the gentleman from Wisconsin. I am very proud of the work that on a bipartisan basis we did here in this Congress. The House really generated this. The other body went along with our initiative. The initiative really was due to two Members of the House, one on each side of the aisle, the gentleman from Nebraska, who has already been mentioned; and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who worked very well together and provided the leadership that we on the committee were glad to support.

Mr. Speaker, as recognition of that and because of the press of other business, I ask unanimous consent to turn over the management of the remainder of this bill to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I submit to the Record the editorial from the New York Times, June 11, to which I referred to in my speech to the House this morning.

[From the New York Times, June 11, 2004]

A Troubling Dissent

The Supreme Court did the right thing this week by staying

out of a Colorado redistricting dispute. It properly deferred

to the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling resolving the matter.

What is troubling, however, is a dissent by Chief Justice

William Rehnquist and two of his colleagues that argues for

diving into the conflict. Given these justices' eagerness to

defer to the states in other matters, the dissent smacks of

partisan politics and raises new concerns about the court's

neutrality.

After the 2000 census, Colorado redrew its Congressional

lines in a way that produced some real contests. One district

was divided so evenly that Bob Beauprez, a Republican, won by

only 121 votes. But when Republicans won the State Senate

last year, they drew new lines that were more favorable to

their party. The state's attorney general, a Democrat,

challenged them in court.

The Colorado Supreme Court, in a well-reasoned decision,

held that the redistricting violated the Colorado

Constitution. It said the constitution required that

redistricting be done every 10 years, after the census, but

no more. The United States Supreme Court has long held that

when a state supreme court resolves a case based on the

state's constitution, respect for the state's judiciary

requires the federal courts to stay out of the matter. A

majority did just that this week, when it let the Colorado

Supreme Court's ruling stand.

But Chief Justice Rehnquist's dissent, joined by Antonin

Scalia and Clarence Thomas, is bluntly dismissive of the

Colorado Supreme Court. In the dissenters' view, the court

was merely ``purporting'' to decide the case exclusively

according to state law. They would have accepted the case so

the United States Supreme Court could have considered

reversing the Colorado Supreme Court and reinstating the pro-

Republican redistricting plan.

The dissent attracted little notice because it fell one

vote short of the four votes needed to review a case. But it

is disturbingly reminiscent of the court's ruling in Bush v.

Gore, in which five justices who had long been extremely

deferential to state power suddenly overruled the Florida

Supreme Court's interpretation of Florida election law.

Cases like these quite naturally invite skepticism. As the

court learned in 2000, it does grave harm to its reputation

if it appears to be deciding election-law cases for partisan

advantage. In cases of this sort, the court must make a

special effort to show that it is acting on the basis of

legal principle, the only basis for a court to act. By

departing from his deeply held belief in state autonomy to

side with the Republican Party in a redistricting case, Chief

Justice Rehnquist has once again invited the public to

question this court's motives.

Mr. Speaker, I am moved this week after the death of President Reagan to quote him, ``There they go again.''

The ``they'' in question are the three extremely conservative members of the U.S. Supreme Court who are, of course, entitled to their extreme conservatism, Justices Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist; but, they are really not entitled to partisanship. Despite that, they have shown it.

The Colorado Supreme Court, acting in accordance with wrong, uncontroversial constitutional doctrine, interpreted the Colorado Constitution to mean that the Colorado legislature could not reopen redistricting for partisan advantage 2 years after they had originally had redistricting in the State. It is a very strongly held doctrine in America that a State Supreme Court is the final arbiter of its own State Constitution.

The Colorado Republicans, looking for the kind of partisan advantage that the Texas counties were able to get, appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. No one thought it was much of a serious appeal. Fortunately, six members of the Court held true to constitutional doctrine and voted not to take the case so it was not taken. But three members of that Court, defying long-standing constitutional tradition, voted to take the case. It was a case brought by Colorado Republicans to try to gain partisan political advantage; and surprise, surprise, they got the votes of Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas.

Mr. Speaker, the worst of it is I am not sure they were being consciously partisan. I think the bias, the deeply partisan bias that has crept into those three is so strong that they, in fact, can do this without realizing it.

Once again we have seen from those three justices a hypocritical preference for partisan advantage over the kind of constitutional purity that they claim to follow but rarely do.

Mr. Speaker, I will include for the Record in the Extensions of Remarks an editorial from the New York Times on this subject.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the action by the gentleman from Virginia, the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, in raising a point of order against section 514 in which the Coast Guard would have been granted authority to waive certain provisions of the McKinney-Vento Homelessness Act, but I want to make clear, and I think this is the case for all of us who had a jurisdictional problem here, part of that amendment would allow the Coast Guard to keep the proceeds of any sale it is able to make, rather than having it put in the general fund. That is not an authorizing matter, that is an appropriations matter. If that is all it said, I would not have had any objection, and I do not know that anyone else would. What we objected to, I believe, was the provision that would have waived the substantive rules regarding a right of first refusal for groups interested in housing.

So I would just say to my colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations, if in fact this bill comes back from further points in the process with language simply making clear that the Coast Guard can keep the proceeds rather than putting them in the general fund, I certainly would have no objection as the ranking member of the authorizing committee. The important point is to preserve the policy involved in not selling off the property until we first see whether it is available for housing.

Now, it was appropriate to do what the gentleman from Virginia did and strike the whole section, because these were intermingled in the wording, but if it came back simply dealing with what happens to the funding after the properties are sold, I do not think that would be a problem.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, in April of this year, the Department of Housing and Urban Development promulgated new rules regarding the Section 8 program which have caused a great deal of distress throughout the country. Essentially, housing authorities throughout the United States were told by HUD in April that they were getting a retroactive reduction in their Section 8 funds for this fiscal year, and many were confronted with the choice of reducing rents to responsible landlords, terminating existing Section 8 contracts for tenants, raising rents on the lowest income people, and in other ways cutting back on this important program. As a result of the nationwide outcry, HUD did propose some measures to lessen the crisis, no doubt aided by the fact that HUD Secretary Jackson had to testify before the Financial Services Committee on May 20 and knew that he would be asked about this problem. It is now clear that the proposals that HUD made and announced on that day were somewhat helpful in some cases, but have left the crisis an ongoing one.

Paradoxically, while engendering cutbacks in this program--the largest single federal housing assistance program--the Administration has been claiming credit for a new initiative to combat homelessness. Conceptually, this initiative has a great deal to commend it, but any good it could do will be greatly outweighed by the damage being done by the Administration's Section 8 cuts.

On May 30, the Journal News of Westchester County, New York, ran an excellent editorial pointing out the great inconsistency in the Administration's approach here. Note that the date of this editorial is ten days after Secretary Jackson testified before the Financial Services Committee that he had resolved the problem--and proof that he has not in fact done so could be produced by dozens of other well- documented newspaper stories in various states. As the editorial notes, the Executive Director of the Yonkers Municipal Housing Authority ``called the impact on Yonkers `devastating' ''--referring to the Administration's Section 8 approach.

Many of us want to work with the Administration in alleviating homelessness and welcome new approaches that bring resources together in a thoughtful way. But pretending that we can do this while cutting back on Section 8 is the worst form of putting style over substance, with devastating results on those people in the country who are truly trying to help the homeless, and others in need.

[From the Journal News, May 30, 2004]

Help, Not Hinder

President Bush's homelessness czar, Philip Mangano, brought

a message to Westchester Tuesday: Create a 10-year plan to

end homelessness. What does Mangano think Westchester has

been trying to do for the last 20 years?

Here's a message for Mangano to take back to Washington:

Help, not hinder. Stop cutting back federal dollars that

assist local communities in providing housing that prevents

homelessness.

Mangano met with County Executive Andrew Spano to outline

the administration's vision of a partnership between

counties, local municipalities, nonprofit groups, businesses

and the homeless aimed at preventing people from losing their

homes, providing services to those newly placed in housing

and redirecting some of the money spent on emergency housing

to permanent housing.

Sounds wonderful--and we've heard it before.

Apparently Mangano does not realize the strides Westchester

has made since, say, 1990, when the county spent $40 million

to house the homeless in motels, and when a

county-commissioned study set a goal of developing 5,000

affordable housing units. A recent update of the affordable-

housing study showed how far Westchester still has to go.

We could use a little federal help here. As director of the

Interagency Council on Homelessness, which coordinates 20

federal agencies, Mangano could provide it.

How about increasing, not decreasing, federal aid to the

self-help groups and others around the county that buy and

renovate abandoned apartment houses? And organizations that

help people fallen on hard times to pay their rent and avoid

eviction? How about restoring funds for the HOPE VI program

that Yonkers and New Rochelle had hoped would assist in

renovating older public-housing complexes? And how about

reversing the latest federal cutback to the Housing Choice

Voucher Program, better known as Section 8.

Spano's chief adviser, Susan Tolchin, rightly called

Mangano on the Section 8 reductions. ``That has stopped our

progress and our continued progress in helping fund permanent

housing for homeless families,'' she said.

Indeed, cutting the Section 8 program by $1 billion

nationally, which has frozen vouchers, is expected to cost

the Yonkers Municipal Housing Authority $2.24 million; New

Rochelle and its housing authority, $1.46 million; and Mount

Vernon, $914,000. That's money that low- and moderate-income

people could use to make up the rest of the rent after they

paid 30 percent of their income in this high-rent county.

Peter Smith, executive director of the YMHA, which

administers about 1,750 vouchers and has a waiting list of

1,200, called the impact on Yonkers ``devastating.''

It isn't just homeless or low- and moderate-income people

who have difficulty finding housing in a county where the

median price of a single-family home was $545,900 at the end

of 2003. Some police, fire, emergency medical and Civil

Service personnel--all vital to municipal operations--are

among those commuting longer because they can't afford to

live in the communities in which they work.

The affordable-housing update issued in April called for

providing more than 10,000 units of affordable housing by

2015. The county's Housing Opportunities Commission is

charged with trying to make that possible.

Call it an 11-year plan. Call it an opportunity for

Washington to help it succeed.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the gentleman from Oregon's (Mr. DeFazio) time.

Mr. Speaker, sadly I am here to talk about what we cannot ignore: the sad, sad chronicle of incompetence and blunder which marks this administration's conduct of national security policy.

I do not think in the history of the United States there has been a major national security effort handled so badly. I voted against the war in Iraq. I voted for the war in Afghanistan, and I am glad I did. I voted against the war in Iraq because I did not think it was justified, and I feel vindicated in that judgment; but even for those who thought it was justified, I do not understand how they can fail to join in the criticism of the shambles this administration has made of the policy.

I will insert in the Record here, Mr. Speaker, an article by Elisabeth Bumiller from the May 29 New York Times, and the headline is ``Conservative Allies Take Chalabi Case to the White House.''

[From the New York Times, May 29, 2004]

Conservative Allies Take Chalabi Case to the White House

(By Elisabeth Bumiller)

WASHINGTON, May 28--Influential outside advisers to the

Bush administration who support the Iraqi exile leader Ahmad

Chalabi are pressing the White House to stop what one has

called a ``smear campaign,'' against Mr. Chalabi, whose

Baghdad home and offices were ransacked last week in an

American-supported raid.

Last Saturday, several of these Chalabi supporters said, a

small delegation of them marched into the West Wing office of

Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, to complain

about the administration's abrupt change of heart about Mr.

Chalabi and to register their concerns about the course of

the war in Iraq. The group included Richard N. Perle, the

former chairman of a Pentagon advisory group, and R. James

Woolsey, director of central intelligence under President

Bill Clinton.

Members of the group, who had requested the meeting, told

Ms. Rice that they were incensed at what they view as the

vilification of Mr. Chalabi, a favorite of conservatives who

is now central to an F.B.I. investigation into who in the

American government might have given him highly classified

information that he is suspected of turning over to Iran.

Mr. Chalabi has denied that he provided Iran with any

classified information.

The session with Ms. Rice was one sign of the turmoil that

Mr. Chalabi's travails have produced within an influential

corner of Washington, where Mr. Chalabi is still seen as a

potential leader of Iraq.

``There is a smear campaign under way, and it is being

perpetrated by the C.I.A. and the D.I.A. and a gaggle of

former intelligence officers who have succeeded in planting

these stories, which are accepted with hardly any scrutiny,''

Mr. Perle, a leading conservative, said in an interview.

Mr. Perle, referring to both the Central Intelligence

Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency, said the campaign

against Mr. Chalabi was ``an outrageous abuse of power'' by

United States government officials in Washington and Baghdad.

``I'm talking about Jerry Bremer, for one,'' Mr. Perle

said, referring to L. Paul Bremer III, the top American

administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in

charge of the occupation of Iraq. ``I don't know who gave

these orders, but there is no question that the C.P.A. was

involved.''

In Baghdad, coalition authorities vigorously denied Mr.

Perle's assertion. ``Jerry Bremer didn't initiate the

investigation,'' Dan Senor, the spokesman for the Coalition

Provisional Authority, said in a telephone interview.

Similarly, Mark Mansfield, a C.I.A. spokesman, called Mr.

Perle's accusation that the agency was smearing Mr. Chalabi

``absurd.'' A Defense Department official who asked not to be

named said that Mr. Perle's accusations against the D.I.A.

had no foundation.

Mr. Chalabi has been a divisive figure for years in

Washington, where top Pentagon officials favored him as a

future leader of Iraq and top State Department officials

distrusted him as unreliable. Either way, Mr. Chalabi and his

exile group, the Iraqi National Congress, fed intelligence to

the Bush administration about Iraq's unconventional weapons

that helped drive the administration toward war.

Intelligence officials now argue that some of the

intelligence was fabricated, and that Mr. Chalabi's motives

were to push the United States into toppling Saddam Hussein

and pave the way for his installation as Iraqi's new leader.

Although Mr. Chalabi's supporters outside the

administration have been caustic in their comments about his

treatment, there has been relative silence so far from Mr.

Chalabi's supporters within the administration. Deputy

Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, who favored going to war

in Iraq and was a patron of Mr. Chalabi, did not respond to

numerous requests this week for an interview.

Mr. Wolfowitz's spokesman, Charley Cooper, said in an e-

mail message that Mr. Wolfowitz believed that Mr. Chalabi and

the Iraqi National Congress ``have provided valuable

operational intelligence to our military forces in Iraq,

which has helped save American lives.'' Mr. Cooper added

in the message that ``Secretary Wolfowitz hopes that the

events of the last few weeks haven't undermined that.''

The current views of Vice President Dick Cheney and his

chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby,

are not known. Both strongly supported Mr. Chalabi before and

during the war in Iraq.

Last Saturday, participants in the meeting with Ms. Rice

and her deputy, Stephen Hadley, said Ms. Rice told them she

appreciated that they had made their views known. But she

gave no hint of her own opinion, participants said, and made

no concessions to their point of view.

Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House of

Representatives, also attended the meeting. A larger meeting

later that day, with Mr. Hadley alone, included Danielle

Pletka, a vice president of the American Enterprise

Institute, a research institution in Washington.

In an interview, Ms. Pletka said that Mr. Chalabi had been

``shoddily'' treated and that C.I.A. and State Department

people had been fighting ``a rear guard'' action against him.

``They've been out to get him for a long time,'' Ms. Pletka

said. ``And to be fair, he has done things and the people

around him have done things that have made it easier for

them. He is a prickly, difficult person and he drives them

crazy. He never takes no for an answer, even when he

should.''

Ms. Pletka added: ``There are questionable people around

him--I don't know how close--who have been involved in

questionable activities in Iraq. He is close to the Iranian

government. And so all of these things have lent credence to

the accusations against him.''

Mr. Perle said the action against Mr. Chalabi would burnish

his anti-American credentials in Iraq and possibly help him

to be elected to political office. ``In that regard, this

clumsy and outrageous assault on him will only improve his

prospects,'' Mr. Perle said.

Mr. Perle said that he had no business dealings with Mr.

Chalabi, but that he believed the C.I.A. and D.I.A. were

spreading false information that he did. He also said that

Mr. Chalabi was not alone in supplying intelligence to the

United States government that turned out to be false.

``I know of no inaccurate information that was supplied

uniquely by anyone brought to us by the Iraqi National

Congress,'' Mr. Perle said.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chalabi, if I am pronouncing it right, people will remember, is the man who we had thought was someone the President approved of, whom the President now tells us he cannot quite remember.

I do think, Mr. Speaker, as an aside, that probably we should be investigating Chamber security here because apparently at the last State of the Union address a man largely unknown to the President managed to seat himself next to the First Lady. Mr. Chalabi was seated next to Laura Bush. Now the President has no idea or only a vague idea who this man is; and when a stranger, apparently a stranger of some disrepute, if we listen to the White House, is allowed to seat himself next to Laura Bush, then I begin to feel nervous. In general, I think the people who run security do a very good job, I do not know, and this point probably was not their fault. They may have been misled by somebody in the Defense Department, but we better look into it.

We now go back to the spectacle of this administration's internal warfare. We read recently that the Secretary of State was very angry at the CIA because he now acknowledges that they gave him misinformation. I do not know if that is one of the reasons that the director of the CIA resigned. He is the man who, of course, told the President that it was a slam dunk that there were weapons of mass destruction. Apparently, he slammed when he should have dunked, and he is no longer with us, but the chaos continues.

Here we have in this story the conservative allies, according to Mr. Richard Perle, who is a close adviser to the Defense Department, and according to this article last Saturday, several of these Chalabi supporters said a small delegation of them marched into the West Wing of Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, to complain about the administration. For some of these people, who have been consistent advocates of war, marching into Condoleezza Rice, it was the only marching they ever did because certainly they have not been in uniform to march in any wartime conditions, but we have them denouncing the Bush administration, Bush advisers denouncing Bush advisers.

Mr. Powell was quoted in the New York Times last Sunday, well, big surprise, ``we disagree with each other.'' That is not the problem. It is not a problem that the President's advisers disagree with each other. The problem is that the President appears to agree with each of them who disagree with each other. The President does not solve these problems. We have had this ongoing dispute. It is extraordinary to have someone being paid $40 million or more by the American Government, supported by the Defense Department, Mr. Chalabi, then overthrown by the State Department or the CIA.

Here is Mr. Perle, again, a close ally of the Defense Department, remember the Defense Advisory Board, saying there is a smear campaign under way being perpetrated by the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. This is Mr. Perle, and then he denounces Mr. Bremer. We are told you, Democrats, do not be critical of the people in Iraq who are running our policy, you will undermine them.

I am nicer than Mr. Perle to these people. Mr. Perle is being much more vitriolic, and he has even managed, Mr. Perle, because he is the epitome of niceness, to find a way to defend Mr. Chalabi who we are now told by this government may have leaked important information to the Iranians.

Here is Mr. Perle's defense of Mr. Chalabi, and Mr. Perle is a man who chooses his words carefully. I wish he chose his friends as carefully as he chose his words, but he does choose his words carefully; and here is what he said about Mr. Chalabi's organization, the Iraqi National Congress, from the New York Times of last Saturday: `` `I know of no inaccurate information that was supplied uniquely by anyone brought to us by the Iraqi National Congress,' Mr. Perle said.''

In other words, he does not deny that Mr. Chalabi lied to us. He does not deny that Mr. Chalabi in effect boasted he gave us misinformation and does not mind that it could help us go to war. His point is that Mr. Chalabi was not the only one who lied to us. I do not think it is much of a defense of Mr. Chalabi to say he is the only one who lied to us, nor does it say much for this administration that they listened to so many liars. The incompetence must stop.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin on my text I

want to just correct the minority whip, the Democratic whip. He is a man with whom I have a great deal of agreement. But I think he was wrong when he said the rigid ideology of the people in power today leads them to the view, my way or the highway.

I wish that were the case. Mr. Speaker, as you well know from your own committee position, the right wing ideology are on the point of saying, my way instead of the highway. Because so rigid are they in their right-wing ideology that we cannot even get a highway bill passed this year, as we certainly should, in the interest of the transportation needs of this country and the economy.

But I want to talk beyond that about the work habits of the President. It is clear that in addition to an excessively rigid ideology we have an administration which is not very competent in a lot of things. I do not think we have seen a more incompetently executed national security policy of a major sort than Iraq in our history.

And I wonder why we get such poor execution, even given that I disagree with some of the things they are trying to execute. Now it does become clear one of the problems may be the President's work habits.

On December 16 in an interview on ABC News with Diane Sawyer, the President boasted about how he does not need to read the newspapers or, presumably, watch television. He gets his information, he says, from members of his administration. When Diane Sawyer said, ``Is it just hard to read constant criticism? He interjected, ``Why even put up with it when you get the facts elsewhere? I am a lucky man,'' the President said. ``I have got, it is not just Condi and Andy, it is all kinds of people in my administration who are charged with different responsibilities. And they come in and say this is what is happening, this is not what is happening.''

Well, Mr. President, you are being ill served by this refusal to get independent sources of information. You got a lot of people who confuse what is happening with what is not happening and sometimes they do not tell you anything.

Most recently we have the Secretary of Defense who forgot to tell you that we had a major debilitating problem coming up with regard to the mistreatment of prisoners. And he did not tell you that.

Last year, in what I think you consider to be, Mr. President, the single most important domestic accomplishment in the administration, did someone forget to tell you that the bill you were telling us was going to cost $400 billion over 10 years was, in fact, going to cost $540 billion and that all of the additional billion would go to the providers and none of it to the recipients? Did someone forget to tell the President or did the President forget to tell us?

Then, of course, we have the comment by CIA Director George Tenet who told the President apparently that it was a slam-dunk that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Well, once again, we have a case on a very important issue of the President and, to quote his words, all kinds of people in my administration were charged with different responsibilities and they would come in and say this is what is happening and this is not what is happening.

There is a serious problem, Mr. President. The time has come for the President of the United States to admit an error in this case, I know he does not like to do that, to admit that relying on Secretary Rumsfeld or CIA Director Tenet or Secretary Thompson or a whole range of other people to give him the information to brag about how he eschews independent, factual sources is a great mistake and may explain some of the serious mistakes this administration has made.

Old sayings sometimes can be overdone. Sometimes they have some truth. There is a saying that ignorance is bliss. Well, Mr. Speaker, there may be context in which ignorance is bliss, but the Presidency of the United States is not one of them.

The time has come for the President to acknowledge the fact that his method of getting information only from people within his own administration, who may have their own motives for misrepresenting or not giving him information that might be embarrassing to them, that that has broken down, and the time has come for the President to dip into the budget that he gets and buy a subscription to some newspapers and watch the TV news.

Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record at this point the excerpt from the interview with Diane Sawyer.

DIANE SAWYER. First of all, I just want to ask about

reading. Mr. President, you know that there was a great deal

of reporting about the fact that you said, first of all, that

you let Condoleezza Rice and Andrew Card give you a flavor of

what's in the news.

PRESIDENT BUSH. Yes.

DIANE SAWYER. That you don't read the stories yourself.

PRESIDENT BUSH. Yes. I get my news from people who don't

editorialize. They give me the actual news, and it makes it

easier to digest, on a daily basis, the facts.

DIANE SAWYER. Is it just harder to read constant criticism

or to read----

PRESIDENT BUSH. Why even put up with it when you can get

the facts elsewhere? I'm a lucky man. I've got, it's not just

Condi and Andy, it's all kinds of people in my administration

who are charged with different responsibilities, and they

come in and say this is what's happening, this isn't what's

happening.

Mr. Speaker, I agree that the great majority, overwhelming majority of Americans serving in Iraq, military and civilian, are honorable people who have gone to great risk. They are among the victims of these outrages. It is a shameful thing that their bravery, their good work, their integrity has been besmirched. We owe it to them to do a full investigation.

We heard reference to the six. I hope it is only six, but I am skeptical. Months ago I would have said it would not be six. Had these accusations been made months ago, I would have said, no, Americans do not act like that. We now have to acknowledge, tragically, sadly, heartsickeningly, that we do; and we owe it to everyone to have a full investigation. But we owe something more. We owe the people of this country and the people of adherence to the democratic process.

What troubles me about this resolution is the persistence of the Republican majority in a pattern of using the

rules of this House and their small majority to frustrate open democratic procedures. We have had a terrible blow to this country. We hope it was perpetrated only by a few, but the incompetence and indifference of superiors clearly contributed to it.

We owe ourselves and the American people a full investigation. We are not even allowed under the majority's rules to put forward a motion calling for such an investigation. The other side of the aisle has already decided it is only the six. We are abusing the democratic process here.

We are trying to teach the people of Iraq about democracy. One of the things we have been worried about is that a particular majority, the Shia, might not understand the importance of minority rule. We are trying to get them to understand how you do that difficult thing of reconciling majority control and majority's right to decide with full minority participation.

The majority, Mr. Speaker, are giving them exactly the wrong example of how to do that. I suppose we ought to say to the people of Iraq who watch this narrow majority, for partisan purposes refuse to allow an open debate on this extraordinary issue. Please do not try this at home. We are giving them exactly the wrong example of how to proceed. This is a chance to show democracy. Yes, some people made a mistake. Let us throw this open and do everything possible to purge ourselves of this error and not appear to be cutting it off.

So we are compounding the terrible misdeeds of that certain number of people, and we do not know how many in the prisons, by a partisan manipulation of the process. The other side of the aisle is doing a terrible thing.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I would say two things. First, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the cosponsor, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), are entitled to their decisions; but so is the whole House. It is the House that should decide whether paragraphs go in or out. I do not understand why the majority does not allow the House to vote.

Secondly, I appreciate that some investigation is going on; but I am not a great believer in people investigating themselves and nobody else. I believe an outside investigation is necessary.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) apparently thinks that the Army has been the exemplar of good self-investigation. Many of us do not.

But aside from that substantive issue, why is this not in a democracy a subject for full debate of the House, not a 1-hour constricted debate with no amendments allowed constructed by the majority?

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that we

have a committee system, but it is not a substitute for debate and amendment on the floor of the House, even to debate whether or not we do this and the substance. The committee system should not be something behind which you hide to avoid debate that you might find uncomfortable.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman the committees are the servants of the House, not the other way around. The committees exist to do the will of the House. The full democratic House does not wait for the committees.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. Speaker, I was appalled at the comments that just preceded me.

John Kerry is a brave man today, and he was a brave man 35 years ago when he answered his country's call and was wounded on its behalf. And to hear one say that he came close to giving aid and comfort, of course, that is part of a phrase that describes treason, is unworthy of this House. And to couple that sort of wholly unjustified attack on this brave man because he challenges the President and then to say, well, let us avoid partisan rhetoric, there are no words to describe that that would be acceptable under the rules of the House.

I do want to talk about what is going on in Iraq, and I do it with great sadness. Six months ago if someone had told me that American military personnel and civilians employed by the United States Government had engaged in the kind of outrageous dehumanizing behavior that we have recently seen public, I would have been indignant. I would have said, look, I disagree with the Iraq policy. I did not vote to go to war with Iraq, but I think it is unfair to accuse Americans of this.

And we now say that we have to acknowledge that Americans empowered by the United States Government, not specifically to do that, but they were there because of American government policy, committed these outrageous acts. But it is not enough simply to blame a handful of individuals as the majority tried to do earlier today with a resolution.

I want to stress again how absolutely wrong it was for the Republican majority in the House to bring forward today a resolution on this extraordinarily important question. I am told the President just apologized, as he should have. He should have done it earlier.

We have got a major set-back in American policy but more importantly, a revelation that Americans did things in the name of the country that should not have been contemplated, much less done. And we were only given an hour to discuss it? And the majority used its automatic submissive majority of its Members to prevent any amendment, to prevent any proposal. Many of us believe it is not enough for the military to investigate itself. They have known about this for some time.

First of all, this is the military's failing. Though the Secretary of Defense did not do this in this prison, but the

Secretary of Defense and his aids set up this prison which led this to happening, the inadequate supervision, the whole problem here, this is one which we must thoroughly investigate. And having the perpetrators not of the particular acts but of the efforts that led to these acts investigates themselves is wholly unacceptable.

We were not even allowed because of this automatic submissive majority to offer an amendment to call for that sort of an investigation. I want to stress again, what could be more bizarre than for us to tell the Iraqis that we will teach them how to be democratic, with a small D.

We in particular are telling the Shiites who are in the majority in Iraq, use your majority wisely and prudently. Yes, if you are in the majority you have a right ultimately to make the decision, but please show respect for minority rights. Please encourage openness.

I only hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Iraqis were not watching the debate today because if the Shiites were to emulate the House Republicans in terms of their approach to democracy, then we have very little chance of achieving what we want.

I only hope that people in the leadership of the Shiite movement in Iraq do not take the majority leader of this House as an exemplar of democracy. But it is not simply the inadequate way in which the military has responded to these outrages, and we might never have known if these things were not leaked. The military knew for a long time. They came up here and talked to committees. They misled people when they asked questions about contractors. They left names off lists. The way in which they have handled this was outrageous.

I wish it were an exception. I wish this terrible abuse and these cover ups and this refusal to supervise adequately, I wish it were an exception. But we also had, within the last week or two, the on-again off-again appointment of the Iraqi general in Falujah in which, first of all, we were going to have a war in Falujah. Fortunately, they decided, let us try to minimize the killing. So they appoint an Iraqi general to be in charge.

First we were told he is acceptable to everybody. Then it turned out because of his previous connections to the regime he was unacceptable and a new general comes in.

We have had error after error after error. We have a lack of coordination between the State and Defense Departments. I do not think there has been a major national security operation handled as incompetently as the way this administration has muddled in Iraq in a very long time.

Vietnam ultimately became a terrible set of mistakes, but I do not think in a comparable period Vietnam was as badly handled.

This administration has failed this country in the miserably incompetent way it has handled Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to see the Boston Globe, in an editorial on Thursday, April 22, give appropriate recognition to the excellent job that

is done by Bristol Community College. As the Globe editorial correctly noted, ``Bristol Community College in Fall River has been performing . . . superbly for more than 30 years and is a model for other community colleges . . . as they strive to prepare Massachusetts residents for the jobs of today and the future.''

Dealing with a changing economy, in which workers lose their jobs through no fault of their own because of technology, globalization, and other factors, is the single most important issue facing us as a nation. The private sector is a great creator of wealth, but it does not by itself resolve the problems that are created by this ongoing transitional process, especially at times such as now when economic transitions are even more rapid than at other times.

This is why a well-funded, vigorous public sector is important to work along with the private sector in enhancing the quality of life for all Americans. And in the economic sphere, as Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan frequently points out, community colleges have an essential role to play. I was therefore very pleased that the Boston Globe Editorial Board recognized Bristol Community College for the wonderful work it does.

I have been fortunate to be the Representative of Bristol Community College in Congress since 1983, and I have had numerous occasions during that time to see how well the people at BCC perform. To former President Eileen Farley and current President John Sbrega, I send my congratulations, along with my congratulations to all of the faculty, administrators and students who have done so much to make this institution an educational model.

Mr. Speaker, community colleges are an essential part of the way in which we should be responding to economic change, and because Bristol Community College is such a good example of how to do this, I ask that the editorial from the Boston Globe be printed here.

[From the Boston Globe, Apr. 22, 2004]

A Model Two-Year College

Community colleges have a threefold mission: They prepare

some students for further schooling, they educate others for

immediate entry into the work force, and they enhance the

skills of those who have already been working for years.

Bristol Community College in Fall River has been performing

these roles superbly for more than 30 years, and is a model

for other community colleges around the state as they strive

to prepare Massachusetts residents for the jobs of today and

the future.

``This school is wonderful,'' said Janet Maynard, 39, who

is getting an associate's degree in nursing after a 19-year

break from school. ``The staff is incredible. They don't

leave anybody behind.'' Maynard, one of 6,600 students at

Bristol, is juggling a paid job--one day a week at St. Anne's

Hospital in Fall River as a unit secretary--with the hard

work of rearing five daughters. St. Anne's, which has worked

with Bristol's nursing program for decades, is paying

Maynard's tuition in the conviction that it is investing in a

more skilled work force.

Jason Brilhante, 21, attends Bristol because ``it's

extremely affordable''--$2,544 a year--``and has high

standards.'' After graduating from the two-year business

program, he'll go on to Bryant College in Smithfield, R.I.,

with the aim of becoming a certified public accountant.

Bryant will give him a partial scholarship, confident that

his fine work at Bristol will continue in later years.

``We partner with them all the time,'' said Irene Olsen,

retired personnel manager for the AT&T call center in

Fairhaven and now a consultant with the union-management

Alliance for Employee Growth and Development. Bristol offers

business-related courses to 40 AT&T employees at the

Fairhaven workplace. If students can't come to the beautiful

Fall River campus, Bristol goes to them.

No wonder that Judith Gill, chancellor of higher education,

praised Bristol in draft assessments of the 15 Massachusetts

community colleges last fall--along with Middlesex and

Holyoke community colleges--as a high-performing institution.

Other colleges complained that the six criteria used for

the ratings were too few, so Gill took away the ``high

performing'' designation from all three colleges. Gill

promises that by 2006 the Board of Higher Education will

devise better assessments based on 30 criteria. When that is

published, the differences between high-performing colleges

and those not doing well should be clear.

Assessments are important as community colleges make the

case that they are vital to the development and maintenance

of an educated work force in Massachusetts. They should never

again have to endure the deep cuts in state aid--nearly 20

percent--they have experienced since 2001. Not all community

colleges follow the example of Bristol in providing essential

services to students and the wider communities they serve.

Those that do earn the support and gratitude of everyone in

Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week I had the pleasure of inserting into this forum a very good editorial from the Boston Globe about the excellent work that is done by Bristol Community College, which I have been privileged to represent for more than twenty years. It is important for us to spread good news. But it's also important for us to give people the bad news, especially when it is bad news that could be made worse if we do not act.

One of the most important institutions in the part of Massachusetts which I represent is the Southcoast Health System, which joins major hospitals in Fall River, New Bedford and Wareham. The President of that system, John Day, is an extremely knowledgeable student of health care in America, and not only does a first-rate job of administering the hospital system, he also has been an important source of information for me and others about health care policy.

Sadly, but honestly, he recently wrote an op-ed piece in the Boston Globe which began with the quote ``warning'' that ``a devastating health care crisis is closer than you think.'' John Day is deeply committed to providing the health care that people need, and he has been a leader in providing it to people of below average income in a part of the state of Massachusetts where that has been an issue. His eloquent plea for a change in our health care policy, and his dire--but hardly exaggerated--warnings about what will happen if we do not change, deserve our attention and I ask that his article be printed here.

Health Care's Brewing Storm

(By John B. Day)

Warning: A devastating health care crisis is closer than

you think. Like the side-view mirrors on our cars that warn

us ``objects are closer than they appear,'' a rupture in the

Massachusetts health care system is more of a real threat

than it seems at first or even second glance. The

professional health care that patients receive today has

given us a false sense of security over the imperiled state

of the entire system.

Patients across Massachusetts have been insulated from this

reality by the health care community's medical, moral, and

legal obligation to fulfill its mission at all costs.

Patients continue to receive an abundance of health care

services even as the economic vise on hospitals tightens.

The warning signs are easily recognizable--from the

previously unacceptable delays in gaining access to doctors

to the intolerably long waits in emergency rooms to

ambulances being diverted from hospital to hospital. Because

these cracks in the system have been incremental and the

degeneration of the system gradual, we have come to accept

them as routine when they are anything but. They are, in

fact, alarm bells signaling the onset of a crisis.

Today's delays, long waits, and diversions are mere

inconveniences compared to what may lie ahead. Do you want to

see the day when patients are flatly turned away for lack of

beds? Or when critical and costly services, such as

psychiatric care, are eliminated? Or when resources become so

scarce that only the fortunate few will have enough money and

power to afford access to the advanced technologies and

treatments to which many currently feel entitled?

Such dire scenarios may seem unthinkable in a state whose

health care system was once the model for the nation. But

there's a rapidly advancing storm poised to wreak havoc,

already leaving shuttered local hospitals in its wake. In

1980 there were 118 hospitals in Massachusetts. Today there

are 67.

As president and CEO of one of the largest community

hospital systems in the state--and the largest employer in

southeastern Massachusetts, it is my responsibility to issue

the storm warning, before it hits us head-on.

I entered Massachusetts health care just after the famous

blizzard of 1978, an act of nature that caused more

destruction than most of us had ever experienced. The cost of

the destruction and the loss of life might have been less had

we the capability to warn people just how bad it was going to

be.

Already, we are seeing the state eliminate insurance

coverage for those who can least afford it. Health care

providers are refusing to provide essential services because

they cannot receive reimbursement for those services. For the

first time, many of my colleagues at hospitals have begun to

discuss the elimination of health care services.

SouthcoastHealth System, which I oversee, gives me a close

look at this dilemma. Our patient population is older,

sicker, and poorer than elsewhere in Massachusetts. More than

75 percent of our patients rely solely on Medicare and

Medicaid, which reimburse hospitals substantially below our

actual costs. Unlike public safety-net hospitals, community

hospitals like Southcoast have no statutory entitlement to

local or state funds in order to underwrite the cost of

providing free care to the uninsured.

Our merger of St. Luke's Hospital in New Bedford, Charlton

Memorial Hospital in Fall River, and Tobey Hospital in

Wareham allowed us to stabilize the financial footing of our

region's health care system. By cresting efficiencies of

scale and sharing resources, we now provide care where it is

needed most--in our own community. A decade ago there did not

exist the continuum of care that is available today for tens

of thousands of families in southeastern Massachusetts.

But while we are proud of these accomplishments, we know

that mergers, consolidation, and cost-cutting maneuvers are

not enough. The continuing state and federal funding cuts

leave many hospitals with no choice but to cut core clinical

services--services everyone expects to receive at their local

community hospital.

During the blizzard of '78, many coastal residents refused

to believe they were in real danger until the waves were

crashing against their door. Let us not wait until we are on

the brink of disaster to accept the dire circumstances that

await us. It is time we recognize the tide is rising against

the health care industry. It is imperative that state and

federal governments, health care providers, industry leaders,

and patients work cooperatively to find sustainable solutions

to ensure that core medical services remain available to

every resident of Massachusetts.

Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, simply not using the word ``Senate'' does not alter the impact of the rule. The gentleman is in violation of the rule.