Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer congratulations and best wishes to Sonia Gandhi, India's next Prime Minister.

India, the word's largest democracy, reminds us that people can change the course of their country without violence. In these troubled times, India has given us another valuable lesson. It is not the first time the world has looked to India and learned.

Another Gandhi changed his country and changed the world by relying on ideas instead of violence, by believing in people and the common good.

Mahatma Gandhi once said, ``You must be the change you wish to see in the world.'' How true those words are today.

The voices of a billion Indians have spoken, and India today stands tall in the international community. We look forward to working toward peace with the Indian people and their new Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Lee L. Huntsman, who will soon complete his term as president of the University of Washington. I want to acknowledge his service to the State of Washington, to the students, faculty and staff of the University, and to the Nation.

Research universities like the University of Washington are essential to the economic, cultural and educational vitality of the United States. The University of Washington is unquestionably one of the great research and educational institutions in this country. The University of Washington plays a key role in carrying out the scientific and research agenda set by Congress. Over the last 8 years Dr. Huntsman has provided key leadership as provost and president, helping the UW establish itself as one of the most innovative and entrepreneurial universities in America.

Dr. Huntsman took the helm of this great educational enterprise and helped to move it forward. His integrity, intellect and incisive thinking have given the Regents an opportunity to continue their work and have enlightened and inspired the efforts of the entire community of the University of Washington. We are grateful to Dr. Huntsman for answering the call to public service and for doing so in such a principled and congenial way.

Mr. Speaker, the ship of state sails without a rudder.

Increasingly, the world sees our presence in Iraq as an occupation, not a liberation. Any talk of democracy has been replaced with images of brute and brutal force.

The President talks about a superb Cabinet Secretary, but America and the world reel in horror and shame over what was done in the name of defending our country.

If only the administration had paid attention. The Red Cross knew, but the administration would not listen. American leadership and credibility have cratered deeper and deeper, yet the administration remains deaf to what happened and the need to act.

The administration heaps praise on one of its own, even as it seeks to silence the images. They sent him to Iraq, I guess, to get him out of town, but the images have stirred the world. As it has for so long, the world looks to

America again today. But today, the world looks with eyes averted, because the images that today define America in no way resemble America.

Mr. Speaker, let us be honest about what is going on out here today. It is Thursday. We are going home. They have got a fund-raiser tonight. The Republicans wanted to hang around for that. We have got to have something to put in the Saturday news that will kind of blot out what is happening in Iraq. So let us get this tax bill out here. We load up the cannon and we will get the rubber-stamp Congress in here and they will go bam-bam, and whatever the President says. You know, I think if the President said, I want the Republicans to come and stand on their head in the aisles, they would be down here in droves. This Congress is not thinking.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for printing in the Congressional Record an article entitled ``All Quiet on the House Side'' from the Washington Post of May 11. That article goes on to lay out what this Congress has not done. Thirty-five of our people were killed in Iraq last week. Many more were injured. People have seen these pictures of abuse. They have been looking at it all. And what did the House do? Well, we named some post offices. That seemed pretty important. Last week, the Nation learned that the Federal debt reached an all-time high of $7.13 trillion. What did we do? Well, we said they could use the Capitol grounds to have the soapbox derby. That was a very important way we responded to that. Yesterday the Bush Department of Commerce announced that our trade deficit and the amount of money that this Nation borrows from foreigners to pay for our imports, from the Chinese to the Saudis, hit an all-time high. We are in the debt of the Chinese and the Saudis. Just do not ever forget that, because that is what we are doing. You are paying your taxes so we can pay interest on debt that we borrowed from the Saudis and the Chinese.

If you read some of the books around town, the President is probably going to call the Prince of Saudi Arabia and ask him to produce some more oil so we can lower the price. That is, if you believe Bob Woodward's book. Secondly, the majority leader has dismissed the idea of any kind of investigation. And, third, despite the record-high budget and trade deficit, they come out here asking for more tax cuts that will disproportionately help the wealthy.

When this passes today, there will be 225 Republicans or 300 Republicans, or whatever, I do not know how many, they will all be out here going home with their press release under their arm saying, I helped you. What they do not tell people is what this means in terms of long-term debt. They are going to say, well, but this is for the middle class. The amount of money that goes to the middle class is less than goes to the people on the top of the pyramid. This is not a tax cut for the middle class. It is really a tax cut for the people on the top, and there was no way to exclude the middle class so they had to get a few of the drippings off the edge of the table.

My colleagues remember that story about Lazarus the beggar who was sitting on the floor, waiting for some crumbs to fall off the table. That is the middle class of this country according to this President. He ought to read that story about Lazarus. There is a real message there that I think gets lost in this whole process.

In today's clips, you will also find a quote from our chairman, excuse me, our ranking member for the moment, who said, ``We don't want our grandkids to pay higher taxes tomorrow to pay for our tax cuts today. So all we are saying is don't take credit for extending the tax cuts on the one

hand while you're breaking your promise to balance the budget for your children.''

Nobody looking at what is going on in the world today could possibly say you know where you are going. You made these tax cuts in the first place when you were going downhill 100 miles an hour and you said, oh, if we cut the taxes, it will be all better. The proof is going to be in the pudding on election day. The fact is that on election day, you are going to find out whether all your hot air that you have blown into the economy really turns out to be real or not.

In February, you created 21,000 jobs. We have got to remember that it takes 250,000 jobs every month to keep up with the increase in population in this country. If you do not create 250,000 jobs, you are not even keeping up with the problem. They created 21,000 jobs. All government jobs, by the way. Not a single private sector. Then they came to March. This was their big winner, 308,000 jobs. Well, that is about keeping up. Then the next month they came up with 280-something thousand and, my goodness, they kept up one more month. But they have done nothing about the 2.25 million jobs that they lost over the last 3 years. They have also produced the highest long-term unemployment rate since the Second World War and they want to make another tax cut today.

There is an old country saying that some of the people probably know about: When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing is, stop digging. The Republicans believe that the faster you dig, the better you are going to get out of the hole. We had to dig you out in 1993 under Mr. Clinton. We dug you out and you just went back to get your shovel and start digging a hole again. Please stop digging.

Mr. Speaker, I include the following article from the Washington Post:

[From the Washington Post, May 11, 2004]

All Quiet On the House Side

democrats say gop is evading debate

(By Charles Babington)

The week of April 26 was eventful and troubling for the

nation, yet curiously brief and serene for the House of

Representatives. Thirty-five U.S. servicemen were killed in

Iraq. CBS aired shocking photos of Americans abusing

prisoners near Baghdad. The federal debt reached an all-time

high, more than $7.13 trillion.

In the House, meanwhile, members returned to Washington on

Tuesday of that week for three quick, unanimous votes at

nightfall. They renamed a post office in Rhode Island,

honored the founder of the Lions Clubs, and supported ``the

goals and ideals of Financial Literacy Month.''

The next day, Wednesday, was a bit busier. After naming a

Miami courthouse for a dead judge, House members debated how

to extend the popular repeal of the tax code's ``marriage

penalty.'' The only real issue was whether to pass the

Democratic or Republican version. The GOP plan prevailed, 323

to 95.

After two days and one night of desultory activity--roughly

their average workweek this year--House members packed up and

rushed home to their districts. Despite the burgeoning

scandal over U.S. treatment of Iraqi prisoners and persistent

concerns about the economy and the deficit, the House has

been keeping bankers' hours.

The House's lean schedule is no accident. GOP leaders who

set the agenda and floor schedule say they achieved most of

their top priorities last year--including enactment of a

Medicare prescription drug bill and the third round of

President Bush's tax cuts--and are content to rest on their

laurels through the election. While other House priorities

are stuck in the Senate, House Republicans believe they have

the best of all worlds: They can take credit for the enacted

legislation and blame Senate Democrats for bottling up the

rest of their agenda.

``Last year we sent a lot of legislation to the Senate, and

we don't want to overload them,'' House Majority Leader Tom

DeLay (R-Tex) told reporters last week. ``They're already

overloaded. . . . We need to be here passing good

legislation, doing the people's work and not doing a bunch of

make-work.''

House Democrats see a more cynical motive. The GOP

majority, they say, wants a complacent Congress that will

raise few questions about the Bush administration, despite

the international uproar over the prison abuse scandal in

Iraq and recent damaging revelations about Bush's decision to

go to war.

``Given all the issues and problems the country faces, it's

scandalous that we're only coming in to work three days a

week, and even then most of the time we're renaming post

offices,'' said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). ``This is a

deliberate effort to keep Congress out of town, keep us from

asking questions.''

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) noted that

senators held three committee hearings on the prison abuses

before House leaders summoned Defense Secretary Donald H.

Rumsfeld to the Armed Services Committee last Friday--a day

that the Senate was meeting but the House was not. DeLay

dismissed the idea of a full-fledged congressional

investigation, which he likened to ``saying we need an

investigation every time there's police brutality on the

street.''

Pelosi complained: ``Americans are out of work. Our troops

are in danger in Iraq. Our reputation is in shreds throughout

the world. And we're leaving early afternoon on Thursday.''

She also said, ``The House of Representatives has

demonstrated that it is nothing more than a rubber stamp for

the administration.''

Stephen Hess, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution,

contends that the House's anemic work schedule is symptomatic

of the larger problem of political gridlock. He said

lawmakers are ``probably realistic in saying, `We're not

spending much time here because we know that nothing would

get done.' '' He added, however, that ``if they stuck around

and talked to each other, maybe they could figure something

out.''

Last week's House action was typical in many ways. It

featured bitterly partisan arguments over the Iraq war, in

the House chamber and in dueling news conferences. But the

main bills approved were a resolution condemning the prison

abuses and a long-expected one-year extension of a provision

to protect millions of Americans from the alternative minimum

tax--a temporary measure that postpones difficult decisions

about a major looming problem.

The week of April 19 was similar. The House held three

votes Tuesday night, all unanimous and all renaming post

offices. On Wednesday, members quickly passed five bills

without debate, under ``suspension'' rules. The one drawing

the most opposition--14 nay votes--endorsed research and

development into ``green chemistry.''

Thursday was that week's busiest day, as Republicans and

Democrats vigorously debated a ``continuity of government''

bill, meant to ensure that Congress could function if many

lawmakers perished in a terrorist attack. The measure, which

passed 306 to 97, would require states to hold special

elections within 45 days if at least 100 House members were

killed. As usual, members had Monday, Friday and most of

Tuesday free of Washington-based duties.

Meanwhile, the U.S. military campaign in Iraq had one of

its bloodiest weeks ever. Shells killed 22 Iraqi prisoners

near Baghdad one day, and suicide bomb blasts killed 68

people in Basra--many of them children--the next. Violence in

the besieged city of Fallujah continued, and 14 U.S.

servicemen were killed during the week.

The week before that, the House was in recess, as it plans

to be the week of May 24, the week of June 28, the six weeks

starting July 26, and all of October, November and December.

John Feehery, spokesman for Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-

Ill.), defended the House's accomplishments and pace. ``Last

year we sent a lot of things over to the Senate, and

they're sitting in Tom Daschle's back pocket,'' he said,

referring to the Senate minority leader, from South

Dakota. Those bills include tort reform to curb medical

malpractice suits, energy legislation, and welfare

reauthorization.

This year, Feehery said, ``we've passed a lean budget'' for

fiscal 2005. ``We're working very hard to keep the

president's tax cuts in place. We're monitoring the situation

in Iraq'' and will appropriate extra funds as needed. House

committees, he said, ``have done a lot of oversight on the

Iraq war,'' primarily aimed at seeing that money is well

spent.

The House does not need showy inquiries in front of cameras

to fulfill its watchdog obligations, Feehery said. ``Our

oversight is not politically motivated, which probably

frustrates the Democrats,'' he said. ``It's motivated by

better governance.''

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), a top adviser in the Clinton

White House, is unconvinced.

``We can name post offices,'' Emanuel said, ``or we can ask

the hard questions about the direction of our nation.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the gentleman from California's (Mr. George Miller) time.

Mr. Speaker, the President's new PR offensive in Iraq is offensive. The President sent Secretary Rumsfeld to Iraq. He should have sent him to see the Red Cross instead.

This administration remains in denial over the prisoner abuses in Iraq. They think creating a photo op in Iraq will somehow divert attention from the photos that shock the world. Justice is not a PR stunt in Iraq.

The responsibility is not a sound bite from Secretary Rumsfeld telling Americans from Iraq that he is in charge. Accountability is not a mug shot from the prison where policies that shame America spun out of control.

Mr. President, this is a crisis of worldwide scope. Landing on an aircraft, Mr. Speaker, will not help. Standing your guy up in Iraq will not help. Pretending it will go away will not help. Put away the banner, Mr. President, because America is in the midst of a crisis.

We are just beginning to comprehend the magnitude of the abuse at one prison in Iraq, and we are beginning to hear of abuses that may have taken place elsewhere. This PR stunt will be seen around the world as just that, and it will only make matters worse.

Restoring America's credibility in the world will take America confronting this awful thing. The people mugging for the camera are the people who ought to be at the center of a complete and impartial investigation. Anything less will be a cover-up plan in plain sight.

The world simply will not allow it. Every day the questions and comments worldwide get just tougher and tougher.

From the Gulf News, today's editorial is entitled ``Inside Afghan's Prisons, U.S. Abuses are Shrouded in Mystery.''

Singapore's Straits Times newspaper carries the commentary today entitled ``Torture and the Politics of Ambiguity.''

I will insert these newspaper articles into the Record at this point.

[From the Straits Times, May 13, 2004]

Torture and the Politics of Ambiguity

(By Michael Manning)

Each new revelation of physical abuse, maltreatment and

sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners by American and British

soldiers shocks international public opinion, leaving

officials to scramble desperately to contain the damage.

United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld warns

that more documentary evidence of wrongdoing at Abu Ghraib

prison lies in store, evidently in the preemptive hope that

the outrages stopped there.

As a former US military intelligence interrogator, I am

convinced that the images from Abu Ghraib are just the

beginning. The wanton cruelty there is all too clearly

symptomatic of a systemic failure.

But what system failed? Was it a failure of discipline and

training--the result of sending inexperienced and unworldly

reservists into poor conditions, abruptly extending their

deployments and then leaving them understaffed in the face of

a growing influx of captured insurgents? Or did the pattern

of abuse amount to so many orders from superiors to ``soften

up'' prisoners for interrogation?

The answer is, most likely, both and neither.

Ultimately, what gives rise to abuses such as occurred at

Abu Ghraib is a policy of deliberate ambiguity concerning how

to handle detainees. The pressure in a war setting to get

information that could save lives is immense. But senior

political and military officials--particularly in

democracies--prefer to avoid any association with torture.

Ambiguity is thus a political strategy that encourages the

spread of implicit, informal rules of behavior, thereby

shifting accountability onto the lowest ranking, least

powerful and most expendable soldiers.

I completed the US Army's three-month basic interrogation

course in the late 1980s. It was rigorous--only seven of 33

students finished it--as it required mastering the technical

minutiae of collecting, cross-checking, standardising and

reporting enormous masses of information.

But the curriculum was much less meticulous concerning

interrogation techniques. An interrogation, we were

instructed, should begin with polite, direct questioning,

because a certain number of detainees simply want to unburden

themselves. If more persuasion was needed, we could offer

rewards for cooperation--anything from cigarettes to

political asylum.

Beyond this, we were taught that we could ``apply

pressure.'' The term was never defined in any formal setting,

but the concept was not difficult to decipher. As US Army

General Antonio Taguba's report on the abuses at Abu Ghraib

put it, the ``guard force'' was ``actively engaged in setting

the conditions for successful exploitation of the

internees.''

This obvious violation of the Army's rule prohibiting

participation by military police in interrogation sessions

does not surprise me. I was never taught that military police

came under a separate chain of command. On the contrary,

between classes, during breaks in field training and in other

informal settings, some of our instructors let it be known

through insinuation and innuendo that we could have the

guards beat uncooperative subjects.

This was never said in the classroom, but it was made clear

the role of military police was to serve the interrogators,

for an interrogator's effectiveness depends on convincing the

detained of his omnipotence.

The hidden rules of the game came closest to being

officially acknowledged during two weeks of simulated

interrogations towards the end of the training course. These

sessions involved only a student interrogator, and instructor

in the role of the detainee and a video camera.

When, during a simulation, I asked an imaginary guard to

take away the detainee's chair, the instructor feigned being

removed violently. When I told the non-existent guard to hit

the detainee, the instructor played along. All of us knew

that a failed interrogation could mean being dropped from the

course. I was not dropped; I finished first in my class.

For those who benefit from the politics of ambiguity,

international law is an indispensable prop. In his recent US

Senate testimony, Mr. Rumsfeld claimed that the military

police at Abu Ghraib were instructed to abide by the Geneva

conventions.

So was I. Throughout my training as an interrogator, the

admonition to follow the Geneva conventions accompanied

virtually every discussion of ``applying pressure.''

Unfortunately, like ``applying pressure,'' the Geneva

conventions were never defined. We never studied them, nor

were we given a copy to read, much less tested on their

contents. For many of us, the conventions were at best a

dimly remembered cliche from war movies that meant, ``don't

do bad stuff.''

Again, the tacit rules said otherwise. One instructor joked

that although the Geneva conventions barred firing a 50-

caliber machine gun at an enemy soldier, we could aim at his

helmet or backpack, since these were ``equipment.'' Others

shared anecdotes about torturing detainees.

Whether such talk was true is irrelevant. We were being

conditioned to believe that the official rules set no clear

limits, and that we could therefore set the limits wherever

we liked.

In the end, the politics of ambiguity may fail Mr.

Rumsfeld; all those high-resolution photographs from Abu

Ghraib are anything but ambiguous. If similarly shameful

disclosures multiply, as I believe they will, let us at least

hope that official apologies and condemnations may finally

give way to wider, more genuine accountability and reform.

Mr. Speaker, with everything going wrong for our war President in Iraq, it would be easy to overlook another tragedy confronting the United States.

Almost 44 million people are uninsured in this country; they go without health care and hope they do not get sick. The vast majority of these people come from families where one person works full-time.

By our actions, we are forcing Americans to choose between food and health care. That is not a choice. That is a cruel reality perpetuated by this administration.

The administration pretends every American has health care because there are emergency rooms, and we have a cabinet Secretary who says so, knowingly misleading the American people, and we wonder why the world questions our moral leadership.

Almost 44 million Americans do not have health care, and we can change that. Bills have been brought before the Congress for years, but the administration ignores them. We are going to deal with two useless ones today.

Every other industrialized country offers affordable health care except us. We could change it today, but we will not under this administration. We are going to have to have an election and send the President back to Texas.

Mr. Speaker, it is always good to come out here and talk about an important issue. We have had a wartime President who has wanted to talk about war: I am a wartime President, I am doing this, I am doing that. I wish we had a domestic President who would occasionally think about what needs to be done on the domestic scene.

This particular little bill is what they are going to hold out for their evidence that they care about domestic health problems in this country.

Now, I do not know; it would be laughable if it was not so sad that this is the only bill that they can come up with. I know my good friend, the gentleman from Louisiana, knows, he and I share the desire for everyone to be covered in this country, and the only thing that separates us is how to do it. And for this to be offered as one of the ways that we are going to make it easier is simply, well, they will have to say they have passed something. I think it is called the flexible savings and health savings account rollover. That will be a title that will certainly sound like they did something.

The idea of health savings accounts goes against the basic issue here in how we ought to be dealing with health care. We do not have any problem in thinking that we should do fire departments collectively. We do not call them socialistic or whatever. They do not look to Canada for how to run a fire department. We started that in 1754, and police departments and roads and schools, all of those issues we deal with together. But in health care we say, hey, baby, you are on your own. You and you and you and you and you, you are on your own.

Now, if you have a job that takes care of you, oh, well, you are lucky; you have the plastic, you are in good shape in the lottery. I have a piece of plastic in my pocket. Everybody has one in their pocket or in their purse, and that plastic keeps you in the game. But God forbid that you do not have a piece of plastic.

Now, the answer for those 40 million people in this country who do not have plastic is, well, why do you not have a health savings account? Yes, that is a good idea. You can take your money, and you can put it in that health savings account and buy yourself a $10,000 deductible program and everything that comes up you can use the money out of the health savings account to pay for it, and it will work wonderfully.

The problem with this whole thing is the idea that people have $4,500, or whatever the number is, to put into their health savings account is nonsense, and it puts people on their own.

The idea of putting people on their own works very well for some people in this society, people who are rich. I mean, golly, if you are the head of Enron, you have a few extra dollars, you can just throw it into a health savings account; and if you happen to have a little problem that takes your life in some direction that costs a lot of money, well, you can take it out of your pocket. But all of those employees that were working for Enron that suddenly got dumped out in the street because crooks were running the business, they do not have anything. They could have their health savings account. Maybe it would cover, maybe it would not, but where are they going after that? Enron is not coming back, so after the first year, okay, where are you going to go?

How do you cover yourself in a situation when you are out there alone? The individual market in this country is a mess. No one can afford it because they can look at each one of you and say, well, you look to me like you have the possibility of X, Y and Z and we are going to charge you $1,000 a month.

The average person has trouble taking that kind of insurance. So having this savings account, I put that $4,500 in I did not have, I put that in there and then I get sick.

I had a friend who went in the hospital with a heart attack. He was in the hospital 2 days, and the hospital bill alone was $10,000. So it could happen to anybody. Any Member of the Congress, anybody on the street can end up in the hospital and spend that deductible just like that. Where do they have the money to pay for it? I do not know how they are going to get some of it out of this health savings account.

Now, this bill is predicated on the idea that they will never get sick and that at the end of the year they are going to have some money left. The idea is at the end of the year you have not been sick so you have got this money laying in your account so you can roll it over into the next year. Well, that is a nice idea. It would probably help maybe 15, 20 people in this country, maybe even 1,000, but it does absolutely nothing for 40 million people out there with no health insurance, and this is why this is a joke.

We will pass it, of course. Nobody is going to vote against it. Well, I do not know, some might, but the fact is that it is not dealing with the problem that faces us, and if our war President would pay a little more attention to the domestic and not cut taxes everywhere in sight, we would have some money.

Part of the problem is what is happening at the State now, because even Medicaid is going away, lots of States do not even put senior citizens into their Medicaid program. Only 34 States have a Medicaid spend-down for seniors.

This country is in a mess, and this bill does not do anything.

Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Iowa is such a good Member, and I really hate to review the bidding here, but last time I looked, Republicans had the Presidency, and they had control of the Senate and they had control of the House, and, if I am not mistaken, the Federal law says that on the 15th of April you are supposed to pass a budget.

Now, if we give you all the cards, for heaven's sake, can you people not work it out? Do you have to keep fighting among yourselves? I mean, here we are, and all we are asking you is to go along with that other body.

Now, I know that the gentleman is not a bad person, and I do not like to bring up this stuff about how we have voted for this. You know, you pick on guys, these other guys who voted for tax cuts. Look for me in that list.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we finally got one up here that the gentleman is not going to call a hypocrite, is he? I do not mean that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. I know that one has to be flexible when one is the chairman, because the gentleman voted for pay-go many times and said it was a good idea, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) got out here and gave the gentleman all that evidence.

But the fact is that what we are talking about here is, you know, there are a lot of people sitting out there watching this, and they go down to the grocery store and they have a $20 bill and they say, well, I am going to buy some groceries here. So they buy what they can get with $20. That is the way a lot of people operate in this world.

But the Republicans, ever since they have taken over this House, in fact you did it under Reagan, we tried this Laffer curve business and all that and went into this great big deficit, and it took Clinton to get us out. For all you want to say about Bill Clinton, he did dig us out of your mess from the Reagan years. You did not learn anything from that.

So you decided let us get out our favorite two credit cards and you said, well, we got Social Security, we got a whole lot of money over there in that one, and we got a whole lot over here in the Medicare one. Let us just spend off these credit cards like wildfire. That is where you get those red blotches on the graphs.

Now, the people out there, they do not understand why it is you do not want to pay as you go. Who do you think is going to pay off these credit

cards? Do you think maybe it is the Democrats who are going to pay it off when we take over next time? Our job will be, how do we dig ourselves out of the hole you put us in?

We are just trying to lay the groundwork for saying, hey, look, we know we are going to be in charge soon, or hope so, or, if God wills. You know, under God we do not know what will happen, but we may wind up in charge. And you have spent our credit cards into such a mess, we will have to do something.

We cannot keep spending, because people are getting older. There are a lot of those baby-boomers that are coming up, and they are expecting that the money that was in the account that you have been borrowing from is going to be there for them, and they are going to find out it is empty. We are going to be caught with digging us out of the hole.

Now, you may think it is funny, and you may enjoy this ride, but I will tell you something: When the baby-boomers get to be senior citizens, you are going to have a price to pay, because all this profligate spending is going to come home to roost.

I think it just makes sense to adopt this resolution and go with the Senate. They are very smart over there; oh, very smart.

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

Mr. Speaker, the debate over the war in Iraq should not be derailed by the tragedy overwhelming the Berg family. That would be a victory against America that al Qaeda is hoping for. No Republican or Democrat should do or say anything except that we are profoundly sorry for their loss. The country and Congress must remain focused on those responsible for the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison.

The administration would have us believe that the abuses were the work of a few rogue soldiers, but accounts from some of those directly involved tell a different story. Today's Washington Post and other media worldwide are reporting on interviews and testimony given by soldiers. A private seen in the photos told the news media she was ``just following orders.'' The general in charge of the prison says she was confronted by a superior and told ``my way or the hard way.''

From the Middle East, a 16-year-old Iraqi alleges he was subjected to a mock execution in front of his family.

Mr. Speaker, I will include for the Record several news accounts.

The military commanders and civilians at the Pentagon cannot agree on who was in charge and what policies were approved. That is what happened in a scandal before. History gets rewritten. Memories fade as if on cue.

From the little Congress has been able to learn in the last few days, one thing is clear; the story keeps changing. This has the look and the feel of a cover-up. The tactic is a well-known one around here: Find some scapegoats; send out surrogates to decry every call for a full and impartial investigation; act and speak like scandal is no big deal.

The American people have seen a cover-up in the past by another Republican administration, and the American people refuse to accept anything less than full disclosure and the truth. It was true for the Nixon administration, it will be true for the Bush administration.

We do not have time to wait for the truth to trickle out, but we certainly cannot show the world that the government leaks are how America finds the truth. These abuses will not go away, no matter how many speeches the majority leader makes trying to divert the attention of the American people. These abuses will not go away until we back our words with deeds and bring justice to everyone involved. Privates do not set policy, they follow orders. This scandal goes deeper and higher than the Congress, and the American people have been told so far.

The Australian newspapers carry the story ``Rumsfeld Approved Harsh Interrogation.'' We need to know the truth, and that means we conduct the most vigorous and independent investigation ever undertaken. An investigation must begin at the top where policies were set and command decisions were made. The investigation must be widened to include Afghanistan and Guantanamo. People outside the reach of the administration should conduct an investigation.

This scandal has shaken this Nation to its core. It is a scandal being televised around the world every hour of every day. Virtually no one on the face of the earth has not seen or heard about the photographs and the atrocities. Yet some of the administration insist things are not so bad. Every time a Republican steps up to the podium to undertake damage control, the words echo around the world, and the words ring hollow.

Every attempt to act like this is no big deal undermines leaders in both parties who are trying to show the world that America does understand the meaning of justice and responsibility. Like it or not, and I certainly do not, we have to meet this head on. Words like torture, humiliation, and murder do apply. We have no choice but to shine the light of free and democratic society into the darkness of the scandal, whatever the outcome.

No one is above the law in America and we must show the world that the rule of law prevails in this country. It is not enough for the administration to say it will not happen again when the American people do not know how it happened in the first time. It is not enough to speak an apology on one hand, and then send Republicans to the podium to act as if we were somehow permitted an injustice now and then.

Freedom does not come easy, and freedom does not come with exceptions. It is not enough to name a few low-level soldiers and pretend we have addressed the issue. Administration surrogates are sent to the podium to paint Democrats, the news media, and anyone who dares to disagree as unpatriotic. The message around the world is America will do what it damn well pleases, anywhere in the world, illegal, immoral; sorry, world, we are immune. We cannot and we must not send that message.

The administration cannot spin-doctor its way out of the crisis. The world simply will not allow it. We cannot spin the inhumanity displayed in 1,000 pictures. No words can mitigate the humiliation. The war in Iraq is longer about affirming democracy in a far-off land. Now the war in Iraq is about affirming democracy in the United States.

[From The Age, May 13, 2004]

Rumsfeld Approved ``Harsh'' Interrogation

(By Julian Borger)

A list of two types of interrogation techniques: one is

basic and for all prisoners; the other is much tougher and

requires approval.

U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved the use of

``harsh'' interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay,

including stripping detainees naked, making them hold

``stress'' positions and depriving them of sleep, a Pentagon

official has confirmed.

Stephen Cambone, the under-secretary of defence for

intelligence, also said severe interrogation techniques,

including the use of dogs to intimidate prisoners, had been

approved by military commanders in Iraq.

But Mr. Cambone, Mr. Rumsfeld's top intelligence official,

insisted that all U.S. soldiers in Iraq were under orders to

obey the Geneva Convention. He denied that the U.S. military

leadership had helped create a climate for prison abuse.

Mr. Cambone was speaking at a Senate hearing to investigate

the torture scandal at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, and to

determine whether the seven low-ranking guards facing courts

martial for physical and sexual abuse of prisoners were

following orders.

Revealing the interrogation methods allowed in Iraq, the

Senate Armed Services Committee released a single page titled

``Interrogation Rules of Engagement'', listing two categories

of measures.

The first showed basic techniques approved for all

detainees, while the second involved tougher measures that

required approval by Lieutenant-General Ricardo Sanchez,

commander of U.S. forces in Iraq. Among the items on the

second list were stress positions for up to 45 minutes, sleep

deprivation for up to 72 hours and use of muzzled dogs.

Mr. Cambone said the Bush Administration's policy has been

to apply the Geneva Convention to the interrogation and other

treatment of detainees in Iraq, but several senators

expressed doubts about whether some of the listed techniques

conformed with international limits.

Major-General Antonio Taguba, who wrote a damning army

report on abuse at Abu Ghraib, told the committee he found no

evidence ``of a policy or a direct order given to these

soldiers to conduct what they did''.

However, he said the scandal was a result of ``failure of

leadership . . . lack of discipline, no training whatsoever

and no supervision'', and he criticised a command decision to

put the jail under the control of a military intelligence

unit.

Critics have argued that Mr. Rumsfeld's decision to suspend

Geneva Convention safeguards for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay,

and the transfer to Iraq of interrogation techniques used

there, helped create the conditions for the Abu Ghraib

scandal, even if no order was issued to use torture.

``The despicable actions described in General Taguba's

report not only reek of abuse, they reek of an organised

effort and methodical preparation for interrogation,''

Democrat Senator Carl Levin said.

According to Senator Levin, an unpublished annexe to the

Taguba report stated that ``sleep management, sensory

deprivation, isolation longer than 30 days and dogs'' were

described as a ``permissible technique for use in the Iraqi

theatre'' on condition that the commanding general gave

approval ``prior to employment''.

Mr. Cambone said the techniques had been approved by U.S.

commanders in Iraq, not by the Pentagon.

However, he confirmed that Mr. Rumsfeld had last year

approved a new set of techniques, but insisted on being asked

for permission each time this ``stress matrix'' was used.

General Taguba stood by his inquiry's finding that military

police jailers should not have been involved in conditioning

Iraqi detainees for interrogation, even as Mr. Cambone

disputed that conclusion.

Mr. Cambone said that the military policy and military

intelligence needed to work closely to gain as much

intelligence as possible from the prisoners.

Mr. Cambone also said that General Taguba misinterpreted

the November order, which he said only put the intelligence

unit in charge of the prison facility, not of the military

guards.

While General Taguba depicted the abuses at the prison as

the acts of a few soldiers under a fragmented and inept

command, he also said that ``they were probably influenced by

others, if not necessarily directed specifically by others''.

His report called for an inquiry into the culpability of

intelligence officers, which is still under way.

The unusual public sparring between a two-star army general

and one of Mr. Rumsfeld's most trusted aides cast a spotlight

on the confusing conditions at the prison last year when the

worst abuses occurred, as well as the sensitive issue of

whether the Pentagon's thirst for better intelligence to

combat Iraqi insurgents contributed to the climate there.

Mr. Speaker, the previous speakers have talked about the attitude of the American soldier and the American public, and the rhetoric of war is what really gets us to where we are today in the situation in Iraq. When you dehumanize people, you can then do anything to them.

It is my firm belief that this attitude starts at the very top. When we have someone who leads us who says that the leader of the other country is Hitler, raising all those images of a Holocaust and all the rest, or talks about the issues of being on a crusade, which raises all the issues of the various crusades that went through the Middle East back in the 11th and 12th century, we realize that the stage is being set psychologically for everyone in this country.

I was reading the British press. One of their articles started, ``The media in this country is politely shocked at photos of Iraqis being tortured and humiliated by U.S. and British troops. A BBC1 news presenter says the picture seem to have been ``merely mementos.' '' Something one would laugh about in the family and then paste in the family album.

Now, those young people, and I have been watching the hearings over in the Senate, the effort to limit this and say it is just seven or eight young people and perhaps a couple of lieutenants up the line but really it is a rogue operation, is simply not true. It runs all the way to the top.

The decisions here have to be signed off. Anybody who has been in the military knows about the chain of command, and somebody does not sign off down at the lieutenant level and not bother to send it up to the captain or to the colonel or to the general. They all go up the line. They have all been signed off, one way or another, or somebody at the top said here is a blank check, do whatever you want, which of course they would deny. They would never say that, but then how do you explain that this behavior went on through this period of time?

Another excuse that I hear thrown around here is that, well, they are not as bad as Saddam. Look what Saddam did. Well, since when is our standard Saddam Hussein? That clearly is not the standard by which we operate; but unfortunately, the attitude of the people who took us into this, the neo-cons in the administration, right next to the President, couple of them, Ken Adelman, Paul Wolfowitz, have spoken of snakes. If you want to talk about Iraqi people as snakes, I guess you can, but you pay a price in your own soul when you think of another human being as a snake or you talk about going over and draining the swamps in uncivilized parts of the world.

The Arabs invented arithmetic. They invented the zero. They were some of the earliest astronomers. Do not tell me they have no civilization. But when you start to dehumanize them and put them down at this low, low level, then you send the message out verbally, nonverbally, whether it is in a memo, whether it is in written form, whether it is how you talk to your troops, you are giving permission to do what was done and to take pictures.

Now, you do not take pictures of this to take home to your family album. Those pictures were done to humiliate. Everybody says, wait a minute, let me comb my hair before I have my picture taken. Everybody knows what a picture does because it grabs the moment in a way that you cannot change it. So when you take a picture of one of these events, you know what you are doing. You are doing it because somebody told you to do it or somewhere you have got the idea that what you were doing was already one or the other. Either that was an order to take those pictures, or else the atmosphere was such that people felt that they could take these pictures.

We have a moment here in this country in which we can examine our own souls and our own hearts about how we let this happen. We all bear responsibility for it. Our leadership from the top on down, they always dehumanized.

I remember during the Vietnam War, we had a lot of names for people who were from Vietnam, not very nice names. You would not use them today; and when that starts happening at the top, it goes down and we cannot end with putting seven soldiers in the brig. That will not be justice.

Mr. Speaker, the world is watching and waiting. As bad as it is, things will get much worse if the President and the Pentagon continue to hope it will go away. We need new leadership and a new policy right now. Release every photograph and every videotape. Get it all out in the open. America's only hope for restoring credibility is to demonstrate with its actions, not words, that we will face the truth and punish everyone responsible. We have not done that. All these ``I am sorries'' are not working.

Instead, the administration has launched another ill-conceived offensive to save one of its own. We can see it on television today as they testify before the Senate Committee on Armed Services. Throw some soldiers overboard and hope the world believes they acted alone.

Mr. Speaker, by all accounts, the soldiers arrived in Iraq as good, decent people. Who thinks that now, either of the soldiers or America?

Clean house, from the top down, not just Mr. Rumsfeld. I see them greasing the skids; the President is 1,000 percent behind him. There are some other people that ought to go with him: Wolfowitz and a few others.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to suspend your emotions for a moment and look closely at the pictures from Iraq. The Americans appear to be dressed about the same, but there is one major difference. Some of the photos include U.S. soldiers and U.S. civilian contractors. In fact, in one photo the civilian contractors are turned away from the camera. Maybe they were trying to protect themselves. From what?

Some of the U.S. soldiers involved will face a military court martial. The civilian contractors will not face a military court or an Iraqi court or an American court. Civilian contractors involved may not face any punishment thanks to the Pentagon.

Secretary Rumsfeld outsourced the President's war. He outsourced the checks and balances. He outsourced the chain of command. He outsourced due process.

The Pentagon wrote an order that specifically protects civilian contractors from prosecution in Iraq for crimes committed under the umbrella of official duties, and if a civilian contractor commits a crime while off duty in Iraq, U.S. Administrator Paul Bremer has to agree in writing to local prosecution. Does that sound like the United States? Is this the model of democracy we are trying to install in Iraq? Does this sound like adhering to the Geneva Convention?

Last week, the Attorney General rushed to the microphones to tell America that he can prosecute civilians implicated in Iraqi crimes, but the Attorney General neglected to tell the American people that not a single FBI agent has been dispatched to Iraq to investigate. Not one. When two U.S. embassies were bombed in Africa during the Clinton administration, 900 FBI agents went to the scene. The Attorney General says he will wait until the Pentagon finishes its investigation. What is he waiting for?

The International Red Cross has been sounding the alarm for over a year, but the administration and its war machine turned a deaf ear and a deaf eye to what was happening. Now the United States and every soldier is paying the price for benign neglect.

Civilians were given authority to interrogate, clearly using any and all means. Civilians had some mission control over U.S. soldiers, and they exploited this control.

Civilians were immune from local prosecution and immune from military chain of command. We know there has been torture and likely even murder; yet some soldiers were involved, but we cannot stop there and pretend that is the end of it.

There are thousands of civilian contractors in Iraq. We owe it to every good and decent American soldier to get to the worst black mark in military history. We must know what role, secret or otherwise, the civilians were playing in the war. What else were they given besides protection? What secret orders are they carrying out? Who is accountable for the civilians? What assurances will the Iraqi people have that any civilian implicated will be brought to justice? How can we say that we stand for freedom if we let the criminals go free?

The U.S. military told the administration before the war that hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed. The administration refused to listen. Instead, the administration deployed a hand-over strategy concerning Iraq. The administration handed over critical duties to people outside the military and then protected them.

The administration keeps talking about handing over Iraq on June 30. They have already handed over to the wrong people. We need to get back in control of what is going on in Iraq. This administration has got to come clean on what those contractors were hired to do, by whom, and who supervises them.

Are there bosses in Virginia that run those companies? Are they exempt, too? Is nobody responsible for the interrogations that went on in that prison or in the other prisons in Iraq?

These are the questions that must be answered by this administration, and I am afraid that if Mr. Rumsfeld does not want to do it, he is going to have to go.

Mr. Speaker, I abhor nuclear weapons and would like nothing better than to see the world free of these weapons. I believe that Iran is a nation that we cannot trust. I also believe the House Concurrent Resolution rushed through Congress by the Republicans with little debate and even less clarity in intent is wrong, and I cannot support it.

The wording of the Iran Resolution reminds me of the blank check the President got for Iraq. Here's what I mean. The relevant portion of Section 2 of the Iran Resolution says: ``. . . to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. . . .'' We must not make the same mistake twice. We need to deal with Iran. We need to deal with nuclear weapons programs, but this is not the way to do it.