Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, throughout my tenure in Congress, I have worked closely with the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) on many issues arising in the Pacific region. The RMI has always been, and continues to be, a great ally of the United States and is dedicated to international peace and freedom. Therefore, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 410.

By the beginning of the 1900's, the RMI was annexed by Spain, Germany, and Japan. In 1934, the Allied invasion and occupation of the RMI began. In 1947, the RMI became one of six entities in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands established by the United Nations with the United States as the Trustee. Throughout all these years of being occupied, the people of RMI never lost their self-identity or hope for their own country. This hope grew in the decades after World War II as a local form of self-government was established. This led to the convening of a constitutional convention.

In 1979, the people of the RMI adopted a constitution and chose their form of government, a republic. With separation of powers and a Bill of Rights listing guaranteed rights, the RMI is based on the same principals and freedoms that the United States was founded on hundreds of years ago. Similar to our founding, it was the will of the people driving the process and making the decisions.

The RMI is now a sovereign nation. As a sovereign nation, the RMI has aligned itself closely with the U.S., particularly in a number of defense and strategic issues. Recently, we have renewed our mutually beneficial relationship by reauthorizing the Compact of Free Association. This has guaranteed that our alliance will continue for another 15 years.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution and recognize the 25th anniversary of the adoption of RMI's constitution. Their commitment and dedication to peace and democracy should be commended.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my chairman would kindly yield to me for 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I notice that you have about 20 minutes more left in this hour, and I believe that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), myself, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), as well as a couple of other Members have an hour coming up. I found it very interesting, the conversation. Obviously, we may have some differing views on this, but I wonder if the chairman might consider that perhaps next week or the balance of the week at some time, that we could, those of us interested in this issue and have the articulate views, as my colleague and the other Members do, might consider combining our hour sometime and having a discussion?

Maybe we could discuss that off the floor and perhaps we might benefit the whole American public by the kind of discussion that could take place.

I am sure with this trio that is here this evening and those we could bring to the discussion, particularly those of my esteemed colleagues on the Committee on Armed Services, I think we might get an audience that might not necessarily be able to follow the hearings that the chairman has put together so far.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and we will talk about it and perhaps something good in terms of dialogue could result.

Well, the time belongs to the Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful, Mr. Chairman. I will yield any time to take that kind of compliment.

Can I leave now?

Mr. Speaker, as you know, and our friends know, we have been engaged in a conversation for some months now with regard to what we have come to term the Iraq Watch; and I was very pleased to note that my good friend and esteemed colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), indicated in the last hour that he and other Members were occupying, that they would be pleased at some point, perhaps in the future, to work out an opportunity for a dialogue, not necessarily a debate, but a conversation among friends with respect to Iraq and its implications for the United States, perhaps even combining hours. I do not know what the rules are precisely on that, and I do not ask for a ruling on that right now, Mr. Speaker; but at some point we hope to be able to do that, hopefully for the benefit of the membership and for those members of the American public and others that may be tuning in to our Special Orders.

For this evening's opportunity, however, I wanted to begin our discussion tonight with some references and observations over the so- called handover of sovereignty. I think, Mr. Speaker, you might agree that with respect to Iraq, and unfortunately not only Iraq, there tends to be opportunities for the media in particular to seize on certain phrases. They become almost phrases of art. These phrases then substitute for a whole panoply of analysis that might otherwise usefully take place.

In this instance, the phrase that I am referring to is the so-called ``handover of sovereignty.'' Handover of sovereignty, what that means is not clear to me at this stage.

What I did observe during our break was a ceremony which took place under very, very strained circumstances. The television news was suddenly filled with the ominous music, the drumbeats, the portentous rhythms that seem to indicate that something of spectacular import is about to happen. Breaking news. Stentorian voices, a sound, and then suddenly we are told, well, we are going to go to the handover of sovereignty in Iraq. It is to take place in secret. It is to take place with a pool reporter there, apparently a pool camera. It is in some secret room somewhere in the green zone, presumably, I guess, in one of the palaces, or what are referred to as palaces, in Baghdad; and, suddenly, there is Ambassador Bremer and some folks there with handshakes and pieces of paper passed back and forth. No real idea of what it is all about other than smiles and handshakes all around.

And suddenly sovereignty ostensibly has been transferred or handed over. That it took place in secret, that it took place ostensibly to prevent terrorist activity from disrupting it probably speaks more about what the handover was actually all about and whether or not the word ``sovereignty'' might properly apply.

In both instances, I think not. There was no handover of sovereignty. How can there be sovereignty when you do not control your armed forces, when the first pronouncements of your ostensibly sovereign government involve the possibility of imposing martial law on your own people and indications that the governing authority, that is to say the Coalition Provisional Authority under Mr. Bremer, still absent him in person, is going to be in charge of the military activities, presumably, according to this handover of sovereignty ceremony, under some kind of group discussion terminology.

Again, I fail to understand exactly how this ``partnership,'' which was referred to between the so-called sovereign Government of Iraq and the Government of the United States through its military, is supposed to take place.

It is unclear to me that the questions that I asked of Assistant Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz in our Committee on Armed Services hearings, unclear to me whether these questions were answered. I simply said, ``Who is in charge? Who has the authority?'' And what I got was the usual dissembling and allusions to the idea of group discussions taking place. I am not quite sure how one responds to military situations in the arena of group discussions, but I suppose it is possible.

My own thought at that time was, and I said at that time and repeat again tonight, that my perception was that at the turnover of sovereignty, at least as best I was able to understand that term, the American military would be set adrift on a desert sea and would find itself in a situation of being the first responders in an Iraqi crisis and that we would be uncertain as to who exactly was issuing the orders and under what circumstances they would be obeyed.

This constitutes, for me, a crisis of another character, a crisis for us to answer; and in that context it is clear to me that the handover of sovereignty amounts to little more than a propaganda device meant to try to distance the political consequences and implications of our occupation from the political realities as the election approaches.

Obviously, people will have to make their own minds up on that score; but in relation to that then, among the first pronouncements of this sovereign government was that under consideration was a possible policy of amnesty and that the amnesty would extend to those people who had murdered American troops, those people who had been involved in the insurgency that has taken place since the hostilities or major hostilities were pronounced at an end, i.e., mission accomplished by Mr. Bush some time ago on the infamous aircraft carrier stunt.

And subsequent to that, obviously this insurgency, again, this is a term that has been adopted by the media uncritically, has resulted in numerous deaths and woundings. Most members of, certainly, the Committee on Armed Services and other Members of the House of Representatives and members of the subcommittees of the other body have traveled both in their districts and here in Washington and in Germany to hospital situations where we have been able to speak with and, hopefully, bring some measure of comfort and support to members of the military who have been wounded, members of the military and others, including civilian employees. But all that has taken place since this pronouncement that the war was essentially over, that the major activities surrounding the invasion was over; and now we find that this sovereign government is contemplating offering amnesty to those people.

Now, if that is in fact what this has come to, I think the implications and consequences are serious indeed. There is no question in my mind that there will be some very serious dialogue taking place in this Nation if that is what this was all about, the opportunity for a government that has come into being solely as a result of the activities of the United States of America subsequent to the invasion, including and subsequent to the invasion of Iraq; and now we find a general amnesty being contemplated.

That was never discussed, to my knowledge, with any members of the Committee on Armed Services. It was never discussed, to my knowledge, with members of the subcommittees of Congress generally as to whether or not that was something that we could abide. One would think that at a minimum this sovereign government in Iraq would have the courtesy, if only out of respect for those who have died and those who have been wounded on their behalf, to at least engage in some form of a dialogue with the United States in regard to that possible amnesty.

I see my friend from Washington is about to ask for the floor, and I would be happy to yield to him.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I wanted to yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming the time, on that note of our analysis of what the domestic questions are that need to be answered in Iraq, it is probably appropriate that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) comes to us at this time, because if anybody is in the heartland of where domestic issues are in the forefront, I would say that it is the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), his district and his State; and I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, because just before I came back, let me give my colleagues something so that it is not abstract. I will tell my colleagues exactly what I had to deal with and what came up while we were away on our holiday.

My staff representing my delegation was briefed by Major General Lee, the adjutant general of the State of Hawaii, on the situation of the 29th Brigade, Hawaii Army National Guard. The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army approved the alert of the 29th Brigade for deployment to Iraq. Earlier indications were, of course, that the 29th would be deployed to Afghanistan; but the situation on the ground in Iraq now requires additional soldiers from the 120,000 now there, and the enhanced 29th Brigade is needed.

Now, this is happening all across the country; and if anybody thinks for a second that the 5,000 or 6,000 that are going to be involved in this current recall-up, involuntary call-up is going to solve it, I think they are dreaming.

The 29th is one of the two remaining National Guard brigades not yet activated. It will perform reinforcing missions.

Remember when I indicated here before that when this so-called sovereignty occurred, the United States military would be set adrift on a desert sea.

They will perform reinforcing missions, whatever in God's name that means. The expected deployment will be 12 months. The brigade will have to travel off-island to train up, because the normal training entity, the 25th division, of course, is now deployed itself. The brigade may go to Fort Bliss, et cetera; expect the deployment to Iraq to take place shortly.

Then what do we have to do? The adjutant general then had to brief all of the mayors that once the alert notice was released in Washington, we had to then discuss what the impact would be on homeland defense and natural disaster impacts back in Hawaii, because the Guard normally is going to address those situations. The National Guard is, of course, the primary backup to civilian authority. Now we are going to have to rely on the Air National Guard since most of the Army National Guard is going to be deployed. Now, this is just in Hawaii.

Now, we can imagine what is taking place elsewhere all around the country? Part of our problem area in Hawaii is that the police and fire departments are going to be adversely affected because a major portion of the Army guard are police officers and firefighters and teachers. So there will be about 2,500 soldiers from Hawaii and about 3,500 coming from American Samoa, Guam, and California. Now, that is just one instance; and that is the reality.

I want to conclude by saying the impacts on this are considerable, because the employers, whether they are public employers or private employers, have to take into account the absence of these folks at this particular time. What is happening right now is we are denying what the realities of the necessities for troops are in Iraq and Afghanistan and are masking it over with Guard and Reserve deployments; and we are going to have to pay a fearful price for that.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) has to his immediate left what amounts to a poster, a picture on the cover of Newsweek, ``How Dick Cheney Sold the War'' is the overall title. And in that context I would daresay the answer to the gentleman's observations and questions are that unless there is a change in the leadership that is unlikely to occur. His questions will not be answered except in the negative. His observations will continue, because that gentleman whose picture appears there again to the left of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) is the same gentleman whose company and associated companies are the administration, are the ones that are in charge of helping to put this infrastructure together, that is being defended by the American troops.

Yet, as a story recently in the Washington Post points out, and I read the headline to you, a story about Ariana Cha appearing July 1, ``Underclass of Workers Created in Iraq, Many Foreign Laborers Receive Inferior Pay, Food and Shelter.''

It may come as a shock not to members of Iraq Watch, but it may come as a shock to the American taxpayer and perhaps some of our American colleagues that what construction is taking place in Iraq is taking place under the auspices of American companies, many of whom receive single source contracts for hundreds of millions of dollars, who are not even hiring Iraqis, who may be hiring some Americans but are, in fact, bringing in wage slaves from the rest of the world and then not even paying them, cheating them at the same time. Not only are the American taxpayers being cheated by American companies but American workers and Iraqi workers are being cheated.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I will elucidate a bit more on that.

In the story that I indicated I have that I was referring to, the Underclass of Workers Created in Iraq, the opening sentence is, ``The war in Iraq has been a windfall for Kellogg Brown Root, Inc., the company that has a multi-million dollar contract to provide support services for U.S. troops.'' ``KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton Corporation,'' came to employ Indian workers, from India, that is to say, not Native American workers, ``through 5 levels of subcontractors and employment

agents. The company, which employs 30,000 workers from 38 countries in support of the U.S. military, said it had been unaware of the workers' concerns until recently.''

This is the kind of thing, Kellogg Brown, Halliburton, is always unaware of, workers problems, because they are too busy having their accountants going to work on the excessive profits they are making.

It brings to mind the work that was done by one Senator Harry Truman when, during World War II, he had his committee on a bipartisan basis looking into the question of excessive profit-making from World War II. This is not something that is invented for this time and place by members of the Democratic Party. This is something that was headed up by a Democratic Senator, who was in charge in the United States Senate, on a bipartisan basis, to see to it that profiteering does not take place at the expense of the American soldiers or the expense of the American taxpayer.

I want to indicate I think we are down to our last 2 minutes. I would yield to the gentleman from Washington to close.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we are down to our last minute or so. I do want to indicate to members of Iraq Watch that are here tonight that the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services in the previous hour indicated that he and perhaps other Members might be interested in having a dialogue with us and perhaps even combining hours, if that is acceptable under the House rules, perhaps this week or as soon as possible. And if it is okay with everybody, I wanted to pursue that, and I have indicated to the Speaker as we began the hour that that was contemplated and we will try to pursue that with the leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we have come to essentially the end of our hour.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hearing that we had in the Committee on Armed Services today makes clear that they have moved from that position to the point that it does not matter. That is essentially the point that Mr. Wolfowitz was taking today, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Mr. Paul Wolfowitz, who is one of the individuals that has been cited here and has been involved in the decisionmaking based on this false intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, it is not interference at all, believe me, because this is complementary to what has been said. I can tell the gentleman on April 20 of this year, he is thinking about an army. Here is what he said to the Committee on Armed Services, Mr. Wolfowitz said, on April 20: ``There is no question it would be nice right now to have a larger army.'' These are the same people that were claiming, and reclaimed again today, that General Shinseki was wrong. He did not mention General Shinseki, but he went out of his way to make sure that everybody understood that we did not need a greater Armed Forces even though he said so; it would be nice to have a larger Army but absent that, after all, we can on the 200,000 security forces that he says are now in place.

I have his testimony here before me, a written statement given today before the Committee on Armed Services in which he indicates on Page 3 that we are going to be full partners with the Iraqis. This has to do with the sovereignty issue, that they are going to take the lead, he says elsewhere, that they have 200,000 Iraqis in a security force that is a ``work in progress,'' an interesting way of looking at it, that according to the Prime Minister, as related by Mr. Wolfowitz, they are ready to take charge on July 1. There has been enormous progress.

So I asked him today, well, is there an end in sight? And there is no end in sight. It is schizophrenic. I pointed that out to him today. On the one hand, everything is fine, everything is working according to plan, maybe a little bit behind schedule, but nonetheless working its way right along; and on the other hand, we are going to have to be there forever as some kind of partner. I asked partners, I understand the word ``partner'' and the phrase ``full partner.'' What does it mean in terms of who is in charge in relation to these young and men as well as some older members of the Guard and Reserves who are being killed and wounded? Who is in charge? I cannot get from General Pace, I cannot get from Secretary Wolfowitz, who is in charge. Who makes the decisions? They are talking about a partnership on all levels, regional, national, and local; a unity of command; a consensus on the way ahead. And it is supposed to be working out of what are called joint operating centers. How these joint operating centers are supposed to make any decisions regionally or locally or nationally is beyond me.

What is clear from the testimony today is all the discussion that has been taking place about the reasons for going to this war have been entirely set aside; and now apparently what the mission of the United States is, is to act as some kind of backup force, according to them: ``U.S. forces are there to help out. They are backup.'' That is the motto, a backup force for whatever is to take place now to achieve some kind of nation-building. That is now what our mission is all about. It has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. It has nothing to do with anything else that was used as a reference point for why we are going to war, an immediate threat to the United

States in terms of weapons of mass destruction, some kind of military connection to terrorist organizations that are an immediate threat to the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I will answer the gentleman; but according to Mr. Wolfowitz today, terror is now being defined as the insurgency in Iraq. If there was not anything before, we have now created it as a result of the actions that we took based on this false information.

So now the situation has been redefined. The war on terror has been redefined to be the activities of what are termed killers and terrorists and all kinds of anecdotal references as to what that means. We have to go no further than what happened today, an assassination in Mosul of the head of a law school and her husband being beheaded, killed with her and beheaded; another American soldier dying; roadside bombings, all the rest of these kinds of activities taking place so that what was going to happen, in my judgment, on July 1 is that the American military will be set adrift in a desert sea with no compass, with no direction, with nothing except to provide backup under this full partnership in these so-called joint operating centers to make decisions about what we are going to do with the military in Iraq. I was unable to determine today from Mr. Wolfowitz exactly what the role of the Guard and Reserve forces and what the deployment schedule are going to be.

I asked, is there an end in sight? I got Korea, 50 years. I got Germany as an answer. I got Bosnia as an answer. I said, if that is the case, if you are going to cite Bosnia, which he does over and over again, in Bosnia there has been a steady drawdown of troops. Times and schedules are announced. Troops have been drawn down. If we are talking about Korea or Germany, none of the conditions prevail in South Korea or Germany that prevail in Iraq today. So, the analogies are at best totally inaccurate and have nothing to do with what is taking place today in Iraq.

The question remains, if the reasons for going to war have now proven to be at best inadequate, and, at worst, false and misleading, and deliberately so in order to fulfill whatever ideological agenda was then in place in the Bush administration, the fact is now that the mission of the United States military is to somehow provide a backdrop, a foundation or background to this increasingly apparent civil war that is now underway in Iraq.

Because the question arose in several contexts, including questions and observations made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and others on the Republican side of the committee. We try very hard in that committee to work together as Americans to try to come to these conclusions. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) raised the issue of Iran. Other issues were raised with regard to Iran and Syria with the border police.

The best that I can discern out of all of this is that somehow this war was to prevent this from taking place, that is to say, the increased terrorist activities to the degree it can be associated with reference to Syria or Iran, but I was unable to get out of his answers anything that would indicate how could we deal with it.

I do not have trouble understanding him.

If the gentleman will yield, I will tell you exactly what Mr. Wolfowitz thinks on that subject. In the New York Times Magazine, interviewed by Bill Keller in September of 2002, a year after the 9/11 activity, I will tell you exactly what he said.

``There is an awful lot we don't know, an awful lot we may never know, and we have got to think differently about standards of proof here. In fact, there is no way you can prove that something is going to happen 3 years from now or 6 years from now. But these people have made absolutely clear what their intentions are, and we know a lot about their capabilities. Intentions and capabilities are the way you think about warfare. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the way you think about law enforcement. And I think we are much closer to being in a state of war than being in a judicial proceeding.''

That should give you a very brief summary of the answer that would be forthcoming to the questions you just raised, namely, it does not matter.

Can the gentleman yield, so I can tell him what Mr. Wolfowitz would respond, or how he responded today to the questions the gentleman is raising, and particularly what Mr. Inslee has cited in detail. I quote from page 8 of his written statement given to the Committee on Armed Services today.

``Although the reconstruction plans first envisioned in the summer of 2002 and submitted by the Coalition Provisional Authority to Congress last July have undergone substantial changes, it has been the coalition's ability to adapt to rapidly changing circumstances that has brought us now to the transfer of sovereignty and the beginning of representative government in Iraq.''

The commitment is upwards of $150 billion. That does not include the taxes that are now being imposed, and I use that with quotation marks around it because that is how it is characterized, within the military itself.

The existing military budget is being taxed, money extracted from it for operational purposes. The capacity to expend construction funds of $18 billion-plus are committed, but are not necessarily expended just yet. The plain fact is we are talking between $150 billion and $200 billion.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 2 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, June 23, 2004, at 10 a.m.

I think the gentleman from Indiana missed that last comment. You might want to repeat it.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could prevail upon my good friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), who, I might say this evening is in sartorial splendor, as well as a good friend, if we might prevail upon him to maybe come back at another time when we can have a conversation on this, because it is vital to America's interests.

I know the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) has spent his entire congressional career addressing precisely that.

I will be happy to do that.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I think what is important here then to get across this evening is that calling people to account is what we do. The oversight function of the Congress has a long history. I can go back to the time in which some people wonder how Harry Truman got to be chosen as Vice President of the United States just prior to Franklin Roosevelt's death, before his last campaign. Of course, he had made his reputation on an oversight committee in the Senate looking into war profiteering, is what he had done, trying to hold people to account. That is what this is all about.

If someone wants to take up the position that this is a concentration on

President Bush for partisan activity, he is the President. He is making the decisions, and those decisions are subject to scrutiny.

As the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) very well knows, back at the time when Mr. Clinton made decisions about Bosnia and Kosovo, I found myself in opposition to him and said so. I think at least as far as this Member is concerned, I do not have to take a back seat to anybody in trying to bring anybody to account in the executive, Democrat or Republican, if I think that is in order.

If I know my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), well, and I think I do, he does not stand for anybody telling him who should be brought to account either. He has stood up on more than one occasion, perhaps even singularly, calling for an accounting on various issues. I think that is his function and our function, and that is what this Iraq Watch is all about, I can guarantee you that. If we think somebody is doing the right thing, we are going to say so; if we think somebody is not acting necessarily in the best interests of the United States, regardless of what their motivation might be, it is up to us to say so and engage in a dialogue to try to illuminate where the interests of the American people are.

I know that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) agrees with that, and I look forward to any discussion we might have in the future along those lines.

Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

All this points up to the fact that this is ideologically driven. This has nothing to do with those facts. This is ideologically driven by people who are generally termed neoconservative. I am the conservative here. And my colleague should be the conservative here. He is conservative. It is the conservative position not to get trapped in these foreign conflicts, not to go off charging around the world to try and do these things.

The ideology behind this is that Iraq was the key to being able to move into Syria, being able to move into Iran, that this is somehow a defense of the Likud version of what is in Israel's interest. The so- called neoconservatives that are behind this ideological thrust have wanted this war for years. It is not hidden. It is not a conspiracy. It is not some kind of subterfuge. It is an announced policy and possession philosophically they have had for years.

The sad part is after Mr. Bush became President, was appointed President, they came into the forefront in terms of their appointments in the Defense Department where they were able to bring their philosophy forward. That is what is driving this. That is what the President has to face up to. This is where his difficulty is.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) very much for yielding.

All of this would be well and good except that it is not working. I know my colleague did not intend to do this hour, and I will not use his time or his colleagues' time but merely to say, and perhaps we can carry this on at greater length, maybe even tomorrow night if it is okay with the gentleman.

I do not want to interfere, but just to say on the points that he raised, if this was the right war and the right place, that would be one thing; but it is not nitpicking to say that we are doing the wrong thing in the wrong place at the wrong time and actually undermining our capacity to be able to take on terrorists, and in fact, creating more terrorists as a result of it, with fewer allies.

I do not bring that up to try and dispute my colleague tonight; but merely to say I think there is an alternative point of view that is worthy of discussion, and perhaps we could do that at another time when our colleagues do not have the time for the topic they want to discuss.

Hau oli la hanau, which means happy birthday. Take my word for it, it means what my colleague thinks it does.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, June 1, 2004, I was necessarily and unavoidably unable to cast my vote. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows:

Rollcall 210--House Con. Res. 295, congratulating the Focus: HOPE organization, ``yes.''

Rollcall 211--House Con. Res. 612 recognizing and honoring those fighting the March 26, 2004, fire in Richmond, VA, ``yes.''

Rollcall 212--House Con. Res. 147 honoring the Tuskegee Airmen, ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan gave a quote there concerning the briefing of Congress. Could the gentleman read that again and attribute where the source of that comment was? Was that an observation or was that a direct quote from someone? Perhaps he can read that text.

So we can make absolutely sure, this is Mr. Hersh reporting what information was coming to him, that that was the intent of this approach; is that correct?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield on that point.

Mr. Speaker, on that point, perhaps one of my esteemed colleagues could enlighten me as to the status of Mr. Chalabi and his brethren with respect to the sovereignty issue that is supposed to come to full fruition on June 30. I am unable to determine from my inquiries as to exactly where the United Nations representative, Mr. Chalabi, and Mr. Bremer cross paths.

And to the degree or extent that they are in contact with one another, let alone in league with one another, exactly what the elements of that sovereignty will be with respect to this Iraqi governing council and Mr. Chalabi. Do any of my colleagues have any information on that or is everybody as much in the dark as I believe the American people and the Iraqi people are?

Well, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the gentleman to take the time back on that point?

I, unfortunately, believe that we probably have a pretty good idea what is going to happen at that point. I believe that the American Armed Forces will be set adrift on a desert sea of anxiety, insecurity, and ineptitude.

The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) has characterized the present situation with respect to our policy as one of rampant incompetence, but I think that it is unfortunately all too safe to say that that will manifest itself on June 30 with an utter incapacity to discern even momentarily what the military mission of the United States Armed Forces will be at that point, other than to try to survive the day, survive the week, survive the month, survive any stop-loss that the Secretary of Defense might impose on the troops there and then get home.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield.

Perhaps it would be useful for us to note at this point that Mr. Chalabi does not occupy his position as a result of unilateral action on his part. Mr. Chalabi occupies this position because of the overt policies of this administration. The reason he is there, the reason that we are unable at this stage, at this stage, just prior to June 30, to say exactly what his position will be in the future is because he continues to receive the favor of this administration. He is there because Mr. Bush saw that he went there. He is there because he is supported to this day, to this moment by this administration.

Everything that has been said concerning him this evening is true. It is factual. It is contextual. We understand the meaning of what he said when he said we were heroes in error. And I happened to see that announcement; and let me tell my colleagues the words do not convey the sense of triumph, the sense of disdain, the condescending attitude or sense of his countenance when he pronounced those words. He was pleased with himself that he had been able to mislead the administration and that he was getting away with it.

It is one thing to deliberately mislead someone. They may not know what was going on. They may not know what happened. Maybe they should have known. Maybe they should have been paying more attention in the administration, but to give them the widest benefit of a doubt, perhaps they did not. But once someone announces to your face that you have been misled, and deliberately so, to continue to receive the favor of the person who made the appointment and allows it to continue, tells more about the person who does the appointing and ostensibly holds the power than it does about Mr. Chalabi.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that these discussions that we have held and are holding weekly on the floor here are meant to communicate with our colleagues and with the American people. This is our forum to do it. I think those who may be observing our proceedings here today need to take up, if they believe what we have said tonight, the cause of having Mr. Bush remove his support from Mr. Chalabi.

I think people across the country have to ask their representatives, as well as communicate with the White House. They have to ask their Representatives and Senators, do you support this Chalabi administration and the Iraqi Governing Council? Do you support Mr. Chalabi being a part of this sovereignty movement after June 30? If you do, there have to be serious questions about your competence to be holding office and acting on our behalf.

This is a question that needs to be asked. Americans need not feel impotent, they need not feel they are merely observers of what other people are doing to you and doing to this country. You can demand of your elected Representatives and Senators, where do you stand on this Chalabi issue?

It is not a matter of getting an individual, I am sure we all agree. He is representative of a failure of leadership. His position in the Iraqi Governing Council is an insult to those people who have been wounded and who have been killed during this war. It is an insult to those of us who uphold genuine ideas about freedom and democracy and their spread. So long as this man is there, being the official representative of the United States to the Iraqi Governing Council, to that same degree will we be disenabled from achieving any of these goals, regardless of how one feels about going to war in Iraq or not.

This is what needs to be done. You have to demand of your representatives, where do you stand on this issue of his continued presence as being officially supported by the United States of America?

This is why it is so important, and I want to make sure everyone understands. We can do this. We do have a bill coming up this week, and if we are able to get on the agenda on the floor, we can stop the support for this group. It is fundamental to advancing the genuine interests of the United States and reestablishing some semblance of a foundation on behalf of freedom that we stop Chalabi from being represented on the Governing Council, as having the support of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to speak here this evening on Asian Pacific American Heritage Month Special Order. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues on the congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus to recognize Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. As a member of the caucus's executive committee, I want to honor the many achievements and contributions of more than 11 million Americans of Asian and Pacific Islander descent in our country.

As has been mentioned by the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case), back in 1978 my friends and colleagues, Senator Daniel K. Inouye, former Senator Spark Matsunaga, former Representative Frank Horton, and former Representative Norm Mineta, helped establish the first 10 days of May as Asian Pacific American Heritage Week. Fast forward to the 102nd Congress: legislation establishing the entire month of May as Asian Pacific American Heritage Month was signed into law.

The congressional district I represent is composed of approximately 70 percent Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. There is a special strength and resilience embodied in Hawaii's unique cultural mix. We have chosen to be defined by our diversity rather than divided by our differences. That resolve to work together with Aloha can serve as an example for the rest of the country and I might say, Mr. Speaker, for the world.

For those of us from the State of Hawaii, there is something missing in this year's heritage month celebration, however: the dynamic presence of our colleague Patsy Takemoto Mink. Patsy fought all her life for social and economic justice. Throughout nearly 50 years of public service, she championed America's most deeply held values: equality, fairness, and, above all, honesty. Her courage, her willingness to speak out and champion causes that others might shun resulted in tremendous contributions in the fields of civil rights and education. She has earned an honored place in the history of the United States House of Representatives as the co-author of title IX, which guarantees equality for women in education programs. Every single woman in this Nation who today has access to equal opportunity in education and by extension in virtually every other field of endeavor owes a debt to Patsy Mink.

She was one of the pioneers who transformed Hawaii and transformed the Nation. Whenever any of us felt some sense of discouragement, whenever any of us felt some sense of despair or feeling we could not succeed, it was only required for Patsy to come into the room to change the atmosphere. Patsy Mink had the capacity to make dead air move. Patsy Mink, this little dynamo from Hawaii, was a giant in her heart and in her commitment. I miss her every day. I measure all I do by her unfailing standard of integrity.

She would be the first to say while we can look at Asian Pacific American Heritage Month as a time to recognize and celebrate many individual accomplishments, we must also take action. The other members of Hawaii's congressional delegation and I are working every day to respond to the issues raised by people of Hawaii and the Nation. I hope I can work productively to resolve them, always remembering that our Nation should be defined by our diversity rather than be divided by our differences. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I am very proud to be here as one of Hawaii's answers to affirmative action this evening.

If the gentleman would yield, I think that in the context gentleman has just enunciated, that the notification to the Congress this afternoon of the $25 billion request is in order for examination. It is characterized as a ``supplemental package.'' There is nothing supplemental about this. This is an ongoing cost, an expense.

What is being outlined here in terms of what private contractors are doing, the package that has been put forward by the White House says it is for military operations in Iraq and the war on terrorism.

Now, I realize, and I think the gentleman would agree, that this has to be paid for. We cannot leave our troops out there without their proper equipment, many of the things that speakers in Iraq Watch have brought up before on this. But would the gentleman agree then, before this $25 billion is voted on, we need to find out where this money is going, who is going to get the money, what are the operations that are envisioned?

If the gentleman will yield further, last evening I had an opportunity to speak in a special order, and I indicated then and I indicate again tonight in the wake of the gentleman's suggestion that the President was ill-served by those in authority who failed to inform him fully as to what all the conditions and circumstances were.

There is no excuse for the leadership in the Department of Defense not informing the President of the United States as to what he might be facing with respect to the outcome that was here. I pointed out last night that this situation did not just develop with CBS on 60 Minutes II within the last 7 days. A report by the Provost Marshal of the United States Army, Major General Donald Ryder, in November of 2003, was in the hands of General Sanchez and in the hands of the Department of Defense and the Secretary in the fall of last year.

In the wake of that, I have here and am displaying to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, Article 15-6, investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade. This was the report that was requested on January 19, 2004, subsequent to the

Provost Marshal's investigation and report, which indicated severe difficulties, tensions between military intelligence-gathering and proper prison conduct by those in charge of the prisons, indicating that there were training problems, operational problems that needed to be addressed. And so on January 19, Lieutenant General Sanchez, Lieutenant General Sanchez, the commander of the Combined Joint Task Force 7, requested that the U.S. Central Command appoint an investigating officer, and that investigating officer, of course, was General Taguba. His report responded to the admonitions of Lieutenant General Sanchez that an investigation of detention and internment operations be undertaken, starting from November of 2003. November of 2003 is when the report went in, indicating that there had to be steps taken to address these questions.

Let me quote from the opening paragraph. ``Lieutenant General Sanchez cited recent reports of detainee abuse, escapes from confinement facilities, and accountability lapses, which indicated systemic problems within the brigade and suggested a lack of clear standards, proficiency, and leadership.''

Fifty-three pages later, and if the gentleman will grant now, I will not cite over and over again what is taking place in here, but one shocking event after another.

This 53-page report, and this comes from CQ Today, Congressional Quarterly Today by Neil Soros from the CQ staff, and he quotes, ``The 53-page report drafted by Army General Antonio Taguba, and based on an investigation into the abuse allegations,'' that is this report that I hold in my hand, ``that began in January was finished in April. The report was detailed in this week's New Yorker magazine. At a Pentagon news conference today, Secretary Rumsfeld defended the time it takes to release such information.''

Now, this information was available from November of last year.

Quote: ``I recognize the appetite of people for instant information and instant conclusions,'' he said. That is to say Secretary Rumsfeld. ``These things are complicated. They take some time. It required interviewing people back in the States who had already left Iraq that required discussions with people. They are proceeding in a very systematic and appropriate way, and to the extent I conclude at any time there is some slice of it that has not been investigated, has not been looked at properly, you can be sure I will undertake such an investigation.''

Clearly, the Secretary of Defense is dissembling and somehow thinks that everybody in this country can be fooled as to what his responsibility is. The Secretary of Defense has known, at least since November of last year, what was going on and did not even inform the President of the United States, because the Secretary of Defense, as I said last night, apparently has assumed that he is the chief operating officer of this country and that he does not need to inform the Congress, he does not only not need to inform the Congress, but does not even need to inform the President of the United States.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would just yield on that point, yes, somebody has lost their job: the people who published the pictures of the coffins coming home.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you who has been notified. I can tell you who has been held responsible.

The New York Times, perhaps the same article, indicated yesterday, the senior American commander in Iraq has ordered the first punishments in the abuse of prisoners by American soldiers there, issuing severe reprimand to six who served in supervisory positions and milder levels of admonishment to a seventh. Those in supervisory positions received a reprimand or a letter of admonishment. However, six subordinates accused of carrying out the abuse already face criminal charges.

A moment longer.

`` `They did not know or participate in any crimes,' a senior American officer in Baghdad said of the officers who received the reprimand.'' Who determined that they did not know or participate in any crimes? A senior American officer unnamed says in Baghdad, but they know that the six subordinates, the poor grunts on the ground, they know that they have got to face criminal charges. In addition, issued the reprimand. Their responsibility is to set the standards in the organization. They should have known, but they did not. So they just get a reprimand.

They are the ones setting the standards in the organization by the administration of senior officers in Baghdad. We already know what is happening. The grunts on the ground are taking the fall. That is what is happening. That is the reality. And the officers are running and hiding, and they are being allowed to do it despite the fact that we know that reports existed as far back as last November pointing out what the difficulties and challenges were.

If the gentleman would yield on that point, would the gentleman from Massachusetts kindly read back to us the last sentence that he just read from that report with respect to the client. I believe there was a sentence that the contractors were making reference to who their client was. Could the gentleman read that sentence.

The client.

If the gentleman will yield back, yes, the client that is referred to presumably is the Department of Defense.

I have before me a letter that was received by the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) yesterday on May 4, from the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, where he states with respect to private security companies, known as PSCs, private security companies, where he states, It is my understanding that most of the PSCs doing business in Iraq do not work directly for the U.S. government.

I am about to tell you. I am about to tell you.

They work under subcontracts to prime contractors to provide for the protection of their employees. They are apparently just manifesting themselves like spontaneous combustion or immaculate conceptions in Iraq.

Many PSCs, and I am quoting the Secretary of Defense here, many PSCs are hired by other entities such as Iraqi companies or private foreign companies seeking business opportunities in Iraq.

We are in the middle of a war zone and the Secretary of Defense says, well, 10- or 20,000 people over here with guns and going anyplace they please and causing anything to happen that they want, what does it have to do with me and my 135,000 people?

The CPA, the Coalition Provisional Authority, has established a PSC working group to provide a forum, a forum, a discussion group, in which PSCs exchange information, and approximately 50 PSCs are actively involved in this group. He has a list of 60 that is attached to this. Apparently 10 of them do not even bother to show up at the forum. God knows what kind of rules they are operating under.

The Secretary goes on to say, The Department of Defense is drafting uniform guidance regarding PSCs employed in Iraq under contracts using U.S. appropriations, which means as of May 4, 2004, there is no uniform guidance from the Department of Defense regarding the utilization of private contractors being paid from U.S. appropriations.

This is dereliction of duty. How is it possible for the Secretary of Defense to tell the American people and tell the American Congress that he has no rules whatsoever and is in the process of forming what he calls uniform guidance, whatever the hell that is? That is what the Secretary of Defense has done. He has undermined completely the policies of this country, has failed his President, failed this Congress and failed his duty.

Mr. Speaker, it was just about a year ago, just about this time that the first congressional delegation under the leadership of the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) went into Baghdad from the Baghdad Airport up Kirkuk, the first opportunity that Members of Congress had to actually meet face to face in Baghdad itself with General Garner and Ambassador Bremer. We got into Baghdad the same day, or within 24 hours or so of the time Ambassador Bremer was replacing or complementing the service of General Garner.

I can tell the gentleman because I believe it was the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) who mentioned that General Garner had some ideas about what needed to be done vis-a-vis reconstruction. I can affirm to the gentleman based on his suggestion which he just made about elections that General Garner felt very strongly at that time that councils of one kind and another should be allowed to be set up, that we could go to the Iraqi people and trust that they would put these together with a minimum of structure, if you will, from the United States. That is to say we could help provide the logistical capacity to help conduct the elections, but he felt they should move forward expeditiously.

And I can tell you his suggestions were made in a context in which he was shoved laterally just about as fast as he could go. I think we are going to find General Garner, who was kind of dismissed as someone who did not quite understand what was going on, from the point of view of history will be shown as having a clear idea of what needed to be done.

He was rebuked publicly.

Mr. Speaker, the indication today was from the Department of Defense that Reservists and National Guard can look forward to 16,000 more being called up in the next year to supplement those already in service.

Mr. Speaker, I come before the House this evening in this special order representing those of us who have participated in what we have termed ``Iraq Watch.''

For some period of time now, several of us have come before this House to try to analyze in a hopefully dispassionate way but in an informative way what is taking place in Iraq and what the implications are for us here in the House of Representatives, and by extension for the Nation in terms of the political ramifications.

I come here tonight by myself because the other members of Iraq Watch, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), and others who have joined us periodically are otherwise occupied this evening. But I come here representing those who have participated because of the seriousness of the issues that are now confronting us with respect to Iraq.

I have before me, Mr. Speaker, a copy of the May 3, 2004, issue of the New Yorker Magazine entitled ``Torture at Abu Ghraib.'' I cite this, Mr. Speaker, because I am afraid we are going to hear this phrase on more than one occasion in the days to come. It is written by Seymour Hersh, subtitled ``American Soldiers Brutalized Iraqis, How Far Up Does the Responsibility Go?'' I am citing this to the Members this evening, Mr. Speaker, because this is the only comprehensive report that I, as a member of the Committee on Armed Services, and as a Member of the House, have been able to get. I was intrigued by it because it mentions two reports. The speaker before me, the gentleman from New York, mentioned a report written by Major General Antonio Taguba, who happens to be by coincidence from Hawaii, but he did not mention nor have many other venues that I have observed, television, radio, newspapers, articles, et cetera, another report. The report from General Taguba being completed in February of this year, but that followed on a report that was written and submitted in November of last year, November of 2003, by the Provost Marshal of the Army, the chief law enforcement of the Army, General Provost Marshal Donald Ryder.

I think that I can begin to account for the tone, at least the summary of the tone as far as it has been delivered to us, which is one of outrage. I withdraw that. That is my characterization.

But let me put it this way: I believe it is fair to say if Mr. Hersh's summary is correct, that General Taguba's report was, at a minimum very, very intense, and that Mr. Hersh stated as follows: Its conclusions about institutional failures in the Army prison system were devastating. I think that is a fair summary.

The reason I am citing this to you, Mr. Speaker, is that at a meeting this afternoon, at a briefing this afternoon, convened under the direction of the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, under his auspices, officers appeared. Given the nature of the hearing, the secret nature of the hearing, again, for good and sufficient reason, I cannot cite to you and will not cite to you the exact dialogue that took place, nor those who were involved in it.

But, suffice to say, it was confirmed to me in that hearing, I should say in that briefing, that there was indeed a report given to General Sanchez, the Supreme Commander in Iraq, in November of last year, and that General Ryder, according to Mr. Hersh, indicated in November, and this is important. The reason we are going through this now and the reason I am going through this recitation is these incidents did not just happen. They did not just appear out of nowhere.

This is not something that the Army was aware of only in February of this year, that there was some kind of shock recognition by the Army that this was taking place in February. Because General Ryder clearly warned, quoting now from the Hersh article, ``that there were potential human rights training and manpower issues system-wide that needed immediate attention.''

It also discussed serious concerns about the tension between the missions of the military police assigned to guard the prisoners and intelligence teams who wanted to interrogate them.

Again, I will go on, another quotation: ``Army regulations limit intelligence activities by MPs to passive collection.''

I think this is an important point, because I see some of these National Guard people who have been identified and who have had their pictures on television and are being pointed out and being looked to for responsibility. I think it is important for those who may not be familiar with the situation in prisons, Army prisons, military prisons, that Army regulations limit intelligence activities of MPs to passive collection.

Something obviously went awry here. There was evidence, according to the Ryder report, evidence going back as far as the war in Afghanistan. Now we are going back even previous to 2003. We are talking about post- 9/11 and the attack on the Taliban forces in Afghanistan.

According to the Ryder report, as reported by Mr. Hersh, the MPs had worked with intelligence operatives to ``set favorable conditions for subsequent interviews,'' a euphemism, according to Mr. Hersh, for breaking the will of prisoners.

Now, Mr. Hersh indicates that the Ryder report called for the establishment of procedures to ``define the role of military police soldiers, clearly separating the actions of the guards from those of the military intelligence personnel.''

I am citing this detail to you, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is very important to establish a context here.

General Ryder is the Provost Marshal of the Army. He is the chief law enforcement officer of the Army, and he in his report indicated serious questions with regard to the management and operation of the prison system, and indicated serious reservations about the kinds of expectations of the MPs with regard to military intelligence activity.

Major General Taguba in his report, and, again, I am relying on the Hersh document because, to the best of my knowledge, these reports were not made available even to the intelligence committees, let alone to the Committee on Armed Services, either in the other body or in the House of Representatives.

General Taguba was reported as saying, ``Unfortunately, many of the systemic problems that surfaced during Major General Ryder's assessment are the very same issues that are the subject of this investigation.''

It amounts to an indictment, Mr. Speaker. I do not know any other way to put it. That is why I say I feel so badly coming down here today. Believe me, this brings no sense of satisfaction to me, to have to report this to you.

If the Army was aware at the highest levels of the difficulties and challenges that existed, let alone the possibility of abuses or even undermining of good order within the Army in terms of what is expected of its personnel in the prison system, and was aware of that in the fall of 2003, it can hardly have come as a surprise then if General Taguba was exercised by what he found taking place in February of 2004.

If indeed General Taguba's report is as detailed and as explicit and its recommendations as clear as it appears to be in the summary given to us in Mr. Hersh's article, how is it possible for the Secretary of Defense, who, after all, is in charge of the uniform military, and the Speaker is well aware of our constitutional circumstances here. The civilian authority is in charge with regard to what the policies of the United States military are going to be. How is it possible for the requisite authority in the Department of Defense not to be aware of what these issues were?

It is very difficult for me to believe that General Sanchez kept this to himself, or that General Sanchez failed to act on the clear warning that General Ryder, his chief law enforcement officer, expressed to him in writing in November of last year. It is difficult for me to believe that there was not some awareness in the Department of Defense that there were possibilities here for disaster, political and military disaster.

Mr. Speaker, it is fair, I suppose, for someone to ask, well, yes, of course we can see why you might be upset as a Member of Congress that you were not informed. And I am, I can assure you of that. In fact, I will cite to you, Mr. Speaker, in a few moments a letter received by the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), from the Secretary of Defense, that at best misleads, deliberately misleads the ranking member in questions that he had about private contractors, and at worst is a deliberate subterfuge and challenge to this Congress. Not to Democrats or Republicans. I am talking about a challenge to Congressional authority.

I tell you, Mr. Speaker, we are walking on the edge of fascism in this country if the executive or executive departments think that they are able to make decisions absent the direction and will of the Congress of the United States. For good or for ill, Mr. Speaker, you and I are elected by the people of this country. Secretary Rumsfeld is not elected by anybody. He is an appointment and serves only because he has been approved by the Congress of the United States, in this instance the will of the other body as embodied in their charge in the Constitution.

For good or for ill, the people of this country have put their faith and trust in us to make those decisions. We have clear jurisdictional lines in the Committee on Armed Services. We have clear admonition under the Constitution as to what our duty is and our obligation is under that Constitution with respect to funding and managing the United States military.

For any executive, or anyone in the executive branch, to assume that he or she can take legislative authority unto themselves, particularly when it comes to oversight, is something that is anathema to the constitutional order. Executive authority, ruling by executive authority, has a fascist tinge to it that I find very, very troubling. I do not think it can be excused by the idea that we would be better off without knowing.

I do not know if this is true, Mr. Speaker. I have only the media representations to me, seen in fleeting images and heard in passing tonight. But if I understood correctly and if the information is correct, the President of the United States found out about this from the media. The President of the United States was not informed that these issues were already underway and about to break in the public press.

We are told, at least I am informed, again by media presentation, because we have not had any briefing or explanation of this in the Committee on Armed Services to my knowledge or to the Congress as a whole, that General Myers, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in fact asked a broadcast network, I believe the CBS network, not to publish or broadcast news of these events that it had before it and was prepared to bring forward.

This is a startling development in our country, that this kind of censorship can take place, because we are not talking here about putting members of the United States military in harm's way because of the revelation of immediate plans of attack or the assumption of military planning that would otherwise bring aid and comfort or information to forces that might attack us or do us harm. This was not an instance of that.

On the contrary, if what has been presented so far is true and is an accurate reflection of what took place, these are clear violations of regulations in the good order in the United States military and a severe blow to the activities of the United States with respect to the reconstruction of the physical facilities in Iraq and the establishment of civil government in the wake of the collapse of the Hussein regime.

It strikes me that when the ranking member makes a request, as he did on April 2, and the ranking Member, as you know, is the senior minority member, in this instance the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). He serves as the senior Democratic member on the Committee on Armed Services under the leadership of the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

On April 2 Mr. Skelton wrote a letter to Mr. Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense. I would like to quote it to you in some length.

``Dear Mr. Secretary. I would like to first extend my sympathy and display over the recent brutal killings in Fallujah. All of the killings in Iraq, both of our troops and of contractors and civilians, have been unacceptable and tragic, but the murder and desecration of the four Americans working for Blackwater USA was particularly barbaric. I would hope that plans are being prepared for a measured but powerful response. One of the issues raised by this tragedy is the role played by private military firms such as Blackwater.

``Media reports indicate at the time of the ambush the personnel in question were providing security for a food delivery convoy. I understand that Blackwater provides personal security for Ambassador Paul Bremer. I would like to request that you provide my office with a breakdown of information regarding private military and security personnel in Iraq.''

That bears repeating, Mr. Speaker: ``I would like to request you provide my office with a breakdown of information regarding private military and security personnel in Iraq. Specifically, I would like to know which firms are operating in Iraq, how many personnel each firm has there, what specific functions they are performing, how much they are being paid, and from which appropriations account. Additionally, I would like to understand what the chain of command is for these personnel, what rules of engagement govern them, and how disciplinary or criminal accusations are handled, if any such claims are levied against them.''

This is in April, early April. These questions, these measured, sober, serious questions regarding the privatization of this war are being asked by the

senior minority member of this House of the Committee on Armed Services.

``Firms like Blackwater are clearly serving important functions in Iraq and putting themselves at risk. It is important that the Congress have a clear sense of the roles they are playing so that we can conduct effective oversight. I appreciate your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, Ike Skelton, Ranking Democrat.''

I think by any measure, Mr. Speaker, this would be seen as a letter that, as I have already indicated, is sober and serious and measured in its content and specifically and particularly on the mark with respect to the role and responsibility of private contractors.

Why am I bringing that up? Because it appears, Mr. Speaker, that there are serious instances of perhaps a blurring of institutional and responsibility lines, with private contracting, military intelligence, and the conduct of the prison guards and those in charge of the Army prisons.

Why I am particularly exercised even more than I was this afternoon? Because I thought this afternoon, well, we have to try and determine where we are going to go, and I put out a release to that effect in order to answer to my constituents as to what the thoughts were on this issue at this time. I thought, well, we better be careful about making grand pronouncements about what we need to do and where we are going to go until we find out all of the facts and see where they lead. But I will tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I have come to the conclusion that the Secretary of Defense has to think very seriously about resigning. I have come to that conclusion only since this afternoon, late this afternoon, early this evening, rather, when I became aware of the answer to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) dated May 4, the date that I received this, May 4 is printed on here; whether it was written May 4 or whether it was received in the office of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) on May 4 is difficult for me to determine. It may be that that is a stamp to indicate to my office that it was received in my office on May 4.

But here is the answer given by Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense: ``Thank you for your letter of April 2 regarding private security personnel. A discussion paper provided by the Coalition Provisional Authority responding to the points that you raised is attached,'' and it is.

Now, here is the answer given by the Secretary of Defense with regard to private companies, knowing, knowing now, this is April, knowing about the report of November 5, knowing about the 30-plus or 35 investigations under way, according to reports that we have received in the press, which I think reflect accurately some of the conversation that was held this afternoon. Multiple, let me put it this way, multiple investigations under way. Knowing that, knowing that he had the report of General Taguba before him, knowing that this material had been deliberately asked to be censored and withheld from publication in the network news.

Here is what he says: ``Some private security companies called PSC, private security companies, under contract in Iraq provide, one, personal security services for senior civilian officials, as well as some visiting delegations. Two, they also provide physical security for nonmilitary facilities inside the green zone and convoy protection for nonmilitary goods. Three, they provide protection for government support teams consisting of Coalition Provisional Authority personnel and government contractors who team with local Iraqi officials to develop local government structures and functions.''

Not a word, Mr. Speaker, about the role of private contractors and military intelligence or in the prison system. How is it possible for the Secretary of Defense not to mention this, given the context in which this answer was given to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton)? That is why I am so exercised about the contempt that the Secretary is showing for the Congress and yes, indeed, for the President of the United States. How is it possible for the Secretary of Defense to face Mr. Bush, let alone this Congress, and say that he deliberately, I cannot think of any way else to characterize it, deliberately kept us from understanding what it was that these private contractors were doing in this prison context.

He goes on to say: ``It is my understanding that most of these private security companies doing business in Iraq do not work directly for the U.S. Government.'' Well, who are they working for then? They work under subcontracts to prime contractors to provide protection for their employees, as if there is some benign presence. We are in the middle of a war on terror, we are told. We are in the middle of a war in Iraq. The Speaker is well aware that I characterized this more than a year ago in May when we returned, when we were among the first group to go with the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), some of us went with him, among the first group to enter Baghdad after the initial attack on Baghdad and some of us said, yes, there was an attack on Baghdad and now the war is starting.

Unfortunately, that has proven to be only too true, for the Secretary of Defense to pretend in the middle of a war situation in which our troops are put at risk, that somehow, there is this semi-benign presence in Iraq, of private contractors to go about their business without the supervision or the oversight of the Department of Defense and the United States military. I mean, it is an insult.

``A draft CPA order, Coalition Provisional Authority order, on regulating the private security companies which will require certain data from each firm has been prepared with input from the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior.''

I mean, the contempt of this letter is incredible.

``The Iraqi Ministry of the Interior and Ministry of Trade will be largely responsible for the administration of this and any revisions that may be promulgated by the Iraqi interim government after June 30. Finally, the Department of Defense is drafting uniform guidance regarding private security companies employed in Iraq under contract using U.S. appropriations.''

It is as if it does not even exist at this point.

``I hope this is useful. We can provide additional information or briefing if you would like.''

Then we have a summary here in the attachment which includes a list, Mr. Speaker, of the private security companies operating in Iraq.

Now, I believe that there was a company called CACI. I do not precisely have that because I do not have the report here; I am looking for it in this list of private security companies operating in Iraq. Perhaps it is listed here, but I cannot find it among the 60, the 60 companies that are listed here. It may be that I am not sufficiently conversant with the actual names and acronyms of the security companies that were working intelligence privately in Iraq. I would be more familiar with it had we been briefed on it, had we been given the information, as is not only our right, but our obligation to have in the Committee on Armed Services.

I cannot find it. It is very, very difficult for me to believe that we are in a situation, post-Watergate in which it is necessary to know the answer ahead of time in order to ask the right question. It seems to me the questions posed by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) are clear enough. It seems to me that the answer here, while probably technically correct, leaves out valuable information. This is clearly not an exhaustive list of the private companies that were involved.

I concentrate on this, Mr. Speaker, because I think we face a serious crisis here in the Congress. If we are going to allow the executive to conduct this war in our name, the name of the people of the United States, and we constitutionally have not only the authority, but the responsibilities of legislating the policies associated with arming and supporting our military, our United States military as well as establishing the policies of this Nation to be carried out by the executive. The executive does not tell us what to do. We again, for better or for ill, are given and required by the Constitution to exercise that legislative authority.

The legislation we have put together, the policies that we have assume by virtue of a majority activity in both Houses of this Congress, are what constitutes the policies of this country that will be carried out by the executive. The executive can inform of his or

her desires in this regard, but we are the ones that have to decide this. We are the ones that have to exercise the oversight.

So I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that these are very, very serious allegations. No question about that. I do not come here this evening speaking with any kind of relish or enjoyment of what is required of us here. But I can tell you I was a probation officer in my life. I have been an officer of the court. I have had professional responsibilities in county jails, in San Quentin Prison. I know what it is like to have to conduct drug tests. I know what it is like to appear at a booking desk every morning year in and year out. I know what is involved in investigations in arrests and prosecutions.

I know what is involved in making reports on what needs to be done and how it should be done and what the conducts of officers of the courts are with respect to the management and maintenance of jails and prison systems.

I have legislative responsibilities with regard to how prison systems are run and under what circumstances and what is required of the personnel as a legislator. I have been the chairman of a committee with responsibility for the police departments in Honolulu, the Honolulu Police Department, under the jurisdiction of the committee that I was privileged to serve on and chair in the city and counties of Honolulu. I understand what is at stake in prison system, and I know this from my own personal experience, what is required in a prison system is, first of all, certainty, certainty.

You must know from the top to the bottom exactly what the rules are. Certainty and activity. Those are the two fundamentals. Once you have those established in a prison system, then you know where you stand. Nobody can talk to me about failure to train some National Guard operatives on the jail cell level and tell me that they were operating on their own. That does not happen, Mr. Speaker. It does not happen in the county jail. It does not happen in a state prison. And it does not happen in a Federal prison system. Certainty from top to bottom is required. If it does not exist that is failure of leadership that has to be accounted for and responsibility has to be taken.

So far as I can see right now, there is some reprimands being handed out. There are some court-martials being held at the lowest possible level. And yet we have two reports, the Ryder report and the Taguba report, that I do not believe for a moment did not see the light of day at the general officer level and at the highest levels of the Department of Defense.

If it is true that the President of the United States was not informed by his Secretary of Defense as to what the situation was and what was likely to happen, that is dereliction of duty on the part of the Secretary vis-a-vis the President of the United States. It is far worse in my estimation that you let down the person who has entrusted you, entrusted you with the responsibility for carrying out the executive policies of this Nation.

It is bad enough that the Congress of the United States was not informed. But they have the President of the United States left in the dark on something that was sure to have incredible negative ramifications with respect to Iraq and the position of the United States is unforgivable. It is intolerable. But I know as sure as my own experience indicates, that it is not possible for the leadership at the levels that I have discussed not to have been aware that at minimum the possibilities of this disaster was there and needed to be addressed. At a minimum. And worse, that they knew it was going on and tolerated it.

We need to have a full exposure of exactly who knows what. Not because, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to have some kind of a media field day or some kind of a tabloid extravaganza, but because the very responsibility of this Congress is at stake. Either we are informed, Mr. Speaker, about what the situation is and where we are going so that we can make a decision with regard to oversight or we are not.

So, Mr. Speaker, in conclusions, I want to ask you in your role as Speaker, to acknowledge the facts that this is a requirement of the Congress of the United States, that we exercise oversight on behalf of the people of this Nation and the values of this Nation. If we do not do it, Mr. Speaker, who is going to do it?

It is apparent that no one wants to take responsibility in the Department of Defense. No one wants to take responsibility in the military at the present time. No one is exploring right now exactly what the boundaries were or were not. No one is examining the role of private security corporations in the intelligence gathering on behalf of the United States military and on behalf of the security interests of this Nation. No one asked me about it, I can assure you on the Committee on Armed Services as to whether I thought that was a good idea. I cannot speak about the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, but I am hard pressed to think that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Republican or Democrat, this has nothing to do with the partisan nature of any kind of political discussion we might be having, but it is difficult for me to believe that anybody on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence sanctioned such a thing or that there was knowledge of it in the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence or that it would not have been shared with the Office of the Speaker at a minimum with the leadership of both sides of the aisle.

We have to have an understanding of whether our role as overseers of the United States strategic interests is going to be honored. If we do, then perhaps we can reestablish some credibility. If we do not, then I fear that the role that Secretary Rumsfeld has assumed for himself, namely, chief operating officer of the United States, without any responsibility to the chief executive of this Nation, the President of the United States, or any responsibility to the Congress of the United States. He gets to decide what we will do and what we will not do. He gets to decide whether or not this country is going to be put into a series of circumstances and situations that are totally untenable in terms of the values of this Nation or what the goals and aspirations we have with regards to our security interests and the peace of the world.

I think that we need to have a clear understanding that unless the Secretary can answer these questions he has to consider resigning. He has to consider whether or not we are going to have a cleansing of the way in which this war is being conducted, in the manner in which it was being reported to us in the Congress and by extension to the people of the United States.

I appreciate the fact, Mr. Speaker, that these are difficult questions, that I have only been able to present a summary of what is at stake here; and I appreciate your patience and forebearance as I have enunciated it.

I do think very, very clearly, Mr. Speaker, that there this is something that has to be addressed, and I would hope that the leadership of the House, both majority and minority, will settle on the proper venue, which I personally believe to be the Committee on Armed Services, but perhaps a joint committee situation, in which these issues are explored; and I hope that the Secretary of Defense will be able to answer adequately what his responsibility and obligation is.

Will the gentleman yield?

Will the gentleman be interested to know that the Wall Street Journal on the 23rd of this month made a report, and I quote: ``Before the war, United States companies used French units or French go-betweens to sell goods to Iraq. Since the war, French firms are using U.S. operations to bid for contracts in Iraq, though it is unclear whether they will succeed.''

The Journal added, ``Between 1998 and 2002, United Nations documents show $397 million in sales to Iraq by French units of U.S. companies. The sales coincided with the period when the Clinton and Bush administrations were increasing pressure on Mr. Hussein, and the practice extended well beyond early 2002, when Mr. Bush included Iraq in his so-called Axis of Evil.

Halliburton did tens of millions of dollars of business with Iraq in the late 1990s when it was still led by Vice President Cheney. Much of that business was done through French units. Mr. Cheney said during the 2000 election campaign that Halliburton had a policy against trading with Iraq. The Halliburton contracts mentioned in the United Nations documents involved units and joint ventures that came with the purchase of Dresser, Incorporated in 1998.

Will the gentleman recall that during the Watergate investigation, that Woodward and Bernstein, when they were following through on various contacts and leads, that they had reported that it was not always that people were lying to them, it was that they were not telling the truth. Unless you knew the exact question to ask ahead of time, that is to say unless you knew the information and the answers to your questions ahead of time, you might actually ask a question in which the other party could avoid telling you the truth while not absolutely lying to you.

It may well have been, as Mr. Cheney said, that Halliburton had a policy against trading with Iraq, but apparently it did not mean that units or subunits of Halliburton located in other nations could do the trading for them, thus benefiting and profiting the Halliburton company while Mr. Cheney was in charge of it. This is the caliber of the Vice President's ability to have any kind of veracity when it comes to statements about weapons of mass destruction or anything else having to do with whether or not he or his company profited from trading with Iraq.

Would the gentleman yield on that point? I just read something from the Wall Street Journal, an investigative report of the Wall Street Journal. I hardly think that the Wall Street Journal can be called a tool of the Democratic Party.

Would the gentleman yield again? The Washington Post, which has editorially supported the war in Iraq.

Let us just keep right on with what we are doing here. We are analyzing the situation in which American troops are in harm's way and any accusation that this has anything to do with Republicans or Democrats is not only entirely beside the point, but undermines the dialogue and discussion that has to take place when we are in a situation of war.

As the gentleman well knows, this Member has disagreed publicly and privately with the President of the United States when it was Bill Clinton and it was a Democrat. This gentleman, I can tell you, has never taken a position on the basis of who was President of the United States, but rather what the position of the United States should be in the consul of world powers in terms of the peace and welfare of the planet and the United States' role in it. Whether it is a Democratic President or a Republican President, we have to be accountable.

Would the gentleman yield? I serve as the ranking member on the subcommittee of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon). And I can tell my colleague that back in the time of President Clinton's administration when the Kosovo and Bosnia issues were there, I was privileged to go with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and other Members in a joint Democratic and Republican congressional delegation to the area because of disagreements we had in the way we were conducting both our foreign policy and military operations there.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), I believe, is also a supporter of the fact that we went to war with Iraq. So his admonitions here are based on his perceptions, I am certain, serving as his ranking member and counting myself as among his good and personal friends in this body. I have deep affection and respect for him both personally and as a colleague in this body.

If he is making these statements, he is making them because he believes as a supporter of this war effort that this is, in fact, in the interest of the troops and the interest of the Nation.

So this is something that is not partisan in nature. This is something that has to be addressed by all of us as our responsibility of one of 435 people in this body representing the interests of this Nation.

If the gentleman would yield, both he and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) have made the point over the last several minutes that a lack of planning, a lack of clear-sighted planning has brought us to the present path.

I would like to cite an article in The Washington Post for summary purposes made just yesterday. At the confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, where Mr. John Negroponte, Mr. Bush's nominee to be ambassador to Iraq, was being questioned, the summary in the story by Walter Pincus and Colum Lynch is as follows: ``Panel members expressed confidence in Negroponte while voicing skepticism that the United States had a clear enough strategy in place for Iraq.''

Let me be a little more specific, specific in the words of Mr. Negroponte with respect to his assuming the ambassadorship in Iraq and planning for what is going to happen to our troops and what is going to happen to Iraq in terms of its sovereignty: Under questioning by Senator Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, when asked what would happen if there was disagreement between Iraqi authorities and the United States military over how to handle a situation similar to the unrest in Fallujah, that would require, ``a real dialogue between our military commanders, the new Iraqi government, and, I think, the United States mission as well,'' Negroponte said. Think about that. Can you imagine a combat situation such as is faced right now in Fallujah. It has nothing to do with the competence or incompetence of the United States military; it has everything to do with the competence or incompetence of the political policies that put the military in that situation.

We are now faced with circumstances in which military action becomes the political policy, that in order to support the political policy, you have to support military action, whatever it might be.

Going on, in the end, however, Negroponte said, ``The U.S. military is going to have the freedom to act in their self-defense, and they are going to be free to operate in Iraq as they best see fit.'' Operate in their self-defense.

Mr. Negroponte, perhaps unconsciously, recognizes we are not on the offense.

We are not accomplishing any mission. What we are saying is, what I have said on this floor, that on June 30, the United States military is going to set adrift in a desert sea of political anarchy where our military action will be self-defense. Is that what we are sentencing the United States military to? A daily round of defending itself? For what? Under what circumstances can we justify the continued presence of the United States military if their sole military purpose according to the ambassador nominee to Iraq is to defend themselves?

Continuing, what is more, he said, Iraqi military forces ``will come under the unified command of a U.S.-led multinational force. Negroponte emphasized the interim government will not need law-making authority because it will just have two prime functions: running 25 government ministries and preparing for next year's election of a transitional national assembly. Among the most sensitive aspect of the U.S. transition plan has been what has been called the transitional administration law devised by the United States and its appointed Iraq governing council.''

At the White House yesterday, Mr. Scott McClellan, the press secretary, told reporters, and I am quoting from the article ``that an annex to the transitional law is being written that will limit the interim government's power.''

``Iraqis have made it clear they want limits on the authority of the interim government,'' Mr. McClellan said.

We are in a situation where presumably authority is being transferred the 30th of June to an interim Iraqi government when we are writing an annex, which is a fancy word for saying we are writing an addendum, we are adding another codicil, another provision of this transitional law.

They are still writing it. Because, as Mr. Negroponte said in responding to a question about the annex by Senator Dodd, a Democrat of Connecticut, Mr. Negroponte said he had not been briefed on it. ``I am just not at the moment clued in as to the discussion about the annex.''

This is the gentleman who by June 30 is supposed to take over in Iraq. It cannot be more clear the stumbling and the bumbling that has taken place to this point.

And the incompetence that has taken place up to this point is to continue.

How is it possible that the ambassador designee says, I am not clued in, even on the most fundamental addition to the transitional authority law that will set the circumstances and boundaries for how the United States military, let alone its diplomatic function, is to take place in a presumably sovereign Iraq?

I want to point out that that story is in the Washington Times. Again, if someone wants to think that this is a partisan situation, everyone knows the Washington Times is in favor of this war, that the Washington Times represents itself to be a conservative voice. This is a report from the Washington Times.

I am delighted to have the gentleman wrap up.

Mr. Speaker, it remains for us to thank you for your patience and forbearance tonight. I believe at this opportunity we can indicate to our colleagues and to those watching us and participating with us tonight on C-SPAN broadcasts, these very valuable Special Orders that the House prepares to enable Members to speak to the broader American audience and elsewhere across the country. Thank you and thank them.

At this time, pending our next session of Iraq Watch, we would move to adjourn the House.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 58 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, April 29, 2004, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, the answer would be, as has been enunciated in a series called The Spoils of War on Marketplace. Members may be familiar with the program Marketplace. It is on the radio and follows the National Public Radio news, All Things Considered, the afternoon edition of it. There is a business broadcast called Marketplace which reviews the market decisions, the business activities of the country, and in their series entitled The Spoils of War, Members will find that the money which otherwise might have been spent, according to the contract that your company represents, to provide armor for the Humvees is now going out at the rate of tens of millions of dollars a week, perhaps a month, in graft and corruption through the Bank of Iraq, with nothing in the way of any kind of accountability under the Provisional Authority, Mr. Bremer's Provisional Authority.

This is being done today. They are done with DGs, or director generals, of the various Iraqi ministries. They are the equivalent of under secretaries. They go into the bank and walk out with cardboard boxes full of cash. Corruption is in the hands of clerks who simply rubber-stamp the action, and the American companies that are over there taking the money are paying bribes, are involved in mass corruption, and this is where the money is going. This is what the Provisional Authority is involved in. This is what is happening.

We cannot respond to you and your constituents in Ohio and those people in Ohio who are capable of providing armor for our troops because we have to make sure that those who say they were on our side, those who say they were the sources of Iraqi information and intelligence and upon whom we could rely are the very ones who are involved up to their eyeballs in corruption and graft in Iraq and Baghdad itself to the detriment of our own troops' capacity to be able to defend themselves.

In that context, I can tell Members as someone who was part of the first group to go into Iraq right after the initial attack on Baghdad, going from the Baghdad airport to Saddam Hussein's palace where Mr. Bremer was being installed and displacing General Garner, and we were there the day after he had taken control there, we said to him at that time, you can have all of the equipment in the world, but as I said to him, Mr. Ambassador, driving from the Baghdad airport to Baghdad itself and to this palace that we now occupy, you are going to have to have 10,000 soldiers who guard that highway. I do not care what kind of equipment and armor you have, you do not arm a Humvee and then send somebody out to play lottery with their lives. No matter what the equipment is, when you only have a strip of tar coming across the desert, no lights, no protection, nothing, I said it is going to take 10,000 soldiers.

The plain fact of the matter is when General Shinseki, who had responsibility for the well-being of his soldiers, indicated as chief of the Army that it would take hundreds of thousands of soldiers, hundreds of thousands of Army and Marine personnel and support in order to initiate and sustain such an attack and deal with the aftermath, he was entirely correct. We need not just more equipment, we need a political policy that provides a foundation to bring this to a resolution.

And in order to accomplish that, we have to have sufficient personnel unto the date, and the Secretary of Defense and the President consistently have denied this to our people in the field and indicated to me shamefully all along if they wanted more, all they have to do is ask. We know what the message is. The message is they are not here; they cannot be there. And why? I will tell the Members. Because many members of our committee, Republican and Democrat alike, and when I say our committee, the Committee on Armed Services, have tried for several years now to increase the number of people in the Army and the Marine Corps, that is to say that can be recruited and retained as active-duty forces. It is called end strength. What is the end strength? The end of the numbers that we have in the Armed Forces. We said, absent a significant increase in the number of Army troops and Marines available, we inevitably would have to call on Guard and Reserve.

I beg to differ with the gentleman's remarks and the gentlewoman's remarks in one sense only, the phrase ``our young men and women.'' Let me tell my colleagues something. Tune into the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer every night on PBS, and respectfully and with dignity they close every program in silence with the pictures and short biographies of the people who have been killed, and chills run down my arm as I reach out to say it, and we see over and over again sergeant so and so, 43 years old; master sergeant somebody, 50-something years old; 38 years old. These are teachers. These are police officers. These are fire fighters. These are Guard and Reservists. They are not young men and women. Not that being young in itself makes one a candidate for these pictures, but that is who we tend to think of. This is a volunteer force, and the Guard and Reverses are volunteers, and they are being shamelessly exploited in this sense. We now have a draft in this country. We have a draft by default because the Guard and Reserve are being pulled into active-duty service and their terms of enlistment are being extended arbitrarily by the Department of Defense.

Therefore, I conclude, and thank the gentleman for yielding, by saying, yes, we have to provide the equipment; but we have to provide the people and the policy behind it that will allow us to resolve this issue.

Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman agree then that that is a draft by default?

If the gentleman will yield a moment on that, I just want to ask a question at this point: Would the gentleman agree then that the President of the United States is all for free trade, unless it happens to be with oil, and in that instance then he seems to have no problem at all with a cartel being able to decide how much it is going to produce, when it is going to produce it and how much it is going to charge for it?

Would the gentleman agree that when it comes to free trade, that is a foreign term to the President, that is a foreign term to the free trade people in this country, who want us to be able to send our jobs overseas, want free trade and the free circulation of international funds for the purpose of that trade, except when it comes to oil and the oil cartels?

I yield to the gentleman the point that international robbery from pharmaceutical companies is right up there next to, if not parallel exactly, with the oil cartels.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the gentlewoman from Texas made a very, very strong point of the necessity, I believe I am quoting her correctly, that we have to find a way. We have to find a way to get this message out. We have to find a way to get our message, we have to find a way to engage the American people in a discussion and a dialogue. That is what we are trying to do here.

To the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), if you would indulge me for a moment in yielding, I think it might be apropos that we do take upon

ourselves the admonition of the gentlewoman from Texas. We have to find a way.

This is our way. Not everyone may understand what it is. They may be going up and down the television and see what is going on. This is called Special Orders. Special Orders means the regular business of the House, that is to say the scheduled business of the House, is completed for the day. This is our opportunity as Representatives, this is the opportunity of the 435 of us, who have had the faith and trust of our constituents placed in us, to come to the floor and engage in a dialogue not just with ourselves, but with the American people. Because part of the difficulty has been is the American people are watching this on television, or reading it in the newspaper, participating, if you will, at a distance, as to what is taking place, unless and until, of course, it hits you full force because a loved one has been hurt or harmed or killed, or someone that you know has had that experience. So it happens sporadically, and, from the point of view of the cosmos, indifferently around the country at various times.

So we are here on the floor, and I might say to those tuning in, we are here on the floor of the House of Representatives, surrounded by the galleries. In fact, our good friend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), the distinguished gentleman from Illinois has a group of his constituents in this gallery right now observing our proceedings.

He is explaining to them as we are speaking now what it is we are doing on the floor here. It does not matter that the Chamber is not filled right now.

We spent our time this afternoon naming post offices. I was happy to do it. A good friend of mine had one of the post offices named after him. I was pleased to cast my vote for it. A wonderful opportunity to show our expression of what we would say in Hawaii is ``aloha'' for our good friend and others. We were happy to do that.

But our business here in these Special Orders is to engage the American people as best we can with that which we have before us. And as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) now is talking with his constituents here in the gallery, this is the freedom granted to us by the Constitution that we need to take advantage of, that we were obligated to take advantage of.

So the regret to me is, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) no doubt has pointed out, right behind me here is the press gallery. Empty. Night after night empty. Now, maybe they can say, well, they are watching on television, if they care to.

But who wants to pay attention to Special Orders? Well, I will tell my colleagues what happens in Special Orders. Not just this kind of discussion, but my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), night after night engaged in a conversation on the Social Security trust fund, what it takes to make the Social Security trust fund.

In fact, he just walked in right now. That is synchronicity. I did not know he was coming. Did my colleague happen to hear what I had to say? I do not know whether the cameras are on us or not. But the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) has just come in.

I cite him as an example, as a prime example of someone who has faithfully come to the floor to explain his position on the Social Security trust fund, the implications of it for our country. That is the kind of thing that needs to be done. That is what this is about.

This Iraq Watch that we have faithfully committed ourselves to since the beginning of our concern that this war was going off on the wrong track, that this was taking place, that is why we are here. That is why I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I appreciate the fact that our good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), and his constituents have observed us this evening, have seen democracy in action.

I am here to tell you as far as this gentleman is concerned, that I am going to take advantage of this opportunity that we have here on the floor and continue to exchange in the kind of dialogue that I hope will illuminate the issues of our day so that we can get a resolution on behalf of these brave men and women who are serving our country.