Neil Abercrombie

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

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

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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. ABERCROMBIE. 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.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. He was rebuked publicly.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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. ABERCROMBIE. 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. ABERCROMBIE. 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?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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. ABERCROMBIE. The client.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. ``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.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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.''

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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.