Maurice Hinchey

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a number of problems with the Fiscal Year 2006 Agriculture Appropriations conference report as it stands now. Its damage to provisions on country-of-origin labeling and organic standards are two alarming reasons to vote against the bill. But Mr. Speaker, I am most disappointed with this bill's final language regarding conflicts of interest on FDA Advisory Boards. As you may recall, earlier this year members from both sides of the aisle supported my amendment to shut down bad behavior at the Food and Drug Administration on this issue. In fact, 217 members of this chamber agreed with me that when the FDA allows scientists with financial conflicts of interest to serve on advisory boards that judge the safety, effectiveness, and viability of various medical treatments, the public health is jeopardized at the expense of inappropriate and personal interests. These appointments flat-out undermine the objectivity of committee advice and bias recommendations. And yet, the final language that we are considering today is more like a present to the agency for its bad behavior, instead of the treatment it truly deserves. This language enables the FDA to keep on allowing conflicted panelists to vote on matters that they have no business judging. While this bill does include new reporting requirements that are intended to help watchdogs keep an eye on how frequently the FDA uses these waivers, I am concerned that the language contains considerable loopholes that will enable the agency to continue to evade its responsibility of protecting the American public in this regard. In fact, the bill as it stands now is particularly damaging because it would allow the FDA to give the appearance of responsibility while simultaneously continuing dangerous and corrupted practices. I said it last summer and I'll say it again: if you think that scientists who rely on drug companies for their financial wherewithal are going to recommend that the FDA take action that will harm those companies, then you are living in a fantasy world.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I have here a letter which I wrote last month, which is addressed to United States Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who is currently conducting an investigation with regard to who it was who revealed the name of Valerie Wilson, who is and was an undercover operator for the Central Intelligence Agency, which I will enter at this point into the Congressional Record. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, September 15, 2005. Re request to expand investigation. U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, Justice Department, Washington, DC. Dear United States Attorney Fitzgerald: We hereby request that you expand your investigation regarding who in the Bush Administration revealed to the press that Valerie Wilson, the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, was an undercover agent for the Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.). We believe that expansion should include investigating the Administration's false and fraudulent claims in January 2003 that Iraq had sought uranium for a nuclear weapon, which the Administration offered as one of the key grounds to justify the war against Iraq. President Bush made two uranium claims, one in his State of the Union Address to Congress and another in a report that he submitted to Congress concerning Iraq, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made three other uranium claims. We request that you investigate whether such claims violated two criminal statutes, 18 U.S.C., Sec. 1001 and 18 U.S.C., Sec. 371, that prohibit making false and fraudulent statements to Congress and obstructing the functions of Congress. You have broad discretion to conduct this investigation. The issues we raise are directly related to your current investigation and clearly fall under your authority. The desire to discredit the information provided by Ambassador Wilson regarding the lack of evidence to support the Administration's contention that Iraq sought uranium from Niger is the nearly-universally accepted motive behind the leak of Mrs. Wilson's identity. In order to fully investigate the disclosure of an undercover CIA agent's identity, it is clear that you should fully investigate the reasons for that disclosure. As we outline below, we believe that members of the Administration may have violated laws governing communications with Congress with respect to assertions about Iraq's nuclear capabilities. Ambassador Wilson's efforts to publicly contradict these assertions seem to be the reason for the undercovering of Mrs. Wilson's identity. It is very likely that you would encounter these assertions during the course of your investigation, and thus their legality should be the subject of your investigation. The Administration's Claims about Iraq Seeking uranium were False And Fraudulent The uranium claims of the Administration in January 2003 that Iraq had sought uranium for a nuclear weapon were shown to be false because, after intensive post war investigations, the Iraq Survey Group found no evidence that Iraq had sought the uranium. In the months prior to the war, weapons inspectors of the United Nations (U.N.) conducted extensive inspections in Iraq and found no evidence that Iraq had revived its nuclear weapons program. The Administration has never produced any legitimate actual evidence that Iraq had sought the uranium. The uranium claims were also fraudulent because although some in the American intelligence community (including the C.I.A.) may have agreed at the time with the British opinion that Iraq had sought uranium, numerous people with the Administration did not tell the whole truth consisting of the contrary views held by the best informed U.S. intelligence officials. C.I.A. Director George Tenet told the White House in October 2002 that C.I.A. analysts believed the reporting on the uranium claim was ``weak'' and thus the Director told the White House that it should not make the claim. Later that same day, the C.I.A.'s Associate Deputy Director for Intelligence sent a fax to the White House stating that the ``evidence [on the uranium claim] is weak.'' The National Security Council (N.S.C.) believed in January 2003 that the nuclear case against Iraq was weak. Secretary of State Powell was told during meetings at the C.I.A. to vet his U.N. speech of February 5, 2003 that there were doubts about the uranium claim and he therefore kept it out of his speech for that reason. The U.S. government told the U.N. on February 4, 2003 that it could not confirm the uranium reports. Furthermore, the original draft of the State of the Union Address stated that ``we know that [Hussein] has recently sought to buy uranium in Africa,'' but after the White House consulted with the C.I.A., the White House changed the speech to refer to the British view rather than the American view. The final draft stated that the ``British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.'' The parties involved stated that they had no discussions about the credibility of the reporting and the reason for the switch was to identify the source for the uranium claim. However, in response to the uproar over the op-ed article by Ambassador Wilson, C.I.A. Director Tenet issued a statement in which he admitted that C.I.A. officials who reviewed the draft of the State of the Union Address containing the remarks on the Niger-Iraqi uranium deal ``raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with [White House] National Security Council colleagues'' and ``[s]ome of the language was changed.'' Tenet stated that ``[f]rom what we know now, Agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct--i.e. that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa.'' What this tells us is that although Administration officials, informed by the highest ranking members of our own intelligence operation, knew that the claim of Niger uranium going to Iraq was ``weak'' and could not be confirmed, they were still determined to use it in the President's address to Congress and fell back on the dubious language of the British report. The Administration clearly sought to cover up their own officials' doubts about Iraq's nuclear capabilities and hide those doubts from the Congress and the U.S. public. Motive A motive for making such false and fraudulent uranium claims would have been to thwart Congressional and U.N. efforts to delay the start of the war. Pending at the time that the Administration made its uranium claims in January 2003 was a Congressional resolution, H. Con. Res. 2, submitted by five members of Congress on January 7, 2003, which expressed the sense of Congress that it should repeal its earlier war resolution to allow more time for U.N. weapons inspectors to finish their work. On January 24, 2003, a few days prior to the State of the Union Address, 130 members of Congress wrote to the president encouraging him to consider any request by the U.N. for additional time for weapons inspections. On February 5, 2003, 30 members of Congress submitted another resolution, H.J. Res. 20, to actually repeal the war resolution. Had it not been for the uranium claims in the State of the Union Address, which sought to squelch congressional concern over the impetus for the pending war, the number of sponsors for H.J. Res. 20 would have been far greater. The influence of the uranium claims can be seen in the fact that 130 members of Congress signed the letter before the State of the Union Address, but only 30 sponsored H.J. Res. 20, which was introduced after the speech. The Administration's uranium claims thwarted the congressional efforts to delay the start of the war since the Administration used the claims to allege that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program--despite the failure of the U.N. inspectors to find such a program--and thus falsely assert that Iraq posed an immediate threat that needed to be nullified without further delay. Concerning the importance of the uranium claims, the report Iraq On The Record, produced by the Minority Staff of the House Committee on Government Reform, states: ``Another significant component of the Administration's nuclear claims was the assertion that Iraq had sought to import uranium from Africa. As one of few new pieces of intelligence, this claim was repeated multiple times by Administration officials as proof that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program.'' A nuclear-armed Iraq was a key reason, if not the most important reason, used by the Administration to justify the need for a preemptive war against Iraq. Rather than allow the U.N. inspectors to finish their inspections, the results of which might have fueled further congressional efforts and resolutions to stop the war, the Administration commenced the war in March 2003. the administration's false and fraudulent uranium claims arguably violated criminal laws concerning communications with congress The criminal statute, 18 U.S.C., Sec. 1001, prohibits knowingly and willfully making false and fraudulent statements to Congress in documents required by law. The two uranium claims in the State of the Union Address and the report to Congress concerning Iraq were false and fraudulent, and are in documents that the White House submitted to Congress. See House Document 108-1 and House Document 108-23. The law required the president to give such reports. Article II, Section 3 of the constitution requires presidents to give State of the Union Addresses. Section 4 of Public Law 107- 243, which is the Congressional resolution authorizing the war against Iraq, requires the president to give reports to Congress relevant to the war resolution and the president submitted said report on Iraq pursuant to that law. Thus 18 U.S.C., Sec. 1001 was evidently violated. The criminal statute, 18 U.S.C., Sec. 371, prohibits conspiring to defraud the United States and is applicable since the Supreme Court in the case of Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182, 188 (1924) held that to ``conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful government functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest.'' Senior Administration officials arguably violated Section 371 because their uranium claims had the effect of obstructing or interfering with the function of Congress to reconsider its war resolution and to allow further time for U.N. weapons inspections. If the whole truth had been told, Congress may well have withdrawn the war resolution or delayed the start of the war to allow further U.N. weapons inspections, which would have shown what we now know; that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and had not sought the uranium. However, it should be noted that Section 371 does not require proof that the conspiracy was successful. Additionally, the Downing Street memos should be part of the investigation as to whether one of the several ways in which the Administration deliberately ``fixed'' the facts and intelligence on uranium included its switch of the language in the State of the Union Address to justify the war. These documents provide valuable insight into the mindset of the Administration the summer preceding the Iraq invasion. conclusion The above matters are clearly related to your current investigation. Ambassador Wilson's op-ed article focused on the uranium claim made in the 2003 State of the Union Address and he concluded that ``intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.'' You are investigating whether any laws were violated when Administration officials--in order to discredit Wilson's claim and/or to retaliate against him--leaked to the press the fact that his wife was a CIA agent. As set forth in this letter, Wilson's original charge that the Administration ``twisted'' the evidence concerns matters that are just as criminal as the Administration's attempts to discredit Wilson and his charge by revealing the identity of Mrs. Wilson as a CIA operative. Justice Department officials in Washington certainly have the same type of conflict of interest in this matter as they did in the CIA leak case, which resulted in current your assignment. (See 28 CFR, Sec. 45.2(a) prohibiting Department employees from matters in which they have a conflict of interest). Thank you for your attention to this request. We look forward to your response. Sincerely, Maurice D. Hinchey, William D. Delahunt, Bernard Sanders, Pete Stark, George Miller, John Conyers, Jr., Richard E. Neal, Martin Olav Sabo, Marcy Kaptur, Xavier Becerra, Hilda L. Solis, Cynthia McKinney, Doris Matsui, David Wu, Louise Slaughter, Charles B. Rangel, Ed Towns, Jim McDermott, Raul M. Grijalva, Michael M. Honda. Albert R. Wynn, Sam Farr, Lynn C. Woolsey, Tammy Baldwin, Chris Cannon, Jerrold Nadler, Carolyn B. Maloney, Jim Moran, Donald M. Payne, Peter J. Visclosky, Carolyn C. Kilpatrick, Dennis J. Kucinich, Neil Abercrombie, Jim McGovern, Maxine Waters, Luis V. Gutierrez, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Barbara Lee, Frank Pallone, Jr., Wm. Lacy Clay, Jose E. Serrano. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this letter is to recognize, first of all, the importance of the investigation as to who it was who revealed the identity of Mrs. Wilson as an operator for the Central Intelligence Agency. Whoever did so violated Federal law, which went into effect in 1968. That is a very important question. An even more important question is why that was done. And so in the context of this letter, I and the other 39 Members of the House who signed this letter are asking that this investigation be conducted more deeply, be conducted further into the question as to why that revelation was made. To recount the events here, back in late 2002, the administration was making claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. And on the basis of those claims, it was preparing a final push asking the Congress to support a war against Iraq. Included in those weapons of mass destruction were references to uranium which allegedly had been imported from Niger in West Africa into Iraq for the purposes of constructing a nuclear weapon. The Central Intelligence Agency and other intelligence operations within the Federal Government expressed serious doubts about the accuracy of that information with regard to enriched uranium coming out of Niger into Iraq. Nevertheless, the administration continued to press the case, telling the intelligence agencies over and over again to go back and look again, go back and look again, when the intelligence agencies found that they had no evidence, no substantial evidence whatsoever, that that uranium had been imported into Iraq from Niger. Finally, the Central Intelligence Agency sent a retired ambassador, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, to Niger to investigate whether there was any prospect whatsoever that enriched uranium had been sent from Niger into Iraq. Mr. Wilson conducted a thorough investigation. He came back and reported to the Central Intelligence Agency that no such information was found. The CIA informed the White House. Nevertheless, the administration continued to assert weapons of mass destruction, including the potential for the creation of a nuclear weapon. Those assertions were made directly to the Congress. It is against the law, it is against Federal law, a criminal violation of Federal law, to misinform the Congress of the United States and to intentionally mislead the Congress. We believe that that has been done, and that if it had not been for the assertion of nuclear weapons and the belief that there were nuclear weapons being made in Iraq, that this Congress likely would not have passed the resolution authorizing the war in Iraq. If that had not taken place, that resolution had not been passed, we would not be seeing today nearly 2,000 American service men and women having been killed in Iraq; tens of thousands of others seriously wounded; hundreds, tens of thousands, perhaps as much as 100,000 Iraqis killed, many of them women and children, innocent civilians. And so this question as to why that revelation was made is seriously important. Furthermore, we need to look into the issue of why this misinformation was given to the Congress, and that ought to be done by the Congress. This House of Representatives ought to be conducting hearings now that we know there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq prior to our invasion, and that whatever evidence there might have been was flimsy and weak and not anything to be based on. Why was that done? That is a question of great seriousness presently before this House of Representatives, and it is not being addressed. The most important question of human rationality is why, why something was done? Was it as a result of a cabal that existed within the administration between powerful people who were determined to present information that would mislead the Congress in the way that they did? Because the Congress was misled, unquestionably so. The Government of the United States is supposed to be open and transparent. Decisionmaking should be subject to powerful checks and balances. That has not been done, and it must be done. This Congress must fulfill its obligations under the Constitution to investigate these breakages of Federal law.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that you can say about the way in which the national Republican Party has handled America's energy problem is that they are being very consistent, and that goes back to the first moment when they controlled both the Congress and the White House; when the President, charged by the Bush administration to develop an energy policy, did the natural thing for them, brought in the energy companies to tell them what kind of policy we should have. That attitude is reflected in this bill, as well as the one that this Congress passed last July. They are both deferential to the energy companies at the expense of the American people. Everything goes to the energy companies; nothing goes to the American people. The energy companies last year, the oil companies, made record profits, more than $125 billion. One corporation alone made more than $25 billion in profits in 2004. Their profits in 2005 are even higher, while the American people struggle to get back and forth to work because of the price of gasoline and as they will struggle this winter to heat their homes to try to stay safe and secure. Lives will be lost because of the way in which the national Republican Party is handling this energy problem. In order to justify gasoline being sold at $3 a gallon under a free, open market, you would have to have oil priced at $95 a barrel. But we do not have a free and open market, even though the Republicans claim we do. We have a market that is controlled by the oil companies, for the oil companies and against the interests of the American people, and all of that is conspired and entered into by the national Republican Party, in the White House and in this Congress as well. That is what we are seeing here today in the context of this legislation: More for the oil companies, less for Americans. Struggle, struggle, struggle for the American worker; struggle, struggle, struggle for the American family, while huge profits are given to the oil companies over and over again. It has got to stop. Defeat this rule, defeat the bill, pass the Stupak substitute.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The interesting thing about the manager's amendment is that it takes a very bad bill and makes it even worse. I just want to focus on one aspect of this legislation which I think would be amusing in some sense if it were not for the fact that it is an example of a kind of cynical hypocrisy in those people who call themselves fiscally conservative. The bill guts the Endangered Species Act, there is no question about that, and all the protections that are involved there; but then it creates a whole new government giveaway program for some of the Nation's richest landowners and property owners. What this bill does is add insult to injury. If you think that you are a responsible fiscal conservative, if you do not want to create a big new government giveaway program, then you should be adamantly opposed to this legislation. You might want to even cast aside the environmental aspects of it, because if you look at the monetary implications of this and the budgetary implications of this bill, it is going to create an even bigger budget deficit in the context of this huge giveaway program. People are using here more and more frequently the devastating impact of the two hurricanes. They want to sell off the national parks, they want to remove the safety net for millions of Americans who rely upon government services, and now they are going to make it even more difficult for this Congress to provide the kind of programs and assistance that are needed in terms of health care, education, a variety of things by passing a piece of legislation that builds an even bigger budget deficit by creating a whole new giveaway program, a new entitlement program for some of the wealthiest people in the country, some of the biggest landowners in the country. All they have to do is come here under this legislation, just to ask for it, and it will be given to them. If you really want to conserve the fiscal integrity of this process, please vote against this bill.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, today, the occupation of Iraq continues and we learn that another bomb blast, in fact a series of bomb blasts in Iraq have resulted in the loss of more than 100 lives. So far, the loss of American servicemen and women's lives is almost 2,000. We have lost almost 2,000 American servicemen and women in Iraq. The American people are asking now with greater frequency a very significant question: Why did we invade Iraq and why are we continuing to occupy that country? Today, the House Committee on International Relations defeated a Resolution of Inquiry, which I introduced, and that defeat came essentially along party lines. Every Democratic member of the House Committee on International Relations voted for the resolution; one Republican voted for it; one Republican did not oppose it. But the resolution lost by one vote because all of the other Republicans on the committee opposed it. What this resolution asked was simply this. It asked the administration, the White House, and the Defense Department to provide to the Congress information with regard to that information which is contained in the so-called Downing Street memos. The Downing Street memos are very interesting. They were first revealed by the Sunday Times of London on May 1, 2005. What these Downing Street memos are, are high-level communications between some of the most significant members of the British Government, including Prime Minister Tony Blair; Richard Dearlove, who was the head of British intelligence; Jack Straw, the foreign secretary; and others. These Downing Street memos were communications between these high- ranking officials of the British Government. They reveal the essence of conversations which took place between members of the British Government and members of the Bush administration here in Washington, including Condoleezza Rice, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and others. What the Downing Street memos reveal is that, from the very beginning, the Bush administration was obsessed with Saddam Hussein and that they used the attack of September 11 not to go after the perpetrators of that attack, Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network, but to twist and distort the facts in order to justify an attack against Iraq, given the obsession that they had with Saddam Hussein. So the resolution that I introduced today, and which was defeated by the House Committee on International Relations, called upon the executive branch of government, the White House and the Defense Department, to provide to the Congress information with regard to those conversations from the American perspective. All we have now is the British perspective. And the British perspective is quite damning indeed, damning of the intentions of the Bush administration and the way in which this ensuing occupation has been carried out. The Downing Street memos make it clear that high-ranking members of the Bush administration were determined to twist and distort the intelligence and the facts to fit the policy which they had already decided to put into action; and that policy, of course, was to attack Iraq and to remove Saddam Hussein as the head of that government. Many people across our country, including an increasing number of the House of Representatives, and I believe the Senate as well, are asking the question: How could that attack be justified when we now know that the ostensible justification, the justification which was set forth by the administration, was completely false? First, that justification was that Iraq had something to do with the attack of September 11. Then the administration had to back off from that assertion when it became clear to almost everyone that there was no validity in that assertion whatsoever. Rapidly, the administration moved to an assertion that it was important for us to attack Iraq because Iraq possessed so-called weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical weapons. And the suggestion was even made over and over and over again, by the highest ranking officials of the Bush administration, that the Iraqi government was acquiring nuclear weapons, that they had imported enriched uranium from Niger into Iraq in order to manufacture atomic bombs, and that we were in danger of having those nuclear weapons used against us. So, therefore, they sought in that way to justify an attack against Iraq. It is now clear to almost everyone, even the most myopic of persons, that Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction program and was nowhere near the development of any nuclear weapons. And as is made clear by the information that is possessed in these Downing Street memos, other countries were much more dangerous, including Libya, Iran, and North Korea, because they were much closer to developing nuclear weapons than was Iraq, which had essentially abandoned all of its large-scale weapons programs in 1991. That information had been made clear as a result of investigations which were carried out by the International Atomic Energy Agency and by weapons inspections teams, two of them in fact from the United States. They found no evidence of any weapons of mass destruction. So information from the administration about these Downing Street memos is essential. Why the Committee on International Relations defeated that resolution today remains to be seen, but we will be back. We will be back until we get the truth about what started this war in Iraq, why it was instigated in the first place, and why it is continuing to be carried out in such a failing manner.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and commend Gavin DeGraw, a native son of Sullivan County, New York, whose hard work, persistence, and talent have propelled him into the national spotlight. On the occasion of Gavin's return to Sullivan County for his upcoming concert at Kutcher's Country Club, I am proud to offer my congratulations to Gavin and his family on the tremendous success that Gavin has thus far achieved in his relatively short career as a songwriter and performer. Born and raised in South Fallsburg in the Catskill region, Gavin was engrossed in music throughout his youth. Inspired by his parents' musical talents and interests, Gavin began playing piano and singing at an early age. He later played music in cover bands with his older brother, who encouraged him to write his own music in addition to playing other artists' songs. Gavin studied music briefly at Ithaca College and then at the prestigious Berklee School of Music, but decided to pursue his career as a singer/songwriter in New York City in 1998. With the continued support of his family, Gavin pursued his dream with passion and diligence, and over the following years, steadily built a loyal following in the New York City live music scene through his soulful performances, personal charisma and honest songwriting style. Gavin cultivated his talent and career patiently, refusing early recording contract offers, and committed himself to his continued development as an artist and performer. These deliberative efforts paid off as he continued to make a name for himself through his local performances, and eventually signed a recording contract with Clive Davis and J Records, who represent a number of nationally known artists. Gavin's album Chariot, released in July 2003, debuted in the top ten on Billboard's Top Heatseekers chart and inspired reviewers and fans alike to compare Gavin with such musical icons as Elton John, Billy Joel and Van Morrison. The single ``I Don't Want To Be'' hit number one on Billboard's Top 40 Chart and is used as the theme song for the WB show, ``One Tree Hill.'' The album was certified platinum in January 2005. Gavin's popularity as an artist has continued to grow, as evidenced by his string of sold-out live performances and his appearances on national shows, including Late Show With David Letterman, Tonight Show With Jay Leno, Good Morning America and The Ellen DeGeneres Show. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to pay tribute to the accomplishments of Gavin DeGraw and welcome him back to Sullivan County for this concert. I know that I speak for many in the community in stating that Sullivan County is proud of his success and proud of the fact that he has achieved this success through hard work and by remaining true to his own personal style and conviction.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, this is a troubling moment. If we were in the military, I think that we might be charged with dereliction of duty. The most important security issue that this Nation has to deal with is the issue of energy, doing things to decrease our dependence on foreign energy, particularly foreign oil. We are now importing about 60 percent of the oil that we use on a daily, monthly, and annual basis. This bill does little to deal with that problem. Instead, what it does do is it gifts the oil industry with enormous amounts of tax concessions and tax breaks. The oil industry, of course, is now suffering from a very serious problem: They have more cash on hand than they know what to do with. They do not know what to do with all the money coming in from these high gasoline prices, high heating prices, and yet now we are going to dump a whole bunch more money on them. We should be doing something that looks forward. If this bill were before the Congress in 1955, some people might say it was a forward- looking bill. But in 2005, it does nothing but look backward and does nothing to help our energy dependence and overall energy situation. I hope we defeat it.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to commend my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), for making tonight on the floor of this House her 100th statement concerning the war in Iraq. Over the course of the last 15 months, the gentlewoman from California has made a very substantial contribution to the debate concerning that tragic event in Iraq, the circumstances surrounding it, and also making recommendations as to what we might do in the future to correct the terrible mistakes and injustices that have been perpetrated against the Iraqi people and against our own country. I commend her for doing so. She and I were among those 143 Members of this House who voted against the resolution that was submitted by the Bush administration to authorize the war in Iraq. It has now come to my attention, and to, I think, many other Members of this House, that there are a growing number of people here, as well as around the country, that understand that this war was a deep and tragic mistake and that the rationale presented for it was based upon falsehoods. The statements which came from various people within the administration were completely false and misleading. Among those initially was the idea that Iraq had something to do with the attack on our country of September 11, 2001. That, of course, was completely and totally false. Additionally, it was stated by members of the Bush administration that there was some connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. That has been proven to be completely and totally false. Again, we were told that there were so-called weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical and biological weapons, and the President himself in this House made allegations with regard to the development of a nuclear weapons program by Iraq. That too has been shown to be totally and completely false. This administration has entirely twisted and distorted the facts and the information and the intelligence to try to fit a policy decision which they made based on no facts or information, but based upon a decision which was made by this administration to suit their own private, personal, and political objectives. The consequence of that has been the loss of more than 1,760 lives of American service men and women for no good reason. That war was unnecessary, unjust; and we need to face up to it. The Members of this House need to face up to it. We have, over this period of time, been confronted with a gross amount of information which has been totally misleading and totally false. The administration contracted with private-public relations firms to persuade the American people of the falsity of their notions with regard to weapons of mass destruction and the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda and the attack of September 11, now known to be totally and completely false. And the administration apparently continues to seek to mislead the country. We have just recently, just today, a report over CNN broadcasting which quotes two separate people in Iraq on two separate circumstances with regard to an attack that took place on July 13 and another that took place on July 24, just yesterday. Let me read into the Record what those news releases coming out of Iraq say: A Sunday, July 24, news release says: ``The terrorists are attacking the infrastructure, the ISF, and all of Iraq. They are enemies of humanity without religion or any sort of ethics. They have attacked my community today, and I will now take the fight to the terrorists, said one Iraqi man who preferred not to be identified.'' Eleven days earlier, it was reported from the same military sources, a July 13 news release said: `` `The terrorists are attacking the infrastructure, the children, and all of Iraq,' said one Iraqi man who preferred not to be identified. `They are enemies of humanity without religion or any sort of ethics. They have attacked my community today, and I will now take the fight to the terrorists.' '' These are false statements, obviously, and we continue to be afflicted by propaganda out of this administration to attempt to justify the initial attack, now the occupation, and the ongoing occupation which is increasingly dangerous. So I commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for what she has done, and the House really needs to pay much more attention to these issues.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. I appreciate the gentleman's statements and I understand what he is saying very well. But the fact of the matter is that our attention has been drawn away from the real circumstances here. We were attacked, yes. The Taliban was harboring the al Qaeda network and we went after them in Afghanistan and rightly so. And all but one Member of this House supported that activity on both sides of the aisle. But then for illegitimate reasons, we were forced into this unnecessary and illegal and unjust war in Iraq which has taken our attention and our resources away from the terrorists who conducted those attacks. We need to get back on that, and we need to investigate why this is happening.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) for offering this amendment. I know that he is a man of great sincerity and he offers this from his point of view in the right way. But the interesting thing about it from my perspective is it gives us an opportunity to talk about some of these issues and this opportunity is a rare opportunity indeed. It is unfortunate that it is so rare that we have an opportunity on this floor in the context of legislation to talk about the tragedy in Iraq and the so-called global war on terrorism. In this regard and the context of this amendment which focuses attention on the activities in Guantanamo Bay and pretends that all of those activities are upstanding and lawful, and in the language of the amendment ``lawful, humane interrogation,'' we find in experience that this interrogation that has been carried out as a result of this so-called war on terrorism has often not been lawful and not been humane. It has not been lawful in the sense that it has violated the third Geneva Convention. It has not been lawful in the sense that it has violated other aspects of international law, including the United Nations, and it has violated our own domestic law frequently. In Guantanamo, and even more so in other places such as Abu Ghraib and Camp Cropper and Bagram Air Base where the interrogation carried out has been unlawful, has been inhumane and has brought us terrible, deep disgrace in the face of the rest of the world and placed a terrible burden on our country and our military people around the world. How did this all happen? We know that a significant number of military personnel, both enlisted and officers, have been prosecuted and convicted as a result of the inhumane treatment that has been carried on in these camps. How did it occur? We are led to believe, we are being asked to believe that just a handful of inexperienced, rough hewn Americans invented these activities indiscriminately in several different places by themselves, that this was not done in any concerted way. But the circumstantial evidence that we have is quite different. And I say circumstantial evidence because this Congress has abandoned its responsibility to investigate this matter. There have been inadequate hearings by this House of Representatives to look into this issue to see exactly what has been going on. But the circumstantial evidence that we have indicates that these orders for this kind of ill-treatment came out of the Secretary of Defense, transmitted to the Under Secretary for Intelligence, Stephen Cambone. He was then sent down to Guantanamo and gave the information to Geoffrey Miller. And he then carried it out in Guantanamo and then in Camp Cropper and in other places throughout the system that has been developed as a result of this illegal, unjust and unnecessary war in Iraq which has corrupted the focus of our legitimate attention, which is the attack of the al Qaeda terrorists on this country on September 11, 2001. We have abandoned all of that for the sake of this illegal, unjust, unnecessary war in Iraq which has now placed such a terrible burden, psychologically, emotionally and financially, on this country. So this resolution that we have here gives us an opportunity to examine these issues, and to examine them carefully, but to examine them in the way that they need to be examined. We need the leadership here in the House of Representatives, the chairmen of the appropriate committees, to begin hearings as to what exactly happened and why it happened, who gave the orders, under what circumstances were those orders given, to whom were they given, why was this activity of persecution and torture which has been criticized by the International Committee on the Red Cross, internally by an independent Army investigation and also on numerous occasions by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. We need to get to the bottom of this. Let us begin to do it.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California, my good friend and colleague, for his leadership and wisdom on these subjects. The circumstances surrounding the invasion and occupation of Iraq are deeply tragic, and that begins with the very first instance, the corruption and falsification of intelligence by this administration to attempt to justify that attack and now occupation. The results of that are seen clearly in the fact that we have now lost more than 1,760 American servicemen and -women killed, more than 35,000 seriously wounded. Recent estimates indicate 25,000 Iraqi civilians killed in Iraq. And the circumstances there become more deeply dangerous and tragic with the passing of every minute. After the attack on the British transportation system just a short while ago, the British Royal Institute of International Affairs published this report on Security, Terrorism and the United Kingdom, and I want the Members to hear what it says in part: ``There is no doubt that the situation over Iraq has imposed particular difficulties for the United Kingdom and for the wider coalition against terrorism. It gave a boost to the al Qaeda network's propaganda, recruitment, and fundraising; caused a major split in the coalition; provided an ideal targeting and training area for al Qaeda- linked terrorists; and deflected resources and assistance that could have been deployed to assist the Karzai government and to bring bin Laden to justice. Riding pillion with a powerful ally has proved costly in terms of British and United States military lives, Iraqi lives, military expenditure, and the damage caused to the counter-terrorism campaign.'' That outlines the situation that we confront in Iraq. This Congress has a responsibility to carry out its obligations to see this matter and understand what is going on. It has not been done.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) for bringing this issue to the floor of the House. I think it is at the moment one of the most important issues that this Congress should be dealing with, but is not doing so. As you pointed out, there is a great deal of dissembling going on within the context of the Bush Administration. And one of the principal people responsible for that is Mr. Rove. It is quite clear that he revealed the identity of Valerie Plame, Central Intelligence Agency operative, and the wife of Ambassador Wilson, to at least one reporter, in this particular case a reporter for Time Magazine, and that he did so in the context of e-mail. But it is also very likely that he made that revelation not just to the reporter for Time Magazine, but to others as well. And it may very well have been Mr. Rove who made that revelation to Robert Novak, who was the columnist who published her name and made the revelation that someone working for the intelligence agency in a very sensitive position now had that name made public, putting that person in danger. So the question of the motivation here is one that is very important. It is quite clear that at least on one level, the motivation was to exact retribution against Ambassador Wilson, who you have pointed out rightly was sent by the Central Intelligence Agency to Niger to investigate the question as to whether or not enriched yellow cake uranium was being transported from Niger into Iraq. The President of the United States in this room, in an address to a joint session of the Congress of the United States, and to the American people, made the assertion that enriched yellow cake uranium was being imported from Niger into Iraq, and that created the prospect that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons. On numerous occasions, the President, the Vice President, the National Security Advisor, and others in the administration, used the illustration of the mushroom cloud in reference to Iraq, to create the impression that Iraq was developing a nuclear weapon. Ambassador Wilson, in the context of his trip to Niger, made it very clear that no yellow cake uranium had been transported from Niger to Iraq. Nevertheless, the administration continued to allege that that is not the case, and that Iraq was engaged in a program to develop a nuclear weapon. So what we see here in the course of this discussion this afternoon is another example of the dissembling, the misuse of information by important people within this administration. And from our point of view, as Members of the House of Representatives, one of the critical aspects of all of this is the failure of this House to address this circumstance. We know that the allegations made by the administration with regard to the connection between Iraq and the attack of September 11 were untrue. We know that the allegations concerning the relationship between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were not true. We know that the allegations with regard to weapons of mass destruction, including the prospects of a nuclear weapon, were untrue. Why is it that this House of Representatives is not carrying out its responsibilities under the Constitution to conduct an investigation and to hold Congressional hearings with regard to this issue?

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, clarifies that the existing anti- propaganda section of the bill also includes contracting out for these services to publicity experts and others. Its intent is to simply prevent contracts with journalists and other publicity experts without authorization by the Congress, and it will prevent additional embarrassing reports in the future because it will prohibit these bogus news reports, generated by contracts between the government and those willing to take the money and spin the information. Examples of administrative propaganda are numerous. Last month, The Washington Post reported that the National Resource Conservation Service paid a freelance writer at least $7,500 to write articles touting so-called Federal conservation programs and placed them in outdoors magazines. These articles were placed and not one of them disclosed the fact that the writer was under Federal contract and that these were not objective articles. Last year, the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams was paid $241,000 by the Education Department to promote the administration's education policy. And columnist Maggie Gallagher received $21,500 from the Department of Health and Human Services to work on the administration's marriage initiative. Again, neither of these individuals informed the public that they were working for the government and that they were not writing objective articles. Finally, it has recently surfaced that a semi-invisible PR group had received $200 million of taxpayers' dollars to spread anti-Saddam Hussein propaganda prior to the Iraq war. In fact, soon after the attacks on our country on September 11, 2001, the company received a $100,000-a-month contract from the Pentagon to offer media strategy advice. This was part of the misinformation campaign that led to the war in Iraq; and the result of that misinformation was that two-thirds of the American people thought that Saddam Hussein was actually behind the 9/11 attacks. We know, of course, that that was not the case. And eight out of ten Americans thought that Iraq had nuclear weapons because they were afflicted with this misinformation campaign. While the administration has been embarrassed by their contracts, at least the ones that have been made public, the agencies knew what they were doing when they hired these people to promote these misinformation campaigns. Many have questioned the legality of all of these contracts. The GAO, in fact, is looking into the legality of Armstrong Williams and the Gallagher case, and that ought to determine whether or not the administration violated the ban on covert propaganda. It is obvious, however, Mr. Chairman, that we need to make this statement with greater clarity and define more clearly what cannot be done by this or future administrations to misinform and mislead the American people by contracting out and engaging in a propaganda campaign using taxpayer dollars to misinform the American people. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, is there an opposing argument to the amendment?

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I thank the gentleman for accepting the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I find this inexplicable. This is the House of Representatives. We are here purposefully to protect the interests of the American people. There is no situation in which it is more clear as to where the interest of the American people lie than in the context of this amendment that has been offered today by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I assume that is why it passed the Committee on Appropriations by such a strong vote. But for political reasons, the Committee on Rules has decided not to protect the amendment, not to allow it to come out here and not be subject to the kind of opposition it received a moment ago from the gentleman from Florida. This issue should be debated on the floor of this House. This amendment should be passed. Why? Because the credit card companies are increasingly putting American families deeper and deeper and deeper in debt. The average debt now, according to the Federal Reserve, the average debt of the average American family is 115 percent of income and the main reason for that is credit card debt. The credit card companies attract consumers, often attracting them in at relatively reasonable interest rates, and then very rapidly for extraneous reasons and circumstances, increase those rates. And the debt that people owe to credit card companies is going up and up and up. That is one of the reasons why this House of Representatives passed that atrocious bankruptcy bill not long ago, a bankruptcy bill which, in effect, in large part was influenced strongly by the credit card companies. What have we become? This House, which is supposed to represent the interests of the American people, the average American, the average American family, has fallen now to represent narrower and narrower special interests, and the obvious special interest in this case are the credit card companies which has become the fastest growing and one of the most lucrative businesses in America. And why? Because we are not doing our job. This House of Representatives is not doing what it is supposed to do: Protect the interest of the average family and not allow usurious interest rates to take place here over and over and over again.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, my favorite quote from Abraham Lincoln is this: You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. I think that this House ought to understand that because that is what is trying to be done here. They are trying to fool all of the people all of the time. They have done it with Iraq, they are trying to do it with Social Security, and now they are trying to do it by controlling the airwaves, controlling the information that people get, and most recently by politicizing public broadcasting. The law that my good, dear friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), just mentioned is not being enforced. That is the problem. That is why we have this amendment. That is why we need its passage. Public broadcasting should not be political. It needs to be objective and reliable. Pass this amendment.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, Congress created the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in 1967 to encourage the development of a public broadcasting system, and just as importantly, to shield public broadcasting from any political interference. Despite this clear directive, Kenneth Tomlinson, the chairman of the corporation, has engaged in a deliberate campaign to politicize public broadcasting and interfere with the content of public television and radio stations across the country. Mr. Tomlinson is essentially warning public broadcasters, conform to his ideology or he will cut off their funding. This is political intimidation in the truest and worst sense of the term, and we must stamp it out today with this amendment. This amendment would prohibit Mr. Tomlinson, who is considered a part-time government employee because of his position as chairman of the board of broadcasting governors, from exercising direction, supervision, or control over the content or distribution of public telecommunications programs and services. It also prohibits the CPB from violating the policies set forth by Congress, which include a prohibition on outside interference. The United States of America is already suffering from a shortage of independent voices in the media. Public broadcasting remains one of the outlets available that offer high-quality, unbiased, independent reporting, which is why we must ensure its independence from political tampering. It is a shame that this even has to come up. But the actions of Kenneth Tomlinson demand that this amendment be brought before the House. At the rate Tomlinson is going, it is only a matter of time before he changes PBS' name to FOX-2, and starts forcing Big Bird and Elmo to talk about the merits of the war in Iraq or the value of privatizing Social Security. We must have independent public broadcasting that reports the facts and holds both Democrats and Republicans accountable for their actions. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the AIDS Drug Assistance Program, ADAP, and the dire need for increased funding to help meet the needs of Americans living with HIV and AIDS. This necessary program provides medication to under and uninsured HIV/AIDS patients. Without ADAP, these people would not be able to obtain the necessary medication to prolong and improve their lives. Every year since its inception, the number of people helped by ADAP has increased dramatically. While we are all aware of the limited resources this committee has been given to meet its many pressing needs, the ADAP program is simply and urgently a matter of life and death for over 136,000 Americans each year. ADAP has been given a $10 million increase in this year's appropriations bill over last year, but the reality is that to keep pace with current and anticipated patient needs, ADAP requires a funding increase of $303 million. Without this funding, some 25,000- 35,000 HIV+ Americans who may have relied on ADAP will not be able to this year. In my home state of New York, where more than 22,000 people are enrolled in ADAP each year, I know first-hand the importance of the ADAP program. New York has been particularly hard-hit by the AIDS epidemic, with more than 160,000 residents diagnosed with AIDS, and 150,000 to 200,000 persons currently living with HIV/AIDS. The state government has been extremely supportive of ADAP, appropriating $60 million for 2005 to supplement the federal program. Despite New York's statewide commitment, there are dozens of states that find themselves unable to keep up with the demand for coverage under ADAP. As documented in the National ADAP Monitoring Report, some states are being forced to take drastic measures to offset the federal funding shortfall, including establishing waiting lists for AIDS medications, reducing drug coverage, and restricting eligibility. This has contributed to the pool of several hundred thousand HIV+ Americans who are unable to access available appropriate treatment for their HIV disease. This is dangerous to their personal health and quality of life, as well as to the public health. This ensures that more costly hospital interventions will be forthcoming in federal, state, local, and private funding streams, as HIV progresses without proper treatment. I urge the conference committee to fully fund ADAP at $303 million. All Americans living with HIV/AIDS must get the help they need to purchase their medications and save and improve their lives.