Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Now, on the Australia Free Trade Agreement, or any other trade bill, what day does the gentleman anticipate we will be considering the Australia Free Trade bill?

Mr. HOYER. Will we consider the BioShield bill on that day as well?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have a feel for when we will consider the Foreign Ops appropriation bill?

Mr. HOYER. So on Tuesday the gentleman expects we will complete the Ag bill?

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the information and appreciate his being open to additional questions. To clarify the schedule for the appropriation bills the gentleman has listed for next week, does the gentleman anticipate on Monday that we will complete the Legislative Branch bill?

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I take this time, as much as may be required, to inquire of the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Committee on Rules, of the schedule for next week.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, some time ago we passed an act. It was called the PATRIOT Act. It was voted upon by the overwhelming majority of us. The objective then was to ensure the safety of democracy and the survival of freedom. That was the objective of the PATRIOT Act. Now, there are many in this House, indeed the majority, who believed that there were provisions in that act that undermined democracy. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) and others raised a very specific provision of that PATRIOT Act as undermining of our democracy, of our civil liberties, and of our freedom. The vote was called on that amendment, and at the expiration of 15 minutes, the majority of the House indicated that they supported the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), and others. And then the vote continued, and it continued, and it continued, for over twice as long as the Speaker of the House early this year indicated votes would be held; indeed, for 38 minutes. Now, I say to my colleagues, let me remind my colleagues of the remarks of our Vice President in 1987, when a similar tactic was employed, and I am quoting the remarks of the Vice President of the United States, Richard Cheney, who at that point in time was a Member of this House. ``The Democrats,'' he said, ``have just performed the most grievous insult inflicted on Republicans in my time in the House, a vote held open for a shorter period of time.'' He went on to say that it was ``the most arrogant, heavy-handed abuse of power I have ever seen in the 10 years that I have been here.'' He went on to say, referring to the Speaker of the House of Representatives at that time, Jim Wright from the State of Texas, ``He is a heavy-handed son,'' and I will delete the next two words, ``and he doesn't know any other way to operate, and he will do anything he can to win at any price. There is no sense of comity left,'' said the Vice President, Dick Cheney, then a Member of the House of Representatives. Perhaps he felt better after he said that. But my friends, if you campaign on changing the tone in Washington, if your objective was to bring comity to this House, if your objective, by voting for the PATRIOT Act, was to protect democracy, then protect it here. Protect it here in the People's House. Protect it here where every one of you has an opportunity to say that we will have a fair vote in a fair time frame, and the majority will prevail, not the intimidated will prevail. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the sponsor of the amendment.

Mr. HOYER. In its present form, I am.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his statement. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney) for his leadership on the Help America Vote Act. Without his leadership and strong support, it would not have passed. Indeed, the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert), the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) of the Committee on Appropriations and others were critically important in its passage and funding. I want to rise with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) in strong support of report language that was offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) during the June 23 markup of the bill before us today. I applaud the Committee on Appropriations for including it in the report. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) for their leadership and attention to this very important matter. That report language reads: ``The committee strongly urges NIST to give priority consideration to Help America Vote Act outreach to the election community; expediting work on a new voting standards accreditation program; and its work with the Technical Guidelines Development Committee working with the Election Assistance Commission. NIST is directed to provide in advance of the fiscal 2006 hearings a report detailing what steps must be taken to bring its activities in line with the timetable established by the act.'' The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney) indicated that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) had worked with us. In fact, of course, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) was the principal sponsor in assuring that NIST was included as an integral part of the Help America Vote Act. Obviously, technology is one of the critical issues in the HAVA proposal, which funds new technology for voting around the country. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) correctly said that we ought to have the best possible advice regarding technology, and NIST was the agency to provide that.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, and I thank the gentleman from New York as well. He and I have talked about this amendment. I am a very strong supporter of the COPS program, I have been and continue to be a very strong supporter of the COPS program. And what the gentleman's amendment does is dramatically point out that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) do not have sufficient funds to properly reach the levels that would be appropriate for funding for some very, very worthwhile programs. On the other hand, when you are in this position, obviously you have to make choices. If you are going to have a zero sum game, that is, add no additional dollars, which would not be allowed, you have to take from some place if you want to increase in another place. The problem with this amendment, as I have told my friend from New York, is not its objective, which is an excellent one, but it is the means that it employs to attain that objective, which will have very serious adverse results, in my opinion. Now, the gentleman has indicated that he is confident it will have no adverse effect on employment levels. I think that is not the case. It is not the information I have. Now, as I have told the gentleman, obviously, I, as a matter of fact, went to high school a mile down the road from the Census Bureau, so I know something about the Census Bureau. It will, according to the Census Bureau, result in possibly as many as 1,000 RIFs. Now, that is a lot of people. Now, in addition to adversely affecting the people, the gentleman's amendment will affect the product adversely. Now, what is the product? The product is getting ready for the census of 2010. Now, that sounds very simple, but in fact it is a multiyear process. And if you slow it down, you can never get back that time. Therefore, although I strongly support the gentleman's objective, I cannot support and will therefore oppose his amendment, the means he employs to obtain that objective. I hope this amendment is defeated not because we should not be expanding the COPS program, but because we should not be doing it in this particular way.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I want to thank him for his continuing comments and again express, this was probably the most substantive bipartisan bill that passed in the last Congress. The Speaker indicated that and others have as well. If we, however, fail to fund it properly, it will be a promise unfulfilled, and our democracy will not be as well served as all of us hoped when we supported the Help America Vote Act. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, under the Help America Vote Act of 2002, of which I and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) were sponsors, NIST is required to conduct several important research and technical projects connected to election reform. NIST is already busy working with the new Election Assistance Commission to advance HAVA's objectives. However, much more must be done if NIST is to fulfill its important role. As we learned in the controversial 2000 election, voting systems in many parts of the country are antiquated and obsolete. There continues to be controversy about various technologies. NIST can make a critical difference. As the 2004 election fast approaches, there are concerns in some quarters about the security and reliability of some voting systems. Properly directed, NIST will make a significant contribution, ensuring that new voting systems are rigorously tested, easy to use and maintain, and secure. I strongly urge NIST to follow the spirit and substance of the report language and give priority consideration to the Help America Vote Act in fiscal year 2005. Mr. Chairman, I would follow up with the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney) that I look forward to working with him and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman Istook) as we consider the Transportation-Treasury bill and the additional appropriations for the Election Assistance Commission to attempt to get some of the money that NIST needs for 2005 out of the funds that are authorized for the Election Assistance Commission. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the chairman of this subcommittee, and I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the ranking Democrat, for their leadership and assistance in this effort, and I thank the gentleman for his leadership and for yielding me time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this June 22nd, a courageous young man was taken from our midst. Thirteen-year-old Matthew Stepanek was full of life, happiness, and brilliance. Mattie, as he liked to be called, had a lifelong struggle with muscular dystrophy, but never let the disease curb his enthusiasm, nor hinder his creativity. In 2001, Mattie courageously stated, ``My life mission is to spread peace to the world.'' Despite losing his battle with muscular dystrophy at such a young age, Mattie managed to spread happiness to the world through his poems. Mattie began writing poetry at age three to cope with the death of a brother. In his short life, this tireless young man wrote five volumes of poetry that sold millions of copies. Three of the volumes reached the New York Times' best-seller list. Mattie is survived by his loving mother Jeni, who first recognized Mattie's talent and wrote down his poems for him. Unfortunately, Jeni also suffers from the adult-onset form of the disease. The disease also took the lives of his two brothers and sister. Mr. Speaker, today, I ask this House to celebrate and remember the life of Mattie Stepanek. He was a brave young man whose genius impacted everyone who encountered him. His selflessness, courage, and talent are something we can all honor and admire.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, had I had the time, I would have simply asked, why did the gentleman vote for this in 1997?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, for the first time since 1974, it appears that Congress will not adopt a budget when the same political party controls the House, the Senate, and the White House. In other words, in 28 years we have not been in this position of not being able to pass a budget. Why can the Republican majority not fulfill one of the most basic tests of effective government, adopting a budget? Because they cling to the fiction that we can rein in record deficits and runaway debt by applying pay-as-you-go budget rules to mandatory spending only. They do this as they preside over record budget deficits, and, just this week, trying to hide a $690 billion increase in the debt ceiling in the rule on the Defense appropriation bill. As the New York Times stated this morning, applying PAYGO rules to spending, but not taxes, is ``like swearing off demon rum while continuing to binge on vodka martinis.'' Even some Republicans reject this dilution, to wit, four Members of the other body. Earlier this year, my friend, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, whom I have so much respect for, speaking for our committee, but more, much more, importantly, speaking for fiscal responsibility, said, ``No one should expect significant deficit reduction as a result of austere, non-defense discretionary spending limits. The numbers simply do not add up.'' The chairman was right. The fact is, we could eliminate all nondefense discretionary spending, and we would still be running deficits of more than $100 billion. That is how much we put our country into the red. Perhaps the height of irony, perhaps the height of irony, is that just 7 years ago, in 1997, 193 Republicans voted for a pay-as-you-go affecting spending and revenues, or taxes. That included the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert), who voted for PAYGO affecting both; the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay); the conference chairwoman, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce); the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle); and the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas). And the Bush administration itself endorsed pay-as-you-go rules affecting both revenues and expenditures in 2002, 2003, and 2004. I have here next to me the language of the fiscal 2002 budget. I hope it is on the screen. The Bush administration endorsed it, as you can see, affecting both spending and tax legislation. In fact, I will quote. It states: ``The President also proposes to extend the PAYGO requirement for entitlement spending and tax legislation.'' Why? Because he knew you could not do what you say you can do. And for 3 years he stuck to that principle. This is the first year he has not. I would hope that those who believe in fiscal responsibility would vote for this Democratic substitute, which would restore the original PAYGO rules adopted in 1990 that apply to mandatory spending and taxes as they were originally established on a bipartisan basis, as we did in 1997 when the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and I both voted for a balanced budget proposal, which, in fact, was very helpful in assuring that balance. Mr. Chairman, I do not think we ought to let our majority colleagues get away with this charade. Do not let them preen as deficit hawks, as some of you perceive yourselves to be, and not apply discipline to both expenditures and revenues. I tell my colleagues, it is oh, so easy. I have been in a legislative body for 35 years, and every year I have found it so easy to vote for tax reductions, but so difficult to vote for cuts in spending. Let us have discipline. Vote for this substitute. Do not pretend your PAYGO has any effect.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans in this House believe if you say something enough, long enough, somebody somewhere will believe it. I have heard on this floor somebody refer to the famous Russell Long, who said, ``Don't tax me. Don't tax thee. Tax the man behind the tree.'' They did so, of course, properly with derision, and the public who hears that must hear it with derision as well; but my friends, the Republicans have found out how to do that; and during the 8 years of the Reagan administration, they plunged this Nation deeper and deeper and deeper into debt, and during the 4 years of the Bush One administration, they plunged this country deeper, deeper, deeper into debt. And then in 1993 those Republicans who were here came on the floor and said those Democrats are proposing a program that will plunge us deeper into debt, cause large unemployment and destroy our economy. You have heard me say it before on the floor. They were 180 degrees wrong, absolutely, incontrovertibly wrong. And they are wrong today. The Republicans have said charge overseas. Spend more money overseas, $25 billion in a bill just yesterday. Did we pay for it? We did not. Who was the man behind the tree who will pay for it? My three daughters and my three grandchildren. They are the man behind the tree. They will pay this bill, because you continue to spend. You spend more than was spent before. You create more debt than was created before. In fact, in the last 4 years of the Clinton administration, we never once raised the debt. Not once. Because we had a responsible economic policy. But you will raise it $2.1 trillion in 4 years. That is a pretty stark difference, my friends. What the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) says is we need to invest in America. If we are going to invest overseas, if we need to help the people in Iraq, that is fine, but do not leave behind America's children. Do not leave behind America's veterans. Do not leave behind America's infrastructure while we help those overseas. That is what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is saying. And the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is saying, yes, we have a problem. Terrorism needs to be confronted, needs to be defeated, and America needs to be kept safe. So what does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) say? Let us follow what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the Republican chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the Democratic ranking member, said we ought to do 2 years ago: invest further funds in the safety of our people here in America. Invest in homeland security. Mr. Speaker, we have heard it and the public has heard it. Eighty- three percent of the small businesses are going to be affected by that. That is baloney, baloney. That is the politest word I can think to use at this present period of time. The IRS says there are 3.8 percent of small businesses who claim more than $1 million in taxable income. That is almost as much of a mistake as you made on your Medicare bill and almost as much of a mistake as this administration made in terms of telling us how much their Medicare bill was going to cost. They only missed by 25 percent. And we heard about waste, fraud, and abuse, as if somebody else is in charge of Washington. For 40 months, 40 months, the Republicans have had the Presidency, the Senate, and the House; and there is still waste in Washington. What is wrong with your administration? We have a larger infrastructure than we had when you took office. You talk about smaller government. It was smaller under President Clinton. Mr. Speaker, vote for the Obey amendment. Vote for honesty and investment in America and Americans.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from California, the ranking member of the committee, for yielding time; and I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for her statement. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this important bipartisan resolution, which the majority leader (Mr. DeLay) and I have offered along with the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos). This is a balanced resolution, Mr. Speaker, that will further the cause of peace in the Middle East, enhance the security of our staunch ally, the democratic State of Israel, and move the Palestinian people closer to the realization of a homeland of their own. In short, this resolution does two things. First, it strongly endorses the principles for Middle East peace articulated by President Bush in his April 14 letter to Prime Minister Sharon. The Members may recall that the President's letter welcomed Prime Minister Sharon's disengagement plan calling for the withdrawal of military installations and settlements from Gaza and the West Bank. The President believes that this plan will make a real contribution towards peace, and so do I. This plan in my view is a bold, historic opportunity to break the deadlock in Israeli-Palestinian relations. In addition, the President, among other things, reaffirmed the United States' commitment to the implementation of the road map to Middle East peace; reiterated in the strongest terms our commitment to Israel's security; insisted that the Palestinian side immediately cease all acts of violence and terror against Israel and her citizens; expressed our support for the establishment of a Palestinian state that is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent; recognized that in light of the reality, on the ground it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949; and in addition indicated that any final status will need to include the establishment of a Palestinian state and the settling of Palestinian refugees there rather than in Israel. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, this resolution supports continuing efforts by the international community to build the capacity and will of Palestinian institutions to fight terrorism, dismantle terrorist organizations, and prevent the areas from which Israel has withdrawn from posing a threat to the security of Israel. Mr. Speaker, the plight of the Palestinian people must concern all of us. Their cause has been diminished by depraved and corrupt leaders, led by Yasser Arafat, who employ the tactic of terror, insight their people to hate, and refuse to seek peace, thereby tragically relegating their own people to poverty and severe insecurity. In fact, it is this absence of leadership on the Palestinian side, the absence of a sincere negotiating partner, that spurred Prime Minister Sharon to propose his recent disengagement plan, which is supported not only by President Bush, but also by John Kerry and Members on both sides of the aisle here. Thus again, Mr. Speaker, Israel has stepped up and shown its willingness to take risks for peace and security. And let no one be mistaken about the special relationship that has existed between our two nations since the State of Israel was founded. Ours is a relationship of principle and conscience, of shared values and common aspirations, of peace and opportunity, and of a mutual commitment to freedom and democracy. This resolution, Mr. Speaker, is an important statement by this House. I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 676, which recognizes and honors the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On July 2nd, we will mark the passage of this historic act, which finally guaranteed equal rights for minorities in America. It is hard to believe that it was only 40 years ago when, facing prejudice and stubborn odds, President Lyndon Johnson guided the Civil Rights Act through the House and Senate and signed into law legislation that guaranteed rights that so many of our fellow citizens had been denied. The Act made racial discrimination in public placed illegal and established standards to thwart the rigged voting system in the South. It also required employers to provide equal employment opportunities no matter a person's race. Projects involving federal funds could be halted if there was evidence of discrimination based on color, race or national origin. These are things inherent in our society today, but for much of the 20th century, these protections only existed for white Americans--not blacks. Mr. Speaker, were it not for the unshakable faith and fierce determination of members of the civil rights movement--many who literally sacrificed their lives--the Civil Rights Act may have taken many more years to arrive. Our own colleague, and my good friend, Senior Chief Deputy Whip John Lewis, was one of the leaders of that civil rights movement. He was just out of his teens when he was beaten because of his participation in the Freedom Rides. Yet he was not deterred. At the age of 23, he joined Dr. King on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial for the March on Washington, and in the years that followed, he continued the fight for freedom and human rights, despite more than 40 arrests, physical attacks and serious injuries. In the years that followed its passage, the Civil Rights Act opened doors and created opportunities for black and minority Americans that were long overdue. With federal protections, blacks could attend any school or university, be hired for any job, and finally enjoy the Constitutional freedoms so many of us take for granted. However, Mr. Speaker, despite much progress, minority Americans still struggle for equal access and advancement. Right now we face a struggling economy that is not producing enough jobs, and it has imposed even greater hardships on minorities. Since March 2000, black unemployment has soared to nearly 11 percent, almost double that of whites. And there is still a glaring wage gap confronting minorities in the workforce. Black men earned 73.9 percent of what white men earned in 2002, measured by median full-time wages and salaries. That's barely up from 73.4 percent a decade ago. In our health system, minorities still repeatedly receive inferior care. Last year's Institute of Medicine report found that health care delivery is very unequal depending on the race or ethnicity of the patient. That inequality is thought to be a major reason that African- Americans frequently have worse health outcomes than whites. The black infant mortality rate in fact remains twice as high as the white rate, and 20 percent of black Americans lack regular access to health care compared with less than 16 percent of whites. Without early and advanced education, individuals face a great handicap in this world. Yet in our school system today separate and unequal is still the reality in far too many places. Even in higher education, there exists a large gap between the percentage of whites with a college degree and the percentage of blacks. So Mr. Speaker, today let us acknowledge that the Civil Rights Acts we passed in Congress was a crucial step forward for our Nation. Our laws require vigilance so that every citizen has an equal shot at the American dream. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said, ``Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable . . . Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals.'' Today, we must redouble our commitment to the Civil Rights Act and the America envisioned by John Lewis and every citizen who fought for equal rights four decades ago, and continue the effort for justice and equality. We have not yet reached the Promised Land, but it is up to us to ensure that America achieves the full measure of its promise.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, 11 years ago, the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), stood on this House floor and here is what he said: ``Here we are being asked this week to raise the debt ceiling so that this government can go on borrowing money to take care of its spending habits, and I think that is outrageous. I hope Members of the House will vote against raising the debt ceiling.'' So said the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) the majority leader. He went on to say, ``And I hope the American people will contact the Members of this House, Mr. Speaker, and urge them to vote against raising the debt ceiling.'' Now, the Chair of the conference, Republican conference said this: ``You see, certain lawmakers around this place have hopes of hiding a debt limit increase in a jungle of budget resolutions and conference reports. Mr. Speaker,'' said the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) chairman of the Republican conference, ``before we give them license to start construction, we must demand a separate vote on increasing the debt limit.'' I ask the distinguished lady from the Committee on Rules, are we doing that? Well, my friends, the Republican leadership, is that your position today? Are you urging Members to vote against raising the debt ceiling for the third time in three years under your watch? Under Bill Clinton's watch in the last 4 years of his Presidency, we raised the debt limit not once. Not once. Under Ronald Reagan we raised it 17 times. In the 4 years of George Bush 1 we raised it 10 times. Under this president, this is the fourth increase and it is going to be probably somewhere in the neighborhood of $2 trillion additional debt that the children of America will be called upon to pay. And we do it without a vote. This rule is a good rule. It should be passed unanimously. But just as they did last week in trying to pass their awful tax bill, they put things in to try to sweeten the pot. But this time you put it in to try to hide it. Contrary to what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said, contrary to what the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) said, contrary to what the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) has said, you are going to hide this vote because you do not have the courage to stand up and say I want to increase the debt, I want to undermine Social Security, I want to undermine Medicare. I do not want to be honest with the American public. It is called situational ethics. It is not about ethics; it is about the situation. It is about whether we think it works. We ought to reject this rule. It is not right. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said vote ``no.'' The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) said no. Let us vote ``no.''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Torture, Mr. Chairman, is quite simply un-American. It is alien to who we are as a people. And where others may seek to rationalize its use, we must not. We must make clear to those who are watching, both friends and foe, that we do not tolerate the behavior that took place, that we will hold accountable all those who are responsible. And that it is not now, nor will it be, the policy of this great and good Nation to sanction the use of torture. Mr. Chairman, today through language that was included in the fiscal 2005 defense appropriation act for which, again, I thank the chairman and ranking member, we again take an essential step by reaffirming that torture is, in fact, illegal under American and international law, that it is not consistent with American values, and that it is not a policy accepted by the United States of America.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise and thank the chairman and the ranking member for accepting the amendment that I offered in full committee on torture, and I want to speak just for a few minutes on that amendment. Mr. Chairman, the American people watched with shock and horror, as all of us did, as the photos of physical and psychological abuse being inflicted upon Iraqi detainees at the hands of U.S. military personnel were broadcast for the world to see. Many Members of the House have subsequently expressed their outrage, frankly, and disgust at the acts of torture that took place at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Some, Mr. Chairman, believe there has been an overreaction, that we are spending too much time on this issue. Mr. Chairman, I disagree with that view. We must move beyond the mere expressions of outrage, and we must uncover the facts surrounding the torture that occurred at Abu Ghraib, and perhaps at other places as well. Why? To undermine our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq? Absolutely not. To in any way cast doubt on the integrity, courage and good conduct of the thousands of men and women who wear our uniform? Absolutely not. But we must do so, Mr. Chairman, to emphatically affirm the values for which we fight. These actions represent a grave breach of decades of international and domestic law, and those involved in allowing or in creating an atmosphere in which such actions may seem to be condoned must be held as accountable as those who perpetrated them. Does a 20-year-old army private decide to put a dog leash on a nude Iraqi detainee and parade him in front of the others and photograph him? I think not. Do young military guards decide to release guards on detainees? I hope not and I think not. Secretary Rumsfeld's recent admission of his own violation of the Geneva Convention ordering the secret detention of an Iraqi prisoner for 7 months raises serious questions about the extent of the coordination of the treatment of prisoners of war and detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. The international reaction to these actions damaged our standing in the world. It has undermined our credibility. It has made the already difficult job of securing a broader coalition of support in Iraq and achieving our objectives in Iraq, which I have consistently supported and support to this day, it makes that more difficult, and it has increased the danger of Americans in Iraq and around the world. While it is true that torture is a clear violation of American and international law, that is not the reason that the United States of America renounces its use. While it is true that torture undermines our credibility and increases the danger to any Americans traveling abroad, that is not the reason that we renounce its use. While it is true that torture produces entirely unreliable information, that is not the reason that we renounce its use. In fact, in a field manual 3452, a 1992 field manual still in force and serves as a basic primer for students and instructors in the army that outlines the Army's doctrine for conducting interrogations, it in the final analysis says this: Imagine that a technique was being applied to American prisoners of war, and ask yourself if it would be consistent with U.S. law. If a doubt still remains as to the legality of a proposed action, seek a legal opinion from your servicing judge advocate. In other words, do not do these things if you think they would violate U.S. law. There is another standard that was set forth in a manual of the Army which I thought made a lot of common sense. And it said to them if you would not want an American detainee or prisoner treated in the way you are treating a prisoner, do not do it. Mr. Chairman, the United States of America renounces the use of torture and mistreatment of prisoners of war and other detainees because it is contrary to the principles upon which the Nation was founded, contrary to our commitment to human rights, and contrary to the value we place on the dignity of all people.