Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 38 (Wednesday, March 24, 2004)

[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 38 (Wednesday, March 24, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H1476-H1482]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

SEARCHING FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burgess). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone)
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this evening basically
to ask one question, and that is, where is Vice President Cheney these
days? Every once in a while he pops up at a reelection fund-raiser. In
fact, he was just up in my home State of New Jersey on Monday. And last
week he appeared at the Ronald Reagan Library in California, which is
always a tough place for Republicans. Cheneys went there to attack
Senator Kerry's record on defense and national security issues.
Finally, this Monday, presumably on his way to New Jersey for his
fundraiser, the Vice President made time to go on Rush Limbaugh's show
to attack his administration's former top counterterrorism official.
Rush Limbaugh allowed the Vice President to get out his main message
that Richard Clarke, the Bush administration's top counterterrorism
expert, ``Wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff.''
Mr. Vice President, I think that says a lot. When your top
counterterrorism expert supposedly is not in the loop on what your
administration is doing, how can you honestly say that you are giving
terrorism the kind of attention that it warrants?
So, over the last week the Vice President has hung out with some
Republican donors in New Jersey, Republican loyalists at the Ronald
Reagan Library, and Republican talk show host Rush Limbaugh. But for
the better part of last year, the Vice President has been keeping a low
profile. Why is he so afraid to step out of his Republican comfort
zone?
I would suggest that the reason is that the Vice President does not
want to have to answer more questions about his continued relationship
with Halliburton. I have mentioned the Halliburton issue many times on
this floor, along with a lot of my democratic colleagues. Back in the
year 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney said these words: ``Halliburton
is a fine company, and I am pleased that I was associated with the
company.''
But, you know, Mr. Speaker, the facts show otherwise. Halliburton, a
fine company? Well, let me give you some facts, Mr. Speaker.
First, Halliburton has acknowledged that it accepted up to $6 million
in kickbacks for its contract work in Iraq.
Another fact: Halliburton is now being investigated by the Pentagon
for overcharging the American government for its work in Iraq.
A third fact: Halliburton faces criminal charges in a $180 million
international bribery scandal during the time Cheney was CEO of the
company.
A fourth fact: Halliburton has been repeatedly warned by the Pentagon
that the food it was serving 110,000 U.S. troops in Iraq was dirty, and
the Pentagon audit found blood all over the floor of the kitchens
Halliburton supplied over in Iraq.
A fifth fact: Halliburton is getting around an American law that
forbids doing business with rogue nations. Thanks to a giant loophole,
Halliburton is able to do business in Iran, of all nations, through a
subsidiary in the Cayman Islands.
Mr. Speaker, how can the Vice President characterize Halliburton as a
fine company? Things are getting so bad with the company in Iraq that
the Army is now considering other companies to compete against
Halliburton for more than $4 billion worth of additional contracts. But
the Vice President continues to condone the actions of his former
company.
From a purely financial perspective, it probably makes sense for Vice
President Cheney to lay low. After all, it is also financially
beneficial for the Vice President to continue to praise Halliburton and
duck questions about his continued connection with the company.
The Vice President tried to squash such a story when he appeared on
Meet the Press last year. Vice President Cheney stated then, ``And
since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's Vice President, I have
severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial
interests. I have no financial interests in Halliburton of any kind,
and haven't had now for over 3 years.''
But, Mr. Speaker, despite the Vice President's claims, the
Congressional Research Service issued a report several weeks later
concluding that because Cheney receives a deferred salary and continues
to hold stock interests, he still has a financial interest in
Halliburton. In fact, if the company were to go under, the Vice
President could lose the deferred salary, a salary he is expected to
continue to receive this year and next year.
Now, while the loss of more than $200,000 over 1 year would not put a
big dent in the Vice President's wallet, he clearly still has a stake
in the success of Halliburton.
Vice President Cheney also neglects to mention that he continues to
hold more than 433,000 stock options with Halliburton. The
Congressional Research Service report that states that these stock ties
``represented a continued financial interest in those employers which
makes them potential conflicts of interest.''
Again, this was not the first time that Vice President Cheney has
misrepresented his role in Halliburton. Earlier this year, the Vice
President stated in reference to government manipulation by Halliburton
during his tenure, ``I wouldn't know how to manipulate the process if I
wanted to.''
What the Vice President neglects to say is that Halliburton cashed in
after Cheney took over. Under Cheney's leadership, Halliburton doubled
the value of its government contracts. According to a report by the
Washington-based Center for Public Integrity, the company took in
revenue of $2.3 billion on government contracts, which was up $1.2
billion from the 5-year period before the Vice President arrived.
Now, I am not saying it is not possible that Halliburton is the right
company to do this work, but then how does the Bush administration and
the Republican Congress explain why there is so much secrecy
surrounding the whole deal? Could it be that the Republican Congress
and the Bush administration are concerned that the more light that is
shed on Halliburton's use of taxpayer money, the more examples of waste
and mismanagement are likely to be exposed?
Under the circumstances, it is no wonder that the Vice President
continues to hide.
I want to talk this evening a little bit about the Vice President's
Energy Task Force and the relationship with the Supreme Court Justice
Scalia and the case that is now before the Supreme Court relative to
the Energy Task Force.
Vice President Cheney might also be staying out of the limelight
these days because he does not want to answer tough questions about how
he continues to abuse his power as Vice President by refusing to
release documents that could significantly impact our Nation's future
energy policy.
For 3 years now, the Vice President has done everything he can to
keep the

[[Page H1477]]

records of his Energy Task Force secret. This secret task force
developed President Bush's energy policy, a policy that was then made
into legislation here in Congress. That legislation passed the House,
but it is now stalled in the other body. Nevertheless, the end result
was bad energy policy.
There is no doubt that the energy industry succeeded with its
influence during these secret closed-door meetings in crafting a policy
that benefited them, rather than benefiting Americans who at the time
desperately needed relief from high energy prices.
For 3 years, the Vice President has refused to let the American
people know who made up this Energy Task Force. For 3 years now, the
Vice President has refused to let the American people now how and why
the task force came to the conclusions that it did.
Finally, after 3 years of hiding the information, it appeared that we
would finally get some of the information the Vice President was
fighting so hard to keep secret.

{time} 2310

Thanks to the Sierra Club and the conservative group called Judicial
Watch who sued Vice President Cheney seeking an accounting of energy
industry participation in crafting the Bush administration's
destructive energy policy, a district court ordered the Bush
administration to provide information about participation from these
industries, which the Bush administration refused to do. The
administration's reason was they claimed constitutional immunity from
such inquiries.
The district court rejected that contention, pointing out that the
Bush administration was attempting, and I quote from the case, ``to
cloak what is tantamount to an aggrandizement of executive power with a
legitimacy of precedent where none exists.''
Refusing to give in to the Federal court's decision, Vice President
Cheney then appealed the decision, asking the D.C. district court to
make a new law that would effectively shield the Bush administration
from any scrutiny.
Now, imagine the arrogance, and I really think it is arrogance. The
Bush administration actually went to a court and asked the court to
shield President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and the rest of the
administration from any scrutiny. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, the court
denied the request.
But now, Vice President Cheney has appealed the decision of the court
to the U.S. Supreme Court, and on December 15, the Supreme Court agreed
to take the case and will hear arguments next month in April.
Three weeks later, Justice Scalia and one of his children accompanied
Vice President Cheney on an Air Force 2 flight from Washington, D.C. to
Morgan City, Louisiana. There, according to news reports, Justice
Scalia and the Vice President were guests of Wallace Carline, president
of an energy services company, on a duck hunting vacation. Neither the
Vice President nor Justice Scalia made this duck hunting vacation
public. Had it not been for the investigative work of the L.A. Times,
we might still not know that these two spent several days together
hunting duck in Louisiana.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that this vacation
serves as a conflict of interest and, because of that, Justice Scalia
should recuse himself from hearing Cheney's case involving the Energy
Task Force. The Sierra Club asked Justice Scalia to do just that. But
last week, Justice Scalia refused to recuse himself and attempted to
defend his decision not to recuse himself in a 21-page memo that was
released to the public. In that memo, Scalia describes how he enjoyed
going hunting every year with his friend, Wallace Carline. And Scalia
writes that ``during my December 2002 visit, I learned that Mr. Carline
was an admirer of Vice President Cheney. Knowing that the Vice
President with whom I am well acquainted is an enthusiastic duck
hunter, I asked whether Mr. Carline would like to invite him to our
next year's hunt.'' Scalia continued in this memo, and I quote, Mr.
Speaker, ``The answer was yes. I conveyed the invitation with my own
warm recommendation in the spring of 2003 and received an acceptance
subject, of course, to any superseding demands on the Vice President's
time. The Vice President said that if he did go, I would be welcome to
fly down to Louisiana with him.''
Now, Mr. Speaker, just think about that explanation by Justice Scalia
for a minute or so. Think about the apparent relationship these two men
have, a relationship between two men who have worked in Washington for
so many years and even worked in the Ford administration together, but
now try and look at it the way that E.J. Dionne did in his Washington
Post column yesterday. He did an op-ed in The Washington Post yesterday
commenting on the relationship between Scalia and Cheney and this duck
hunt vacation, and that is what E.J. Dionne says in The Washington Post
column yesterday: ``Imagine you were in a bitter court fight with a
former business partner. Would you want the judge in your case to be
someone who went duck hunting with your opponent and flew to the hunt
on your opponent's plane?'' Dionne continues, ``And now consider that
you as a citizen have a right to know with whom Cheney consulted in
writing an energy bill that was overwhelmingly tilted towards the
interests of an industry in which the Vice President was once a central
player. Scalia admits that the recusal might be in order where the
personal fortune or the personal freedom of the friend is at issue
but,'' Dionne writes, ``you shouldn't worry. What's at stake here are
only Cheney's political fortunes, the interests of the industry that
Cheney once worked for, and the public's right to know. No big deal.''
Well, Mr. Speaker, it is a big deal. Vice President Cheney should
have realized the conflict of interest and declined to join the Supreme
Court Justice once he knew that the Supreme Court would be hearing the
case, I should say should have declined to join the Supreme Court as a
Justice in hearing this case because of the conflict of interest.

But, again, I go back, Mr. Speaker, to what I said in the beginning.
What is it that the Vice President is trying to hide? I do not know
that it would be embarrassing for Mr. Cheney or to the Bush
administration to have to admit that every member of the task force was
an oil or gas executive. I mean, that is not going to be anything new.
If that was what they were trying to hide, who would be surprised? I
think it has to be something else. What is it that is so damaging in
these documents? Now, could it be that somewhere within these documents
there is proof that the Bush administration was looking at taking out
Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in order to take control of that nation's
oil reserves?
Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill stated in his book that Vice
President Cheney strongly suggested U.S. intervention in Iraq well
before the terrorist attacks of September 11. Earlier this week,
President Bush's former top antiterrorism advisor, again, that is
Richard Clarke, also talked about how almost from day one the Bush
administration was consumed with taking out Saddam Hussein. It began
back in 2001, months after the new administration came to power.
Richard Clarke says that he had been trying to schedule a cabinet-level
priority meeting on terrorism. His first opportunity was a meeting with
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and Clarke said that he
started the meeting by saying that we needed to deal with bin Laden.
Wolfowitz's response was, ``No, no, no, we do not have to deal with al
Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about
Iraqi terrorism against the United States.''
Now, Clarke then responded to Wolfowitz by saying, ``Paul, there
hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in 8 years.''
Clarke turned to the Deputy Director of the CIA who agreed with his
assessment with regard to Iraq.
The amazing thing, though, Mr. Speaker, is that this conversation
took place 3 months after Bush and Cheney took over control of the
White House. Clarke's assessment, of course, seems to support that of
former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, and Clarke goes on to detail
conversations with both President Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld
after 9-11 when both wanted to go after Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

[[Page H1478]]

Mr. Speaker, additional evidence exists that Cheney played an early
planning role in the war in a National Security Council document dated
3/2001, months before September 11. According to a report in the New
Yorker magazine, the top-secret document written by a high National
Security Council staffer ``directed the NSC staff to cooperate fully
with the Energy Task Force as it considered the melding of two
seemingly unrelated areas of policy: the review of operational policies
towards rogue nations such as Iraq and actions regarding the capture of
new and existing oil and gas fields.''
Now, the melding of two seemingly unrelated areas of policy. Think of
that, Mr. Speaker: the Bush administration's obsession with taking out
Saddam Hussein and a document that discusses the administration's idea
to capture new and existing oil and gas fields.
My question is, Does Vice President Cheney want to keep his energy
task force secret because perhaps he does not want to admit that the
administration was exploring ways of taking out Saddam Hussein before
9-11, strictly for the purpose of taking control of their rich oil
fields?
Now, I do not know the answer to that question, and obviously neither
do the American people, because we are not allowed access to the
documents that talk about the energy task force and what they did and
who served on it. We do not know it because the Vice President refuses
to allow the American public to see these documents. I only can hope
that when the Supreme Court hears this case next month that there are
enough Justices that will do the right thing and say that these
documents should be made public. But I certainly hope that we do not
have a 5-4 decision, Mr. Speaker, with Mr. Scalia casting the fifth
vote, because there is no question in my mind that he should have
recused himself and that there is a conflict of interest. I just hope,
and it would certainly be nice, Mr. Speaker, if the Vice President
would finally come out of his hole, be straightforward with the
American people about Halliburton, about the energy task force and
other things that I have not mentioned here tonight.

{time} 2320

I know that he is not necessarily going to listen to me, but I hope
that if we continue to raise this issue about what he is hiding with
regards to Halliburton, what he is hiding with regard to the Energy
Task Force, that maybe there will be an opportunity to see what the
documents are in the Energy Task Force and why they have been hidden
this long.
I see that my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), is
here and I know he also wanted to address the issue of Iraq as well.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. STRICKLAND. I want to thank my colleague from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone). I just wanted to share for a few moments a letter that has
been sent to each of us regarding the budget, because I think it is
timely. We are likely to vote on the budget tomorrow afternoon, and it
is a budget that is woefully inadequate.
And I know sometimes we stand up here as Democrats and people who may
be watching think, well, they are just partisan or what they are saying
is simply based upon their political preferences rather than on what is
best for public policy.
I have a letter here from the Disabled American Veterans and it was
sent to every Member of the House of Representatives and I would like
to share with my colleague some of the things that are in this letter.
It was written and signed by Alan Bower, the National Commander of the
Disabled American Veterans.
``Dear Representative, As the National Commander of the Disabled
American Veterans, I write to urge you to oppose and vote against H.
Con. Res. 393, the House budget resolution for fiscal year 2005.'' And
then the letter goes on and talks about how we are short-changing VA
health care.
We are at war and yet the President actually sent us a veterans'
budget this year that was woefully inadequate. It called for an
increase in the costs of prescription drugs for many of our seniors and
our veterans. It called for an annual enrollment fee of $250 for many
of our veterans. It continues to shut out many of our Priority 7 and 8
veterans, and literally prevents those that are referred to as Priority
8 veterans from even enrolling in the VA health care system.
We continue to have a situation where the VA has literally formulated
a policy that prohibits many of their health care providers from
actively marketing VA services to veterans.
But I think this letter is rather devastating because the DAV is not
a partisan group. It is just simply a group that was developed to
advocate for the needs of the disabled veterans who have served our
Nation. And so this letter that we have received says, ``The inadequate
appropriations provided for in this budget resolution will support
medical treatments for 170,000 fewer veterans than the Department of
Veterans Affairs could treat with the funding which was recommended by
the House Veterans' Affairs Committee,'' a committee that I serve on.
``It will support 13,000 fewer full-time employees for veterans'
medical care. With the level of appropriations in the House budget
resolution, VA will be required to delay medical care for some veterans
and deny it altogether for other sick and disabled veterans, just to
enable it to meet inflationary costs, including increases in employee
wages.''
And then the National Commander of the DAV writes this paragraph. He
says, ``Short-changing veterans in this budget resolution is all the
more objectionable because it in no way is necessitated by our fiscal
situation, but rather is part of a larger objective to make deep cuts
in spending on veterans' and other domestic programs at the same time
far more costly cuts are being made in taxes.
``The House budget resolution is also the more objectionable because
it is part of a greater plan to impose these cuts on discretionary
programs such as veterans' medical care, and to impose a freeze on any
improvements or adjustments in benefits programs such as veterans'
disability compensation in fiscal years 2006 through 2009.
``To the veterans of this Nation,'' he writes, ``it is
incomprehensible that our government cannot afford to fund their
medical care and benefit programs at a time it can afford generous tax
cuts costing hundreds of billions of dollars.''
Now, this letter was written not by a Democrat partisan, but by the
National Commander of the Disabled American Veterans. And basically
what he says is, we are giving tax cuts to the wealthiest among us, at
the same time that we are limiting the funding we are providing to our
VA, so that medical care will not be available in a timely manner to
those who have served this Nation.
And then the letter says, in conclusion, the DAV must ask that
Congress restore some sense of reason, responsibility and justice to
the budget process. There must be some balance between the goal of
reducing taxes and the government responsibility of meeting our
national obligations to veterans whose contributions and sacrifices
have made us the most secure and prosperous nation on Earth. Then they
ask that we vote against this budget that is going to be brought to
this floor tomorrow afternoon.
So my friend from New Jersey is talking about the Vice President and
the fact that he tends to remain hidden much of the time. He does come
out occasionally for a fundraiser. But I would like the Vice President
to explain to us how he and the President can support a budget that
wants to make tax cuts permanent for the wealthiest and yet is short-
changing the medical care that our veterans need.
The fact is that we are creating disabled veterans on a daily basis.
We all know that. Sadly, we have seen the loss of really hundreds of
lives in Iraq, but what many people do not understand is that for every
soldier whose life is lost in Iraq, we are having six soldiers
seriously injured. And they are coming back to this country, many of
them without their arms or legs. Some have been blinded. Others
terribly disfigured, and yet we are not providing adequate resources.
I do not understand the President in this regard. I simply do not
understand how a President who calls himself a wartime President and
who apparently enjoys spending time with our military, we see him
standing in front of soldiers with flags waving, having his

[[Page H1479]]

picture taken, how can this President not fully fund the medical care
that is necessary to adequately treat those who have fought for our
Nation in the past?
It really puzzles me. I do not understand why the administration does
not say, here is the money you need, and simply provide the needed
funding.
Now, tomorrow we are going to have the AMVETS, the American Veterans
here in Washington. They are going to be testifying before the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs and we are going to be having this vote.
And I just urge, I would hope that the President, the Vice President,
the members of his Cabinet would rethink their priorities and would
provide the kind of resources that are needed so that we can have
timely health care provided, high-quality health care provided,
affordable health care provided to those who have served our country.
I thank my friend from New Jersey for allowing me to speak about this
subject this evening.
Mr. PALLONE. I just wanted to commend my colleague from Ohio (Mr.
Strickland). I know that not only is he a member of the Subcommittee on
Health of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs with myself, but he has
often spoken out on concerns about veterans.

{time} 2330

As you pointed out, I think you made references to the fact that the
Democrats have a substitute tomorrow on the budget, or an alternative
budget is I guess the best way to describe it, which would make sure
that veterans health care receive significant funding so that we do
have some significant improvements over what the President has
requested in terms of the amount of money that goes to veterans health
care.
I just wanted to make two remarks. First of all, I have to tell you
that I get calls every day in my District offices, people complaining
about veterans not having access to health care either because it is
difficult to get services or they have to wait a long time or whatever.
We just opened a new clinic at Fort Monmouth, an outpatient clinic, but
there is just the constant need for more services, and I do not
understand it either.
I am not saying that you and I disagree, but certainly Democrats and
Republicans can disagree over the justification for the war in Iraq. We
know there were not any weapons of mass destruction, and many of us who
voted against the war feel somewhat vindicated in the sense that we
realize now that the justification that was put forward by the
President for the war, which was the weapons of mass destruction,
clearly is not there. I mean, we know it is not.
Regardless of how you felt about the war, whether we should have
gone, we should not have gone, there is just no way to justify that
when people come back that they are not adequately cared for, and
again, the problems that you point out are not just with regard to
Iraq, although that is certainly important, but also World War II
veterans, Korean, all veterans.
It just seems to me that it is totally unacceptable to say that after
people fight and are seriously injured, that they come back and are not
adequately cared for, but we know that is often the case.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, if my friend will yield for one more
moment, I read the letter that was signed by the national commander of
the Disabled American Veterans, but I have another letter here that has
been signed by the national legislative director of AMVETS, the
national legislative director of the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the
national legislative director of the Disabled American Veterans and the
national legislative director of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and in
their letter, which was sent to each Member of this House. We all
received one. There is not a Member, not a Democrat or Republican in
this chamber or who serves in this chamber, that did not receive this
letter from these four veterans organizations, and I would just like to
share with you one paragraph from that letter.
It says, Passage of the budget resolution, and what they are talking
about is the Republican budget resolution that is going to be brought
to this floor tomorrow, passage of the budget resolution, as presented,
would be a disservice to those men and women who have served this
country and who are serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world
in our fight against terrorism.
Now, the President cannot have it both ways. He cannot, on the one
hand, claim to be the wartime President and say we are going to do
everything we can to win the war against terror and, on the other hand,
fail to fully fund those medical services which will provide care for
the wounded who are returning to this country in significant numbers.
As I said to my friend from New Jersey, this is not a partisan
argument. This is a letter that came to every Member of this House from
these four veterans organizations. These are not Democrat or Republican
organizations. These are organizations which have been established
specifically to advocate for the needs of veterans, the Paralyzed
Veterans of America, the Disabled Veterans of America, the Veterans of
Foreign Wars and the National AMVETS, and it is a pretty strongly
worded letter, I will say that, and it lays it out real clearly to say
that this budget will be a disservice, not only to those who have
served but to those who are currently serving.
We have got men and women, as you and I stand here in the safety of
this Chamber, thousands of miles from us who are facing danger every
moment of every day that they are there in that country, and the least
we can do is say to them we care enough about you and we honor your
service to this country sufficiently to provide the kind of health care
that you are entitled to receive once you return to this country,
especially if you have been terribly wounded or injured in the battle.
That is why we have been called upon by these various veterans
organizations to reject this budget tomorrow, to vote ``no,'' to force
this House to go back and to do the right thing, to restore an adequate
level of funding for our veterans health care.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your comments, and I kind of
wanted to go back. As you were reading that second letter, I was
thinking in the back of my mind about your question that you originally
posed, which is how is it possible that President Bush and Vice-
President Cheney and the Bush administration, the Republican colleagues
that we have here in the House can, on the one hand vote, for the war,
spend money to conduct the war, advocate that we continue to be there
for certainly in the foreseeable future and, at the same time, not pay
for the health care benefits or adequate health care for the veterans.

I was thinking about your question, and I really think that I do not
believe that anybody's cold-hearted or bad. I think the President is a
good person. The vice president is well motivated. Republican
leadership is well motivated. I am sure they want to help the average
American if they can, but I think it is really ideology, and I have
found that so many times with the Bush administration and with the
Republican leadership here in the House, they are so determined to
follow that certain ideology or maybe they are liked trapped by the
ideology, that they cannot look at the facts.
In other words, their ideology tells them that Congress or
Washington, whatever, should get out of the business of government;
that the government is somehow a bad thing; that government should not
administer social programs; that government should not provide health
care; that that is not a role somehow of the government. The ideology
says that health care, for example, is not something that the
government should be doing. It should be done by the private sector.
So maybe what they say to themselves is, okay, well, these veterans
fought in the war, but it is really not a good idea for the government
to provide them with health care because we do not think that the
government should perform that function. It is sort of an ideologic
conviction on their part. So, as a result, they do not feel the
necessity to help the veterans because their ideology stands in the way
of the facts. The facts are these people are maimed, people need health
care, they served their country so you provide them health care. It is
like a commitment, but if your ideology tells you the government should
not be providing health care, that that is not a

[[Page H1480]]

function of government, then you justify not providing health care.
I do not know how else to explain it because I cannot believe that
they are cold-hearted. I do not believe that. I yield back to the
gentleman.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the fact that we have so
many wounded coming back from Iraq. I would just like to share with my
friend that recently it was reported that during World War II we had
three soldiers seriously wounded for every soldier that was killed.
That was World War II. During the Vietnam conflict, we had four
soldiers wounded for every soldier that was killed. In this war, we are
having six soldiers seriously wounded for every soldier whose life is
lost.

{time} 2340

Now, there is some good news, and the good news is this: we are now
able to save the lives of many of our soldiers who are seriously
injured because of advances in medical technology, and that is good.
But consequently, we are having more seriously wounded soldiers coming
out of this war who are desperately in need of high-quality, adequate
medical care. I was thinking, and I have shared this with the gentleman
before, the young man from my district in Ohio who joined the service
at 17 years of age and as he was standing guard duty in Baghdad on his
19th birthday, the morning of his birthday a truck bomb exploded, and
one whole side of his face was seriously damaged. I visited him at
Walter Reed Medical Center near where we are tonight.
He is going to be going through several surgeries. They are going to
have to take bone from his hip and refashion his jawbone, and he is
going to have to go through skin grafts. He is just one of hundreds and
hundreds of soldiers who are newly wounded. This is happening in part,
and I share this because we want to believe that the administration and
those responsible for pursuing this war have the best of intentions.
But the fact is that we sent our soldiers into battle when this war
began last March without protective body armor.
I had a series of communications with Secretary Rumsfeld and General
Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, over a several month
period of time; and I kept asking when are our soldiers going to be
protected with this body armor. It took them an entire year before they
were able to give me in writing an assurance that all of our soldiers
in Iraq were protected. An entire year.
I have asked Secretary Rumsfeld how many of our soldiers have lost
their lives because they were in danger in battle without protective
equipment.
Now, I hope that when the Pentagon tells us that all of the soldiers
in Iraq have this body armor, they are being accurate. But there is
another problem that is every bit as serious, and that is the fact that
we have vehicles over there without proper armor. We have Humvees over
there that are not armored, and so many of the wounds that are taking
place over there are the result of our vehicles passing over bombs that
have been placed in the roadway and exploding. We have Humvees that are
not armored, and I can tell Members that the company that provides
armored Humvees and the kits that can be used to armor the Humvees that
are already there without proper armor is an Ohio-based company. It is
in Fairfield, Ohio. That company tells me they are capable of producing
500 armored vehicles a month, and yet the Pentagon is only asking for
220 of these vehicles a month, and the Pentagon is saying that it will
be the end of 2005 before the vehicles that are being used by our
soldiers in Iraq are properly armored. Think about that.
We have put about $150 billion into this war effort, and it took this
administration a full year to adequately provide body armor for our
soldiers, and they still have not provided armored vehicles. So many of
our soldiers are being maimed and killed because they are in vehicles
that are not properly armored, and we cannot produce those vehicles
more rapidly and deploy them in Iraq more rapidly. Why are we not doing
it? We simply have an administration that is not willing to spend the
money to get it done as quickly as it is possible to get it done.
That is something that the American people need to know about. That
is something that the families in this country who have loved ones in
Iraq need to be aware of. And the Members who serve in this Chamber and
the Senators who serve in the other Chamber need to be hearing from the
American people about this. There should be no hesitancy to spend
whatever is necessary to make sure that our soldiers have the best
equipment, and everything that can be done to keep them safe should be
done to keep them safe.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am so glad the gentleman is bringing this
up. The gentleman spoke about the budget at the beginning, and it goes
back to the fact that this administration continues to try to hide the
cost or reduce or suggest that the cost of the war is less than it is.
I am sure that has something to do with it.
The President's budget did not even include the funding for the war
in Iraq. I know the Democratic budget, the alternative, certainly does;
and I am not sure what the Republican budget that we will vote on
tomorrow has, but when President Bush presented his budget in February,
he did not include the cost of the war.
What we see is this administration constantly tries to downplay the
cost, cut corners in terms of paying for what is necessary for the war
in the same way that they are not paying for the veterans health care.
It is an effort again to try to hide what is really going on, not only
in terms of how we got there, but also the costs, and what the long-
term costs are going to be.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to conclude my remarks
by saying this, that there is an effort to hide the cost of this war. I
think that effort is seen in the fact that when the bodies of the
soldiers who have lost their lives in Iraq are brought to Dover Air
Force Base, there is a prohibition against having cameras there and
pictures being taken of the flag-draped coffins being unloaded. I was
just told today that even the families of those soldiers are being
prohibited from being there and being present when their loved one is
brought back and brought off those planes, and I think that is
unconscionable if that is taking place. I want to verify that, but a
colleague told me that this afternoon in this Chamber that families are
literally being prohibited from being present when their loved ones are
brought back.
There is an effort to hide that cost and keep that away from the
American people. I also think there is an effort to de-emphasize the
horrendous wounds and disabilities that are being experienced by those
who are coming back; and certainly there is an effort to minimize the
financial costs of this war, the fact that we have spent, the estimates
are somewhere around $150 billion already, about $1 billion or more a
week, and the President is going to come back later this year, probably
after the election, and ask for an additional $50 billion or $80
billion.
So the gentleman is right, there is an effort to hide the true cost
of this war, both in the loss of human life, the serious injuries that
are being experienced by our men and women, and the financial burden
that is being placed upon this country at a time when we are not
meeting our needs right here at home, and we are not fully equipping
our troops.
To think that someone could be terribly injured unnecessarily or
could lose their life simply because they are not well equipped as they
are fighting this war is simply unacceptable.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I yield to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) for
sharing this time with our colleagues.
It is important that what we hear tonight is really the question of
choices and judgment. The gentleman from Ohio was speaking about the
judgment of not providing for our troops, but also not providing for
our veterans. Having a veterans hospital in my district, I think one of
the issues not yet included in the war cost is the long-term cost to
not only the injured and maimed victims, the veterans, but also their
families.

{time} 2350

I was with the American Association of Psychiatric Professionals. We
were discussing the impact of war, the high

[[Page H1481]]

numbers of suicide that are occurring in Iraq. That is not taken into
account, if you will, in the cost of war. My colleague spoke about not
having flak jackets or bulletproof vests and humvees that were
reinforced. That is not taken into account, making the right judgment
on the cost of war. We still do not know prospectively how much this
war will cost as it continues because we realize that even with the
alleged transfer of power that is supposed to take place in June, any
of us who have been to Iraq have been told by the soldiers on the
ground that there is no structure for us to leave at this time. There
is no, if you will, government or law enforcement or legal structure in
place to secure Iraq.
And so it is a question whether this administration has made the
right choices. First of all, the choice to go into Iraq and then the
choice now to go it alone without our allies because we have so much
intimidated them or maybe not so much intimidated them, maybe even
offended them. It is a question of right choices.
In the remaining moments that I have, I wanted to join the
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey to sort of emphasize this whole
question of choices. I believe that what the American people want most
of all is good government. If they have good government, they feel that
the leaders in Washington will make the right choices on their behalf.
I want to bring up just a point that was made from the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio. I think it is a travesty that loved ones and
others are not able to welcome home our fallen heroes. This ban on
Dover Air Force Base, which I believe exists, I do not know if the
families are forbidden from coming, but I recall the tribute that has
been given to our fallen soldiers as far back as I can recall, the
Vietnam War when they would come in to Dover Air Force Base or other
Air Force bases. I know that they were welcomed in ceremonies. It is
noticeable that we have not been able to welcome our fallen heroes.
They are buried, of course, in their respective communities but the
Nation has not seen both the price of war but the ultimate sacrifice
that they have been willing to give. I wonder why that occurs? It is
the judgment. It is wondering why this administration is making these
kinds of judgments on behalf of the American people. Is this good for
the American people not to know those who have given their life on
behalf of this country?
Then I would say that as we think about this, I sat in today very
briefly on the 9/11 commission hearings. Let me make it very clear,
these are outstanding Americans who have offered themselves to serve on
the 9/11 commission. I noted while I was in the hearing room several
family members who were there. One very potent message came through
those hearings and those persons who were speaking, is that we can
speak in generalities and we can speak about the conflict between
administrations or even partisan tones but we have got to realize that
3,000 plus lost their life in 9/11 and this is no time to be hiding the
ball. This is no time to be asking Dick Clarke is he a staff member of
John Kerry. This is a time to listen to Richard Clarke as to whether or
not this administration did not put its fullest muscle, mind and heart
against the war against terrorism before 9/11. I noted just an
undertone of some of those questions in that hearing room were more
interested in getting one-upsmanship on Richard Clarke than listening
and trying to find out what is the future of this Nation in finding out
the ways to secure the homeland and to provide for us the opportunity
to discover the truth. Was this administration asleep at the wheel as
relates to the war against terrorism? Did Mr. Clarke offer a report in
January of 2001 speaking about the threat of al Qaeda? Did he make a
report that 35 Americans had died during the Clinton administration and
then trying to reinforce the importance of looking to al Qaeda during
2001? This is the question of judgment and choices. And so I am
concerned as we look at the future of this Nation that we have not been
making the right choices.
I held a Medicare hearing against this atrocity that was passed in
the last session when the vote was held open for 4 hours. My seniors
get it. My seniors understand that we cannot negotiate for the cheapest
price in terms of prescription drug benefits. My seniors understand
that they may be pushed into an HMO and not have the ability to choose
their own physician. My seniors get it. In fact, they were asking me
who should we call. I called one of our local chain pharmacies, and I
am going to call the name, CVS. I am told that now CVS has a memo out
saying, do not give to Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee the information
she requested on the cost of prescription drugs in our respective
stores. I understand there is a memorandum that I am going to secure
from CVS. But that shows that we must have a conspiracy, if you will,
from the ground up and from the top down to block seniors from getting
the lowest price, from not giving truth to those of us who have the
responsibility of oversight, and to protect the hide-and-go-seek
Medicare bill that was passed in the last session that will do nothing
but bust the budget, not knowing the actual cost of it, $536 billion
and growing. At least with the Democratic proposal we were guaranteeing
a Medicare prescription drug benefit under Medicare. This has no
guarantee.
Let me tell you about those prescription cards, which I welcome. I
told my community, please use them. But there must be one for each of
the pharmaceuticals and they can choose and put on that list the drugs
that they want any day of the week within a 7-day period and so the
actual prescriptions that you need may not be listed and may not be
covered. This is a question of judgment.
As I go back to the 9/11 hearings, Mr. Clarke made it very clear that
the distraction of the war in Iraq has given a death blow, if you will,
to the war on terrorism. It has been a distraction but literally it has
taken us off course. I am only hoping that the 9/11 hearings will find
themselves back on track and get away from partisan politics and be
able to give at least a limited focus on what we should be doing to
secure the homeland. I am concerned. That is why there was a very deep
exchange, if you will, with some Members, including the chairman of the
Intelligence Committee, not in undermining my colleagues who are
investigating 9/11 and the war in Iraq but to say that this is so
serious, so serious that it is important for the full Congress to
investigate but as well it is important for us to know as much as we
can, not to suggest that anyone is not being effective in their job or
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on the
Judiciary or Homeland Security but we cannot stand on protocol. We have
lost lives in 9/11 and we have lost lives in Iraq.
Let me just close by saying this as we talk about the question of
judgment. We have looked over the past couple of weeks about some of
the abuses unfortunately that we have seen in this administration and I
must say, my respect for the Supreme Court as a lawyer is maintained
but the election in 2000 was evidence that sometimes partisan politics
raises its ugly head. A decision in the Bush v. Gore case is still one
that one wonders how that framework and that ultimate decision was
made. How do you choose between candidates for President of the United
States? How do you determine whose equal rights were denied? Al Gore
who was denied his rights in the Supreme Court of Florida, denied his
rights to have a full recount, or George Bush.
But in the instance of Justice Scalia on this question of recusing
oneself on the ultimate decisions dealing with the energy task force
that precipitated the energy bill, let me say that I voted for the
energy bill and I believe that we need a real, if you will, energy
policy here in the United States. But I think this is a question of
judgment. This is a question of good government. I have tried to give
examples of the need for good government. We cannot have good
government if we do not adhere to the Constitution which says there are
free separate branches, executive, legislature and the Supreme Court.
And if there is any suggestion of taint, any suggestion of conflict of
interest, any suggestion of abuse, then we have lost the highroad of
which government should stand.
And so I believe that it is important that if a justice has any
reason to believe that there may be some suggestion of conflict, then
it is their obligation to recuse themselves from any decision. I think
it is the obligation of

[[Page H1482]]

Justice Scalia and any other judge to recuse themselves in any
decisions on this question of the energy task force and who should be
exposed or announced and who should not. I believe in executive
privilege, but I believe that there should be an ultimate review of the
courts so that we in government can do our jobs. And if we do our jobs,
that is all the American people can ask of us.
We have had some bad judgments. I hope that we can get back on track.
I hope the American people will not perceive this to be a question of
partisanship. My heart was very heavy in that hearing room today. It
was heavy because I was looking for some sense that the truth would be
determined and I was hoping for those families that we would step aside
from who had a book or who did not have a book or who was working for
President Bush and who was not working for President Bush and find out
the truth for the American people and those families that lost their
life and find out the truth about weapons of mass destruction and why
we went into Iraq.

____________________