[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 129 (Thursday, October 6, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H8720-H8727]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Schmidt). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, once again it is an honor to come
before the House. We would also like to thank the Democratic leader for
allowing us to come to the floor.
We usually have a 30-something Working Group, which has now picked up
on many new purposes, and tonight, once again, we have the opportunity
to come to the floor on behalf of the American people, to inform the
Members, and to make the process better. With us tonight we have the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who is an outstanding Member
of this body, and I am also joined by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Ryan), and I know others will be coming.
I just want to say that usually we deal with issues that are facing
young people, but today there are a number of issues that are facing
Americans in general and I am very, very concerned about not only what
is going on here in Washington, D.C. but also what is not going on, and
I think it is important to talk about those issues in this democracy
that so many Americans have lost their lives for, that so many
Americans have lost limbs and their mobility to allow us to come to
this floor to represent them and represent everyday Americans.
Madam Speaker, we talked last week about the issue of the independent
commission, and I think it is important that we look at this
independent commission and look into what happened not only with regard
to Hurricane Katrina but Hurricane Rita. I strongly believe that we can
do a lot more than what we are doing right now.
I know there is a committee that is looking into this effort, but it
is not a bipartisan committee. And once again I want to go on the
record commending the Democratic leader for not making appointments to
that committee, and I will discuss the reasons why later. I think also
tonight we will talk about what is happening here in Washington, D.C.,
or what is not happening here in Washington, D.C., and I think we will
help crystallize this not only for the Members but also for the
American people.
Mr. Speaker, I took the opportunity to go on to the White House Web
site.
Mr. MEEK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the
Record the information I will be referring to regarding the White House
Web site.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Carter). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I know the President put forth a
task force with his homeland security adviser as the head of it. He
mentioned this in an announcement, and I assumed that it would be
something where this task force would actually have some findings which
would come back to not only the Congress but to the American people. So
I checked out the White House Web site, at WhiteHouse.gov, if any of
the Members in their offices want to go on to that Web site to find out
what is there and what is not there.
This is actually the front page of the Web site. It has a lot of
things on here. It talks about what the President is doing, about press
briefings, and a number of other things, such as the war on terror.
There is a little box down here that says Hurricane Relief Efforts. You
click on that and then move over to this particular page here.
{time} 2245
Madam Speaker, it goes on. The President is hugging emergency
management personnel in Texas. That is fine. We want to commend those
Americans who are doing what they are supposed to be doing. It talks
about a number of things, speeches in the news, Federal Government
Hurricane Rita preparedness. It goes on further down the page, which is
the first page if you are looking at it on the computer, President Bush
declares a state of emergency for the States of Louisiana and Texas. It
goes on and talks about his major speeches.
Madam Speaker, the point is that the President mentions nothing about
this review, what went wrong, where it went wrong, and why it went
wrong. We know that hurricanes and natural disasters are acts of God;
but we also know in the case of Hurricane Katrina, and I can tell
Members there are some who came to the Capitol today saying that in the
case of Hurricane Rita, and we will be voting on the energy bill
tomorrow, one Member said it is the worst bill we have seen in 7
months, and I can tell Members there are some real issues that are
going on in that bill that we will talk about a little later.
Madam Speaker, I think it is important that the American people
understand that I believe we are not taking this issue seriously. The
9/11 Commission came out saying that many of their recommendations were
not enacted, such as intraoperability to allow emergency workers to
talk to one another. We had Coast Guard people who could not talk to
the 82nd Airborne. We had local police officers who could not talk to
one another because we did not do what we were supposed to do years
after 9/11.
I can tell Members, the number of Democratic amendments to come up
[[Page H8721]]
with intraoperability to make sure that emergency workers can talk to
one another was voted down on a party-line basis. I want to make sure
that everybody understands what is not going on here in Washington.
This is not only national security; it is responding to the Federal
taxpayer in the way that they deserve, the State, local and Federal
response. But we will never know because this Congress would not allow
an independent commission to take place.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the words of the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek). I think we need to be absolutely
clear that after all this time when we are talking about the committee
that passed out of this House, this is a committee, 11 to 9,
Republicans 11, Democrats 9; and what we are arguing from our side of
the aisle, why not have an independent commission like for 9/11. That
was a commission that worked, that solved problems, and that was
bipartisan. Why would we not want that to happen again. We have seen
time and time again, over the past 5 years in particular, when there
was no check on the Republican power in the House and the Senate, that
time and time again we have been getting bad information from the
leadership here in the House of Representatives, the Republican
leadership. We have been getting bad information. If you want to talk
about the war, bad information. Why would we want the Republican
majority in Congress to oversee the information and the intelligence
and everything else that came from the war. It is the fox guarding the
hen house.
And when we talk about the Medicare prescription drug bill, it
started out $400 billion. That is all it is going to cost. Then we find
out months later it was $700 billion. Why would we want the majority
party who originally gave us the bad information to then oversee the
investigation into the bad information that they gave us in the first
place.
After Hurricane Katrina, after one of the great national and natural
disasters in the history of the United States of America, decimated
FEMA, terrible response on all levels, there is plenty of blame to go
around, Federal, State and local, why would we want the party who is in
charge to oversee their own investigation.
Give the American people an honest assessment of how things worked
and what the mistakes were, because at the end of the day, this is
about fixing the problem because that could have been, that very well
could have been a biological attack in New Orleans. And the response
was terrible. So why would we want the Republican majority to oversee
the Republican mistakes and expect at the end of the day that we are
going to get an honest assessment. It just does not make any sense.
Madam Speaker, I want to welcome the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone) to the 30-something Group.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Meek) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan). I forgot when I came down
here that this was the 30-something Group. It is going to have to be
the 50-something Group in my case. I know you have been down here
talking about issues that are important to young people, and of course
the issue you are talking about tonight is important to all of us.
I want to say very bluntly that the reason that the Republicans do
not want this independent investigation is because of a coverup.
Essentially, they want to whitewash what they are doing. We have a
whole culture here of corruption and cronyism in D.C. with the
Republican Party. I think it has become quite evident to people outside
of the Beltway there is a coverup, and they do not want people to know
what is going on here.
The most devastating example of this cronyism comes from the faces of
the displaced and those left behind in New Orleans in the days
following Hurricane Katrina.
There was an editorial in the New York Times, September 26, that kind
of sums it up in terms of why they do not want this independent
investigation into Hurricane Katrina, and it is called ``Faking the
Katrina Inquiry.''
It says that the White House and Republican-controlled Congress
resisting popular support for an independent nonpartisan commission
remain determined to run self-serving, bogus investigations. They
mention in the editorial the case of David Safavian, who I noticed in
today's Washington Post was indicted, and this guy was the White
House's top Federal procurement official. He was already enmeshed in
the lucrative gulf coast rebuilding plans when he had to resign
abruptly to face arrest on charges of obstructing justice and a
deepening investigation into lobbyist corruption in Washington.
What the New York Times essentially says at the end of their
editorial is there is no way to whitewash a hurricane. A government
dominated by one party should be disqualified from investigating
itself. Just as President Bush repeatedly fought the creation of the 9/
11 Commission until public pressure forced him to yield, so should the
public demand that the administration and Congress get real about
Hurricane Katrina.
So the point I am trying to make is it is not just the New York
Times. Every major editorial I have seen in every paper around the
country has said there should be an independent commission because
obviously when you have one-party rule, which is what we have here in
Washington, they cannot possibly investigate themselves. There has got
to be some Democrats, some representatives from the other side of the
aisle so the real face of this cronyism or cultural corruption is
unveiled.
If they have nothing to hide, there is no problem with an independent
commission. It is because they have something to hide. Every day in the
papers there is more and more about government contracts, no-bid
contracts, things going to friends of the President and the Vice
President. It is this culture of corruption that they are trying to
hide. That is why they do not want to do this independent commission.
We have to keep talking about this because it is getting to be more
and more obvious every day that there is a coverup, they do not want to
show what is going on, the no bids and everything else, that keeps
surfacing every day in the media.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I think it is not only the
corruption, and I think all of us here choose that word very carefully.
I do not think that is the kind of word you just throw around here,
because that is not right. But time after time after time, the White
House, the White House, the procurement office, the FBI leaks, what we
have here going on in the House, the Senate, we have a whole Martha
Stewart scandal going on in the Senate. All of these things add up. At
some point you have to use the ``C'' word because it keeps coming and
coming and coming.
But the problem for the American people is that the corruption leads
to incompetence and an inability to govern. This side has proven time
and time again that they do not know how to govern in the United States
of America.
You look at Hurricane Katrina, the economy, education, health care,
gas prices, energy, pick a topic. It is incompetence, and they cannot
handle the levers of government.
Madam Speaker, I welcome the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman
Schultz).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, it is great to see that our
ranks are expanding, in more ways than one in the 30-something Group,
just a little ribbing to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
We have been talking about this for the last couple of weeks, and it
is almost hard to pick a jumping off point when it comes to the culture
of corruption and cronyism that goes on here. I am the newest one of
us, so I sort of have the freshest look. I was so hopeful when I came
here 10 months ago that we would be able to come together in a spirit
of bipartisanship and that of all types of investigations, of any
investigation, that the investigation of the aftermath of Hurricane
Katrina would be one that you would think would be a no-brainer as far
as bipartisanship. It has to be similar to the 9/11 independent
commission, and it is not just about that we need Democrats and
Republicans. It is that we need no partisanship involved in the
aftermath of
[[Page H8722]]
Hurricane Katrina, the investigation of Hurricane Katrina.
The analogy we have been using on the floor is having a committee in
the Congress that is lopsided in terms of partisanship and internal and
not independent investigating Hurricane Katrina's aftermath would be
like saying that the Enron executives or the Tyco executives should be
allowed to investigate themselves and determine what happened and
report back to the public or the Federal Government as to what
happened.
I think that people would be pretty outraged if we allowed the Enron
CEO to handle their own investigation.
Back in 1994, I was serving in the Florida House of Representatives
with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), and I remember when Mr.
Gingrich took the floor repeatedly and pointed then to what he called
an arrogance of power. I have to tell Members it did not take them very
long to come full circle and be kings of the hill of that arrogance.
They have literally defined the word.
We have reached a point now where what they pointed to that they said
developed over 40 years, it only took them 10. So they have a much
shorter learning curve than some of our predecessors. The cronyism and
the corruption has got to stop. We could go through a long list of
people hired who were totally unqualified for the positions they were
appointed to. And then to add insult to injury, also engaged in corrupt
activity during their tenure, one of whom, Mr. Safavian, was just
arrested, just indicted, and he was in charge of procurement at the
White House.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, there are a couple of articles
that I want to enter into the Congressional Record because I think it
is important. I think it is important for us to understand that this is
just one day here in Washington, and I think it is important for
Members to understand that we are not here at 11 p.m. at night talking
about the Pallone, Wasserman Schultz, Ryan Report. This is actually
happening. This is what is happening in our democracy. The 107th
Congress, 108th Congress, and 109th Congress are going to be held
responsible for what has happened with regard to the deficit, what has
happened as it relates to a war where they embellished the reason for
why we went to war.
{time} 2300
We are going to give this to the Clerk and make sure this appears in
the Congressional Record: ``Spy probe widens to cover aides to the
White House service.'' This is as it relates to the outing of CIA
agents and sharing information with foreign governments: ``CIA Rejects
Discipline for 9/11 Failures.''
``Goss,'' who is the CIA Director, ``cites fear of hurting the
agency.'' That is also on the front page.
I am just going to go a little further on because this is too much to
overlook and if we do not talk about it here in the Congress, then who
will? ``Ex-White House Aide Indicted'' for lying to Federal
investigators. This is serious stuff. It goes on. ``GOP Divided Over
Range of Severity of Spending Cuts.''
I want to yield here for a second as we move along. We were on this
floor supplemental after supplemental, borrowing to be able to pay for
the war in Iraq. We all want to protect our men and women in uniform. I
tell my colleagues I am first in line, and I am pretty sure many of us
are. I know the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) and I serve on the
Committee on Armed Services. This is what we do every day: make sure
that our troops are protected. But I can tell my colleagues right now,
when it came down to giving money for chasing weapons of mass
destruction that were not there, an imminent threat to the United
States of America that was not there, but now it is an imminent threat
due to the fact that it is the seed of terrorism right now. Individuals
are going in there. They are going after Americans, and they are trying
to fight against our troops that are there that were originally there
for weapons of mass destruction, but that is another point. Now it
comes down to making sure that we respond to Americans that have paid
their taxes, that many of their children are at war right now either in
Afghanistan or Iraq, that now the majority, the Republicans on the
majority side, and not all of them, but I will say the individuals that
are running the show on the other side, the leadership, they now want
to say, well, we have to look at cuts and we have to off-balance some
issues. Let us look at this. They are looking at cuts as it relates to
things like Head Start, Title I, meals for poor children.
So we want to take from the poor to give to the poor in the light of
being a fiscal conservative, and then at the same time, we have got
billionaires, billionaires. No one is saying anything about them. No
one is saying anything about the tax cuts for billionaires, not middle
class tax cuts. There is no discussion on that on the majority side,
and I think it is important that we highlight the hypocrisy in
democracy.
There are about ten stories here, and I know folks can go to
Washingtonpost.com. This is just one paper I picked up this morning. As
it relates to the CIA chief, it goes on: On A-11, it talks about Porter
Goss, and this is very interesting. The President said that we should
have an internal investigation. Why do we need a 9/11 Commission? Okay.
The internal investigation took place between Senator Graham over on
the other side, head of the Select Committee on Intelligence at that
time, and Porter Goss, who is now the Director of the CIA, was head of
the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Part of the
charge for that was to look at individuals no matter what level and ask
the Inspector General, and that is the individual that is outside of
the CIA autonomy. People are not supposed to be able to reach him and
touch him, not supposed to be able to intimidate him.
The Congress passed a bill saying he should investigate this, come
back with findings, and if there is a breakdown in management or
something that was overlooked, then those, no matter what level, should
be held responsible. The Inspector General did his job. He came back
with a report, and today or yesterday, the CIA Director, appointed by
the President, said, oh, well, we are not going to do anything about
that. We are not going to hold those individuals accountable. George
Tenet, who was the Director of the CIA at the time of 9/11, also who
won the Medal of Freedom from the President, that he will not be held
responsible or anybody under him. So the CIA Director said he will see
to it that that report stays secret even though, Mr. Speaker, Americans
lost their lives. And that is the part that gets under my skin. I do
not represent New York. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone)
represents some of the victims of 9/11.
Mr. PALLONE. Two hundred died.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Two hundred died. His constituents died. And how
dare the CIA Director or the President or the Congress sit by and watch
this happen. All of those lives, firefighters, police officers,
individuals who just said, I am going to work today, folks that have
lost loved ones, we are going to say, oh, well, we passed legislation,
but we are not willing to stand by it.
Mr. Speaker, I am saying this to make a point that this leadership
and this administration, and there were Republicans, Democrats,
Independents, even individuals who said, I am not voting because I do
not care about the political process, there are individuals that died
here and this is not dealing with the issue of, oh, well, they are a
bunch of Democrats that died and Democrats in the House are concerned
about it.
There are a couple more stories here that I know the gentleman is
going to talk about, but that is just section A of the Washington Post,
and I am not even at the Federal section yet. But I want to make sure
to highlight it for the Clerk so they can enter it into the
Congressional Record. There are couple of other stories that I want to
get to, to share with the Members, because I want to make sure that we
are all paying attention to what is going on because, when all is said
and historians look at the 109th Congress on who was doing what and who
stood by and watched it happen, I want to make sure that people know
that many of us in this Congress were on the side of saying that we
were about doing the right thing, that we wanted to make sure that
things happened.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone).
[[Page H8723]]
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I know that the gentleman could have
continued to the Federal page that has a few more articles like this,
but I just wanted to highlight one on the Federal page that says,
``Choice for Head of Wildlife Agency Provokes Dissent.'' Some people
might say we are now talking about wildlife and fish and we are not
talking about people, and I do not want to take away in any way from
the comments that the gentleman from Florida made before because he was
talking about the 9/11 Commission and the people who died at the World
Trade Center. As I said, 200 from my district alone. But it is sort of
ironic that this incompetence in terms of the officials that are
appointed by the administration extends even to the Fish & Wildlife
Agency. And I just want to highlight that. That is on page A25 of
today's Washington Post. The gentleman from Florida pointed that out to
me because I am the ranking member on the Fisheries and Oceans
Subcommittee.
If I could just reference this, this says ``This morning, the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee is likely to easily approve the
nomination of Dale Hall, a regional director in the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service, to head the agency, making the full Senate vote a
formality.'' It says, ``It's the kind of vote that makes
environmentalists cringe. Hall, a 27-year Fish & Wildlife Service
veteran, has infuriated wildlife activists, not to mention some of his
staff, by not pushing more aggressively to protect threatened and
endangered species.''
The Members know we just had a vote on that, trying to gut the
Endangered Species Act, but that is not even the issue. It says: In
May, he told agency biologists they should rely on the genetic science
available at the time of a species' listing when deciding whether to
recommend new safeguards, even if that science dated back to the 1970s.
And they have some people who worked for him quoted here, saying,
``He consistently tries to get the staff to change the science.''
This is something that we have all the time with these incompetent
people that are appointed to these agencies. They want to change the
science. We cannot even rely on the science because they want to change
it.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. If they don't like the science, change the science.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I know that when we heard about Michael
Brown, the head of FEMA, and everybody knows how incompetent he was and
what he did in the aftermath of the hurricane, basically did nothing,
made things even worse, I think people initially thought maybe he is an
exception. But what we are finding every day is that this is what this
Bush administration does. They are constantly appointing people who are
not qualified to their positions.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, the gentleman is exactly right. They
are not qualified. They are ideologues. And I want to share with my
colleagues a couple quotes here. They are not competent to hold a
position, but yet they hold an ideology that they want to implement.
And I want to just share with my colleagues that a gentleman from
Heritage Foundation says that conservatives at the Heritage Foundation
and elsewhere have advocated regarding Katrina that any recovery
package begin with the understanding that the liberal social welfare
programs of the last century failed the poor in every imaginable way.
He added that the unique circumstances created by Katrina are an
unprecedented opportunity to push for radical change.
They want to implement their ideology, and they want to say that the
social programs that the Democrats put in over the last 40 years
somehow failed. What? Social Security that lifted 50 percent of the
seniors out of poverty, Medicare that provided health care for seniors
a failure?
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will further yield, just
quickly all I am saying really is these are decisions about public
health and safety. I mean, that is what we found in the aftermath of
Katrina. We are talking about public health and safety, people's lives.
I just want to have qualified people making decisions about health and
safety issues. That is not asking much. And I understand that the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), who is on my committee, who is
the ranking member on the Committee on Government Reform, has actually
introduced legislation to require all political appointees holding
Federal public safety positions meet minimum requirements of expertise,
leadership and achievement. And I think that is crucial. He is one of
our leading Democrats, ranking member on the Committee on Government
Reform. It just makes sense that if someone is appointed to a position
where they are going to be making decisions about public health and
safety, they have to have some expertise for that position. So far, the
Republicans have been resisting that and are not willing to go along
with the gentleman from California's (Mr. Waxman) proposal.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Save their political appointments for the
ambassadorships with a lot of beachfront property. That is where they
put their political people. And we understand that happens. Do not put
them in charge of FEMA. Do not put them in a position where if they do
not like the science, then change the science.
Mr. PALLONE. The Food and Drug Administration.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. FDA? They have got to be kidding me.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, what this boils down to is, it
is about the three Cs: We have competence, cronyism and corruption.
That is what this Chamber has become about. It is a question about
their incompetence. There has clearly been corruption, and we have only
to list the myriad of people who are in hot water at the executive
branch level and, unfortunately, in this Chamber on the other side of
the aisle. As much respect as we might have for our colleagues, we have
an even greater respect for this institution, and, unfortunately, there
are quite a number of people who forget their need to respect this
institution.
And if it were not bad enough that we have a laundry list of people
now who have been hired as cronies who were unqualified at the
executive level for the position that they took on and then later
engaged in corrupt activity, on top of that now just yesterday we hear
a report that Special Operations forces were taught by individuals who
have been determined to be in this country illegally, illegally, and
who are now in the process of being deported. We have Special
Operations forces who do not even like to acknowledge that they exist
being taught foreign language by people who were found to have been in
this country illegally, two from Indonesia and one from an African
country.
Let us go further because I wish it stopped there. Just yesterday, we
found that there is a spy apparently in the White House. I mean, a spy
in the White House. I do not know. I am new. I am a freshman, and 9/11
was 4 years ago. I would think that by 2005, as 4 years has passed, the
crackdown and effort that the administration and the Republican
leadership here has been engaging in it to shore up our homeland
security and make sure people feel safer, and security has been the
issue. How in God's name do we have illegal immigrants from areas that
one might question the motivation of some of the people and why they
are here because certainly those nations that these illegal immigrants
are from have had al Qaeda representatives come? We cannot make a
blanket statement about it, but no question there have been problems
with those countries.
Special Operations forces being taught by illegal immigrants and a
spy in the White House, and we have cronyism that is running rampant at
the executive branch level and ethical problem after ethical problem
and indictments in this very institution. My God, if that does not cry
out for a new direction and this country to be taken in a new
direction, I do not know what does.
I came here and held up my right hand and swore to uphold the
Constitution and the integrity of this institution, and I want to
underscore the summary that the gentleman from the
[[Page H8724]]
State of Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) said the other day on a news program.
{time} 2315
The way he characterized what this institution has become is that the
leadership in this institution has taken this institution from the
People's House to the auction House, and there is no other way to
describe it. That is the bottom line. And it is really sad.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, as the
gentlewoman shows, it is beyond sad. Sad would be if we could not do
anything about it, but we can, and the American people can do something
about it. I will tell you right now, all that we are talking about
here, and I will tell you, because we like to talk about solutions, we
also like to point out the problem.
Time after time again, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone) is the Member who has been here the longest, from New Jersey,
the fact is that Democrat amendments that have gone down on partisan
lines to make sure we take care of the kind of oversight that the
American people called for. Well, let us just say the Constitution
calls for from this body. We have oversight and investigative powers
that we are not exercising.
I think it is important, and I just want to make sure that we put on
the record, I have asked the Congressional Research Service to go in
and pull the number of Congressional subpoenas that went out in the
Clinton administration versus the Bush administration.
I will tell you I personally, my chief and staff and others had to
call the House Counsel's information to get this information, to allow
the Congressional Research Service to go in, and the Congressional
Research Service said, ``Well, somebody said that it may be
political.''
No, it is just a history of the House. We did not call the GOP or the
Democratic National Committee on this. If subpoenas went out under the
Clinton administration, that is a matter of record. What is political
about that?
Now, I will tell you, this is not a witch hunt or any kind of hunt
you want to call it. It is the truth, and it is the fact that we cannot
rely, and that is the reason why we need an independent commission to
make sure that not only the act of God, when we watched television, it
was the act of a lack of governance. It was an act of cronyism, of the
Corps of Engineers stopping work after 37 years on a levee that they
knew would be breached. And look, the American taxpayers now have to
pick up $200 billion.
I will yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) to talk about his
bill, because I think it is important that we get colleagues on the
other side to come down and sign on it.
Before we do that, I want to make sure as we move through section A
of the Washington Post, I feel that all of this should be enshrined,
because I think it is important within the Congressional Record, which
it will, that before the historians look at it, that the American
people will have an opportunity to look at it and know that they have
an option to bring about change in their government.
They deserve better. I am telling you right now, they deserve better.
I know they do, and they know they do. This is national security. This
is Americans we are talking about.
This is what I could not believe, Madam Speaker. ``Pentagon Releases
Repayments Rules.'' Now, we had a big discussion here on this floor
about body armor and we went to war saying that we are prepared to go
to war.
Well, that is what the generals and the four star guys were telling
us in the Committee on Armed Services. ``We got it covered,
Congressman. Don't ask any questions. Either you are with us or with
them. Don't ask us any questions.'' That is from Mr. Ashcroft over in
the Senate, I must add.
Thank God for Senator Dodd and many others here in this Congress that
fought to make sure that our men and women had the body armor that they
needed.
You would have some folks come to the floor and make you believe that
they are the leaders on watching out for our men and women. It is not a
partisan issue, it is an American issue, the fact we were talking about
body armor, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking
member on the Committee on Armed Services, I would say some folks on
the majority side were concerned about the body armor. Men and women
were dying because they did not have what they needed.
Guess what they did? They did what they are supposed to do. Moms,
dads, uncles, brothers, sisters alike, sons and daughters, bought their
loved one body armor, kevlar, to wear in Iraq and Afghanistan. They did
so. Then we passed a bill saying they should be reimbursed, rightfully
so, unfortunately after the fact, and some folks died.
The Congress called for, once again, the WashingtonPost.com, you go
on and check it out yourself, it goes on, ``The guidelines, from
Undersecretary of Defense, David S.C. Chu, comes nearly a year after
Congress passed legislation ordering,'' this is not asking, ``ordering
the Department of Defense to come up with the reimbursement policy. The
law required that the Pentagon issue the rules by February 25 of this
year.'' Not 2006, but 2005.
Here we are in October, in October, and because there were threats
from Senator Dodd and others in this Congress that they will do
something drastic legislatively because they did not do it, these are
families that still have not been reimbursed. These are Americans.
These are Americans. These are not folks in a foreign land.
So when folks start getting upset about what we are talking about
here on this floor, I can tell you something, I am glad that somebody
fought for the opportunity for us to raise these issues, because this
is beyond belief. Here in the United States, our own people. These are
our people.
Now, I am just going to share this with the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Pallone). This is not something as it relates to people saying,
``Oh, you are being partisan.'' No, we are not being partisan. We are
telling the truth. We are making sure Members know exactly what they
are doing and not doing.
If you are a Member of the majority side and you want to see the kind
of change that these men and women deserve, that these men and women
deserve to get reimbursed for their body armor, that are financially
challenged right now, that are paying too much for gas, that will pay
over $1,000 for heating oil or LP gas, this winter, they need that
money. And, guess what? You go on the DOD website, there is no mention
of it. There is no mention of the fact where they can go on and find
out how they can be reimbursed.
So, we are going to work on that. I tried to find that today. This is
on behalf of the entire country.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, the
gentleman did not get into the details because it is almost sickening
to read. I just have to read this one thing in the article the
gentleman is referencing where it says, ``Last week Marine Sergeant
Todd Bowers, whose parents bought him a high-tech rifle scope said that
the extra piece of equipment saved his life, and that a $100 pair of
goggles he bought saved his eyesight when he was shot by a sniper.''
``If you need any proof that the Pentagon is once again coming up
short, all you need to do is take a look at the list of reimbursable
items, Senator Dodd said. It does not include the gun scope that saved
Todd Bowers' life.''
It is shameful. I could cry, to be honest with you. I am not trying
to be dramatic. But to think that the parents had to buy the equipment
to save their son's life, and now the administration, Pentagon does not
want it to be reimbursable, I just cringe when I read about it, when
the gentleman brought this to my attention. It is a shameful thing.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further,
if I may add something, the shame of the whole matter is, it is about
priorities. We have time to pass tax cuts through this Chamber that
give billionaires and millionaires hundreds of thousands of dollars,
billions of dollars for the oil industry, to pass a prescription drug
bill that does nothing to contain costs, so it is a billions of dollars
in giveaways to the pharmaceutical companies, and then the reality is,
that money has to come from somewhere. So this kid does not have
goggles and some average American has to go out and buy them.
People say, well, what is the government doing? You know what we are
[[Page H8725]]
doing here? You know what the Republican leadership here is doing? They
are giving billions of dollars in tax credits and subsidies to the oil
industry. That is what they are doing. They are giving Warren Buffett
and Bill Gates a tax cut. That is what they are doing.
Here is where we ask for the opportunity to lead the country.
Democrats are asking the American people for an opportunity to lead
this country, and say if your priority is for that kid to have the
goggles he needs, that is the priority of the Democratic Party; in
health care and education, that is the priority of the Democratic
Party.
We want a chance to govern, because this outfit has dropped the ball.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. As we look at oversight and accountability, will
the gentleman please talk about H.R. 3764?
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. This is the Democratic bill that establishes a
congressional commission to examine Federal, State and local response
to the devastation by Hurricane Katrina. It is an independent
commission.
What we are doing, we want to ask the American people and other
Members of Congress to support this and become a citizen cosponsor of
this bill, at www.housedemocrats.gov/katrina. This is an opportunity
for all Americans to participate in the movement to try to establish an
independent commission. Get rid of the partisanship, get rid of the
nonsense, let us get some real oversight here.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I just want
to say that we have a cosponsor form here for H.R. 3764 sitting here on
the table. There is my pen. Anyone from the majority side, the
Republicans, that want to get down to making sure that this never, ever
happens again, that we do not have people dying because they did not
have insulin, we do not have emergency responders not able to talk to
one another because they do not have interoperability where they can
talk to one other to save lives, and where we can save $200 billion
hopefully in the future, because we could have saved New Orleans if we
were on our job, our j-o-b, maybe, not maybe, this independent
commission will point out, this independent commission, which the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) pointed out before, it is a group of
individuals that are outside of the Congress, like the 9/11 Commission,
that will not be here in Congress to carry on about trying to cover up
on behalf of the majority side. So we have this here.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. If the gentleman will yield further, the reason we
want to do this is because the record over the past few years has been
simple: Everything that happened, everything that was told to us prior
to the war, has not been true. No one has been held responsible for
that at all. No oversight. We were told that the prescription drug bill
was only going to cost $400 billion. We find out after it is $700
billion. No oversight, no one is held responsible for it. And on and on
and on. The budget projections, the economy, gas, energy costs,
everything, no oversight, no one is being held responsible, and we
think that it is in the best interests of the American people to have
an independent commission.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, since the rule for the energy
bill tomorrow was just filed, it seems a good place to jump off from,
because I really hope that now that tomorrow we are going to be
throwing the door, blowing the door wide open to more offshore oil
drilling in the United States coastal regions, the gentleman from New
Jersey represents the Jersey shore, I represent the eastern coastline,
the gentleman represents the eastern coastline. Sorry, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) does not have much of a coastline.
But we have some deep, deep concerns that are going to be dealt with
on the floor tomorrow where, for the first time, we are going to have
the possibility of drilling much closer to the United States coastline
in places that have been subject to a ban and moratoriums.
Given the track record, particularly recently, of competence,
cronyism and corruption, I am hopeful that we are not going to see the
giveaways that are in this bill tomorrow turn into what we have seen in
terms of the three C's in the last several weeks and, quite honestly,
in the last several years.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I am
glad the gentlewoman brought that up. I would say what we are seeing in
this energy bill, and this is unfortunate thing, in the same way that
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita became an opportunity for corruption and
cronyism in the awarding of contracts by the Republicans, we are seeing
it is also becoming an excuse to basically waive all environmental
regulation, affirmative action, prevailing wage and the list goes on.
The waiver of environmental regulations and the effort to basically gut
environmental protections is unbelievable.
The gentlewoman mentioned the offshore oil drilling. But one of the
other things that affects my State is the Clean Air Act provisions. In
other words, in that bill, basically what the President and the
Republican leadership have done is taken the opportunity to gut the
Clean Air Act.
{time} 2330
They are essentially saying now that if an older plant that does not
meet clean air restrictions under the current law wants to expand its
capacity, that they can still expand the capacity using the older
standards, which would allow a lot more air pollution to pollute the
atmosphere.
So whether it is clean water, whether it is clean air, whatever it
happens to be, they are using the hurricane rather than it being an
opportunity, as we have suggested, to try to rebuild and give people a
new opportunity in life to rebuild their lives, it is being used as an
excuse to basically run roughshod over all kinds of existing
protections, whether they be affirmative action, environmental
protection, whatever.
Again, it is cronyism, because if I can take a power plant and I can
expand it and pollute the atmosphere and save money that way, it is
just another giveaway, if you will, to their friends, their special
interests in the utility business.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, tomorrow they will be trying to
create the mythology for the American people that this is going to do
something to reduce gas prices.
Mr. PALLONE. And it will not. There is not anything in it.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. There is not a single item in this bill that
will reduce gas prices, not tomorrow, not next Tuesday, not 3 weeks
from now will one penny get cut off a gallon of gas as a result of this
bill.
What will happen is it will put more money in the pockets of the
people who make money off the energy industry; we are going to waive
the Clean Air Act provisions; it limits FTC penalties for price
gouging; and it is almost completely impossible to increase refining
capacity. There is a taxpayer subsidy for oil companies. These are the
provisions in this bill. There is a giveaway of Federal lands in this
bill. Madam Speaker, it is unbelievable. We just did this 7 weeks ago,
and now we are going to give them more. I mean, where does it stop?
We have an alternative, I say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Meek), if the gentleman would like to outline some of the provisions in
it.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, I want the gentlewoman to do
that, but I also want to point out, being on the Committee on Armed
Services, some of the other issues that are in this bill. It is very
unfortunate. I am not going to be one to talk about the oil companies
and special interests and the lobbyists and the K Street project and
all of that, because guess what? The American people elected a Congress
to protect them from greed, from doing it because we can. And we just
passed, the majority did, an energy bill 7 months ago, but they are
doing it on the backs of individuals of devastation, communities that
are not in place to be able to come to Congress and lobby against this
kind of action.
This is what is happening within this bill, I say to my colleagues.
We just went through a BRAC process, military base closures. If they
close, that means that the government can give this land to oil
companies to go in and drill. Local communities have plans for military
bases to help their economy, to be able to do the things that they want
to do, because it is within their community.
[[Page H8726]]
Here is the kicker in this whole thing. There are a number of
kickers. You can get kicked to death under this bill. If an oil company
was to move in and contaminate or do something to harm the public, if
the mayor of that city or county or parish or State were to bring a
lawsuit against the oil company, and they were to lose, they would have
to pay the oil companies' legal fees. Now, on the other side of the
coin, if the local community, parish, county, State was to file a
lawsuit against an oil company for not carrying out their environmental
duties or whatever the case may be, put their constituents in harm's
way, and they were to win, the oil companies, by Federal law, if this
passed tomorrow, if the majority has their way, do not have to
reimburse the local government for their legal fees.
So here is the U.S. Congress majority that is going to stand on the
side of industry to say, we are on your side versus we are on the local
mayor, the parish, the county commissioner, or the State government's
side, the side of the taxpayers, and that are the individuals who
elected us to come to Congress.
Madam Speaker, I warned my friends on the Majority side, I warned
them. Because tomorrow we have 5 hours of debate and around 2 or 3
o'clock, we are going to be here on this floor and we are going to see
the followers versus the leaders. On this side, we are going to lead
because we are going to have an alternative amendment that is not going
to have any of that language in there that is going to be able to bring
gas prices down, that is going to be able to deal with our issues of
conserving energy and things of that nature.
So I think it is important that we realize, and I want to warn the
Members, unfortunately, if you keep voting for what they tell you to
vote for on the Republican leadership side, you will find yourselves
making a career decision, bottom line. Because I think the American
people are fed up with this stuff here in Washington, DC. We are trying
to do what we can. Someone may say, well, why are you all on the Floor
arguing. The gentleman from New Jersey has talked about what Senator
Dodd has done. The reason why the Department of Defense wrote those
rules several months later after the congressional deadline was the
fact that a Democrat raised the issue and threatened them, that he will
take it to the next level, and that is the reason why they did it. They
did not do it because they were supposed to by law or that it was the
right thing to do; they did it because they came under pressure.
I am telling my colleagues that we are within our right to put the
pressure on, put it on the Record, and we will be here every
opportunity that these lights are on to talk about what is not
happening and what we are trying to do, and the reason why we cannot do
it because we are in the minority. If the Republican Conference betters
itself and it starts to get leadership that is going to lead on behalf
of the American people, then God bless them, but I can tell my
colleagues right now for the last 10 years, that has not happened. It
has not happened. That is the reason why. It can be a Republican
parish, it can be a Republican mayor, it can be a Republican governor,
if you bring suit against this industry, which is what they are
bringing to the Floor tomorrow on the Majority side, you are going to
find yourself paying legal fees if you are not successful. That is to
intimidate local communities for not bringing suit against individuals
that violate environmental law. That is what that is about.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, if my colleagues do not mind me
jumping in here, lest people think that we are just on the Floor here
pointing fingers and only being critical, we have our own alternative
proposal, the democratic alternative to the energy bill tomorrow.
People might think that we as Members of Congress are somehow
different than our constituents. I am just a minivan mom. I do not
drive a big old SUV; I drive a mini van. I wish I could drive a car
that was smaller, but I have 3 little kids who have to be strapped into
a car seat. I have 6-year-old twins and a 2-year-old baby girl and I,
like most moms, do not have much of an alternative in terms of making
sure I have a car that is safe, that is big enough to haul them and all
their soccer stuff and Brownie stuff and baseball stuff, just all their
stuff. That is what parents across this country deal with every single
day.
Last week and the week before and the week before that, I paid $45 to
$50 to fill up my tank. Whenever I end up spending $45 to $50 on
anything, I swallow hard. When you have to do that once a week, there
is a problem. We make an okay income as Members of Congress. Think
about the people who are struggling paycheck to paycheck.
Tomorrow on this floor, we are going to offer a real alternative to
the energy bill. We are going to offer an alternative that puts some
bark into the Federal Trade Commission's bite. We are going to give
explicit authority to the FTC to define, for the first time, price
gouging and what it is and how to penalize for it and make sure that
there are factors that can be determined. We are going to make sure
that everybody in the supply chain, including home heating fuels, deals
with price gouging measures. We are going to make sure that it is not
just one end of the chain, the energy chain, but the whole thing. We
are going to establish a strategic refinery reserve. Our substitute
would increase our Nation's refinery capacity by establishing a
strategic refinery reserve.
Madam Speaker, we are taking real steps in our proposed alternative
tomorrow which, of course, is not going to pass because the Republicans
much prefer their industry-laden benefits package, which is the best
way to describe this bill.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Pork.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Pork. We will substitute any appropriate word.
We have to make sure that we provide some real relief to the minivan
moms and dads across this country.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, we understand the majority has
about 10 minutes. We are going to come back another 10 minutes after
the Majority side; we will have 10 minutes after that, and I think the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) is going to be sponsoring that. We have
a couple more minutes and we are going to turn it over to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
But first, let me just say this real quickly, the articles that we
talked about tonight, and this is just one publication.
Washingtonpost.com. If you want to figure out how you can be a
cosponsor on House bill 3764, that is housedemocrats.gov/katrina, you
can go on-line and become a cosponsor of that legislation as a citizen
to be able to push the drive for us to make sure that Americans never,
ever have to go through the lack of response that they have received,
and that is for Federal, State and local.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Schmidt). The gentleman's time has
expired.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. We will give it out next time.
CIA Rejects Discipline for 9/11 Failures
Goss Cites Fear Of Hurting Agency
(By Dafna Linzer and Walter Pincus)
The CIA will not seek to hold any current or former agency
officials, including ex-director George J. Tenet, responsible
for failures leading up to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, CIA
Director Porter J. Goss said yesterday, despite a
recommendation by the agency's inspector general that he
convene an ``accountability board'' to judge their
performance.
Goss's decision, coming, four years after hijackers
commandeered four jets and killed nearly 3,000 people,
appeared to end possibility that a high-level official will
be held responsible for what several investigations found to
be significant failures throughout the government. The
inspectors general of the departments of State, Justice and
Defense completed their own investigations without publicized
disciplinary actions taken against anyone.
The CIA's report, which severely criticized actions of
senior officers, will remain classified, Goss said in his
announcement, which was welcomed by some former officials
mentioned in the document but assailed by families of victims
of the attacks.
Goss said in his statement that the voluminous report by
the CIA Inspector General John L. Helgerson, ``unveiled no
mysteries,'' and that making it public would only bring harm
to the agency when it it trying to rebuild. Goss said that
the report in no way suggest ``that any one person or group
of people could have prevented 9/11.
``Of the officer named in the report,'' he said, ``about
half have retired from the Agency, and those who are still
with us are amongst the finest we have.''
[[Page H8727]]
Goss had supported an internal CIA review in December 2002,
while he was chairman of the House intelligence committee.
The CIA report, which was mostly completed in February, is
the last known government inquiry on the counterterrorism
failures ahead of the attacks and has been the most
secretive.
It also had the potential to pit Goss against his own
agency. Convening a review board could have embarrassed his
predecessors and renewed questions over, President Bush's
decision to award Tenet the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
I think it is utterly reprehensible for Director Goss to be
hinting towards not holding anyone accountable, particularly
since he was in an oversight capacity as house chairman and
is now in a position to atone for his own failures,'' said
Kristin Breitweiser, whose husband, Ron, was killed at the
World Trade Center. ``He is either avoiding embarrassment or
trying to hide something.''
More than a dozen intelligence officials, including Tenet;
his former director of operations, James L. Pavitt; and J.
Cofer Black, former head of the counterterrorism center, are
faulted in the CIA report, said officials who have read the
classified findings. Tenet vigorously disputed the findings,
arguing that he and his officers had done more than anyone
else in the intelligence community to warn about al Qaeda.
The report also names some current undercover operatives
working in the counterterrorism center. Officials had said
exposing them to public criticism would harm their work and
the agency during a time of war.
Tenet had no comment yesterday. Pavitt said he was
relieved. ``He did what was right for the institution and its
people, and for their work,'' Pavitt said of Goss.
Goss's former congressional colleagues, who have urged that
the report be declassified, reacted coolly to his decision to
forgo accountability reviews. They said Goss and John D.
Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, will be
summoned to appear before the Senate intelligence committee
to answers questions this month.
``I am concerned to learn of the Director's decision to
forego this step in the process,'' Sen. Pat Roberts, (R-Kan.)
said in a statement. ``However, I spoke with Director Goss
and Negroponte earlier today and they both strongly believe
that this is the correct course of action.''
The CIA's internal report was done in a response to a
recommendation of the House-Senate committee that looked into
the attacks. The committee called on the CIA's inspector
general to conduct an investigation ``to determine whether
and to what extent personnel at all levels should be held
accountable any omission, commission or failure to meet
professional standards'' to prevent or disrupt the attacks.
Based on these findings, the CIA director was to take
``appropriate disciplinary or other action,'' with the result
to be passed on to the President and the House and Senate
intelligence committees.
But Goss declined. He noted that before Sept. 11, when he
was chairman of the House intelligence panel, the CIA
suffered from cutbacks and reduced budgets. ``Stars'' were
singled out and asked ``to take on some tough assignments,''
he said, ``Unfortunately, time and resources were not on
their side, despite their best efforts to meet unprecedented
challenges.
``Risk is a critical part of the intelligence business.
Singling out these individuals would send the wrong message
to our junior officers about taking risks--whether it be in
operation in the field or being assigned to a hot topic at
headquarters,'' he said.
Citing classified information about intelligence sources
and methods, Goss said the report should not be made public.
Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.) the ranking Democrat on the House
intelligence panel, said she will work to get some elements
declassified and said Goss has a responsibility to ``persuade
the public that he has dealt fairly with his agency's past
mistakes.''
____
Ex-White House Aide Indicted in Abramoff Case
(By Thomas B. Edsall)
David H. Safavian, former chief of White House procurement
policy; was indicted yesterday on five counts of lying about
his dealings with former Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff
and impeding a Senate investigation of him.
The indictment accuses Safavian, who previously served as
former chief of staff for the General Services
Administration, of falsely telling GSA officials that
Abramoff had no dealings with the agency at a time in 2002,
the government alleges, that Abramoff was seeking to obtain
use of two GSA properties with Safavian's assistance.
It also accuses Safavian of repeatedly making false
statements to investigators about a golf trip he took with
Abramoff to Scotland the same year. GSA ethics rules
prohibited receiving gifts from anyone seeking an official
action by the agency.
Safavian was arrested Sept. 19 on the similar charges, the
first criminal allegations levied in the ongoing corruption
investigation of Abramoff's activities in Washington.
Safavian had resigned as top administrator at the federal
procurement office in the White House Office of Management
and Budget three days earlier.
The indictment alleges that ``from May 16, 2002 until
January 2004, Safavian made false statements and obstructed
investigations into his relationship with a Washington, D.C.,
lobbyist,'' who has been identified as Abramoff. The
indictment refers to him only as ``Lobbyist A.''
Safavian's attorney, Barbara Van Gelder, said the charges
are ``an attempt to prove guilt by association.'' She said,
``If this case did not involve Mr. Abramoff, the government
would never have indicted Mr. Safavian on these charges.''
Van Gelder said Safavian ``will plead not guilty, and he
will request a speedy trial.'' She added, ``We believe that
after all the evidence is aired, Mr. Safavian will be
acquitted of all charges.''
Abramoff has been indicted in Florida on bank fraud
charges, and is under investigation in connection with at
least $82 million, he and an associate received from Indian
tribes that operate gambling casinos, and for fees from other
clients.
Federal investigators are known to be looking at trips to
Scotland that Abramoff arranged for members of Congress and
others, including former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-
Tex.) and House Administration Committee Chairman Robert W.
Ney (R-Ohio) and Ralph Reed, former executive director of the
Christian Coalition and now a candidate for lieutenant
governor in Georgia.
Safavian, Ney and Reed all went on the 2002 trip to
Scotland, which cost an estimated $100,000.
If convicted, Safavian, who worked as a lobbyist with
Abramoff in the 1990s, faces a maximum sentence of five years
in prison and a $250,000 fine on each of the counts.
____
Pentagon Releases Repayment Rules
Troops Who Bought Protective Gear Now May Request Reimbursement
Under pressure from Congress, the Pentagon issued overdue
regulations yesterday for reimbursing troops in Iraq and
Afghanistan for body armor and other gear they bought to
protect themselves.
The program, which is effective immediately, would allow
reimbursement for combat helmets, ballistic eye protection,
hydration systems and tactical vests, including a variety of
body armor inserts to protect the throat, groin and collar.
The guidelines, from Undersecretary Of Defense David S.C.
Chu, come nearly a year after Congress passed legislation
ordering the reimbursement policy. That law required the
Pentagon to issue the rule by Feb. 25 of this year.
Under the guidelines, reimbursement for each individual
item cannot exceed $1,100, and the items become government
property and must be turned over to the Defense Department,
unless they are destroyed or no longer usable. The purchase
must have been between Sept. 10, 2001, and Aug. 1, 2004, and
the soldier must not have been issued equivalent government
equipment.
Senators, unhappy with the Pentagon's slow progress,
approved an amendment to a defense spending bill yesterday
that, would further expand the program. The measure would
also take the money decision out of the hands of Defense
Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and give control to military
unit commanders in the field.
Condemning the new program as too little, too late, Sen.
Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) said the Pentagon's list is too
restrictive and does not include critical safety equipment
such as gun scopes, additional Humvee armor and radios.
``The Pentagon's leadership has done everything in its
power to stop this measure from being implemented,'' Dodd
said. ``Why should they stop now?''
Last week, Marine Sgt. Todd Bowers, whose parents bought
him a high-tech rifle scope, said that the extra piece of
equipment saved his life, and that a $100 pair of goggles he
bought saved his eyesight when he was shot by a sniper.
``If you need any proof that [the Pentagon] is once again
coming up short, all you need to do is take a look at the
list of reimbursable items,'' Dodd said. ``It does not
include the gun scope that saved Todd Bowers's life.''
The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, John
W. Warner (R-Va.), urged support for Dodd's amendment. But
Warner asked that lawmakers work together to set a new end
date for the program, possibly in 2006. The amendment passed
by a voice vote.
Pentagon officials have opposed the reimbursement idea,
calling it ``an unmanageable precedent that will saddle the
DOD with an open-ended financial burden.''
In his memo, Chu said that the secretaries of the military
services may request that other equipment be added to the
list.
____________________