[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5145-5151]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 5146]]

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 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

[[Page 5147]]

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.
  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

[[Page 5148]]

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 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

[[Page 5149]]

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 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

[[Page 5150]]

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 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

[[Page 5151]]

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 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.

                          ____________________