[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 22429-22437]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 22430]]

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 
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. Wasser-
man 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

[[Page 22431]]

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 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

[[Page 22432]]

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).
  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

[[Page 22433]]

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 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

[[Page 22434]]

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 
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

[[Page 22435]]

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.
  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

[[Page 22436]]

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.''
       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 counterter-
     rorism 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

[[Page 22437]]

     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.

                          ____________________