Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I have the opportunity to recognize the outstanding achievements of Ms. Gina Reilly and the Young Onset Parkinson's Association (YOPA). The YOPA is dedicated to providing support as well as raising public awareness about Parkinson's disease. Ms. Reilly is one of many volunteers whose tireless efforts help to make the foundation a success. Parkinson's disease is a debilitating disease that affects 4 in every 1,000 Americans, and while the disease is more prominent in older people, five to ten percent of all Parkinson's cases are early-onset. Parkinson's has no known origin or method of prevention; but with the assistance of organizations like the YOPA and the American Parkinson's Disease Association, treatments and a cure are coming closer to becoming a reality. The YOPA's mission is to raise public awareness and to offer support for those living with early-onset Parkinson's disease. In addition, the association has coordinated with local, regional and national Parkinson's organizations in fundraising efforts for Parkinson's research. Ms. Gina Reilly is one of the most prominent volunteers who has helped make this mission a reality. Prior to her diagnosis, Ms. Reilly was a renowned competitor in U.S. adult ice dancing competitions. In addition to being a champion ice dancer, she was also a ballroom dancer, nightclub singer, and owner of a successful graphic arts and computer embroidering business. After her diagnosis in 2003, Ms. Reilly refused to let her disease prevent her from further achievements. In addition to continuing her pursuits in athletics and business, Ms. Reilly has begun working with the YOPA. Her incredible courage and fortitude provide a role model of how one can live their life while afflicted with Parkinson's disease. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues recognize the outstanding work of the Young Onset Parkinson's Association, and I congratulate Ms. Reilly for her outstanding achievements and bravery.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to address the decline in the state of affairs between Armenia and Azerbaijan brought about by Azeri President Ilham Aliyev and the members of his ministry. Including Namik Abbasov, Minister of National Security, through their encouragement of anti-Armenian propaganda that perpetrates anti- Armenian sentiments in the region. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, I was disheartened to learn of the brutal murder of an Armenian soldier by an Azeri soldier. Both were attending a NATO Partnership for Peace English-language course in Hungary. But I am doubly concerned by additional information that has recently been reported that the Azeri government is actually providing financial awards to individuals and organizations with the ``best'' propaganda works towards Armenians. Recent accounts report that the Azerbaijani Ministry of National Security, a successor to the Soviet-era KGB, has awarded monetary prizes up to $2,000 for the ``best'' propaganda works targeting Armenians. The Azeri Ministry, for instance, presented a prize in the books category to the Azerbaijani National Academy of Sciences' Human Rights Institute for an ``encyclopedia'' entitled ``Crimes Against Humanity Perpetrated by Armenian Terrorists and Bandit Formations,'' and the minister himself was honored for funding the publication of this book. The MNS also granted a top monetary prize to two anti- Armenian propaganda films. I mention this because I believe it is a blatant effort by the Azeri government to undermine years of efforts undertaken to encourage a peaceful resolution to the Nagorno Karabakh conflict by me and other Members of this body as well as the Minsk group and the former U.S. administration. Three years ago, I was encouraged by developments in the Nagorno Karabakh peace process with the announcement of the Key West Agreement, reached in April 2001 by President Kocharian and former Azeri President Aliyev. I was hopeful that this agreement would lead to a peaceful resolution of the conflict and a stabilization of peace in the region. However, it was clear that any implementation of the Key West Agreement would have to wait until after the various legislative and presidential elections in the region including Armenia, Nagorno Karabakh, and Azerbaijan and when they were complete. However, shortly after the last of these elections when President Ilham Aliyev was elected president of Azerbaijan, the Azeri government rejected all of the advancements made by the Minsk group, the former Azeri president and President Kocharian, and flatly rejected the Key West Agreement. Furthermore, President Ilham Aliyev has noted that any negotiations on resolving the Nagorno Karabakh conflict would need to start from scratch and any advancements towards peace made in the past were invalid. So today instead of witnessing the implementation of the Key West Agreement or even a revival of negotiations of a peaceful solution to the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, we are witnessing a regression towards the type of behavior on behalf of the Azeri government that encourages the violence we saw in the early to mid-1990s. I am discouraged by President Aliyev's blatant disregard for the autonomy of Nagorno Karabakh and his country's effort to undermine any chance at a peaceful resolution to this conflict. In fact, President Aliyev has recently said that he is not in any hurry to reach a peaceful resolution to the conflict and recently cancelled a meeting between Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian and the Azeri Foreign Minister planned by French, Russian, and U.S. mediators that was scheduled for this past Monday; and his excuse was that the agenda was not precise enough. I am also discouraged by the current Bush administration in its failure to actively address a peaceful resolution to the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. During a recent meeting between Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and Armenian President Kocharian and Foreign Minister Oskanian, Armitage noted that ``our Turkish friends have had their hands full recently,'' as an excuse that there would be little advancement towards opening the border between Armenia and Turkey or a move towards better relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that Armenia has been tremendously cooperative with the U.S. in its efforts in the war against terror and supportive of the stabilization of both Afghanistan and Iraq. However, rather than press President Aliyev toward considering peaceful resolutions of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, the Bush administration perpetrates the conflict by failing to maintain military assistance parity between Armenia and Azerbaijan in its fiscal year 2005 budget request to Congress. In fact, the Bush administration proposed double the military assistance to Azerbaijan that it did to Armenia. Today I would call on Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev to stop promoting propaganda against the Armenian people and make every effort to consider the peaceful resolution of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict and begin an open dialogue with Armenian President Kocharian. I also call on President Bush and the administration to maintain parity in the region and recognize that pitting these nations against each other will move us further away from long sought-after peace that is much needed in this region.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I mentioned before about this op-ed with Krugman where he was quoting the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, a major publication in Israel. I just want to read that quote again in their editorial where they said, ``This isn't America; the government did not invent intelligence material nor exaggerate the description of the threat to justify their attack.'' We tend to think of this country and I have always felt it as the country that stands for what is right, what is just, what is honest, and to think that an Israeli newspaper is now saying, we're not like the government of the United States, we don't make up things, we don't lie, we don't exaggerate, as if that is the norm for us, is a pretty sad state of affairs. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, this evening I want to discuss the serious accusations that former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke has leveled at President Bush over the last week. I would also like to discuss my concern over the administration's attempts, attempts that have now been joined by several congressional Republicans, to draw attention away from the serious accusations by instead viciously attacking the messenger; and, finally, I come to the floor to highlight inconsistencies in the statements that Condoleezza Rice has made over the last week, inconsistencies that will undoubtedly be addressed when she testifies as early as next week under oath in front of the 9/11 Commission. Madam Speaker, it is nice to see that after months of stalling the Bush administration has finally made an agreement with the 9/11 Commission to have the President, Vice President and National Security Adviser all appear before the entire 9/11 Commission. The announcement was a complete retreat from the Bush administration's previous belief that Condoleezza Rice should not testify in public. Last evening, the President went before reporters and said that he had ordered this level of cooperation because, and I quote President Bush here, I consider it necessary to gaining a complete picture of the months and years that preceded the murder of our fellow citizens on September 11, 2001. Madam Speaker, I think it is great that the Bush administration finally caved in and will allow Condoleezza Rice to testify, but it is somewhat disingenuous for the President to say that he has cooperated with the Commission in the past. In fact, President Bush has stalled the Commission for months on many of their requests. Up until yesterday, the President said that he would only testify before the Commission's chair and vice chair; and now President Bush and Vice President Cheney will testify together but not under oath and only one member of the Commission will be allowed to take notes. Allowing one person in the room to take notes, in my opinion, is no way to fully document critical testimony from the President and the Vice President, and I am also interested in why the President and the Vice President insist on testifying together. So, Mr. President, thank you for finally caving in to political pressure and allowing Condoleezza Rice to testify, but do not try to spin your way out of this by making it appear that you have been cooperating with the 9/11 Commission from the very beginning, because that is simply not the case. By delaying, the Bush administration has made it extremely difficult for the 9/11 Commission to finish its work in a timely fashion, and the Commission should not be expected to complete its work until it has heard from all the principals involved in the events leading up to and coming after 9/11. Public testimony from Condoleezza Rice is perhaps even more important now that we have heard from Richard Clarke, the President's former top counterterrorism adviser. Last week, Richard Clarke raised eyebrows all over the Nation when he appeared on 60 Minutes, released a book critical of the Bush administration's policy on fighting terrorism, and then testified before the 9/11 Commission where he personally apologized to the victims' families and told them that they had failed them or that he had failed them. Richard Clarke raises some serious questions, questions that Condoleezza Rice should attempt to answer before the 9/11 Commission, and I would like to mention some of those questions, Madam Speaker. Question number one: Did the Bush administration, as Richard Clarke claims, and I quote, ignore terrorism for months when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11? You do not have to take Richard Clarke's word for it. President Bush bluntly acknowledged as much during an interview with Bob Woodward for Woodward's book titled Bush At War. Despite repeated warnings of an imminent al Qaeda attack before 9/11 President Bush admitted to Woodward, and I quote again, I did not feel the sense of urgency. That is what the President said. If he did not realize the sense of urgency, one has to really wonder what kind of advice he was receiving from his National Security Adviser and others. According to Richard Clarke, he tried repeatedly to get the administration to pay serious attention to the issue of terrorism. On January 24, 2001, just days after President Bush took the oath of office, Richard Clarke wrote an urgent memo to Condoleezza Rice, asking for an urgent Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending al Qaeda attack. Clarke claims this request was never acted upon. Three months later, in place of a Cabinet-level meeting, Richard Clarke was finally able to schedule a meeting with Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. Clarke said he started the meeting by stating to the Deputy Secretary of Defense that we needed to deal with bin Laden. And Wolfowitz's response? ``No, no, no, we don't 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.'' That's what Wolfowitz said. Again, meetings like this are critical because people like Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice were the very people advising the President. If Wolfowitz was describing Osama bin Laden as a little guy to Richard Clarke, one has to assume he was making the same sorts of comments to his boss, Donald Rumsfeld. Clarke could not believe Wolfowitz's characterization of bin Laden as a little guy. Clarke then responded to Wolfowitz, and again I quote, ``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. Clarke's statements contradict those of the National Security Adviser. On Sunday night, in an interview on ``60 Minutes,'' Condoleezza Rice said, ``The administration took seriously the threat of terrorism before 9/11,'' in stark contrast to the very comments of her boss, President Bush. And I would like to see Rice's response to a report in Newsweek magazine that the administration was trying to deemphasize terrorism as an overall priority. As proof, the report pointed to the fact that only two out of a hundred national security meetings the administration held before 9/11 addressed the terrorist threat. I look forward to hearing if the National Security Adviser thinks two meetings on the issue of terrorism shows a true dedication on the administration's part to fighting terrorism and to taking terrorist threats seriously. The National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, also stated during her interview on ``60 Minutes,'' and I quote again, ``I don't know that a sense of urgency any greater than the one we had would have caused us to do anything differently. I don't know how we could have done more. I would like very much to know what more we could have done.'' The salient answer to this question, Madam Speaker, is a lot more could have been done. First, the administration could have held more than two national security meetings on the issue. Based on the major intelligence spike in the summer of 2001, the administration could have held more meetings with top officials from the CIA and the FBI to make sure the agencies were sharing information. Earlier this week, 9/11 commissioner Jamie Gorelick said that the lack of focus and meetings meant agencies were not talking to each other and key evidence was overlooked. Richard Clarke is also very critical of the administration's obsession with Saddam Hussein. Again in her interview on ``60 Minutes,'' Rice claimed that Iraq was put aside immediately after 9/ 11.'' But Rice's own claims were refuted, this time by a Washington Post report stating that 6 days after the 9/11 attacks, the President signed a 3-page document directing the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq. Furthermore, CBS News reported in 2002 that 5 hours after the 9/11 attacks, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was telling his aids to come up with plans for striking Iraq. This is also consistent with Clarke's own statements in which he says that ``Rumsfeld told him on September 11 that they needed to bomb Iraq.'' Clarke writes in his book that, ``On September 12, he went home for a brief period of time to eat and take a shower and return to the White House.'' Clarke writes, and I quote, ``I expected to go back to a round of meetings examining what the next attacks could be, what our vulnerabilities were. Instead, I walked into a series of discussions about Iraq. At first, I was incredulous we were talking about something other than getting al Qaeda. Then I realized, with almost a sharp physical pain, that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to try to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda on Iraq. Clearly, the administration continued to have its eyes set on going to war with Iraq.'' Now, Madam Speaker, I ask: Was the war on terrorism a convenient, yet flawed, justification for going to war against Iraq? That is what Richard Clarke believes. It is also supported by another former high- ranking Bush administration official, Paul O'Neill. The former Treasury Secretary stated in his book that ``Vice President Cheney strongly suggested U.S. intervention in Iraq well before the terrorist attacks of September 11.'' This is another question Condoleezza Rice should answer in front of the American people. Madam Speaker, it is clear that President Bush's rationale for war against Iraq was flawed. The Bush administration used two things to justify war with Iraq: first, a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda; and, second, the idea that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. In addition to the new questions raised by Richard Clarke about the Iraq-al Qaeda link, experts have concluded that Iraq did not have weapons that posed an immediate threat to the United States. CIA Director George Tenet recently admitted that the intelligence agencies never told the White House that Iraq posed an imminent threat. And former chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix stated that the Bush administration made up its mind that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and it was not interested in evidence to the contrary. Madam Speaker, when the President signed the law creating the commission in November 2002, he urged the panel to, and I quote, ``carefully examine all the evidence and follow all the facts wherever they lead.'' But, clearly, the Bush administration did not mean following it to the President's National Security Adviser. And while the administration charges the panel to follow the facts wherever they may lead, they and some congressional Republicans are attempting to minimize some of those possible facts by attacking the character of Richard Clarke. Last week, the majority leader in the other Chamber implied that Richard Clarke had perjured himself either during his testimony before the 9/11 Commission last week or during his testimony before the Joint Congressional Intelligence Committee hearing in July 2002, because, according to Senator Frist, he appears to have told two different stories. However, despite some pretty harsh words for Mr. Clarke, the Senate majority leader could not point to one specific example, but called for all of Clarke's testimony before the House Senate intelligence panel 2 years ago. Now, this past Sunday, Clarke said he would support the declassification of his testimony before the joint intelligence panels if the administration also declassifies the National Security Adviser's testimony before the 9/11 Commission and the declassification of the January 25, 2001, memo that Clarke sent to Rice laying out a terrorism strategy, a strategy that was not approved until months later. Madam Speaker, House Democrats really want a full accounting of the events leading up to the September 11 attacks, including the extent to which a preoccupation with Iraq affected efforts to deal with the threat posed by al Qaeda. It is nice to see the White House has finally stopped stonewalling the commission and now says that it will provide the public testimony the commission is requesting. But Americans need to be able to fully evaluate the decisions of government leaders, especially when it comes to the life and death decisions of war and peace. Madam Speaker, there are others that I would like to yield my time to tonight; but I just wanted to say before we go on that I have been to the floor many times over the last few months talking about the Republican abuse of power and the Bush administration's abuse of power. Yesterday, there was an op-ed column in the New York Times by Paul Krugman that was entitled, ``This Isn't America.'' And it kind of sums up my concern about the abuse of power. I mention it tonight in the context of Richard Clarke and the 9/11 Commission and the National Security Adviser, but Krugman pretty much sums up how this abuse of power is rampant with the Bush administration and the Republicans in Washington. And I am not going to read the whole thing, but I just wanted to read a couple of parts of it, where Krugman says, ``Last week an opinion piece in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz about the killing of Sheik Ahmed Yassin, said, `This isn't America; the government did not invent intelligence material nor exaggerate the description of the threat to justify their attack.' So even in Israel, George Bush's America has become a byword for deception and abuse of power. And the administration's reaction to Richard Clarke's `Against All Enemies' provides more evidence that something is rotten in the State of our government.'' Krugman goes on to say that not only in the case of Richard Clarke, but in many other cases there is abuse of power by the administration and the congressional Republicans: ``A few examples: according to the Hill, Republican lawmakers threatened to cut off funds for the General Accounting Office unless it dropped its lawsuit against Dick Cheney. The Washington Post says Representative Michael Oxley told lobbyists that `a congressional probe might ease if it replaced its Democratic lobbyist with a Republican.' Tom DeLay used the Homeland Security Department to track down Democrats trying to prevent redistricting in Texas. And Medicare is spending millions of dollars on misleading ads for the new drug benefit, ads that look like news reports and also serve as commercials for the Bush campaign.'' Krugman ends and he says, and I quote, ``Where will it end? In his new book, `Worse Than Watergate,' John Dean of Watergate fame, says `I've been watching all the elements fall into place for two possible political catastrophes; one that will take the air out of the Bush- Cheney balloon, and the other far more disconcerting that will take the air out of democracy.'' The reason that many Democrats, including myself, come down here on a regular basis now to talk about the Republican abuse of power is exactly for the reason that John Dean quotes in his book, and that is we are very concerned about the future of democracy and where we are going with these kinds of abuses of power by the Bush administration and the Republican majority. I see my colleague from California is here, and I probably took up too much, and so I want to yield to her.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I just want to thank the gentleman from Maryland for his statement. I know he is also the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus. And, again, I think it is important, whether it is foreign policy or domestic policy, that we point out that we are not getting accurate information from the White House and it makes it very difficult for us to proceed in making policy decisions if we cannot rely on accurate information from the White House. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. PALLONE. I just want to thank the gentlewoman for her comments. I know I have to yield to my other colleague from Maryland, but I just wanted to point out that again, going back to what I said before, and I was referencing this New York Times article about the future of democracy, in order for us to make fair and accurate decisions in the way we vote on the floor, whether it is to go to war in Iraq or it is to provide funding for various programs, we need to have accurate information. I think what the gentlewoman is pointing out is that, whether it is foreign policy or domestic policy, with the kind of deception that we are getting, we cannot rely on the information that is being provided by the administration because many times it is distorted or it is not accurate. That is, I think, the real problem here. I voted against the war but many of our colleagues, both Democrats and Republican, voted for it because they relied on representations that were being made by the White House that there were weapons of mass destruction, that there was an imminent threat, so many of the things that she pointed out. So, ultimately, they made the wrong decision, many of whom now regret that decision, because they did not get accurate information. They relied on the White House to make a decision that was the wrong decision. The whole point is that we cannot make the right decisions, we cannot figure out what to do here if we continue to get this inaccurate information from the White House. What ultimately is going to happen is we are not going to believe anything we get. We are just going to have to come find some other source and assume that whatever comes from the White House is not accurate and cannot be relied on. I think the gentlewoman pointed that out so many times.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, gasoline prices have hit an all-time high. The national average for gasoline is now $1.77 per gallon, up 25 cents from the beginning of the year; and President Bush is doing nothing to alleviate the strain that this is taking on the American people, on American businesses and on the American economy. Mr. Speaker, high gas prices impact all of us, consumers and businesses alike. High fuel costs translate into a loss in profits margins for the manufacturing and transportation sectors that force prices for products and services higher, hitting American consumers twice. Not only do Americans need to dole out more cash to fill their gas tanks with the little disposable income they have left, they are forced to pay higher prices for goods and services. For instance, Continental Airlines sought to impose a fuel surcharge for their services. And the real impact of all this is a slowdown in the economy with the potential for even more job loss. In fact, an estimate by Merrill Lynch shows that every penny increase in gasoline prices at the pump is equal to $1 billion in lost consumer spending. That is nearly $25 billion in lost spending since the beginning of the year. Furthermore, Merrill Lynch estimates that while Federal tax refunds would total $55 billion from February to May this year, a 30 percent increase from last year, and theoretically give the economy a nudge, higher pump prices will wipe out as much as half of the positive economic impact that these Federal refunds might have had. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out, too, that this is happening on the watch of an administration that said they would make energy policy a priority in the United States. Yet more than 3 years after President Bush first stepped in the White House, we have no national energy policy, and we have no national energy policy because the bill that the White House presented to Congress was filled with an extraordinary collection of energy industry giveaways, crafted by the members of Vice President Cheney's secret energy task force, instead of meaningful policies that would increase fuel efficiency and the use of renewable and alternative energy sources. Mr. Speaker, there are two things that President Bush must do immediately. First, he must hold off placing more oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve until prices come down. The SPR, or the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, is a power tool that the President can and should use in times of need, and right now consumers need relief. If President Bush reduced the amount of oil placed in the petroleum reserve, we would have more on the market driving prices down for Americans now. The SPR can then be replenished when oil prices are lower. Second, Mr. Speaker, President Bush needs to get on the phone with OPEC and demand increased oil production. Recent news indicates that OPEC has hinted at plans to lower production by 1 million barrels per day after April 1; and the administration's response to this from Secretary Abraham is that the U.S., and I quote, ``will not beg OPEC for oil.'' That is a different tune than the one that candidate Bush sang during the 2000 election. Four years ago on the campaign trail, President Bush, in a swipe at President Clinton, said, ``What I think the President ought to do is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say, we expect you to open your spigots and the President of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price.'' Mr. President, put your action where your mouth is and insist that OPEC increase production now to alleviate the strain these high gasoline prices are having on the American people and the American economy. Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to lose more jobs because of the President's inability to address this problem. He needs to address it now, and I think we should continue to take issue with it and bring it up on the floor until he does.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise on the House floor this evening to discuss Pakistan's recent designation as a major non-NATO ally. Last week, Secretary of State Colin Powell visited India and Pakistan to support the efforts that have been made by both nations to seek peace. For the first time in decades, relations between India and Pakistan were easing; and as a result, confidence-building measures were being established, such as transportation across the border and cricket games between the two countries. Although both countries are on a slow, yet steady, path for improved economic defense and political relations, unfortunately that balance has been damaged, in my opinion, by the Bush administration's favorable treatment of Pakistan in naming it a major non-NATO ally. Mr. Speaker, although we have advocated for the U.S. to view India and Pakistan as two separate, distinct nations, at the same time we have advocated for fair treatment based on record of democracy, commitment to ending terrorism, and a variety of values important to the United States. India is a strong, vibrant democracy of over 50 years, and Pakistan is a rogue nation under military rule. India's nuclear program is civilian controlled, and Pakistan's nuclear program was sold to nations such as Libya, Iran, and North Korea to assist illegal, covert nuclear weapons programs. India is protecting its citizens from terrorism in Kashmir, and Pakistan has sponsored terrorist activity in its own backyard. It seems clear that the U.S. and India are natural allies based on our shared values. The reason why the U.S. and Pakistan are now allies is a result of the shared effort to end global terrorism. However, based on all the reasons I just stated above, I am taken aback by the new designation that the U.S. has bestowed upon Pakistan as a major non-NATO ally. Not only was I surprised, but India as a nation was surprised as well. Secretary Powell had just met with India's leaders, but he did not mention the new status of Pakistan that was soon to be announced. Naming Pakistan a major non-NATO ally is completely inconsistent with U.S. policies. Pakistan is not a democratic nation. Pakistan supports terrorism in Kashmir, and Pakistan has engaged in nuclear activity for which it has recently pardoned a key scientist who aided covert nuclear programs to rogue nations. The result of this new designation, I think, has the potential to be devastating. Not only was India surprised and disappointed, but further, Pakistan's new role will lead to severe implications in the South Asia region. It is unclear what the title ``major non-NATO ally'' means and what it means in legal terms, but the most immediate concern is that a rapid and large-scale supply of American military equipment could flow from the United States to Pakistan, including the possibility of F-16s. In accordance with the Pressler amendment of 1990, Pakistan was not afforded major military supplies until post-9/11, in which case specific counterterrorism supplies had been provided. But this is very concerning because U.S. military supplies given to Pakistan for use against Russia and China have been historically used against India. Given the current climate of the conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, any additional weapons provided to Pakistan will likely be used to escalate this conflict between the two nations and has the potential to build up a full-scale arms war. In addition, this new designation has the impetus for breaking down negotiations in peace talks between the two nations that have just gotten underway. Pakistan's newly established access to U.S. military supplies could serve as an impediment to any further Indo-Pakistani talks. Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why the U.S. has afforded Pakistan this major non-NATO ally status. Pakistan has a history of abusing military and nuclear equipment, and yet we are allowing them to have access to depleted uranium ammunition, special privilege in bidding for certain U.S. Government contracts, radar systems, attack helicopters, and airborne early warning systems. In exchange for Pakistan's assistance to the U.S. in the war against terrorism, the U.S. has already allocated $3 billion worth of assistance, half of which is directed toward Pakistan to buy military equipment from the United States. The Bush administration must reevaluate their policies towards Pakistan. The new designation of major non-NATO ally is unfair, inappropriate and, most importantly, in my opinion, dangerous given the volatile nature of the South Asia region.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, last week the Helsinki Commission, also known as the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, held a hearing on the issue of policing in Northern Ireland. I want to commend the commission for holding this hearing on this timely issue and to add my voice to a growing list of influential individuals who have called on the British Government to reform the police service of Northern Ireland. Madam Speaker, 6 years ago this month, the people of Northern Ireland, Great Britain, and the Republic of Ireland entered into a peace agreement, commonly referred to as the Good Friday Agreement. This legendary accord set out a framework that would allow Northern Ireland to govern itself and provide for a rule of law that was responsible to all people in the north of Ireland. Unfortunately, 6 years later, much of the agreement has either been stalled, derailed, or simply never implemented. Most notably, the one issue that the British Government has refused to address after the signing of the Good Friday Agreement is that of police reform. For a true and lasting peace to exist in Northern Ireland, reforming the police service is a must. Madam Speaker, the Good Friday Agreement gave the people of Northern Ireland great hope that they would see a change in the way policing is handled. Soon after the agreement was signed, the British Government commissioned Christopher Patten to review the police service in Northern Ireland. The Patten Commission spent months researching past abuses by the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Eventually they recommended several reforms to policing in Northern Ireland, including the end of the ``Special Branch'' of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and also to begin a program that would recruit ethnic and religious minorities into the police service and create a process of civil review. While the Patten Commission recommendations did not address all of the policing issues in Northern Ireland, they were a good starting point. Unfortunately, to date, Great Britain has not instituted any of these reforms. Policing in Northern Ireland is not only an issue of fairness but also of basic human rights. Following the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, the British Government dissolved the Royal Ulster Constabulary and replaced it officially with the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, this new police service is the same old, same old, with a new fancy name. What we really find when we look below the surface of its new name is that the Police Service of Northern Ireland is no more representative or fair than the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The Police Service of Northern Ireland remains unrepresented of the communities it polices. There are presently over 9,000 members. However, as of October, 2003, only 11.6 percent are Catholic while nearly one-half of all residents of Northern Ireland call themselves Catholic. And the Police Service has also refused to stop using plastic bullets. Patten recommended research into alternatives to these inhumane policing tools and the rapid withdrawal of their use, and the British Government also gave a commitment to replace plastic bullets by the end of 2003. But today plastic bullets continue to be used by the police service. The people of Northern Ireland do not feel safe and rarely rely on their public police services. Citizens are not calling the Police Service of Northern Ireland when they need assistance. They are afraid that the police will violate their rights rather than protect them in their time of need. Madam Speaker, I call on Prime Ministers Blair and Ahern to fully implement the Good Friday Agreement and immediately institute the Patten Commission's recommendations. For a lasting peace to survive in Northern Ireland, the Good Friday Agreement must be given the chance to fully succeed. Unfortunately, the peace process cannot move forward. A small faction of individuals in Northern Ireland, many who are adamantly opposed to the accords, are holding the future of the peace agreement hostage. They have been successful in influencing the British Government to put the agreement and the power-sharing government on hold and therefore putting the Good Friday Agreement and the fragile peace in a very dangerous position. Most recently these opponents have convinced Britain not to seek the new Belfast Assembly, even though elections were held 4 months ago. These elections, which saw record turnouts, were finally held this past November. However, to date, Prime Minister Blair has refused to reinstitute the Belfast Assembly. Madam Speaker, as one can easily observe, the peace in Northern Ireland is hanging by a thread. Prime Minister Blair and Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern must bring all sides back to the table and reinstitute the Belfast Assembly. Peace in Northern Ireland is finally within our grasp. The parties involved, which all signed those historic accords some 6 years ago, must now just live up to the agreement and allow the people of Northern Ireland to govern themselves freely and fairly.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the special order time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. PALLONE

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. 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. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this evening basically to ask one question, and that is, where is Vice President Cheney these days? Every once in a while he pops up at a reelection fund-raiser. In fact, he was just up in my home State of New Jersey on Monday. And last week he appeared at the Ronald Reagan Library in California, which is always a tough place for Republicans. Cheneys went there to attack Senator Kerry's record on defense and national security issues. Finally, this Monday, presumably on his way to New Jersey for his fundraiser, the Vice President made time to go on Rush Limbaugh's show to attack his administration's former top counterterrorism official. Rush Limbaugh allowed the Vice President to get out his main message that Richard Clarke, the Bush administration's top counterterrorism expert, ``Wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff.'' Mr. Vice President, I think that says a lot. When your top counterterrorism expert supposedly is not in the loop on what your administration is doing, how can you honestly say that you are giving terrorism the kind of attention that it warrants? So, over the last week the Vice President has hung out with some Republican donors in New Jersey, Republican loyalists at the Ronald Reagan Library, and Republican talk show host Rush Limbaugh. But for the better part of last year, the Vice President has been keeping a low profile. Why is he so afraid to step out of his Republican comfort zone? I would suggest that the reason is that the Vice President does not want to have to answer more questions about his continued relationship with Halliburton. I have mentioned the Halliburton issue many times on this floor, along with a lot of my democratic colleagues. Back in the year 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney said these words: ``Halliburton is a fine company, and I am pleased that I was associated with the company.'' But, you know, Mr. Speaker, the facts show otherwise. Halliburton, a fine company? Well, let me give you some facts, Mr. Speaker. First, Halliburton has acknowledged that it accepted up to $6 million in kickbacks for its contract work in Iraq. Another fact: Halliburton is now being investigated by the Pentagon for overcharging the American government for its work in Iraq. A third fact: Halliburton faces criminal charges in a $180 million international bribery scandal during the time Cheney was CEO of the company. A fourth fact: Halliburton has been repeatedly warned by the Pentagon that the food it was serving 110,000 U.S. troops in Iraq was dirty, and the Pentagon audit found blood all over the floor of the kitchens Halliburton supplied over in Iraq. A fifth fact: Halliburton is getting around an American law that forbids doing business with rogue nations. Thanks to a giant loophole, Halliburton is able to do business in Iran, of all nations, through a subsidiary in the Cayman Islands. Mr. Speaker, how can the Vice President characterize Halliburton as a fine company? Things are getting so bad with the company in Iraq that the Army is now considering other companies to compete against Halliburton for more than $4 billion worth of additional contracts. But the Vice President continues to condone the actions of his former company. From a purely financial perspective, it probably makes sense for Vice President Cheney to lay low. After all, it is also financially beneficial for the Vice President to continue to praise Halliburton and duck questions about his continued connection with the company. The Vice President tried to squash such a story when he appeared on Meet the Press last year. Vice President Cheney stated then, ``And since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's Vice President, I have severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interests. I have no financial interests in Halliburton of any kind, and haven't had now for over 3 years.'' But, Mr. Speaker, despite the Vice President's claims, the Congressional Research Service issued a report several weeks later concluding that because Cheney receives a deferred salary and continues to hold stock interests, he still has a financial interest in Halliburton. In fact, if the company were to go under, the Vice President could lose the deferred salary, a salary he is expected to continue to receive this year and next year. Now, while the loss of more than $200,000 over 1 year would not put a big dent in the Vice President's wallet, he clearly still has a stake in the success of Halliburton. Vice President Cheney also neglects to mention that he continues to hold more than 433,000 stock options with Halliburton. The Congressional Research Service report that states that these stock ties ``represented a continued financial interest in those employers which makes them potential conflicts of interest.'' Again, this was not the first time that Vice President Cheney has misrepresented his role in Halliburton. Earlier this year, the Vice President stated in reference to government manipulation by Halliburton during his tenure, ``I wouldn't know how to manipulate the process if I wanted to.'' What the Vice President neglects to say is that Halliburton cashed in after Cheney took over. Under Cheney's leadership, Halliburton doubled the value of its government contracts. According to a report by the Washington-based Center for Public Integrity, the company took in revenue of $2.3 billion on government contracts, which was up $1.2 billion from the 5-year period before the Vice President arrived. Now, I am not saying it is not possible that Halliburton is the right company to do this work, but then how does the Bush administration and the Republican Congress explain why there is so much secrecy surrounding the whole deal? Could it be that the Republican Congress and the Bush administration are concerned that the more light that is shed on Halliburton's use of taxpayer money, the more examples of waste and mismanagement are likely to be exposed? Under the circumstances, it is no wonder that the Vice President continues to hide. I want to talk this evening a little bit about the Vice President's Energy Task Force and the relationship with the Supreme Court Justice Scalia and the case that is now before the Supreme Court relative to the Energy Task Force. Vice President Cheney might also be staying out of the limelight these days because he does not want to answer tough questions about how he continues to abuse his power as Vice President by refusing to release documents that could significantly impact our Nation's future energy policy. For 3 years now, the Vice President has done everything he can to keep the 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. Thanks to the Sierra Club and the conservative group called Judicial Watch who sued Vice President Cheney seeking an accounting of energy industry participation in crafting the Bush administration's destructive energy policy, a district court ordered the Bush administration to provide information about participation from these industries, which the Bush administration refused to do. The administration's reason was they claimed constitutional immunity from such inquiries. The district court rejected that contention, pointing out that the Bush administration was attempting, and I quote from the case, ``to cloak what is tantamount to an aggrandizement of executive power with a legitimacy of precedent where none exists.'' Refusing to give in to the Federal court's decision, Vice President Cheney then appealed the decision, asking the D.C. district court to make a new law that would effectively shield the Bush administration from any scrutiny. Now, imagine the arrogance, and I really think it is arrogance. The Bush administration actually went to a court and asked the court to shield President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and the rest of the administration from any scrutiny. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, the court denied the request. But now, Vice President Cheney has appealed the decision of the court to the U.S. Supreme Court, and on December 15, the Supreme Court agreed to take the case and will hear arguments next month in April. Three weeks later, Justice Scalia and one of his children accompanied Vice President Cheney on an Air Force 2 flight from Washington, D.C. to Morgan City, Louisiana. There, according to news reports, Justice Scalia and the Vice President were guests of Wallace Carline, president of an energy services company, on a duck hunting vacation. Neither the Vice President nor Justice Scalia made this duck hunting vacation public. Had it not been for the investigative work of the L.A. Times, we might still not know that these two spent several days together hunting duck in Louisiana. Now, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that this vacation serves as a conflict of interest and, because of that, Justice Scalia should recuse himself from hearing Cheney's case involving the Energy Task Force. The Sierra Club asked Justice Scalia to do just that. But last week, Justice Scalia refused to recuse himself and attempted to defend his decision not to recuse himself in a 21-page memo that was released to the public. In that memo, Scalia describes how he enjoyed going hunting every year with his friend, Wallace Carline. And Scalia writes that ``during my December 2002 visit, I learned that Mr. Carline was an admirer of Vice President Cheney. Knowing that the Vice President with whom I am well acquainted is an enthusiastic duck hunter, I asked whether Mr. Carline would like to invite him to our next year's hunt.'' Scalia continued in this memo, and I quote, Mr. Speaker, ``The answer was yes. I conveyed the invitation with my own warm recommendation in the spring of 2003 and received an acceptance subject, of course, to any superseding demands on the Vice President's time. The Vice President said that if he did go, I would be welcome to fly down to Louisiana with him.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, just think about that explanation by Justice Scalia for a minute or so. Think about the apparent relationship these two men have, a relationship between two men who have worked in Washington for so many years and even worked in the Ford administration together, but now try and look at it the way that E.J. Dionne did in his Washington Post column yesterday. He did an op-ed in The Washington Post yesterday commenting on the relationship between Scalia and Cheney and this duck hunt vacation, and that is what E.J. Dionne says in The Washington Post column yesterday: ``Imagine you were in a bitter court fight with a former business partner. Would you want the judge in your case to be someone who went duck hunting with your opponent and flew to the hunt on your opponent's plane?'' Dionne continues, ``And now consider that you as a citizen have a right to know with whom Cheney consulted in writing an energy bill that was overwhelmingly tilted towards the interests of an industry in which the Vice President was once a central player. Scalia admits that the recusal might be in order where the personal fortune or the personal freedom of the friend is at issue but,'' Dionne writes, ``you shouldn't worry. What's at stake here are only Cheney's political fortunes, the interests of the industry that Cheney once worked for, and the public's right to know. No big deal.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, it is a big deal. Vice President Cheney should have realized the conflict of interest and declined to join the Supreme Court Justice once he knew that the Supreme Court would be hearing the case, I should say should have declined to join the Supreme Court as a Justice in hearing this case because of the conflict of interest. But, again, I go back, Mr. Speaker, to what I said in the beginning. What is it that the Vice President is trying to hide? I do not know that it would be embarrassing for Mr. Cheney or to the Bush administration to have to admit that every member of the task force was an oil or gas executive. I mean, that is not going to be anything new. If that was what they were trying to hide, who would be surprised? I think it has to be something else. What is it that is so damaging in these documents? Now, could it be that somewhere within these documents there is proof that the Bush administration was looking at taking out Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in order to take control of that nation's oil reserves? Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill stated in his book that Vice President Cheney strongly suggested U.S. intervention in Iraq well before the terrorist attacks of September 11. Earlier this week, President Bush's former top antiterrorism advisor, again, that is Richard Clarke, also talked about how almost from day one the Bush administration was consumed with taking out Saddam Hussein. It began back in 2001, months after the new administration came to power. Richard Clarke says that he had been trying to schedule a cabinet-level priority meeting on terrorism. His first opportunity was a meeting with Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and Clarke said that he started the meeting by saying that we needed to deal with bin Laden. Wolfowitz's response was, ``No, no, no, we do not have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'' Now, Clarke then responded to Wolfowitz by saying, ``Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in 8 years.'' Clarke turned to the Deputy Director of the CIA who agreed with his assessment with regard to Iraq. The amazing thing, though, Mr. Speaker, is that this conversation took place 3 months after Bush and Cheney took over control of the White House. Clarke's assessment, of course, seems to support that of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, and Clarke goes on to detail conversations with both President Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld after 9-11 when both wanted to go after Iraq and Saddam Hussein. 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. 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. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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. 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. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. And at taxpayers' expense.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I agree. And it is important for us to continue to point this out because again we had a situation where this bill, which was a bad bill with prescription drugs, would not have passed if the truth had come out. That is abundantly clear. In fact, I cannot ever remember any legislation, and I have been here 16 years, where we have a vote on a piece of legislation and there is an absolute majority against it and we wait for 3 hours to try to change the vote. It is different maybe if the board is opened and there are some people who have not decided, but there was a majority against this bill, and now we understand all the things that were going on to try to basically make people change their minds about this. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out, and I know what the gentleman is talking about, that the war and the loss of lives is certainly more important, but we have the same thing here with Richard Foster that we talked about earlier where he was basically told that if he revealed the correct information about the cost of the Medicare bill, he would be fired. And the irony of it is now there is a statement which he made recently where he says that ``I'm perhaps no longer in grave danger of being fired but there remains a strong likelihood that I will have to resign in protest of the withholding of important technical information from key policymakers for political reasons.'' So this poor guy who now basically came clean and explained what happened, I do not know what his career is going to be like as well, and it is just really tragic that this administration puts honest people that want to be honest with the public in danger of being fired or ultimately losing their jobs because they are just trying to be honest and tell us the truth. And we are just seeing a pattern of this continue with this administration in so many cases. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) used the word before when he talked about abuse of power. That is essentially what we have here. It is false information and the willingness of this administration to essentially say whatever is necessary, the means justifies the ends, in order for them to justify their ideology.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman pointed out to me, it is only 8 p.m. in Seattle. The other thing that I wanted to point out, we have talked about the misrepresentation and the schemes, if you will, that were being played the night when this was voted. And, of course, the numbers being wrong was certainly one of them. But one of the things was that after the vote occurred at 3 a.m. and the board was left open, and there was a majority against the bill, and we went on for 3 hours when the President and Republican majority tried to change Republican votes, one of the people whose vote they tried to change was the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith). And we heard very credible accounts from the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) and others about the chicanery that was going on, statements being made to him about since he was retiring, his son would never get to succeed him in Congress if he did not switch his vote because the money would not be there by the Republican Party to finance his campaign. I just wanted to mention today it was announced that the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is going to investigate these allegations that were made in that regard. Until today, they had refused to take up the issue. However, they did announce today that they were going to take up the issue. I do not know what the outcome is going to be. If we think about the way that they got Members to change votes that night and the misinformation provided about how much it was going to cost and now all of these ads being paid for by the taxpayers to convince people this is a good bill, it is just a barrage of misinformation.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments; and before I yield to the gentleman from Washington, I just wanted to say when I was listening to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and his statement about Republican abuse of power, that is essentially what this is. This is an abuse of power by the President and by the Republicans in the Congress. And when I listened to my colleague from Maine and he talked about how the Medicare administrator, Tom Scully, had basically threatened Richard Foster that if he told the truth about the numbers that he would be fired, what the gentleman did not mention and I will add, is, of course, what happened to Tom Scully. Tom Scully during all this, while this Medicare legislation was moving in committee and moving in the House, was negotiating to get a job, which he ultimately got, with the law firm that represents the pharmaceutical industry. He actually got a waiver from the President that allowed him to negotiate for the job. Normally, the agency rules that he worked for say that you cannot go out and seek a job and try to find yourself a job while you are still in the agency working on this legislation. So the abuse is just unbelievable, and the fact that he got the waiver and everything.

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Maine.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what you said, and I just wanted to go briefly, and then I would like to yield to the gentleman from Maine, back to this story with Richard Foster who was the actuary who was basically told, do not reveal the true cost of this Medicare bill, because I think we have to mention that on the night when this bill was passed, and you will all remember, we were here in the House Chamber. It was about 3 o'clock when the votes were first posted and the bill was defeated. The majority had voted ``no'' on the bill because they knew that it was basically worthless. And there is no question in my mind that if the Republicans who were wavering that night, and their arms had to be twisted and there were all kinds of things being done by the President and the administration to try to get people to change their votes, that if they had known what Foster knew and was told not to tell us, that the actual cost of this was not $400 billion over 10 years, which was what was in the budget, but $600 billion, essentially 50 percent more, there was no way that bill would have passed. So this is a fraudulent effort to deny the true cost of the bill to the Congress to get those votes for the bill, and even with all that, it was almost impossible. If they had not twisted arms and basically bribed a couple of people that night, they still would not have gotten the votes. That is why the Richard Foster story is so important. That is why I think he has to be commended for coming forward and telling the truth, even at this late date.