I am writing to express my concern that if President Bush decides to deploy U.S. military forces against Iraq, the service men and women who are sent into battle may not be adequately protected against chemical and biological attacks.

During a press briefing on October 17, 2002, you discussed several issues that you believe should be considered before U.S. military force is deployed. In the context of sending U.S. Armed Forces to Iraq, you said: "If an engagement is worth doing, then we need to recognize that ultimately lives could be put at risk." You also made this comment:

When there's a risk of casualties, that risk should be asknowledged at the outset, rather
than allowing the American people or others to think that an engagement can be executed.
antineptically.

I agree. I believe the American people have a right to know the true risks of any military engagement the President decides to undertake. I am concerned, however, that Pentagon officials may be downplaying the actual risice to our service man and woman, particularly with respect to the preparedness of our forces for chemical and biological attacks. On September 18, 2002, for example, General Myers, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Armed Services Committee. He was asked whether forces that would be deployed against kaq are prepared to handle potential chemical and biological attacks by Iraqi forces. In response, ha made this assection: "Obviously our foress prepare for that, they train for that, and they would be ready to deal with that type of environment.”

On October 8, 2002, however, the House Democratic Cancas received a briefing by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) and was provided with testimony from the Defense Department Inspector Gentral (IC) regarding this issue. The ameus was presented with information about various pieces of equipment, including 250,000 protective suits that are known to be deffective and that was delivered to commanders in the field, but that can no longer be located or recalled by the Department because of flawed inventory controls. The ommons also

The Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld
November 27, 2002

Page 2

received information regarding existing shortages in other equipment, as well as questionable levels of training to prepare units for possible chemical and biological attacks. Although this unclassified information was extremely troubling, the classified information provided by GAO and the IG was even more disturbing, especially in light of the Defense Department's previous expressions of confidence on this issue.

As you know, during the Gulf War, we gained a great deal of intelligence about Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological capabilities. Fis resources, combined with his demonstrated penchant for using them, formed the basis for Security Council resolutions that have governed Iraq ever since. Indeed, the threat of Saddam Hussein's chatrical and biological arsmals has been cited as one of the primary and most urgent reasons for making military action against kaq.

Our experience during the Gulf War, however, niso caposed our own military's limitations in facing finis type of threat. Our service members did not have enough protective gear, such as suits and masks. They had inadequate equipment to detect the release of deadly agents, And as thousands of veterans who contiene to experience the full range of Gulf War Illnesses can attest, our service members were ill-prepared for the medical regimens they were rushed to implement. During the Gulf War, we were fortunate that Iraq did not use its chemical or biological arsenals because our forces were not ready.

According to GAO and the 13, the military's progress since the Gulf War in preparing our troops for these threats has not occursed as rapidly as necessary. For this reason, and because this issue is critical to hundreds of thousands of service members, their families, and the American public, I ask that prior to the deployment of U.S. forces, you personally make the following certification to Congress:

Į, Donald Rumsfold, Secretary of Defense, certify that all United States Armed Forces that could be deployed, or are intended to be deployed, against Iraq pursuant to the exercise of authority specified in ELJ. Res. 114 have been provided with equipment to protect against chemical and biological attacks in quantities sufficient to meet minimmort required levels previously established by the Department of Defense.

As you can aeo, this certification addresses only equiparamat. It does not deal with training deficiencies or medical concerns that conceivably are equally important. In addition, I recognize the obvious concern with revealing to our adversacios potential valasenbilities with sponific units or commands, so this certification does not require you to reveal any classified information with respect to specific vulnerabilities of specific units. If our forces are in fact "ready to deal with that type of environment,” as Chairman Myers asserted, you should have no diffinity certifying that our troops possess mínimum established levels of protective equipment.

The Honorable Donald H. Runafuld
November 27, 2002

Pago 3

If you cannot in good conscience make this certification, however, I believe the American people are entitled to know this information, as you explained during the press briefing in October.

I respectfully request that you provide a response to this request by December 15, 2002, and I appreciate your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

Jan Asheborahy

Van Schakowsky
Member of Congress

I appreciate your interest and concern for military persammel serving in the Armed Forces and the policies regarding their chemical and biological (CB) protection. U.S. forces are trained, mady, and will deploy with the best available equipanent. The safety of our Armed Forces remains a top priority for the Department of Defense.

We have made tremendous strides in recent years in training our Armed Forces and providing them with modern equipment, modern infrastructure, and adequate spare parts. Our deploying military units will be trained and equipped to meet the operational challenges of today and the future.

Since Operation DESERT STORM, the Department of Defense has fielded new and improved CB defense detection equipment and individual protective equipment. Every Service member to support near-term operations in Southwest Asia will carry at least two of the newer Joint Service Lightweight Integrated Suit Technology (JSLIST) suits and will have an additional two suits in contingency stocks. The contingency suits will be the Battle Dress Overgarments (BDOs) until replaced by JSLIST suits.

The Department of Defense increased its procurement of JSLIST suits from 79,000 per month to over 90,000 saits per month in December and is taking steps to surge the production even higher over the upcoming months.

Your concern for the safety of the Nation's military members is deeply appreciated.

Sincerely,

B. C. Aldridge, Jr.

Mr. KUCINICH. If the Secretary of Defense won't certify that the troops are prepared, I'm at a loss as to how anyone in the administration can do so. Perhaps it depends on what their definition of "prepared" is. In this case, it does not appear to mean meeting the minimum required levels of critical equipment or training. This certainly does not bode well for the larger question of medical surveillance.

We must also examine how we are treating veterans of the first Gulf war. We must honor those who have fought for this Nation by taking care of their health needs. However, as our Armed Forces are ordered to implement this new war, the administration is proposing sweeping new cuts to veterans' health. The administration's 2004 budget for VA would restrict access to care and increase cost. It would halt the enrollment of all new priority 8 veterans, denying them any access to VA care. According to data from the VA, this proposal will deny care to 173,000 veterans nationwide.

This administration would also charge all priority 7 and 8 veterans a new $250 annual enrollment fee as a new policy for VA, which has never charged an enrollment fee.

The administration would also increase copayments. VA estimates that 55 percent of all enrolled priority 7 and 8 veterans, over half will drop out of the VA system altogether. Overall the administration's proposals would force 1.25 million enrolled veterans, including 425 active patients, out of the VA health care system.

The administration's budget also fails to provide any additional service-connected disability benefits resulting from the present war with Iraq. As we know from the last conflict in the Gulf, war results in adverse health effects and claims for service-connected disability compensation. What message do we send to our troops in Iraq, knowing that many won't receive health benefits when they come home? Congress is to receive a $75 billion war supplemental request from the President. Why is there not a single dime for veterans' health benefits in that $75 billion? It's hard to believe that this war will not increase the cost to the veterans' health system, yet the administration is solely focused on war to the exclusion of its effect on our troops, our veterans or our economy.

Mr. Chairman, our men and women in uniform, both Active Duty and Retired, deserve more than empty assurances. They deserve the best protection we can provide, and frankly, we're not living up to that promise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank the gentleman.

At this time the Chair would recognize Mr. Murphy, if he has a comment to make.

Mr. MURPHY. Nothing yet. Thank you.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. I'll just go down.

Mr. Janklow.

Mr. Lewis.

Thank you.

Mrs. Maloney, we're kind of getting to you as you're walking in.