[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 154 (Wednesday, October 29, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H10122-H10128]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page H10122]]
                        WAR PROFITEERING IN IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Garrett). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) 
is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month Congress approved an $87 
billion supplemental for the war and reconstruction efforts in Iraq. 
While I believe it is critically important that we get our military 
troops all the resources they need to safely complete their mission in 
Iraq, I do not support rubber-stamping this legislation so the Bush 
administration gets a free ride from Congress.
  The Bush administration must account for its war strategy. The Bush 
administration must also answer the tough questions regarding 
questionable no-bid contracts, contracts that benefit Vice President 
Dick Cheney's former employer, an employer that continues to pay Cheney 
hundreds of thousands of dollars each year in deferred salary, 
contracts that are free of any oversight from Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, right now Halliburton holds a monopoly on Iraq. The 
company's no-bid contract was first negotiated in secret and originally 
intended for the sole purpose of extinguishing oil fires that could 
result from the war. Once again in secret last spring, that contract 
was extended with the Army to include the reconstruction and repair of 
Iraq's oil infrastructure. The administration did not allow other 
companies an opportunity to bid on this reconstruction.
  Now, today, Mr. Speaker, just today, Halliburton faces no competition 
and no oversight. And today also the Bush administration announced the 
contract would be extended longer than expected, blaming sabotage of 
oil facilities for delays in replacement contracts.
  Up to this point, Halliburton has been free to spend the American 
taxpayer's money at will and Congressional Republicans who, night-in-
and-night-out, come to this House floor to complain about waste in the 
Federal Government, have been silent. I think that is outrageous.
  In fact, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle try to 
compare our reconstruction efforts in Iraq to those efforts included in 
the Marshall Plan at the end of World War II. But what my Republican 
colleagues neglect to say is that President Franklin Roosevelt stood up 
against war profiteers when he said, ``I don't want to see a single war 
millionaire created in the United States as a result of this world 
disaster.''
  President Bush and House Republicans, who have never been shy about 
their efforts to help the wealthy expand their wealth, certainly do not 
share Franklin Roosevelt's sentiment.
  After World War II, Congress also refused to neglect its role in 
overseeing taxpayer money when the Senate unanimously created a special 
committee headed by then Senator Harry Truman to root out waste, 
corruption, inside trading and mismanagement in the Nation's defense 
industries. But, today, the Senate and the House, both controlled by 
Republicans, have turned a blind eye to possible waste and 
mismanagement. Congressional Republicans refuse to even question the 
Bush administration on the billions of dollars of taxpayer money now 
going to Halliburton, much less create a special committee to oversee 
these funds.
  I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what are my Republican colleagues afraid of? 
Why do they refuse to hold Halliburton accountable for the billions it 
now spends in Iraq? Could it be Congressional Republicans do not want 
to draw much attention to the fact that the company profiting from the 
reconstruction of Iraq, Halliburton, continues to pay Vice President 
Cheney hundreds of thousands of dollars each year?
  The Vice President tried to squash such a story when he appeared on 
Meet the Press on September 14. The Vice President stated, ``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 interest in Halliburton of any kind, and 
haven't had now for over 3 years.''
  Well, 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, next year and on into 2005. While losing around $200,000 a year 
would not put a big dent in the Vice President's wallet, he clearly 
still has a stake in the success of Halliburton.
  It is possible that Halliburton is the right company to do this work 
in Iraq, but how then 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 would be more examples of waste and 
mismanagement that would likely be exposed?

  Despite the fact that Halliburton now goes about its business in Iraq 
without any Federal oversight, my colleagues on the Democratic side, 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman), exposed the outrageous fact that Halliburton 
seems to be inflating gasoline prices at a great cost to American 
taxpayers.
  In a letter to OMB Director Joshua Bolton, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) 
wrote that the independent experts they consulted have been appalled to 
learn that the U.S. Government has paid Halliburton $1.62 to $1.70 to 
import gasoline into Iraq. According to these experts, the price that 
Halliburton is charging for gasoline is outrageously high, potentially 
a huge rip-off and a highway robbery. During the relative period, the 
average wholesale cost of gasoline in the Mideast was around 71 cents 
per gallon, meaning that Halliburton was charging 90 cents per gallon 
just to transport the fuel into Iraq. According to the experts, such an 
exorbitant transportation charge is inflated many times over. 
Compounding the cost to the taxpayers, this expensive gasoline is then 
sold to Iraqis at a price of just 4 to 15 cents per gallon; 4 to 15 
cents per gallon.
  Now, Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world, but the 
U.S. taxpayers are, in effect, subsidizing over 90 percent of the cost 
of gasoline sold in Iraq.
  In light of this new information, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) requested that 
OMB Director Bolton provide copies of all contracts, task orders, 
invoices and related documents issued to date regarding Halliburton's 
work in Iraq so Congress can conduct its own independent investigation 
of these issues on behalf of the U.S. taxpayer.
  This request from my Democratic colleagues seems reasonable. After 
all, if Halliburton is grossly overcharging the American taxpayer for 
the transportation of oil, what else might the company be overcharging 
the Federal Government for?
  Once again, my Republican colleagues are silent on the issue. Those 
waste-watchers that come down here periodically and talk about waste in 
the Federal Government, those Republicans who come down to the floor 
periodically to rail against waste, a government they currently 
control, I might add, you do not see them coming down to the floor to 
rail about Halliburton's gauging of the Federal purse. They are silent. 
You do not see any Republicans expressing the need for more 
Congressional oversight of the current contracts going to Halliburton 
and others.
  It appears to be another example of how the House Republicans have 
taken this House away from the people and handed it over to an elite 
few, the corporate executives and other special interests.
  Mr. Speaker, I could go on, but I see that many of my colleagues on 
the Democratic side have joined me here. So I would like to yield at 
this time to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone) for putting this special order together this evening so we can 
place on the record a number of our deepest concerns about the way in 
which contracting is being handled relative to

[[Page H10123]]

the war in Iraq, and particularly some of what appears to be war 
profiteering by some of the highest officials in our government and 
some of the private firms with which they have had association.
  I came down here this evening because as a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations, when funds were being debated for Iraq and Afghanistan, 
I was denied the opportunity, and I emphasize, denied the opportunity 
to even offer an amendment to require competitive bidding in any 
contract associated with this war effort. I could not believe that I 
was not even allowed to offer the amendment. I remember I was told, 
``Well, you know, Congresswoman, they are going to take care of that 
over on the Senate side,'' I mean, ``in the other body.''
  I said, ``Oh, are they?''
  Then I found out the way they are going to take care of it is only to 
allow a provision to be offered for reporting back. That means once the 
horse was out of the gate, maybe some contracts would be reported back, 
but there would be no competitive bidding. Then I learned this last 
month that only the contracts after March 1 might be reported back.
  I said, ``No, no, no, what about the contracts for Halliburton and 
Bechtel that preceded March 1? That is what is at issue in the current 
supplemental that is working its way through this Congress.''
  I thought, oh, that is very interesting.
  So I cannot get competitive bidding considered as a real amendment. 
Even in the reporting-back amendments it is everything that comes after 
March of this year, maybe, and we closed the door on what happened 
before March 31 of this year.
  So my question is, who is trying to hide what? Who is trying to hide 
what?
  So I come down here as a disgruntled Member tonight, because I should 
have been allowed the opportunity. We are not talking about tiddly-
winks here. We are talking about the largest supplemental in American 
history. $87 billion was just voted out of this House, and yet there 
were no requirements for competitive bidding, and the reporting-back 
requirements are flawed. We need to know who got how much money and we 
need to understand who is benefiting from the taxpayers' largess and 
who is profiteering.
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) has put on the record 
some very important information, and it has to do with the amount of 
money that Halliburton is being paid to move petroleum and gasoline 
from Kuwait to Iraq. Now, remember, Iraq has the second-largest oil 
reserves in the world, and it is estimated that it would normally cost 
70 to 98 cents for a gallon of gasoline to move from Kuwait to Iraq.
  Well, how come Halliburton is charging upwards of $1.78, anywhere 
from $1.48 to $1.78 a gallon, and the American people then are paying 
for that differential? How is that happening in all of this?
  There is an estimate that Halliburton is actually making from this 
anywhere between $300 million and $900 million, because about a third 
of the dollars they are getting relate to the transport of fuel from 
Kuwait to Iraq. So this is not something small. This is not a little 
asterisk or a little tiddly-wink or whatever. This is a huge amount of 
the additional funds that we were requested to spend as a Congress.
  The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reported that as of September 18, 
last month, the United States had paid Halliburton over $300 million to 
import approximately 190 million gallons of gasoline into Iraq, and 
that meant that on a per-gallon basis for that tranche of shipment of 
fuel, Halliburton charged the United States an average price of $1.59 a 
gallon to import gasoline into Iraq. And that did not include 
Halliburton's additional fee of 2 percent to 7 percent, which increases 
the cost to our taxpayers to $1.62 to $1.70 per gallon for fuel that 
should move at a rate in that region of anywhere between 73 cents, as I 
said, and 98 cents a gallon.
  Somebody is making an awful lot of money. Halliburton has received 
over $3 billion in task orders relating to the war and reconstruction 
in Iraq, and most of that is not competitively bid. When did we ever 
have contracts of that magnitude not competitively bid?
  I would just like to place on the record, if I might this evening, 
information on the amount of compensation that Vice President Cheney, 
who had been the chief executive officer of Halliburton, is receiving.
  Vice President Cheney made a statement on national television that he 
was not receiving any compensation, had no financial interest in 
Halliburton, and I would beg to say I think he has forgotten some 
pretty important facts, even that his own financial disclosure forms 
reveal. For example, a special report done for the Congressional 
Research Service indicates that he is in fact receiving deferred salary 
and holding 433,333 Halliburton stock options. I wish to place on the 
record tonight what he is receiving in deferred salary and what he is 
receiving in stock options and other benefits.
  Let me start with deferred salary. Deferred salary paid by 
Halliburton to Vice President Cheney in 2001 equalled $205,298. I think 
when you have that much money and you are getting your salary as Vice 
President, my question is, why do you not donate it? Why do you even 
take this money?
  In 2002, his deferred salary from Halliburton was $162,392. 
Halliburton is scheduled to make similar payments to him in 2003, 2004, 
and 2005, and he has an ongoing corporate relationship from company 
funds that are being paid.

                              {time}  2230

  In terms of stock options, his financial disclosure form stated he 
continued to hold these stock options, and they are in three 
categories. There are 100,000 shares valued at $54.50 a share, so for 
that tranche of shares, that value is $5,450,000. He then has 333,333 
shares, and I wonder how that number was picked, valued at $28.12, and 
then he has 300,000 shares. Imagine. I mean, I do not know how many 
people here own stock, but 300,000 shares valued at $39.50 is a huge 
amount of money. The total value of these shares right now is over 
$26,674,990.
  So to say that the Vice President has no interest in Halliburton's 
future, one would have to be a fool, or not be able to read, even to 
hold that position. He absolutely has a financial interest in this 
company. His family has a huge financial interest, and it is a gross 
interest. It is not some side issue. The Vice President's deferred 
compensation and stock option benefits are in addition to a $20 million 
retirement package paid to him by Halliburton after only 5 years of 
employment. I would like to know how many Americans listening tonight 
have a $20 million retirement package for only working 5 years.
  I think of how many of our people have lost their retirement 
packages. I have people in my district struggling to hold on to 
benefits and are paying more for health insurance from the retirement 
programs they had been promised. A third of the private sector plants 
in this country have gone belly up or have been cut. I can see why this 
Vice President cannot identify with the pain of unemployment or the 
pain of 45 million Americans without health insurance, or the pain of 
Americans who cannot afford prescription drugs. He is not even living 
in the same world. Halliburton paid him $1.4 million in cash bonus in 
2001, and that does not include the millions of dollars of compensation 
paid to him while he was employed by the company.
  So I wanted to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for 
putting this Special Order together tonight. What was interesting about 
the no-bid contracts that Halliburton received when we had Hurricane 
Isabel and that made the front pages all over the country, including 
here in Washington, the Bush-Cheney administration slipped in an 
additional $300 million in no-bid contracts to Halliburton, and it was 
placed, I do not know, on page 27 or 35; it was buried somewhere in the 
paper that weekend. But, literally, that brought the total amount of 
taxpayer dollars paid to Halliburton to over $2.25 billion, of which 
$1.25 billion, and this is not million, even million would be a lot, 
but this is $1.25 billion from the no-bid exclusive contract given to 
Halliburton.
  Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased tonight to be down here to help 
place this on the record as one Member who was denied the ability in 
her own committee and on this floor to offer a competitive bidding 
amendment for all contracts related to the war effort.

[[Page H10124]]

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman. I 
appreciate the detail that she went into there with respect to the Vice 
President's compensation and his interest in Halliburton. I was frankly 
not aware of the level or the magnitude of the stocks and the pension 
plan and all of the other details. It is incredible what it adds up to. 
I mean, if I had to add that all up, it comes to maybe $50 million, 
between the deferred compensation, the stocks and the retirement plan, 
over $50 million. It is outrageous to think that with that kind of 
compensation and interest, that the government where he is the Vice 
President would give out these no-bid contracts. I thank the 
gentlewoman.
  I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin).
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and good friend, the 
gentleman from New Jersey, and I appreciate the participation in this 
effort tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a good thing that our government is handing out 
no-bid contracts for minor purposes such as rebuilding the country of 
Iraq, because if the government was giving out no-bid contracts for 
important things like buying stationery at the county courthouse 
through a no-bid contract, somebody would be going to jail.
  Now, like many of us serving in the United States Congress today, I 
began my career as a local government official. I was a county judge in 
Texas in charge of the budget and the finances of the county. In 
Harrison County, Texas, if we needed a piece of equipment for the road 
and bridge department or fuel for the county, or if we needed any kind 
of equipment for the county; if we even needed a case of stationery, 
Mr. Speaker, do my colleagues know how we got that property for the 
government? We got it through a competitive bid process. That is the 
law.
  Now, in examining competitive bids in Texas, the law says to consider 
several factors, among them the vendor's price, the quality of goods 
and services, and past performance of contracts. Mr. Speaker, we 
considered those things in Texas because it was and is the law. But 
more than that, requiring bids is fiscally responsible and guarantees 
that we get the best deal for the taxpayer dollar. Additionally, it 
guarantees that we get the best service and the best quality product.
  Mr. Speaker, in all of my years in local government, I never had one 
constituent or one company complain about the bid process. It was the 
law, it was expected, it was proper, it was good business. It is good 
for government. It is good for the taxpayers, and it is good for 
American business. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I was shocked and my 
constituents who I have heard from have been appalled to learn that our 
Federal Government is awarding no-bid contracts. Now, this is no-bid 
contracts, not for stationery, no, not for stationery or a few thousand 
dollars, but no-bid contracts for billions of dollars to rebuild Iraq. 
No bid, no competition, no oversight, no nothing, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, the United States has the finest construction experts in 
the world. We have the best education, the best technology, the best 
expertise, the best equipment and workers that the world has ever seen. 
Products made in America are the finest quality products made anywhere. 
Our workers, our products can stand any test, can stand any bid. That 
is why we do not need no-bid contracts. We do not need these secret 
deals. We do not need smoky back-room politics for billions of dollars.
  Now, we do need transparency. According to the Associated Press 
today, the government issued a noncompetition, no-bid contract to 
Halliburton for $1.59 billion to help rebuild Iraq. Now, why was there 
no bid? Why these secret deals, Mr. Speaker? Why are there back-room 
politics for billions of dollars? Also today, the AP announced that the 
contract was extended at a cost of $400 million. Again, why no bid? Why 
secret deals? Why do we have these back-room politics?
  Mr. Speaker, Halliburton and its subsidiaries are some of the top 
construction companies in the world. They can clearly compete for these 
contracts on their own merits, on their own past. They do not need no-
bid contracts. They do not need back-room deals. They can do it on 
their own. And the same could be said of Bechtel, which has been 
granted a multibillion dollar monopoly franchise on infrastructure 
reconstruction contracts. Bechtel too is a top-rate company with top-
rate abilities and top-rate employees. They can make it on their own 
and they want to, and they have. So this is not really a criticism of 
Halliburton and Bechtel. No-bid contracts, Mr. Speaker, are really good 
work if you can get them. That is some good work. No, this is a 
criticism of an administration which makes billions of no-competition, 
no-bid contracts available. It is a criticism of an administration that 
has a personal financial interest in government contracts.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been reported extensively in the press that the 
Vice President currently receives compensation from Halliburton. The 
Vice President has said that not all of those reports are true, and he 
said that he has no financial interest in Halliburton. We have heard 
our colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), read into the 
Record information concerning compensation to the Vice President and, 
importantly, the amount of stock and options he owns.
  Now, there is an easy way to put this to rest. The Vice President 
should state unequivocally that he receives no compensation from 
Halliburton, no deferred compensation from Halliburton, he owns no 
stock, receives no dividends, owns no options, has absolutely no 
financial interest of any sort which would include both him and his 
family. That would put an end to this issue permanently. That would be 
the end of it. I think everyone in this House and everyone in the 
American public would agree that the administration and members of the 
administration should not have any personal interest whatsoever in 
government contracts, period. And we have to abide by those rules in 
the House.
  Next, we should establish a policy to bid out these contracts and 
award the bids to the best bidder, taking into account cost, quality, 
and past performance. I am sure Halliburton and Bechtel would get some 
of these contracts. I am sure they can. But that is the process we go 
through. In other words, let us take a business-like approach. I 
believe that is what Halliburton and Bechtel and the others really 
want. They want contracts. They do not want politics. They do not want 
criticism. That is our obligation to the American taxpayer. Because do 
we know who is paying these exorbitant prices for these no-bid 
contracts? It is you and me. It is the American taxpayer. Many of us in 
this body support making at least some of the rebuilding funds to Iraq 
as a loan to be repaid. Many of us believe that Iraq should at least 
use some of its own oil to rebuild its own country. But this 
administration says no. They say we have to give the money away, and, 
on top of that, waste it with no-bid contracts, the money that we are 
giving away.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, we all agree that the United States has a part to 
play in rebuilding Iraq, and that is a laudable goal. Of course, many 
of us also believe that we have a part to play in rebuilding America, 
and we should pay just as much attention to rebuilding American schools 
and American roads and American infrastructure; that is our first 
obligation. Let us get started on that today.
  But, Mr. Speaker, we can bet that the contracts in America will be 
done by bid. That is the proper way to do business, and everybody in 
this House on both sides of the aisle knows it. It is the proper way to 
do business. It saves money. It is good for us all. We should expect no 
less than that in Iraq, and we should expect no less than that of our 
current administration.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman. Again, I 
just think it is incredible to think that as the gentleman said on a 
local level or a county level, even down to the stationery that is 
purchased, you have to have competitive bidding. Yet, here at this 
level, with billions of dollars at stake, it is not happening. I think 
most Americans would probably be shocked to find out that that is true, 
but it is.
  I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New 
Jersey, my friend, and I appreciate hearing the comments from the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur), and I

[[Page H10125]]

thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for his night after 
night work on exposing the kinds of corruption that we have seen in 
this whole process.
  We all know about this corruption. We know that we are spending $1 
billion a week in Iraq. We know that $300 million, 30 percent of that 
$1 billion a week is going to private contractors, most of them friends 
of the President, most of them major contributors to the President. One 
of them, Halliburton, used to be the company where the Vice President 
was CEO and a company that still pays the Vice President $13,000 a 
month. We know all of that. We know about the corruption. We know about 
the waste. We know it continues. But what bothers me, what bothers me 
probably the most about that is what Halliburton and these private 
contractors are not doing.
  Last month, early this month, I had a meeting with 25 families in 
Akron, Ohio, in my district on a Saturday morning. It was going to be 
about an hour and a half meeting and ended up being over 3 hours, with 
25 families who had loved ones in Iraq. What I heard was how our 
government, and our government, unfortunately, now includes a 
privatized military worth $300 million out of $1 billion that goes to 
Halliburton, and our government has simply failed these service men and 
women. The stories are legion; we are all hearing them in our 
districts. I heard them for 3 hours that day. We do not have safe 
drinking water for our troops. Hundreds, thousands of our troops are 
getting, have gotten dysentery. We do not have sufficient antibiotics 
in many cases. We do not have, and this is the most shocking and the 
most troubling, we do not have enough body armor for our men and women 
in uniform. One-fourth of servicemen and -women lack the body armor 
they need; and that body armor will not be available until December, we 
are told by Mr. Bremer, the person the White House has hired, that 
President Bush has hired to oversee the rebuilding of Iraq, and by Mr. 
Rumsfeld.
  Mr. Speaker, I am incredulous that we are spending $1 billion a week, 
30 percent of that money going to the President's friends, and many of 
it, much of it in an unbid contract, as the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur) has shown us; yet we cannot find enough money to provide safe 
drinking water for our troops. We cannot supply and protect our troops 
sufficiently. We do not have enough money, or the wherewithal to get 
the antibiotics to them that they need, and we do not have sufficient 
body armor when President Bush knew we were going to war at least a 
year ago, and still cannot have enough body armor for our men and women 
there.
  So I do not get it. We have seen this kind of corruption and 
incompetence on the part of the President, the White House, the 
military, the civil authority, the military leaders. We are seeing 
brave men and women over there. But the people who are running this 
operation, we are seeing corruption and we are seeing incompetence, and 
we are seeing a small number of companies get incredibly rich. We are 
seeing the President's campaign chest fatten every day.
  Tomorrow the President is going to be in Columbus, Ohio, in my State, 
raising several hundred thousand dollars, maybe $1 million. We are 
hearing that every week he is going out on a funding trip. Vice 
President Cheney, about the only time he is in public is for a fund-
raising trip. They always raise money from Halliburton and Bechtel and 
these contractors.

                              {time}  2245

  So, I mean, think of this circle. We are spending $87 billion this 
Congress is about to appropriate. We are already spending a billion 
dollars a week. A third of that money goes to private contractors who 
are friends of the President, who give money to the President's 
campaign. Yet where is the focus on protecting and supplying our 
troops? I guess it is not criminal, but it is just incredible to me 
that the President of the United States is so intent on fundraising and 
so intent on feeding his political friends and getting these political 
contributions in return, that this White House, and this 
administration, and the military brass and the civilian leaders that 
the President has appointed to run Iraq have taken their eye off the 
ball. They have lost focus on the most important thing over there and 
that is the supplying and protecting of our troops.
  I would like to see some answers. We apparently are not getting them. 
I hope tonight, if some people from some of the top brass of the 
Pentagon are watching, some people at the White House, maybe they can 
give us answers. I asked Mr. Bremer at committee questions about this. 
We do not seem to be getting any answers there.
  I am nonplussed by it all, Mr. Speaker. I hope that this 
administration can do better so that our troops have safe drinking 
water, our troops have the body armor they need, our troops have the 
antibiotics they need.
  We can simplify this reconstruction of Iraq so we are not wasting 
huge amounts of money, so we are not doing it through unbid private 
contracts, so that we are doing it through a competitive bid process so 
Americans can feel more comfortable that our troops can be safer so 
that this operation will work better.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Garrett of New Jersey). Before you 
continue, taking all comments into consideration, the Chair will remind 
all Members that it is not in order to accuse the Vice President or 
President of unethical behavior or corruption either directly or by 
innuendo.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, if I may, may I say the actions of 
the administration are corrupt and incompetent?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A Member may criticize the administration, 
but may not personally accuse the President or Vice President of 
corruption.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I mean, it is not the Clinton 
administration, although we still seem to hear that from time to time. 
It is the Bush administration. May I say that?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is appropriate to discuss ``the 
administration'' but Members may not make personal accusations against 
the President or Vice President.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Brown) for his comments. I know we want to emphasize these no-bid 
contracts, but you are bringing up the fact that this money that is 
being spent on these no-bid contracts, at the same time is depriving 
money that could be spent for the troops, I think is very well-placed.
  Many of my constituents talk about how so much of this reconstruction 
effort goes to Iraq and so little of the same type of thing is being 
done here in the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. 
Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Pallone) for gathering us here tonight to talk about an issue that 
is very much in the minds of the American people. Where is our $87 
billion going?
  And I do not know if the gentleman has seen Newsweek this week. The 
cover story is ``Bush's $87 Billion Mess. Special Investigation. Waste, 
Chaos and Cronyism: The Real Cost of Rebuilding Iraq.'' And I thought I 
would just refer to some of this.
  Now, I know that the President has cautioned us not to believe what 
we read and that we should not emphasize the negative, but we should 
look for the positive and that you cannot believe all these negative 
news reports. And I do not know if he is necessarily questioning this 
Newsweek investigative report, but I thought, in any case, that because 
it is a reputable magazine that I might refer to some of the findings 
here.
  The headline of the story is ``The $87 Billion Money Pit. It is the 
boldest reconstruction project since the Marshall Plan. And we cannot 
afford to fail. But where are the billions really going,'' is the 
question that it asks.
  So let me just read a little bit of this. This says, ``No doubt, 
reconstructing postwar Iraq is a brutally hard and hazardous task. 
Sabotage has already destroyed some 700 power transmission towers. But 
George W. Bush, who has staked his Nation's credibility and perhaps his 
Presidency on success in Iraq, has no choice but to set things right.

[[Page H10126]]

  ``Iraqis like to point out that after the 1991 war, Saddam restored 
the badly destroyed electricity grid in only 3 months. Some 6 months 
after Bush declared an end to major hostilities, a much more ambitious 
and costly American effort has yet to get to that point. It is only in 
recent weeks that the coalition amped up the power generation level 
that Saddam achieved last March; 4400 megawatts for the country, though 
it has since dropped back.''

  I just wanted to emphasize that point because we are told now that 
electricity is at the level that Saddam had but, in fact, it has 
dropped back.
  ``True, Saddam did not have a guerilla war to contend with, and his 
power infrastructure was in much better shape than the Americans found 
it, but he also had fewer resources.
  ``Six months ago the administration decided to cut corners on normal 
bidding procedures and hand over large contracts to defense contractors 
like Bechtel and Halliburton on a limited bid or no-bid basis. It 
bypassed the Iraqis and didn't worry much about accountability to 
Congress. The plan was for `blitzkrieg' reconstruction. But by 
sacrificing accountability for speed,'' Newsweek says, ``America is not 
achieving either very well right now. For months no one has seemed to 
be fully in charge of postwar planning. There has been so little 
transparency that even at the White House, `it was almost impossible to 
get a sense of what was happening,' on the power problems, says one 
official privy to the discussions.
  ``Numerous allegations of overspending, favoritism and corruption 
have surfaced. Halliburton, a major defense contractor once run by Vice 
President Dick Cheney,'' as earlier statements indicated, he still is 
benefiting from his relationship to Halliburton, ``Halliburton has been 
accused of gouging prices on imported fuel, charging $1.59 a gallon 
while the Iraqis `get up to speed,' when the Iraqi national oil company 
says it can now buy it at no more than 98 cents a gallon. The 
difference is about $300 million. Cronies of Iraqi exile leader Ahmad 
Chalabi, Newsweek has learned, were recently awarded a large chunk of a 
major contract for mobile telecommunications networks.''
  So it is a really interesting article. There is a lot in here. But 
one of the other things that it has is some charts. ``What critics say. 
Waste not.'' This is in a chart. It says, ``Congressional Democrats are 
raising eyebrows at price tags.'' Some examples: Repair. U.S. engineers 
estimated $15 million for repairs on a cement plant in northern Iraq. 
The project was given to local Iraqis instead. Remember it was $15 
million was the estimate from the U.S. contractors. It was done by 
local Iraqis for $80,000. $15 million; $80,000.
  Rebuild. Big business contractors refurbished 20 police stations in 
Basra for $25 million. An Iraqi official contends locals could have 
done it for $5 million.
  Also talks about Iraqis versus U.S. jobs, local labor. It is cheaper 
to hire Iraqis for reconstruction projects. Unequal pay. Non-Iraqi 
security guards make $1,200 a day working for U.S. companies in Iraq, 
144 times that of Iraqi guards who make $250 a month. So for a British 
or U.S. security guard $1,200 per day, an Iraqi security guard, $8.33 a 
day.
  Then it talks about the Iraq's luxury items. These are some of the 
expenditures. I think we actually may have cut some of them out, but 
these were the proposals. They are talking about a kind of feeding 
frenzy going on for contractors in Iraq. At the same time, and I am 
glad that the gentleman from Ohio pointed out a number of things that 
are being shortchanged, like body armor for our soldiers, but a 
proposal that we may be still going through in our $87 billion, I am 
not sure, $33,000 per pickup truck, or $2.64 million for 80 vehicles, 
$9 million to create zip codes, a numbered postal system throughout the 
country. $6,000 per radio or phone. That added up to $3.6 million. 
$50,000 per prison bed, way more than we spend here in the United 
States. $400 million for two new 4,000-bed prisons. And it goes on and 
on.
  A couple more things I just wanted to point out, if I could, there is 
a section called waste, fraud, and abuse. It says American companies 
are barred by law from paying bribes or taking kickbacks abroad, but 
Iraq is still largely a lawless place. And one company director for a 
British firm doing business in Baghdad said that makes all the 
difference. Quote, ``I have never seen corruption like this by 
expatriate businessmen. It is like a feeding frenzy,'' he says. One 
prominent Iraqi businessman said he was told he had to raise his bid by 
$750,000 to get a major contract so long as he kicked back that amount 
to the contractors rep. The businessman refused to identify the 
contractor, but did say, quote, ``No Iraqi would ask for a bribe that 
big,'' unquote.
  At the very least, Americans have a right to know exactly what is 
going on, how is our money being spent, a completely transparent 
process. Because if we are going to send our young men and women over 
there who put their lives at risk every day without the proper 
equipment that could save their lives, and all of these billions and 
billions of dollars are going to private contractors who are 
responsible for taking care of them and providing what is needed in 
Iraq in some cases, that is part of what we hire some contractors for, 
then for heaven's sakes, we want accounting of that.
  If it is too much, then we have got to cut that price. I mean, $87 
billion, no wonder the American people had sticker shock and no wonder 
when they read stories like this they are saying why should we be 
handing this check to this administration when they cannot even be 
trusted to take care of our young men and women in uniform but they are 
more than taking care of and padding the pockets of their good friends 
at Halliburton and Bechtel and still not getting the job done and still 
not providing the electricity and still not making Iraq more safe for 
the Iraqi people yet.
  Now that may be happening but at what cost to the American people. We 
just want to know. And I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone) for letting us ask that question.
  Mr. PALLONE. Well, again, I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. 
Schakowsky) but I just think most Americans will be shocked to find out 
that there is no accountability, that there is all these no-bid 
contracts. The kinds of things that you are asking for would seem to be 
basic. It is essentially the right to know what we are spending our 
money on.
  And, again, I just think it is outrageous that we do not have the 
accountability, that we have the no-bid contracts. Every effort, as the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) said, to try to include that in this 
supplemental was basically rejected by the Republican leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek.)

                              {time}  2300

  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone). I want to commend the gentleman and all of the 
other Members who have taken time from their schedule, their late 
evening schedule, to be here to share with the American people about 
what is going on in this government.
  We are not being here tonight to be accusatory and say, well, since 
we are Monday morning quarterbacks, the administration likes to call 
any Member of Congress that questions their activities critics. I think 
it is important that the administration understands that this is a 
democracy. This is not kingdom politics. We want to come together as a 
people's government to be able to bring about the questions that need 
to be answered; and, hopefully, some outcome measures will happen.
  I will state that what is very disturbing is national publications 
that are out saying, ``$87 Billion Mess.'' Other publications, 
newspapers are talking about the waste in Iraq. Meanwhile, on the other 
side of the aisle, we have individuals that are trying to find other 
ways to be deficit hawks but not really paying attention to what the 
President and others are doing as it relates to this administration's 
mishandling of these dollars.
  We talk about troop protection. We cannot even do that correctly. And 
I am not talking about individuals in uniform. I am talking about 
individuals in shirts and ties that are making bad decisions here 
today.
  Halliburton. We can go into tomorrow morning if the rules would allow 
us to be able to do so talking about the mismanagement and the no-bid 
contracts that have been given.

[[Page H10127]]

  I watch some of the Sunday shows, and I cannot believe the Secretary 
of State. I cannot believe the Vice President of the United States. I 
cannot believe Condoleezza Rice. I cannot believe what the President is 
saying at the press conference as though he says, well, we are going to 
bid. Well, they are not bidding now. They have not bid in the past, and 
in my opinion we are not going to have good bidding and good 
competition in the future. I do not care what the administration may 
say. I believe that this will continue.
  I know the gentleman's kids are asleep right now. My kids are asleep. 
They have to go to school tomorrow, but we need to go in their bedroom 
and take a real good look at them like we usually do before we go to 
bed. I think any parent or grandparent can really appreciate what I am 
talking about.
  I think we need to understand this $87 billion and then seeing the 
waste and seeing the loose contracting requirement that this 
administration has allowed to go on in Iraq. This $87 billion on top of 
the billions of dollars that we gave earlier this year comes out to 
about $166 billion, which feeds not only into the deficit beyond $400 
trillion, but I think also it is important that we remember that it is 
$28 million dollars a week in interest.
  Now, I have said that before on the floor and I think it is important 
while you are looking at your children and grandchildren, looking at 
this deficit. I do not know, maybe the gentleman can share, I believe 
the Democrats have come to the floor to just get a child tax credit for 
individuals that work every day that make under $26,000 a year, and we 
cannot get the other side to allow those individuals to receive their 
child tax credit.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, we have brought up a motion on a weekly 
bases to instruct the conferees to bring up that child tax credit for 
the lower-income Americans, and the conference has not even met. They 
have not even had a meeting to discuss trying to bring the two Houses 
together. They have no intention, Republicans have no intention of 
doing anything on the issue.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Can I also say that the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay) has said that it is not going to happen, the majority 
leader of this House.
  Mr. PALLONE. Absolutely that is what he said.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. That is quite disturbing. We see some of the 
cost overruns that have been pointed out here tonight and this is 
factual. This is not fiction. This is not something that one may say, 
well, they are just Democrats that are upset. There are Republicans 
that are upset, but they are not going to say anything about it because 
they fear the administration and that is going to happen. And I think 
it is important that we raise these questions.
  I think it is important on behalf of the children of this country, on 
behalf of veterans, on behalf of those individuals that stood in the 
line of fire for us to be able to have the freedom to speak here 
tonight on this floor and this free country. We cannot allow this to 
continue to happen, and I believe that the American people are going to 
understand this sooner rather than later.
  I want to also say that I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, it is 
important that we continue to share these facts with the American 
people. And I want the American people to ask their Members of 
Congress, Democrat and Republican, Members of the other body also, ask 
them about the accountability of the $87 billion, ask them about the 
fact that we are not loaning dollars, but we are granting dollars.
  I am from south Florida, and I have a city in my district, North 
Miami Beach, a well-run, well-operated city; but they are having budget 
problems. They are having to cut programs on behalf of homeland 
security, doing what this government asked them to do, protect the 
power plant, protect the water plant; but meanwhile, they are looking 
for some help from this Federal Government. And they are not receiving 
it. And we are giving, not loaning, giving dollars.
  There are students right now that are studying at many of our 
institutions of higher learning right now, not only studying to try to 
pass the exam at the end of the week or at the beginning of next week; 
they are also trying to figure out how they are going to pay back their 
student loans with interest. And they are giving these dollars away to 
companies that are watching the New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ for 
their numbers for their investors. I will not call it criminal, but it 
is close to it to even look at this.

  I think it is important that we continue to take time out, and I want 
to commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the other 
Members that have joined us here tonight in bringing this to the 
attention of the American people. Think about it, $128 million a week 
in interest, and then on top of that, mismanagement and no bid 
contracts.
  I join with my other colleagues saying, if this is progress, I do not 
even know if we can take any more of it, financially, fiscally, and 
also on behalf of protecting our troops.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important, as the 
gentleman brought out and others have tonight, what the consequences 
are of these actions of these no-bid contracts and driving up costs. It 
means that we do not have money for other programs, whether it is for 
the troops as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) mentioned, or it is 
for other domestic concerns here at home. There is no question about 
it, the deficit is, what, 4 or $500 billion now? A few years ago we had 
no deficit in the last few years of the Clinton administration. So 
there is a huge cost for taxpayers and to the future of the country 
that is being incurred here in order to pad these contracts.
  I just wanted to end tonight by pointing out that although we are 
concentrating on Halliburton and the no-bid contracts this evening, 
there are a lot of other ways that Republicans are making profits on 
the reconstruction effort in Iraq. Last month the New York Times had a 
front page story entitled ``Washington Insiders, New Firm Consults on 
Contracts in Iraq.'' And according to this September 30 article, a 
group of businessmen linked by their close ties to President Bush, his 
family and his administration has set up a consulting firm to advise 
companies that want to do business in Iraq, including those who are 
seeking pieces of taxpayer-financed reconstruction projects. This firm, 
called New Bridge Strategies, is headed by Joe Albaugh, President 
Bush's campaign manager in 2000 and director of the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency until last March.
  The article states that other directors included Edward Rogers, Jr., 
and Lanny Griffith, who were both assistants to the first President 
George Bush and now have close ties to the White House.
  The company's Web site. Which you can look up yourself says, ``The 
opportunities evolving in Iraq today are of such an unprecedented 
nature and scope that no other existing firm has the necessary skills 
and experience to be effective both in Washington, D.C. and on the 
ground in Iraq.''
  So not only is this administration helping Cheney's friends at 
Halliburton, the administration is also helping some of its own, giving 
them a leg up, working with other future contractors in Iraq.
  If you are a contractor, think about it, why would you not want to go 
to these guys? They can probably tell you who you can get a contract 
from where you do not have to disclose where you are spending the 
money. It has got to be music to the President's corporate friends' 
ears. Unfortunately, it is also another major hit to American 
taxpayers. This is another way of padding the bills.
  You do not hear the Republican Waste Watchers that come here 
frequently and talk about the waste of the Federal Government, they do 
not talk about this.
  Mr. Speaker, throughout the debate on the Iraq supplemental, 
Democrats have attempted to shed some light on these issues by offering 
a substitute that required a detailed report from the President 
describing how funds in the previous war supplemental have been spent. 
It also required the notification of noncompetitive contracting and 
tightened public disclosure requirements.
  So we have been out there actually offering the substitute to the 
supplemental that would get rid of these no-bid contracts; but, of 
course, it did not pass. The Republicans voted against it.

[[Page H10128]]

  So I think the only thing we can do is do what we are doing tonight. 
Ask the tough questions. With the extension of this Halliburton 
contract today, I do not think we can wait any longer to see how this 
company is spending the taxpayers' money.
  I naively thought that the contract was going to end today and it 
would not be extended; and when I read that it was going to be 
extended, I just could not believe it. The process continues. And I 
think we just have to be here every night or as often as we can to 
point out how outrageous this is and what the administration is doing.

                              {time}  2310

  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, just really when we think about it, 
we are making millionaires basically. We are making millionaires out of 
Iraq, not only out of the supplemental but out of the Iraq 
appropriations as it relates to private contracting. That is what is 
happening.
  So we hear speeches from the administration how we want to empower 
Iraqis and how we want them to take control of their own government and 
their own economy, and the reality is it is not happening. I do not 
care if an individual is an Independent, a Republican, a Democrat. I am 
talking about an American voter. That is very simple. Individuals who 
have set up shop, not only here in the Beltway with higher connections 
in the administration, to be able to say I will give you the edge, I do 
not think there is a lobbying firm set up to help Iraqis get the edge.
  So I cannot help but question that, and I think that as we continue 
to talk about this and as the media continues to reveal what we are 
talking about here tonight, once again, I just want to clarify. These 
are not just proud, card-carrying Democrats who say, hey, let us take a 
shot at the Republicans. We are not talking about that. We are talking 
about facts, not fiction. We are talking about kids and our 
grandchildren having to pay for what we are doing here today.
  This Congress did not even have the gumption to say, okay, if we 
believe that we have to send an additional $87 billion in a 
supplemental of borrowed money, that we will find a way to be able to 
pay for today, that it will not be on the backs of our grandchildren 
and our children. That did not happen, and right now, the House and the 
other body will come together in some sort of conference committee, and 
I am not a betting person, but I can pretty much guess that we are 
going to end up giving Iraq the money, and we are going to have 
shortfalls.
  Every Member of this body will end up having fewer dollars to be able 
to take back to their Districts to be able to build our economy, to 
build an economy that will create jobs, not an economy that individuals 
will just say, okay, I need to tuck this away and put it away, but 
individuals will actually be hired, that jobs will be looking for 
people and people will not have to look for jobs.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just hope that somehow our bringing this 
to light will make a difference. I know it will not in that $87 billion 
supplemental because they are going to bring that back tomorrow or the 
next day, and all these no-bid contracts and the other things we are 
talking about are going to continue, but I think if we continue to 
bring it to light, ultimately there will be some changes.
  So I want to thank the gentleman again and all my colleagues for 
being here tonight.

                          ____________________