[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 149 (Thursday, November 10, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12638-S12643]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 1042, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1042) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2006 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe
personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed
Forces, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Dorgan amendment No. 2476, to establish a special committee
of the Senate to investigate the awarding and carrying out of
contracts to conduct activities in Afghanistan and Iraq and
to fight the war on terrorism.
Lautenberg amendment No. 2478, to prohibit individuals who
knowingly engage in certain violations relating to the
handling of classified information from holding a security
clearance.
Talent amendment No. 2477, to modify the multiyear
procurement authority for C-17 aircraft.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, there is a further order for two votes
to
[[Page S12639]]
occur beginning at the hour of 11:30. I think it would be helpful to
all Members if the Chair would restate the timing and status of those
votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11:30
shall be equally divided in the usual form, followed by a vote on the
Dorgan amendment at 11:30, which will be followed by the Talent
amendment.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.
Under the time I control, I yield such time as my colleague from
Alabama may desire to speak. He will speak as in morning business, to
reserve the time on the bill, on such aspects of the amendments that he
so desires.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Amendment No. 2476
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I rise to speak on the Dorgan
amendment and share some thoughts about that. I think there has been a
lot of misinformation, and the Senator has been misled in some of the
allegations he is making and is certainly inaccurate in picturing our
handling of the reconstruction effort in Iraq as being a wasteful
enterprise. So much good has gone on. We need to talk about that. Where
there are errors, as I will note, we are taking vigorous steps to
correct them.
With regard to Senator Kennedy's remarks, he said it is not the
soldiers, it is the policy. We decided the policy. This Senate voted 78
to 22 to establish a policy with regard to regime change in Iraq. We
authorized the President to execute military action if Saddam Hussein
failed to comply, as Senator Warner said, with the U.N. resolutions. We
have a policy. He may not like it. He was 1 of the 22 who voted against
it. But he ought not to be doing things that undermine the established
policy of the United States, a policy that was bipartisan. A majority
of the Democratic Senators supported it. The former Presidential
candidate for the Democratic Party, its former Vice Presidential
candidate, and another former Vice Presidential candidate all supported
it. It is our policy. We established it, and we sent our men and women
into harm's way to execute it. We don't need Senators undermining their
ability to do their job and placing them at greater risk. It is wrong.
Some people need to examine their conscience as we come up to November
11 tomorrow, Veterans Day.
I rise to speak on the reconstruction effort. Commander Paquette, who
works with me, served in Iraq. He was there when the statue of Saddam
fell. He had the responsibility for reconstruction in the northern
third of Iraq. He is a good man. He put his life on the line for this
country. He did what he believed was right. He didn't waste a dime of
the American people's money. He had to pass out cash. That is the way
you do business there--not to say there is something wrong with that.
They don't have checks and banks. That is how you have to do business
if somebody does work for you, you pay them in cash.
I am not by any means claiming that there have not been abuses, that
contractors and others may have taken advantage of the difficult
circumstances to exploit their profits. That is, unfortunately, the
history of the world. We need to watch it constantly. I am a strong
supporter of that and don't doubt that. But enough is enough. The
reckless commentary we have been hearing has created in the media and
with the American people a distorted view of the reality of what is
happening on the ground in Iraq for reconstruction. It is the same
thing that is occurring with regard to the detainee abuse scandal--
greatly exaggerated, without any recognition of the efforts that have
been taken to make sure abuses don't occur.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are requesting yet
another investigation. They wish to create a special committee on war
and reconstruction in the middle of this war. This special committee
will look into matters that are already being investigated by the
Government Accountability Office, an independent agency--not a
Department of Defense agency--which we call on in a bipartisan way to
investigate complicated matters. The Department of Defense inspector
general is investigating all allegations. The Defense Contract Audit
Agency, the State Department inspector general, the Army's inspector
general, and other organizations are watching what goes on there and
conducting investigations into any allegation of fraud or abuse that
may be presented. And a special inspector general's office was created
already to increase accountability. This is important. It is the
Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, commonly called
SIGIR in the theater.
The Senator from North Dakota offers examples of abuse that he claims
need another investigation. I honestly believe these charges are
exaggerated distortions of reality and overlook the great work that is
being done there toward reconstruction. I could stand here and address
many of these complaints, but I will take issue with three he has
continually raised in recent months as evidence of the fraud and waste
he suggests is occurring. We can consider the overall picture of how
things are being done.
Point No. 1, the allegation that $85,000 brand new trucks were left
on the side of the road to be torched and looted because they had a
clogged fuel pump or because they had a flat tire--we have heard that,
haven't we?
The decision to leave a vehicle behind in a combat zone resides with
the convoy commander and his or her best judgment, not the Senate.
There are cities in America where people would be hesitant to stay with
a car at night. They would not want to stay there. They may have to
leave that car if it broke down. Should the convoy commander call AAA?
How about that--we are going to call AAA to come fix it. Waiting for a
repair crew out there by yourself or a tow truck to arrive or leaving
the whole convoy sitting in a hostile area is not a realistic scenario
from a force protection standpoint. Speed and mobility are keys to life
in the combat zone. Disabled vehicles are always planned to be
recovered; however, on occasion, they may be destroyed by insurgents or
criminal elements in Iraq if they break down. The life of each military
member--what if it was your son or daughter, would you like for them to
stay with a disabled vehicle--is worth more than any vehicle. I fully
support the decision of our convoy commanders to abandon disabled
vehicles to ensure the safety of the personnel under their command.
Point No. 2, contractors in Iraq are paid in large amounts of bundled
cash.
These are Iraqi contractors who do work for us, and we want to use
them wherever possible so that they can create jobs. They are paid in
large amounts of bundled cash, as we heard the charges made. This is
the quote:
When it was time to get paid, just bring a big bag because
we are going to give you cash.
The statement suggests the money is being given away, come and get
it. That is simply not true. Payments for services in Iraq have to be
made in cash. There is no central banking system in Iraq where checks
could be processed or allowed for on some electronic fund transfer. A
modern bank and currency system is being developed there now, but as of
today, cash is the only way to effectively pay local Iraqis for their
labor and materials. The average Iraqi worker performing under a
Government contract is paid in U.S. dollars because that currency is
accepted throughout that nation. The large bricks of money are needed
because in many small towns and villages, paying workers in one hundred
dollar bills is not practical. No one in these towns could break a one
hundred dollar bill, so there was a need for payment in twenties, tens,
and fives. Paying large contracts in small bills does create a large
amount of dollars and necessitates bundling and transporting of money
in bags and lockers. How else are you going to do that?
When I was in Iraq right after the war and was in the area in Mosul
where Commander Paquette was working, I met personally with General
Petraeus, commander of the 101st Airborne. He said the best thing he
could do was to go out and see a problem in a neighborhood that could
be fixed and to have his own discretion to engage a contractor and get
that thing fixed. Maybe it is a bridge, a roof at the hospital, a door
on the school.
Get it done right then and pay the person who did the work. He said
that is the best way we can help create and reestablish this country.
And he asked for more power.
Do you think General Petraeus is stealing the money? He was No. 1 in
his
[[Page S12640]]
class at West Point. No, sir, this is a true patriot trying to serve
our country to help Iraq and fix it up.
Point No. 3, they charge this. This is the quote and the charge
There is massive waste, fraud and abuse going on with
respect to contracting in Iraq . . . who is watching over
this massive amount of fraud, waste and abuse? Nobody seems
to care.
Nobody seems to care? That is not true. This statement is most
misleading of all. It implies that U.S. tax dollars are just being
wasted with no care or concern. However, 100 audits and management
reviews have been performed to date by the GAO, the Defense Contract
Audit Agency, the DOD inspector general, the Army Criminal
Investigative Service, and so on. I met with the chief inspector
general in Iraq, and he is a firecracker. I mean he is a totally
focused man, dedicated to his job of establishing accountability and
eliminating fraud.
Have there been instances of fraud? Sadly, yes. Those found guilty
are being punished. Companies defrauding the Government have had
payments withheld. They have been removed. Investigations and audits
continue and those who violate criminal laws will be prosecuted. The
Department of Defense and other Government agencies in charge of
reconstruction in Iraq are reacting swiftly to the comments of the
auditors and incorporating all of the recommended corrective actions.
There is even a special investigative body in Iraq, SIGIR, that
issued the report I believe that Chairman Warner quoted from with
respect to the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, a
special inspector general for just Iraq.
Yet claims persist that no one cares, there is no oversight and no
accountability. It is not true. It is a slander on our people whose
lives are at risk serving our country in Iraq. As with detainee abuse
allegations, time and again an objective review of the facts is slowly
rolling back outlandish accusations that we have heard. Iraq is a war
zone. It is a dangerous place in many areas. For too many in Congress
and across the Nation we seem to overlook this fact, even while the
media gives us all a daily count of fatalities.
As any soldier can tell you, paperwork is not always the first
priority when someone is in combat. However, we place special trust and
confidence in military officers and senior Government officials
overseeing the expenditures of taxpayer funds. Continuing to claim
fraud and abuse is rampant and that no one is accountable is directly
questioning the competency and dedication of these professionals who
are doing their best job possible in very difficult and many times
dangerous circumstances.
There are areas in Iraq that are dangerous. And even the contractors'
lives are in danger, as we well know. Their actions are making a
difference. The most recent report to Congress from the SIGIR states--
this is the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. Listen
to this:
The positive results achieved in the reconstruction program
are impressive . . .
The United States has made steady progress in its part of
Iraq's construction, despite the hazardous security
environment, the fluid political situation, and the harsh
realities of working in a war zone.
The media and the other side of the aisle spend too much time telling
the negative side of what is going on in Iraq, I believe. To far too
many Americans, the image of the conflict in Iraq is a burning humvee
or the scene of a car bomb. I would like to show you a few before and
after photos of how the reconstruction funds have benefitted the people
of Iraq.
This first slide portrays reconstruction of the Ministry of the
Environment Building. Here is the way it looked after the war. And here
we see how it has been reconstructed. Somebody was paid for that. I
hope it was an Iraqi contractor who had a family to feed. Commander
Paquette says it was. This is a matter he has personal knowledge of, I
believe. So somebody went out there and did a job similar to in the
United States, did a great job of reconstructing this building that was
utterly gutted.
Here is another one, the Az Zubayr Courthouse. Look at this
courthouse here. Now, we have to have the rule of law. General Petraeus
told me when he was in Mosul how he worked on that, had the Iraqis out
here doing the work. Are they going to be paid or not? They don't want
a check, I can tell you that. And here we have a new courthouse where
we hope justice can be done.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. I would be pleased to yield.
Mr. WARNER. Has the Senator put into the Record the name of the
assistant he has worked with in developing this and explained about his
background as having been there and participated? Because this is an
extremely important segment of our debate that the Senator is filling
in this morning. You are receiving a lot of this information from your
very able assistant who is an on-the-scene individual responsible for
some of this.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the chairman. I did not do enough. Commander
Paquette was in Iraq shortly after Saddam Hussein's government fell,
when the statue fell and he was given the charge of handling the
northern third of the reconstruction effort for the military. He was a
Naval lieutenant commander then and that was his responsibility in our
joint effort. We have Navy people, Air Force people there, Army and
Marines, of course, and he worked on the reconstruction effort. Much of
what I am saying, many of these photos he has had personal involvement
with.
Here is a hospital operating facility. You can see what a pathetic,
sad thing it was--one little chair. Now, after we have come in with
reconstruction efforts, you have a fully functional hospital.
Here is a bridge replacement with a new structure. This bridge was
totally destroyed, broken here, and you can see the old bridge here,
but a new bridge has been constructed. Somebody had to be paid to do
that work. You can't rebuild a bridge for $500. If you pay people in
cash, you have to have a bundle of cash to pay the expense of building
a bridge.
How about this one. This is one Commander Paquette mentioned to me.
This is a street in a town he personally has visited, with sewage
running down the main street there, kids wading in it, he said. And
here, after our work to create a sewage system, we have a safe street
for this lady to walk on. And of course, you have heard about the
sabotage of electric powers. This one was sabotaged and here you have
Iraqis climbing up there fixing it. Are you going to climb up to the
top of a tower like that and fix it and not be paid? Somebody has to
pay you. They are not going to take a check. We have to pay them in
cash, and that is what is being done, in an effective way, I believe.
I could go on. There are hundreds of examples such as this from all
around Iraq, thousands of them. Let's not politicize this conflict. It
is important. We are a nation at war, and the mission in Iraq is vital
to ensuring democracy, that democracy takes hold in a region of the
world that has known far too many tyrants and despots.
I am proud of the accomplishments of our military, our civilian and
contractor personnel in Iraq. Many of them were former military people
who retired, who brought their skills and who had the courage to go
into dangerous areas. They are dedicated to improving the quality of
life for millions of Iraqis and Afghanis and are doing so under very
difficult circumstances.
As we approach Veterans Day, the Senate should spend a little less
time advertising allegations of wrongdoing, allegations that we are
already taking vigorous actions to deal with, and spend more time
talking about what is going right. We owe it to the men and women we
voted to send into harm's way. We owe it to their families and to the
families of the fallen to tell them that their mission is important,
that their sacrifice is making a difference for nearly 50 million
people in a region that has known so much suffering and violence.
I thank the Chair. I also want to express my personal appreciation to
Commander Paquette for his service. He will soon be leaving us, going
back on active duty. He has been a tremendous asset to my office and
helped me craft the legislation I am most proud of to double the death
benefits for soldiers who lose their life in defense of our country. We
appreciate it, and I thank him also for helping us bring a personal
touch directly from the frontline in our efforts in Iraq.
[[Page S12641]]
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I want to say again how important is the
debate our distinguished colleague from Alabama has provided the Senate
this morning on these key subjects. It is reassuring. The Senator made,
as did I, reference to this report, which I think is an accurate
compilation of what has been achieved and what remains to be achieved
and the struggle they are having with regrettably this cultural thing
called graft, which is all pervasive throughout much of the Middle
East, but nevertheless somehow we are overcoming that.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the chairman. I note I did meet that special
inspector general. He impressed me. I know Senator Collins has met with
him and is thoroughly impressed with him. He is very present throughout
Iraq to make sure our dollars are being spent wisely.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.
Madam President, it is my understanding that the time under the
control of the Senator from Virginia has now expired.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. WARNER. And there remains what period of time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 20 minutes 15 seconds.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, the Senate has already defeated this
amendment twice--first on September 14, 2005, on the Commerce, State,
Justice, Appropriations bill by a vote of 53-44 and then on October 19,
2005 on the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development
Appropriations bill by a vote of 54-44.
This amendment is unnecessary and duplicative of the current
contracting oversight mechanisms created to meet the challenges that
then Senator Truman identified. The Truman Committee was needed at the
outbreak of World War II. There were no GAO or IG investigations, no
Defense Contract Audit Agency or Defense Contract Management Agency.
There were no conflict of interest laws to reign in the dollar-a-day
men and no Truth in Negotiations Act, Whistle blower Protections, or
Competition in Contracting Act.
The Armed Services Committee is currently performing its oversight
tasks and I see no need for a Special Senate Committee to look at
contracting practices in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The potential for fraud, waste and abuse is not limited to just Iraq
and Afghanistan. The Air Force has just been through the worst
contracting scandal in the last 20 years and the Armed Services
Committee was at the forefront of uncovering this scandal by using
normal committee legislative oversight tools. We conducted hearings,
tasked the GAO and the Inspector General to review specific issues, and
requested and reviewed thousands of documents.
The Armed Services Committee has conducted numerous hearings and
briefings on acquisition oversight and reform, including oversight of
contracting in Iraq, and initiated numerous investigations by the GAO
and the Inspector General on DOD acquisition practices and programs.
Senator Ensign plans to conduct several more Iraq contracting
hearings in the near future in the Readiness Subcommittee and Senator
McCain is conducting a series of hearings on the overall procurement
process.
The Office of the Special Inspector General of Iraq Reconstruction
was established to look at Iraqi contracting. This new IG has routinely
briefed this Committee and others on its findings.
Section 823 of this bill establishes a contract fraud task force at
DOD to identify potential areas where DOD is susceptible to fraud,
waste and abuse. This group will inform Congress on how to modify our
contracting laws wherever we need to get tougher on contract fraud.
This is how best to conduct our oversight--through the established
committee process and established oversight mechanisms. I am sure that
the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who shares
responsibility for the oversight and jurisdiction of contracts in Iraq,
as well as the Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee who has
jurisdiction of Federal contracting would agree.
I appreciate the concerns of the sponsors of this legislation.
However, I do not support the establishment of a new special committee
which would duplicate the work of this committee and others and only
look at a narrow amount of Federal expenditure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, is the time between now and 11:30
allocated?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time remaining until the vote is
controlled by the Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Presiding Officer. I know that Senator Dorgan
wanted some of this time. I would have a couple comments relative to
the Dorgan amendment, first of all. I happen to agree with what has
been recently said about the Special Inspector General for Iraq
Reconstruction. He, indeed, would be a useful witness for the Senate to
call, and I hope that either the Armed Services Committee or the
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee would call that
Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction so that he could come
and testify before us. That has not been done.
The Department of Defense IG has withdrawn his people. These are the
people who look at the contracts with the contractors that are
supporting our troops. The DOD IG withdrew his people so that there are
no longer those folks on the ground who can tell us about those
contractors. I do not believe that the Government Accountability Office
people have been called to testify before the Senate.
There are a lot of issues. There are a lot of issues about the
initial contract, why it was awarded on a sole-source basis, whether
the CPA, the provisional authority, was overcharged by Halliburton for
oil which was purchased. There are serious questions about meals which
were served or not served. There are questions about whether
Halliburton had the estimating, subcontracting, and financial
management systems they needed to run two multibillion dollar
contracts. There are a lot of questions which need to be reviewed. They
ought to be reviewed. And we ought to have Senate committees that are
calling these people to testify in front of us. It seems to me that in
the absence of that, what Senator Dorgan is doing is saying: Let's have
a Truman-type committee, a special inspector general to look at the
contracting issues. Not only do I see nothing wrong with it, it has
tremendously powerful precedent.
It is named the Truman committee because Harry Truman, in the middle
of a war--I emphasize in the middle of a war, World War II--Harry
Truman, a Democrat, with a Democratic President, was willing to
undertake an investigation of contracting practices and procurement
practices because he felt the war was being exploited for profit by
certain persons who were trying to profiteer off the bravery of others.
There is no disagreement among any Member of this body that I know of
about the bravery, the professionalism, the courage of our troops. They
deserve everything we can give them, and I believe we are giving them
everything they need. There is no disagreement about that here. When
Members of this body get up and are critical about the way in which
this war has been won, it seems to me that is what we owe our troops.
We not only owe them the material and the training and we owe their
families everything, but we also owe them our best thinking. And our
best thinking is not unanimous. There is not a consensus. There are not
100 people here who are cloned to think the same way. There are
different thoughts.
We owe our troops our best, honest, conscientious thinking, and when
people get up on this floor and provide that thinking, particularly
where it is critical, it should not just be characterized as somehow or
another undermining our troops.
Our troops depend upon us for the equipment, the training, the
materiel, morale, for the support of their families. They depend on us
for that. They are entitled to that. People who stand up and give their
best thinking are supporting our troops in the best sense of
[[Page S12642]]
the word; they are giving them their best, honest, conscientious
thoughts as to how we can succeed in Iraq and make the best of a
situation that is not going well, not just stay the course, stay the
course, which is a bumper sticker, not a strategy, but how can we
modify this course to increase our chances for success.
I want to yield the floor. I see Senator Dorgan is in the Chamber. I
know he wants to speak on his amendment. I yield to him such time as he
needs to speak relative to his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my colleague from Michigan has said it
pretty well. This is not an unusual time. The money we have spent with
respect to the war in Iraq and the reconstruction of Iraq are not usual
expenditures. We have been asked, and the Congress has complied, with
support for legislation that moves $50 billion, $60 billion, $20
billion--huge chunks of money--to pursue, first of all, the war in Iraq
to support our troops and also to pursue what is called the
reconstruction of Iraq.
Almost all of that--I think perhaps all of it--was done without any
requirement to pay for it. It was all designed as an emergency, just to
add it to the debt of this country.
My colleague, Senator Levin, said we have not in any way, nor would
we refuse any request that would be helpful to our troops. When we ask
men and women in uniform to risk their lives, we have a responsibility
to them, and that is to give them everything they need to carry out the
mission they have been asked to carry out. That is not what is at issue
with this amendment.
This amendment is designed to respond to what we already know, and
everyone in this Chamber knows, is a massive amount of waste, fraud,
and abuse of the taxpayers' money. I spoke yesterday about this, but
can anyone here justify having the American taxpayers purchase $85,000
trucks to be used on the roads of Iraq by contractors, and when the
trucks get a flat tire, what do they do with them? They leave them
beside the road and let them be torched. An $85,000 truck with a
plugged fuel pump, what do they do? Abandon it. It is a plus-cost,
sole-source contract. The American taxpayer will pay for that; don't
worry about it. The list is almost endless.
A company--Halliburton in this case--charged the taxpayers for 42,000
meals served to American troops. It turns out they were only serving
14,000 meals. They have overcharged us by 28,000 meals. The people who
last were responsible in the Pentagon, now retired, for managing all
the fuel contracts to move fuel to the battlefield, after they retired
they came back and testified and said: What has happened since is just
unbelievable. The massive overcharges to move fuel to the battlefield
by these contractors is almost unthinkable.
The stories go on and on. Renting a car for $7,500 a month, buying
towels for the troops, double the price so you can put the company logo
on it because the company tells their buyers that is what they are
required to do: Double the cost of the towels so we can put our company
logo on it.
How many of these stories do we need? Do we need 100 more stories
like it? There is rampant waste, fraud, and abuse.
Why is that the case? Because massive quantities of money are being
shipped over there in pursuit of reconstruction. Massive quantities of
money are going, in many cases, to no-bid, sole-source contracts under
the buddy system, and the taxpayers, I think in many of these cases,
are being robbed blind. Will someone do something about it?
This amendment I have offered would establish what I call a Truman-
type committee. Harry Truman stood on this floor in the 1940s in the
middle of a war with a President of his own political party in the
White House, and said: I think there is substantial waste, fraud, and
abuse in military contracting and in military spending. They formed a
special Truman committee, and he went after and uncovered tens of
billions of dollars, in today's dollars, of waste, fraud, and abuse.
Normally, we would do this through oversight hearings, but we have
not had many oversight hearings. In some cases, in other venues, none
at all; in other venues, a few but really no aggressive oversight
hearings designed to track this massive amount of money.
Yesterday, I showed a picture of a fellow who testified at a hearing
I chaired that we have been doing in the Policy Committee. Why? Because
the regular committees don't want to have oversight hearings. Why don't
they want to do that? I guess they don't want to embarrass anybody. It
would be embarrassing to the White House, I guess, if we had hearings
about no-bid, sole-source contracts under the buddy system to big
companies that then waste a lot of money. It would be embarrassing to
display that in public.
The fact is, we owe it to the taxpayers to get rid of the waste,
fraud, and abuse. Yesterday, I showed a photograph of money that was in
the downstairs vault of a building that was occupied by the Coalition
Provisional Authority in Iraq, which was us, by the way. CPA is us, not
anything else. It is a fancy name for us. They were dealing in cash. I
showed a photograph of one hundred dollar bills wrapped in Saran Wrap
in bundles. The guy who testified at my committee and who was pictured
in that photograph said: We told all the contractors, show up with a
bag because we pay in cash. He said this was like the Old West. Bring a
bag, we pay in cash. He said: We actually threw around like a football
those bundles of one hundred dollar bills wrapped in Saran Wrap. You
would be able to play catch with them. It was the Old West.
After all, when we provide funding for these contracts, it doesn't
come out of the pockets of the 100 Members of the Senate. It is
taxpayers' money, and we have a responsibility to the taxpayers to make
sure it is spent appropriately.
If all of the 100 Senators would sit and listen to the stories I have
listened to in many hearings now from contractor employees who were
sickened and disgusted by the waste, fraud, and abuse they saw, if all
of the Members of this Senate could hear that and then vote against an
amendment that asks for this kind of long-term investigation, I don't
know how they can sleep at night.
We have had this vote previously, and sufficient Members of the
Senate have said it does not matter what the evidence is; I don't
intend to support a special type committee to investigate this waste,
fraud, and abuse. And they have prevailed. So we will have another vote
today.
I say to those Senators who have voted against this amendment
previously, if they still believe this waste, fraud, and abuse doesn't
matter very much, then vote against it. If they still believe it is OK
for the regular committees of the Senate not to hold any significant
oversight hearings, not to do their due diligence, not to meet their
accountability responsibility, and they don't care about that, then
vote against this. Just vote against it, it doesn't matter. But then
they should not stand up at home and say to their constituents that
they care about how this money is spent when there is such dramatic
evidence of waste, fraud, and abuse.
I used some newspaper headlines yesterday to describe the charges:
$18.6 million worth of Government equipment missing at the moment that
a contracting company was given to manage. One-third of the equipment
that company was entrusted with at this point cannot be accounted for.
Does it matter? Is somebody looking into this? It doesn't look like it
to me. It is really pretty unbelievable. I have spoken before. I am
guessing nobody in this Chamber--at least only a few in this Chamber--
care.
My colleague from Michigan was at a hearing we held with Bunnatine
Greenhouse who rose to become the top civilian contracting official in
the Corps of Engineers. She was the top civilian contracting official
in the Corps of Engineers. She had outstanding recommendations every
single year. She was an outstanding Federal employee, and she was in
charge as the highest civilian in the Corps of Engineers for making
sure contracting was done properly.
As the war in Iraq ramped up and some companies began to get
substantial no-bid contracts under the old buddy system, she said this
doesn't meet the test of the law; you are violating the procedures of
the Corps of Engineers. You are not doing things
[[Page S12643]]
the right way; there is a right way and wrong way to do things. You do
it this way. We are going to see substantial waste, abuse, and fraud.
When she started raising those questions, something important happened
to her. She was told one of two things will happen: You will either be
fired or you will be demoted.
This public servant had the courage to speak up and speak out against
practices she thought were horribly unfair and were going to hurt this
country, and she paid for it with her career.
What a message to send to those who have the courage to blow the
whistle and speak up. Does anybody care about that? It doesn't appear
so. It really doesn't appear that way. We have asked Secretary
Rumsfeld. We sent many letters to Secretary Rumsfeld. It is like
sending those letters into a deep abyss someplace. You get a little
one-paragraph reply saying: Got your letter, get back to you later. And
there will never be a later. That is the way it works. Zip it up, cover
it up, sew it up, it doesn't matter and, oh, by the way, ask Congress
for more money; they will certainly appropriate it. Don't worry where
it is going. If it is waste, nobody cares very much and, by the way, if
somebody does care and raises the issue, we will have sufficient votes
on it to say we won't do anything about it. And those sufficient votes
will go home and talk about the fact, boy, they are tigers watching out
for the American taxpayers. Hardly. Hardly.
We will see, once again, in a few minutes whether people really do
care about this and whether they are willing to own up to the oversight
responsibility Congress has, to care about how the taxpayers' money is
spent.
This case is made. This is not an open case, it is not an argument
that has to be made. This case is made. The evidence is all around us.
The question is whether enough Senators will care.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I speak on
the bill for just a minute or two.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my good friend and colleague, if
there is an award to be made for determination, he has it on this
particular issue. It is interesting that the Senator from North Dakota
invoked a good deal of history as to the Truman committee. I think
colleagues should know, however, that the Senate has already addressed
this amendment on two previous occasions: first on September 14, 2005,
on the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill. The vote was 53 to
44, defeated, and then again on October 19, 2005, on the DOD
appropriations bill. Again, the Senate rejected it 54 to 44. Those
matters should be before Senators.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, since Senator
Dorgan does have another minute left, I believe, and I want to give him
an opportunity to respond, I will use 30 seconds of that time simply to
say that Senator Dorgan has, indeed, been tenacious. There has been an
absence of oversight in this area which has been glaring. He has almost
by himself filled in some of those gaps as he described it. He should
not need to do that. We should either have the committees doing that or
else we need this special Truman-type committee.
I commend him for his tenacity. I am glad he is bringing this to a
vote, and maybe one of these days--hopefully today--he will prevail.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. At this point in time, a vote is imminent.
____________________