[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 123 (Wednesday, September 27, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10239-S10242]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        DEMANDING ACCOUNTABILITY

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, the hardest decisions we make in the 
Senate involve asking our fellow Americans to risk their health and 
their lives in defense of our country. The cost to our country, to our 
communities, and to our families is so great that in any war we have an 
obligation to make sure we are doing right by our service members, by 
our veterans, and by our country.
  That is why we in this Congress need to ask questions. We need to ask 
questions such as: Do our troops have a clear mission? Is there a plan 
to achieve that mission? Do our troops have the support and equipment 
they need to succeed? Do we have the right people in place? And are we 
taking care of our veterans when they return home from military 
service?
  For too long, this Congress has not done its job of asking those 
questions and demanding answers. Here in Congress, we have a 
responsibility. We have a responsibility to make sure the Bush 
administration, or any administration, is fulfilling those critical 
requirements. So today I rise to offer an update on where we stand on 
some of these questions and to share some disturbing news from recent 
reports. The evidence I am going to share with my colleagues today 
points to five disappointing conclusions, and they all demand hearings 
and they demand accountability.

  First of all, the Bush administration misled Congress about its 
failures in planning for the care of America's veterans.
  Secondly, the Bush administration still does not have a plan to care 
for our veterans.
  Third, we do not have a clear mission in the war in Iraq. And that 
fight has greatly impacted our ability to prosecute the broader war on 
terror and, according to the latest intelligence estimate, has helped 
to fuel new terrorist recruits.

[[Page S10240]]

  Fourth, the Bush administration has put politics over progress in 
Iraq and at home. In Iraq, it sent political cronies to staff the 
provisional government instead of experienced professionals who could 
get the job done. From ``Brownie'' at FEMA to new reports about the HUD 
Secretary, the Bush administration put politics over competence.
  Finally, Congress--us--we are not doing our job of oversight. Unless 
we hold hearings, until we demand answers, and until we require 
accountability, we will just keep muddling through with the same poor 
results.
  We can do a lot better. We can be safer. And we can be more 
successful. But it has to start with an honest assessment of what is 
working, what is not, and what we need to change.
  In that spirit, I want to discuss those five conclusions I mentioned, 
starting with the fact that the Bush administration misled Congress 
about its inadequate efforts to care for our veterans.
  Over the past 2 budget years, the Bush administration was 
dramatically wrong in its planning for veterans health care. The result 
was a $3 billion shortfall last summer. And this was not just a failure 
in planning. It meant failing to get our veterans the services they 
required in a timely fashion. It meant veterans had to face long waits 
to see a doctor. And it meant they did not get the care they deserved.
  That horrible planning is no way to care for the veterans who have 
sacrificed so much for us. We can do better. That is why after that 
failure I joined with Senators Akaka, Durbin, and Salazar. Together we 
asked the Government Accountability Office to investigate what happened 
at the VA. Well, this is the report we got back. Frankly, the answers 
are pretty damning, and they cast doubt on whether we can rely on this 
VA for accurate numbers and straight answers.
  I wish to focus on the four findings in this report.
  First of all, the GAO found that the VA knew it had serious problems 
with its budget, but they failed to notify Congress, all of us here. 
Even worse, they misled us. The report suggests that the VA could 
still, today, be sending us inaccurate information in its quarterly 
reports.
  Secondly, the GAO found that the VA was basing its budgets on 
``unrealistic assumptions, errors in estimation, and insufficient 
data.''
  Third, the Pentagon failed to give the VA up-to-date information 
about how many service members would be coming down the pipeline and 
into the VA.
  Finally, the GAO found that the VA did not adequately plan for the 
impact of service members coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan.
  For me, I think one of the most disturbing findings is that the VA 
kept assuring us here in Congress that everything was fine, while 
inside the VA--at the same time it was assuring us things were fine--it 
was very clear that the shortfalls were growing. The VA, in fact, 
became aware it would have a problem. In October of 2004, inside the 
VA, they knew they had problems, but they did not admit those problems 
until June of 2005. Veterans were telling me of long lines and delays 
in care. For months, I tried to give the VA more money, but the 
administration fought me every step of the way. And who paid the price 
for those deceptions? America's veterans, and that was just wrong.
  Let me walk through some of the deceptions found in this GAO report. 
It shows a very troubling gap between what the VA knew and what the VA 
told us.
  According to the GAO report, starting back in October 2004, the VA 
knew that money was tight. It anticipated serious budget challenges, 
and it created, inside the VA, a ``Budget Challenges'' working group.
  Two months later, in December of 2004, that budget group made 
internal recommendations inside the VA to deal with the shortfall they 
knew they had. They suggested delaying new initiatives and shifting 
around funding.
  Two months later, in February of 2005, the Bush administration 
released its budget proposal for 2006. The GAO found that budget was 
based on ``unrealistic assumptions, errors in estimation, and 
insufficient data.''
  A week later, at a hearing on February 15, here, I asked the VA 
Secretary if the President's budget was sufficient. He told me:

       I have many of the same concerns, and I end up being 
     satisfied that we can get the job done with this budget.

  Let's remember what was happening back at that time. I was hearing 
from veterans that they were facing delays in care and that the VA 
system was stretched to capacity. But the VA kept saying: Everything is 
fine.
  On March 8, Secretary Nicholson told a House committee that the 
President's fiscal year 2006 budget ``gives VA what it needs.'' Well, I 
was hearing a much different story as I spoke with veterans in my home 
State and around the country. So that is why on March 10 I offered an 
amendment in the Senate Budget Committee to increase veterans funding 
by 3 percent so we could hire more doctors and provide faster care for 
our veterans. Unfortunately, the Republican majority said no.
  Now, that same month, while that was happening, the VA's internal 
monthly reports showed that demand for health care was exceeding 
projections. That was another warning sign that the VA should have 
shared with us, but it did not.
  On March 16, Senator Akaka and I offered an amendment here on the 
Senate floor to increase veterans funding by $2.85 billion. Once again, 
the Republican majority said no.
  The next month, on April 5, Secretary Nicholson wrote to Senator 
Hutchison:

       I can assure you that the VA does not need emergency 
     supplemental funds in FY 2005.

  A week later, on April 12, I offered two amendments on the Senate 
floor to boost veterans funding. First, I asked the Senate to agree 
that the lack of veterans funding was an emergency and we had to fix 
it. The Republican majority said no. So I asked the Senate to agree 
that supporting our veterans ought to be a priority. Again, the 
Republican majority said no. As a result, veterans did not get the 
funding they needed and the deception continued.
  On June 9, I asked Secretary Nicholson at a hearing if he had enough 
funding to deal with the mental health challenges of veterans returning 
from Iraq and Afghanistan. He assured me the VA was fine.
  So for 6 months, we had happy talk that everything was fine within 
the VA. Then, in June, just 2 weeks after the Secretary's latest 
assurance, the truth finally came out.
  On June 23, the VA revealed a massive shortfall of $3 billion. Well, 
I went to work with my colleagues and we came up with the funding. But 
we could have solved that problem much earlier and saved our veterans 
the delays they were experiencing.
  By misleading us the entire time, the Bush administration hurt our 
American veterans. We could have provided the money when it was needed. 
We could have been hiring the doctors and nurses we needed. We could 
have been buying the medical equipment that was needed. And we could 
have been helping thousands of veterans who were sitting on waiting 
lists waiting for care.
  Here is the bottom line. The Bush administration knew about this 
problem in October of 2004. They saw it getting worse month by month, 
but here in the Senate, in the House, they assured us everything was 
fine. They worked adamantly to defeat my amendments to provide funding, 
and they did not come clean until June of 2005.
  That is unacceptable. I think our veterans deserve real answers.
  This GAO report shows that the VA was not telling us in Congress the 
truth and was fighting those of us who were trying to help. I think we 
need to bring Secretary Nicholson before the Veterans Affairs' 
Committee so we can get real answers. We need to ensure that the VA 
doesn't repeat the same mistake of the past 2 years. We owe that to our 
current and future veterans who sacrifice so much for us.
  We need an explanation of why the VA lied to us about the so-called 
``management efficiency.'' The GAO found those alleged savings were 
nothing but ``hot air.'' This report clearly shows the Bush 
administration misrepresented the truth to us in Congress for 4 fiscal 
years, through 4 budgets, and 4 appropriations cycles about those bogus 
savings. When they could not make these efficiencies a reality, they 
took the funds from veterans' health care. That, too, is unacceptable.
  This report also suggests that even in its latest quarterly reports 
to us, the

[[Page S10241]]

VA is slow to report and doesn't provide key information we required, 
such as the time required for veterans to get their first appointment.
  The GAO report also says that the Department of Defense failed to 
provide the VA up-to-date information on how many service members would 
be separating from service and seeking care at the VA.
  That is frustrating to me because I have been asking every general 
who comes up here if they are doing enough to ensure a smooth 
transition from the Pentagon to the VA. In fact, on February 16 of last 
year, I questioned Secretary Rumsfeld directly. I got him to agree that 
caring for our veterans is part of the cost of a war. But he had no 
real answer when I asked why his request for the war did not include 
funding to care for our veterans.
  Finally, the GAO report verifies that the VA failed to plan for the 
impact of the veterans who are coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan. I 
am very concerned that the Bush administration still, today, right now, 
does not have a plan to meet the needs of our returning service 
members.
  Look at the gap between what the VA told us it needs and what we are 
actually spending on veterans' health care. In July, a few months ago, 
the VA sent an estimate to the Congressional Budget Office. The VA said 
it would need $1 billion a year for 10 years to care for veterans from 
Iraq.
  But here is the problem. We are already spending more than $1 billion 
this year, and we still have not seen the lion's share of veterans 
return home. There will be more veterans needing help, and $1 billion a 
year is not going to cut it.
  I have heard some of my colleagues speak about the generous increases 
to VA programs, and I agree they have been helpful. But unless the 
dollars we provide meet the needs of our veterans, we will not have 
fulfilled our responsibility to those we have asked to go to war for 
us.
  Let's focus on one area of veterans health care--support for mental 
health challenges, such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Here is what 
the Associated Press said recently:

       More than one-third of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans 
     seeking medical treatment from the Veterans Health 
     Administration report symptoms of stress or other mental 
     disorders--a tenfold increase in the last 18 months, 
     according to an agency study.

  That is from the Associated Press. It is a good thing that veterans 
are coming home and seeking help. I hope it means we have made it 
easier to get care and we have reduced the stigma associated with the 
invisible impacts of war. During the Vietnam war, I saw those 
challenges firsthand when I volunteered in the psychiatric ward of the 
Seattle VA hospital.
  I think it is good that our veterans are coming home and asking for 
care, but we have to make sure it is our responsibility in this 
Congress that we have the funding to meet that need.
  The AP article I mentioned talks about a soldier from Virginia Beach, 
VA, who was having a hard time sleeping when he came home from Iraq. Do 
you know what he was told? He was told he would have to wait 2\1/2\ 
months for an appointment at the VA facility.
  Here is a service member who has gone to war in Iraq, done what his 
country asked, and he comes home and asks for help, and all he is told 
by the VA is to get in line and wait 75 days. I find that pretty 
disgraceful.
  I have held a number of discussions in my home State of Washington 
with our veterans and with mental health experts. I was recently in 
Everett, WA, on August 17. I heard about the challenges they are facing 
on the ground.
  Whether it is dealing with a large number of veterans with severe 
physical injuries, or traumatic brain injuries, the VA has no plan to 
deal with this.
  Whether it is dealing with the 16 percent of wounded service members 
coming back from Iraq with eye injuries, which Walter Reed reported in 
August, the VA has no plan to deal with this.

  Whether it is dealing with one-third of all service members to return 
home and separate from the military, who are seeking mental health 
services, the VA has no plan. And we in Congress are still not getting 
straight answers.
  In that AP article, a VA official said he is not aware of problems 
with veterans getting mental health services. Dr. Michael Kussman is 
quoted as saying:

       We're not aware that people are having trouble getting 
     services from us in any consistent way or pattern around the 
     country.

  A lot of our veterans advocates disagree with that. In fact, another 
VA official pointed to serious problems in meeting the mental health 
need of our veterans.
  In the May edition of the Psychiatric News, Dr. Frances Murphy, the 
Under Secretary of Health Policy Coordination at the VA, said the 
agency is ill-prepared to serve the mental health needs of our Nation's 
veterans.
  In that article, Dr. Murphy notes that some VA clinics don't provide 
mental health or substance abuse care, or if they do, ``waiting lists 
render that care virtually inaccessible.''
  The Bush administration has failed to deliver our veterans the care 
they need, denying them the respect they deserve. Given the VA's bad 
track record and misleading statements, we need to demand in Congress a 
real plan from the VA to ensure that our veterans get the care they 
have earned.
  Another question we need to be asking in the Senate is about our 
mission in Iraq today. Unless we have clarity and purpose of mission, 
we are not going to know when we have achieved it and when our troops 
can come home.
  We all want the same thing in Iraq--for our troops to complete their 
mission successfully and come home safely. But today our troops' 
mission in Iraq lacks clarity. What are they accomplishing there today? 
Overthrowing Saddam Hussein? They already accomplished that. Looking 
for weapons of mass destruction? They looked; no weapons were found. 
Are they supposed to be setting up an Iraqi government? We have done 
that. The Iraqi people have created a constitution, elected leaders, 
and filled their Cabinet.
  Our troops have done everything we have asked them to do. What is 
left? Will the President's policies get us there? That is the 
discussion we ought to be having in the Congress. But every time we ask 
these questions, we get the same empty response from the President, his 
Cabinet, and the Congress: Stay the course.
  Stay the course is not a good plan, if the course you are on is not 
working. We also have to get to the truth about the relationship 
between Iraq and the broader war on terror.
  On September 6, on the floor of the Senate, I warned that the 
President's focus on Iraq has distracted us from the larger war on 
terror. I said the President took a detour from the war on terror and 
invested the majority of our resources into Iraq--seemingly forever.
  That weakens our ability to fight the broader war on terror and it 
leaves us vulnerable. We have not made the investments here at home to 
protect ourselves, and we have not finished our work against al-Qaida. 
Bin Laden is still on the loose. Afghanistan is a mess, and United 
States troops are imperiled.
  Today, 3 weeks after I gave that speech on the Senate floor, we 
learned that the National Intelligence Estimate concluded that the war 
in Iraq helped to fuel the recruitment of new terrorists. The 
administration's failure to plan and face the truth in Iraq demands 
congressional hearings so we can chart a better course.
  We also need to examine how the Bush administration bungled Iraqi 
reconstruction. On September 17, the Washington Post ran a story titled 
``Ties to GOP Trumped Know-How Among Staff Sent to Rebuild Iraq.'' That 
article describes how Americans were selected to work in Iraq for the 
Coalition Provisional Authority. That article said:

       Applicants didn't need to be experts in the Middle East or 
     in post-conflict reconstruction. What seemed most important 
     was loyalty to the Bush administration.

  It goes on to say:

       The decision to send the loyal and the willing, instead of 
     the best and the brightest, is now regarded by many people 
     involved in the 3 and a half year effort to stabilize and 
     rebuild Iraq as one of the Bush administration's gravest 
     errors.
       Many of those selected because of their political fidelity 
     spent their time trying to impose a conservative agenda on 
     the postwar occupation, which sidetracked more important 
     reconstruction efforts and squandered good will among the 
     Iraqi people, according to many people who participated in 
     the reconstruction effort.

  They had a political loyalty test instead of a competence test, and 
that

[[Page S10242]]

may be responsible for how long we have had to stay in Iraq and the 
problems we now face. Congress--us--we need to look at that and we need 
to hold people accountable.

  Unfortunately, this pattern and practice of political favoritism 
within the administration extends beyond Iraq to how the Bush 
administration handles Government contracts here at home. Just last 
week, we got new evidence that a member of the President's Cabinet has 
made a series of statements that highlighted the importance of politics 
in awarding Government contracts in his agency.
  In May, I asked the Inspector General at HUD to look into Secretary 
Alphonso Jackson's public statements that he deliberately denied a 
contract to a firm that had been critical of President Bush. Now, last 
week, the IG sent me the results of that investigation. This report is 
340 pages long, with hundreds of pages of sworn testimony from dozens 
of HUD officials. This report includes sworn statements from HUD 
personnel, stating that Secretary Jackson told his staff to monitor the 
political affiliation of contract competitors and consider those 
affiliations in the awarding of contracts.
  Secretary Jackson said that a HUD contractor had strong political 
affiliations that were not supportive of the President, and the 
Secretary said he did not want the contractor to receive any additional 
HUD contracts. As a result, the contractor's award was subjected to an 
unusual extent of delay and review.
  So we have a Cabinet Secretary telling his staff to issue contracts 
based on politics, not based on who can do the best job for us, the 
American taxpayers. It is true that, in looking at the record, the 
Justice Department concluded:

       that no apparent criminal violation could be discerned 
     based on evidence to date.

  But the Justice Department came to that conclusion only because HUD 
staff actually ignored the Secretary's inappropriate instructions.
  When you combine what has been going on at HUD with what happened at 
the CPA in Iraq and reports about similar issues at the Department of 
the Interior, it is clear that this Congress--all of us--needs to 
demand accountability.
  That is why, last week, I wrote to White House Chief of Staff Josh 
Bolten and urged him to take immediate steps to ensure that political 
favoritism and discrimination do not play a role in Federal contracts.
  I recognize we cannot rely on the White House Chief of Staff to clean 
up the Bush administration, which brings me to my final point this 
morning.
  We need real oversight. In this Congress, there has been very little 
oversight of this administration. The President has basically had free 
reign because of this Republican-controlled Congress, and we have 
failed to do the job in asking tough questions and demanding answers.
  Norman Ornstein is an expert on Congress at the conservative American 
Enterprise Institute, and he said this Congress is the worst he has 
seen in terms of oversight.
  He told the Philadelphia Inquirer:

       These people have long thought of themselves as foot 
     soldiers in the President's army, and their view is that 
     oversight is something to avoid, lest they find something 
     that might embarrass the administration. I don't see a single 
     sign that this attitude will substantially change.

  That was congressional expert Norman Ornstein on the Republican 
failure to oversee the Bush administration.
  Democrats are trying to provide the oversight that Republicans so far 
have been unwilling to provide. On Monday, in fact, the Democratic 
Policy Committee held a hearing on preparations for the war in Iraq. 
Retired military leaders at that hearing told us that the Bush 
administration failed to plan for the war and that the administration 
misled the American people.
  We had to hold those hearings under a policy committee banner because 
Republicans would not hold real committee oversight hearings. We have 
to have oversight here, no matter what the administration is, 
Republican or Democratic, so that we as Members of this body who 
represent people across the country can learn the facts and we can fix 
things that are not going well. That is our job. If we never have real 
hearings, if we never demand real accountability, well, we will never 
get good results.
  I believe America can do a lot better. I believe we can be more 
secure. I believe our troops can be safer. But it has to start with the 
truth, not rosy predictions of how things will be, not declarations of 
will that gloss over the facts on the ground, not corruption in 
politics holding back progress. Simply the truth. And, so far, this 
Congress has been unwilling to let our citizens learn the truth.
  I think the American people deserve better, and I hope each one of us 
goes home and thinks about what our responsibility is to the people we 
represent and to the future of this country.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune) Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________