[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13374-13375]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, no question more occupied the minds of 
our Founding Fathers than how to keep American democracy from devolving 
into despotism.
  The delicate and elaborate structure of our Government is designed 
not merely to represent the will of the American people but to prevent 
the concentration and abuse of power. To eliminate the prospects that 
tyranny could take hold, the Framers not only created a separation of 
equal powers, but they gave each branch authority over its peers.
  ``Unless these departments be so far connected and blended as to give 
each a constitutional control over the others,'' James Madison wrote in 
The Federalist Papers, ``the degree of separation . . . essential to a 
free government, can never in practice be duly maintained.''
  For our system to work, no part of Government can be free from 
scrutiny--not Congress, not the judiciary, and not the White House.
  Unfortunately, Congress seems to have abdicated its role in our 
system of checks and balances. Partisan loyalty is taking precedence 
over our constitutional responsibilities, and oversight has ground to a 
halt. There are few clearer examples than Congress' failure to 
investigate the decision to withhold the cost estimates for its 
controversial Medicare proposal.
  There have been serious allegations that the administration misled 
Congress about the projected cost of the Medicare legislation, denying 
access to a study that projected much higher costs than those 
administration officials, including the President, discussed publicly. 
These allegations included charges that the former Administrator of the 
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services violated Federal law by 
threatening to fire Medicare's Chief Actuary if he disclosed the cost 
information to Members of Congress. Yet the allegations are being 
ignored in both the House and the Senate. The White House, too, has 
stonewalled. There have been no hearings, no inquiries, nothing but 
silence.
  These charges are too serious to ignore. There are four crucial 
questions relating to those facts that urgently need investigation.
  First, who in the administration knew about the higher cost 
estimates? CMS Chief Actuary Richard Foster has said that the HHS cost 
estimates were shared with White House officials.
  To assess whether there was a coordinated effort within HHS and the 
White House to mislead Congress, we need to know who in the 
administration knew about the higher cost estimates and when they knew 
it.
  Second, who in the administration participated in the decision to 
withhold the cost estimates from Congress?
  According to the Congressional Research Service, Federal employees 
have a statutory right to communicate with Congress, as well as certain 
whistleblower and employment protections. Moreover, HHS is expressly 
prohibited from using funds to pay the salary of anyone who prevents or 
attempts to prevent an executive branch employee from providing 
information to Congress if that information relates to relevant 
official matters.
  CRS has found that the CMS may have violated these laws when the 
Administrator threatened Mr. Foster. We need to know if others above 
the Administrator's level participated in or authorized this activity.
  Third, were senior leaders in Congress part of the effort to withhold 
the cost estimates from the rest of Congress?
  In a letter to Representative Henry Waxman, the Department of Health 
and Human Services has asserted that ``[Health and Human Services] made 
conferees aware that HHS expected its final scoring to be higher than 
CBO's final scoring'' and cited Republican conferee Nancy Johnson as 
one of the Members who ``knew about these numbers.''
  If the administration shared the cost estimates with selected 
Republican leaders, why did these leaders not share the estimates with 
all conferees and all Members?
  Fourth, is the administration seeking to obstruct congressional 
investigations?

[[Page 13375]]

  To date, the administration has refused to cooperate with legitimate 
efforts to investigate its actions. White House Counsel Alberto 
Gonzales has intervened to prevent officials from testifying before the 
House Ways and Means Committee about White House involvement. President 
Bush has failed to respond to a request for information from 12 U.S. 
Senators. These actions suggest there may be a concerted effort by the 
administration to block oversight of its actions.
  There could be no clearer case demonstrating the need for 
congressional oversight.
  To preserve our system of checks and balances and maintain citizens' 
trust that the power they have vested in their elected leaders is being 
exercised responsibly, we must take very seriously allegations that 
executive branch officials misled Congress in this case. Therefore, 
along with several of my colleagues, I have requested that the 
leadership in both the House and the Senate take the following two 
steps:
  First, Congress should ask the administration to provide copies of 
any documents relevant to this investigation.
  Second, Congress should hold hearings at which Mr. Scully; Doug 
Badger, Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy; and 
James Capretta, Associate Director for Human Resource Programs at OMB, 
be called to testify. Mr. Scully's relevance is self-evident. Mr. 
Badger and Mr. Capretta received cost estimates from Mr. Foster and are 
likely to have information about the White House involvement in this 
matter. Their testimony would, therefore, be critical to establishing 
key facts about this affair.
  These actions are essential if Congress is to fulfill its oversight 
responsibilities. They are simple and straightforward and will enable 
Congress to learn why the Medicare cost estimates were withheld and who 
is actually responsible.
  In addition, we are writing President Bush to urge him to clarify 
what he knew about the Medicare cost estimates, the administration's 
attempts to suppress them, and the administration's communications with 
Congress about this issue. The credibility of the White House on all 
matters of policy is at stake.
  These concerns are not limited to the Medicare debacle. As the cost 
of operations in Iraq have climbed past $200 billion, American 
taxpayers have been asking questions regarding whether every dollar 
spent has been necessary.
  Of late, those questions have centered on Halliburton. Even before 
the invasion of Iraq, there were concerns about Halliburton's 
contracts. Very quickly, these concerns proved to be justified.
  Last year, an investigation found that Halliburton charged American 
taxpayers $2.64 per gallon for gasoline shipped into Iraq, which was 
double the price other suppliers were charging. That gasoline was then 
sold to Iraqis for as little as 5 cents per gallon.
  Recently, the reports of waste, fraud, and abuse have literally been 
piling up. This week, we learned Halliburton charged taxpayers $10,000 
per day to house its employees in Kuwait's five-star Kempinski Hotel. 
The same employees could have stayed in air-conditioned tents like 
those used by American troops for $600 a day. The company purchased 
embroidered towels that cost three times that of standard towels. One 
employee discovered that Halliburton was charging for 37,200 cases of 
soda every month even though they were only providing 37,200 cans. In 
effect, Halliburton was charging the remarkable price of $45 for each 
30-can case of soda for which supermarkets charge about $7. When the 
employee began making progress in reducing Halliburton's overcharges in 
this and other areas, she was taken off the accounts.
  Most troubling, a former Halliburton truck convoy commander disclosed 
that Halliburton removed all the spare tires from its brand-new $85,000 
trucks. When the tires went flat, the trucks were abandoned or torched. 
In addition, there seemed to be near total disregard of maintenance on 
trucks.
  ``There were absolutely no oil filters or fuel filters for months on 
end. I begged for filters, but never got any,'' the convoy commander 
said. ``I was told that oil changes were `out of the question.'''
  The convoy commander also indicated that convoys of empty trucks 
often were sent out. He said Halliburton ``would run trucks empty quite 
often.
  Sometimes they would have five empty trucks, sometimes they would 
have a dozen. One time we ran 28 trucks, and only one had anything on 
it.''
  Well, whatever they are putting on the trucks, one thing is clear: 
The American taxpayer is being taken for a ride.
  When other Halliburton employees reported similar examples of waste, 
fraud, and abuse, they were told, ``Don't worry about it. It's a cost 
plus contract.'' ``Cost plus,'' evidently, is jargon for war 
profiteering.
  Despite these abuses, none of the Senate committees controlled by the 
Republican majority have investigated Halliburton's activities in Iraq 
or indicated that they intend to look into this matter.
  Such scrutiny, we are told, could jeopardize the rebuilding efforts.
  This attitude could not be more misguided. The danger in our 
rebuilding of Iraq is that the American people will lose faith in this 
effort because they feel it is too expensive or that they are being 
cheated.
  There is one way to guarantee that the American taxpayer is not being 
cheated: that is, for Congress to step up to its constitutional 
obligations to oversee the actions of the executive branch of 
government.
  Sunlight, it's been said, is the best disinfectant. But for too long, 
the administration has been able to keep Congress and the American 
people in the dark.
  Medicare and Halliburton represent only the tip of the iceberg.
  Still more major allegations of misconduct, such as the outing of the 
identity of a covert CIA agent for political gain, have been ignored.
  And other serious matters, such as the manipulation of intelligence 
about Iraq, have received only fitful attention.
  This is fundamentally wrong. Our constitutional oversight 
responsibilities should not be driven by political expediency.
  Regardless of the party affiliation of the President, there are some 
matters that are too important to be ignored.
  The American people are looking to us to provide leadership.
  If no wrongdoing has been committed, let our investigations reaffirm 
people's faith in the government's credibility.
  But if there has been wrongdoing, the American taxpayer has a right 
to see that those responsible are held accountable.
  Ensuring accountability is one of the roles the Framers set out for 
us. In a way, it is our most solemn obligation, because in fulfilling 
our task, we preserve the democratic nature of our government.
  Not only is a great deal of money at stake, the continuing faith of 
the American people in their system of governance is at stake. 
Safeguarding that democratic system is our responsibility, and it is 
time we met it.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________