[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 14456-14464]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending bill.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2361) making appropriations for the Department 
     of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Burns (for Voinovich) amendment No. 1010, to prohibit the 
     use of funds to take certain land into trust without the 
     consent of the Governor of the State in which the land is 
     located.
       Burns (for Frist/Reid) amendment No. 1022, to provide for 
     Congressional security relating to certain real property.
       Dorgan (for Boxer) amendment No. 1023, to prohibit the use 
     of funds by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency to accept, consider, or rely on third-party 
     intentional dosing human studies for pesticides or to conduct 
     intentional dosing human studies for pesticides.
       Dorgan amendment No. 1025, to require Federal reserve banks 
     to transfer certain surplus funds to the general fund of the 
     Treasury, to be used for the provision of Indian health care 
     services.
       Sununu/Bingaman amendment No. 1026, to prohibit the use of 
     funds to plan, design, study or construct certain forest 
     development roads in the Tongass National Forest.
       Dorgan (for Kerry) amendment No. 1029, making emergency 
     supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2005, for the Veterans Health Administration.
       Dorgan (for Bingaman) amendment No. 1030, to modify a 
     provision relating to funds appropriated for Bureau of Indian 
     Affairs postsecondary schools.
       Dorgan (for Bingaman) amendment No. 1031, to set aside 
     additional amounts for Youth Conservation Corps projects.
       Dorgan (for Durbin) amendment No. 1032, to prohibit the use 
     of funds in contravention of the Executive order relating to 
     Federal actions to address environmental justice in minority 
     populations and low-income populations.
       Dorgan (for Reed) amendment No. 1036, to modify certain 
     administrative provisions relating to the brownfield site 
     characterization and assessment program.
       Dorgan (for Reed) amendment No. 1037, to authorize 
     recipients of grants provided under the brownfield site 
     characterization and assessment program to use grant funds 
     for reasonable administrative expenses.
       Salazar amendment No. 1038, to provide additional funds for 
     the payment in lieu of taxes program, with an offset.
       Salazar amendment No. 1039, to provide that certain user 
     fees collected under the Land and Water Conservation Act of 
     1965 be paid to the States.
       Burns (for Bond) amendment No. 1040, to set aside funds for 
     the University of Missouri-Columbia to establish a wetland 
     ecology center of excellence.
       Burns (for Warner) amendment No. 1042, to set aside funds 
     for the replacement of the main gate facility at the Wolf 
     Trap National Park for the Performing Arts, Virginia.
       Burns (for Ensign) amendment No. 1012, to provide for the 
     conveyance of certain Bureau of Land Management land in the 
     State of Nevada to the Las Vegas Motor Speedway.
       Burns (for Coburn) amendment No. 1002, to reduce total 
     appropriations in the bill by 1.7 percent for the purpose of 
     fully funding the Department of Defense.
       Burns (for Coburn) amendment No. 1003, to require 
     conference report inclusion of limitations, directives, and 
     earmarks.
       Burns (for Coburn) amendment No. 1015, to transfer funding 
     to Wildland Fire Management from the National Endowment for 
     the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.
       Burns (for Coburn) amendment No. 1019, to transfer funding 
     to the Special Diabetes Program for Indians and the Alcohol 
     and Substance Abuse Program within the Indian Health Service 
     from funding for federal land acquisition.

[[Page 14457]]

       Burns (for Coburn) amendment No. 1020, to express the Sense 
     of the Senate that any additional emergency supplemental 
     appropriations should be offset with reductions in 
     discretionary spending.
       Dorgan (for Feingold) amendment No. 1043, to require the 
     Government Accountability Office to conduct an audit of the 
     competitive sourcing program of the Forest Service.
       Dorgan (for Byrd) amendment No. 1044, to set aside funds 
     for the White Sulphur Springs Fish Hatchery.
       Dorgan (for Conrad) amendment No. 1045, to set aside funds 
     for a brownfields assessment of the Fortuna Radar Site.
       Dorgan (for Sarbanes) amendment No. 1046, to provide for a 
     study of the feasibility of designating the Captain John 
     Smith Chesapeake National Historic Watertrail as a national 
     historic trail.
       Kyl (for Smith) amendment No. 1048, to require the 
     Secretary of Agriculture to report to Congress on the 
     rehabilitation of the Biscuit Fire area of southern Oregon.
       Kyl amendment No. 1049, to provide certain earmarks for 
     State and tribal assistance grant funds.
       Kyl amendment No. 1050, to modify the formula for the 
     allotment of grants to States for the establishment of State 
     water pollution control revolving funds.
       Kyl (for Inhofe) amendment No. 1051, to encourage 
     competition in assistance agreements awarded by the 
     Environmental Protection Agency.
       Byrd (for Murray) amendment No. 1052, making emergency 
     supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2005, for the Veterans Health Administration.
       Byrd/Cochran amendment No. 1053, to provide funds for the 
     Memorial to Martin Luther King, Jr.
       Dorgan (for Bingaman) amendment No. 1054, to set aside 
     additional amounts for Youth Conservation Corps projects.
       Dorgan (for Bingaman) amendment No. 1055, to provide for 
     the consideration of the effect of competitive sourcing on 
     wildland fire management activities.
       Dorgan (for Bingaman) amendment No. 1056, to strike the 
     title providing for the disposition of Forest Service land 
     and the realignment of Forest Service facilities.
       Dorgan (for Bingaman) amendment No. 1057, to extend the 
     Forest Service conveyances pilot program.
       Dorgan (for Bingaman) amendment No. 1058, to provide a 
     substitute for title V, Facility Realignment and Enhancement 
     Act of 2005.
       Dorgan amendment No. 1059, to facilitate family travel to 
     Cuba in humanitarian circumstance.
       Dorgan (for Landrieu) amendment No. 1060, to make certain 
     funding revisions relating to Historically Black Colleges and 
     Universities, and Department of the Interior administrative 
     expenses.
       Dorgan (for Obama) amendment No. 1061, to provide that none 
     of the funds made available in this Act may be used in 
     contravention of 15 U.S.C. section 2682(c)(3) or to delay the 
     implementation of that section.
       Dorgan (for Obama) amendment No. 1062, to provide that of 
     the funds made available under the heading ``Environmental 
     Programs and Management,'' not less than $100,000 shall be 
     made available to issue the proposed rule required under 15 
     U.S.C. section 2682(c)(3) by November 1, 2005, and promulgate 
     the final rule required under 15 U.S.C. section 2682(c)(3) by 
     September 30, 2006.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1053

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order regarding 
amendment No. 1053.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That amendment is now pending before the 
Senate.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I have no remarks at the 
moment. If the Senator who stands in front of me, with his hand across 
his heart, wishes to make some comments, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, we are trying to work this out. The 
Senator's amendment is a very good amendment. I would like to visit 
with him a little bit about it.
  I 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. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the adoption 
of my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I 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. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
Senators be added as cosponsors to amendment No. 1053: Warner, Kennedy, 
Mikulski, Landrieu, Johnson, Stabenow, Murray, Bingaman, Jeffords, and 
in that order, please.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Also, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my 
colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, be included and that 
his name occur in the order listed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Obama be added as a 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any other 
Senators on both sides of the aisle who wish to be added as cosponsors, 
that their names be added if they will let us know before the hour of 
12 o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. If they will let the leaders know. I thank the Chair 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. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, without interfering with the orderly 
business of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning 
business briefly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BURNS. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Kennedy are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1053

  Mr. WARNER. It is my understanding of the parliamentary situation 
that an amendment by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia and 
the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Cochran, is the 
pending matter. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that I be made a cosponsor with 
them. I spoke to the sponsors earlier this morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend these two Senators for taking 
the initiative to add an incremental part of the cost of the Martin 
Luther King Memorial, and I would like to take a minute to go back and 
recite the history of the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial. During the 
104th Congress, while Chairman of the Rules Committee, I joined my 
colleague from Maryland, Senator Sarbanes, to authorize a project for 
construction on the national mall. Our bill, as I read from the 
Committee Report for S. 426 from December 19, 1995, authorized the 
Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, the oldest Black fraternity in the United 
States, to establish without cost to the Federal Government, a memorial 
in the District of Columbia and its environs to the late Dr. Martin 
Luther King.

[[Page 14458]]

Similar bills were introduced in the 100th, 101st, 102d, and 103d 
Congresses, reported favorably by the Committee on Rules and 
Administration in the 100th Congress, and in the 102d Congress the bill 
passed the Senate. Again, that reference, for those who want to go back 
and read this report, is Calendar No. 284, December 19, 1995.
  I was privileged to work with Senator Sarbanes on this legislation, 
and we did secure the authorization for this group and others to 
proceed with this memorial.
  If I might say, Mr. President--and I say this with a great sense of 
humility--I have always had a deep admiration for Dr. King. It started 
at the time that he went to the Lincoln Memorial and addressed, indeed, 
the world, much less the United States, the Nation. I came down not as 
a participant but as a spectator, as a young man. I was drawn to the 
location, as were many others, and simply stood quietly on the side of 
the street as the marchers went by and then was able to get close 
enough to hear in some way some parts of the speech as it was so 
eloquently delivered that day.
  Then in later years I was privileged to be a member of the Chapter of 
the Washington National Cathedral, the Chapter being the governing body 
of the Cathedral at that time, and the subject of his addressing the 
Nation from the pulpit came up. I always expressed support for that, 
and actually my term expired before the historic day when he was 
invited to take the pulpit at the Washington Cathedral and give his 
last sermon. He met his tragic and untimely death shortly after that.
  So it is against that background that I joined with my dear and 
valued friend, Senator Sarbanes, to introduce the original authorizing 
legislation. Construction was required to begin by November 2003. 
However, because of the difficulty in choosing a site, finalizing a 
design, and raising the $100 million that would be necessary, the 
project was still in need of funds. In 2003 I again joined my colleague 
from Maryland to extend the authorization so the Martin Luther King, 
Jr. National Memorial Project Foundation would have additional time to 
raise the funds necessary to erect a fitting tribute to Dr. King. We 
were able to pass another piece of legislation, S. 470, to extend the 
deadline to November of 2006.
  Since that time, I am pleased to say that the Foundation has raised 
approximately $40 million toward the total cost of the Memorial. Today 
I join my dear friends Senators Byrd, Cochran, and Sarbanes to provide 
an additional $10 million for the construction.
  I simply add that, as noted in the December 1995 Committee Report, 
the first paragraph I read, about the public funding, at that time it 
was the hope and expectation that private funds could achieve the goals 
in their entirety. Although arduous and wonderful efforts have been put 
together by many people to raise the funding, I think it is appropriate 
that this increment of public funding be added. And I say that because 
I was--many of us--a part of the effort to establish the World War II 
Memorial. And there, again, it was, I think, 95 percent private funding 
largely through the efforts of our beloved colleagues, Bob Dole and 
Fred Smith, a citizen of national and international recognition and 
accomplishment, and together their large team of people did raise about 
$100 million. But at the very end there were expenses to be incurred 
that were not foreseen to enable a massive audience to come from all 
over the United States for the dedication. And at that time, as a 
Member of the Armed Services Committee, I was able to secure some 
modest amount of funds, several million dollars, to enable that 
ceremony to be completed. So I think precedent is established there for 
the use of public funds for memorials of enormous significance 
historically and otherwise to our Nation.
  Dr. King serves as a reminder that change can be brought about most 
powerfully when it is done by non-violent means. Visitors will come to 
the Memorial from every part of this country and indeed the world, to 
be inspired anew by Dr. King's words and deeds, and the extraordinary 
story of his life. It will be of particular inspiration to the many 
school children who will visit for years to come.
  Dr. King's dream is the fulfillment, in part, of the revolutionary 
words of great American patriots such as Thomas Jefferson and it is 
fitting that the two monuments will rest across from each other.
  I have worked with my friend and colleague from Maryland, Senator 
Sarbanes, from the beginning of the efforts in Congress to secure a 
site and build a memorial on the national mall. I am proud of our 
humble contributions to this project and look forward--with great 
expectation to the day that we can visit Dr. King's Memorial in its 
rightful place--among the giants of American history and liberty.
  Mr. President, I again commend the sponsors and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend from West 
Virginia, the distinguished Senator who formerly served as chairman of 
the Senate Appropriations Committee, in offering this amendment for the 
consideration of the Senate.
  I appreciate Senator Byrd inviting me to be an original cosponsor of 
this amendment and join him in this effort to see that the memorial 
previously authorized to be constructed on the Mall here in the 
Nation's Capital in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King be funded so 
construction can begin and this memorial be completed.
  The Martin Luther King Memorial was authorized to be constructed on a 
4-acre tract on the Mall to recognize and honor the influence on civil 
rights and justice for all--for all Americans--to which Dr. King 
devoted a lifetime of courageous service and leadership.
  Although the legislation contemplates, as my friend from Virginia, 
Mr. Warner, points out, that all of the funds for the construction of 
the memorial would be raised from private sources, much in the same way 
as the World War II Memorial was constructed--there has been $42 
million of private donations made for this purpose--there is needed 
additional funds. It is hoped that the adoption of this amendment will 
show the serious commitment of the Congress in seeing that this 
memorial is completed at the earliest possible date. This could jump-
start the final stage of fundraising and enable construction to begin. 
It is my hope the Senate will support this effort and approve the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I spoke on yesterday when I offered the amendment for 
the Senate's consideration. I will not speak further at this time 
except to say that my remarks of yesterday will be found on page 14301 
of the Congressional Record.
  I am very pleased that my chairman of the Senate Appropriations 
Committee, the distinguished Senator from Mississippi--I say 
``distinguished,'' the distinguished Senator, Mr. Cochran--I am 
delighted he is the chief cosponsor of the amendment. I appreciate his 
excellent remarks today.
  I also express my deep appreciation to the distinguished gentleman--
the distinguished ``gentleman''--the Senator from Virginia. And I say 
that with all the emphasis that word's meaning carries. He is a great 
Senator. He believes in the Constitution of the United States. He swore 
to support and defend it, and he has not forgotten his oath. He has not 
forgotten his oath. And he has stated it and restated it, holding his 
hand on the Bible and the other hand to God and all men. He has 
restated it several times, and he has lived up to it. I commend him.
  He has been in the forefront of the effort to honor Dr. Martin Luther 
King with a memorial on the Mall. He has been in that forefront over a 
period of several years. He cosponsored, as he has pointed out, the 
original authorization. I am so pleased he is cosponsoring this 
amendment. He stood as a spectator, he said, but he later became an 
active participant in the history that followed on to that moment in 
which

[[Page 14459]]

he was a spectator watching from the streets.
  So he has become a part of history. And what I say with regard to the 
distinguished gentleman, the Senator from Virginia--the Virginian--I 
say also with equal heartfelt thanks to the distinguished Senator from 
Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, who has announced he will not remain with us 
after next year, to my great sorrow and regret. But Senator Sarbanes 
has been a leader in the march toward justice for all men and women. I 
commend him, likewise. And I thank him for being a cosponsor of this 
amendment.
  While I have the floor, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the following Senators be added as cosponsors to the amendment: Senator 
Feinstein, Senator Schumer, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Boxer, Senator 
Harkin, and Senator Corzine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join in 
cosponsoring this amendment. I thank the Chairman and the ranking 
member of the Appropriations Committee for bringing this amendment 
forward. It is an enormously important contribution to the effort that 
is underway now to honor Dr. Martin Luther King, by placing his 
memorial between President Roosevelt's Memorial and the Lincoln 
Memorial on the National Mall.
  I thank the Senators for their kind comments. My dear friend from 
Virginia, Senator Warner, and I worked together on this project to help 
move it along. It has had overwhelming support in the Congress and in 
the country, but raising the money has been a difficult proposition. 
Let's be very clear about this--an enormous effort has gone into 
bringing this memorial to fruition and significant moneys have been 
raised.
  While we are not yet there, this amendment will provide a tremendous 
boost to the fundraising effort. It shows clearly the support of the 
Congress. Senator Cochran and Senator Byrd, by coming forward with the 
amendment, at this critical time, have given this entire effort an 
impetus, which will bring it to a successful conclusion.
  Interestingly enough, I, too, was there when Martin Luther King gave 
his ``I Have a Dream'' speech, that Mr. Warner, the able Senator from 
Virginia, referred to earlier. It was clearly a historic occasion that 
helped to shape the nature of our country for the better--much for the 
better. Dr. King fought to establish the proposition that people should 
be judged by their character and not by the color of their skin. He 
enunciated that principle time and time again.
  The other thing he did was he advocated his position in a nonviolent 
way. He asserted that in a democratic society, these goals could be 
achieved through peaceful means, through nonviolent means. He channeled 
the energy and the commitment that was devoted toward achieving racial 
equality in this country into peaceful paths. And our country has been 
much the better for his efforts.
  So much work has gone into this Memorial--first in getting it 
approved and then in finding the location for it on the National Mall. 
But, it has been worth the effort because when schoolchildren come to 
the Nation's Capital in the year's to come, part of their visit to 
Washington will involve a trip to the Martin Luther King Memorial.
  The plans that have been prepared are quite impressive. They will 
have an opportunity to visit that Memorial and to reflect upon the 
contribution which Dr. King made to our Nation: the healing he brought 
about, the realization of the American dream, that all of our people--
all--have an opportunity to participate and to advance themselves and 
their families.
  So I join with my colleagues. I thank them for their very kind 
remarks. I appreciate the Senator from Virginia reminding us of the 
effort that went into helping bring us to this day. I especially again 
thank Senators Cochran and Byrd for coming forward with this amendment 
at a very critical time, to give an impetus to the effort to do the 
fundraising that is necessary to build this Memorial and to have, in 
effect, this national treasure on the Mall.
  Dr. King's statue is, of course, here in the Capitol, as we know. It 
is fitting now that we move beyond the Capitol and create this Memorial 
on the Mall in recognition of all he stood for and what he represented 
in terms of realizing the words and ideals embodied in the Declaration 
of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
  I thank my colleagues very much.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
Maryland, a dear, dear friend. We have worked on so many things 
together, and continue to do so.
  But I recall very vividly going down on the day we dedicated the 
site. It was a bitterly cold day. There was a small tent in which there 
was a heater going, and we emerged from the tent. I, for some reason, 
remember one line, not spoken by either of us but by several others who 
spoke at the occasion: The site was chosen so the sunrise cast its 
first rays on the memorial; and then, as the sun set, the final resting 
rays of the day would drape the memorial. I remember that phrase to 
this day.
  I thank my friend for his kind remarks.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, we have some modifications to make, and we 
have a list of those amendments that have been cleared on both sides.


                    Amendment No. 1040, As Modified

  Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification for Senator Bond on 
amendment No. 1040 and ask unanimous consent that the amendment be so 
modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 154, line 12, strike ``That'' and insert ``That 
     from the amount provided for the biological research 
     activity, $200,000 may be made available to the University of 
     Missouri-Columbia to establish a wetland ecology center of 
     excellence: Provided further, That''.

                    Amendment No. 1044, As Modified

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I send to the desk Senator Byrd's 
modification to amendment No. 1044 and ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be so modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 139, line 5, before the period insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That of the total amounts 
     made available under this heading, $350,000 may be made 
     available for the mussel program at the White Sulphur Springs 
     National Fish Hatchery''.

                    Amendment No. 1045, As Modified

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification to 
amendment No. 1045 and ask unanimous consent that the amendment be so 
modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 195, line 7, after ``costs'', insert the following: 
     ``, of which $200,000 may be made available for a brownfields 
     assessment of the Fortuna Radar Site''.

Amendments Nos. 1022; 1040, As Modified; 1048; 1044, As Modified; 1036; 
                   1032; 1037; and 1045, As Modified

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, the following amendments have been cleared 
by both sides, and I ask unanimous consent that they be adopted: 
amendment No. 1022, offered by the leadership on both sides of the 
aisle; amendment No. 1040, as modified, offered by Senator Bond; 
amendment No. 1048, offered by Senator Smith; amendment No. 1044, as 
modified, offered by Senator Byrd; amendment No. 1036, offered by 
Senator Reed; amendment No. 1032, offered by Senator Durbin; amendment 
No.

[[Page 14460]]

1037, offered by Senator Reed; and amendment No. 1045, as modified, 
offered by Senator Conrad. I ask for their adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the consideration and 
adoption of the amendments en bloc?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, those amendments have all been cleared by 
both sides. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If not, without objection, the amendments are 
agreed to en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 1022; 1040, as modified; 1048; 1044, as 
modified; 1036; 1032; 1037; and 1045, as modified) were agreed to en 
bloc.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished manager of the bill 
yield?
  Mr. BURNS. I will.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
Senators be added as cosponsors to the Martin Luther King, Jr. 
amendment: Senators Brownback, DeWine, and Levin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair and the distinguished Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we are on the Interior appropriations 
bill, waiting for additional debate. All amendments have been offered, 
but we are waiting for additional debate on some amendments. I am going 
to seek to speak in morning business.
  Mr. BURNS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. Yes.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I remind Senators that we are going to 
start calling up these amendments right after lunch. I want to warn 
Senators to come down and defend their amendments. If not, we are going 
to start taking action on them first thing after lunch. We have the 
order already agreed to, and we want to complete this bill by tomorrow 
morning, if possible. There is more impending business before the 
Senate. It is important that the appropriations process move forward. 
We will be calling up those amendments this afternoon, and those 
Senators defending and offering those amendments should be on the floor 
to defend them.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in 
morning business for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Carlos Lazo

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, to follow up on an issue I raised 
yesterday, I have not yet received a return call from the State 
Department. As I indicated, Karl Rove and the chief of staff at the 
White House had sent word to me following my discussion with Karl Rove 
last Friday that Mr. Zoellick at the State Department would be handling 
this issue. The issue is Mr. Carlos Lazo, a marine who fought in Iraq 
and won the Bronze Star for bravery and courage, came back to this 
country. He is a fellow who fled Cuba on a raft in 1992. His wife and 
children remain in Cuba unable to leave. He went to fight in the 
National Guard, went to Iraq to fight for this country, earned a Bronze 
Star last November in Iraq. He came back to this country to find out 
that his son was quite ill in Cuba. He wanted to go visit his son and 
was told he can't travel to Cuba because the President's current 
regulations and rules say you can only visit once every 3 years.
  This young man who fled Cuba, came to this country, put on America's 
uniform, fought for this country in Iraq, won a Bronze Star fighting 
for freedom, comes back to this country. He doesn't have the freedom to 
go to see his sick child in Cuba. That is unbelievable to me. Why? 
Because there is no humanitarian exemption in the travel to Cuba 
regulation the President proposed several years ago.
  I have asked all the folks involved: Do you mean there is no 
flexibility at all in this regulation proposed by the President?
  None at all, they said. We have people calling. Their mothers are 
dying in Cuba, and we won't let them go. You can only go once every 3 
years.
  So Mr. Zoellick did tell me he is looking into it. I haven't heard 
back from him. Sergeant Lazo, who is walking around with a Bronze Star 
awarded by this country for his heroism on the battlefield, does not 
apparently have the freedom to go see his sick son. I will continue to 
ask these questions of the administration.
  Incidentally, I have offered an amendment on this legislation. I 
agree it is going to take a two-thirds vote, but I want to see the 
people in the Senate who want to vote against giving this marine the 
opportunity to go see his sick child. It is not just him. It is all the 
other people caught in the web of this bizarre travel restriction. In 
an attempt to slap around Fidel Castro, we have decided to restrict the 
freedom of the American people to travel to Cuba. What a strange thing 
that is. We can travel to Communist China, Vietnam, but you can't go 
see your sick child in Cuba. You can't take your father's ashes to 
distribute on the church grounds of the church he ministered at in 
Cuba, after your dad died and his last wishes were to have his ashes 
distributed on the church property in Cuba. When you do that, you get 
hit with a big fine. It is unbelievable.
  I won't go on except to say that I continue to wait by the phone for 
a call back from Mr. Zoellick who apparently is handling this. My hope 
is they will find a way to do the right thing. My hope is the Senate 
will be able to vote on this in the next day, and maybe the Senate will 
decide what the right thing is. The right thing is for humanitarian 
reasons to allow this courageous soldier who fought for freedom to have 
the freedom to go see his sick child.


                              Halliburton

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me describe a hearing I chaired 
yesterday morning. It was a hearing on the subject of Halliburton. 
Typically, Halliburton has put out a statement saying that it was 
political. They have been saying this is political for a long while. I 
held a hearing because the authorizing committee won't. This is the 
fifth hearing I have held.
  The highest civilian official in the Department of Defense, working 
with the Corps of Engineers, testified at that hearing. She was 
describing the meetings during which Halliburton was awarded no-bid 
contracts worth billions of dollars.
  She said:

       I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to 
     contracts awarded to KBR [the subsidiary of Halliburton] 
     represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I 
     have witnessed during the course of my professional career.

  She insisted these things be done right. They weren't done right. 
These were sweetheart deals, worth billions of dollars, given to a 
company without competition for the bid, companies that had an inside 
track to get the money, get the bid, and they did.
  Let me describe one more piece of testimony from an employee of this 
company. We have had testimony from many others who worked for this 
company in the country of Iraq under the contract given to Halliburton. 
This is from an employee of Halliburton who testified yesterday. He was 
involved in food service, providing food to our troops:

       Food items were being brought into the base that were 
     outdated or expired as much as a year. We were told by the 
     [Halliburton] food service managers to use these items 
     anyway.

  They are feeding the American troops, and they are receiving food 
that has an expired date on it; some as much as a year ago have 
expired. They said give it to the troops anyway. This food was fed to 
the troops. Continuing to quote:

       A lot of these were frozen foods: Chicken, beef, fish, and 
     ice cream. For trucks that were hit by convoy fire and 
     bombings [during delivery], we were told to go into the 
     trucks and remove the food items and use them after removing 
     the bullets and any shrapnel from the bad food that was hit.


[[Page 14461]]


  I will say that again:

       We were told to go into the trucks and remove the food 
     items and use them after removing the bullets and any 
     shrapnel from the bad food that was hit. We were told to turn 
     the removed bullets over to the managers for souvenirs. When 
     I had the military check some of the food shipments, they 
     would turn the food items away. But there wasn't any making 
     of the record, so KBR [Halliburton] just sent the food to 
     another base for use.

  It is unbelievable. We are talking about feeding soldiers here, and 
this is an employee of the company that was receiving billions of 
dollars to feed soldiers. In fact, what caught my attention about this 
issue is that Halliburton was charging us to feed 42,000 soldiers a 
day, and it turns out they were only feeding 14,000 soldiers. They were 
billing the Government for 42,000 soldiers and feeding 14,000. I didn't 
know they were feeding soldiers food that had expired on its label, 
food that had come in trucks that had been attacked with bullets and 
shrapnel embedded in the food to be removed first and then provided to 
the superiors for souvenirs. This is unbelievable.
  Everybody here talks about honoring America's soldiers. What kind of 
honor exists in providing a sole-source, no-bid contract worth billions 
of dollars to a company that is feeding food to our soldiers that is 
outdated or expired on its label? They say do it any way, it doesn't 
matter, it is just soldiers. This is just one more example. Every time 
we hear this sort of thing, we get Halliburton putting out a statement 
that says this is just politics because the Vice President used to run 
Halliburton. We didn't talk about the Vice President yesterday. This is 
a company that got a sweetheart deal at the Pentagon and there are 
stories after stories of abuse. There was one about the guy who came to 
our hearing some while ago, and he held up a hand towel. He was in 
charge of buying supplies such as hand towels. Well, the hand towels he 
would have bought for the soldiers weren't what his boss wanted. He 
bought the ones his bosses wanted to buy; they were almost double the 
price. Why? They wanted the company logo on the hand towel. The 
taxpayers get bilked, and it increased the price of the hand towels 
used by soldiers.
  Unbelievable. The stories we have heard are hard to believe. They 
ordered 50,000 pounds of nails, but they came in the wrong size. They 
are now dumped in the desert in Iraq. It is just a mistake. How about 
driving $85,000 trucks and when you get a flat tire, you leave the 
truck. An $85,000 new truck gets a flat tire or has a plugged fuel 
pump--just trash the truck, leave it beside the road and somebody 
torches it.
  The stories are astounding every time we hear them. Mr. President, 
every time we hold a hearing, we have the same response. I am not 
interested in holding any more hearings. I have held five. The only 
reason we will hold hearings is the authorizing committee won't. You 
would think somebody would be halfway interested in this kind of fraud. 
Some of it is abuse or recklessness.
  I will tell you one other thing. This is Mr. Rory Mayberry, former 
food production manager at KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton. He happens 
to be in Baghdad at this minute, but he is not working for Halliburton. 
He is working for another contractor. Here is what Mr. Mayberry said. 
He said: When the Government auditors came to try to determine what 
they were doing, I was told all of the employees were told don't you 
dare talk to a Government auditor. Don't you speak to them. If you do, 
one of two things will happen. No. 1, you are either going to be 
transferred to an area where there is hostile activity, in a fire zone, 
or you are going to be fired. He talked to an auditor at one point, and 
he was sent to Fallujah during the fighting. That is the way they 
handled him. Then he quit.
  It is unbelievable. They are telling employees you may not speak to 
auditors under the threat of being fired. You cannot talk or cooperate 
with Government auditors. Why? I suppose the reason is because this 
sort of nonsense is going on. They have a sole-source contract, a 
noncompetitive contract, with billions of dollars going out the door. 
There is massive waste, abuse and, yes, I believe, fraud. Now, we know 
there is, at this point, slightly more than $1 billion in billing to 
the Federal Government by Halliburton, which has a sole-source contract 
worth billions. We know there is $1 billion that has been formally 
objected to by the Pentagon. There is about $440 million above that for 
which there is not sufficient documentation. Yet, this Congress seems 
to be willing to snore through all of this.
  In 1941, right on the edge of the Second World War, Harry Truman was 
a Democrat and here on the floor of the Senate. There was a Democrat in 
the White House. Maybe it was uncomfortable to have a Democratic 
Senator going after waste, fraud, and abuse in the military in 
contracting, but he did. They went after it for 6 years. I am sure 
Franklin Delano Roosevelt didn't like it, but the Truman committee, as 
it was known, held hundreds of hearings and, in 1940 dollars, saved $16 
billion. Would that, could that, should that happen now? The answer is 
yes. Would it or could it? Probably not because no one is interested in 
having these hearings--no one. Is the White House interested in having 
hearings like this? Absolutely not. Is anybody going to respond to the 
question of whether expired food is being fed to soldiers? Will one 
person stand up downtown at the White House or at the Pentagon and 
demand answers now? Will there be one hearing by the authorizing 
committee? Will one person be angry enough to decide this should not 
happen any longer? I doubt it.
  Month after month after month, through five hearings, nobody seems to 
give a damn about this. We have soldiers eating bad food, taxpayers 
being bilked, and nobody seems to care. Somebody should. This Congress 
has little reason to hold its head high when it decides to ignore these 
kinds of things. It is not of great interest to me to continue to hold 
hearings through our policy committee, but I will do it if the 
authorizing committees will not. I don't have the foggiest idea why 
somebody would want to have an authorizing committee if they weren't 
interested in following the trail of wrongdoing. Look, this doesn't 
take an ``Inspector Clouseau.'' You don't need a funny looking hat to 
track this down. It is all out in front of you. The whole case is laid 
out. Yet, nobody seems to care.
  We don't honor these soldiers, such as Sergeant Lazo, by saying you 
can fight for freedom and earn a Bronze Star, but you don't have the 
liberty or the freedom to go see your sick child. We don't honor our 
soldiers by deciding it is OK for someone to feed them bad food or 
expired food. I hope perhaps all those who talk about honoring soldiers 
will decide that honor means a responsibility to follow up. We have had 
these discussions on the floor of the Senate before about uparmoring 
humvees and other things. Every time it is raised, it is political, we 
are told. Perhaps sometimes we should understand there are areas of 
serious policy, serious concern that ought to embrace the time of this 
Congress. We spend so much time on things that have so little 
importance.
  I said yesterday that this is a Congress that has tended to treat the 
light too seriously and the serious too lightly and important things 
that really matter and really make a difference in people's lives are 
largely not the center of debate here in the Congress. I regret that. 
We can, and should, do much better.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, following my 
presentation, the entire testimony of Rory Mayberry, former food 
production manager at Halliburton's KBR.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in 
the Record, following my remarks, the formal statements presented 
yesterday by the highest ranking civilian official in the Corps of 
Engineers at the Pentagon, Bunnatine Greenhouse.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mr. DORGAN. She is a woman who had a wonderful career for a long 
time,

[[Page 14462]]

was given high marks always, clearly someone with a sterling reputation 
and a great career, who ran afoul of the ``old boy's network,'' it 
appears to me, in the Pentagon when they decided they wanted to steer 
certain contracts in certain ways. She said: You are not following 
regulations. That is the wrong thing to do, and we are going to see 
waste, fraud, and abuse as a result of it. She would not go along with 
it all. Guess what. They decided to tell her that, despite all those 
glowing performance evaluations, they are changing their mind on her if 
she would not go along, so she was either going to be demoted or fired. 
She testified yesterday, when she was told by the acting general 
counsel of the Corps of Engineers that it would not be in her best 
interest to speak publicly about these things. Oh, really? I thank her 
for the courage and the others for their courage. I also thank Rory for 
the courage to speak out. I suppose it would be easier not to speak 
out.
  I will read the last sentence of the second paragraph of the 
statement of Bunnatine Greenhouse:

       I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to 
     contracts awarded to KBR [Halliburton] represents the most 
     blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during 
     the course of my professional career.

  I continue to ask the question: Is there somebody here who cares? Is 
there somebody who has the reins of an authorizing committee that cares 
enough to begin a real investigation or shall we continue to hold 
hearings in the Policy Committee only because nobody else will?
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit I


 transcript of the testimony of rory mayberry, former food production 
    manager, kbr, senate democratic policy committee, june 27, 2005

       My name is Rory Mayberry. I'm sorry that I'm not able to be 
     there in person to testify to the Committee, but I returned 
     to Iraq on June 14. I am working as a Medical Examiner and 
     Medic Supervisor for a company called Emergent Services.
       I wanted to testify today about my experience working with 
     Halliburton in Iraq. I was hired by Halliburton subsidiary 
     KBR in January 2004 as the Food Production Manager for a 
     dining hall at Camp Anaconda, Iraq. I worked under the 
     Halliburton's LOGCAP contract from February 2004 until Apri1 
     2004.
       When I was assigned to the dining facility, KBR managers 
     informed me that there were KBR practices that were to be 
     followed everyday. These practices led to major overcharges.
       First, KBR was supposed to feed 600 Turkish and Filipino 
     workers meals according to their custom. Although KBR charged 
     the government for this service, it didn't prepare the meals. 
     Instead, these workers were given leftover food in boxes and 
     garbage bags after the troops ate. Sometimes there were no 
     leftovers to give them.
       Second, KBR charged the government for meals it never 
     served to the troops. Until late 2003, anaconda was a 
     transition site for army personnel. Because there could be 
     large numbers of extra personnel passing through everyday, 
     KBR would charge for a surge capacity of 5,000 troops per 
     meal. However, KBR continued to charge for the extra 
     headcount even after Anaconda was no longer a transition 
     site.
       When I questioned these practices, the managers told me 
     that this needed to be done because KBR lost money in prior 
     months, when the government suspended some of the dining hall 
     payments to the company. The managers said that they were 
     adjusting the numbers to make up for the suspended payments.
       I would prepare food orders each week in order to get the 
     food we needed at the camp in the coming week. The KBR 
     managers would triple the order every week to bring in much 
     more food than we needed. They did this because they were 
     charging an extra 5,000 troops they weren't actually feeding. 
     Most of this food went to waste though.
       Third, KBR paid too much for the food itself. Initially, a 
     company called Tamimi Catering was KBR's sub-contractor for 
     the food. Tamimi paid local prices for the food products in 
     the towns and cities around the base in addition to orders 
     sent to their main office. Tamimi's pricing was fair for the 
     condition of the country. Then, KBR switched to a new 
     supplier, PWC. PWC's prices were almost triple what Tamimi's 
     were.
       For example, tomatoes cost about $5 a box locally, but the 
     PWC price was $13 to $15 per box. The local price for a 15-
     pound box of bacon was $12, compared to PWC's price of $80 
     per box. PWC charged a lot for transportation because they 
     brought the food from Philadelphia. KBR switched from Tamimi 
     to PWC because Tamimi complained about KBR's poor treatment 
     of its staff; they were living in tents with sand floors and 
     no beds.
       There were other problems that were not related to KBR's 
     costs:
       Food items were being brought into the base that were 
     outdated or expired as much as a year. We were told by the 
     KBR food service managers to use these items anyway. This 
     food was fed to the troops. A lot of these were frozen foods: 
     chicken, beef, fish, and ice cream. For trucks that were hit 
     by convoy fire and bombings, we were told to go into the 
     trucks and remove the food items and use them after removing 
     the bullets and any shrapnel from the bad food that was hit. 
     We were told to turn the removed bullets over to the managers 
     for souvenirs. When I had the military check some of the food 
     shipments, they would turn the food items away. But there 
     wasn't any marking of the record, so KBR just sent the food 
     to another base for use. The problem with expired food was 
     actually worsened with the switch to PWC because it took 
     longer for the food items to get to the base as they were 
     shipped from the U.S. to a warehouse in Kuwait.
       KBR also paid for spoiled food. When Tamimi dropped off 
     food, there was often no place to put it in to the freezers 
     or refrigeration. Food would stay in the refrigeration and 
     freezer trucks until they ran out of fuel. KBR wouldn't 
     refuel the trucks so the food would spoil. This happened 
     quite a bit.
       In addition, KBR would cater events for KBR employees, like 
     management parties and barbecues. This happened about 3 times 
     a week. As a result, there were shortages of certain food 
     items, such as beef, chicken, pork, salads, dressings, and 
     sodas for the troops.
       The food service personnel were given sanitation rules from 
     the Military Preventive Medicine information programs and 
     rules to follow by the Armed Forces, but KBR managers 
     informed us that the information was not to be followed, that 
     they knew best, and to keep following their instructions. So 
     our employees weren't following sanitation rules as set 
     forth.
       Also, the Iraqi subcontract drivers of food convoys that 
     arrived on the base were not fed. They were given MREs, or 
     meals ready to eat, with pork, which they couldn't because of 
     religious reasons. As a result, the drivers would raid the 
     trucks for food.
       Government auditors would have caught and fixed many of the 
     problems. But KBR managers told us not to speak with 
     auditors. The managers themselves would leave the base or 
     hide from the auditors when they were on the base and not 
     answer the radios when we called for them. We were told to 
     follow instructions or get off the base. The threat of being 
     sent to a camp under fire was their way of keeping us quiet.
       The employees that talked to the auditors were moved to the 
     other bases that were under more fire then Anaconda. If they 
     refused to move, they were fired and sent home.
       I personally was sent to Fallujah for 3 weeks. The manager 
     told me I was being sent away until the auditors were gone 
     because I had opened my mouth to the auditors. When I 
     returned from Fallujah, the convoy was attacked. I was put in 
     danger because the KBR managers didn't want me to talk with 
     U.S. government auditors.
       When KBR wanted me to go to Tikrit, I headed home on 
     rotation. I wasn't officially fired and I didn't formally 
     quit.
       I am happy to answer any questions the Committee may have 
     for me.
       Mr. Mayberry, representatives of the Senate Democratic 
     Policy Committee have provided me with several questions that 
     they would like me to ask you now. Can I begin asking you 
     those questions?
       Q: Are you saying that Halliburton deliberately falsified 
     the number of meals they prepared, and then submitted false 
     claims for reimbursement, and that they did this to make up 
     for past amounts auditors had disallowed?
       A: Yes.
       Q: So, when they couldn't get reimbursed legitimately, they 
     committed fraud by submitting these false bills?
       A: Yes.
       Q: How many meals were served at the dining hall each day?
       A: 2,500 meals, per meal, times four. There were four 
     meals, breakfast, lunch, dinner and a midnight meal.
       Q: So, every day, Halliburton was charging for 20,000 meals 
     it never served?
       A: Correct. They were charging for 20,000 meals, and they 
     were only serving 10,000 meals.
       Q: Was it rare for expired food to be served to the troops?
       A: No. It was an everyday occurrence, sometimes every meal.
       Q: You've described routine overcharging and unsanitary 
     practices by Halliburton, as well as shortages of food items 
     for troops because of private Halliburton parties. 
     Halliburton managers were not only aware of these practices, 
     they ordered them, is that correct?
       A: Correct.
       Q: How senior were these managers?
       A: The managers, the main manager was a manager of all of 
     Iraq, assigned by KBR.
       Q: So these practices may have been ordered at other dining 
     halls in Iraq?
       A: Most likely, yes.
       Q: When government auditors arrived, these senior managers 
     deliberately avoided them?

[[Page 14463]]

       A: Yes.
       Q: And these senior managers ordered you and other 
     employees not to discuss your concerns with the auditors?
       A: Yes. We were informed if we talked, we would be rotated 
     out to other camps that were under fire.
       Q: Is it fair to say that the managers used the threat of 
     transfer to a more dangerous base to intimidate employees 
     into keeping quiet?
       A: Yes.
       Q: When employees did talk to auditors, what happened?
       A: All the employees that did talk to the auditors were 
     switched out to other camps or fired because they refused to 
     go to the other camps.
       Q: Is there anything else you'd like us to know?
       A: Not at this time.
       Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Mayberry.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 2


Bunnatine Greenhouse, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Senate Democractic 
                Policy Committee Hearing, June 27, 2005

       My name is Bunnatine H. Greenhouse. I have agreed to 
     voluntarily appear at this hearing in my personal capacity 
     because I have exhausted all internal avenues to correct 
     contracting abuse I observed while serving this great nation 
     as the United States Army Corps of Engineers (``USACE'') 
     senior procurement executive. In order to remain true to my 
     oath of office, I must disclose to appropriate members of 
     Congress serious and ongoing contract abuse I cannot address 
     internally. However, coming forward is not easy. On June 24, 
     2005, I met with the acting General Counsel of the USACE. 
     During the course of this meeting it was conveyed to me that 
     my voluntary appearance would not be in my best interest. I 
     was also specifically advised to clearly state that I do not 
     appear as a representative of the Department of the Army or 
     the United States Corps of Engineers.
       I have been involved with government contracting for over 
     twenty years. On June 9, 1997 I was sworn in as the Principal 
     Assistant Responsible for Contracting (``PARC'') for the 
     USACE. Back then, the commander of the Corps asked me to do 
     what I could to end what could be called casual and clubby 
     contracting practices. To curb these practices I required 
     Commanders to strictly follow the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulations and began to institutionalize the contracting 
     practices the Corps had to follow. However, as the command 
     structure at the Corps changed, there was ever increasing 
     pressure to return to the old ways. My determination to 
     ensure that the Corps strictly adhere to contracting 
     regulations was no longer viewed as an asset and I began to 
     experience an increasingly hostile environment. The hostility 
     peaked as the USACE was preparing contracts related to the 
     Iraq War. At this juncture, the interference was primarily 
     focused on contracting activity related to a single 
     contractor, Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root 
     (``KBR''). The abuse I observed called into question the 
     independence of the USACE contracting process. I can 
     unequivocally state that the abuse related to contracts 
     awarded to KBR represents the most blatant and improper 
     contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my 
     professional career.
       The independence of the USACE contracting process was 
     unquestionably compromised with respect to the issuance of 
     the Restore Iraqi Oil contract, known as RIO. I observed, 
     first hand, that essentially every aspect of the RIO contract 
     remained under the control of the Office of the Secretary of 
     Defense (``OSD''). This troubled me and was wrong. However, 
     once the OSD delegated responsibility for the RIO contract to 
     the Department of the Army, control over the contracting 
     process by the OSD should have ceased. However, the OSD 
     remained in control over the contracting process. In reality, 
     the OSD ultimately controlled the award of the RIO contract 
     to KBR and controlled the terms of the contract that was to 
     be awarded even over my objection to specific terms that were 
     ultimately included in the contract.
       As the ramp-up to the Iraqi War escalated I was 
     increasingly excluded from contracting activity related to 
     the war effort. However, given my position, it was simply 
     impossible to completely exclude me from the process. When I 
     did gain access to some of the high level planning meetings 
     related to the implementation of the RIO contract I sensed 
     that the entire contracting process had gone haywire. I 
     immediately questioned whether the Corps had the legal 
     authority to function as the Army's delegated contracting 
     authority. The Corps had absolutely no competencies related 
     to oil production. Restoration of oil production was simply 
     outside of the scope of our congressionally mandated mission. 
     How then, I asked, could executive agency authority for the 
     RIO contract be delegated to the USACE? I openly raised this 
     concern with high level officials of the Department of 
     Defense, the Department of the Army and the U.S. Army Corps 
     of Engineers. I specifically explained that the scope of the 
     RIO contract was outside our mission competencies such that 
     congressional authority had to be obtained before the Corps 
     could properly be delegated contracting authority over the 
     RIO contract. Exactly why USACE was selected remains a 
     mystery to me. I note that no aspect of the contracting work 
     related to restoring the oil fields following the 1991 
     Persian Gulf War was undertaken by the USACE, and there was 
     no reason why USACE should take over that function for the 
     prosecution of the Iraq War.
       I further raised a concern over which contract authorized 
     payment for prepositioning work KBR was doing in anticipation 
     of being awarded the RIO contract. I was generally familiar 
     with the scope of the LOGCAP contract and was under the 
     impression that the LOGCAP contract was being used to fund 
     the initial preposition work being done by KBR before the 
     Iraq War commenced. I specifically questioned whether using 
     LOGCAP funding was legal and insisted that a new contract be 
     prepared. My concern over this issue ended when I was 
     apparently provided misinformation that a new contract had 
     been issued. This is the first time I can recall being 
     overtly misled about something as fundamental as the 
     existence of an underlying contract authorizing work to be 
     done.
       I further raised a concern over the basis used to justify 
     the selection of KBR as the sole source contractor for the 
     RIO contract. I learned that a specific basis to be used for 
     the selection of the contractor was a requirement that the 
     contractor have knowledge of the contingency plan KBR 
     prepared for the restoration of Iraqi oil. The inclusion of 
     this requirement meant that the RIO contract would have to be 
     awarded to KBR because no other contractor participated in 
     the drafting of the contingency plan and no other contractor 
     had knowledge of the contingency plan itself after it had 
     been prepared by KBR. What was particularly troubling about 
     this arrangement was that contractors who are normally 
     selected to prepare cost estimates and courses of action, 
     such as the work KBR did when it prepared the contingency 
     plan, are routinely excluded from being able to participate 
     in the follow-on contract. The reasons for prohibiting the 
     contractor responsible for preparing costs estimates and 
     course of action from obtaining the follow-on contract is 
     obvious. The fact that it was a no-bid, sole source contract 
     meant that the government was placing KBR in the position of 
     being able to define what the reasonable costs would be to 
     execute the RIO contract and then charging the government 
     what it defined as being reasonable. Given the enormity of 
     the scope of work contemplated under the RIO contract, the 
     exclusion of the contractor responsible for pricing out the 
     scope of work to be done under the RIO contract should have 
     been an imperative. Instead, it formed the basis of awarding 
     the RIO contract to KBR.
       Ultimately, I was most concerned over the continuing 
     insistence that the RIO contract be awarded to KBR without 
     competitive bidding for an unreasonable period of time--two 
     years plus the option to extend the contract an additional 
     three years. I raised this concern with officials 
     representing the Department of Defense, the Department of the 
     Army and the Corps of Engineers. However, when the final 
     Justification and Approval of the RIO contract was forwarded 
     to me for signature--after the draft had been approved by 
     representatives of the office of the Secretary of Defense--
     the five year, no-compete clause remained in place. I could 
     not sign the document in good faith knowing that this 
     extended period was unreasonable. However, we were about to 
     prosecute a war and the only option that remained opened to 
     me was to raise an objection to this requirement. Therefore, 
     next to my signature I hand-wrote the following comment: ``I 
     caution that extending this sole source effort beyond a one 
     year period could convey an invalid perception that there is 
     not strong intent for a limited competition.''
       I hand-wrote this comment directly onto the original 
     document because experience had taught me that a separate 
     memo outlining my concerns could inexplicably be lost. I 
     wrote my comment on the original J&A to guarantee that my 
     concern was not overlooked. Instead, it was just ignored.
       The RIO contract was subjected to public scrutiny when, on 
     December 11, 2003, the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) 
     issued a draft report concluding that KBR over-charged for 
     the purchase of fuel by $61,000,000. However, the firestorm 
     over this issue was significantly dampened a week later when 
     the Commander of the USACE, Lt. General Flowers, took the 
     unusual step of issuing a waiver absolving KBR of its need, 
     under the RIO contract, to provide ``cost and pricing data.'' 
     The Corps simply asserted that the price charged for the fuel 
     was ``fair and reasonable,'' thereby relieving KBR of the 
     contract requirement that cost and pricing data be provided.
       However, the manner in which the waiver request was 
     prepared and finalized demonstrates that the USACE Command 
     knowingly violated the AFARS by intentionally failing to 
     obtain my approval, as the PARC. The evidence suggests that 
     the reasons why I was intentionally kept from seeing the 
     waiver request were politically motivated and driven by the 
     DCAA's conclusion that KBR had overcharged the government for 
     the fuel by $61,000,000, rather than whether

[[Page 14464]]

     the granting of the waiver was in the interest of the 
     government.
       Significantly, it appears that a concerted effort was 
     undertaken to ensure that I was kept in the dark about the 
     waiver request. I have every reason to believe that the USACE 
     knew I would object to the granting of the waiver if it had 
     been presented to me for signature. So, I was specifically 
     kept in the dark and did not learn of the existence of the 
     waiver until I read about it in the press. Having reviewed 
     the documentation used to justify the waiver, I can 
     unequivocally state that I would not have approved it because 
     the documentation relied upon to justify the fuel charges as 
     ``fair and reasonable'' was grossly insufficient.
       Eventually, a copy of the original J&A for the RIO contract 
     was released in response to a Freedom of Information Act 
     Request which prompted Time Magazine to attempt to find out 
     why I felt it necessary to document my concern. Time Magazine 
     contacted the USACE seeking permission for me to be 
     interviewed. I later learned that this caused great 
     consternation. According to sworn testimony given on October 
     15, 2004 by the Deputy Commander of the USACE, Major General 
     Robert Griffin, the Department of the Army was figuring out 
     how it was going to publicly respond and whether the Army 
     would officially allow me to speak to a Time magazine 
     reporter. According to MG Griffin, the problem was that I did 
     not ``know the Army's story'' so the Army had to figure out 
     who was going to respond. The difficult position the Army 
     found itself in, according to MG Griffin, ``was because she 
     wrote this informal note at the bottom of this document, 
     which actually makes my case, which is, you shouldn't write 
     on official documents because they get taken out of context, 
     somebody reads them and there you go.'' However, my comment 
     was far from an informal note, and it was not being taken out 
     of context. Rather, my concern had found its way to the light 
     of day.
       As public pressure mounted, my involvement and past actions 
     related to the RIO contract became a thorn in the side of the 
     USACE. As a result stating my concern in writing on the 
     original RIO J&A and as a result of expressing other 
     significant concerns over contracting matters related to KBR, 
     I was eventually summoned to a meeting on October 6, 2004 at 
     which time I was issued a memorandum notifying me that I was 
     to be removed from the Senior Executive Service and from my 
     position as PARC. At that point I knew that my ability to 
     resolve the issues within the USACE had terminated. I had no 
     other alterative at that juncture but to file a formal 
     request for investigation with the then-Acting Secretary of 
     the Army and to appropriate members of Congress.
       In closing, I would like to thank my attorney, Michael 
     Kohn, and the National Whistleblower Center, for the support 
     and unbelievably hard work they have put forth. Without their 
     effort I could not have survived the political fire storm 
     that burns around me.

                          ____________________