[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 11] [House] [Pages 15706-15709] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]OUTSOURCING MILITARY TO SOLDIERS OF FORTUNE The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Conaway). Under a previous order of the House, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is recognized for 5 minutes. Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, this evening, I would like to talk about a cultural change occurring in the U.S. military that is very troubling to me. For those people who have served our country and continue to serve our country in the military service, the words honor, duty, God, and country mean everything. These timeless words have motivated hundreds of thousands of our patriotic citizens to enlist and serve in the United States military over the decades, and they inspire a calling to rise above one's own self-interest for the betterment of our Nation and her highest principles: Liberty, equality and justice. Those high principles are in stark contrast to what the World Book Dictionary defines as a soldier of fortune, ``a man serving or ready to serve as a soldier under any government for money, for adventure or for pleasure.'' I could not help but think about this and read and reread that definition as I examine how pay and benefits provided to these private military personnel engaged in the Iraqi war dwarf what we provide our all-volunteer military. Guards for private security firms on average are earning $400 to $600 a day or $144,000 to $216,000 in a single year, and they are earning it tax free. That is right. These salaries and tax-free dollars are provided so long as the men remain in-country for more than a year. The slain guards for Blackwater were earning nearly a thousand dollars a day for an astronomical salary of $365,000 a year. Let us compare that to what we provide the men and women who have served in our military for 6 years, not even the 1 or 2 years that most personnel in Iraq are at. A military commissioned officer can expect to earn between $100 and $270 a day, for a paltry total of $36,000 to $96,000 a year. Enlisted soldiers, those who carry out the toughest assignments and are in the most danger and need the most support, earn $36,000 in a good year. That is outrageous. General Omar Bradley, the GI general himself said, ``Leadership in the democratic Army means firmness, not harshness; understanding, not weakness; justice, not license; humaneness, not intolerance; generosity, not selfishness; pride, not egotism.'' I thought a lot about those words as I am increasingly saddened as I watch what seems to be transpiring in the Iraqi war. As each day passes, a nonsensical strategy is unraveling in Iraq that threatens to transform many of our most important ideals into crash commercialism. The utter mismanagement of the war troubles me as I witness what I perceive to be the undermining of the honor code and the diminishment of the meaning of the words ``service'' and ``duty'' that have served as hallmarks of our military tradition from its inception. Let me be clear. For those soldiers, both enlisted personnel and officers serving under the time-tested rules of engagement, I have no quarrel. They serve bravely. Their integrity is indisputable, their will resolute. No, my apprehension lies with the architects of war. Where I am growing increasingly uncomfortable and downright concerned is with the actions of the President and his role as commander in chief, his Vice President, and their Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. Together, they are authorizing a strategy for the outsourcing of military functions that is unparalleled in scope and size in the history of this Nation. Never before have so many private contractors, an estimated 20,000 private military personnel and 100,000 civilian contractors, been utilized in such a function to perform critical security and military needs in theater, duties that heretofore had been under the direct purview of the regular military and its established chain of command beginning with the commander in chief and his joint chiefs of staff. Mr. Speaker, no one in Congress has any idea of the exact number of private security contractors working and operating in Iraq. Last year, in response to a detailed request levied by myself and dozens of our colleagues, the Coalition Provisional Authority compiled a list of 60 different firms employing a total of 20,000 personnel back then, including U.S. citizens, Iraqis and third country nationals. No additional information, no specifics on the contracts awarded, just a list. And so we watch the news, and we try to figure out what is actually happening over there. According to an excellent journalistic expose' on Frontline, and I quote, ``Beforehand handing over power to the newly elected Iraqi government in January 2005, the CPA established Memorandum 17, a notice that called for all private security companies operating in Iraq to register by June 1 and established an oversight committee led by Iraq's Ministry of the Interior. According to Lawrence Peter, a former CPA official and the director of the Private Security Association of Iraq, as of June 21, 2005, 37 security contractors have registered with the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior. One is awaiting approval, and 18 additional security companies are in the process of registering.'' Mr. Speaker, what on earth is going on in Iraq? How do we distinguish between soldiers of fortune and those of our own military who are committed to honor, duty, God, and country? Why can this Congress not get straight answers from the administration on this and a bevy of other issues? Why are we relying on thousands of contractors, including some from third countries, to provide backup and support to our regular military? Why is it perfectly acceptable to outsource war, and this under a veil of secrecy? I have hundreds of questions, and Members can rest assured I will refuse to stop asking them until the American people get real and substantive answers to those responsible. What really bothered me was when I saw that Paul Bremer at the beginning had guards around him that did not have military-issued uniforms nor U.S. Department of Defense weapons. I began to ask questions. I will continue to raise them, and I include for the Record some additional materials. Honor, duty, God, country. These timeless words have motivated hundreds of thousands of patriotic citizens to enlist and serve in the United States Military over the decades. These words inspire a calling to rise above ones own self for the betterment of our nation and her highest principals--liberty, equality, justice. General Omar Bradley (the GI General himself) said that ``Leadership in the democratic army means firmness, not harshness; understanding, not weakness; justice, not license; humaneness, not intolerance; generosity, not selfishness; pride, not egotism.'' / General George Marshall, the architect of the Marshall Plan and one of the foremost General officers of his day is oft quoted as saying, ``Morale is the state of mind. It is steadfastness and courage and hope. It is confidence and zeal and loyalty. It is elan, esprit de corps and determination.'' If only we were to heed the words of these two incredible men as we continue to engage in a costly and unpredictable war in Iraq. Instead, I am increasingly saddened as I watch what seems to be transpiring in the Iraqi war. As each day passes, a nonsensical strategy is unraveling in Iraq that threatens to transform many of our most important ideals into crass commercialism. The utter mismanagement of the war troubles me as I witness what I perceive to be the undermining of [[Page 15707]] the honor code--and the diminishment of the meaning of words ``service'' and ``duty'' that have served as hallmarks of our military tradition from its inception. Let me be clear. For those soldiers (both enlisted personnel and officers) serving under the time tested rules of engagement, I have no quarrel. They serve bravely. Their integrity is indisputable. Their will resolute. No, my apprehension lies with the architects of the War. Where I am growing increasingly uncomfortable and downright concerned, is with the actions of this President in his role as Commander and Chief, his Vice President, and their Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. Together they are authorizing a strategy for the outsourcing of military functions that is unparalleled in scope and size. Never before have so many private contractors (an estimated 20,000 private military personnel and 100,000 civilian contractors) been utilized in such a fashion--to perform critical security and military needs in theatre. Duties that had heretofore been under the direct purview of the regular military and its established chain of command--beginning with the Commander in Chief and Joint Chiefs of Staff. Mr. Speaker, no one in this Congress has any idea of the exact number of private security contractors working and operating in Iraq. Last year, in response to a detailed request levied by myself and dozens of colleagues, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) compiled a list of 60 different firms employing a total of 20,000 personnel (including U.S. citizens, Iraqis and third-country nationals). No additional information. No specifics on the contracts that were awarded. Just a list. My colleagues and I are forced to rely on the tabulation of news articles and press releases to keep on top of what companies are operating in theater, what duties they may or may not be performing and just how much money the United States government is paying them. According to an excellent journalistic expose on the PBS program Frontline, ``before handing over power to the newly elected Iraqi government in January 2005, the CPA established ``Memorandum 17'' a notice that called for all private security companies operating in Iraq to register by June 1 and established an oversight committee led by Iraq's Ministry of the Interior. According to Lawrence Peter, a former CPA official and the director of the Private Security Company Association of Iraq, as of June 21, 2005, 37 security contractors have registered with the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior. One is awaiting approval, and at least 18 additional security companies are in the process of registering.'' Mr. Speaker--What on earth is going on in Iraq? Why can't this Congress get straight answers from the administration on this and a bevy of other issues? Why are we relying on thousands of contractors to provide backup and support to our regular military? Why is it perfectly acceptable to outsource war--and this under a veil of secrecy? I have hundreds of questions Mr. Speaker, and you can be assured that I refuse to stop asking them until the American people get real and substantive answers from those responsible. Perhaps the problem is the constant replacement of theater commanders during an already tumultuous occupation. After the ground victory, the U.S. watched the architect of the rapid sprint to Baghdad--General Tommy Franks--retire early. When his photo appeared like a 12 inch high pin up on the cover of Cigar Aficionado Magazine in December of 2003, just months into the occupation, I wondered what Generals Joe Stillwell and Omar Bradley would think. In that interview, General Franks discussed the over-reliance on Reserve troops, and the types of jobs that U.S. military personnel were asked to handle. He said ``We need to get people out of those jobs, get civilians in them, and get our military into the jobs that are the highest payoff in terms of the military skills.'' I thought to myself: ``This is coming from a general who has left nearly 150,000 of his troops in theater, while at the same time feels that we are not allocating our resources in the best way possible.'' I couldn't think of a single precedent for such an action-- to leave before relative calm was restored. Before the peace was won. General Franks had it half right. We are getting civilians into thousands of jobs in Iraq with ease, but we're doing it in exactly the wrong way. We are filling critical slots with civilians who are paid far more money than regular U.S. troops, who have a much more cavalier attitude toward duty, justice and honor and who are simply wrong for the job. My concerns grew exponentially during the first year of the occupation. It was quite a shock to see Ambassador Paul Bremmer on the front page of the New York Times guarded not by U.S. soldiers (in regular military uniform and carrying military issue weapons), but by private contractors in civilian clothing looking like something out of the NYPD undercover squad. To then learn their salaries were 5 to 10 times as high as our soldiers--who by the way still can't get adequate body or vehicle armor--riveted my attention. Then, on March 31, 2004, four Blackwater USA guards (again, private military/security forces) were ambushed by Iraqi insurgents while on escort-duty west of Fallujah. As recounted, ``The guards were killed; a mob of Iraqis set their cars on fire and hung two of the bodies from a bridge. The families of the guards are suing Blackwater for wrongful death: They claim the company did not meet its contractual obligation to supply two SUVs with three guards per vehicle.'' Those men went into Fallujah without notifying or seeking the approval of the U.S. Marine Corps, then responsible for the security of that sector. Tragically those men lost their lives and it is a miracle that our own military servicemen--who were ordered in to recover their remains--escaped uninjured. More importantly, the regional Marine commander was forced to alter his strategy for quelling the insurgency to not only recover the remains of the men, but deal with the heightened tensions caused by the incident. Mr. Speaker, the World Book Dictionary defines a soldier of fortune as: ``a man serving or ready to serve as a soldier under any government for money, adventure, or pleasure.'' I cannot help but read and re-read that definition as I examine how pay and benefits provided to these private military personnel dwarf what we provide our all-volunteer military. Guards for private security firms on average, earn $400 to $600 per day--or $144,000 to $216,000 in a single year. Tax-free. That's right Mr. Speaker, these salaries are tax-free providing that these men remain in-country for more than one year. The slain guards for Blackwater were earning nearly $1000 a day for an astronomical $365,000 yearly salary. Let's compare that to what we provide the men and women who'' have served in our military for six years (not even the one or two years that most personnel are in Iraq). A military commissioned officer can expect to earn between $100 and $270 a day--for a paltry total of $36,000 to $96,000 each year. Enlisted soldiers, those who carry out the toughest assignments, are in the most danger and need the most support might earn $36,000 in a good year. That is outrageous, Mr. Speaker. In my hand I hold a solicitation sent to a police officer in my Congressional District in Toledo, Ohio. It is from DynCorp International LLC and promises an annual compensation of over $120,000 to perform an ``armed, plainclothes mission'' to ``help the Iraqi judicial system organize effective civilian law enforcement agencies.'' This is what we are dealing with on a daily basis Mr. Speaker. As the U.S. attempts to secure the peace in Iraq, thousands of individuals are flooding into the country to perform armed, dangerous and complex tasks, often with little to no formal or military training. A constituent of mine reports that her husband of more than 20 years, who moved to Kuwait last year to take a very high-paying job ferrying security personnel into (and out of) Iraq, is earning a huge salary and may not return to the U.S. He has decided to divorce her for a much younger Asian woman who has moved to Kuwait. Both intend to remain in the Middle East. Mr. Speaker, this is not honor. It is not duty. It is not God. And it certainly is not country. It is money. It is adventure. It is pleasure. Mr. Speaker, we need to ask ourselves a fundamental question: what is a soldier and what is a mercenary? Why are we short-changing, under- supplying and selling out our own U.S. troops to pay private military companies hundreds of millions of dollars so that their professional warriors can earn exorbitant salaries? I will be in the well of this House (every day if I must) asking these questions until they are answered in a satisfactory manner. Mission Iraq annual compensation $120,632.00 Foreign Income Tax Exemption Applies WORK OVERSEAS! NOW HIRING! Up to 1,000 civilian police advisors will be deployed to help the Iraqi judicial system organize effective civilian law enforcement agencies. Advisors will work with Iraqi criminal justice organizations at the national, provincial and municipal levels to assess threats to public order and mentor personnel at all levels of the Iraqi law enforcement system. Contract length is one year. This is an armed, plainclothes mission. All lodging, meals, and transportation, logistical, technical and administrative support is provided at no cost to the officer. requirements to qualify United States Citizenship. Minimum 5 years full time sworn law enforcement experience. [[Page 15708]] Actively serving law enforcement officers, or recently separated (within 3 years). Unblemished background. Excellent health. Valid U.S. driver's license. Valid U.S. Passport. Ability to communicate in English. Minimum age of 26. Ability to qualify with a 9MM semi-automatic weapon. Annual pay package is $120,632.00. Resumes should detail specific experience, certifications, specialties, ranks, and assignments. Apply today! ____ [From FOXNews.com, July 6, 2005] How Do You Like Your Contractor Money? (By Liza Porteus) New York.--For three days, a group of 16 American contractors in Iraq feared they had stumbled into a different world--one where the U.S. military viewed them, and not Islamic extremists, as the enemy. The ordeal began May 28 when a group of Marines suspected the contractors for Zapata Engineering (search) of shooting at them and Iraqi civilians in Fallujah. The Marines allegedly bound and roughed up the contractors, who were given orange jumpsuits to wear. They also received a prayer rug and a copy of the Koran (search) and were placed in a cell next to Iraqi insurgent suspects. The contractors, eight of whom are former military men, wondered how the Marines supposedly could throw the idea of ``Semper Fi'' out the window and treat fellow Americans so poorly. ``If we were terrorists, they would have extradited us so they could have charged us . . . once they cleared us, they should have let us go,'' Pete Ginter, one of the Zapata contractors, told FOXNews.com in a recent interview. ``I think it's some personal vendetta they had against us.'' Several of the contractors told FOXNews.com the gripe appeared to be financial, stemming from jealousy over the belief that contractors make more money. ``How do you like your contractor money now?'' one Marine barked, according to those contractors interviewed. On June 9, a statement from a Marine spokesman said that while detained ``in accordance with standard operation procedures, the Americans were segregated from the rest of the detainee population and, like all security detainees, were treated humanely and respectfully.'' The statement said the investigation will look into ``all aspects of the incident, as well as the accusations made by the contractors.'' Manuel Zapata, president of Zapata Engineering, released a statement soon after the incident saying he was ``disturbed'' by the allegations but acknowledged the root cause likely was a ``misunderstanding by people who are living and working in an intense and stressful situation.'' He added: ``At the same time, we are also disturbed over reported accounts by our personnel of their treatment while in Marine detention.'' `blue-on-white' antagonism The Zapata crew was part of a community of about 120,000 private foreign contractors in Iraq, many working side by side with U.S. military personnel to rebuild a country virtually destroyed by 30 years of neglect and war. These contractors say they wholeheartedly stand behind President Bush and the U.S. military in the mission to put Iraq on the road toward democracy. But they say a few bad apples aren't helping in those efforts. ``It seems there's a lot more American-on-American [conflict] right now--we call it `blue on white'--but then again there's a lot of military people who are our closest friends . . . so it's a catch-22,'' said Robert Shaver, another detained Zapata contractor. Among the contractors are about 20,000 who work for private security companies, some of whom have come under criticism for bad behavior. Witnesses have been quoted telling stories about caravans of intimidating contractors driving fast through Iraqi streets in their SUVs with guns hanging out the window. Marine Col. John Toolan, who was the military commander of the area that included Fallujah when four private security contractors employed by Blackwater (search) were ambushed and murdered last year, told PBS' ``Frontline'' that the part of the problem is that the military and contractors have different motivations in a dangerous environment. ``We have a tendency to want to be a little bit more sure about operating in an environment,'' he said. ``Whereas I think some of the contractors are motivated by the financial remuneration and the fact that they probably want to get someplace from point A to point B quickly, their tendency [is] to have a little more risk. So yes, we're at odds. But we can work it out.'' Contractors who were once in the armed forces themselves, like Zapata's Ginter and Matt Raiche, say they went over to Iraq as private citizens to help pay the bills back home. ``I didn't want a dead-end job, I didn't want to live paycheck to paycheck'' and live off loans, Ginter told FOXNews.com about why he became a contractor. A Case of They Said, They Said The Zapata contractors were detained in Fallujah (search) after the Marines said the contractors sprayed gunfire at them and a group of Iraqi civilians from an armored convoy twice earlier that day. The crew was in Iraq destroying enemy ammunition and explosives. The contractors say they have proof that they weren't near the position where the Marines claim they were shot at earlier in the day and were actually dropping off ordnances at Camp Victory at the time. Several told FOXNews.com in interviews that sign-in logs can corroborate their story and they said they have receipts from a restaurant and other places they stopped at during the time in question. Plus, the contractors say the Marines' description of the convoy doesn't match the vehicles they were driving. Ginter and Raiche say the problems began with a flat tire. Their group was changing a tire that blew out after their driver didn't make a turn wide enough to avoid a spike strip when a group of Marines came out and said they wanted to go back to their compound and talk. The Marines said two rounds of ammunition had hit near where they were stationed. When the Zapata crew asked to see exactly where the rounds hit, they said they couldn't get a straight answer. The contractors said they fired warning shots into the ground--standard procedure--to prevent a suspicious vehicle from approaching their convoy but that they never aimed at Marines or civilians. The Marines eventually brought the Zapata contractors to a compound where they were put in 6-by-6 foot concrete cells. When they asked for an attorney, they were told to ``shut up,'' the contractors claim. They were detained there for three days. ``I know for a fact with our situation, the first 36 hours we were detained, there was a lot of tension in the air and a lot of animosity toward us contractors for the money we make,'' Shaver, who is now back in the United States and living in upstate New York, told FOXNews.com. Ginter claims that on his way back from being escorted from the bathroom, one of the Marines ``physically forces me on the ground, banged my knees on the ground . . . he kicked my ankle into the cross position,'' and took off his cross necklace. He also claims the Marine squeezed his testicles ``so hard I almost puked'' and threatened to unleash a dog on him if he moved. ``Seriously, I thought someone had died, I thought some way they had connected a death to us and I thought . . . maybe it was a joke, maybe it was training and we didn't know about it,'' Ginter added. Raiche said he had his wedding ring and jewelry removed and was also threatened with the dog. He also said he heard one Marine heckle, ``how does it feel to make that contractors' money now?'' A female Marine was taking pictures of the proceedings, they said. The contractors had blacked-out goggles placed over their heads when they were put on a bus from the original detention site to another one near Fallujah, where Iraqi insurgent suspects are also kept. Ginter said there was a small slit in the goggles that he could see out of. ``I watched as my fellow brothers were thrown to the ground, physically abused . . . knees, necks, tossed to the ground with the female taking pictures,'' Ginter said. ``It was like going into the Twilight Zone.'' Ginter and Raiche said only five or six members of their group were interviewed when investigators from agencies like the FBI showed up. They said they asked for a lawyer, to make a phone call, to contact the Red Cross, Amnesty International and others but were denied such requests. They claim about four Marines, however, were in ``total awe--they could not believe what was happening,'' Ginter said. Investigating the Investigations Neither Ginter nor Raiche have been questioned by military investigators since they returned from Iraq. Mark Schopper, the Nevada-based lawyer for some of the contractors in question, said he doesn't believe anyone in the group has been. The Justice Department also reportedly is looking into the incident. Gail Rosenberg, a public relations consultant for Zapata, told FOXNews.com on Thursday that the internal investigation from Zapata Engineering is still ongoing. Rosenberg added that ``there has been no direct contact'' between Zapata and the government on the investigation since the original Zapata statement was released after the incident. The military has had little to say about the incident since it first happened. Lt. Col. David Lapan, a Marine spokesman, issued a statement saying the Naval Criminal Investigative Service would handle the investigation. Lapan suggested that the Marines were following procedure in how they handled the contractors. And while Lapan said all charges would be investigated, he added ``thus far we have seen nothing to substantiate the claims.'' When contacted by FOX News for an update on the investigation last week, Lapan [[Page 15709]] said in an e-mail exchange: ``No new developments on the military side. The investigation continues.'' So far, even though some of the Zapata contractors say they haven't been contacted by the NCIS, investigators have spoken to personnel with the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. ``As far we know, it's still ongoing, we don't have anything new'' on the investigation, said Kim Gillespie, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center in Huntsville, Ala., which specializes in ordnance and explosives and administered the Zapata contract. ``They didn't give us any indication as to when they're going to wrap this up . . . I will assume we will be made aware when this investigation is complete.'' Coincidentally, Gillespie said Zapata's contract for the explosives work it was doing in Iraq expired Thursday; that contract date was predetermined a year ago, however, and has nothing to do with the alleged incident involving the Marines. Getting on With Life After the Fallujah incident, the military gave each of the 16 contractors a letter barring them from further operations in Al Anbar province in western Iraq. ``The contractors clearly, without doubt, experienced physical and psychological abuse and have suffered serious monetary damages,'' Schopper said. ``They lost their jobs, some of them their careers. . . . There are serious, serious civil rights violations.'' Schopper said that since he went public with information regarding credit card receipts and time logs that show his clients weren't in the area of the first shootings at the time in question, the Marines have changed their story as to who they think shot at them. He has not yet filed any formal complaints with the military because, ``until we get a better feel of what's going on, it doesn't behoove us to show any of our cards.'' ``We're hoping in fact that this is cleared up without any legal action and hopefully the investigation, if they are in fact doing one, is in fact legitimate and will clear our guys,'' Schopper added. Until then, several of the contractors said their lives have been at a virtual standstill. ``There's not much we can do'' so far as work is concerned, Ginter said, noting that many government jobs he's qualified for involve high-level security clearances, which involve background checks. ``Right now, with this blot on my background, it ruins everything, even if I was to work for the post office . . . unless I want to work at McDonald's in a job.'' Raiche, a former firefighter before heading to Iraq, said he couldn't even get that job back, nor a job in law enforcement, until his name is cleared. ``I have guys in the military right now who were personal friends of mine,'' Ginter said. ``I have no resentment toward the military. I want this off my record.'' ____________________