[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 25717-25722]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 1042, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1042) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2006 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed 
     Forces, and for other purposes.

  Pending:


[[Page 25718]]

       Dorgan amendment No. 2476, to establish a special committee 
     of the Senate to investigate the awarding and carrying out of 
     contracts to conduct activities in Afghanistan and Iraq and 
     to fight the war on terrorism.
       Lautenberg amendment No. 2478, to prohibit individuals who 
     knowingly engage in certain violations relating to the 
     handling of classified information from holding a security 
     clearance.
       Talent amendment No. 2477, to modify the multiyear 
     procurement authority for C-17 aircraft.

  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, there is a further order for two votes 
to occur beginning at the hour of 11:30. I think it would be helpful to 
all Members if the Chair would restate the timing and status of those 
votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11:30 
shall be equally divided in the usual form, followed by a vote on the 
Dorgan amendment at 11:30, which will be followed by the Talent 
amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.
  Under the time I control, I yield such time as my colleague from 
Alabama may desire to speak. He will speak as in morning business, to 
reserve the time on the bill, on such aspects of the amendments that he 
so desires.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.


                           Amendment No. 2476

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I rise to speak on the Dorgan 
amendment and share some thoughts about that. I think there has been a 
lot of misinformation, and the Senator has been misled in some of the 
allegations he is making and is certainly inaccurate in picturing our 
handling of the reconstruction effort in Iraq as being a wasteful 
enterprise. So much good has gone on. We need to talk about that. Where 
there are errors, as I will note, we are taking vigorous steps to 
correct them.
  With regard to Senator Kennedy's remarks, he said it is not the 
soldiers, it is the policy. We decided the policy. This Senate voted 78 
to 22 to establish a policy with regard to regime change in Iraq. We 
authorized the President to execute military action if Saddam Hussein 
failed to comply, as Senator Warner said, with the U.N. resolutions. We 
have a policy. He may not like it. He was 1 of the 22 who voted against 
it. But he ought not to be doing things that undermine the established 
policy of the United States, a policy that was bipartisan. A majority 
of the Democratic Senators supported it. The former Presidential 
candidate for the Democratic Party, its former Vice Presidential 
candidate, and another former Vice Presidential candidate all supported 
it. It is our policy. We established it, and we sent our men and women 
into harm's way to execute it. We don't need Senators undermining their 
ability to do their job and placing them at greater risk. It is wrong. 
Some people need to examine their conscience as we come up to November 
11 tomorrow, Veterans Day.
  I rise to speak on the reconstruction effort. Commander Paquette, who 
works with me, served in Iraq. He was there when the statue of Saddam 
fell. He had the responsibility for reconstruction in the northern 
third of Iraq. He is a good man. He put his life on the line for this 
country. He did what he believed was right. He didn't waste a dime of 
the American people's money. He had to pass out cash. That is the way 
you do business there--not to say there is something wrong with that. 
They don't have checks and banks. That is how you have to do business 
if somebody does work for you, you pay them in cash.
  I am not by any means claiming that there have not been abuses, that 
contractors and others may have taken advantage of the difficult 
circumstances to exploit their profits. That is, unfortunately, the 
history of the world. We need to watch it constantly. I am a strong 
supporter of that and don't doubt that. But enough is enough. The 
reckless commentary we have been hearing has created in the media and 
with the American people a distorted view of the reality of what is 
happening on the ground in Iraq for reconstruction. It is the same 
thing that is occurring with regard to the detainee abuse scandal--
greatly exaggerated, without any recognition of the efforts that have 
been taken to make sure abuses don't occur.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are requesting yet 
another investigation. They wish to create a special committee on war 
and reconstruction in the middle of this war. This special committee 
will look into matters that are already being investigated by the 
Government Accountability Office, an independent agency--not a 
Department of Defense agency--which we call on in a bipartisan way to 
investigate complicated matters. The Department of Defense inspector 
general is investigating all allegations. The Defense Contract Audit 
Agency, the State Department inspector general, the Army's inspector 
general, and other organizations are watching what goes on there and 
conducting investigations into any allegation of fraud or abuse that 
may be presented. And a special inspector general's office was created 
already to increase accountability. This is important. It is the 
Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, commonly called 
SIGIR in the theater.
  The Senator from North Dakota offers examples of abuse that he claims 
need another investigation. I honestly believe these charges are 
exaggerated distortions of reality and overlook the great work that is 
being done there toward reconstruction. I could stand here and address 
many of these complaints, but I will take issue with three he has 
continually raised in recent months as evidence of the fraud and waste 
he suggests is occurring. We can consider the overall picture of how 
things are being done.
  Point No. 1, the allegation that $85,000 brand new trucks were left 
on the side of the road to be torched and looted because they had a 
clogged fuel pump or because they had a flat tire--we have heard that, 
haven't we?
  The decision to leave a vehicle behind in a combat zone resides with 
the convoy commander and his or her best judgment, not the Senate. 
There are cities in America where people would be hesitant to stay with 
a car at night. They would not want to stay there. They may have to 
leave that car if it broke down. Should the convoy commander call AAA? 
How about that--we are going to call AAA to come fix it. Waiting for a 
repair crew out there by yourself or a tow truck to arrive or leaving 
the whole convoy sitting in a hostile area is not a realistic scenario 
from a force protection standpoint. Speed and mobility are keys to life 
in the combat zone. Disabled vehicles are always planned to be 
recovered; however, on occasion, they may be destroyed by insurgents or 
criminal elements in Iraq if they break down. The life of each military 
member--what if it was your son or daughter, would you like for them to 
stay with a disabled vehicle--is worth more than any vehicle. I fully 
support the decision of our convoy commanders to abandon disabled 
vehicles to ensure the safety of the personnel under their command.
  Point No. 2, contractors in Iraq are paid in large amounts of bundled 
cash.
  These are Iraqi contractors who do work for us, and we want to use 
them wherever possible so that they can create jobs. They are paid in 
large amounts of bundled cash, as we heard the charges made. This is 
the quote:

       When it was time to get paid, just bring a big bag because 
     we are going to give you cash.

  The statement suggests the money is being given away, come and get 
it. That is simply not true. Payments for services in Iraq have to be 
made in cash. There is no central banking system in Iraq where checks 
could be processed or allowed for on some electronic fund transfer. A 
modern bank and currency system is being developed there now, but as of 
today, cash is the only way to effectively pay local Iraqis for their 
labor and materials. The average Iraqi worker performing under a 
Government contract is paid in U.S. dollars because that currency is 
accepted throughout that nation. The large bricks of money are needed 
because in many small towns and villages, paying workers in one hundred 
dollar bills is not practical. No one in these towns could break a one 
hundred dollar bill, so there was a need for payment in twenties, tens, 
and fives. Paying large contracts in small bills does

[[Page 25719]]

create a large amount of dollars and necessitates bundling and 
transporting of money in bags and lockers. How else are you going to do 
that?
  When I was in Iraq right after the war and was in the area in Mosul 
where Commander Paquette was working, I met personally with General 
Petraeus, commander of the 101st Airborne. He said the best thing he 
could do was to go out and see a problem in a neighborhood that could 
be fixed and to have his own discretion to engage a contractor and get 
that thing fixed. Maybe it is a bridge, a roof at the hospital, a door 
on the school.
  Get it done right then and pay the person who did the work. He said 
that is the best way we can help create and reestablish this country. 
And he asked for more power.
  Do you think General Petraeus is stealing the money? He was No. 1 in 
his class at West Point. No, sir, this is a true patriot trying to 
serve our country to help Iraq and fix it up.
  Point No. 3, they charge this. This is the quote and the charge

       There is massive waste, fraud and abuse going on with 
     respect to contracting in Iraq . . . who is watching over 
     this massive amount of fraud, waste and abuse? Nobody seems 
     to care.

  Nobody seems to care? That is not true. This statement is most 
misleading of all. It implies that U.S. tax dollars are just being 
wasted with no care or concern. However, 100 audits and management 
reviews have been performed to date by the GAO, the Defense Contract 
Audit Agency, the DOD inspector general, the Army Criminal 
Investigative Service, and so on. I met with the chief inspector 
general in Iraq, and he is a firecracker. I mean he is a totally 
focused man, dedicated to his job of establishing accountability and 
eliminating fraud.
  Have there been instances of fraud? Sadly, yes. Those found guilty 
are being punished. Companies defrauding the Government have had 
payments withheld. They have been removed. Investigations and audits 
continue and those who violate criminal laws will be prosecuted. The 
Department of Defense and other Government agencies in charge of 
reconstruction in Iraq are reacting swiftly to the comments of the 
auditors and incorporating all of the recommended corrective actions.
  There is even a special investigative body in Iraq, SIGIR, that 
issued the report I believe that Chairman Warner quoted from with 
respect to the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, a 
special inspector general for just Iraq.
  Yet claims persist that no one cares, there is no oversight and no 
accountability. It is not true. It is a slander on our people whose 
lives are at risk serving our country in Iraq. As with detainee abuse 
allegations, time and again an objective review of the facts is slowly 
rolling back outlandish accusations that we have heard. Iraq is a war 
zone. It is a dangerous place in many areas. For too many in Congress 
and across the Nation we seem to overlook this fact, even while the 
media gives us all a daily count of fatalities.
  As any soldier can tell you, paperwork is not always the first 
priority when someone is in combat. However, we place special trust and 
confidence in military officers and senior Government officials 
overseeing the expenditures of taxpayer funds. Continuing to claim 
fraud and abuse is rampant and that no one is accountable is directly 
questioning the competency and dedication of these professionals who 
are doing their best job possible in very difficult and many times 
dangerous circumstances.
  There are areas in Iraq that are dangerous. And even the contractors' 
lives are in danger, as we well know. Their actions are making a 
difference. The most recent report to Congress from the SIGIR states--
this is the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. Listen 
to this:

       The positive results achieved in the reconstruction program 
     are impressive . . .
       The United States has made steady progress in its part of 
     Iraq's construction, despite the hazardous security 
     environment, the fluid political situation, and the harsh 
     realities of working in a war zone.

  The media and the other side of the aisle spend too much time telling 
the negative side of what is going on in Iraq, I believe. To far too 
many Americans, the image of the conflict in Iraq is a burning humvee 
or the scene of a car bomb. I would like to show you a few before and 
after photos of how the reconstruction funds have benefitted the people 
of Iraq.
  This first slide portrays reconstruction of the Ministry of the 
Environment Building. Here is the way it looked after the war. And here 
we see how it has been reconstructed. Somebody was paid for that. I 
hope it was an Iraqi contractor who had a family to feed. Commander 
Paquette says it was. This is a matter he has personal knowledge of, I 
believe. So somebody went out there and did a job similar to in the 
United States, did a great job of reconstructing this building that was 
utterly gutted.
  Here is another one, the Az Zubayr Courthouse. Look at this 
courthouse here. Now, we have to have the rule of law. General Petraeus 
told me when he was in Mosul how he worked on that, had the Iraqis out 
here doing the work. Are they going to be paid or not? They don't want 
a check, I can tell you that. And here we have a new courthouse where 
we hope justice can be done.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would be pleased to yield.
  Mr. WARNER. Has the Senator put into the Record the name of the 
assistant he has worked with in developing this and explained about his 
background as having been there and participated? Because this is an 
extremely important segment of our debate that the Senator is filling 
in this morning. You are receiving a lot of this information from your 
very able assistant who is an on-the-scene individual responsible for 
some of this.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the chairman. I did not do enough. Commander 
Paquette was in Iraq shortly after Saddam Hussein's government fell, 
when the statue fell and he was given the charge of handling the 
northern third of the reconstruction effort for the military. He was a 
Naval lieutenant commander then and that was his responsibility in our 
joint effort. We have Navy people, Air Force people there, Army and 
Marines, of course, and he worked on the reconstruction effort. Much of 
what I am saying, many of these photos he has had personal involvement 
with.
  Here is a hospital operating facility. You can see what a pathetic, 
sad thing it was--one little chair. Now, after we have come in with 
reconstruction efforts, you have a fully functional hospital.
  Here is a bridge replacement with a new structure. This bridge was 
totally destroyed, broken here, and you can see the old bridge here, 
but a new bridge has been constructed. Somebody had to be paid to do 
that work. You can't rebuild a bridge for $500. If you pay people in 
cash, you have to have a bundle of cash to pay the expense of building 
a bridge.
  How about this one. This is one Commander Paquette mentioned to me. 
This is a street in a town he personally has visited, with sewage 
running down the main street there, kids wading in it, he said. And 
here, after our work to create a sewage system, we have a safe street 
for this lady to walk on. And of course, you have heard about the 
sabotage of electric powers. This one was sabotaged and here you have 
Iraqis climbing up there fixing it. Are you going to climb up to the 
top of a tower like that and fix it and not be paid? Somebody has to 
pay you. They are not going to take a check. We have to pay them in 
cash, and that is what is being done, in an effective way, I believe.
  I could go on. There are hundreds of examples such as this from all 
around Iraq, thousands of them. Let's not politicize this conflict. It 
is important. We are a nation at war, and the mission in Iraq is vital 
to ensuring democracy, that democracy takes hold in a region of the 
world that has known far too many tyrants and despots.
  I am proud of the accomplishments of our military, our civilian and 
contractor personnel in Iraq. Many of them were former military people 
who retired, who brought their skills and

[[Page 25720]]

who had the courage to go into dangerous areas. They are dedicated to 
improving the quality of life for millions of Iraqis and Afghanis and 
are doing so under very difficult circumstances.
  As we approach Veterans Day, the Senate should spend a little less 
time advertising allegations of wrongdoing, allegations that we are 
already taking vigorous actions to deal with, and spend more time 
talking about what is going right. We owe it to the men and women we 
voted to send into harm's way. We owe it to their families and to the 
families of the fallen to tell them that their mission is important, 
that their sacrifice is making a difference for nearly 50 million 
people in a region that has known so much suffering and violence.
  I thank the Chair. I also want to express my personal appreciation to 
Commander Paquette for his service. He will soon be leaving us, going 
back on active duty. He has been a tremendous asset to my office and 
helped me craft the legislation I am most proud of to double the death 
benefits for soldiers who lose their life in defense of our country. We 
appreciate it, and I thank him also for helping us bring a personal 
touch directly from the frontline in our efforts in Iraq.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I want to say again how important is the 
debate our distinguished colleague from Alabama has provided the Senate 
this morning on these key subjects. It is reassuring. The Senator made, 
as did I, reference to this report, which I think is an accurate 
compilation of what has been achieved and what remains to be achieved 
and the struggle they are having with regrettably this cultural thing 
called graft, which is all pervasive throughout much of the Middle 
East, but nevertheless somehow we are overcoming that.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the chairman. I note I did meet that special 
inspector general. He impressed me. I know Senator Collins has met with 
him and is thoroughly impressed with him. He is very present throughout 
Iraq to make sure our dollars are being spent wisely.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.
  Madam President, it is my understanding that the time under the 
control of the Senator from Virginia has now expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. And there remains what period of time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 20 minutes 15 seconds.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, the Senate has already defeated this 
amendment twice--first on September 14, 2005, on the Commerce, State, 
Justice, Appropriations bill by a vote of 53-44 and then on October 19, 
2005 on the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development 
Appropriations bill by a vote of 54-44.
  This amendment is unnecessary and duplicative of the current 
contracting oversight mechanisms created to meet the challenges that 
then Senator Truman identified. The Truman Committee was needed at the 
outbreak of World War II. There were no GAO or IG investigations, no 
Defense Contract Audit Agency or Defense Contract Management Agency. 
There were no conflict of interest laws to reign in the dollar-a-day 
men and no Truth in Negotiations Act, Whistle blower Protections, or 
Competition in Contracting Act.
  The Armed Services Committee is currently performing its oversight 
tasks and I see no need for a Special Senate Committee to look at 
contracting practices in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  The potential for fraud, waste and abuse is not limited to just Iraq 
and Afghanistan. The Air Force has just been through the worst 
contracting scandal in the last 20 years and the Armed Services 
Committee was at the forefront of uncovering this scandal by using 
normal committee legislative oversight tools. We conducted hearings, 
tasked the GAO and the Inspector General to review specific issues, and 
requested and reviewed thousands of documents.
  The Armed Services Committee has conducted numerous hearings and 
briefings on acquisition oversight and reform, including oversight of 
contracting in Iraq, and initiated numerous investigations by the GAO 
and the Inspector General on DOD acquisition practices and programs.
  Senator Ensign plans to conduct several more Iraq contracting 
hearings in the near future in the Readiness Subcommittee and Senator 
McCain is conducting a series of hearings on the overall procurement 
process.
  The Office of the Special Inspector General of Iraq Reconstruction 
was established to look at Iraqi contracting. This new IG has routinely 
briefed this Committee and others on its findings.
  Section 823 of this bill establishes a contract fraud task force at 
DOD to identify potential areas where DOD is susceptible to fraud, 
waste and abuse. This group will inform Congress on how to modify our 
contracting laws wherever we need to get tougher on contract fraud.
  This is how best to conduct our oversight--through the established 
committee process and established oversight mechanisms. I am sure that 
the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who shares 
responsibility for the oversight and jurisdiction of contracts in Iraq, 
as well as the Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee who has 
jurisdiction of Federal contracting would agree.
  I appreciate the concerns of the sponsors of this legislation. 
However, I do not support the establishment of a new special committee 
which would duplicate the work of this committee and others and only 
look at a narrow amount of Federal expenditure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, is the time between now and 11:30 
allocated?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time remaining until the vote is 
controlled by the Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Presiding Officer. I know that Senator Dorgan 
wanted some of this time. I would have a couple comments relative to 
the Dorgan amendment, first of all. I happen to agree with what has 
been recently said about the Special Inspector General for Iraq 
Reconstruction. He, indeed, would be a useful witness for the Senate to 
call, and I hope that either the Armed Services Committee or the 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee would call that 
Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction so that he could come 
and testify before us. That has not been done.
  The Department of Defense IG has withdrawn his people. These are the 
people who look at the contracts with the contractors that are 
supporting our troops. The DOD IG withdrew his people so that there are 
no longer those folks on the ground who can tell us about those 
contractors. I do not believe that the Government Accountability Office 
people have been called to testify before the Senate.
  There are a lot of issues. There are a lot of issues about the 
initial contract, why it was awarded on a sole-source basis, whether 
the CPA, the provisional authority, was overcharged by Halliburton for 
oil which was purchased. There are serious questions about meals which 
were served or not served. There are questions about whether 
Halliburton had the estimating, subcontracting, and financial 
management systems they needed to run two multibillion dollar 
contracts. There are a lot of questions which need to be reviewed. They 
ought to be reviewed. And we ought to have Senate committees that are 
calling these people to testify in front of us. It seems to me that in 
the absence of that, what Senator Dorgan is doing is saying: Let's have 
a Truman-type committee, a special inspector general to look at the 
contracting issues. Not only do I see nothing wrong with it, it has 
tremendously powerful precedent.
  It is named the Truman committee because Harry Truman, in the middle 
of a war--I emphasize in the middle of a war, World War II--Harry 
Truman, a

[[Page 25721]]

Democrat, with a Democratic President, was willing to undertake an 
investigation of contracting practices and procurement practices 
because he felt the war was being exploited for profit by certain 
persons who were trying to profiteer off the bravery of others.
  There is no disagreement among any Member of this body that I know of 
about the bravery, the professionalism, the courage of our troops. They 
deserve everything we can give them, and I believe we are giving them 
everything they need. There is no disagreement about that here. When 
Members of this body get up and are critical about the way in which 
this war has been won, it seems to me that is what we owe our troops. 
We not only owe them the material and the training and we owe their 
families everything, but we also owe them our best thinking. And our 
best thinking is not unanimous. There is not a consensus. There are not 
100 people here who are cloned to think the same way. There are 
different thoughts.
  We owe our troops our best, honest, conscientious thinking, and when 
people get up on this floor and provide that thinking, particularly 
where it is critical, it should not just be characterized as somehow or 
another undermining our troops.
  Our troops depend upon us for the equipment, the training, the 
materiel, morale, for the support of their families. They depend on us 
for that. They are entitled to that. People who stand up and give their 
best thinking are supporting our troops in the best sense of the word; 
they are giving them their best, honest, conscientious thoughts as to 
how we can succeed in Iraq and make the best of a situation that is not 
going well, not just stay the course, stay the course, which is a 
bumper sticker, not a strategy, but how can we modify this course to 
increase our chances for success.
  I want to yield the floor. I see Senator Dorgan is in the Chamber. I 
know he wants to speak on his amendment. I yield to him such time as he 
needs to speak relative to his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my colleague from Michigan has said it 
pretty well. This is not an unusual time. The money we have spent with 
respect to the war in Iraq and the reconstruction of Iraq are not usual 
expenditures. We have been asked, and the Congress has complied, with 
support for legislation that moves $50 billion, $60 billion, $20 
billion--huge chunks of money--to pursue, first of all, the war in Iraq 
to support our troops and also to pursue what is called the 
reconstruction of Iraq.
  Almost all of that--I think perhaps all of it--was done without any 
requirement to pay for it. It was all designed as an emergency, just to 
add it to the debt of this country.
  My colleague, Senator Levin, said we have not in any way, nor would 
we refuse any request that would be helpful to our troops. When we ask 
men and women in uniform to risk their lives, we have a responsibility 
to them, and that is to give them everything they need to carry out the 
mission they have been asked to carry out. That is not what is at issue 
with this amendment.
  This amendment is designed to respond to what we already know, and 
everyone in this Chamber knows, is a massive amount of waste, fraud, 
and abuse of the taxpayers' money. I spoke yesterday about this, but 
can anyone here justify having the American taxpayers purchase $85,000 
trucks to be used on the roads of Iraq by contractors, and when the 
trucks get a flat tire, what do they do with them? They leave them 
beside the road and let them be torched. An $85,000 truck with a 
plugged fuel pump, what do they do? Abandon it. It is a plus-cost, 
sole-source contract. The American taxpayer will pay for that; don't 
worry about it. The list is almost endless.
  A company--Halliburton in this case--charged the taxpayers for 42,000 
meals served to American troops. It turns out they were only serving 
14,000 meals. They have overcharged us by 28,000 meals. The people who 
last were responsible in the Pentagon, now retired, for managing all 
the fuel contracts to move fuel to the battlefield, after they retired 
they came back and testified and said: What has happened since is just 
unbelievable. The massive overcharges to move fuel to the battlefield 
by these contractors is almost unthinkable.
  The stories go on and on. Renting a car for $7,500 a month, buying 
towels for the troops, double the price so you can put the company logo 
on it because the company tells their buyers that is what they are 
required to do: Double the cost of the towels so we can put our company 
logo on it.
  How many of these stories do we need? Do we need 100 more stories 
like it? There is rampant waste, fraud, and abuse.
  Why is that the case? Because massive quantities of money are being 
shipped over there in pursuit of reconstruction. Massive quantities of 
money are going, in many cases, to no-bid, sole-source contracts under 
the buddy system, and the taxpayers, I think in many of these cases, 
are being robbed blind. Will someone do something about it?
  This amendment I have offered would establish what I call a Truman-
type committee. Harry Truman stood on this floor in the 1940s in the 
middle of a war with a President of his own political party in the 
White House, and said: I think there is substantial waste, fraud, and 
abuse in military contracting and in military spending. They formed a 
special Truman committee, and he went after and uncovered tens of 
billions of dollars, in today's dollars, of waste, fraud, and abuse.
  Normally, we would do this through oversight hearings, but we have 
not had many oversight hearings. In some cases, in other venues, none 
at all; in other venues, a few but really no aggressive oversight 
hearings designed to track this massive amount of money.
  Yesterday, I showed a picture of a fellow who testified at a hearing 
I chaired that we have been doing in the Policy Committee. Why? Because 
the regular committees don't want to have oversight hearings. Why don't 
they want to do that? I guess they don't want to embarrass anybody. It 
would be embarrassing to the White House, I guess, if we had hearings 
about no-bid, sole-source contracts under the buddy system to big 
companies that then waste a lot of money. It would be embarrassing to 
display that in public.
  The fact is, we owe it to the taxpayers to get rid of the waste, 
fraud, and abuse. Yesterday, I showed a photograph of money that was in 
the downstairs vault of a building that was occupied by the Coalition 
Provisional Authority in Iraq, which was us, by the way. CPA is us, not 
anything else. It is a fancy name for us. They were dealing in cash. I 
showed a photograph of one hundred dollar bills wrapped in Saran Wrap 
in bundles. The guy who testified at my committee and who was pictured 
in that photograph said: We told all the contractors, show up with a 
bag because we pay in cash. He said this was like the Old West. Bring a 
bag, we pay in cash. He said: We actually threw around like a football 
those bundles of one hundred dollar bills wrapped in Saran Wrap. You 
would be able to play catch with them. It was the Old West.
  After all, when we provide funding for these contracts, it doesn't 
come out of the pockets of the 100 Members of the Senate. It is 
taxpayers' money, and we have a responsibility to the taxpayers to make 
sure it is spent appropriately.
  If all of the 100 Senators would sit and listen to the stories I have 
listened to in many hearings now from contractor employees who were 
sickened and disgusted by the waste, fraud, and abuse they saw, if all 
of the Members of this Senate could hear that and then vote against an 
amendment that asks for this kind of long-term investigation, I don't 
know how they can sleep at night.
  We have had this vote previously, and sufficient Members of the 
Senate have said it does not matter what the evidence is; I don't 
intend to support a special type committee to investigate this waste, 
fraud, and abuse. And they have prevailed. So we will have another vote 
today.

[[Page 25722]]

  I say to those Senators who have voted against this amendment 
previously, if they still believe this waste, fraud, and abuse doesn't 
matter very much, then vote against it. If they still believe it is OK 
for the regular committees of the Senate not to hold any significant 
oversight hearings, not to do their due diligence, not to meet their 
accountability responsibility, and they don't care about that, then 
vote against this. Just vote against it, it doesn't matter. But then 
they should not stand up at home and say to their constituents that 
they care about how this money is spent when there is such dramatic 
evidence of waste, fraud, and abuse.
  I used some newspaper headlines yesterday to describe the charges: 
$18.6 million worth of Government equipment missing at the moment that 
a contracting company was given to manage. One-third of the equipment 
that company was entrusted with at this point cannot be accounted for. 
Does it matter? Is somebody looking into this? It doesn't look like it 
to me. It is really pretty unbelievable. I have spoken before. I am 
guessing nobody in this Chamber--at least only a few in this Chamber--
care.
  My colleague from Michigan was at a hearing we held with Bunnatine 
Greenhouse who rose to become the top civilian contracting official in 
the Corps of Engineers. She was the top civilian contracting official 
in the Corps of Engineers. She had outstanding recommendations every 
single year. She was an outstanding Federal employee, and she was in 
charge as the highest civilian in the Corps of Engineers for making 
sure contracting was done properly.
  As the war in Iraq ramped up and some companies began to get 
substantial no-bid contracts under the old buddy system, she said this 
doesn't meet the test of the law; you are violating the procedures of 
the Corps of Engineers. You are not doing things the right way; there 
is a right way and wrong way to do things. You do it this way. We are 
going to see substantial waste, abuse, and fraud. When she started 
raising those questions, something important happened to her. She was 
told one of two things will happen: You will either be fired or you 
will be demoted.
  This public servant had the courage to speak up and speak out against 
practices she thought were horribly unfair and were going to hurt this 
country, and she paid for it with her career.
  What a message to send to those who have the courage to blow the 
whistle and speak up. Does anybody care about that? It doesn't appear 
so. It really doesn't appear that way. We have asked Secretary 
Rumsfeld. We sent many letters to Secretary Rumsfeld. It is like 
sending those letters into a deep abyss someplace. You get a little 
one-paragraph reply saying: Got your letter, get back to you later. And 
there will never be a later. That is the way it works. Zip it up, cover 
it up, sew it up, it doesn't matter and, oh, by the way, ask Congress 
for more money; they will certainly appropriate it. Don't worry where 
it is going. If it is waste, nobody cares very much and, by the way, if 
somebody does care and raises the issue, we will have sufficient votes 
on it to say we won't do anything about it. And those sufficient votes 
will go home and talk about the fact, boy, they are tigers watching out 
for the American taxpayers. Hardly. Hardly.
  We will see, once again, in a few minutes whether people really do 
care about this and whether they are willing to own up to the oversight 
responsibility Congress has, to care about how the taxpayers' money is 
spent.
  This case is made. This is not an open case, it is not an argument 
that has to be made. This case is made. The evidence is all around us. 
The question is whether enough Senators will care.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I speak on 
the bill for just a minute or two.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my good friend and colleague, if 
there is an award to be made for determination, he has it on this 
particular issue. It is interesting that the Senator from North Dakota 
invoked a good deal of history as to the Truman committee. I think 
colleagues should know, however, that the Senate has already addressed 
this amendment on two previous occasions: first on September 14, 2005, 
on the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill. The vote was 53 to 
44, defeated, and then again on October 19, 2005, on the DOD 
appropriations bill. Again, the Senate rejected it 54 to 44. Those 
matters should be before Senators.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, since Senator 
Dorgan does have another minute left, I believe, and I want to give him 
an opportunity to respond, I will use 30 seconds of that time simply to 
say that Senator Dorgan has, indeed, been tenacious. There has been an 
absence of oversight in this area which has been glaring. He has almost 
by himself filled in some of those gaps as he described it. He should 
not need to do that. We should either have the committees doing that or 
else we need this special Truman-type committee.
  I commend him for his tenacity. I am glad he is bringing this to a 
vote, and maybe one of these days--hopefully today--he will prevail.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. At this point in time, a vote is imminent.

                          ____________________