Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet on Friday, September 28, 2007, at 10 a.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Role of Federal Executive Boards in Pandemic Preparedness.''

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me add my commendation to Senators Webb and McCaskill and the others who fought so hard for this amendment. The heart of this amendment has remained. There have been some changes in it. But the substance of this amendment, the crying need for a commission to look into the contract abuses and waste and fraud is very strong. This amendment is going to do some important work for the country and for the next time we are in a situation where we have such massive spending as we have in this war. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent--I have cleared this with my friend, Senator Warner--that we vitiate the vote on the Menendez amendment--that has been done? Fine.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I call up the managers' package at the desk. This package has been agreed to in our unanimous consent agreement. This is the package that is referred to in that unanimous consent agreement.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, is there any objection if we proceed to morning business?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will yield half the time in opposition to the Coburn amendment to the two Senators from Pennsylvania, half to Senator Specter and half to Senator Casey.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, just 30 seconds. I hope the Senate will vote for cloture. Let me give the rundown of amendments we have now adopted. One hundred ninety-one amendments have now been adopted through either clearance in voice vote or rollcall. We have a lot of amendments left. We will be here tomorrow, and we will be here on Monday. If cloture is invoked, we will work the best we can to see if we can get some germane amendments adopted, even those that we agree by unanimous consent may not be germane but should be adopted. I hope cloture is invoked. We will be here tomorrow and Monday to work on amendments.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each. Would that be enough, I ask Senator Brown? Ten minutes? You can ask unanimous consent to extend it.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support the passage of the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007. We have all heard the story of Matthew Shepard: the 21-year-old student at the University of Wyoming who was brutally beaten--his skull smashed-- and tied to a fence with a rope and left to die--because he was homosexual. No one should be targeted because of the color of their skin, their religion, their gender or their sexual orientation. In April of this year, I joined Senators Kennedy, Smith, and others in introducing hate crimes legislation. This amendment, which is identical to that legislation, for the first time will expand the definition of a hate crime to include gender, gender identity, disability, and sexual orientation. It gives the Justice Department jurisdiction over crimes of violence committed because of a person's actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability. Existing law only covers race, color, religion, or national origin-based hate crimes, where the victim was engaging in one of six `specified activities.' It will also strengthen the ability of the Federal, State, and local governments to investigate and prosecute hate crimes based on race, ethnic background, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and disability. Some have said that this bill will take away first amendment rights. That is just not true. This law would punish violent acts, not beliefs. This legislation only applies to violent, bias-motivated crimes and does not infringe on any conduct protected by the first amendment. The first amendment right to organize against, preach against and speak is not impinged. America's diversity is one of our greatest strengths. Our tolerance for each other's differences is part of the lamp that can help bring light to a world which is enveloped in bigotry and intolerance. America has taken many steps throughout our history on a long road to become a more inclusive Nation. We are hopefully about to take another one if we adopt the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I strongly support the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, a bipartisan bill that would provide health care insurance to millions of children who are not now covered. I hope the President will reconsider his position and sign the bipartisan compromise when it reaches his desk. Currently, 6.6 million children are enrolled in CHIP. There are still 9 million uninsured children nationwide, 6 million of which are eligible for either Medicaid or CHIP. In Michigan, while 55,000 children are covered under CHIP, 90,000 Michigan children are currently eligible for Medicaid or MIChild, Michigan's CHIP program, but are not receiving services. In addition, according to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the recent decline in employer-sponsored health care coverage is threatening the access to private health care coverage for many more children. In fact, the Census Bureau has reported that, between 2004-2006, the number of uninsured children has increased by approximately one million children. Although the existing CHIP has been successful, it still fails to address the problem fully. Too many children qualify for the program but are unable to receive insurance because of inadequate funding. Much like the Senate bill to reauthorize this successful children's health program, the bill we will pass today will reauthorize CHIP and increase funding for the program by $35 billion over 5 years. The Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, a compromise worked out between the House and Senate, would ensure that there is sufficient funding to cover the children currently enrolled and to expand the program to additional children in need. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 3.8 million uninsured children would gain health coverage under this plan and according to a study done by The Urban Institute, 80 percent of the children covered under CHIP will come from families under 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. We have a moral obligation to provide Americans access to affordable and high quality health care. No person, young or old, should be denied access to adequate health care, and the expanded and improved Children's Health Insurance Program is an important step toward achieving that goal.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now resume consideration of H.R. 1585, and immediately after the bill is reported the debate time be 2 minutes equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees with respect to the following pending amendments: Biden amendment No. 2997 and Kyl-Lieberman amendment No. 3017; that each amendment be modified with the changes at the desk, and that no amendments be in order to either amendment prior to the vote; that upon the use or yielding back of time, without further intervening action or debate, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Biden amendment, as modified; that upon the disposition of that amendment, there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled prior to a vote in relation to the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, as modified; that each amendment be subject to a 60-vote threshold, and that if the amendment does not achieve that threshold, it be withdrawn; and that the second vote in this sequence be limited to 10 minutes; further that upon disposition of these amendments, the next amendment in order be Coburn amendment No. 2196.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I also would give notice that it is our intention, since we are alternating back and forth, that the next amendment we will attempt to call up will be the Webb amendment No. 2999, but that is not part of the UC agreement.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object--and I won't--is this the amendment which the unanimous consent agreement, previously arrived at, referred to?

Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, is there any time agreement on this amendment?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to speak for a few minutes in support of the Webb-McCaskill amendment that would establish a contracting commission relative to contracting in Iraq, but it also does another very important thing, which is it broadens the jurisdiction of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, or SIGIR. Over the last 4 years, the United States has spent more than $20 billion on reconstruction contracting in Iraq. In report after report, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, SIGIR, has demonstrated that this effort was poorly planned, inadequately staffed, and poorly managed. For example, the special inspector general has reported that plumbing was so poorly installed at the Baghdad Police College that dripping sewage not only threatened the health of students and inspectors but could have affected the structural integrity of the building. The special inspector general reported that the security walls built for the Babylon Police Academy in Hilla were full of gaps and deficiencies, some of which were filled with sandbags; lighting systems and guard towers called for in the contract were never installed. As a result, the academy was vulnerable to attack. The special inspector general reported that a prison in Nasiriyah was originally supposed to house 4,400 inmates, but the scope was reduced to the point where it would only house 800. After most of the available money had been spent, the contract was terminated due to schedule delays and cost overruns. He reported that neither the government nor the contractor could verify the status of a new oil pipeline from Kirkuk to Baiji because project monitoring was very limited and sporadic. However, at least 25 percent of the welds on the pipeline was defective, and one major canal crossing was only 10 percent complete. The failure to complete this project resulted in the loss of as much as $14.8 billion in oil revenues to the Iraqi Government. He reported that after the Army Corps of Engineers spent $186 million on primary health care centers throughout Iraq, the contract was terminated with only 6 health care centers completed, 135 partially constructed, and the remainder ``descoped.'' The special inspector general determined that the contractor had lacked qualified engineering staff, failed to check the capacity of its subcontractors, failed to properly supervise the work, and failed to enforce quality control requirements. The Department of Defense has spent even more money on logistical support contracts for U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. There have been numerous indications of fraud, waste, and abuse in these contracts as well. For example, recent press reports indicate that the Department of Defense contracting officials in Iraq and Kuwait received millions of dollars in kickbacks, tainting several billion dollars of DOD logistics support contracts. Similarly, the Armed Services Committee held a hearing in April on Halliburton's LOGCAP contract for logistics support in Iraq. Our committee learned that the company was given work that appears to have far exceeded the scope of the contract. All of this added work was provided to the contractor without competition. The contractor resisted providing us with information that we needed to monitor and control costs. There are almost $2 billion of overcharges on the contract, and the contractor received highly favorable settlements on these overcharges. Unfortunately, the special inspector general does not have jurisdiction over Department of Defense logistic support contracts, and the Department of Defense inspector general who does have jurisdiction refused for several years to send auditors to Iraq and is now playing catchup. As a result, billions of dollars have been spent on these contracts without sufficient oversight. In addition, there have been numerous reports of abuses by private security contractors operating in Iraq. More recently, the Iraqi Government has complained about an incident in which employees of Blackwater, Inc., allegedly opened fire on innocent Iraqis in Baghdad. This incident is apparently the latest in a long series of similar cases in which Blackwater employees were alleged to have used excessive force. Unfortunately, the special inspector general does not have jurisdiction over private security contractors. The DOD inspector general does not have jurisdiction over State Department contractors like Blackwater either. Published reports in the last few weeks indicate that the State Department inspector general has systematically avoided looking into allegations of contract abuse in Iraq. In short, despite almost 5 years of allegations of waste, fraud, and abuse in Iraq contracting, we continue to have huge gaps in our oversight of these activities. The Webb-McCaskill amendment will address these gaps by, first, establishing an independent commission to look into Federal agency contracting for reconstruction, logistical support, and the performance of private security and intelligence functions in Iraq and Afghanistan; and, second, expanding the jurisdiction of the special inspector general to logistical support contracts and contracts for the performance of private security and intelligence functions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Under this provision, the special inspector general, in collaboration with other relevant inspectors general, would conduct a comprehensive series of audits of logistical support contracts and private security contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan comparable to the audits the special inspector general has already conducted for Iraq reconstruction contracts. The commission would review these materials, conduct hearings, and issue a report identifying lessons learned and making specific recommendations for improvements that should be made in future contracting. So the Webb-McCaskill amendment would ensure that we finally have appropriate oversight over the full range of contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will ensure that we are in a position to learn from the mistakes we have made, and we will be better positioned to avoid making similar mistakes in the future. I hope there will be a broad bipartisan vote for Webb-McCaskill, just the way there is already broad bipartisan sponsorship for their amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. I don't think working closely with the Commission collaboratively in any way means they are not going to report to us. They will continue to report to the Congress. There is no shift of the reporting function. As a matter of fact, the IG for Iraq does not have the authority which should have been given to him, and would now be given to him by this bill, for instance, on logistics support contracts. Why in heaven's name should the special IG not have logistics support contracts jurisdiction?

Mr. LEVIN. I have never seen as much fraud, waste, and abuse. There is no analogy in the history of this country, I don't believe, for the amount of fraud and waste and abuse that is taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't think our committee could do anything else if we took on that responsibility. I think we would be having hearings every week, when we need to have hearings on all of the other matters under our jurisdiction. I don't know that we could do an authorization bill properly if we took on this responsibility. It is too massive. I wonder whether the Senator can give me one example in American history where there has been this degree of waste, fraud, and abuse. We now see a massive investigation taking place because of the alleged fraud of a number of members of the armed services. I cannot remember anything comparable. This is a massive undertaking. It is most appropriate that we have a special commission to do that. There is no reason why they should not work in concert with an IG. We don't want them overlapping and conflicting. The issue is whether we are going to take on this responsibility one way or the other. This is only one practical way to do it. I wish we had the resources and time in our committee to do the kind of oversight that has to be done relative to Iraq. To me, it has been the most shocking abuse of the taxpayers' dollars that we have seen. As a practical matter, I think the former chairman of the committee would acknowledge it would take a huge amount of staff and committee time. I want to give one example. We have an ongoing investigation right now, and it is very small relative to the size and scope of this one. We wanted to talk to a witness. During this investigation, a number of witnesses talked to us voluntarily, but a few witnesses would not. In our committee, we don't even have subpoena power unless the full committee votes for it. The Senator from Virginia was very helpful to me, as he remembers, in getting the full committee to vote for a subpoena. I extended my appreciation to him then, and I do it publicly now for his cooperation and that of Senator McCain. Every one of those subpoenas required a vote. Then there had to be a hearing. We have to go through a hearing of our committee to hear from a witness that is subpoenaed, even though that should be through a discovery process. Even our rules are so limiting in our committee that we could not undertake an investigation of this scope. This is a massive undertaking. To me, it would be suggesting, for instance, that if there was an Iran-Contra Commission, somehow or other the appointment of that Iran-Contra Commission--there was a special committee of the Congress. Was that an abdication of the work of the existing committee? I don't think so. It fit a special need at that time. Each of the committees from which that special committee was drawn didn't have the resources to do it on their own. So each of these are designed for a purpose. I don't know why there would be objection. The reason for the length of time that the amendment takes is twofold: One is that this is a major investigation that will take a lot of time because its scope is huge. Secondly, we want to take it out of politics. I think the sponsors will speak to this, and perhaps already have. This should not be something where there is going to be a report in the middle of a Presidential campaign. It ought to end after that campaign is over. I think they provide for interim reporting, as I remember, in January after the Presidential campaign. So I hope there will be bipartisan support. It is not a political effort. The report comes after the Presidential campaign. There is no practical way that our committee has the resources to undertake the travel and the responsibility and the scope of this. This is huge. There has never been this degree of waste that I know of in American history. I know enough about this already from our one hearing, on one matter, involving one contractor, involving the scope of a contract that we touched literally with the tail of an elephant or donkey. It is massive. I plead with the former chairman here, who knows exactly the responsibilities of our committee, who knows more than anyone in this body what responsibilities our committee has, that there is no practical way, given our bill that comes up every year, given our nominations process with which the Senator is fully familiar--we have four nominations that we have to hear tomorrow. We have dozens of nominations each year. On top of all of that, we have oversight, which we try to do in a number of areas. We had oversight on the Boeing contract. That was one contract that took a significant amount of time. We did some major good. I don't know the magnitude, but if you look at the Boeing contract, for instance, this contracting abuse scandal has to be a multiple of 10 to 100 times that one investigation. I plead with my friend to support this as the only practical way to get our hands around this situation.

Mr. LEVIN. Senator Biden will control the time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I have discussed with the Senator from Delaware modifying his amendment expressing the sense of Congress on Federalism in Iraq. My concern with the wording of the amendment stems from the fact that the Iraqi Sunnis did not participate fully in the drafting of the constitution of Iraq and the Sunni community voted overwhelmingly against it but were unable to prevent its adoption in a referendum. As a result of their dissatisfaction with the constitution, an agreement was made to convene a Constitutional Review Commission to review the constitution and to make recommendations for changes to the Iraqi Council of Representatives for submission to the Iraqi people. One of the benchmarks that the Iraqi political leaders agreed among themselves called for the Constitutional Review Commission to be formed by September 2006; for the Commission to complete its work by January 2007; and for a constitutional amendments referendum to be held, if required, in March 2007. The Constitutional Review Commission has not completed its work despite several extensions of time; the most recent extension being until the end of this year. In recognition of the agreement to have a Constitutional Review Committee, the legislation establishing procedures for the creation of new federal regions in Iraq will not go into effect until 18 months after enactment of the legislation, which is April 2008. Accordingly, I appreciate the modifications that Senator Biden is making to his amendment to reflect that the political settlement regarding federalism referred to in his amendment should be based upon the ``final'' provisions of the Iraq constitution. This will allow for the possibility of changes being made as a result of the work of the Constitutional Review Commission. I also appreciate Senator Biden's modifying the amendment to note that whatever the political settlement is, be it pursuant to the current or revised constitutional provisions, it should be based on the ``wishes of the Iraqi people and their elected leaders'' as we don't want to suggest that we are trying to impose anything on the Iraqis.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his question. Our committee, as the Senator knows perhaps better than any other Member of this body, has a huge responsibility month after month, year after year, on the authorization bill. Most of our focus is on that bill in terms of staff assignments. We also from time to time do have oversight hearings. We have had a couple on Iraq, but in terms of what is needed with the immense fraud and abuse and waste that has gone on in Iraq, we could assign our committee nothing else and still not catch up to what needs to be done relative to the waste and the fraud and the abuse that has taken place in Iraq contracting. We have perhaps three or four staff members assigned to investigation. They are in the middle of an investigation now. They could not possibly--with the very small number of staffers assigned to that responsibility--take on the breadth of work which needs to be done relative to Iraq. Also, this amendment not only has a contracting commission, but it also is going to amend the Special Inspector General Act relative to Iraq to fill in a number of gaps which exist in the inspector general's jurisdiction. The areas which I just outlined that the current special inspector general does not have jurisdiction over, we must have a modification of that jurisdiction in order that the special inspector general will have that capability which is now omitted from the tasking of the special inspector general. As the Senator also knows because he was responsible for the appointment of a number of these commissions, our committee supports, and indeed has led the way, in the creation of independent commissions all the time. It was not an abdication of our jurisdiction or our authority when the Packard Commission was created, when the section 800 commission was created, or when the Service Acquisition Reform Act Commission was recently created. There are many commissions that we appoint, and we are leading the way and have led the way to have created, and in no way does that diminish the jurisdiction of our committee. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The creation of these commissions has been able to lead to reforms, legislative reforms at times, which our committee then is able to take up and adopt, hopefully, in many cases, and in fact has adopted in many cases. So there is nothing novel about the creation of commissions. As a matter of fact, I think the Senator from Virginia, perhaps almost on his own, was the creator of a commission which we recently heard from to give us the independent assessment of the military capability of the Iraqi military forces, the commission led by General Jones.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.