Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Is the Senator offering the amendment he is referring to postcloture?

Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, I assume there would be adequate time that we would be allowed to consider an amendment of the Senator from Virginia? As I understand, the Senator was talking about a possible amendment on Iraq.

Mr. LEVIN. That is correct.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed 1 minute to respond to my good friend's comments.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LEVIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object, did I hear that they have an opportunity to speak on their amendments?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, what we are dealing with is a historic use of no-bid contracts, where billions of dollars have been spent. There is good evidence they have been misspent in many ways, and there is a huge amount of waste and abuse. I agree with my good friend from Virginia we do have committees that could look into this matter and could focus on this matter. The agendas of those committees are left basically to the chairmen of those committees. If the chairmen of those committees choose to focus their energies in other places--and I don't quarrel with the places they look--it does not mean the Senate should not express its opinion on the need to focus on these abuses, these excesses, this expenditure of billions of dollars on no-bid contracts. Therefore, I support the Dorgan amendment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after Senator Reed is recognized--the chairman and I have talked about this--at that point, the Dorgan amendment be the matter before the Senate. I believe that the Senator from Virginia and I have agreed that Senator Dorgan would be recognized for 10 minutes, to be followed then by the chairman for 5 minutes, and the intention then would be to proceed to a rollcall vote.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I noticed Senator Kyl again uses rhetoric which they apparently have decided will be used no matter what the facts of any particular proposal are. I would just point out in this morning's Washington Post that Mr. al-Rubaie, who is the National Security Adviser for Iraq, has argued that by year's end, we envision the U.S. troop presence to be under 100,000. That would be at least a 30,000 reduction. I wonder whether people, or Senators, who are going to mischaracterize the Levin-Reed et al amendment are going to also then suggest that the Security Adviser to the new Prime Minister of Iraq supports cut and run when he says that they envision a reduction of American troops to be below 100,000 by the end of this year, and he sets forth in this morning's Washington Post all of the reasons it is so important that foreign troops be redeployed, including to legitimize Iraq's Government in the eyes of its people. I ask unanimous consent that the entire article written by the Security Adviser to the new Prime Minister, Mr. al-Rubaie, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would ask the Senator from Rhode Island, who is under a unanimous consent agreement to be recognized for 20 minutes, to yield to me for 2 minutes.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first let me commend the Senator from New Mexico for his amendment. It is a very significant amendment. It is carefully worked out. It is very much worthy of the Senate's consideration. I know we are in morning business. I simply want at this point to inform the body that an amendment which I have now filed on behalf of myself, Senator Jack Reed, Senators Feinstein and Salazar, is now at the desk. Its number is 4320. Its purpose is to state the sense of Congress on the United States policy on Iraq. I am not going to speak on the amendment at this time.

Mr. LEVIN. Let me again thank my good friend from Virginia. I, too, indeed, remember that debate last year on that amendment. The Senator from Virginia made a very constructive contribution to the debate. The final outcome was not the original amendment that I filed, but what remained of the amendment was significant and I think had an impact on the policy of this country. I commended him then and I commend him now for that effort on his part. I look forward to a discussion about this amendment, No. 4320.

Mr. LEVIN. No, I would rather save my remarks for a time when it relates more to the issue at hand, when we call up this amendment. I thank my good friend from Virginia for that suggestion, but I think I would rather, at the time I call up the amendment, make the remarks.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I was hoping the Senator was referring to Iraq, but since he is referring to our bill, I also see that we ought to be able to finish this next week. We will have a good debate on Iraq, I guess probably next Tuesday. Next Monday, I believe we have an amendment lined up.

Mr. LEVIN. I again thank the Senator from North Dakota for the amendment and I hope that we can get some bipartisan support for it. There have been reports on abuses. Reports are no substitute for hearings. When you have hearings following a special committee investigation, you have people who are put under oath, who are in the public spotlight so that we can bring a focus on these whistleblower complaints, and that is what has been missing. We have not had a place where the whistleblowers and the people who defend against their charges are brought together, both put under oath in a public forum so that we can then try to end what seems to be so clearly the abuses which have existed. One of these contracts is a $10 billion contract-plus, basically. It is for indefinite delivery of goods, and it is for an indefinite amount quantitatively. So you have this contract which exists with Hallliburton or the company that they own which allows them to have the total, complete, unilateral sole-source ability to be given a work order--sometimes the money is agreed upon in advance, sometimes the amount of the contract is not agreed to until afterwards--indefinite delivery for indefinite quantities of indefinite goods. Now, that kind of a contract just automatically lends itself to abuses, which should not happen here. This is something I spoke about yesterday. There should have been at least two and perhaps three contractors who were put in the exclusive contract to provide goods and services in support of the troops. This is an open-ended contract of undefined scope which then later on billions of dollars of work orders are then put in place. It just lends itself to excess and to abuse. This is something again which I have spoken on a number of times. You need to have competition--not just for who is going to get an open-ended contract but in the implementation of work orders you need some competition. The only way you are going to get it in this circumstance when we are at war is if you have two or three contractors that are awarded these so-called IDIQ contracts so that when it comes to supplying the goods underneath it, they can compete against each other. It is the only hope that you have for a fair price for an amount of goods that is not known at the beginning but which has to be then supplied during the contract. What these hearings which Senator Dorgan has spearheaded have shown is this kind of a contract and the potential for abuse that it leads to. It has raised all kinds of questions as to whether Halliburton overcharged the Coalition Provisional Authority for several million dollars for oil that was purchased in Kuwait and delivered to Iraq. It raised the question of whether Halliburton overcharged the Department of Defense for thousands of meals that were not actually served. It raised the question of whether Halliburton had the estimating subcontracting and financial management systems needed to run two multi-billion-dollar contracts in Iraq. It raised the question of why did Halliburton receive a follow-on contract for the reconstruction of the Iraqi oil industry at a time when the DCAA, the Defense Contract Audit Agency, had warned that the company's systems were not up to this challenge. It raised the question, these hearings that were spearhead by Senator Dorgan, as to whether Halliburton knowingly supplied our troops with spoiled food or unsafe drinking water. It raised the question as to whether Halliburton intentionally withheld information from the Government to avoid raising questions about the quality of its performance. There have been only two hearings in our subcommittee. I compliment our chairman. Our committee and our subcommittee every year have to deal with a bill, and this bill is in the Chamber. It takes a huge amount of our time as a practical matter. The two subcommittees that have hearings on this issue which Senator Dorgan raises simply have not been able to put in the kind of time that a special Truman Committee can to focus on this kind of issue. And that is why I very much support the appointment by the Senate of a Truman Committee on Iraq contracting. When you have this many tens of billions of dollars which are being spent and when you have allegations by whistleblowers, people who are in the know, that we have been unable to get into or have not gotten into for one reason or another, they have not been investigated or overseen by the other committee that might do this, this really needs a focus if we are going to have some credibility in the expenditure of these huge amounts of money in the Iraq war. And this should be done on a bipartisan basis. It would be with a Truman Committee. It needs to be done in a way which is free of any kind of political taint or political slant. But it needs to be done. We have to restore credibility and confidence in this contracting system, and the only way we are going to do that I can see is to have a bipartisan Truman-like committee that spends the time, has the staff focus on it, making recommendations which I think will be similar to the ones that were defeated yesterday but they should not be prejudged. In any event, it could make recommendations to this body, and I would hope we would all welcome those kinds of recommendations. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. I have been on that committee as long as I have been here.

Mr. LEVIN. There have been requests--I believe from the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee--to get into this. And if the chairman would be willing to sign a letter with me making another request to that chairman to try to find time in either her committee work or in Senator Coleman's committee, I would again be very happy to join in that request.

Mr. LEVIN. That subcommittee has a major agenda and a whole host of areas that the chairman has identified, frequently with my support, and it has a very full plate. This committee, our committee, has something that that committee does not have, and that is we have the knowledge, we have the information because we are the committee that specializes in the work of Halliburton in the field. We are the people who have the experience in terms of what the troops need and how it is provided to the troops. And so our committee also has the ability to handle these hearings. Neither committee has seen fit, either because it has too full a plate already--and I think our committee from firsthand knowledge is in that situation--has a very full plate, and therefore has not been able or for whatever reason has decided not to look at what are clearly excesses which need to be reviewed. So it is a matter of finding, identifying Senators who have an interest in this matter who would focus on this matter because of the attention that it deserves. Now, it could be an outside commission. If the chairman would prefer that there be an outside commission to do this, perhaps Senator Dorgan would be willing to do it. But this requires a major undertaking with an investigative--you have to identify and set out special staff that will do the investigations on this, and then prepare for hearings. If our committee were able to do this, I would be all for it.

Mr. LEVIN. That is exactly right. I have been there throughout my tenure. I am personally familiar with the work they have undertaken. But if Senator Warner would be willing to sign a request to Senator Collins, I would be delighted to join in that.

Mr. LEVIN. If we are unable do that on our committee, which we have not been able to do anything that needs to be done here--and I understand the time pressures on the committee because of this annual bill we have; I know what is on the plate over at the Governmental Affairs Committee and on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations--

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first let me compliment the Senator from North Dakota. He has been absolutely steadfast on this issue. He has made a major contribution on this issue. If the Senator will stay for a moment, I want to ask him a question about the Truman Committee which he has made reference to. Perhaps I will make a brief statement and then ask him if he concurs with this history. When then Senator Truman was appointed to head up the special committee to look into the abuses of contracting during World War II, he did an incredible job for a lot of reasons. One, he took on the abuse, the waste, the fraud that existed. He unearthed it. He brought it out in the daylight. He made a major contribution to our troops and to the taxpayers. It was such an important contribution that his temporary ad hoc special committee then became a Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. So that the origin of our Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations which now exists over at the Homeland Security Committee was the special Truman Committee. That is how big an impact that Truman Committee had. And I am wondering whether or not that little bit of history shows us in addition to all of the reasons that were given by the Senator from North Dakota how vitally important these special committees can be, what a contribution they can make to the war effort and to saving taxpayers' dollars.

Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not, I just wonder if the Senator would identify the Senator who has sponsored the amendment so that they will hear their amendments have now been cleared.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, a unique type of gun trafficking sting operation was completed recently. Teams of undercover law enforcement officials wearing hidden cameras traveled to Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Virginia to make purchases which were designed to appear to be what are known as ``straw purchases.'' Straw purchases are transactions that violate Federal law in which one individual submits to the required Federal background check for a gun that is clearly intended to be used by someone else. These purchasers play a crucial role in the illegal trafficking of guns by purchasing with the intention of reselling them to prohibited buyers. In addition, a lawsuit was filed by the city of New York. The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn, asks the court to enforce gun laws regarding such sales and require extra training for and supervision of dealers. The lawsuit also seeks punitive and compensatory damages. According to New York City's Web site, its police have confiscated more than 500 guns that were sold by the 15 dealers named in the lawsuit and subsequently used in crimes there. In January 2001, a 12-year-old boy in New York City, playing with a semiautomatic handgun from a pawnshop in Summerville, SC, accidentally shot someone in the chest. The gun involved was one of 49 such guns from the store linked to crimes and accidents in New York City. As New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg pointed out, ``Our suit offers clear and compelling evidence that guns sold by these dealers are used in crimes by people ineligible to own a gun far more frequently than guns from other dealers.'' To build its case, the city of New York compiled a list of gun dealers based on data it received from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Investigators worked in pairs. One looked at the merchandise, talked with the salesman and handled the weapon, while the other wandered the store, seemingly uninterested. When it came time to complete the necessary background check forms, the first operator, often a man, would call over his partner, frequently a woman, who had not been part of the discussion of the weapon. The second investigator would fill out the background paperwork, and the first one would pay for the gun in cash. This procedure was used to clearly illustrate that the second person was making a ``straw purchase'' for the first person. Gun-control advocates praise the sting operation and the lawsuit. This type of action sends a message to dealers that more government officials are not willing to look the other way. Other cities, including Gary, Indiana, Chicago and Detroit, have taken similar approaches in their own jurisdictions, often using local law enforcement officials. This operation however, marks the first time investigators across the country participated in such a sting involving a number of States. I would like to commend everyone on both the Federal and local levels who aided in this investigation. This kind of illegal activity can be stopped by vigorously enforcing our existing gun laws, providing law enforcement with more tools to crack down on gun trafficking and corrupt gun dealers, and by passing sensible gun safety legislation.