Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I am on that committee, as you pointed out. I know the workload they have. Just yesterday, they completed a markup on one bill which took 2 days. I don't know of any people who work harder in the Senate than do Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman.

Mr. LEVIN. I wouldn't want to speak for the Senator from Massachusetts. I do believe, though, he is working on an amendment. There will be at least two amendments on this side relative to Iraq.

Mr. LEVIN. That would be fine.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we believe there are a number of amendments which will need debate. It would be useful for all Senators on either Monday or Tuesday morning, if they could, to let us know what amendments they are planning on offering so we could get an estimate--I know you would agree as the floor manager--as to how many amendments are out there.

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 would be fine.

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. I thank the chairman.

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

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.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for this suggestion.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there are a number of differences between S. 333 and the Santorum amendment. These differences include a number of new provisions in the amendment that are not in the S. 333. Some of them are: Remove the requirement that a parent or a subsidiary of a person against whom sanctions have been issued must have actual knowledge of the activities before sanctions can be issued against them. Remove the requirement that an affiliate of the Company against which sanctions have been issued must have actual knowledge of the activities before sanctions can be issued against them. Remove Libya from the scope and title of the Iran Libya Sanctions Act. Would impose an additional condition on the exercise of the President's waiver authority by imposing an additional element in the report that must be submitted to Congress prior to the waiver going into effect. Current law requires, among other elements of the report, an assessment of the significance of the assistance provided to the development of Iran's petroleum production. The new requirement would also require an assessment of the significance of the assistance to the development of Iran's weapons of mass destruction or other military capabilities. Reduces operations and maintenance funding for the Army for Iraq and Afghanistan by $100 million. In other instances, there are modifications to provisions in the amendment that are included in S. 333. For instance, both S. 333 and the Santorum amendment would expand the universe of persons against whom sanctions could be imposed to include a private or government lender, insurer, underwriter, reinsurer, or guarantor of a person sanctioned. S. 333 would require that these persons would have to have actual knowledge of the activities of the person sanctioned; the Santorum amendment does not include the requirement of actual knowledge. Both S. 333 and the Santorum amendment would expand the definition of a person to include a financial instution, insurer, underwriter, reinsurer, guarantor. The Santorum amendment would also include any other business organization, including any foreign subsidiaries of the foregoing.

Mr. LEVIN. With that understanding--and there will be a Senator Nelson of Florida amendment, so you are on notice relative to that--I have no objection.

Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if I could proceed with my remarks in support of the amendment while they discuss it. I support the Feingold amendment to ensure that the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction has jurisdiction over funds appropriated for the reconstruction of Iraq. As the Senator from Wisconsin has mentioned, Congress established the Special Inspector General position in a fiscal year 2004 emergency supplemental appropriations bill to ensure effective oversight and audit of relief and reconstruction efforts in Iraq. The Special Inspector General reports jointly to the Secretaries of Defense and State and has responsibility for oversight of operations and programs funded by the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund. The Senator from Wisconsin last year offered an amendment to extend the position. It was very welcome. It was a very useful and important contribution. I commend him for it. It is unfortunate that the most recent emergency supplemental which we just passed today would appropriate funds for Iraq reconstruction without including those funds in the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund. It is important that this amendment be agreed to so as to ensure that this Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction has jurisdiction over all funds appropriated for the reconstruction of Iraq. Under current law, this funding approach would have the effect of excluding reconstruction projects using these new funds from the jurisdiction of the Special Inspector General. The State Department says that its Inspector General would be responsible for auditing the use of these funds. However, the State Department IG, unlike the Special Inspector General, does not have a significant presence in Iraq and does not have experience in auditing contracts and ferreting out fraud in the unique environment of Iraq. For the last 3 years, the Special Inspector General has been the only source of consistent, independent, on-the ground review of reconstruction activities in Iraq. As a result, the Special Inspector General has reported case after case of criminal fraud and egregious waste that would otherwise have gone unremedied. Report after report documents cases--at al Hillah General Hospital, Babylon Policy Academy, Karbala Library, Baghdad International Airport and elsewhere--in which we paid contractors millions of dollars for work without making site visits, issuing performance reports, preparing post-award assessments, or taking other steps to ensure that the work we paid for was actually performed. In case after case, the Special Inspector General determined that either the contractor's performance was deficient or the work was not performed at all. One particularly egregious case reviewed by the Special Inspector involved a $75 million contract with Kellogg Brown and Root, KBR, to develop a Pipeline River Crossing at Al Fatah, Iraq. The Special Inspector General reported that the project ailed because subsurface geologic conditions made it impossible to carry out the project design. These conditions were identified by a consultant before work commenced, but neither the Army Corps of Engineers nor KBR acted on the consultant's recommendation to perform additional research that would have prevented the failure. A subject matter expert for the Coalition Provision Authority recognized that KBR had limited experience in this type of project and advised that the project would probably fail because design restrictions provided no flexibility to accommodate site conditions. However, KBR refused to conduct design reviews requested by the subject matter expert. The Army Corps of Engineers awarded KBR a firm fixed price contract with no performance requirements. As a result, KBR was assured that it would get paid the full contract amount, regardless whether it successfully completed the project. A KBR subcontractor identified problems with the site conditions at the outset of the project and suggested alternative drilling sites, but was turned down by KBR. KBR prohibited the subcontractor from talking directly to the Army Corps of Engineers and told the Army Corps that detailed cost reports would not be provided, because they were not required by the contract. As a result, we spent the entire $75 million allocated to the project, but achieved only 28 percent of the planned pipeline throughput. According to the Inspector General, the lack of pipeline capacity resulted in the loss of more than $1.5 billion in potential oil revenues to the Iraqi government. The Special Inspector General is the only U.S. audit and investigative authority with a significant on-the-ground presence in Iraq. He is the only inspector general who has an experienced staff with hands-on knowledge of how things work in Iraq. He is the only inspector general who has shown the capacity and the desire to turn over rocks in Iraq to identify and address problems of fraud and criminal conduct. If we are serious about protecting the taxpayer and preventing contractor abuses in Iraq, we will adopt this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the Feingold amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, while that is being worked on--I hope we can resolve that because this is a very important amendment. We want that Special Inspector General, who is really doing the only significant oversight on the expenditure of these billions of dollars in Iraq, to perform the same oversight functions on the appropriations, for instance, which we just adopted. I again commend the Senator from Wisconsin. It was at his instigation and his initiative that we extended this Special Inspector General's Office last year, and it was that initiative which has paid off so handsomely for us. This initiative is critically important or else we might, I think inadvertently, not have the same watchdog looking over the most recent appropriations we adopted. I also believe the Special Inspector General actually testified before the Chair's subcommittee earlier this year, so the Presiding Officer has had the ability to hear firsthand from the Special Inspector General about his operations. By the way, I commend our Presiding Officer for those hearings. They were very helpful.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it was my understanding that this was either cleared or was going to be supported by the chairman. I did not confirm that with my friend. That is a little bit in limbo. I very much support the Senator's amendment. I hope it can be cleared. If so, apparently the Senator is willing to take a voice vote.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, is it my understanding that following the disposition of these two amendments that then a Democratic amendment would be the next in order?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Somehow or other, we did make progress.

Mr. LEVIN. No objection.

Mr. LEVIN. I object.

Mr. LEVIN. I have no objection.

Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. LEVIN

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