To set aside funds for the University of Missouri-Columbia to establish a wetland ecology center of excellence.

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending bill.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 2361) making appropriations for the Department
of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other
purposes.

Pending:

Burns (for Voinovich) amendment No. 1010, to prohibit the
use of funds to take certain land into trust without the
consent of the Governor of the State in which the land is
located.
Burns (for Frist/Reid) amendment No. 1022, to provide for
Congressional security relating to certain real property.
Dorgan (for Boxer) amendment No. 1023, to prohibit the use
of funds by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency to accept, consider, or rely on third-party
intentional dosing human studies for pesticides or to conduct
intentional dosing human studies for pesticides.
Dorgan amendment No. 1025, to require Federal reserve banks
to transfer certain surplus funds to the general fund of the
Treasury, to be used for the provision of Indian health care
services.
Sununu/Bingaman amendment No. 1026, to prohibit the use of
funds to plan, design, study or construct certain forest
development roads in the Tongass National Forest.
Dorgan (for Kerry) amendment No. 1029, making emergency
supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2005, for the Veterans Health Administration.
Dorgan (for Bingaman) amendment No. 1030, to modify a
provision relating to funds appropriated for Bureau of Indian
Affairs postsecondary schools.
Dorgan (for Bingaman) amendment No. 1031, to set aside
additional amounts for Youth Conservation Corps projects.
Dorgan (for Durbin) amendment No. 1032, to prohibit the use
of funds in contravention of the Executive order relating to
Federal actions to address environmental justice in minority
populations and low-income populations.
Dorgan (for Reed) amendment No. 1036, to modify certain
administrative provisions relating to the brownfield site
characterization and assessment program.
Dorgan (for Reed) amendment No. 1037, to authorize
recipients of grants provided under the brownfield site
characterization and assessment program to use grant funds
for reasonable administrative expenses.
Salazar amendment No. 1038, to provide additional funds for
the payment in lieu of taxes program, with an offset.
Salazar amendment No. 1039, to provide that certain user
fees collected under the Land and Water Conservation Act of
1965 be paid to the States.
Burns (for Bond) amendment No. 1040, to set aside funds for
the University of Missouri-Columbia to establish a wetland
ecology center of excellence.
Burns (for Warner) amendment No. 1042, to set aside funds
for the replacement of the main gate facility at the Wolf
Trap National Park for the Performing Arts, Virginia.
Burns (for Ensign) amendment No. 1012, to provide for the
conveyance of certain Bureau of Land Management land in the
State of Nevada to the Las Vegas Motor Speedway.
Burns (for Coburn) amendment No. 1002, to reduce total
appropriations in the bill by 1.7 percent for the purpose of
fully funding the Department of Defense.
Burns (for Coburn) amendment No. 1003, to require
conference report inclusion of limitations, directives, and
earmarks.
Burns (for Coburn) amendment No. 1015, to transfer funding
to Wildland Fire Management from the National Endowment for
the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.
Burns (for Coburn) amendment No. 1019, to transfer funding
to the Special Diabetes Program for Indians and the Alcohol
and Substance Abuse Program within the Indian

[[Page S7478]]

Health Service from funding for federal land acquisition.
Burns (for Coburn) amendment No. 1020, to express the Sense
of the Senate that any additional emergency supplemental
appropriations should be offset with reductions in
discretionary spending.
Dorgan (for Feingold) amendment No. 1043, to require the
Government Accountability Office to conduct an audit of the
competitive sourcing program of the Forest Service.
Dorgan (for Byrd) amendment No. 1044, to set aside funds
for the White Sulphur Springs Fish Hatchery.
Dorgan (for Conrad) amendment No. 1045, to set aside funds
for a brownfields assessment of the Fortuna Radar Site.
Dorgan (for Sarbanes) amendment No. 1046, to provide for a
study of the feasibility of designating the Captain John
Smith Chesapeake National Historic Watertrail as a national
historic trail.
Kyl (for Smith) amendment No. 1048, to require the
Secretary of Agriculture to report to Congress on the
rehabilitation of the Biscuit Fire area of southern Oregon.
Kyl amendment No. 1049, to provide certain earmarks for
State and tribal assistance grant funds.
Kyl amendment No. 1050, to modify the formula for the
allotment of grants to States for the establishment of State
water pollution control revolving funds.
Kyl (for Inhofe) amendment No. 1051, to encourage
competition in assistance agreements awarded by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Byrd (for Murray) amendment No. 1052, making emergency
supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2005, for the Veterans Health Administration.
Byrd/Cochran amendment No. 1053, to provide funds for the
Memorial to Martin Luther King, Jr.
Dorgan (for Bingaman) amendment No. 1054, to set aside
additional amounts for Youth Conservation Corps projects.
Dorgan (for Bingaman) amendment No. 1055, to provide for
the consideration of the effect of competitive sourcing on
wildland fire management activities.
Dorgan (for Bingaman) amendment No. 1056, to strike the
title providing for the disposition of Forest Service land
and the realignment of Forest Service facilities.
Dorgan (for Bingaman) amendment No. 1057, to extend the
Forest Service conveyances pilot program.
Dorgan (for Bingaman) amendment No. 1058, to provide a
substitute for title V, Facility Realignment and Enhancement
Act of 2005.
Dorgan amendment No. 1059, to facilitate family travel to
Cuba in humanitarian circumstance.
Dorgan (for Landrieu) amendment No. 1060, to make certain
funding revisions relating to Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, and Department of the Interior administrative
expenses.
Dorgan (for Obama) amendment No. 1061, to provide that none
of the funds made available in this Act may be used in
contravention of 15 U.S.C. section 2682(c)(3) or to delay the
implementation of that section.
Dorgan (for Obama) amendment No. 1062, to provide that of
the funds made available under the heading ``Environmental
Programs and Management,'' not less than $100,000 shall be
made available to issue the proposed rule required under 15
U.S.C. section 2682(c)(3) by November 1, 2005, and promulgate
the final rule required under 15 U.S.C. section 2682(c)(3) by
September 30, 2006.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.

Amendment No. 1053

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order regarding
amendment No. 1053.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That amendment is now pending before the
Senate.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I have no remarks at the
moment. If the Senator who stands in front of me, with his hand across
his heart, wishes to make some comments, I yield the floor.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, we are trying to work this out. The
Senator's amendment is a very good amendment. I would like to visit
with him a little bit about it.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the adoption
of my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
Senators be added as cosponsors to amendment No. 1053: Warner, Kennedy,
Mikulski, Landrieu, Johnson, Stabenow, Murray, Bingaman, Jeffords, and
in that order, please.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Also, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my
colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, be included and that
his name occur in the order listed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Obama be added as a
cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any other
Senators on both sides of the aisle who wish to be added as cosponsors,
that their names be added if they will let us know before the hour of
12 o'clock.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BYRD. If they will let the leaders know. I thank the Chair and
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, without interfering with the orderly
business of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning
business briefly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BURNS. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
(The remarks of Mr. Kennedy are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1053

Mr. WARNER. It is my understanding of the parliamentary situation
that an amendment by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia and
the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Cochran, is the
pending matter. Is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that I be made a cosponsor with
them. I spoke to the sponsors earlier this morning.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend these two Senators for taking
the initiative to add an incremental part of the cost of the Martin
Luther King Memorial, and I would like to take a minute to go back and
recite the history of the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial. During the
104th Congress, while Chairman of the Rules Committee, I joined my
colleague from Maryland, Senator Sarbanes, to authorize a project for
construction on the national mall. Our bill, as I read from the
Committee Report for S. 426 from December 19, 1995, authorized the
Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, the oldest Black fraternity in the United
States, to establish without cost to the Federal Government, a memorial
in the District of Columbia and its environs to the late Dr. Martin
Luther King. Similar bills were introduced in the 100th, 101st, 102d,
and 103d Congresses, reported favorably by the Committee on Rules and
Administration in the 100th Congress, and in the 102d Congress the bill
passed the Senate. Again,

[[Page S7479]]

that reference, for those who want to go back and read this report, is
Calendar No. 284, December 19, 1995.
I was privileged to work with Senator Sarbanes on this legislation,
and we did secure the authorization for this group and others to
proceed with this memorial.

If I might say, Mr. President--and I say this with a great sense of
humility--I have always had a deep admiration for Dr. King. It started
at the time that he went to the Lincoln Memorial and addressed, indeed,
the world, much less the United States, the Nation. I came down not as
a participant but as a spectator, as a young man. I was drawn to the
location, as were many others, and simply stood quietly on the side of
the street as the marchers went by and then was able to get close
enough to hear in some way some parts of the speech as it was so
eloquently delivered that day.
Then in later years I was privileged to be a member of the Chapter of
the Washington National Cathedral, the Chapter being the governing body
of the Cathedral at that time, and the subject of his addressing the
Nation from the pulpit came up. I always expressed support for that,
and actually my term expired before the historic day when he was
invited to take the pulpit at the Washington Cathedral and give his
last sermon. He met his tragic and untimely death shortly after that.
So it is against that background that I joined with my dear and
valued friend, Senator Sarbanes, to introduce the original authorizing
legislation. Construction was required to begin by November 2003.
However, because of the difficulty in choosing a site, finalizing a
design, and raising the $100 million that would be necessary, the
project was still in need of funds. In 2003 I again joined my colleague
from Maryland to extend the authorization so the Martin Luther King,
Jr. National Memorial Project Foundation would have additional time to
raise the funds necessary to erect a fitting tribute to Dr. King. We
were able to pass another piece of legislation, S. 470, to extend the
deadline to November of 2006.
Since that time, I am pleased to say that the Foundation has raised
approximately $40 million toward the total cost of the Memorial. Today
I join my dear friends Senators Byrd, Cochran, and Sarbanes to provide
an additional $10 million for the construction.
I simply add that, as noted in the December 1995 Committee Report,
the first paragraph I read, about the public funding, at that time it
was the hope and expectation that private funds could achieve the goals
in their entirety. Although arduous and wonderful efforts have been put
together by many people to raise the funding, I think it is appropriate
that this increment of public funding be added. And I say that because
I was--many of us--a part of the effort to establish the World War II
Memorial. And there, again, it was, I think, 95 percent private funding
largely through the efforts of our beloved colleagues, Bob Dole and
Fred Smith, a citizen of national and international recognition and
accomplishment, and together their large team of people did raise about
$100 million. But at the very end there were expenses to be incurred
that were not foreseen to enable a massive audience to come from all
over the United States for the dedication. And at that time, as a
Member of the Armed Services Committee, I was able to secure some
modest amount of funds, several million dollars, to enable that
ceremony to be completed. So I think precedent is established there for
the use of public funds for memorials of enormous significance
historically and otherwise to our Nation.
Dr. King serves as a reminder that change can be brought about most
powerfully when it is done by non-violent means. Visitors will come to
the Memorial from every part of this country and indeed the world, to
be inspired anew by Dr. King's words and deeds, and the extraordinary
story of his life. It will be of particular inspiration to the many
school children who will visit for years to come.
Dr. King's dream is the fulfillment, in part, of the revolutionary
words of great American patriots such as Thomas Jefferson and it is
fitting that the two monuments will rest across from each other.
I have worked with my friend and colleague from Maryland, Senator
Sarbanes, from the beginning of the efforts in Congress to secure a
site and build a memorial on the national mall. I am proud of our
humble contributions to this project and look forward--with great
expectation to the day that we can visit Dr. King's Memorial in its
rightful place--among the giants of American history and liberty.
Mr. President, I again commend the sponsors and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend from West
Virginia, the distinguished Senator who formerly served as chairman of
the Senate Appropriations Committee, in offering this amendment for the
consideration of the Senate.
I appreciate Senator Byrd inviting me to be an original cosponsor of
this amendment and join him in this effort to see that the memorial
previously authorized to be constructed on the Mall here in the
Nation's Capital in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King be funded so
construction can begin and this memorial be completed.
The Martin Luther King Memorial was authorized to be constructed on a
4-acre tract on the Mall to recognize and honor the influence on civil
rights and justice for all--for all Americans--to which Dr. King
devoted a lifetime of courageous service and leadership.
Although the legislation contemplates, as my friend from Virginia,
Mr. Warner, points out, that all of the funds for the construction of
the memorial would be raised from private sources, much in the same way
as the World War II Memorial was constructed--there has been $42
million of private donations made for this purpose--there is needed
additional funds. It is hoped that the adoption of this amendment will
show the serious commitment of the Congress in seeing that this
memorial is completed at the earliest possible date. This could jump-
start the final stage of fundraising and enable construction to begin.
It is my hope the Senate will support this effort and approve the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I spoke on yesterday when I offered the amendment for
the Senate's consideration. I will not speak further at this time
except to say that my remarks of yesterday will be found on page S7420
of the Congressional Record.
I am very pleased that my chairman of the Senate Appropriations
Committee, the distinguished Senator from Mississippi--I say
``distinguished,'' the distinguished Senator, Mr. Cochran--I am
delighted he is the chief cosponsor of the amendment. I appreciate his
excellent remarks today.
I also express my deep appreciation to the distinguished gentleman--
the distinguished ``gentleman''--the Senator from Virginia. And I say
that with all the emphasis that word's meaning carries. He is a great
Senator. He believes in the Constitution of the United States. He swore
to support and defend it, and he has not forgotten his oath. He has not
forgotten his oath. And he has stated it and restated it, holding his
hand on the Bible and the other hand to God and all men. He has
restated it several times, and he has lived up to it. I commend him.
He has been in the forefront of the effort to honor Dr. Martin Luther
King with a memorial on the Mall. He has been in that forefront over a
period of several years. He cosponsored, as he has pointed out, the
original authorization. I am so pleased he is cosponsoring this
amendment. He stood as a spectator, he said, but he later became an
active participant in the history that followed on to that moment in
which he was a spectator watching from the streets.
So he has become a part of history. And what I say with regard to the
distinguished gentleman, the Senator from Virginia--the Virginian--I
say also with equal heartfelt thanks to the distinguished Senator from
Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, who has announced he will not remain with us
after next year, to my great sorrow and regret. But Senator Sarbanes
has been a leader in the march toward justice for all men and women. I
commend him, likewise. And I thank him for being a cosponsor of this
amendment.

[[Page S7480]]

While I have the floor, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
the following Senators be added as cosponsors to the amendment: Senator
Feinstein, Senator Schumer, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Boxer, Senator
Harkin, and Senator Corzine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join in
cosponsoring this amendment. I thank the Chairman and the ranking
member of the Appropriations Committee for bringing this amendment
forward. It is an enormously important contribution to the effort that
is underway now to honor Dr. Martin Luther King, by placing his
memorial between President Roosevelt's Memorial and the Lincoln
Memorial on the National Mall.
I thank the Senators for their kind comments. My dear friend from
Virginia, Senator Warner, and I worked together on this project to help
move it along. It has had overwhelming support in the Congress and in
the country, but raising the money has been a difficult proposition.
Let's be very clear about this--an enormous effort has gone into
bringing this memorial to fruition and significant moneys have been
raised.
While we are not yet there, this amendment will provide a tremendous
boost to the fundraising effort. It shows clearly the support of the
Congress. Senator Cochran and Senator Byrd, by coming forward with the
amendment, at this critical time, have given this entire effort an
impetus, which will bring it to a successful conclusion.
Interestingly enough, I, too, was there when Martin Luther King gave
his ``I Have a Dream'' speech, that Mr. Warner, the able Senator from
Virginia, referred to earlier. It was clearly a historic occasion that
helped to shape the nature of our country for the better--much for the
better. Dr. King fought to establish the proposition that people should
be judged by their character and not by the color of their skin. He
enunciated that principle time and time again.
The other thing he did was he advocated his position in a nonviolent
way. He asserted that in a democratic society, these goals could be
achieved through peaceful means, through nonviolent means. He channeled
the energy and the commitment that was devoted toward achieving racial
equality in this country into peaceful paths. And our country has been
much the better for his efforts.
So much work has gone into this Memorial--first in getting it
approved and then in finding the location for it on the National Mall.
But, it has been worth the effort because when schoolchildren come to
the Nation's Capital in the year's to come, part of their visit to
Washington will involve a trip to the Martin Luther King Memorial.
The plans that have been prepared are quite impressive. They will
have an opportunity to visit that Memorial and to reflect upon the
contribution which Dr. King made to our Nation: the healing he brought
about, the realization of the American dream, that all of our people--
all--have an opportunity to participate and to advance themselves and
their families.
So I join with my colleagues. I thank them for their very kind
remarks. I appreciate the Senator from Virginia reminding us of the
effort that went into helping bring us to this day. I especially again
thank Senators Cochran and Byrd for coming forward with this amendment
at a very critical time, to give an impetus to the effort to do the
fundraising that is necessary to build this Memorial and to have, in
effect, this national treasure on the Mall.
Dr. King's statue is, of course, here in the Capitol, as we know. It
is fitting now that we move beyond the Capitol and create this Memorial
on the Mall in recognition of all he stood for and what he represented
in terms of realizing the words and ideals embodied in the Declaration
of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
I thank my colleagues very much.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from
Maryland, a dear, dear friend. We have worked on so many things
together, and continue to do so.
But I recall very vividly going down on the day we dedicated the
site. It was a bitterly cold day. There was a small tent in which there
was a heater going, and we emerged from the tent. I, for some reason,
remember one line, not spoken by either of us but by several others who
spoke at the occasion: The site was chosen so the sunrise cast its
first rays on the memorial; and then, as the sun set, the final resting
rays of the day would drape the memorial. I remember that phrase to
this day.
I thank my friend for his kind remarks.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, we have some modifications to make, and we
have a list of those amendments that have been cleared on both sides.

Amendment No. 1040, As Modified

Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification for Senator Bond on
amendment No. 1040 and ask unanimous consent that the amendment be so
modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

On page 154, line 12, strike ``That'' and insert ``That
from the amount provided for the biological research
activity, $200,000 may be made available to the University of
Missouri-Columbia to establish a wetland ecology center of
excellence: Provided further, That''.

Amendment No. 1044, As Modified

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I send to the desk Senator Byrd's
modification to amendment No. 1044 and ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be so modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

On page 139, line 5, before the period insert the
following: ``: Provided further, That of the total amounts
made available under this heading, $350,000 may be made
available for the mussel program at the White Sulphur Springs
National Fish Hatchery''.

Amendment No. 1045, As Modified

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification to
amendment No. 1045 and ask unanimous consent that the amendment be so
modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

On page 195, line 7, after ``costs'', insert the following:
``, of which $200,000 may be made available for a brownfields
assessment of the Fortuna Radar Site''.

Amendments Nos. 1022; 1040, As Modified; 1048; 1044, As Modified; 1036;
1032; 1037; and 1045, As Modified

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, the following amendments have been cleared
by both sides, and I ask unanimous consent that they be adopted:
amendment No. 1022, offered by the leadership on both sides of the
aisle; amendment No. 1040, as modified, offered by Senator Bond;
amendment No. 1048, offered by Senator Smith; amendment No. 1044, as
modified, offered by Senator Byrd; amendment No. 1036, offered by
Senator Reed; amendment No. 1032, offered by Senator Durbin; amendment
No. 1037, offered by Senator Reed; and amendment No. 1045, as modified,
offered by Senator Conrad. I ask for their adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the consideration and
adoption of the amendments en bloc?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, those amendments have all been cleared by
both sides. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If not, without objection, the amendments are
agreed to en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 1022; 1040, as modified; 1048; 1044, as
modified; 1036; 1032; 1037; and 1045, as modified) were agreed to en
bloc.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S7481]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished manager of the bill
yield?
Mr. BURNS. I will.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
Senators be added as cosponsors to the Martin Luther King, Jr.
amendment: Senators Brownback, DeWine, and Levin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair and the distinguished Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we are on the Interior appropriations
bill, waiting for additional debate. All amendments have been offered,
but we are waiting for additional debate on some amendments. I am going
to seek to speak in morning business.
Mr. BURNS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DORGAN. Yes.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I remind Senators that we are going to
start calling up these amendments right after lunch. I want to warn
Senators to come down and defend their amendments. If not, we are going
to start taking action on them first thing after lunch. We have the
order already agreed to, and we want to complete this bill by tomorrow
morning, if possible. There is more impending business before the
Senate. It is important that the appropriations process move forward.
We will be calling up those amendments this afternoon, and those
Senators defending and offering those amendments should be on the floor
to defend them.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in
morning business for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Carlos Lazo

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, to follow up on an issue I raised
yesterday, I have not yet received a return call from the State
Department. As I indicated, Karl Rove and the chief of staff at the
White House had sent word to me following my discussion with Karl Rove
last Friday that Mr. Zoellick at the State Department would be handling
this issue. The issue is Mr. Carlos Lazo, a marine who fought in Iraq
and won the Bronze Star for bravery and courage, came back to this
country. He is a fellow who fled Cuba on a raft in 1992. His wife and
children remain in Cuba unable to leave. He went to fight in the
National Guard, went to Iraq to fight for this country, earned a Bronze
Star last November in Iraq. He came back to this country to find out
that his son was quite ill in Cuba. He wanted to go visit his son and
was told he can't travel to Cuba because the President's current
regulations and rules say you can only visit once every 3 years.
This young man who fled Cuba, came to this country, put on America's
uniform, fought for this country in Iraq, won a Bronze Star fighting
for freedom, comes back to this country. He doesn't have the freedom to
go to see his sick child in Cuba. That is unbelievable to me. Why?
Because there is no humanitarian exemption in the travel to Cuba
regulation the President proposed several years ago.
I have asked all the folks involved: Do you mean there is no
flexibility at all in this regulation proposed by the President?
None at all, they said. We have people calling. Their mothers are
dying in Cuba, and we won't let them go. You can only go once every 3
years.
So Mr. Zoellick did tell me he is looking into it. I haven't heard
back from him. Sergeant Lazo, who is walking around with a Bronze Star
awarded by this country for his heroism on the battlefield, does not
apparently have the freedom to go see his sick son. I will continue to
ask these questions of the administration.
Incidentally, I have offered an amendment on this legislation. I
agree it is going to take a two-thirds vote, but I want to see the
people in the Senate who want to vote against giving this marine the
opportunity to go see his sick child. It is not just him. It is all the
other people caught in the web of this bizarre travel restriction. In
an attempt to slap around Fidel Castro, we have decided to restrict the
freedom of the American people to travel to Cuba. What a strange thing
that is. We can travel to Communist China, Vietnam, but you can't go
see your sick child in Cuba. You can't take your father's ashes to
distribute on the church grounds of the church he ministered at in
Cuba, after your dad died and his last wishes were to have his ashes
distributed on the church property in Cuba. When you do that, you get
hit with a big fine. It is unbelievable.
I won't go on except to say that I continue to wait by the phone for
a call back from Mr. Zoellick who apparently is handling this. My hope
is they will find a way to do the right thing. My hope is the Senate
will be able to vote on this in the next day, and maybe the Senate will
decide what the right thing is. The right thing is for humanitarian
reasons to allow this courageous soldier who fought for freedom to have
the freedom to go see his sick child.

Halliburton

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me describe a hearing I chaired
yesterday morning. It was a hearing on the subject of Halliburton.
Typically, Halliburton has put out a statement saying that it was
political. They have been saying this is political for a long while. I
held a hearing because the authorizing committee won't. This is the
fifth hearing I have held.
The highest civilian official in the Department of Defense, working
with the Corps of Engineers, testified at that hearing. She was
describing the meetings during which Halliburton was awarded no-bid
contracts worth billions of dollars.
She said:

I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to
contracts awarded to KBR [the subsidiary of Halliburton]
represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I
have witnessed during the course of my professional career.

She insisted these things be done right. They weren't done right.
These were sweetheart deals, worth billions of dollars, given to a
company without competition for the bid, companies that had an inside
track to get the money, get the bid, and they did.
Let me describe one more piece of testimony from an employee of this
company. We have had testimony from many others who worked for this
company in the country of Iraq under the contract given to Halliburton.
This is from an employee of Halliburton who testified yesterday. He was
involved in food service, providing food to our troops:

Food items were being brought into the base that were
outdated or expired as much as a year. We were told by the
[Halliburton] food service managers to use these items
anyway.

They are feeding the American troops, and they are receiving food
that has an expired date on it; some as much as a year ago have
expired. They said give it to the troops anyway. This food was fed to
the troops. Continuing to quote:

A lot of these were frozen foods: Chicken, beef, fish, and
ice cream. For trucks that were hit by convoy fire and
bombings [during delivery], we were told to go into the
trucks and remove the food items and use them after removing
the bullets and any shrapnel from the bad food that was hit.

I will say that again:

We were told to go into the trucks and remove the food
items and use them after removing the bullets and any
shrapnel from the bad food that was hit. We were told to turn
the removed bullets over to the managers for souvenirs. When
I had the military check some of the food shipments, they
would turn the food items away. But there wasn't any making
of the record, so KBR [Halliburton] just sent the food to
another base for use.

It is unbelievable. We are talking about feeding soldiers here, and
this is an employee of the company that was receiving billions of
dollars to feed soldiers. In fact, what caught my attention about this
issue is that Halliburton was charging us to feed 42,000 soldiers a
day, and it turns out they were only feeding 14,000 soldiers. They were
billing the Government for 42,000 soldiers and feeding 14,000. I didn't
know they were feeding soldiers food that had expired on its label,
food that had come in trucks that had been attacked with bullets and
shrapnel embedded in the food to be removed first and then provided to
the superiors for souvenirs. This is unbelievable.
Everybody here talks about honoring America's soldiers. What kind of
honor exists in providing a sole-source, no-bid contract worth billions
of dollars to a company that is feeding food to our soldiers that is
outdated or expired on

[[Page S7482]]

its label? They say do it any way, it doesn't matter, it is just
soldiers. This is just one more example. Every time we hear this sort
of thing, we get Halliburton putting out a statement that says this is
just politics because the Vice President used to run Halliburton. We
didn't talk about the Vice President yesterday. This is a company that
got a sweetheart deal at the Pentagon and there are stories after
stories of abuse. There was one about the guy who came to our hearing
some while ago, and he held up a hand towel. He was in charge of buying
supplies such as hand towels. Well, the hand towels he would have
bought for the soldiers weren't what his boss wanted. He bought the
ones his bosses wanted to buy; they were almost double the price. Why?
They wanted the company logo on the hand towel. The taxpayers get
bilked, and it increased the price of the hand towels used by soldiers.
Unbelievable. The stories we have heard are hard to believe. They
ordered 50,000 pounds of nails, but they came in the wrong size. They
are now dumped in the desert in Iraq. It is just a mistake. How about
driving $85,000 trucks and when you get a flat tire, you leave the
truck. An $85,000 new truck gets a flat tire or has a plugged fuel
pump--just trash the truck, leave it beside the road and somebody
torches it.
The stories are astounding every time we hear them. Mr. President,
every time we hold a hearing, we have the same response. I am not
interested in holding any more hearings. I have held five. The only
reason we will hold hearings is the authorizing committee won't. You
would think somebody would be halfway interested in this kind of fraud.
Some of it is abuse or recklessness.
I will tell you one other thing. This is Mr. Rory Mayberry, former
food production manager at KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton. He happens
to be in Baghdad at this minute, but he is not working for Halliburton.
He is working for another contractor. Here is what Mr. Mayberry said.
He said: When the Government auditors came to try to determine what
they were doing, I was told all of the employees were told don't you
dare talk to a Government auditor. Don't you speak to them. If you do,
one of two things will happen. No. 1, you are either going to be
transferred to an area where there is hostile activity, in a fire zone,
or you are going to be fired. He talked to an auditor at one point, and
he was sent to Fallujah during the fighting. That is the way they
handled him. Then he quit.

It is unbelievable. They are telling employees you may not speak to
auditors under the threat of being fired. You cannot talk or cooperate
with Government auditors. Why? I suppose the reason is because this
sort of nonsense is going on. They have a sole-source contract, a
noncompetitive contract, with billions of dollars going out the door.
There is massive waste, abuse and, yes, I believe, fraud. Now, we know
there is, at this point, slightly more than $1 billion in billing to
the Federal Government by Halliburton, which has a sole-source contract
worth billions. We know there is $1 billion that has been formally
objected to by the Pentagon. There is about $440 million above that for
which there is not sufficient documentation. Yet, this Congress seems
to be willing to snore through all of this.
In 1941, right on the edge of the Second World War, Harry Truman was
a Democrat and here on the floor of the Senate. There was a Democrat in
the White House. Maybe it was uncomfortable to have a Democratic
Senator going after waste, fraud, and abuse in the military in
contracting, but he did. They went after it for 6 years. I am sure
Franklin Delano Roosevelt didn't like it, but the Truman committee, as
it was known, held hundreds of hearings and, in 1940 dollars, saved $16
billion. Would that, could that, should that happen now? The answer is
yes. Would it or could it? Probably not because no one is interested in
having these hearings--no one. Is the White House interested in having
hearings like this? Absolutely not. Is anybody going to respond to the
question of whether expired food is being fed to soldiers? Will one
person stand up downtown at the White House or at the Pentagon and
demand answers now? Will there be one hearing by the authorizing
committee? Will one person be angry enough to decide this should not
happen any longer? I doubt it.
Month after month after month, through five hearings, nobody seems to
give a damn about this. We have soldiers eating bad food, taxpayers
being bilked, and nobody seems to care. Somebody should. This Congress
has little reason to hold its head high when it decides to ignore these
kinds of things. It is not of great interest to me to continue to hold
hearings through our policy committee, but I will do it if the
authorizing committees will not. I don't have the foggiest idea why
somebody would want to have an authorizing committee if they weren't
interested in following the trail of wrongdoing. Look, this doesn't
take an ``Inspector Clouseau.'' You don't need a funny looking hat to
track this down. It is all out in front of you. The whole case is laid
out. Yet, nobody seems to care.
We don't honor these soldiers, such as Sergeant Lazo, by saying you
can fight for freedom and earn a Bronze Star, but you don't have the
liberty or the freedom to go see your sick child. We don't honor our
soldiers by deciding it is OK for someone to feed them bad food or
expired food. I hope perhaps all those who talk about honoring soldiers
will decide that honor means a responsibility to follow up. We have had
these discussions on the floor of the Senate before about uparmoring
humvees and other things. Every time it is raised, it is political, we
are told. Perhaps sometimes we should understand there are areas of
serious policy, serious concern that ought to embrace the time of this
Congress. We spend so much time on things that have so little
importance.
I said yesterday that this is a Congress that has tended to treat the
light too seriously and the serious too lightly and important things
that really matter and really make a difference in people's lives are
largely not the center of debate here in the Congress. I regret that.
We can, and should, do much better.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, following my
presentation, the entire testimony of Rory Mayberry, former food
production manager at Halliburton's KBR.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in
the Record, following my remarks, the formal statements presented
yesterday by the highest ranking civilian official in the Corps of
Engineers at the Pentagon, Bunnatine Greenhouse.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 2.)
Mr. DORGAN. She is a woman who had a wonderful career for a long
time, was given high marks always, clearly someone with a sterling
reputation and a great career, who ran afoul of the ``old boy's
network,'' it appears to me, in the Pentagon when they decided they
wanted to steer certain contracts in certain ways. She said: You are
not following regulations. That is the wrong thing to do, and we are
going to see waste, fraud, and abuse as a result of it. She would not
go along with it all. Guess what. They decided to tell her that,
despite all those glowing performance evaluations, they are changing
their mind on her if she would not go along, so she was either going to
be demoted or fired. She testified yesterday, when she was told by the
acting general counsel of the Corps of Engineers that it would not be
in her best interest to speak publicly about these things. Oh, really?
I thank her for the courage and the others for their courage. I also
thank Rory for the courage to speak out. I suppose it would be easier
not to speak out.
I will read the last sentence of the second paragraph of the
statement of Bunnatine Greenhouse:

I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to
contracts awarded to KBR [Halliburton] represents the most
blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during
the course of my professional career.

I continue to ask the question: Is there somebody here who cares? Is
there somebody who has the reins of an authorizing committee that cares
enough to begin a real investigation or shall we continue to hold
hearings in the Policy Committee only because nobody else will?
I yield the floor.

[[Page S7483]]

Exhibit I

transcript of the testimony of rory mayberry, former food production
manager, kbr, senate democratic policy committee, june 27, 2005

My name is Rory Mayberry. I'm sorry that I'm not able to be
there in person to testify to the Committee, but I returned
to Iraq on June 14. I am working as a Medical Examiner and
Medic Supervisor for a company called Emergent Services.
I wanted to testify today about my experience working with
Halliburton in Iraq. I was hired by Halliburton subsidiary
KBR in January 2004 as the Food Production Manager for a
dining hall at Camp Anaconda, Iraq. I worked under the
Halliburton's LOGCAP contract from February 2004 until Apri1
2004.
When I was assigned to the dining facility, KBR managers
informed me that there were KBR practices that were to be
followed everyday. These practices led to major overcharges.
First, KBR was supposed to feed 600 Turkish and Filipino
workers meals according to their custom. Although KBR charged
the government for this service, it didn't prepare the meals.
Instead, these workers were given leftover food in boxes and
garbage bags after the troops ate. Sometimes there were no
leftovers to give them.
Second, KBR charged the government for meals it never
served to the troops. Until late 2003, anaconda was a
transition site for army personnel. Because there could be
large numbers of extra personnel passing through everyday,
KBR would charge for a surge capacity of 5,000 troops per
meal. However, KBR continued to charge for the extra
headcount even after Anaconda was no longer a transition
site.
When I questioned these practices, the managers told me
that this needed to be done because KBR lost money in prior
months, when the government suspended some of the dining hall
payments to the company. The managers said that they were
adjusting the numbers to make up for the suspended payments.
I would prepare food orders each week in order to get the
food we needed at the camp in the coming week. The KBR
managers would triple the order every week to bring in much
more food than we needed. They did this because they were
charging an extra 5,000 troops they weren't actually feeding.
Most of this food went to waste though.
Third, KBR paid too much for the food itself. Initially, a
company called Tamimi Catering was KBR's sub-contractor for
the food. Tamimi paid local prices for the food products in
the towns and cities around the base in addition to orders
sent to their main office. Tamimi's pricing was fair for the
condition of the country. Then, KBR switched to a new
supplier, PWC. PWC's prices were almost triple what Tamimi's
were.
For example, tomatoes cost about $5 a box locally, but the
PWC price was $13 to $15 per box. The local price for a 15-
pound box of bacon was $12, compared to PWC's price of $80
per box. PWC charged a lot for transportation because they
brought the food from Philadelphia. KBR switched from Tamimi
to PWC because Tamimi complained about KBR's poor treatment
of its staff; they were living in tents with sand floors and
no beds.
There were other problems that were not related to KBR's
costs:
Food items were being brought into the base that were
outdated or expired as much as a year. We were told by the
KBR food service managers to use these items anyway. This
food was fed to the troops. A lot of these were frozen foods:
chicken, beef, fish, and ice cream. For trucks that were hit
by convoy fire and bombings, we were told to go into the
trucks and remove the food items and use them after removing
the bullets and any shrapnel from the bad food that was hit.
We were told to turn the removed bullets over to the managers
for souvenirs. When I had the military check some of the food
shipments, they would turn the food items away. But there
wasn't any marking of the record, so KBR just sent the food
to another base for use. The problem with expired food was
actually worsened with the switch to PWC because it took
longer for the food items to get to the base as they were
shipped from the U.S. to a warehouse in Kuwait.
KBR also paid for spoiled food. When Tamimi dropped off
food, there was often no place to put it in to the freezers
or refrigeration. Food would stay in the refrigeration and
freezer trucks until they ran out of fuel. KBR wouldn't
refuel the trucks so the food would spoil. This happened
quite a bit.
In addition, KBR would cater events for KBR employees, like
management parties and barbecues. This happened about 3 times
a week. As a result, there were shortages of certain food
items, such as beef, chicken, pork, salads, dressings, and
sodas for the troops.
The food service personnel were given sanitation rules from
the Military Preventive Medicine information programs and
rules to follow by the Armed Forces, but KBR managers
informed us that the information was not to be followed, that
they knew best, and to keep following their instructions. So
our employees weren't following sanitation rules as set
forth.
Also, the Iraqi subcontract drivers of food convoys that
arrived on the base were not fed. They were given MREs, or
meals ready to eat, with pork, which they couldn't because of
religious reasons. As a result, the drivers would raid the
trucks for food.
Government auditors would have caught and fixed many of the
problems. But KBR managers told us not to speak with
auditors. The managers themselves would leave the base or
hide from the auditors when they were on the base and not
answer the radios when we called for them. We were told to
follow instructions or get off the base. The threat of being
sent to a camp under fire was their way of keeping us quiet.
The employees that talked to the auditors were moved to the
other bases that were under more fire then Anaconda. If they
refused to move, they were fired and sent home.
I personally was sent to Fallujah for 3 weeks. The manager
told me I was being sent away until the auditors were gone
because I had opened my mouth to the auditors. When I
returned from Fallujah, the convoy was attacked. I was put in
danger because the KBR managers didn't want me to talk with
U.S. government auditors.
When KBR wanted me to go to Tikrit, I headed home on
rotation. I wasn't officially fired and I didn't formally
quit.
I am happy to answer any questions the Committee may have
for me.
Mr. Mayberry, representatives of the Senate Democratic
Policy Committee have provided me with several questions that
they would like me to ask you now. Can I begin asking you
those questions?
Q: Are you saying that Halliburton deliberately falsified
the number of meals they prepared, and then submitted false
claims for reimbursement, and that they did this to make up
for past amounts auditors had disallowed?
A: Yes.
Q: So, when they couldn't get reimbursed legitimately, they
committed fraud by submitting these false bills?
A: Yes.
Q: How many meals were served at the dining hall each day?
A: 2,500 meals, per meal, times four. There were four
meals, breakfast, lunch, dinner and a midnight meal.
Q: So, every day, Halliburton was charging for 20,000 meals
it never served?
A: Correct. They were charging for 20,000 meals, and they
were only serving 10,000 meals.
Q: Was it rare for expired food to be served to the troops?
A: No. It was an everyday occurrence, sometimes every meal.
Q: You've described routine overcharging and unsanitary
practices by Halliburton, as well as shortages of food items
for troops because of private Halliburton parties.
Halliburton managers were not only aware of these practices,
they ordered them, is that correct?
A: Correct.
Q: How senior were these managers?
A: The managers, the main manager was a manager of all of
Iraq, assigned by KBR.
Q: So these practices may have been ordered at other dining
halls in Iraq?
A: Most likely, yes.
Q: When government auditors arrived, these senior managers
deliberately avoided them?
A: Yes.
Q: And these senior managers ordered you and other
employees not to discuss your concerns with the auditors?
A: Yes. We were informed if we talked, we would be rotated
out to other camps that were under fire.
Q: Is it fair to say that the managers used the threat of
transfer to a more dangerous base to intimidate employees
into keeping quiet?
A: Yes.
Q: When employees did talk to auditors, what happened?
A: All the employees that did talk to the auditors were
switched out to other camps or fired because they refused to
go to the other camps.
Q: Is there anything else you'd like us to know?
A: Not at this time.
Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Mayberry.
____

Exhibit 2

Bunnatine Greenhouse, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Senate Democractic
Policy Committee Hearing, June 27, 2005

My name is Bunnatine H. Greenhouse. I have agreed to
voluntarily appear at this hearing in my personal capacity
because I have exhausted all internal avenues to correct
contracting abuse I observed while serving this great nation
as the United States Army Corps of Engineers (``USACE'')
senior procurement executive. In order to remain true to my
oath of office, I must disclose to appropriate members of
Congress serious and ongoing contract abuse I cannot address
internally. However, coming forward is not easy. On June 24,
2005, I met with the acting General Counsel of the USACE.
During the course of this meeting it was conveyed to me that
my voluntary appearance would not be in my best interest. I
was also specifically advised to clearly state that I do not
appear as a representative of the Department of the Army or
the United States Corps of Engineers.
I have been involved with government contracting for over
twenty years. On June 9, 1997 I was sworn in as the Principal
Assistant Responsible for Contracting (``PARC'') for the
USACE. Back then, the commander of the Corps asked me to do
what I could to end what could be called casual and clubby
contracting practices. To curb these practices I required
Commanders to strictly follow the

[[Page S7484]]

Federal Acquisition Regulations and began to institutionalize
the contracting practices the Corps had to follow. However,
as the command structure at the Corps changed, there was ever
increasing pressure to return to the old ways. My
determination to ensure that the Corps strictly adhere to
contracting regulations was no longer viewed as an asset and
I began to experience an increasingly hostile environment.
The hostility peaked as the USACE was preparing contracts
related to the Iraq War. At this juncture, the interference
was primarily focused on contracting activity related to a
single contractor, Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and
Root (``KBR''). The abuse I observed called into question the
independence of the USACE contracting process. I can
unequivocally state that the abuse related to contracts
awarded to KBR represents the most blatant and improper
contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my
professional career.
The independence of the USACE contracting process was
unquestionably compromised with respect to the issuance of
the Restore Iraqi Oil contract, known as RIO. I observed,
first hand, that essentially every aspect of the RIO contract
remained under the control of the Office of the Secretary of
Defense (``OSD''). This troubled me and was wrong. However,
once the OSD delegated responsibility for the RIO contract to
the Department of the Army, control over the contracting
process by the OSD should have ceased. However, the OSD
remained in control over the contracting process. In reality,
the OSD ultimately controlled the award of the RIO contract
to KBR and controlled the terms of the contract that was to
be awarded even over my objection to specific terms that were
ultimately included in the contract.
As the ramp-up to the Iraqi War escalated I was
increasingly excluded from contracting activity related to
the war effort. However, given my position, it was simply
impossible to completely exclude me from the process. When I
did gain access to some of the high level planning meetings
related to the implementation of the RIO contract I sensed
that the entire contracting process had gone haywire. I
immediately questioned whether the Corps had the legal
authority to function as the Army's delegated contracting
authority. The Corps had absolutely no competencies related
to oil production. Restoration of oil production was simply
outside of the scope of our congressionally mandated mission.
How then, I asked, could executive agency authority for the
RIO contract be delegated to the USACE? I openly raised this
concern with high level officials of the Department of
Defense, the Department of the Army and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. I specifically explained that the scope of the
RIO contract was outside our mission competencies such that
congressional authority had to be obtained before the Corps
could properly be delegated contracting authority over the
RIO contract. Exactly why USACE was selected remains a
mystery to me. I note that no aspect of the contracting work
related to restoring the oil fields following the 1991
Persian Gulf War was undertaken by the USACE, and there was
no reason why USACE should take over that function for the
prosecution of the Iraq War.
I further raised a concern over which contract authorized
payment for prepositioning work KBR was doing in anticipation
of being awarded the RIO contract. I was generally familiar
with the scope of the LOGCAP contract and was under the
impression that the LOGCAP contract was being used to fund
the initial preposition work being done by KBR before the
Iraq War commenced. I specifically questioned whether using
LOGCAP funding was legal and insisted that a new contract be
prepared. My concern over this issue ended when I was
apparently provided misinformation that a new contract had
been issued. This is the first time I can recall being
overtly misled about something as fundamental as the
existence of an underlying contract authorizing work to be
done.
I further raised a concern over the basis used to justify
the selection of KBR as the sole source contractor for the
RIO contract. I learned that a specific basis to be used for
the selection of the contractor was a requirement that the
contractor have knowledge of the contingency plan KBR
prepared for the restoration of Iraqi oil. The inclusion of
this requirement meant that the RIO contract would have to be
awarded to KBR because no other contractor participated in
the drafting of the contingency plan and no other contractor
had knowledge of the contingency plan itself after it had
been prepared by KBR. What was particularly troubling about
this arrangement was that contractors who are normally
selected to prepare cost estimates and courses of action,
such as the work KBR did when it prepared the contingency
plan, are routinely excluded from being able to participate
in the follow-on contract. The reasons for prohibiting the
contractor responsible for preparing costs estimates and
course of action from obtaining the follow-on contract is
obvious. The fact that it was a no-bid, sole source
contract meant that the government was placing KBR in the
position of being able to define what the reasonable costs
would be to execute the RIO contract and then charging the
government what it defined as being reasonable. Given the
enormity of the scope of work contemplated under the RIO
contract, the exclusion of the contractor responsible for
pricing out the scope of work to be done under the RIO
contract should have been an imperative. Instead, it
formed the basis of awarding the RIO contract to KBR.
Ultimately, I was most concerned over the continuing
insistence that the RIO contract be awarded to KBR without
competitive bidding for an unreasonable period of time--two
years plus the option to extend the contract an additional
three years. I raised this concern with officials
representing the Department of Defense, the Department of the
Army and the Corps of Engineers. However, when the final
Justification and Approval of the RIO contract was forwarded
to me for signature--after the draft had been approved by
representatives of the office of the Secretary of Defense--
the five year, no-compete clause remained in place. I could
not sign the document in good faith knowing that this
extended period was unreasonable. However, we were about to
prosecute a war and the only option that remained opened to
me was to raise an objection to this requirement. Therefore,
next to my signature I hand-wrote the following comment: ``I
caution that extending this sole source effort beyond a one
year period could convey an invalid perception that there is
not strong intent for a limited competition.''
I hand-wrote this comment directly onto the original
document because experience had taught me that a separate
memo outlining my concerns could inexplicably be lost. I
wrote my comment on the original J&A to guarantee that my
concern was not overlooked. Instead, it was just ignored.
The RIO contract was subjected to public scrutiny when, on
December 11, 2003, the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA)
issued a draft report concluding that KBR over-charged for
the purchase of fuel by $61,000,000. However, the firestorm
over this issue was significantly dampened a week later when
the Commander of the USACE, Lt. General Flowers, took the
unusual step of issuing a waiver absolving KBR of its need,
under the RIO contract, to provide ``cost and pricing data.''
The Corps simply asserted that the price charged for the fuel
was ``fair and reasonable,'' thereby relieving KBR of the
contract requirement that cost and pricing data be provided.
However, the manner in which the waiver request was
prepared and finalized demonstrates that the USACE Command
knowingly violated the AFARS by intentionally failing to
obtain my approval, as the PARC. The evidence suggests that
the reasons why I was intentionally kept from seeing the
waiver request were politically motivated and driven by the
DCAA's conclusion that KBR had overcharged the government for
the fuel by $61,000,000, rather than whether the granting of
the waiver was in the interest of the government.
Significantly, it appears that a concerted effort was
undertaken to ensure that I was kept in the dark about the
waiver request. I have every reason to believe that the USACE
knew I would object to the granting of the waiver if it had
been presented to me for signature. So, I was specifically
kept in the dark and did not learn of the existence of the
waiver until I read about it in the press. Having reviewed
the documentation used to justify the waiver, I can
unequivocally state that I would not have approved it because
the documentation relied upon to justify the fuel charges as
``fair and reasonable'' was grossly insufficient.
Eventually, a copy of the original J&A for the RIO contract
was released in response to a Freedom of Information Act
Request which prompted Time Magazine to attempt to find out
why I felt it necessary to document my concern. Time Magazine
contacted the USACE seeking permission for me to be
interviewed. I later learned that this caused great
consternation. According to sworn testimony given on October
15, 2004 by the Deputy Commander of the USACE, Major General
Robert Griffin, the Department of the Army was figuring out
how it was going to publicly respond and whether the Army
would officially allow me to speak to a Time magazine
reporter. According to MG Griffin, the problem was that I did
not ``know the Army's story'' so the Army had to figure out
who was going to respond. The difficult position the Army
found itself in, according to MG Griffin, ``was because she
wrote this informal note at the bottom of this document,
which actually makes my case, which is, you shouldn't write
on official documents because they get taken out of context,
somebody reads them and there you go.'' However, my comment
was far from an informal note, and it was not being taken out
of context. Rather, my concern had found its way to the light
of day.
As public pressure mounted, my involvement and past actions
related to the RIO contract became a thorn in the side of the
USACE. As a result stating my concern in writing on the
original RIO J&A and as a result of expressing other
significant concerns over contracting matters related to KBR,
I was eventually summoned to a meeting on October 6, 2004 at
which time I was issued a memorandum notifying me that I was
to be removed from the Senior Executive Service and from my
position as PARC. At that point I knew that my ability to
resolve the issues within the USACE had terminated. I had no
other alterative at that juncture but to file a formal
request for investigation with the then-Acting Secretary of
the Army and to appropriate members of Congress.
In closing, I would like to thank my attorney, Michael
Kohn, and the National Whistleblower Center, for the support
and unbelievably hard work they have put forth.

[[Page S7485]]

Without their effort I could not have survived the political
fire storm that burns around me.

____________________