War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today to speak on H.R. 1362, the Accountability in Contracting Act, which was introduced by Government Oversight and Reform chairman Henry Waxman last week. I want to thank the chairman for working with us.

This is not a bill that we are particularly enthusiastic about. We have very divergent views in the way we should go about contract regulation, but we both want the same ends. And I want to commend him for working with us, addressing some of our concerns as it moved through the committee process.

This bill would attempt to reform our acquisition system through a series of restrictions and reports geared towards greater regulation and oversight. More specifically, the legislation would limit the duration of contracts awarded under urgent conditions; require agency reports on minimizing the use of fixed-price and sole-source contracts; require additional reports to Congress on cost questions by auditors; and broaden the reach of current limitations on post-employment opportunities for our acquisition workforce, as well as limit the ability of acquisition workers hired by the government from the private sector to participate in certain acquisition activities.

I want to thank the chairman again for working with me by including two provisions that we requested that are both intended to strengthen the Federal acquisition workforce through better training and management. The first would require the administrator for Federal Procurement Policy to come up with a government-wide definition for ``acquisition workforce.'' This modification would help give Federal agencies a clear picture of the composition of their existing acquisition workforce and provide a baseline for the improvement of the human capital resource dedicated to the management of the acquisition workload. The second would make permanent the Acquisition Workforce Training Fund, which was first enacted under SARA, the Services Acquisition Reform Act, which I authored.

Last week our committee revised the introduced version of the bill by approving an amendment I offered to address the concerns I had with the bill's expansion of post-employment restrictions. While I wholeheartedly support the desire to promote integrity, transparency and accountability in government, I was troubled by certain provisions in the bill which sought to significantly expand current post- employment restrictions and curb the government's capability to take advantage of the valuable technical abilities and skills of former private-sector employees.

At a time when we need to be looking for ways to retain qualified acquisition personnel, too many of whom are approaching retirement age, while at the same time looking for effective ways to

recruit new qualified people, the introduced version tried to instead impose new restrictions on these Federal employees. These restrictions would have had a detrimental impact on the executive branch's ability to recruit and retain the brightest and the best personnel for the acquisition workforce, something we can ill afford.

Our amendment shortened the bill's 2-year post-employment restrictions on contracting officers to 1 year and provided for a waiver of the restrictions on the ability of acquisition workers hired by the government from the private sector to participate in certain acquisition activities. My amendment also shortened the duration of the activity restrictions from 2 years to 1 year. While this language goes part way toward addressing my concerns about the negative effects such restrictions have had on the Federal Government's ability to recruit, hire, and retain the skilled acquisition workforce, I continue to have the same concerns.

The bottom line is that there are too many good people working for this government for us to pass onerous restrictions based on the misdeeds of a handful of employees. We need to promote the natural churn of employees between the public and private sector, instead of trying to stymie it. We can't, on the one hand, bemoan the quality of contract management, while on the other, create more obstacles to getting the people that we need to do the job.

In addition to the changes we made in committee last week, I am pleased to see the text of the bill that is on the floor today includes the good work of the Committee on Armed Services. That committee made significant improvements and clarifications to the underlying bill. The Armed Services Committee toned down some of the rhetoric in the bill. For example, by changing terms like ``limiting the abuse of abuse-prone contracts'' to ``improving the quality of contracts.''

More substantively, the Armed Services Committee raised the threshold of the report on preliminary audits of contractor costs from $1 million to $10 million. Nonetheless, I remain concerned a report like this, even at the higher threshold and the limitation to significant contractor costs, still presents a distorted and incomplete picture of the management of cost-type contracts. Contract auditors are critical cogs in the management system. They write audit reports which are submitted to aid the contracting officer in making his final determination whether particular costs are reasonable and consistent with applicable law and the contract terms and, therefore, permitted or what we call ``allowable under the contract.'' It is the outcome of the oversight process, not just the first phase, that we should be reviewing. If we want an accurate picture of costs actually billed to the government which the contracting officer determined the government will not pay, the unallowables, then we might learn something. But that is not what this bill does. The bill would only burden agencies with another meaningless reporting requirement and, I might add, add fodder up here for Members to take this review and make something of it that is probably not accurate.

Each year our Federal contract professionals use the acquisition system to purchase almost $400 billion worth of goods and services, ranging from paper clips to advanced weapons system, from sophisticated information technology and management services to grass cutting and window washing. Recent reforms, culminating in our Services Acquisition Reform Act of 2003, have modernized the way the government does business with the private sector. No longer is our government laden with inflexible, timely, and costly acquisition systems. Legislative efforts over the past decade have provided many of the tools necessary for our acquisition professionals to get the job done.

Unfortunately, the Federal acquisition system has been under stress in recent years because of the extraordinary pressures of a shrinking workforce, combined with the unprecedented Hurricane Katrina disaster relief and recovery efforts, the enormous job of managing contractors who provide logistical support for our troops in Iraq, and overseeing the daunting task of building an Iraqi infrastructure. To no one's surprise, this strain has resulted in a series of management problems that have been exaggerated by the press and exploited by opponents of the system.

Nevertheless, the system has worked pretty well, and the vast majority of the government's acquisitions have been conducted properly. The problems have largely been the result of management difficulties exacerbated by an overburdened and understaffed workforce, combined with improper actions by a handful of officials.

Frankly, Madam Chairman, I don't think that controls, reports, procedures and restrictions in this bill will go very far in addressing the challenges that face us today. Reverting to the bloated system of the past, weighted down with a process-oriented system doesn't help the government acquire the best valuable goods and services the commercial market has to offer and our government so desperately needs in a timely manner. Reverting to the past, under the rubric of fraud, waste and abuse and cleaning up the system may provide flashy sound bites and play well back home, but it doesn't give us the world-class acquisition system that we need to compete in the 21st century.

We have put the current system to the test in some of the most difficult environments imaginable: Hurricane Katrina reconstruction and Iraqi logistics and contracting and reconstruction. The failures which occurred have been rooted in the inadequacies of management and implementation.

And yet the Rules Committee, in looking at the Armed Services Committee report and ours, took out the provision that had the 1 percent additional funding for some of the management and implementation dollars that could have gone into training.

As legislators, we should resist the temptation to micromanage our acquisition system based on unproven anecdotes of failure and misconduct. More controls and procedures will not remedy poorly defined requirements or provide us with a sufficient number of Federal acquisition personnel with the right skills to select the best contractor and manage the subsequent performance.

Why should we force the taxpayers and private entities to undergo unreasonable burdens so politicians can reap short-term gain at the expense of crippling an already overburdened acquisition system and workforce?

It is for these reasons, Madam Chairman, we find this bill has sufficient shortcomings. These shortcomings are shared by the administration in their statement on administration policy in the ITAA, and I will discuss those as the debate goes further.

Finally, let me just say, this country, over the years, has had the debate over what is the appropriate role of oversight, how much is too much. But we need an acquisition system that works. And sometimes we spend so much in our rules and regulations, making sure somebody doesn't steal anything, that they can't do much of anything else either; and we get a system that is burdened and that does not create the efficiencies that we need to more forward. Once again, one of the greater issues that divide the chairman and myself is our philosophies on contracting. But I want to just commend him for working with us on this bill to try to get to where it is today. I know this is important to him.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for a unanimous consent request.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The administration strongly opposes H.R. 1362, which would impose a new statutory ban on how the government uses acquisition personnel and would restrict the executive branch's ability to determine the appropriate funding for acquisition workforce functions.

That is what they say on their statement on administration policy. We also note that other provisions would impose burdensome statutory requirements that overlap with more efficient administrative efforts to strengthen the use of competition and reduce fraud, waste, and abuse.

The administration also feels that this legislation would limit the Federal Government's ability to tap technical expertise of Federal employees who are former contractor employees.

Frankly, we need the best and the brightest overseeing these contracts. As I take a look at contracts that have failed, a lot of it is due to the fact that we have not had appropriate oversight within the executive branch, and being able to get the best and the brightest is a very, very critical component to this. These restrictions, the administration feels, would lower the quality of procurement, solicitations, and analyses and would significantly harm the executive branch's ability to recruit and retain the experienced procurement officials from the private sector to close skill gaps and strengthen the overall capabilities of the acquisition workforce.

The administration also is concerned with the new requirement in the bill that would impose exhaustive quarterly reporting on every significant contract management deficiency at the contractor and subcontractor levels. This requirement will interfere with agencies' abilities to address and resolve contract performance problems in a timely manner.

The Information Technology Association of America in Arlington, Virginia says: The Association joined with other members of the Acquisition Reform Working Group in pointing out flaws in H.R. 1362, while saying that such significant legislation deserves the same light- of-day and careful consideration as do the major government contracts that the majority seeks to control.

They note that the title of the bill alone mistakenly implies a lack of accountability for government contractors under current law. Their president, Phil Bond, notes that ``to the contrary, there is already abundant chapter and verse to bring best value to government and to protect the interest of taxpayers. What is really needed is better application of existing regulations by a fully staffed professional Federal acquisition corps working with responsible government contractors.''

The letter also points out to committee leaders that many of the contracting issues now being addressed are ``symptoms of the shortages of manpower and training for adequate contract management.'' And they note that ``the government can't retain personnel and fill existing job openings in the acquisition workforce.''

They also joined the working group in taking issue with the sections of the bill regarding disclosure of government contractor overcharges. While agreeing that the proper use and oversight of government contracts is paramount, they dispute any need for quarterly reports to Congress on contract charges that are adjudicated by the Defense Contract Audit Agency, the DCAA. They note that these are unnecessary provisions and would force significant

investment and government resources and additional burdens on acquisition personnel. So the ITAA comes out against it.

They also note that another section of the bill that seeks more restrictive cost reimbursement-type contracts is also unnecessary and potentially harmful. They note that such contracts typically are used when uncertainties and risks are high, as in emergency situations, and development programs when it is not feasible to set a fixed price for the work required. The Federal Acquisitions Regulations, the FAR, already establishes detailed criteria for proper selection of contract type, including limitations on the use of cost-type contracts ``for use only when uncertainties involved in contract performance do not permit costs to be estimated with sufficient accuracy to suit any type of fixed price contract.''

Madam Chairwoman, if we want to fix the Federal contracting system, the appropriate way is to hire, train, retrain, and pay well our acquisition personnel so that they have a toolbox of acquisition options to use to get the best deal for the government in every case, get the best value for the government. The taxpayers' dollars are at stake here, and their role ought to be to make sure the taxpayer dollars are spent most efficiently.

Adding burdens and layers and layers of regulatory reports do nothing to help that situation at all, and in many cases it can be very misleading as these burdens come out and we start taking out DCAA reports that have nothing to do with final adjudications of how these work. We already, by the way, have access to that information in Congress. What we don't have access to information is, and one of the things we would have liked to include, is to take final adjudications on costs that were deemed allowable and see what those costs are per contractor. That could have helped us in ferreting out which contractors are using these items. But this legislation does little to remedy those situations, unfortunately.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, may I inquire as to how much time is left on each side?

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me start by saying we all want to limit the use of no-bid contracts. These go back of course to the Revolutionary War, where the troops were marching and they needed food and there is one farmer around. And you can't go out to bid to see who is going to sell you the lowest corn; you take what is there. But they should be limited, because competition is the cornerstone of our contracting system.

Let me go through some of the assertions that are made in support of the bill and give my thoughts.

Assertion one is that spending on sole source and other noncompetitive contracts has more than doubled over the last 5 years. And although spending has increased significantly over the last 5 years, it is due largely to 9/11 and Katrina. The total dollars competed is a percentage of total dollars available for competition. It has remained relatively constant between fiscal years 2001 and 2006, between 61 and 64 percent, according to the FPDS.

This notwithstanding, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Administrator will be seeking to help in the leadership of the CAOs to reinvigorate through administrative means the use of competition and related practice for achieving a competitive environment. The role of competition advocates should be revived, with special emphasis on planning and execution in the management of hard-to-task and delivery orders.

There is an assertion that over the last 5 years the administration has jeopardized taxpayer interests and squandered hundreds of millions of dollars by giving private contractors exclusive control over huge portions of the reconstruction efforts in Iraq.

Frankly, DOD is giving increased attention to contingency contracting, including training for acquisition and program personnel and standard operating procedures. The Department of Defense and other agencies have recognized the need to increase the number of prepositioned, competitively awarded contracts to address contingencies. Also, the Department of Defense has several audit agencies including the Defense Audit Agency and Defense Contract Management Agency working in theater to monitor the contracts and resources.

Another assertion that comes from the other side is that this administration has justified the award of lucrative sole source contracts by citing urgent and compelling needs but then allowed these contracts to continue years after the emergency has passed.

The Chief Acquisition Officers Council, the CAOC, has established an Emergency Response and Recovery Working Group to improve access to information that can assist the acquisition workforce in planning for and addressing emergencies. The working group created a community of practice Web site, accessible at http://acc.dau.mil/emergencyresponse, so that agencies can share information about their policies and procedures, their best practices, their training resources, and other information of interest. For example, the site provides a link to the Emergency Acquisition Field Guide developed by FEMA so other agencies can learn about and adopt, as appropriate, practices employed by FEMA for performing specific assignments or functions in an emergency acquisition environment.

The emergency response and recovery Web site includes a list of interagency contracts that offer the types of supplies and services that were required by agencies to address disaster recovery for Katrina and 9/11, such as communications equipment, fuel and transportation, pharmaceuticals, portable shelters, generators, tarps, bottled water, and emergency meals. The GSA has established a disaster relief and emergency preparedness homepage that provides a quick reference guide to offerings on its Multiple Award Schedules that can be suitable for addressing readiness, intervention, counteractive solutions, or post- emergency logistics.

Another assertion is that cost reimbursement-type contracts leave the taxpayer vulnerable to wasteful spending by providing contractors with little or no incentive to control costs. Between 2000 and 2005, the use of this type of contract has risen 75 percent.

Frankly, according to the FPDS again, the total government spending on contracts has increased considerably, roughly at the same percentage as the increases in cost-type contracts stated above. From fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2005, total spending increased from $219 billion to $380 billion.

But cost-type contracts play a useful and necessary role in contracting when uncertainties involved in contract performance don't permit costs to be estimated with sufficient accuracy to use any type of fixed-price contract. And the contractors get caught on these many times when they move ahead and they estimate it to be one thing and then the needs of the contract change and they end up having to advance costs. So cost-type contracts in these types of situations are proven useful, but they are only good when they get the appropriate oversight from the procurement officers. And we don't address that underlying issue in a significant way in this legislation.

Agencies such as NASA rely on cost-type contracts for critical R&D work, such as planetary science and exploration missions, systems development operation support in physical engineering, and life sciences. In the early 1980s, there was a push towards fixed-price contracts for R&D to address failed major programs, cost overruns. But ultimately Congress passed legislation requiring a secretarial approval for contracts over $25 million. DOD regulations preclude award of a fixed-price contract for a development program unless the level of program risk permits realistic pricing and the use of a fixed-price type contract allows an equitable and sensible allocation of program risk between the government and the contractor.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield for just one comment?

Let me just note that on the bills on the Presidential records, the library, the whistleblowers, Mr. Waxman and his staff have worked very well with us. And the record should show that the reason we got such big bipartisan majority was their willingness to bend back and our ability to work back and forth. And I want to, again, commend him.

We have other differences on this bill which is close to my heart that I think he understands and we understand; but even here they have worked with us. And I think the record should note that they have gone out of their way and we appreciate that.

I yield myself 1 minute to note again the reason for the rise in sole-source contracts has been emergencies like 9/11 and Katrina, under which the exigencies which government is faced with at that point to meet in a timely manner doesn't allow you to go out in these cases for a wide swath of bids. But I think we share a common desire to bring more competition into government contracting.

I also want to note that at our committee hearing on February 8, the Inspector General, Richard Skinner, testified that the government's greatest exposure to fraud, waste and abuse is undoubtedly in the area of procurement. As already pointed out by members of this committee, he notes, the problem is not a new one. It dates back to the Federal Government's nearsighted policies in the early 1990s to reduce the Federal workforce. While acquisition management capabilities were being downsized, the procurement workload was on the rise.

I hope to continue to work with the gentleman as we focus on this acquisition workforce and give them the tools they need.

I would yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio, a member of the committee, Mr. Turner.

May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Hunter.

Mr. Chairman, we fully support transparency and accountability in decision-making, but we need to remember we are asking for all of these audit reports that are only advisory in nature. They are not disposition. These are questioned costs, and contracting in a war zone or in an emergency often lacks appropriate documentation. But these are allowable costs.

I think to provide those to Congress not only gives you too much information, a lot of it can be misleading and can be misplayed.

Knowing that the results of an audit will be provided to Congress during the negotiation and the resolution process, which is what they are asking for, could unduly influence the impact the audit advice may have on the contracting officer's administrative determination. This inhibits their authority to appropriately and effectively resolve contracting issues using all of the relevant information available to them. This could also have the unintended effect of increasing the number of contract disputes.

But I know my colleague feels with a passion that we need to move ahead and do something of this order. I look forward to working with him on legislation on the acquisition workforce which we don't touch in this area. This legislation I think falls short of the promise, but I appreciate the willingness he has shown to work with us. We will address further issues later in our motion to recommit.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the offeror of the amendment just a clarification question before I yield.

For a company to have to disclose under this, it would be a foreign- owned company, I understand, that is based or has majority operations in a country described in subsection D. Any idea who that would apply to? I am just trying to figure out.

I am trying to figure out what companies this would apply to.

A foreign-owned company could be, if it is on the American Stock Exchange, that probably would not make it a foreign-owned company in all likelihood?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Let me just ask the author of the amendment, this would obviously apply, this is a list that evolves, as the Secretary of State certifies, is that correct?

I would assume that Iran, North Korea are probably on that list today?

Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, for example, would probably not be on that list today?

I am prepared to accept the amendment. I congratulate the gentleman for offering it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield 30 seconds?

I will commend my friend from Delaware for offering this amendment. I would just say we are happy, and we are here to support it as well, and we think this adds to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

This motion to recommit would bar Federal agencies from awarding contracts to colleges and universities that either prohibit on-campus military recruitment, or otherwise do not provide military recruiters access to campuses and to students that is at least equal in quality and scope to the access that is provided to any other employer.

On March 6, 2006, the Supreme Court reversed a Federal appeals court ruling in Rumsfeld vs. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights. In doing so, eight Justices upheld the constitutionality of the so-called Solomon amendment, upon which this motion is based, forbidding most forms of Federal aid to higher educational institutions that deny military recruiters access to students equal to that provided other employers.

Mr. Speaker, military recruiters must be given access to university and college campuses and students that is at least equal in quality and scope provided to other employers.

This motion establishes that requirement government-wide. We already do this to some agencies in government. A number of Departments are already covered; but since this bill is government-wide in scope, we make this government-wide in scope.

This motion establishes that requirement, thereby addressing an apparent trend among certain colleges and universities to attempt to frustrate military recruiters through official and unofficial mistreatment.

Unfortunately, this growing trend is not isolated to the higher education community, as evidenced by the decision last November by the San Francisco Board of Education to phase out Junior ROTC from the high school system over the next 2 years. At a time of war, when we are depending on a volunteer military, it seems counterproductive to be openly discriminating against our military personnel and to create perceptions that military service is not a noble and professional calling.

The Department of Defense noting that certain colleges and universities continue to restrict access or limit opportunities for military recruiters to participate fully in job fairs, placement office services and interview programs, supports congressional efforts to take action to pass legislation granting military recruiters access equal to that of other employers.

The motion to recommit would help prod those colleges and universities that currently do not provide equal access to military recruiters.

We also, I want to note, have a clause in here that this prohibition does not apply to an institution of higher education or a sub-element if the Secretary of Defense determines that the institution has a longstanding policy of pacifism based on historical religious affiliation.

I urge my colleagues to support this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Mr. Speaker, I would just add, 10 U.S.C. 983 already covers a number of agencies, the Department of Defense and others in terms of contracting and limitations that are put on colleges and universities that don't allow recruiters to come on campuses. This makes it government-wide.

This body has addressed this issue before. But I think it is time to make this government-wide, and I would urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume of the time that has been reserved to us.

The bill before us, H.R. 1362, the Accountability in Contracting Act, would increase transparency and accountability in Federal contracting, limit the use of certain types of abuse-prone contracts and promote integrity in the acquisition workforce.

Under the Bush administration, spending on Federal contracts has exploded in size. The Federal Government spent $175 billion more in Federal contracts in 2005 than it did in 2000, making Federal contracts the fastest growing component of the Federal budget.

The Federal Government now spends nearly 40 percent of discretionary spending on contracts with private companies, a record level. This surge in contract spending has enriched private contractors like Halliburton, but it has come at a steep cost to taxpayers through rising waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement.

Spending on sole source and other noncompetitive contracts has more than doubled in the last 5 years. The administration has justified the awarding of these lucrative sole source contracts by citing urgent and compelling needs, but then they allow these contracts to continue years after the emergency has passed.

Cost reimbursement type contracts leave the taxpayers vulnerable to wasteful spending by providing contractors with little or no incentive to control costs. But between 2000 and 2005, the use of this type of contract has risen by 75 percent.

The administration has also hidden contractor overcharges from Congress, international auditors and the public, impeding oversight and diminishing accountability. Too often, the independence of procurement of officials has been compromised by illegal relationships with government contractors.

Darleen Druyun, the former chief acquisition official for the Air Force, negotiated a lucrative deal to lease aircraft from Boeing in exchange for future employment. All of these problems have been compounded by an insufficient acquisition workforce to properly award and adequately oversee Federal contracts.

H.R. 1362 contains important provisions to rein in out-of-control Federal contracting. It would require Federal agencies to develop plans to minimize the use of the sole source contracts, and it would limit the duration of no-bid contracts issued in emergencies.

The bill would also require agencies to encourage the use of fixed- price contracts, which are not as prone to abuse as cost-plus contracts. This provision will allow the growth of contracts to give companies a financial incentive to increase their costs to the taxpayers.

When a sole source contract is awarded, agencies are required to prepare a justification and approval document to explain why full and open competition was not used to award the contract. The bill would require those documents to be made public.

The bill also promotes transparency in the acquisition process by requiring agencies to report to Congress when auditors identify over $10 million in questioned or unsupported costs. A big and growing problem with the Federal acquisition system is that it has a workforce that is too small and undertrained. The bill requires the administration to develop a comprehensive definition of the acquisition workforce and ensures that funds for training will continue to be available.

Finally, the bill includes revolving door provisions that close loopholes in the law, prohibiting contracting officials from negotiating employment for their relatives and establish a cooling off period before procurement officials can award or oversee contracts involving a former employer.

All of this is important legislation. This legislation alone will not do the job. We need, however, to continue our oversight, and Congress has already begun many oversight hearings in our committee and in other committees as well.

Members are starting to ask what went wrong and to insist on accountability. But this legislation is an important reform in the contracting area. I want to thank my ranking member, Tom Davis, and the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee for their hard work and efforts in reaching a bipartisan consensus on the bill before us.

The Accountability in Contracting Act makes sound commonsense reforms which will improve the transparency and accountability of the Federal acquisition system, and I urge Members to support the bill.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I am pleased to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to a very important member of our committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Madam Chairwoman, I recognize and yield to a very distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for 3 minutes.

Madam Chair, I would like to now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), a member of our committee.

Madam Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Madam Chair, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

(Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader of the House of Representatives (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to a new member of our committee, but who has been a valuable member and raised a great deal of concern about these issues, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is left on each side.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

I want to acknowledge the fact that Chairman Tom Davis did more as the chairman of our committee in doing oversight than any other Chair in the House. We did do a lot, but the other committees did not. They didn't want to do oversight. It was as if the Republican leadership of the House decided that if they did too much oversight, they might find embarrassment to this administration.

Well, it looks like this administration would now like to keep us from getting embarrassing information about them because they don't like this bill. Oh, we have to give too many reports to Congress; there has to be too much transparency; it is burdensome to have to be open about these contracts. But the fact of the matter is we are spending an incredible amount of money on these outside contracts. And from what we have seen, our taxpayers are not being protected from waste, fraud, abuse and corruption. Just look at what went on in Iraq. Halliburton had contracts for logistical purposes, to restore oil. We were told we needed them to get a contract without any competition because they are the only ones, this is what we were told in the very beginning when we asked why did we get this contract in Iraq with no other competition.

We were told, Well, they are the only ones who know how to put out the oil well fires when we go to war. And so they got a contract without competition on a cost-plus basis even though they had a history of overcharging the taxpayers. And then later we found out that they didn't do anything about putting out oil well fires in the first Gulf war; it was Bechtel, not Halliburton. We were told it was civil servants who had done it in giving this award to the contractor. But then we found out it was the political people who did it.

Halliburton was given special treatment. Other contractors were given special treatment by not having healthy competition. Competition benefits the consumer. When the government is the payor, the consumer, we are deprived of what market forces can bring. So these contractors got no-bid contracts.

I made a proposal on the House floor when we had one of these appropriations bills to say that if any contractor overcharges us $100 million or more, they ought to be barred from future contracts. The chairman at that time of the Armed Services Committee stood up and said, We can't have an amendment like this; we haven't even held hearings on anybody who has charged us over $100 million.

Well, why hadn't they held hearings? Why didn't the Armed Services Committee hold hearings?

The fact of the matter is in recent years, we have had an enormous outpouring of money spent in Iraq, in homeland security, in dealing with Hurricane Katrina, and we have seen the same mistakes over and over again: No-competition contracts; cost-plus contracts.

We have seen what the result has been: Wasted taxpayer dollars. That is why this legislation has been put together. It is a bill to require that if there is an emergency to give a contract, give it. But then have bidding within a year.

Gasoline prices charged by Halliburton were considered highway robbery. Parsons built just a handful, 20 of the 142 health clinics they were paid to build. Human sewage leaked out of the roof of a police academy.

In Hurricane Katrina, they subcontracted and subcontracted and subcontracted, and finally they paid a guy with a truck to come and take away debris. Every markup of every one of those subcontractors was passed on to the taxpayers.

We have had a contract to build a border for our homeland security that cost us billions of dollars that didn't work. We had a contract to help the Coast Guard get state-of-the-art ships, and they didn't meet standards. We need reform in this area.

If that is called micromanaging when we want transparency, this is the type of reform we need. We need something we didn't have before: A lot more oversight. We have got to keep people honest.

I am shocked when I hear conservatives say they care about taxpayers' dollars, and then don't want competition. I am shocked when they say taxpayers' money is being used wisely, and then we find it is being thrown away.

I urge support for this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, legislation is an organic process. We have negotiated with the minority. We have strong bipartisan support for this legislation. The bill was referred to the Armed Services Committee. They gave us good recommendations which have been adopted unanimously by that committee and incorporated into this bill.

The gentleman from Ohio complained there was another change made. There are always changes going on to make

the bill better. It will get even better as we move it through the process. Let's pass the bill and work together. Let's stand up for the American taxpayers of this country.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, well, I do. I am surprised you are taking the position you are taking in trying to make it personal but----

I think the gentleman is misinformed about what is in the legislation because we do permit under exigent circumstances a no-bid contract to be awarded. We understand there are times that there are emergencies, but we ask that after a year that the contract be put out to bid, that there be competition at least after a year. I see nothing wrong with that. It makes a lot of common sense to me, and you are arguing that we are not responding to the emergency situation when we do.

What this provision provides is if somebody is personally and substantially involved in that contract, they should not be then going out and working for the contractor. I just think that is improper. There ought to at least be a cooling-off period. We do not think they can never go work.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for yielding to me.

I just want to point out that I think my good friend from my same State, former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, now the ranking member, protesteth too much.

He complained that they have to award a contract right away and that this bill would prevent it. Well, we

have already pointed out that that is not the case at all. A contract can be awarded on an emergency basis; but after a year, there ought to be competition. He thought that sounded good once we explained it to him on the floor.

Then he said, well, there is another provision that he dislikes and that is the fact that somebody who awards a contract cannot go to work for the contractor. Well, that provision was narrowed, and it was narrowed to say it had to be a senior person, and it also had to be someone who was personally and substantially involved in awarding the contract.

Now, a lot of these contracts are determined by political appointees. For example, we learned that the Halliburton no-bid contract to restore oil in Iraq was signed by the contracting civil servant, but the decision was made by a political appointee. The gentleman's name is Michael Mobbs. He decided that Halliburton ought to get that contract and that there should not be competition. He even went before a committee of principals, including Scooter Libby representing the Vice President, and suggested to them this is the way the contract ought to be awarded, and the contract was awarded. He argued that it needed to be awarded at that time to that contractor, they would do the job.

Should he be allowed to go within a year and go sign up as an employee for Halliburton? I do not think he should be permitted. All we say is there ought to be a cooling-off period. We do not say he never could go work for Halliburton, but I think it is unseemly to have him go right from that position to go work for Halliburton.

Now, I must say from those who tell us everything is going great in Iraq, they are also telling us today on the House floor everything has gone well with contractors in Iraq. I must submit that things have not gone well, unless you do not mind hundreds of billions of dollars in questioned costs, in overcharging by a contractor to bring in gasoline from Kuwait, having a contractor charge for $45 for Cokes or $50 for laundry, obscene kind of expenditures. Things have not gone well. That is why we need more oversight, and that is why we need this important reform legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that my colleague, Representative Cardoza has concerns about the use of the confidential business information exemption within the Freedom of Information Act to withhold information about Federal contracts from the public. I understand Mr. Cardoza's concern and want to work with him to ensure that the public has access to this type of information under FOIA. Yesterday, the House approved legislation that will strengthen FOIA and ensure that agencies apply a presumption of disclosure when considering requests. I believe that yesterday's bill, along with the bill we are considering today, are steps in the right direction. But, neither bill directly addresses my colleague's concerns related to overuse of FOIA's exemption four.

I have an ongoing interest in strengthening the Freedom of Information Act and certainly want to work together with Mr. Cardoza to accomplish his important goal of ensuring public access to information about federal contractor performance.

I have agreed to work with Mr. Cardoza to request that GAO conduct an examination of agency use of exemption four. A report from GAO could clarify what is currently being withheld from the public under this exemption, and how much of that information is actually a trade secret or is truly confidential. This report will inform us as we move forward.

I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. Chairman, as I understand the gentleman from Utah's amendment, it would require a Federal agency that expects to award a sole source contract to a foreign company based in a country known to sponsor terrorist activity to notify Congress 30 days prior to the award of that contract. This seems to me to be a good idea.

Congress should know if no-bid contracts are going to countries that sponsor terrorism. So I support the amendment. I think it makes a lot of sense. What Congress does after they get this information will remain to be seen.

There may be some justification for it, but I would certainly want to know, as this Member of Congress, speaking on my own behalf, and I think others would feel the same way if such a sole source contract was going to be awarded.

As I understand the way we wrote this bill, it would have to be a person at a senior level who is substantially involved in the awarding of the contract. I don't think being on a range is an awarding of the contract.

Mr. Chairman, I am not in opposition to the amendment, but I wish to claim the time that would go to the Member in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Castle amendment. There are currently no Federal ethics laws that apply to contractor employees. This is particularly problematic because contractors are providing more and more services that used to be performed by Federal service personnel.

In many agencies today, one can tell the difference between a Federal employee and a contractor only by the color of his or her badge. One area where this can cause real problems is in the contracting workforce. A company providing contract oversight services to the government may be overseeing a company and working as a subcontractor to that same company in the private sector. Clearly such a situation would cause conflicts of interest.

The amendment offered by Mr. Castle would require the Office of Government Ethics to report to Congress with recommendations on requiring contract employees to be covered by Federal financial and conflict of interest laws.

I support this amendment and urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have time still available if any Member wishes me to yield to him or her.

I would be happy to yield.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion to recommit.

Members could have different views about the underlying question, and that is whether universities should be able to exclude military recruiters. It is not a new issue to be considered on this floor. We have voted on this many, many times. Some universities have taken the position that they don't want military recruiters on their campus because the military is not an equal opportunity employer based on the ``don't ask, don't

tell'' policy. I happen to think that universities that take this position are right.

But that is not the reason I oppose this motion to recommit. I oppose it because I have heard the arguments made by my colleagues many, many, times that we shouldn't exclude somebody from competing from a contract on extraneous bases.

Why should we exclude a university from being able to compete in a government contract when they might be the ones who can save the lives of our troops? After all, the bioshield program has given money, Federal dollars to universities to try to develop ways to get us vaccines that will stop the impact of anthrax or smallpox. Are we going to say that a university that develops such a vaccine will not be able to compete for a contract to sell that vaccine because they don't want recruiters on their campus because they object to the don't ask, don't tell policy? That doesn't make any sense. People ought to be able to compete for contracts based on what they can do if they are selected to perform that contract. Are we going to exclude people for extraneous reasons? I don't think that makes sense.

So I think if you look at it carefully, when you recognize that the work being done at universities can be so important in so many different ways, that we should just arbitrarily exclude them. I think we have all said over and over again in the debate on this bill, we don't like sole-source contracts. We want competition. We want market forces. Well, sometimes you need a sole-source contract in an emergency. Well, then we say at least a year later, let's have competition.

But if we adopt this amendment, from the very beginning we will not allow competition if it involves competition from a university unless they have a longstanding position of being pacifists, and then we will let them compete. But if they have a different position, but they also have the ability to compete and to provide a service that can save our country from terrorism, save our military from disease, save the American people the consequences for which we need them to perform in that contract, we are going to exclude them.

I urge opposition. I know Members will feel a lot of pressure on this because it can be used in a 30-second ad, that Congressman So-and-So voted to allow universities to exclude military recruiters. Well, I don't think that is really what this amendment is doing. It is excluding universities from competing for contracts, even if they can, in awarding that contract, provide vital services and that maybe no one else can provide. So I urge opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House in the motion to recommit, I report H.R. 1362 back to the House with an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a statement from Stuart W. Bowen, Jr., Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.

Statement of Stuart W. Bowen Jr., Special Inspector General for Iraq

Reconstruction, Before the United States House of Representatives

Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and

Homeland Security

War Profiteering and Other Contractor Crimes Committed Overseas

(Tuesday, June 19, 2007, Washington, DC)

Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Forbes, and members of the

Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to address you

today on the work of the Office of the Special Inspector

General for Iraq Reconstruction.

To ensure accurate context, permit me to outline several

points essential to understanding the challenges of

investigating and prosecuting fraud in Iraq.

First, corruption within the Iraqi government, indeed

within the fabric of Iraqi society, is a serious problem that

inhibits progress on many fronts in Iraq. This is widely

recognized by the Government of Iraq and the international

community. In our quarterly reports, SIGIR has called Iraq's

endemic corruption problem a ``second insurgency.''

I returned last month from my 16th trip to Iraq and, during

my visit, I met with the Commissioner of Public Integrity,

who heads the institution created by the CPA to increase

accountability for public corruption in Iraq--and the

President of the Board of Supreme Audit, the analogue to the

Government Accountability Office, which has existed in Iraq

for many decades. The Iraqi anti-corruption authorities again

emphasized to me the widespread nature of the problem of

corruption, which stretches across the government, afflicting

virtually every ministry. And they outlined for me the

difficulties they face in implementing their respective anti-

corruption mandates.

The CPI Commissioner told me that he currently has 2,000

cases involving $5 billion in alleged corruption. And the

President of the Board of Supreme Audit has hundreds of

audits ongoing. In virtually every case, he is uncovering a

lack of accountability. Let me emphasize that the CPI and the

BSA oversee Iraqi money--not U.S. money--that is missing or

has been stolen from Iraqi programs.

During my visit, I was informed about political

interference with the work of Iraqi investigators and

prosecutors. For example, I learned that Ministers and former

Ministers are exempt from prosecution unless the assent of

the Prime Minister is obtained; and each Minister is

entitled, under an Iraqi criminal code provision, to immunize

selectively ministry employees from being held accountable

for corruption.

Iraq must make progress on rule of law enforcement, in

general, and corruption, in particular; political

interference with fighting corruption remains a problem,

undermining the effectiveness of the developing rule of law

system and consequently eroding the Iraqi people's confidence

in their government.

Iraq is a sovereign state. The role of the United States

thus is to encourage the development of an efficient Iraqi

justice system. We do this for its own sake and for the sake

of maintaining and building upon the efforts made, at great

cost in blood and treasure, by Americans and Iraqis since the

liberation of Iraq.

SIGIR's specific role in this process has been to review

the effectiveness of United States efforts to improve the

rule of law system and to build up the corruption-fighting

capacity of the Iraqi government.

On July 28, 2006, SIGIR released a survey on this subject

and found that American efforts were funded at a very modest

level, given the scope of the problem, receiving about $65

million (about three-tenths of 1 percent of our total

reconstruction spending). My auditors found that American

efforts have not been sufficiently coordinated and focused

and that more adequate leadership and organization was

needed. The U.S. Embassy has responded to some of these

concerns since the review was released. SIGIR will soon

release another review on the issue, updating our previous

report.

SIGIR has a continuing investigative responsibility to

detect and investigate malfeasance in American relief and

reconstruction programs in Iraq. As part of this effort, we

have developed good working-level and leadership-level

relationships with the CPI and the BSA. We coordinate with

these Iraqi agencies whenever we come across evidence of

potential wrongdoing by Iraqis. SIGIR, of course,

concentrates its law enforcement efforts on American targets

and works with the Department of Justice in their effective

prosecution.

My second point is that the incidence of corruption within

the U.S. reconstruction program--judging from those cases

that we have uncovered thus far--appears to constitute a

relatively small component of the overall American

financial contribution to Iraq's reconstruction. Based on

the work of our 18 career investigators on SIGIR staff, I

believe that losses to American taxpayers from fraud

within reconstruction programs will likely amount to a

relatively small component of the overall investment in

Iraq, totaling in the tens of millions (rather than

hundreds of millions or billions, as is sometimes

imagined). However, the fact that the fraud we have

detected is relatively small (to date) does not diminish

the aggressiveness with which SIGIR pursues allegations of

fraud in Iraq. We have found egregious incidents of fraud.

And in partnership with the Department of Justice, SIGIR

has produced clear results in prosecutions and

convictions.

For example, in January, two individuals were sentenced to

prison as a result of SIGIR investigations. In early

February, indictments were announced of five more

individuals, resulting from SIGIR investigations. To date,

SIGIR has opened over 300 cases, and we have over 70 ongoing

investigations. Thirty-two of those cases are under

prosecution at the Department of Justice.

We believe that the publicity our enforcement actions have

received has helped to deter misconduct in the U.S.

reconstruction program. And we also believe that enforcement

will be an increasingly important part of SIGIR's mission

over the next 18 months. Moreover, in the course of this

year, we expect to produce concrete investigative results as

significant current cases come to fruition.

SIGIR remains committed to a robust, deterrent presence in

Iraq as long as our temporary organization exists. Today, I

have five investigators on the ground in Iraq investigating

fraud. Although there are other law enforcement agencies

fighting fraud in Iraq, SIGIR has maintained over the past 3

years the largest contingent of fraud investigators in Iraq.

My investigators travel the country under dangerous

conditions, pursuing leads, interviewing witnesses, and

piecing together evidence on a wide variety of cases. Their

work also takes them to other countries in the region. Of

note, SIGIR is currently reducing its overall personnel

``footprint'' in Baghdad in conjunction with the reduction in

spending of appropriated dollars on Iraq reconstruction.

One of the most important aspects of our investigative

efforts is the development of

task-force relationships with other agencies involved in

oversight in Iraq, including may colleagues from the Office

of Inspector General of the Department of Defense and the

Defense Criminal Investigative Service, as well as the

Federal Bureau of Investigation. SIGIR has 16 investigators

in Arlington, and we are participating in the new Joint

Operations Center located at the FBI to coordinate and

enhance fraud investigations in Iraq.

SIGIR's first task force was the Special Investigative Task

Force for Iraq Reconstruction (SPITFIRE), and it combined the

efforts of the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of

Homeland Security, Immigrations and Customs enforcement

office, the FBI and the Department of State Office of

Inspector General. That task force was able to effectively

pursue the Bloom-Stein conspiracy that my auditors

uncovered in Hillah, Iraq--a very egregious kickback and

bribery scheme involving over $10 million in

reconstruction funds that Philip Bloom, the contractor,

and Robert Stein, the Coalition Provisional Authority

comptroller for that region, engineered for their own

criminal ends. SPITFIRE continues its work today; and we

continue to pursue a number of leads that arose from the

Bloom-Stein case.

The other major task-force initiative that SIGIR has

initiated with the FBI is the International Contract

Corruption Task Force (ICCTF). ICCTF prompted the creation of

the Joint Operations Center mentioned above, which is

producing the effective collection and coordination of

investigative leads and source development. Although I am not

at liberty to discuss details of these cases, I am very

pleased with the very significant progress the JOC

investigators have made, news of which I expect to be

forthcoming later this year.

Along with SIGIR, the ICCTF includes the U.S. Army's

Criminal Investigative Division's Major Procurement Fraud

Unit, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the FBI,

and the inspectors general of the Department of State and the

Agency for International Development.

SIGIR is also part of the DOJ National Procurement Fraud

Task Force. We continue to work closely with DOJ in the

investigation and prosecution of our cases.

Finally, to coordinate efforts in oversight in Iraq, I

formed the Iraq Inspector Generals' Council, IIGC, 3 years

ago, which brings together every agency with oversight

authority in Iraq for a meeting every quarter. The IIGC

exists to deconflict and coordinate the member agencies'

oversight efforts in Iraq.

SIGIR is not limiting its efforts just to addressing

contractor misconduct through the criminal justice system. We

also refer cases to the U.S. government's administrative

debarment and suspension processes. To date, the competent

oversight authorities have, through established rules that

preserve due process, suspended 17 companies and individuals,

debarred ten, and have another nine pending debarments.

To date, SIGIR has produced 13 quarterly reports, 86 audit

reports, and 90 inspection reports. Our auditors and

inspectors regularly refer investigative leads to our

investigators some of which have developed into very

significant cases. The Bloom-Stein case is just one example.

SIGIR's three lessons-learned reports produced to date have

provided recommendations on policies designed to improve

economy, efficiency and effectiveness for the Iraq program

and for future reconstruction and stabilization operations.

The reports have prompted the introduction of reform measures

in the Congress that will improve contracting processes.

SIGIR is at work on a lessons-learned capping report, which

will be produced at the end of this year. It is my hope that

our lessons learned reports will prompt reforms that will

improve the capacity of law enforcement to deter crime.

Mr. Chairman, with respect to H.R. 400, Representative

Abercrombie's bill entitled the ``War Profiteering Prevention

Act of 2007,'' our position is essentially what it was when

we were asked to reflect on its counterpart at a Senate

hearing this past March. SIGIR remains a strong proponent of

legislation that would strengthen efforts to punish fraud or

abuse in contracting programs in Iraq or elsewhere. We look

forward to working with the Department of Justice to enforce

H.R. 400, should it become law. We are, however, unaware of

instances where the Justice Department was unable to

prosecute, under existing law, on the facts we developed in

our investigations.

One of our responsibilities in Iraq is to encourage

efficiency in the reconstruction effort. In that role, we

have prompted management to seek the widest possible

participation by business enterprises (especially Iraqi

firms) in reconstruction. The security risks in Iraq are

self-evident, and thus the risks to any business enterprise

operating in such an environment are mammoth. International

companies likely will not get into the business of

reconstruction in Iraq without incentives that render the

risk-taking worthwhile. This reality should figure in the

development of legislation that affects contracting in Iraq

or similarly insecure environments.

Whether H.R. 400 becomes law, SIGIR will continue to

aggressively pursue investigations, provide robust oversight

through audits and inspections, and will press for more

efforts to improve contract administration, quality

assurance, and quality control. It is my hope that our

continuing efforts will help promote an aim we all share--a

reconstruction program that is administered and executed

honestly, and is as well-managed and efficient as possible

under very challenging circumstances.

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for your

time and attention to these important matters, and I look

forward to answering your questions.

I want to pay a special thank you, a big mahalo, to Mr. Scott and to the Judiciary Committee for their hard work. I am very grateful to the ranking members, the Republicans and Democrats. We cannot resolve this without seeing to it that we have a bipartisan approach on this.

I am particularly grateful to Senator Pat Leahy, who is the Judiciary Chairman in the Senate, for entrusting this bill to our care here in the House and allowing me to introduce it as a companion bill to the one that has passed in the Senate. I am very hopeful that we can get a vote in the Senate and move this to the President's desk.

When the wrong computer equipment arrived in Iraq, the contractor ordered it dumped into a mammoth burn pit and placed an order for replacements, rather than sending it back. The government paid for both the wrong computers and the replacements. The contractor collected a fee for each, thanks to a cost-plus contract.

Halliburton had drivers driving empty trucks between bases in Iraq, unnecessarily exposing the drivers to danger, because the company was paid by the trip, not by the amount of materiel hauled or a flat fee; $186 million was spent over 2 years to build 142 health care centers, yet only 15 have been completed and only eight are open. According to testimony, the contractor lacked qualified engineers, hired incompetent subcontractors, failed to supervise construction work, and failed to enforce quality control.

A large U.S. construction company was paid tens of millions of dollars to repair Iraq's schools. Many of the schools were never touched, and several that were repaired, and I say that in quotes, were left in shambles, one filled with unflushed sewage.

At least 10 companies with billions of dollars in contracts have already been forced to pay up to $300 million in penalties to resolve allegations of bid-rigging, fraud, gross overcharging, delivery of faulty military parts and environmental damage, $300 million in penalties. Some of these same companies have faced such allegations during past military operations in other countries, but have had no problem receiving new contracts in Iraq.

Despite millions of dollars in payments to U.S. companies, key pieces of Iraq's infrastructure, power plants, telephone exchanges, sewage and sanitation systems, have either not been repaired or have been fixed so poorly that they still don't function.

How has this been allowed to happen? The United States Government directly and through the late Coalition Provisional Authority have outsourced the war in Iraq like no other in our history, spending more than $50 billion on private contractors to provide food, water, gasoline and other supplies, guard bases, drive trucks, and many other activities in support of our troops.

But consistent with the administration's overall attitude toward spending public money with private companies, little or no thought was given to contract oversight or accountability. As a result, some of these contractors have declared the U.S. occupation of Iraq open season on the taxpayer. Cleaning up this mess has been hampered by the fact that while anti-fraud laws protect against the waste or theft of U.S. taxpayers in the United States, there have been no statutes prohibiting sleazy business practices by American companies overseas.

As we have learned in the investigation of the Blackwater USA contract, the Coalition Provisional Authority issued order number 17, which specifically exempted U.S. contractors from Iraqi law.

In fact, one contractor was found guilty of 37 counts of fraud, including false billing, and was ordered to pay more than $10 million in damages, but the decision was overturned because the contracts were let through the Coalition Provisional Authority, and it was found that U.S. laws against fraud did not apply.

Despite the fact that the Coalition Provisional Authority was created by the Bush administration under the Department of Defense; despite the fact

that L. Paul Bremer, the overseer in Iraq, subsequent to the initial attack on Iraq, had an office literally across the hall from Secretary Rumsfeld, the Coalition Provisional Authority was not considered part of the U.S. Government, and, therefore, U.S. laws were unenforceable.

These practices are a flagrant abuse of the public's trust and the public's money during a time of war and cannot be allowed to continue. H.R. 400, the War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007, will, one, criminalize war profiteering defined as contract fraud or overcharging for goods and services in connection with the mission of the United States Government overseas; two, violations of law will be a felony and punishable up to 20 years in prison and fines up to $1 million or twice the illegal profits of the crime; three, jurisdiction for such cases, no matter where the alleged crimes are committed, will be in the United States Federal court.

H.R. 400 was heard and considered by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security and ordered reported to the full Judiciary Committee by a voice vote on August 1. Among the many significant consequences of the decision to invade and occupy Iraq marked by a complete dismissal of the need for intelligent planning and stunning incompetence in the conduct of the war, this problem has received too little attention from the news media, the public, and the Congress.

Most of the cases of fraud, questionable business practices and outright corruption have been uncovered and investigated through the efforts of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, Mr. Stuart Bowen, Jr. Mr. Bowen and his super staff both here in the U.S. and on the ground in Iraq have provided oversight and insight under the most difficult conditions imaginable for billions of American taxpayer dollars intended to rebuild Iraq and support our troops in combat. They deserve our gratitude. They deserve the gratitude of the Congress and the Nation for a tough job well done.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, together with H.R. 2740, legislation passed by this House last week to expand the reach of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to private civilian security operatives in the region are two important steps this Congress is taking to clean up the mess in Iraq.

H.R. 400, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the War Profiteering Prevention Act will help end the open season declared on American taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I find it very unfortunate that my good friend from Virginia has taken a position that the bill in any way encourages the whims of prosecutors. As Mr. Scott has pointed out, the standard is very high and applies to any contract, whether it's in the United States or overseas. There is nothing applied to the contracts overseas that is not applied to a contract here in the United States when it comes to the question of fraud or overcharging or deliberate deception with regard to the contract. That standard has to be met in any court and has to come before any judge meeting such a standard. There is no differentiation whatsoever.

The reason the bill is here, and the reason we're bringing the legislation, is the courts have ruled that there is, at best, an ambiguous situation, if not an outright gap between the capacity for prosecution of such a crime, should the standard for the crime be sustained by a prosecutorial investigation, and what is possible in Iraq. It can't be prosecuted in Iraq, and the courts found that it wasn't. We did not have legislation sufficiently clear in the United States in order to prosecute it. Thus, far from arbitrary or capricious prosecution, we have the opportunity for arbitrary defrauding of the United States taxpayer with no consequences. That's why the legislation is here.

I thank the gentleman.

I am going to speak a little bit during our section on this bill, but I just wanted to invite the majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, to come back down to the floor and to talk a little bit about the statement that he just made to the effect that there hasn't been any oversight over the last several years.

I am reminded of our teams that left the Armed Services Committee, went out to the companies that were up-armoring Humvees, started to move that schedule to the left, that means getting those Humvees quicker to the troops; and when they were told that there was a steel shortage, moving to the steel mills, finding out what the problem was. When they were told it might be a problem with too many shifts or not enough shifts with union employees, meeting with union employees, getting those shifts put on line, getting that steel produced, getting it to the Humvee factories and moving it out to the field.

I am also reminded of the times when we moved ahead quickly with what the gentleman has criticized as sole-source contracts when our troops in the field didn't have any dismounted jammers. That means the ability to stop an electronic signal that fires off a roadside bomb that hurts our troops. This committee moved quickly to give the Secretary of Defense the ability to waive all acquisition and competition regulations so you could do one thing, get equipment that protects our troops to the battlefield quicker. And we did that in terms of the first dismounted jammer that we produced, something that a marine or a GI could carry on a patrol that would keep a bad guy from detonating a roadside bomb that could kill him or his squad. Using this new system instead of the old system, we were able to, R&D, build in the United States and move into the warfighting theater 10,000 jammers for our troops within 70 days.

Now, the system that the gentleman is wedded to and loves so much, the slow system, the system in which you have interminable appeals, in which you have competitions that take months and months, sometimes years, is now working on the next generation of portable jammer. It has been a year, and we don't have that jammer fielded yet for troops in a portable fashion.

So I would just say to the gentleman who has been criticizing the contractor corps, 389 American contractors have been killed in this war so far, in this war against terror. They are great people, probably some of them from the gentleman's district. And the idea that he is trying to offer to this body, which I think is smart enough to reject that idea, that somehow there was no oversight in the theater, and by making these fairly minor changes, and these are fairly minor changes, we marked them up, they are nips and tucks in the oversight system. Somehow the judgment of the thousands of people who oversee our contracts around the world will now go from bad to good. That is obviously in great error. In fact, the same people are in place administering contracts; the same people are risking their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan to

support our warfighters. And by and large, they are doing an excellent job.

And we are going to get into later, into the added restrictions that the majority has placed on people who are participating in contract decisions, participating in a broad category called ``administering'' and the vagueness that attaches to that that might make a person civilly liable if they walk into the wrong meeting at the wrong time and they are ultimately prosecuted or fined civilly for making that mistake.

You know, we have great members of our staffs in the Armed Services Committee and indeed in all the committees in the House of Representatives. We shouldn't put a more onerous burden on the people that work in the rest of government than we would put on our own staff.

And I would say to my colleagues, one thing you have got to have when you have penalties, whether they are civil or criminal, that attach to action, you better define the action and you better define it clearly enough that staff members know exactly what they are doing and know exactly where the line is so they don't cross that line.

And let me just finish by saying that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who I consider to be a friend, has done a real disservice to the great men and women who serve in a contracting capacity for this country by implying that somehow they haven't been doing their job and somehow the committees of this Congress have not been doing their job in this war against terror.

I thank my friend from Virginia for yielding me a couple of minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I have given a fair amount of consideration to this bill, H.R. 1362. I have a couple of observations to share with you.

First, I am very proud of the work that the Armed Services Committee has done with respect to this bill to craft what I consider to be a better bill. I want to thank the chairman, my good friend from Missouri, Mr. Ike Skelton, for making sure that we participated in this markup and holding the markup of H.R. 1362.

I had serious concerns about the original bill as reported out of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, including a number of provisions that, through amending title 10, U.S. Code, and other procurement regulations, would have had the effect of preventing the Department of Defense from serving warfighter needs in the most expeditious manner possible. That is an issue that I spoke to just a minute ago in my exchange with Mr. Waxman.

As my colleagues from the Armed Services Committee know, this committee has given a great deal of attention to matters pertaining to acquisition reform. This has been especially true during wartime as our committee has worked hard to ensure that the brave men and women serving our country receive what they need when they need it as they deploy to Iraq, Afghanistan, and other theaters of operation.

At the same time, we have been vigorous advocates for competition and cost control measures. I firmly believe that the Armed Services Committee is best suited to properly balance the need for improving accountability in defense contracting while at the same time ensuring that the Department of Defense can carry out its duties to the warfighter. I am pleased that the chairman agreed to hold an Armed Services Committee markup of this bill. In continuing its rich tradition of deliberation and robust oversight of matters within its jurisdiction, the committee produced a higher quality piece of legislation.

I supported Chairman Skelton's mark because I believe the mark remedied the most serious deficiencies of the base bill and was truly a bipartisan measure. The Armed Services Committee mark encouraged competition and cost controls while protecting procurement flexibilities important to the national interest.

Secondly, it provided Congress with additional tools for oversight and reinforced standards of integrity widely held by the dedicated men and women of the defense acquisition workforce.

But, unfortunately, we are not here today to vote for the Armed Services Committee mark. We are not even here to vote for the Committee on Oversight Government Reform mark, which leads me to my second set of observations.

We are here today to vote for a piece of legislation that was not voted out of any committee. Those who would say this bill received unanimous support in two committees would not be telling it as it is. The full truth is that the Speaker wanted to put a rush on this bill so she could say Congress did something about contract reform. It was introduced late one night, and in 24 hours it was being voted out of committee. In two more business days a markup was scheduled in the Committee on Armed Services. Late that night, additional text was added that changed the bill yet again, and I think in a potentially dangerous way.

But no member of Oversight and Government Reform or Armed Services got to vote on those changes. Instead, the language simply appeared out of nowhere and the rule for H.R. 1362 let the new bill move to the floor.

What would the new language do? It is hard to say because the text is subject to broad interpretation, which is precisely what concerns me. One thing can safely be said. It is ironic that the original bill would have required agencies to hire thousands of additional personnel, but at the same time this new language would presume those personnel are dishonest and would attempt to restrict their decisionmaking ability or their ability to seek further employment.

I am all for accountability and performance in Federal contracting. I am likewise for accountability and performance in the legislative branch. Frankly, I am disappointed in the final product of this bill, and I am referring to the parts that were put in after we marked up our portion of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, let me go right back to Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Waxman and their assertion that somehow we are leaving a period of no oversight, and they have brought now oversight to the warfighting process and accountability for the contracts that are let pursuant to this war against terror. That is absolutely not the truth.

As anybody knows when you are fighting a war, you need to move quickly. I use once again the example of the jammers that we got out the door under a new waiver strategy where you waive all acquisition regulations. You go in and build something that the troops need immediately on the battlefield. You don't give a 6-month appeal to the folks that lose the competition. You don't give small business set- asides because there is one thing you don't have, you don't have time.

When we have troops that are experiencing bombs on the battlefield that are detonated remotely, you have to move quickly to get the jammers that will jam that electronic device. When you have new explosives that are penetrating your Humvees, you have to get steel on the sides of those Humvees quickly.

When you are moving a military force down the road and you have to get fuel to that force, whether it is in movement or in base, you have to move quickly. You cannot have 6-month appeal periods. You cannot have buyers'

forums that take months to set up. You have to move quickly.

Now, when you have time, you want to absolutely have competition, and I can just tell my colleagues that that is always in my interest to have competition, get the best buy for the buck, and we have had a number of forums incidentally. We introduced the Challenge Program where any company that could come in and say, I could make a better tire for the Humvee than the incumbent, or I can make a better windshield or a better engine, that guy or lady has got the right to go in and challenge the incumbent company that has the present contract and show how they can do it cheaper or make something that has better warfighting capability. We introduced that legislation. That is called the Challenge Legislation.

But let us not mix that up with this idea that somehow you can have competition on every single aspect of the battlefield, and when you need a new jammer to stop roadside bombs, you go out and you start a month-long search, and then you have a 6-month competition, and then after the award you have a 6-month appeal, and by that time you are ready for the next war. You are not even relevant to the situation that is hurting your young men and women on the battlefield right now.

So there is some good substance in this bill, and I like it, but there is a lot of rhetoric. There is a lot of worthless, political rhetoric that preceded this bill, and I hope that the American people will not be snagged by that one. There are times that you have to move quickly.

I am reminded of one contractor that came back. One of the contractors who was not one of the 389 who has been killed in this war, and he showed me a picture of a crater, of a mortar crater. He said, That is where I was standing 5 minutes before that mortar landed. He said, I do not care how much you award this contract for, I am not going back to that dangerous AO.

Let me tell you, there are a lot of people who do go back time and time again. They are good Americans. They are honest Americans, and they are the same folks carrying out the contracting and administering the support of our Armed Forces who were there 6 months ago. The idea that somehow they have been crooked up to now, that now they are going to be straightened out by Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Waxman is absolutely outrageous.

So having said those gentle words, I look forward to the continued discussion. Mr. Waxman has taken the floor. I would be happy to yield to Mr. Waxman if he has got a rejoinder.

Let me just take my time back. I am not making it personal. Mr. Waxman made a statement, I am talking. Mr. Waxman, I will let you respond to this. We are not making it personal.

What I am telling you is that there are exigencies in the battlefield, and you got this from your own leadership, gentlemen like Mr. Murtha who said you cannot have these long delays in awarding contracts and have this vigorous oversight period; you cannot have that hold up a battlefield situation. You do have to award sole-source contracts, and you have to award them to people who can move very quickly and get things done. That is my point.

The idea that we are supposed to stop that or that we have not exercised any oversight is simply not accurate. There is no personal animosity toward you as a fine Member of this body, but those statements are not accurate, and I yield to the gentleman.

If the gentleman will allow me to say this, I think that that is a good provision. In fact, we supported that provision in the Armed Services markup.

Let me tell you a provision I do not support, and maybe you can help us with this. You refer in the revolving door that says that a person cannot take a job with a company in which he has administered----

Would the gentleman allow me to have a minute of his time so I can just offer this one point?

I thank the gentleman. Mr. Waxman, the two provisions that were put in after the markup, the one that talks about a person who participates in a meeting as a senior staff, that means if a person walks in a room and if they are involved in a discussion, they could be subjected to massive civil penalties at a later time if there is a contract awarded.

I would simply say that I think in areas where you have civil penalties you have to have great clarity, and I have not seen a definition of ``senior staff'' or ``senior participants'' in DOD, and I think that that is a real problem. I think it is a problem of vagueness and one that could keep people from entering the civil service in this role and in this capacity.

Mr. Chairman, let me just rejoin to that. We have looked up ``personally'' and ``substantially.'' That could involve standing there in a room and giving advice. So that can be just a person giving advice which could expose them to a $50,000 civil penalty, from what I have seen.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, let me just say about the major points of this bill, which we marked up, that we are in agreement with it. Contrary to Mr. Waxman, we did look at them before we came to the floor.

We agree with the no more than 1 year for sole source, that is good; the plan to minimize use of sole source, that is good; maximize fixed- price procurement, that is good; quarterly report to Congress, good; codify the right to review unredacted copies of reports, that is good.

What I think you need to be very careful about, because if you are going to penalize people, if you are going to give them $50,000 civil penalties, you need to have it clearly laid out for those people who may be professional members of our staffs, who may be good people who come in from the outside and go to work in DOD and wanting to serve this country, let's make sure that walking into a room and participating in a conversation about a contract doesn't then expose them to civil penalties later on.

So I am looking at title III, and I am looking at the word on line 17, it talks about participated personally and substantially at a senior personnel level.

Does that mean, and this relates, of course, to elimination of loopholes that allow former Federal officials to accept compensation from contractors or related entities? I think that is good.

But I think we need to make it very clear as to whether a staff member, like one of your staff members, Mr. Waxman, going to work for DOD, who walks in a room and is asked a question about a defense system and answers that question, participates in the conversation, whether he has then violated the law.

Now, if you turn, and I want you to take a look at that, that is line 18. Now, turn the next page, page 14, and go down to the bottom, and it talks about the administration of a contract, which could also be a violation of a law.

So if one of your former staff members or one of mine who goes to work for DOD should participate in the administration, let me just ask you, ask the gentleman from California, if it's a defense system, and your former staff member is assigned to go out to a range to see if that piece of equipment has arrived at the range and if it's being tested, is that involving itself in administration of the contract? Is that person, that former staff member of yours, now involved in administration such as to expose him to civil penalties? That is my question. I think we need to have that clarified.

Mr. Speaker, I like this motion to recommit. You know, all of us have shown our support for the troops. Almost every Member in this body has shown support by traveling to the warfighting theaters. This is a chance to show support in another way, to show that we believe that the military is an outstanding profession, one which many of our young people who are in institutions of higher education may want to engage in. And this elevates, I think, the military profession by showing that we accord it respect by putting this requirement in this motion to recommit.

So I thank the gentleman for offering it. I think it is excellent. I would commend it to all the Members of this body. And I want to thank the chairman for his offering of the base bill, and for the ranking member, Mr. Davis, for their hard work.

Mr. Presdient, earlier this week, I joined the majority leader in the introduction of S. 3297, the Advancing America's Priorities Act. The majority leader selected 35 legislative items from the jurisdiction of seven Senate committees, including eight bills from that of the Senate Judiciary Committee, for this effort. These are all measures with bipartisan support and, we believe, the support of a strong bipartisan majority of the Senate. I have moved several through the Judiciary Committee, and several have already passed the House. All have the support of all Democratic Senators, and all were cleared for unanimous Senate passage, but each has been stalled on the Senate floor by Republican objection.

One key bill included in this package is the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act. I thank Senator Dodd and Congressman Lewis for their tireless work on this bill over the last 4 years. It will strengthen the ability of the Federal Government to investigate and prosecute unsolved murders from the civil rights era. It would create new cold case units in the Justice Department and FBI dedicated to investigating and prosecuting unsolved cases involving violations of criminal civil rights statutes which resulted in death and occurred before January 1, 1970. The Senate legislation was introduced on February 8, 2007. I was proud to cosponsor Senator Dodd's bill. The Judiciary Committee reported it by unanimous consent as amended on June 20, 2007, more than a year ago. The House legislation passed the House on June 20, 2007, more than a year ago, by a vote of 422 to 2. Its Republican cosponsors include Senator Cochran,

Senator Hatch, Senator Alexander, and Senator Cornyn.

Yesterday I had the privilege of meeting Emmett Till's cousin, Simeon Wright, who was with him that terrible night. The brutal killing of Emmett Till galvanized this Nation. I want to acknowledge Mr. Wright's courage and his commitment to fight for justice for all these years.

The primary purpose of the Till bill is to track down those whose violent acts during a period of national turmoil remain unpunished. By passing this legislation, we honor Emmett Till and all those who sacrificed their lives advancing civil rights. It is disgraceful that it has taken us so long to take this basic step to pursue justice too long delayed. It is incredible to me that some continue to obstruct these efforts. It reminds me of those who so adamantly opposed a national holiday to recognize the contributions of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the progress this country has made toward equal justice.

Another important piece of legislation in this bill is the reauthorization of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. Many Vermonters have told me how much that act is needed to help young people in Vermont and around the country. I held a hearing in Rutland this year on crime in small cities and towns, which emphasized the need for programs to help young people in difficult circumstances, and held another here in Washington on this measure before the Judiciary Committee reported it in April. The companion House bill passed in June.

In addition, the eight Judiciary Committee related bills include several concerning child pornography, exploitation and drugs. The Effective Child Pornography Prosecution Act passed the House 409 to 0 last November; the Enhancing the Effective Prosecution of Child Pornography provision passed the House 416 to 0 last November; the PROTECT Our Children Act passed the House 415 to 2 last November; the Drug Endangered Children Act passed the House last September 389 to 4. All of these bills have been cleared by all Democratic Senators.

Thus, the Judiciary Committee components in S. 3297 are all measures that should have passed the Senate long ago. Two of the eight have Republican Senators as their lead sponsors. Others have Republican cosponsors.

People are rightly worried about keeping their communities safe and protecting their children. The Judiciary Committee has worked throughout this Congress to advance these priorities of Americans. Sadly, these important efforts have been obstructed by Republican objections. I hope that all Senators will join together tomorrow to pass S. 3297 without further delay.

The bill we will consider tomorrow contains eight Judiciary Committee-related pieces. There were selected from many more bills that have been reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee and that have passed the House. All these bills have the support of every Democratic Senator, and it is Republican objections, usually anonymous objections, that are keeping them from passing.

Let me mention some of the others:

S. 879, No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act of 2007--this bill would make it illegal for any foreign state or any instrumentality or agent of a foreign state to act collectively with another foreign state to limit the production, set the price, or take any other action to restrain trade of oil, natural gas, or any petroleum product. The actions of OPEC to limit production of oil, natural gas, and other petroleum products result in higher prices of crude oil and, thus, gasoline in the United States. These actions are having a harmful effect on American consumers. This legislation will make clear that the actions of nations and their agents to limit supply and fix prices of oil, natural gas, and other petroleum products to affect the U.S. market violates U.S. antitrust law, and it will authorize the Attorney General to enforce antitrust law against such nations and prevent technical legal doctrines such as sovereign immunity and act of state from preventing actions for redress.

S. 368, COPS Improvements Act of 2007--this bill would reauthorize and improve the Department of Justice's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS. Since 1994, the programs created by the COPS initiative have helped drive down crime rates. The COPS Program would restore vital programs that have been cut at a time when our law enforcement officers need it most. S. 368 would authorize $600 million to hire officers to engage in community policing, intelligence gathering and antiterror initiatives, and to serve as school resource officers. It would authorize $350 million per year for technology grants and $200 million per year to help local district attorneys hire community prosecutors. Also, it would establish the COPS office as an entity within the Department of Justice to carry out these functions and activities under the COPS Program in order to eliminate duplication of efforts.

S. 119/H.R. 400, War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007--this legislation would strengthen the tools available to Federal law enforcement to combat contracting fraud during times of war, military action, or relief or reconstruction activities. It would also extend extraterritorial jurisdiction in an attempt to reach fraudulent conduct wherever it occurs. The bill would create a new criminal fraud offense in title 18 of the U.S. Code to prohibit fraudulent acts involving the provision of goods or services in connection with a war, military action, or relief or reconstruction activities.

S. 185, Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007--this bill would repeal provisions of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that eliminated the jurisdiction of any court to hear or consider applications for a writ of habeas corpus filed by aliens who have been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as enemy combatants. Passage of this bill would restore the basic and essential right to challenge arbitrary detention by the Government to noncitizens, including the 12 million lawful permanent residents currently in this country, who under current law may be held forever with no recourse to challenge their detention in court. This legislation will contribute to renewed global respect for American values and the rule of law.

S. 2511, a bill to amend the grant program for law enforcement armor vests to provide for a waiver of or reduction in the matching funds requirement in the case of fiscal hardship--this bill would amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to authorize the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance to waive, in whole or in part, matching fund requirements applicable to the grant program for the purchase of armor vests for law enforcement officers.

S. 2344, Internet Safety Education Act of 2007--this bill would create a competitive grant program for eligible organizations to carry out free, age-appropriate programs that promote Internet safety for children. This would give educators and parents the tools necessary to teach proper online interactions and promote safe Internet usage to their students and children in an age-appropriate manner.

H.R. 3095, to amend the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 to modify a deadline relating to a certain election by Indian tribes--this bipartisan bill would provide Indian tribes a 1-year extension in which to decide how to comply with the requirements of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. The Adam Walsh Act enacted new requirements for States and Indian tribes to maintain sex offender registration information, post such information on the Internet, and share such information among States and other Indian tribes. The Justice Department proposed detailed regulations for States and Indian tribes to comply with the Adam Walsh Act, but those regulations are not yet final. The Indian tribes cannot make an informed decision on how to comply with the act until those regulations are final. This 1-year extension would give Indian tribes sufficient time to make appropriate choices.

S. 267/H.R. 545, Native American Methamphetamine Enforcement and Treatment Act--this bill would ensure that Indian tribes are able to apply for grant programs authorized by the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act. When Congress passed the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act, tribes were unintentionally left out as eligible applicants in some of these programs. This bill would clarify that

territories and Indian communities are eligible to receive the resources they need to fight methamphetamine use.

S. 877, Controlling the Abuse of Prescriptions Act of 2007--this bill seeks to crack down on performance-enhancing drugs by putting human growth hormone on the same list of controlled substances as anabolic steroids. Classifying human growth hormone, HGH, as a schedule III controlled substance would subject the drug to more Government regulation and stiffer penalties for illegal distribution.

S. 1027, PACT Act--this bill would help combat cigarette trafficking by updating existing antitrafficking laws and introducing new tools to combat illegal remote sales, such as those conducted over the Internet. The legislation closes loopholes in current tobacco trafficking laws, enhances penalties for violations, and provides law enforcement with new tools to combat the innovative new methods being used by cigarette traffickers to distribute their products. By strengthening criminal laws governing cigarette trafficking and empowering Federal, State, and local law enforcement with the powers to investigate and prosecute the cigarette traffickers of the 21st century, the PACT Act can help disrupt terrorist groups and other organized criminal enterprises.

S. 627, Safe Babies Act of 2007--this bill would amend the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 to require the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to award a grant to a national early childhood development organization to establish a National Court Teams Resource Center. The goals of the Center would be to promote the well-being of maltreated infants and toddlers and their families, help prevent the recurrence of abuse and neglect of children, and promote timely reunification of families.

H.R. 5569, to extend for 5 years the EB-5 Regional Center Pilot Program, and for other purposes--this bill would extend the EB-5 Regional Center Program for 5 years. This program allows entrepreneurs from around the country to apply for Regional Center designation with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which in turn allows project managers to attract foreign investment to discrete projects within specified geographic areas, many of which are rural areas in need of economic stimulation. Over the years, this program has resulted in foreign capital investment of billions of dollars and the creation of thousands of jobs in American communities. This important program is set to expire on September 30, 2008, and its reauthorization is critical for the many Americans who depend upon this program to make positive economic changes to their communities.

S. 442, John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2007--this bill would establish a student loan repayment program for qualified attorneys who agree to remain employed for at least 3 years in certain public sector employment. This targeted student loan repayment assistance program will bolster the ranks of attorneys in the criminal justice system, enhancing the quality of that system and the public's confidence in it.

S. 3296, to extend the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court Police to protect court officials off the Supreme Court grounds and change the title of the Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice--this bill would extend for 5 years the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court Police to protect Supreme Court Justices when they leave the Supreme Court grounds. In January of this year, the Court Security Improvement Act was signed into law to authorize additional resources to protect Federal judges, personnel, and courthouses. This additional legislation would extend the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court Police to protect the Supreme Court Justices on and off Court grounds. It would also change the title of the Chief Justice's senior advisor from ``Administrative Assistant'' to ``Counselor.''

S. 3106, a bill to amend chapter 13 of title 17, United States Code, relating to the vessel hull design protection, to clarify the definitions of a hull and a deck--this bill would give the Department of Defense full assurance that Government and defense designs will not be subject to unwarranted restrictions. In 1998, Congress passed the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act to recognize the significant time, effort, and innovation that figure into ship design. Recent action in the courts has made it clear that in order to be effective, this law needs to be clarified and refined. This bill does exactly that by clarifying the definition of ``hull'' and ``deck,'' to ensure that the intellectual property rights of vessel hull designers would be protected.

H.R. 6344, Responsive Government Act of 2008--this bill would provide the Federal courts and the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office, PTO, with needed emergency authority to delay judicial proceedings or statutory deadlines in the event of a natural disaster or other emergency situation which makes it impractical for parties, including the United States, to comply with certain filing conditions or to protect the rights and privileges of people affected by certain emergencies or a major disaster. We have recently observed how the ravages of natural disasters disrupt the lives of our fellow citizens, which can impede the ability to comply with strict statutory deadlines. Thus the Responsive Government Act provides critical flexibility to the courts and the PTO to help ameliorate the practical difficulties caused by these emergency situations.

S. 621, Wartime Treatment Study Act--this bill would establish two factfinding commissions to supplement the work done in the 1980s by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, which studied the treatment of Japanese Americans during World War II. The act would create one commission to review the U.S. Government's treatment of German Americans, Italian Americans, and European Latin Americans during World War II, and another commission to review the U.S. Government's treatment of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution during World War II.

S. 2942, a bill to authorize funding for the National Advocacy Center--this bill would authorize the National District Attorneys Association to use the National Advocacy Center in Columbia, SC, for a national training program to improve the professional skills of State and local prosecutors and to enhance the ability of Federal, State, and local prosecutors to work together.

I hope that those Republican Senators who are holding up these measures will work with me by coming forward and letting me know what it is in the bill that they find objectionable. That way, we might be able to work something out to accommodate them. But when they object anonymously and do not come forward to work with us, it seems they are only interested in obstruction.