Statement of the Honorable John D. Dingell on Amendment Restricting Funds to Contractors That Have Overcharged Government
Washington, DC -Representative John D. Dingell (MI-15) offered the following statement in debate today on the Waxman-Dingell Amendment to HR 4939, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006. The proposal would have prohibited funds from being awarded for new contracts to contractors, like Halliburton, which have been found by the Defense Contract Audit Agency to have had more than $100 million in unreasonable costs in contracts involving work in Iraq. The House voted down the Amendment, 225-193.
"Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to deny further awards of contracts to contractors that have been found by the Defense auditors to have billed the government for more than $100 million in unreasonable costs.
"From the moment Representative Waxman and I learned about secret no-bid contracts given to large companies like Halliburton in 2003, for activities in Iraq, we have tried to get the facts on the matter. And it has not been easy to get those facts.
"In the course of our investigation, with the help of the Government Accountability Office, we have learned of some pretty terrible things. First, we found that Halliburton was importing oil into Iraq at extremely high prices. We were particularly concerned about the company's decision to import gasoline from Kuwait at a price far above market levels.
"Eventually, Defense auditors agreed and found that there were $263 million in unsupported and questioned costs in these contracts. Yet last month, the Corps of Engineers ignored their auditors and reimbursed Halliburton for $254 million -- all but $9 million of the questioned costs.
"This follows a pattern with Halliburton. The Defense auditors had previously questioned $200 million in costs for meal services provided by the company, which again was overruled by the Army, which gave the company $145 million.
"This amendment to deny new contracts to companies that have a history of billing the government for questionable costs is hardly novel. In January, 2004, the Defense Contract Audit Agency itself recommended that the Corps not enter into new contracts with Halliburton, but three days later the Army awarded Halliburton a new $1.2 billion contract.
"The amendment before us will ensure that taxpayer money will go to support the troops and help rebuild infrastructure and not fatten the pockets of contractors that have a history of questionable billing practices. I emphasize this amendment will not take any funds away from troop support, but will help support the troops.
"It is an embarrassment that there have been virtually no Congressional hearings on the matter. Instead, we must act legislatively.
"The best course of action to ensure that our money is going where it is needed in support of the troops is to put an end to future contracts with companies that are serial overchargers. Vote for this amendment."
http://www.house.gov/dingell/documents/press_releases/109th_Session2/03-16-06_2.htm