PDA

View Full Version : Republicans strip Iraq anti-profiteering provision




Pinto
Nov 6, 2003, 01:03 AM
link (http://www.thehill.com/news/110503/profiteering.aspx)

More of the same. The Whitehouse is rotten to the core, and to think almost half of you people voted for these pirates.

_A decision by the House Republicans to strip the Iraq supplemental bill of an anti-profiteering provision has outraged the Democrats.

Some Democrats have accused the White House of pulling the strings on the effort to nix the language.

“The White House and House GOP leadership didn’t want [the provision] in there,” charged Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), an author of the language.

The provision — included during the Senate Appropriations Committee markup with unanimous support but removed in conference — would have subjected those who deliberately defrauded the United States or Iraq to jail terms of up to 20 years and costly fines.
A Senate Democratic aide said, “Several House Republican conferees were clearly empathetic, but they had to look to a higher authority. That higher authority was the White House, which had sent the marching order to strip this from the bill.”

Another Democratic aide said that “the White House got to House Republicans.” The aide pointed to Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner’s (R-Wis.) support for the provision — the lawmaker chairs the authorizing committee but was not a member of the conference — and the unwillingness of House Republicans to compromise on the language as evidence that the top White House staff may have given the marching orders.

At a Democratic Policy Committee hearing, Melanie Sloan, executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, testified that “Halliburton [formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney] has charged an average price of $2.65 a gallon of gasoline imported into Iraq from Kuwait, despite experts’ conclusions that the total price should be less than $1 a gallon.”

Sloan added that Iraq’s state oil company is importing “the exact same gas” for 97 cents. She concluded that between $286 million and $339 million of the $900 million the administration has requested for the importation of petroleum products could be wasted “if Halliburton’s pricing practices are not stopped.”

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), who chaired the hearing, said, “Is there anything more ironic than getting ripped off on the price of oil imports in Iraq, of all places?”

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said at the hearing that following passage of the Iraq supplemental bill there would be a “festive atmosphere on K Street.”

Durbin said the Iraq spending bill opens the door for “fat and sloppy good-old-boy contracts.” The lawmaker said that those seeking greater transparency were unable to examine many contracts because they are classified. Asserting that this has nothing to do with security, Durbin added, “This administration classifies anything that might be embarrassing.”

_Other attempts by Congress to require more accountability for spending the money, especially the reconstruction funds, were for the most part watered down or removed.

White House staff did not respond to a request for comment.

America gets the Government it deserves.



zimv20
Nov 6, 2003, 01:10 AM
somebody get me a bucket.

the corruption of this administration is so ****ing transparent. can anyone defend this? or are we too concerned about how reagan looks in his mini-series?

code101? g5man? does this make you proud of bush? is this how the republicans make america better? are the iraqi people more free now?

jonapete2001
Nov 6, 2003, 02:38 AM
This is petty. Who ever wants this bill in can bring as a seperate bill if they so choose. The problem is that it has no chance of passing by itself.

I do agree something like this should be passed into law, but maybe this provision is just to vague.

And i dont know what corruption you speak of. If a repblican president wants his senators and representatives to vote a certain way he has every legitamite right to try and convince them he is right. They dont have to.

ColoJohnBoy
Nov 6, 2003, 12:43 PM
Excuse me? WHAT CORRUPTION?!?! Have you been alive for the past four years?!?! I cannot believe how ignorant some people are.

jonapete2001
Nov 6, 2003, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by ColoJohnBoy
Excuse me? WHAT CORRUPTION?!?! Have you been alive for the past four years?!?! I cannot believe how ignorant some people are.

ignorant, tell me was there curroption in the clinton white house?

and what is the corruption? calling someone ignorant does not show actual curroption. Just enlighten me as to what is curropt in the white house.

zimv20
Nov 6, 2003, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by jonapete2001
ignorant, tell me was there curroption in the clinton white house?


we need a name for this tactic. the ol' "it's happened before, so it's allowable now" defense.

which completely ignores the severity of the issue, btw.

g5man
Nov 6, 2003, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
somebody get me a bucket.

the corruption of this administration is so ****ing transparent. can anyone defend this? or are we too concerned about how reagan looks in his mini-series?

code101? g5man? does this make you proud of bush? is this how the republicans make america better? are the iraqi people more free now?

I will not defend any actions by any Administration which will protect the crooked and encourage wasteful spending of our tax dollars.

The Iraqi people are more free now, by the way. There have been over 150 newspapers created.

Desertrat
Nov 6, 2003, 05:32 PM
Count me as a conservative who would like to see some form of anti-corruption law built into any public-private deal.

Not knowing the text of the Leahy Amendment, I have no way of knowing how broadly it defined "corruption" or how enforceable it would have been.

Has anybody gone to the Congressional website and tracked down the number of the Senate Bill, and its amendments? That would help to determine if the amendment was meaningful.

'Rat

wwworry
Nov 7, 2003, 06:02 AM
These companies are doing the work of the American people and should make a profit. Dick Cheney was smart enough to use his connections to get a job at Haliburton so why shouldn't he give a little back. I call that smart. Haliburton invested A LOT of money in Cheney so they have to be able to recoop that investment somehow.

mactastic
Nov 7, 2003, 08:26 AM
Profiting is fine by me. Profiteering is not. There's a difference.

wwworry
Nov 7, 2003, 04:07 PM
If the vice president's company thinks that's the correct price to pay then I think we ought to get behind the president and pay up. They got the no-bid contracts fair and square.

Taft
Nov 7, 2003, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by wwworry
If the vice president's company thinks that's the correct price to pay then I think we ought to get behind the president and pay up. They got the no-bid contracts fair and square.

Fudge that.

Ever hear of "market price"? Ever hear of a contracting bid?

Halliburton was awarded contracts without having a bidding process to determine who could offer the best price. With public funds, several offers must be considered to find the offer that represents the best deal both in terms of quality and price.

By bypassing the bidding process and awarding the contract to Halliburton, this administration was pandering to its friends and funders in corporate America. They sure weren't looking out for what is best for either the American people or the Iraqi people. Had they been, they would have considered the numerous other options available to them (including international contractors).

Taft

toontra
Nov 7, 2003, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by wwworry
These companies are doing the work of the American people and should make a profit. Dick Cheney was smart enough to use his connections to get a job at Haliburton so why shouldn't he give a little back. I call that smart. Haliburton invested A LOT of money in Cheney so they have to be able to recoop that investment somehow.

That's a fair assesment of the process underway; there's one word (intentionally?) missing from the above para: Iraq.

I find it grotesque that the US are dividing the spoils and sequestering the assets of a country they have invaded under the guise of liberation.

The decent thing to have done would have been to award short-term contracts to get the very basic infrastructure working to enable elections to be held within the next few months, then allow the Iraqi government to decide who they want running their industries and benefiting from exploiting their resources.

zimv20
Nov 7, 2003, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by wwworry
If the vice president's company thinks that's the correct price to pay then I think we ought to get behind the president and pay up. They got the no-bid contracts fair and square.

did you get hit in the head? this doesn't sound like you.

Sayhey
Nov 7, 2003, 09:21 PM
I'm assuming wwworry has his tongue firmly planted in his cheek.

If the language of Leahy's amendment was so terrible he wouldn't have got the support of republicans getting it out of committee. I'm going to have to find the "offending" language.