GovernmentExecutive.com

Legislation to nab unscrupulous businesses and people scheming to make exorbitant profits from the Iraq or other wars and reconstruction efforts sailed through the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

The bill (S. 119), which adds a new war profiteering and fraud section to the U.S. criminal code, was approved on a voice vote for Senate consideration.

"Last month this committee held a hearing on war profiteering in which we learned that rampant fraud and abuse undermines our troops in Iraq and threatens the reconstruction and relief activities," said Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. "According to our witnesses billions of dollars spent in Iraq remain unaccounted for, and the fraud and abuse we face in Iraq amounts to a 'second insurgency,'" he said.

Leahy recalled that witnesses told of schemes to steal millions of dollars from taxpayers through false invoices and bribing officials.

The bill does not have a successful history. Leahy, a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, managed to attach the war profiteering bill to an appropriations bill that passed the Senate in 2003. But he said it was stripped out in a House-Senate conference, "torpedoed by the White House and the House Republican leadership."

This year Leahy seemed a bit more confident under Democratic rule of Congress. One-fifth of the Senate has co-sponsored the bill, he said.

The measure carries prison sentences of up to 20 years plus million dollar fines for anyone who knowingly and willfully hatches a scheme to defraud the United States in connection with a war or reconstruction effort. Imprisonment up to 20 years and fines also could be levied against anyone who "materially overvalues" goods or services with the intent to defraud and capture excessive profits.

In the only amendment offered, Leahy succeeded by voice vote to make it clear that war profiteering violations can be the basis for money laundering or anti-racketeering prosecutions.

COMMENTS

• I’ll agree with the reasoning “anonymous” puts forth. Who today could deny it? But to recommend looking only at those with the “smallest amount of money in their election coffers”; might that not be looking at those not smart enough to learn how to play the game? As much as most of us hate politics, whenever you have two or more people with as many agendas, and limited resources, you’re either going to cough up something, bully your way through, or have to pay politics. You choose. Kind of like that “Survivor” game on TV, isn’t it? I don’t have an answer to that myself, I don’t even like the show but I think I’ll have to go with a candidate who can swing with the best of them. I think only a winner will be able to play the game. I love the concept of voting for someone who doesn’t owe any special interest groups but listens to “the people”. But then that sometimes becomes a shell game, chasing the poll-of-the-day. I do want someone with convictions; that match my own, preferably. My problem today is that I agree with some of this and some of that. That’s not being wishy-washy but just not buying the either party line in their entirety. Is there a candidate for those of us who reside where the Venn circles meet? Is there a bully pulpit where we can advertise from? Why is common sense, like common curtsey, no longer common? I just don’t know. I suppose all we can do is our research. See what the candidates stand for, how they live up to their proclamations, tally up the pros and cons, and cast our lot with the wind. The next 19 months are most assuredly going to be a trial and tribulation. I just hope we all have the strength to hang in there and “speak” our true thoughts with the secret ballet. I’ll be speaking my mind; will I be seeing you there? Tip off GovExec.com reader Posted April 26, 2007 4:44 PM
• J D, you illustrate the main reason why nothing changes. (this goes for all the special interest groups). The middle class does not provide the campaign contributions for politicians to stay in office, the Oil companies do. Therefore the politicians must serve the Oil companies, not the middle class. and we, the middle class, are ultimately responsible, because like sheep, we vote for those with the money to put out their false messages of hope. If everyone in the middle class (and lower class) were smart, we would find out more about the politicians with the smallest amount of money in their election coffers, because they don't owe anybody anything. GovExec.com reader Posted April 26, 2007 12:39 PM
• I wonder, could this be why Halliburton has moved overseas? To anyone in DC: Please ask Dick the next time you see him, will you? I'm sure he'd know, wouldn't he? Tip off GovExec.com reader Posted April 26, 2007 12:07 PM