Government Executive - Authors - David Morris

Officials say Iraq reconstruction will be lengthy, costly

David Morris — Wed, 04 Jun 2003 00:00:00 -0400

Foreign Relations Chairman Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and ranking member Joseph Biden, D-Del., both warned that public support for U.S. policies in Iraq may erode over time, especially if costs mount and other nations do not help foot the bill.

"Up until now, the support of the American public for the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism has been strong," Lugar said at the hearing. "But as we move into the expensive and complicated process of rebuilding Iraq, Americans will want to know that their money is being spent effectively and that other nations are contributing a fair share."

Biden predicted U.S. troops would remain in Iraq next year, perhaps beyond; he and others on the panel were upset when Defense Undersecretary Dov Zakheim and other witnesses offered few details about the costs of reconstruction and a continued military presence.

Zakheim refused to tell the committee how many U.S. troops were in Iraq, saying the information was classified, and he told Biden he did not have an estimate for how much it would cost to keep U.S. troops on the ground during fiscal 2004. His general statement on the topic, however, suggested that the end of U.S. involvement would come later rather than sooner. "There's no doubt success will be very expensive and will take years, not months," Zakheim said.

Andrew Natsios, administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, offered a similar assessment. "We have no illusions that this will be quick or easy," he said. While the emergency phase of the operation is winding down without widespread health and hunger problems that some had feared, "We are a long way from completing the reconstruction, for our goal is nothing less than the transformation of Iraq into a functioning, stable state that poses no threat to its own citizens or its neighbors and serves the interests of the Iraqi people."

]]>

House Iraq hearings will not focus on chemical weapons

David Morris — Tue, 03 Jun 2003 00:00:00 -0400

The House Armed Services Committee will hold two hearings next week to study "lessons learned" in Iraq and to look into the number of troops that will be needed during reconstruction of the oil-rich country. But House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., will not follow the Senate's lead and investigate the failure of U.S. troops to find weapons of mass destruction.

Hunter, who led an eight-member congressional delegation to Iraq during the Memorial Day recess, thinks evidence of chemical or biological weapons will still be found, a spokesman said.

"There are a ton of sites that still need to be looked at, and he's convinced the sites will be found," the spokesman told CongressDaily. "We think there's a little bit of hysteria going on" among critics who say the Bush administration used the threat of weapons of mass destruction to justify attacking Saddam Hussein's forces.

The spokesman said a number of Iraqis told Hunter about burial sites where the banned weapons might have been stashed. Even if the weapons are not found, the spokesman said, "That wasn't the only reason we went into Iraq, and people seem to forget that."

The Senate Armed Services Committee will hold hearings to examine why no weapons were found. In an interview published Sunday in The Los Angeles Times, Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner, R-Va., said he does not think the administration was misleading, but that a hearing is needed because "the situation is one where the credibility of the administration and Congress is being challenged."

While the witness lists are still being drawn up and the timetable for the House hearings is not firm, Hunter's spokesman said the lawmaker intends to hold both sessions next week. Topics will include the Pentagon's assessment of lingering pockets of resistance in Iraq and the department's recent decision to indefinitely extend the Army 3rd Infantry Division's tour of duty there. About 150,000 U.S. troops remain in the country.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, without offering a timetable or discussing numbers of troops, said in April that the United States would stay in Iraq as long as it took to complete the mission. Former Army Secretary Thomas White, in an interview published Monday in USA Today, predicted that the Pentagon would have to keep more than 100,000 troops on the ground for a year or more.

Although Hunter plans to stay out of the weapons of mass destruction debate, there will be some House involvement. The House Intelligence Committee wants the CIA to determine whether the administration's prewar estimates of Iraq's weapons cache were inaccurate.

]]>

Lawmakers jockey for Homeland Security regional offices

David Morris — Mon, 02 Jun 2003 00:00:00 -0400

While final decisions about the regional headquarters are not expected until late this year, some of the jockeying already is under way.

"We haven't come to any conclusions about numbers of locations, but we expect a lot of pressure," from legislators who want new regional offices and from those who do not want to lose existing regional offices of agencies and departments that have been rolled into Homeland Security, a Homeland Security official told CongressDaily.

"Chances are every member of Congress will want one in their district," added Michael Scardaville of the Heritage Foundation, who sees the regional office system as "an important component of the Department of Homeland Security achieving its mission." He said the regional staffers would become "[Homeland Security Secretary] Tom Ridge's ambassadors to the states and communities."

While congressional pressure will add an element of politics to the selection process, Scardaville said Ridge needs to choose office locations on merit and go to Congress with a specific plan and a solid rationale to justify his choices. "We'll see what wins out," he said, "the politics of it or the merits."

The congressional delegation from Louisiana made its pitch for a regional office, believed to be the first, during a March meeting with Asa Hutchinson, undersecretary for border and transportation security. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., told The Times-Picayune of New Orleans that the state's ports and chemical, oil and gas industries make the state a natural choice for a regional office.

But politics could also put Louisiana, with two Democratic senators, in competition for a regional office with Texas, which has two Republican senators and has a former governor, George W. Bush, in the White House.

Earlier this month, Ridge told the House Homeland Security Committee that the regional offices would provide a "direct point of contact" for governors, mayors and other officials. Scardaville predicted that interaction would help provide coordinated responses to threats and generate increased public confidence in the government's handling of homeland security issues.

]]>

Homeland Security weighs airliner anti-missile system

David Morris — Wed, 28 May 2003 00:00:00 -0400

The department included airliner protection in a list of several dozen research and development projects for which it is seeking proposals from private industry and told Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Steve Israel, both D-N.Y., that it will ask two companies to build prototypes based on systems now in use to protect military aircraft.

House Transportation and Infrastructure Aviation Subcommittee Chairman John Mica, R-Fla., also is supporting the effort to protect commercial airliners.

While a department spokesman said it is too early to talk about the potential cost and where the money would come from, Schumer said the administration must move quickly before terrorists, who fired a shoulder-launched missile at a commercial jet last fall in Kenya, set their sights on U.S. planes.

"You don't need to be a counterterrorism expert to know that if a group like al Qaeda tried this once, they're going to try it again if we leave our planes unprotected," Schumer told reporters last week. Schumer proposed paying for the project by transferring money from missile-defense research, a move that Republicans said they would oppose.

A spokesman for Israel told CongressDaily the lawmaker would like to see the Homeland Security Department move quickly "before an attack happens." But the mere fact that the department included the issue in its research and development wish list represents a change in the administration's position, the spokesman noted.

In December, when Israel and other legislators first asked President Bush to budget funds for the missile-protection system, "We never got a formal response," the spokesman said. That prompted Israel, Schumer and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., to push for the department to produce a report about the potential threat as part of the supplemental spending bill approved in April.

In a separate report released in February, the Congressional Research Service said thousands of shoulder-fired missiles are unaccounted for, are available at a relatively low price on the black market, and, because of their size, are easy to conceal.

Aircraft are most vulnerable to attack as they take off and land because they are on predictable routes and within the weapon's effective altitude of 15,000 feet. While military aircraft use infrared devices and flares to confuse the heat-seeking missiles, the Pentagon and others say flares would not be useful for commercial jets because of fires and other problems they might cause in populated areas.

According to the CRS report, the costs of installing protective systems would range from $1 million to $3 million for each of the approximately 6,800 commercial airliners in the United States. Schumer estimated the cost at up to $1.5 million per plane, or $7 billion to $10 billion. "The cost is significant, but not prohibitive," said Israel's spokesman.

While some members of Congress have focused heavily on the aircraft protection system, it is one of about 50 projects on the Homeland Security Department's wish list, many of which will probably compete for limited funds in the fiscal 2004 budget. The department can fund about $30 million of research and development projects, with a total of $200 million available from the administration's interagency technical support working group.

]]>

House panel targets no-bid contracts for Iraq reconstruction

David Morris — Thu, 15 May 2003 00:00:00 -0400

As the House Armed Services Committee continued its marathon markup of a new Defense authorization bill into the night Wednesday, it passed a bundle of amendments including one requiring federal agencies to explain and justify decisions to award no-bid contracts for reconstruction projects in Iraq.

The amendment by Rep. Vic Synder, D-Ark., came during the second day of a grueling markup of by the full committee of the fiscal year 2004 Defense authorization bill (H.R. 1588). The bundle of provisions, adopted without controversy as part of a manager's amendment, included the requirement that agencies using no-bid contracts to publish a rationale in the Federal Register or Commerce Business Daily within 30 days of any contract decision.

Agencies would be required to describe the amount of money involved, the scope of work, how a contractor was chosen and others sought out. The requirement would be retroactive to any contract signed going back to Oct. 1, 2002. The markup continued late Wednesday night.

Earlier Wednesday, the committee adopted an amendment directing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to appoint a 12-member commission to study the status of U.S. nuclear weapons and policy and to determine the direction of that policy over the next two decades.

The commission proposal was added to a reauthorization bill (H.R. 1588) that already includes the Bush administration's plans to develop low-yield nuclear weapons capable of destroying chemical or biological sites or weapons.

The bill also would require the Energy Department to prepare for resumption of nuclear tests within 18 months of a president's orders. Current law calls for testing within 36 months.

While the amendment's sponsor, Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., said the commission would help ensure rational changes in U.S. nuclear policy, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., suggested the panel might also address whether "the time has come to eliminate nuclear weapons from the world."

Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter, D-Calif., said the committee should also undertake a long-term review of the country's nuclear arsenal. "We're going to have to develop some new nuclear systems after awhile," he said. "We're going to ultimately have to replace aging weapons."

Some of the most contentious debate during Tuesday's marathon session came as Hunter succeeded in restoring the 2005 round of base closings to the bill. Hunter referred to another part of the debate, the Pentagon's run-ins with the Endangered Species Act, in overturning a vote of the Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee that would have canceled the next round of closings. He said his amendment to restore the closings would protect an endangered species-"Americans who go out and fight and die for freedom."

Even though Hunter was successful, he said language in the amendment that requires officials to keep open bases that might be needed if there is a surge in the need for U.S. troops might result in few or no bases being closed in the next round. Committee Republicans turned back an attempt by Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., to delay the next round of decisions until 2007.

Democrats railed against several provisions of the authorization bill, saying Congress was giving away its oversight authority to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and President Bush. Hunter argued that killing the base-closing round would cause Bush to veto the bill and would make the committee irrelevant.

That logic didn't appease at least one Democrat, Rep. Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii. "What I'm hearing is we have to give away our authority to keep our authority," Abercrombie said. While Rumsfeld is saying "do what I want or else," Abercrombie continued, the committee "is engaged in a fiction here. We're not living up to our responsibilities."

]]>

Defense personnel overhaul backed by full House panel

David Morris — Thu, 15 May 2003 00:00:00 -0400

Although the debate was prickly and stretched for nearly 24 hours over two days, the House Armed Services Committee late Wednesday approved a $400.5 billion Defense authorization bill that would give the Pentagon broad new powers to manage its civilian workforce.

The vote to report the bill was 58-2, with Reps. Lane Evans, D-Ill., and John Larson, D-Conn., opposed. But that lopsided outcome didn't reflect the partisan divisions that split the committee on issue after issue. Republicans said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld deserved to get what he wanted because of the military's strong showing against Iraq, while Democrats said the panel was inappropriately giving Rumsfeld and President Bush unprecedented power.

"Giving a blank check to the department is an abdication of our constitutional duties," said ranking member Ike Skelton, D-Mo. Countered Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., "In my mind, it makes no sense to limit the president."

House Government Reform Committee members approved the measure last week. "Two committees have spoken now, and they've said it's time for more flexibility, more agility, more accountability," said David Marin, spokesman for the House Government Reform Committee. "Once the authorization bill is passed by the full House next week, we'll be well-positioned for conference with the Senate," he said. The version of the authorization bill passed by the Senate Armed Services Committee did not include the personnel provisions.

The Pentagon's bid to win new flexibility in dealing with the department's 700,000-plus civilian employees was the most contentious part of the debate, and it attracted nearly one-fourth of the 46 amendments that were voted on.

Republicans said the Pentagon needs a freer hand in hiring, firing and relocating workers as it restructures the military into a smaller, more mobile force. Democrats argued that the administration was trying to remove civil service protections in favor of a system that would allow friends to be rewarded and foes to be driven out. The bill calls for ditching the General Schedule pay system and, instead, implementing a pay-banding system and creating a separate pay structure for managers. Pentagon officials would also be able to modify job classifications, hiring authorities, pay administration and reduction-in-force procedures.

On votes largely along party lines, Republicans blocked Democratic attempts to remove the personnel provisions from the bill, add provisions to protect against patronage and restore collective bargaining language from existing legislation.

A legislative staffer for Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., who offered an amendment that would have expunged the personnel provisions from the bill, said the legislator was not opposed to giving Defense officials some hiring flexibilities or the authority to create a pay-for-performance structure. "Those are good principles that he is all for, having business world experience," the staffer said. "The big caveat is that they weren't asking for us to approve a specific plan, they were asking for a blank check to create a plan and then ask us to approve it later."

On voice votes, the committee rejected language that would have strengthened human resources authority, limited the rules to supervisors and managers, created a demonstration project that applied to 200,000 of the workers, limited the Pentagon's use of outside experts, and would have given civilian military workers the same size pay increases as service members.

Democrats did succeed in blocking the administration's plan to extend the military retirement age to 68, from 62, and allow unlimited terms for service chiefs and general officers. And they succeeded, with help of some Republicans, in defeating an attempt to cut off debate on the personnel provisions.

Rep. Jo Ann Davis, chairwoman of the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization, and Chairman Hunter agreed to hammer out problems with language addressing reduction-in-force authorities granted to the Defense secretary during conference negotiations over the bill.

"I have concerns that this language is inadvertently overreaching," Davis said.

Tanya N. Ballard contributed to this report.

]]>

House committee votes for base closings in 2005

David Morris — Wed, 14 May 2003 00:00:00 -0400

Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., referred to another part of the debate over the bill, involving the Pentagon's run-ins with the Endangered Species Act, in overturning a vote of the Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee that would have canceled the next round of closings. He said his amendment to restore the closings would protect an endangered species-"Americans who go out and fight and die for freedom."

Committee Republicans turned back an attempt by Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., to delay the next round of decisions until 2007. Even though Hunter was successful in that endeavor, he said language in the amendment that requires officials to keep open bases that might be necessary if there is a surge in the need for U.S. troops could result in few or no bases being closed in the next round.

Democrats railed against several provisions of the authorization bill, saying Congress was giving away its oversight authority to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush.

Hunter argued that killing the base-closing round would cause Bush to veto the bill and would make the committee irrelevant. Rumsfeld emphasized that point while talking to reporters following his appearance before the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee today.

"If [the Base Realignment and Closure process] is changed in any substantial way, I will recommend that the president veto" the defense authorization bill, Rumsfeld said.

But Hunter's logic did not assuage at least one Democrat, Rep. Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii. "What I'm hearing is we have to give away our authority to keep our authority," Abercrombie said. While Rumsfeld is saying "do what I want or else," Abercrombie continued, the committee "is engaged in a fiction here. We're not living up to our responsibilities."

]]>

Senate panel OKs ending ban on nuke research

David Morris — Fri, 09 May 2003 00:00:00 -0400

The Senate Armed Services Committee markup of the 2004 defense authorization bill would lift a 10-year ban on research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons, extend research for nuclear "bunker-busting" bombs, and shorten the timetable for the Energy Department to get ready for new nuclear tests.

While Armed Services Chairman John Warner, R-Va., said the provisions do not mean the Pentagon is on the verge of nuclear tests, the language and similar provisions included in a House Armed Services markup demonstrates renewed interest in the weapons by the White House and Congress even as President Bush is taking a strong stand against the development of weapons of mass destruction in other countries.

The Strategic Forces Subcommittee "supported efforts to strengthen the nation's nuclear weapons research, development and test readiness capabilities, and program management," Warner and ranking member Carl Levin, D-Mich., said in a press release announcing the results of this week's closed committee and subcommittee markups of the $400.5 billion defense authorization for fiscal 2004.

Overall, the Senate panel authorized $75.6 billion for procurement, $1.1 billion more than the president requested, and $63.2 billion for research and development, a $1.3 billion increase over Bush's proposal. The development money includes $4.4 billion for the Joint Strike Fighter program, an increase of $56 million over fiscal 2003. The committee cut two F/A-22 Raptor aircraft from the 22 sought by the Pentagon and did not include any research funding for Northrop Grumman Corp.'s proposed "next generation" B-2 stealth bomber.

The F/A-22 program has been troubled by delays and cost overruns. Construction funds were set aside for seven new ships, including $1.51 billion for a Virginia-class attack submarine and nearly $1.2 billion for advance procurement of a CVN-21 aircraft carrier. The markup also includes money for a 3.7 percent across-the-board raise for all uniformed personnel, with larger increases of 5.25 to 6.25 percent for mid-career members; authorizes $9.1 billion for the ballistic missile defense program; and adds $88.4 million to fund 12 additional National Guard Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams.

The nuclear weapons changes, while representing a relatively small piece of the budget pie, are also expected to be a lightning rod for criticism. One member of the committee, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., already has spoken out against the provisions, which include requiring the Energy Department to be ready to resume nuclear tests within 18 months of a president's order. Some interest groups also are lining up in opposition, saying the "robust nuclear earth penetrator" would create more fallout than a conventional nuclear explosion just above a target and questioning why low-yield nuclear weapons might be developed for use against chemical or biological targets when conventional, non-nuclear weapons with the same function already exist.

Some opponents also worry that committee approval of Bush's requests could lead other countries to resume testing. "This represents a do-as-I say-not-as-I-do attitude about nuclear weapons," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. "This is definitely a step in the wrong direction. It could be a move emulated by other states, Russia in particular."

]]>

Panel may seek to delay next round of base closings

David Morris — Wed, 07 May 2003 00:00:00 -0400

Subcommittee Chairman Joel Hefley, R-Colo., "would be receptive to a postponement" of a new round of closings, said a Republican aide who is aware of Hefley's thinking.

"He won't offer an amendment, but he would be open to it," the aide said. "He's concerned about the timing" of the closings, which would come on the heels of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and as tensions simmer in the Middle East and the Korean Peninsula.

Hefley will assess the committee's position at an informal meeting Thursday, one day before the panel marks up its portion of the fiscal 2004 defense authorization bill. At a similar meeting before the April recess, the Democratic and Republican sources said there was strong support to push back the Pentagon's request.

"I can't say it was 100 percent, but members were overwhelmingly in support of at least a postponement," the Democrat source said. Both sources said there is no evidence to suggest a shift in sentiment since that meeting.

While the Republican source said Hefley will not offer an amendment or include the base-closing postponement in the chairman's mark, at least one Democrat on the subcommittee, Rep. Gene Taylor of Mississippi, has drafted several possible riders, including one that would cancel the base-closing round entirely and another that would delay any action by the Base Realignment and Closure Commission.

"He intends to derail the BRAC process," the Democratic source said. "Obviously, he would prefer a repeal, but if there were a compromise for delaying the process, that would be OK."

Pentagon spokesman Glenn Flood said he does not expect the subcommittee's action to have much impact on the process.

"There's always going to be some members in Congress who will be against closing any bases," he said. "It might be a big deal to them [subcommittee members], but to us it's the first step in a long haul."

After the full committee votes and both the House and Senate consider the plan, he added, "I don't think Congress will backtrack on this."

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has tied the 2005 round of closings to his plan to transform the military into a smaller, more flexible force. The Pentagon's spending blueprint for 2004 called for spending $20 billion to close or revamp about one of every four bases and estimated the move would save the government about $6.5 billion a year.

The new round of base closings-the fifth overall, but the first since 1995-was called for in the hotly debated fiscal 2002 defense authorization measure. The House at the time opposed any base closings while the Senate voted 53-47 for a round of closings in 2003.

As a compromise, a conference report settled on the 2005 round. The legislation requires Rumsfeld to develop criteria for selecting bases to close by the end of this year to submit a proposed list of closings and realignments to the nine-member commission by May 16, 2005. The commission would have until Sept. 8, 2005, to add or subtract sites from the list. Congress and President Bush would have to accept or reject the list in its entirety.

For the 2005 round, Rumsfeld is required to link recommendations to anticipated 2006 troop levels and spending estimates. The Republican source said Hefley is unhappy with the process and wants to change it, but is not necessarily opposed to eventually closing bases that are no longer needed.

The Democratic source said Taylor will not support any closings "unless the administration can make a compelling case. Once you lose a facility, you can't get it back."

]]>

Pentagon weighs increased presence in Africa

David Morris — Tue, 06 May 2003 00:00:00 -0400

"I think Africa is a continent that is going to be of very, very significant interest in the 21st century," Gen. James Jones Jr., head of the United States European Command, told the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee last week.

While he stopped short of saying the United States would open its first base on the continent, Jones said he believes "that we're going to have to engage more in that theater," in part because large ungoverned sections of Africa "could become terrorist breeding grounds."

Subcommittee Chairwoman Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, and ranking member Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., both mentioned the strategic importance of Africa when discussing their proposal to appoint an independent commission to consider changes in a U.S. base structure that outlasted the Cold War and might leave U.S. troops and equipment out of position for conflicts in other parts of the world.

"Many of us think we have ignored Africa, at great risk for the future," Feinstein told Jones.

In addition to the potential for terrorism, Jones said in written testimony that crime, drugs and "sinking human conditions" will make it necessary for a greater U.S. military presence in Africa.

During former President Clinton's two terms in the White House, U.S. troops were part of the U.N. peacekeeping forces in Somalia, Angola, Rwanda and Mozambique and engaged in small-scale training missions, but otherwise steered clear of the region.

Clinton's predecessor, former President George H.W. Bush, was first to raise the U.S. military profile in sub-Saharan Africa, dispatching teams of Green Berets to Zimbabwe, Senegal, Niger and other countries to train local armies. Some 200 U.S. airborne troops flew to Botswana in 1992 for one of the largest U.S. training exercises ever in the region.

The Pentagon continues to have an arrangement to use an airstrip in Kenya but has no permanent presence in Africa. Instead, forces are moved in and out of the region as needed, under a policy that Jones called "largely reactive."

Such was the case last September, one year after terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, when the Defense Department sent special operations units into the Horn of Africa to hunt for suspected terrorists linked to those events and the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen.

Decisions about which European installations to replace or relocate, and related moves of U.S. assets into or closer to Africa are probably at least a year away, committee aides said.

]]>

Senators seek to shutter overseas military bases

David Morris — Tue, 29 Apr 2003 00:00:00 -0400

Her announcement came at a hearing after U.S. European Commander Gen. James Jones Jr. told the committee that about 20 percent of U.S. installations on the continent will not receive construction money under a revised Pentagon spending proposal for fiscal 2004 because they do not have "enduring" value.

Jones said 402 of 499 installations in the European Theater were deemed "vital" in an internal review that concluded in March. But he said some of them might join the do-not-fund list later in the year.

"We will close unneeded facilities as quickly and feasibly as possible," Jones told the committee.

Some European bases and other facilities are expendable because the protections they provided at the height of the Cold War are no longer needed. Others are outmoded because they do not have adequate training facilities for the Pentagon's envisioned agile, mobile fighting force of the 21st century, Jones said at Tuesday's hearing.

Under questioning by Hutchison and ranking member Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the general said some assets moved from Europe will be focused on Africa. Jones said largely ungoverned regions of that continent "could become terrorist breeding grounds. I believe that we're going to have to engage more in that theater."

Earlier Tuesday, Hutchison and Feinstein introduced legislation to create an eight-member independent panel to consider closing some overseas bases. The Texas senator said that panel's recommendations would give the Pentagon more flexibility but would not erase the need for a new round of domestic base closings in 2005.

]]>

Senator may revisit ban on military domestic police power

David Morris — Mon, 21 Apr 2003 00:00:00 -0400

Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner, R-Va., may hold hearings to determine if the Reconstruction-era Posse Comitatus law should be revised to give the military new domestic policing powers, even though the Bush administration has backed away from its call for a review and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is opposed to changes.

Warner, a former Navy secretary, "remains concerned about making sure Posse Comitatus is not limiting legislation," a spokesman said. "He remains open to re-examining and reviewing it."

The 1878 law, originally designed to bar federal troops from policing polling places in the South after the Civil War, limits the military's role in civilian law enforcement proceedings. Calls for easing the restrictions gained momentum after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The White House entered the debate last summer when the Homeland Security Department was being designed. "The threat of catastrophic terrorism requires a thorough review of the laws permitting the military to act within the United States in order to determine whether domestic preparedness and response efforts would benefit from greater involvement of military personnel and, if so, how," the administration wrote in its legislative proposal.

Warner raised the idea of hearings in 2001 and repeated it late last year, when election results gave Republicans control of the Senate and put him in line to chair the Armed Services panel. He revisited the issue while questioning Paul McHale, assistant Defense secretary for homeland defense, during an April 8 committee hearing.

While McHale said protecting the country "requires an unprecedented level of cooperation throughout all levels of government," he said Rumsfeld has decided the law should not be changed. Gen. Ralph Eberhart, commander of the military's Northern Command, took a similar position at a House Armed Services hearing in March. "We believe the act, as amended, provides the authority we need to do our job, and no modification is needed at this time," he said.

Debate about the law has created some unusual coalitions inside and outside of government. Senators interested in considering relaxed restrictions during national emergencies include Sens. Trent Lott, R-Miss., and Joseph Biden, D-Del. Among the Senate opponents is Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Thad Cochran, R-Miss. "I really don't think we ought to change that, frankly," he told CongressDaily. "The military's not in the business of arresting people."

Cochran said he supported changing the law until a military officer made a chilling comment about the Pentagon's involvement in drug-interdiction flights, "Senator, we're in the business to kill enemy aircraft, not force them to land."

Opponents of easing the restrictions, including the American Civil Liberties Union and scholars from some conservative think tanks, argue that the law has already been weakened by government decisions to allow the military to patrol U.S. borders, search for drug suppliers, and, in one highly publicized case last year, use spy planes to try to track the Washington-area sniper.

Even if Rumsfeld convinces Warner to skip hearings, Gene Healy of the Cato Institute said he does not think the issue will go away. "The next time there is a domestic terrorism incident, this will come up again," Healy said. "Because the military does its main mission so well, a lot of politicians are starting to see it as a panacea for solving every problem."

]]>

GAO to broadly probe Iraq contracts

Michael Posner and David Morris — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 00:00:00 -0400

The General Accounting Office will launch a broad-scale probe into methods and secrecy that surrounds awarding of contracts to rebuild Iraq, Comptroller General David Walker said Thursday in an interview with National Journal Group reporters.

But Walker said he had rejected as inappropriately partisan the specific request from House Government Reform ranking member Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and House Energy and Commerce ranking member John Dingell, D-Mich., to investigate whether KBR, the engineering division of Halliburton formerly known as Kellogg Brown & Root, received "favorable treatment" in being awarded a contract by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

"We're not going to do work targeting particular contractors," Walker said. "I believe that has a partisan tint." Walker said that as part of the broader review, it was "highly likely Halliburton will come into the scope," but he said no company would be singled out for scrutiny. Vice President Dick Cheney was Halliburton's CEO before President Bush picked him for the 2000 GOP ticket.

In a wide-ranging interview today with National Journal and CongressDaily reporters, Walker said his agency's probe will be wider than an internal inspector general investigation under way by the U.S. Agency For International Development, which has come under fire from members of Congress, including Senate Governmental Affairs Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, and ranking member Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn. They were critical of the deliberations surrounding a $600 million contract to start rebuilding Iraq. AID on Thursday evening awarded the contract, which could be worth up to $680 million over 18 months, to Bechtel Restoration of San Francisco.

Walker said his agency would see what the AID inspector general does. "We'll consider that to the extent appropriate, but .... I expect we are going to do something more extensive than what I understand they did." He also said his agency's investigation will be wider than just probing AID, a lead agency in making Iraq reconstruction contracts, and include others that issue contracts.

On another controversial matter, Walker said it was strictly a "business decision" not to appeal a U.S. District Court ruling against GAO, which had sued to get information about the energy task force headed by Cheney. He said that a majority of Democrats and a "super majority" of Republicans he has talked to had felt he should not appeal. Asked if he had received any "threats" regarding the court case, he said only in "one circumstance" did he get what he described as a "thinly veiled threat" not to file the original lawsuit. It came from "a senior member of Congress" who mentioned Walker's budget situation, he said, but he would not identify the legislator.

]]>

Criticism grows of no-bid work for Iraq reconstruction

David Morris — Wed, 16 Apr 2003 00:00:00 -0400

Using no-bid contracts for the costly rebuilding process allows the administration to reward friendly companies, prevents Congress from exercising its authority over spending, and may result in higher costs to taxpayers, the legislators charged in a series of letters and public statements which have brought more attention to the issue.

"An open and fully competitive bidding process would ensure that the prices charged are reasonable and that the contractors selected are the most qualified," Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said at a recent news conference.

Administration officials countered in interviews that no favors were granted and that bidding would have taken too much time.

House Government Reform ranking member Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and House Energy and Commerce ranking member John Dingell, D-Mich., asked GAO to investigate the no-bid contracts being awarded by the development agency. Separately, Senate Governmental Affairs Committee ranking member Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., asked AID's inspector general to investigate.

Among the questions Lieberman raised: Did the agency follow the law in determining which companies to consider for the work in Iraq; what, if any, AID workers had contact with the companies; and what, if any, administration officials were involved in discussions about the contracts before they were awarded?

The version of the fiscal 2003 supplemental approved by the Senate includes $4.3 million for inspectors general to audit reconstruction programs. Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn, added the money through an amendment.

AID has awarded four contracts so far and intends to announce four others as part of the reconstruction effort. The contracts include $62 million to Creative Associates International to open schools and train teachers; $7.9 million to The Research Triangle Institute to help local governments get back in business; $7 million to the International Resources Group for emergency relief efforts, and $4.8 million to Stevedoring Services of America to repair and reopen Iraqi ports.

Lieberman joined several other senators, including Wyden and Senate Governmental Affairs Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, in introducing legislation that would require AID to justify its use of no-bid contracts and provide details of the work within a month of the awarding of such deals.

Another cosponsor, Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., said at a hearing that the costs of rebuilding Iraq must be watched because the project represents the biggest undertaking of its kind since the Marshall Plan to help Germany and Japan recover after World War II. A spokeswoman said Collins has no plans for hearings on the contract issue.

]]>

Cheney's former firm paid fines on prior contracts

David Morris — Wed, 16 Apr 2003 00:00:00 -0400

The company, KBR-the engineering and construction division of Halliburton and formerly known as Kellogg Brown & Root-won a two-year, $7 billion contract from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to put out oil well fires in the war-ravaged country. Democrats want GAO to determine if the company was hired because of its ties to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Army Corps Lt. Gen. Robert Flowers defended the KBR contract, saying the company was well suited to extinguishing the oil fires because it already had a government contract to develop contingency plans for keeping the Iraqi oil fields in operation. In a letter last Tuesday to House Government Reform ranking member Henry Waxman, D-Calif., Flowers said bidding the contract would have created "a wasteful duplication of effort" that "would have delayed CENTCOM's war planning in order to obtain security clearances for potential competitors."

Waxman, in a response last Thursday, said awarding no-bid contracts for emergency work during the war might be valid, but awarding a two-year contract worth billions is not. While he did not raise the issue in his correspondence with Flowers, Waxman suggested in a separate letter seeking a GAO investigation that KBR's lucrative government work might be due to ties between its parent company, Halliburton, and Cheney, who was CEO of the company from 1995 until he resigned to run for vice president in 2000.

"These ties between the vice president and Halliburton have raised concerns about whether the company has received favorable treatment from the administration," Waxman and Energy and Commerce ranking member John Dingell, D-Mich., wrote. A spokeswoman for Cheney said the vice president has no remaining ties to the company and played no role in the awarding of the contract.

KBR was criticized in earlier GAO reports that detailed billing the Army for excessive costs for work in Kosovo. In reports in 1997 and 2000, GAO reported that the firm used more workers and equipment than necessary to clean offices and provide electricity and backup power supplies to bases and billed the service nearly $86 per sheet for plywood that it bought for $14.06.

The company denied running up costs to boost its profits on the contract, saying it provided the equipment and manpower to meet specifications and that the cost of plywood included the high cost of flying the material to the Balkans.

Last year, in an unrelated case, the company paid a $2 million fine to deal with fraud allegations raised in investigations by a federal grand jury and the Pentagon's inspector general. The company did not immediately respond to questions about the investigation.

]]>

Pentagon officials caution Senate panel on Iraq rebuilding

David Morris — Fri, 11 Apr 2003 00:00:00 -0400

"Obviously, there's still a great deal of work left to do in Iraq," both in wrapping up fighting and in setting the stage for a new government to replace fallen leader Saddam Hussein, said Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "Since we do not know at this moment the exact condition of the country after the termination of hostilities, we do not know exactly what military forces will be required, nor for how long they will be required."

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz offered a similar assessment, telling Armed Services Chairman John Warner, R-Va., that the Pentagon plans "to leave Iraq in the hands of Iraqis as soon as we can." The troops cannot leave when the military victory is achieved, he said, because the move toward self-government in Iraq depends on a secure nation and a working economy.

"If local business people and foreign investors do not feel secure, economic reconstruction will be hindered," Wolfowitz said. "And a secure environment is key to enabling a democratic political process to proceed, so establishing security through law and order is a fundamental necessity."

While the hearing focused on rebuilding Iraq and the pending expansion of NATO, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., urged Wolfowitz, Pace and Gen. James Jones, NATO's supreme allied commander for Europe, to look for ways to avoid overuse of National Guard and military reserves.

With U.S. troops already in South Korea, Kosovo, Bosnia and Afghanistan, the deployment of 100,000 U.S. men and women to Iraq and neighboring countries is stretching the capacity of reserves and putting pressure on their employers, he said.

Another committee member, Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., asked Wolfowitz if the military effort in Iraq might extend into Syria, which has been accused of providing weapons to Iraq and harboring Iraqi fugitives.

"I would say so far we're just keeping an eye on them," Wolfowitz said.

When Byrd pointedly asked if there was a plan to move troops into Syria, the deputy secretary responded, "Not that I know of, sir."

Wolfowitz told the senators that a U.S.-led Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance would work on the ground until control could be handed off to an Iraqi interim authority. That authority eventually would give way to an independent Iraqi government, but Wolfowitz said the United States would not decide who would run the new government.

In an effort to appease some Democrats who worry that the United States will have to pick up the cost of rebuilding Iraq, just as it had to provide most of the troops for the war, Wolfowitz said the United Nations and such reluctant allies as Germany and France would be welcome and needed partners in the post-war effort.

The United Nations can be especially helpful in mobilizing humanitarian aid and opening the door for financial help from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

The goal, he said, is to keep Iraq from becoming "a permanent ward of the international community."

Also on Thursday, three senators announced the introduction of legislation that would compel the U.S. Agency for International Development to disclose details of no-bid contracts it is awarding as part of the rebuilding program in Iraq. The bill would require the agency to announce the cost and purpose of the contract, as well as an explanation about why bids were not sought.

"It would be unfortunate if, in our effort to set an example of open government and democratic principles abroad, we undermined those principles here at home," said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. She was joined at a news conference by Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Ron Wyden, D-Ore.

]]>

Senate committee expands powers of EPA ombudsman

David Morris — Thu, 10 Apr 2003 00:00:00 -0400

Over strong objections by the Bush administration, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved legislation Wednesday giving broad new powers to the Environmental Protection Agency's ombudsman.

The legislation (S. 515), reported by voice vote without debate, would allow the ombudsman to issue subpoenas while investigating complaints or grievances. The independent ombudsman, who reports directly to the EPA administrator, would have a $3 million budget for each of the next two years, $4 million for each year from fiscal 2006 through 2009 and $5 million a year from fiscal 2010 through 2013.

While no members of the committee objected, EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman and acting Assistant Attorney General Jamie E. Brown announced their opposition in letters to Chairman James Inhofe, R-Okla. Whitman said the legislation would give the ombudsman "extraordinarily broad and intrusive investigatory powers" and hamper EPA's enforcement efforts.

Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, is the bill's primary sponsor.

]]>

National Guard anti-terror teams unfunded in Bush budget

David Morris — Tue, 01 Apr 2003 00:00:00 -0500

Democrats in both chambers are trying to add funding for the weapons of mass destruction civil support teams, which were authorized in the 2004 defense authorization act Congress passed last year. Pentagon officials said they could not include money in the 2004 appropriations request because the act was not signed into law until last Dec. 2.

In the House, $160.2 million for the specialized teams is "near the top of the list" of projects for which Democrats will seek money when the Appropriations Committee marks up the supplemental Tuesday, according to a Democratic committee aide.

Similar attempts are being weighed in the Senate, with Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., planning to offer an amendment from the floor if the committee does not add the money at today's scheduled markup.

Four Republicans on the Senate Appropriations Committee-Sens. Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Conrad Burns of Montana, Robert Bennett of Utah and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire-represent states that are still waiting for Pentagon approval and funding of their emergency teams. Cochran also chairs the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee.

A fifth Republican, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, represents a state seeking a second team. California already has two teams.

"I'm not sure we're there yet in terms of funding," said an aide to one Republican on the panel. But if money for the teams is proposed, the aide said his boss and other GOP senators would probably support it.

Jamie Metzel, who follows homeland security issues for the Council on Foreign Relations, said members of Congress would be hard pressed to vote against money for the Guard units.

"Nobody wants to be seen as the person who voted against something that may be proven crucial at a time of need," Metzel said.

The Council, saying the United States "remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic terrorist attack" at home, has proposed boosting the number of civil support teams to 66.

The defense authorization enacted last December called for the Pentagon to certify teams in the 19 states that do not have them, but it did not provide funding or set a deadline. In January, 16 senators from those states asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to include money for the teams in the 2004 budget. Undersecretary of Defense David Chu, in a Jan. 31 letter, said the defense authorization came too late.

"We will ensure it is considered as part of the fiscal 2005 process," he wrote.

During a March 13 markup, the Senate Budget Committee adopted Feingold's sense of the Senate amendment urging the Pentagon to accelerate the timetable for funding the teams.

Further details of the Pentagon's plan are expected in a June 2 report to Congress. Chu said that report will include "a schedule for the establishment, manning, equipping and training of these teams and a discussion of whether the mission of the WMD-CSTs should be expanded."

The full-time National Guard teams are designed to work with first responders to detect and react to the use of chemical or biological agents or other weapons of mass destruction on U.S. soil. The Clinton administration proposed the first teams in 1998. Ten teams were certified in 2000 and 22 others have been added since then. Each team has 22 members and is outfitted with detection equipment, mobile laboratories and command posts.

The 19 states without certified teams have part-time units, but do not have the money for the equipment, full-time salaries and the 800-1,200 hours of training that the Pentagon pays for, according to the National Guard.

Some of the teams responded to the World Trade Center site after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. They have also been called to high-profile events such as the World Series and the Super Bowl. Five teams helped secure and test debris in Texas after the space shuttle Columbia exploded in early February.

Because Wisconsin does not have a certified, full-time team, Minnesota's unit had to be deployed for baseball's 2002 All-Star game in Milwaukee, Feingold said.

Besides Wisconsin, other states without federally funded emergency teams are Rhode Island, Delaware, North Carolina, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Utah, Nevada, Oregon, Connecticut, Indiana, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Vermont and Wyoming.

]]>

Bush demands quick action on war supplemental

Mark Wegner, John Stanton, David Morris, and Bill Ghent — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 00:00:00 -0500

"The supplemental should not be viewed as an opportunity to add spending that is unrelated, unwise and unnecessary," said Bush, outlining his request during remarks at the Pentagon. "Every dollar we spend must serve the interests of our nation, and the interests of our nation in this supplemental is to win this war and to be able to keep the peace."

The White House request for $74.7 billion includes $62.6 billion for the Pentagon to move troops, maintain equipment and replenish the supply of smart bombs and cruise missiles. About $60 billion of that would go into a general war trust fund, of which "at least" $53.4 billion would to go military operations in Iraq, $3.7 billion would go to munitions replenishment, $1.7 billion would be for classified activities and $1.1 billion for equipment procurement and research and development.

The other $2.7 billion in specified money would go to countries supporting the war in Iraq and other anti-terrorism efforts, cover the cost of fuel, build military facilities in Guantanamo Bay, and even supplement anti-narcotics efforts in Colombia.

Bush also asked for $4.25 billion for increased domestic security, of which about $3.5 billion would go to the Homeland Security Department. About $2 billion would go directly to states, while $1.5 billion would be shared among federal departments to beef up border, airport and maritime security.

Another $500 million would be for the FBI's counter-terrorism efforts, with the final $250 million slated for a trust fund to address "immediate and emerging" terrorist threats.

The House Appropriations Committee will take testimony this week from Pentagon officials, Homeland Security Department officials and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage on the supplemental. The committee then will move early next week to a full markup, in anticipation of passing the House by the end of next week in order to meet Bush's April 11 deadline for completing action on the bill.

"I will move the president's supplemental request through the House as quickly as I can because I know the importance of this bill to the men and women of the military," said House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young, R-Fla. He added that he had assurances from the House leadership that the supplemental will have "priority consideration" on the floor, something echoed today by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.

On the other side of the Capitol, Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, is looking to hold a hearing with Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge this week if possible and would probably mark up the package next week, according to a GOP appropriations source.

While both Young and Stevens have said they will try to meet Bush's goal of keeping extraneous provisions from being tacked onto the supplemental, it may not be easy. An aide to Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said Democrats would try to boost the $4.25 billion request for new homeland security spending to at least $8 billion or $10 billion-something many Republicans may go along with.

Senate Democrats also may push to include new funding for state and local security projects to protect the nation's water infrastructure from terrorist attacks, according to lobbyists and Senate sources. Although the total amount that may be sought is unclear, state and local officials have continued to lobby the White House and Congress for new funding since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Democrats also will be watching for administration or GOP attempts to use the supplemental to push through environmental exemptions for the Defense Department. Republican congressional leaders, as well as the White House, have made these exemptions from the Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act and federal marine mammal protections a priority, arguing the rules cripple the military's ability to properly train.

Although it is unclear whether the exemptions will be inserted in the supplemental package sent to Capitol Hill, Democrats at the very least expect GOP lawmakers to attempt to insert the provisions during the abbreviated committee consideration of the bill.

]]>

White House, lawmakers discuss supplemental request

April Fulton, David Morris, and Bill Ghent — Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:00:00 -0500

Congressional leaders and appropriators headed to the White House Monday afternoon for a meeting with President Bush and White House staff about the contents of the administration's imminent fiscal 2003 supplemental spending request to pay for the military campaign in Iraq.

White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer would not say how much the president will seek to pay for the war with Iraq and for homeland security. But he cautioned that the $80 billion figure reported in several news outlets was not accurate, while suggesting the amount would be closer to between $70 billion and $75 billion.

Sources said the bill will include $62 billion for the Defense Department for the war and terrorism-related expenses, and about $3.5 billion for domestic security programs. It also will include between $5 billion to $8 billion in humanitarian aid for Iraq, increased security for U.S. diplomats, and assistance to Israel, Egypt and Jordan. Fleischer said the request will only cover military and homeland security concerns, but did not rule out the possibility of financial assistance for U.S. airlines being included.

Bush sidestepped offering a dollar figure last week, when the House and Senate considered his tax cut proposal. Fleischer said the White House needed to gauge the early stages of the fighting so the supplemental appropriations bill could be expressed "with the greatest precision." Both House Appropriations Chairman C.W. (Bill) Young, R-Fla., and Senate Appropriations Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, have said they would like to complete work on the supplemental by April 11.

Meanwhile, Senate leaders are trying to whittle down the number of amendments left to be considered on the fiscal 2004 budget resolution. Under an agreement reached last week, Republicans and Democrats can offer just 40 amendments each-and must have filed the list of those amendments by 4 p.m. Monday. All votes are expected to be finished by Wednesday afternoon.

Senate Democrats said they are wary Republicans will try to reconsider an amendment that passed Friday that devoted $100 billion of the $726 billion growth package to cover the cost of the war in Iraq. "Their intention is to take it out," said Budget ranking member Kent Conrad, D-N.D., emerging from a late-night meeting Friday. But with the supplemental request pending, Senate GOP leadership aides said Monday it was unlikely Republicans would try to restore the full $100 billion.

During Friday's session, the Senate passed 51-49 an amendment by Senate Appropriations ranking member Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., to double Amtrak funding to $1.8 billion, although it would be offset with money from the $1.3 trillion overall tax cut, not the now-$626 billion growth package ordered under reconciliation.

The Senate also passed an amendment by Sen. Christopher (Kit) Bond, R-Mo., that Senate Budget Committee GOP staff said would boost highway spending by about $63 billion over the next six years, adding about $10 billion to the budget for fiscal 2004. But the Senate defeated, 62-38, a much-touted moderates' amendment to reduce the tax package down to $350 billion.

]]>