tv C-SPAN Weekend CSPAN December 21, 2009 2:00am-6:00am EST
2:00 am
was spectacular. it could not be done. and then as stan mcchrystal has done is we have done in our office, and as david petreaus, you have to analyze, could it be achieved, while with the resources take to do it, and even at that level, was it achievable? in petreaus' strategic analysis, leaked to the newspaper, he addressed this problem. he came up with benchmark numbers based on classic counterinsurgency doctrine, which were absolutely enormous. be a non-level of numbers. 550,000 people in vietnam. all of us agree, that was neither necessary nor desirable, nor would it achieve its stated goal. we needed to concentrate on what
2:01 am
we were trying to do. that leads us to an analysis of the taliban once again. we're not going to try to eliminate every member of the taliban. for several reasons -- not achievable necessary, nor are they all devotees of the mullah omar or al qaeda. the majority of the people fighting from the taliban, or according to all the informations that we can gather, are not committed followers of malullah omar or osama bin laden. they are people to fight for money or because of grievances. that is where the corruption issue comes in. the taliban's greatest calling card when they came to power in the 1990's was the lack of an
2:02 am
effective and open and fair justice system. that is still a problem we need to deal with. it is one of our major programs. a couple of my colleagues worked very aggressively on the war -- the rule of law issues. >> let me get to that. the taliban can be divided clearly into three groups. the majority of them are not ideological, as i was saying. . who fight in organized units on a local basis, and then there is the hard core. the leadership of the hard court is as in pakistan. our goal is to include reaching out to what is called the reconcilable elements. that is the reintegration program. one of the main reasons we were not able to do that effectively
2:03 am
is that 800-pound monster that site over our hens. from the day we took office, but he liked and -- the election hungover everything we did. there are many specific rounds -- specific programs, but in certain areas including rule of law and anti-corruption, they were so integrated with the political system that we could not get them going. in his inaugural speech, karzai said clearly he was going to revitalize the program. we have been talking with our analysts.
2:04 am
we have people working on it in this room. what are we going to do? we are going to work out a revitalization oven very ineffective past programs that offered an opportunity to people fighting in the taliban. there was an extremely good article in "the washington post" yesterday would outline how it had failed. people got no kind of benefit. that is a major issue for us, so in regards to this issue, you are going to see a significant change in policy in conjunction with the afghan government in coming weeks. >> i want to ask you a question, and we're going to get your team, but before the election of
2:05 am
president carter say, it is no secret that many members of the obama administration are very critical that it was reported vice president biden walked out on them. you certainly were critical of him for not taking action@@@@@@ it was understood he was perhaps going to prevail, but what is the challenge in working with the government of afghanistan in this context? is it possible soon, despite this difficult history, work
2:06 am
with president karzai, and is it possible to work with other levels of the afghan government to perhaps bypass some of these problems, and how can you do that gives karzai a point of the ministers and governors? >> i see no problem with working with president karzai. the he was elected. it was a messy election. i said repeatedly it would not been perfect. to ask the country to hold an election in the circumstances under war with the taliban saying they would cut the finger off of anybody with the purple ink on it -- it was a daunting task. no country has such lol level of education, infrastructure, war for 30 years had attempted anything like this, so it was difficult, but at the end of it is an undisputed president, and
2:07 am
it is karzai. -- it was difficult. it was always clear he would be the heavy favorite. no one doubted it. our effort was to make the process as smooth as possible. some people interpreted that as supporting karzai, and others interpreted it as opposing karzai. neither is true. we supported and open process, and it came not as it came out. in november, secretary clinton and i sat an audience as he gave his inaugural address, which we thought was a good address. presidency darzedari came from pakistan, and it was a nice symbolism. where do we go from here?
2:08 am
we have absolutely no problem working with his government. is it as good as it could be? is it as good as we would like it to be? he had a long section of corruption in his inauguration. president obama said clearly that he looked for actions. we spoke this morning about rochon, about the next series of elections. you do not work just with the president. we have had excellent relationships with many ministers. the minister of agriculture is a terrific minister.
2:09 am
we have major agriculture program, which is a most important program. we are working directly with the minister and the department of agriculture vigo -- people on every single problem. we had 10 americans working on agriculture when i took this job. we have over 100 now and building, and that does not count at least five of agricultural development teams from the national guard from states like texas -- i think nebraska has one. what are the others? kentucky, indiana, texas,
2:10 am
nebraska, and california. @@@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are building agriculture. they are heading back out there at the beginning of january to work on building an agricultural credit bank. this was a great agricultural country. it exported raisins and pomegranates and pistachio nuts and even wheat and even wine -- good german rieslings, and that all ended in 1978, and we were ignoring agriculture. economy revitalized, you're going to start to withdraw the incentives to some of these unemployed, so we're going to
2:11 am
revitalize agriculture. in this effort, we are not working directly with president karzai. we're working with the ministries. i could give you many examples, but i start with agriculture, because it is a top priority, and only priority that is higher is training the police and army, something i know you will want to talk about, so we work with the president. we work with his ministers. when you encounter a ministry you cannot work with, one you think is incompetent, you have to adjust accordingly. that is the nature of the job, and we do that, but this is the whole government effort from afghanistan and washington. >> i think this is a did time to
2:12 am
introduce your team, and -- this is a good time to introduce your team, and i would like to move on to the part of the program were the members and press get to ask questions, but why don't you introduce your team first. >> what i would like to do is ask each one of them -- they have been waiting weeks for their moment. i would like each one of them to stand up and announce which agency they come from end what they do very quickly. we do not have one agency here. they are located in langley, and i cannot remember their name, but they could not join us. there are 10 agencies, certainly the largest ever assembled in the state department, and in my career, this is the best team i have ever worked with, so in no
2:13 am
particular order, it is almost the entire right side of the room. >> [unintelligible] our work on the issue of communications. >> i work on finance issues by creating an environment non conducive. >> it is nothing short of central. there was one person at the beginning of this year working on financing. there was a theory that all the money came from drugs. but was not true. when we got the intelligence community, said it -- they said the largest source was from adults.
2:14 am
there was also extortion. ñiwith the support of the undersecretary of the treasurer and tim died there, there are something like 25 people -- timber ratner -- tim geithner, something like 25 people, and we will work on this in january. >> i am the senior adviser on pakistan issues, and i came from the council of foreign relations. >> i am the senior adviser for agriculture from the u.s. department of agriculture. we are focusing on working with the u.s. military on improving incomes and afghan confidence in their government, particularly the ministry of agriculture. >> i am stan feldman -- dan
2:15 am
feldman. i helped coordinate a small team focusing just on international engagement and diplomatic engagement -- in part to help coordination become more efficient. i also helped arrange human rights and other issues. >> when president obama and secretary clinton appointed me, other countries began to follow suit, and we now have 28 different countries where i have counterparts. the last one to 0.1 was belgium last week. some of these are very important, we did the last one was in belgium last week. some of these are very important. this is the central mechanism to which we are coordinating international efforts, and this is the work in progress, but stdan and his team are working
2:16 am
with an international secretariat to coordinate the international effort on assistance and to go to the diplomatic issues we have not addressed yet. >> my name is beth with the u.s. agency for international development. i work on development issues in afghanistan and pakistan. >> my > mrs.re -- name is rena. my primary focus is political developments in afghanistan. >> my name is joanne. i am from the state department, and i work on the the civilians that are going to the increase in afghanistan. the increase in afghanistan. -- on employing civilians going on the increase in afghanistan. >> they were on since month touriss. we have more than tripled by the end of this month, and we keep
2:17 am
going this year to short circuit the hiring process. our deputy secretary and i work hand-in-hand on this, and we tripled the number of civilians with one-year two hours. school-age children are a big problem. this is the largest, fastest film of we have ever had, and the interesting thing to me was -- fastest buildup we have ever had, and the interesting thing to me was that recruitment went up, and this includes some of the detainees from places like agriculture.
2:18 am
>> i am the special adviser to master holbrooke. i do his trips to the region, and i also work on communication as well as our new mobile products we are introducing. >> we found that telecommunications technology -- quite simple ones have a tremendous rally to -- tremendous value in cutting down corruption. they discovered they were getting paid 30% more than their paychecks. you can understand -- imagine where the other 30% was coming from. this is the central issue kerrigan -- central issue. the new york magazine listed this as one of the good ideas of the year, and it is one of the
2:19 am
great innovations we have done. >> i am a state department foreign service officer, and i focus on governance and coordination. particularly, we are trying to help the afghan government become more responsive to the needs. >> i think we should move through -- >> i think we should let them finish, and i will let you finish so the audience can ask questions. >> i am the homeland security advisor, working mainly on security and border issues. >> i am the chief of staff. i do whatever needs to be done. >> i am detail from the fbi -- police advisor. >> my name is matt stieglitz. i am on the tell from the
2:20 am
department of justice, working on corruption -- i am working on the department of justice, working on corruption and other issues. >> i am from the office of chairman and joint chiefs of staff. i work security issues. >> i am from the state department covering issues in afghanistan and pakistan. >> i am paul jones, deputy to hold burke and we were just visiting -- to holbrook, and we were just visiting with those going out with harker -- with those of the military camp. >> we are going to try to squeeze in a few questions, and please wait for the microphone, identify yourself, and state your affiliation, and let's see
2:21 am
if we can keep the questions concise. right there. >> good to see you again. we saw each other during the election. >> thank you for your work. you did a great job with that election. >> yeah, right. >> i was in iran going village to village, and i spotted many of the same things i saw in pakistan. i got to the villages. there's a tremendous disconnect between the top level, the upper level and the people in the villages. i hope also that the work on delivering mechanisms to get it
2:22 am
out to the rural area of. only 40% of the children of school age are in school. thousands died from minor things. thank you. >> my question is about kashmir. i asked this question weeks ago. we all know the down there is no solution to resolve the kashmir issue. are you serious to resolve this issue? i ask this question before, but he told me my question was based on racism.
2:23 am
god willing we would keep fighting for the next 60 years for kashmir unless someone would help us. >> led new be very clear -- let me be very clear. i am not working on that problem. [laughter] i did not even mention the problem i am not working on. when i go to india, and i go there frequently, and i look forward to going there soon because we keep the indians very closely informed of our efforts because india is a hugely important factor, but when that question comes up, your colleagues tried to get me to mention the k word, and i will not do it because everybody says
2:24 am
i am secretly working on it or i ought to be, and they are wrong on both counts. i am not working on that problem. the president addressed very clearly, as did the secretary of state in recent interviews, and my job is to work on the civilian side of afghanistan and pakistan. we all know how important that issue is. everyone knows it, but it is not what i do, and it is not what the countries in the region expect me to do, and i understand why you ask it, but that is the simple fact. >> you made some eloquent comments about how important pakistan is, and you mention the aid to pakistan, but we have to be spending in the same time at least 10 times if not 20 times that amount in afghanistan.
2:25 am
don't we have it backwards? ehud implied pakistan is even more difficult. -- you just implied pakistan is even more difficult. t president obama and secretary clinton share that view. we let up with an enormous increase on civilian assistance in pakistan. we pledged $1 billion of the tokyo conference in april. when the refugee crisis hit and we had 2.5 million refugees appear from out of nowhere, hillary clinton was out there four days later with the first $110 million.
2:26 am
first $110 million. in this case with of almost 50%. we are out there all the time, but as i said in the opening remarks, we do not give enough aid to pakistan in my view, but it is extremely difficult because of the complicated history between the countries, and one of the best examples is a book from 1946, and if you read the whole fein, you see how many times there was a misunderstanding, but i know from the general sentiment, we
2:27 am
should give more money to pakistan, but it should be an international effort. this is not the truman doctrine. the european union is a tiny fraction, and in tokyo they gave $500 million, which was a big step forward. i was talking with pashtun about this, and i think she is going to be very good. i never met her before. i was tremendously impressed. the answer is absolutely. is little out of character. that means get the international community.
2:28 am
we have got to get the same thing in pakistan, and that will require a national understanding in the united states led by a bipartisan effort, and for me that as one of the highest priorities, to get up to that level. >> could you discuss the benchmarks you have in mind for the success of your program and how you assess the chances of success? >> they set of benchmarks to measure process. those were hammered out in a process directed by the national
2:29 am
security council with input from some of my team. quite honestly, they are pretty technical, and for me to go into them now would be diversionary. all of you can imagine what they are, so let me leave it at that. they are publicly available and have been shared with the congress. i am glad to see jane here today because she has been very active in helping focuses. >> the woman over there. >> "the washington post >> it is very powerful. i appreciate everything you have said, and i have no doubts about
2:30 am
either the good will or the expertise of all the efforts going into pakistan today, but as someone who has lived there for much of the past number of years, i do not discount something else, which is an extraordinary sense of what i sadly called defiant self destructiveness about afghans. i cannot quantify this, but i think there are a lot of afghans who hate us more than they hate the taliban and certainly more than they paid out kai tak, so my question is -- more than they paid al qaeda region hate -- they hate al quaeda. my question is with the surgeon
2:31 am
some of these people will die -- surge and some of these people will die -- what are you doing to try and counter the extraordinarily insidious and persistent notion among afghans that we are the enemy. it is not for nothing that afghanistan is called the grave of empires, and i think you understand that much better than i do, so thank you. >> thank you. i do not know avaya understand it better than you do because there is a reporter -- if i understand it better than you because there is no reporter out in the field more than you. we have only actually met once, but you were in our agricultural staff meeting in cobble when we discuss these issues -- kabul
2:32 am
what we discussed these issues. first, that is interesting. defiant self destructiveness of afghans. i have even seen that in the united states. i have even seen that in the united states. then you alluded to the fact that some afghans' fate of more than they take the taliban -- hate us more than they hate the taliban, but you know that is not universally true. afghanistan is a poor country with a high literacy rate but sophisticated politically. they have lived politics for centuries without realizing that is what they lived. they do not like the taliban. they know what the black years were like, and they do not want to return to it. what brings them together is their sense of being afghans.
2:33 am
there has never been a separatist movement like with their neighbors, pakistan, iran, and the soviet union. they all have separatist movements. what they found was historical narrative, but they drove out the others, and i greatly respect that. otherwise, the country would not exist. on the other hand, its role in history has been extraordinary and dramatic, but very few people support the taliban. i would say that the united states failed to say what they were doing there when there when
2:34 am
dinner region when they went in, particularly when when everything seemed possible and drama unfolded. as things turned the other way and civilian casualties became a dominant issue and the u.s. had no explanation as to why they were there, things turned the other way. two of the people who introduced themselves have been focused with me and with judith on this issue, and david petraeus and mike mullins have been focused on this, and we have changed the articulation of our presence very substantially in both countries, but particularly in afghanistan.
2:35 am
i hear you loud and clear. everyone of our colleagues worry about this every day, and that is why we stopped destroying copies -- poppies. i could not understand why we were spending more money destroying poppyco crops than building agriculture, but we@@@ you may have seen on television these mammoth explosions of drug paraphernalia, opium. we have done tremendous damage to them. we know from various sources
2:36 am
that removing that irritant we removed a recruiting tool, and now we have to go to work on other issues like encouraging the government to deal with corruption, which is another vulnerability. this is tough work. this is the toughest job i have ever had. we removed a recruiting tool. but it's not doubt why we are in this country. we are in the country for the reasons i stated. it is in our national interest because of al qaeda. but to succeed, we have to address these issues. some people that are not here today, and people out in the field, that is what they are trying to do. >> way back there. >> i am from voice of america. most of the people in afghanistan believe that the conflict in afghanistan and
2:37 am
pakistan is an impediment -- the you have any plan to work on that issue? >> i am not sure i follow you. are you talking about the iran the line? -- durand line? >> yes, sir. >> it had been suggested in i have looked into it. there many areas where the border is not agreed on. but it is my reluctant conclusion we really cannot achieve much in that area right now. most of the international boundaries in this incredible area of the world's, china and india, plus pakistan and afghanistan, plus some of the former soviet republics, some of the boundaries are not agreed
2:38 am
upon. we have the durand line and it is a serious issue but it is not one that i think that we can fix in the middle of a war. i understand the importance of that but we're not going to put that on the front burner right now. >> one last question. it is not my question but it is said and by a member who have been participating for video means. it is from jonathan paris. i guess it is about pakistan. given that the obama administration several times during the last few months has talked about pakistan, are you concerned about pressure on the pakistani army to go after the taliban will ultimately
2:39 am
undermine the cohesion of the pakistani army? and eventually the the stabilization of pakistan? -- that the stabilization -- de stabilization of pakistan? >> i do not believe so. the border is not even agreed on and the patterns of kinship along the disputed border. are we concerned about these users? you bet. pakistani officials have said publicly prior to the president's decision and cents to send 30,000 additional troops, they said very clearly and very honestly, in 2002 you drop the taliban and al qaeda
2:40 am
east into pakistan without consulting us were preparing us, and we inherited the consequences. we need to be consulted. and stan mcchrystal, with our strong encouragement, and ambassador i eikenberry as well, go to islamabad pretty regularly. they talk to the government and the military about these operations. this time around, we're much more conscious of the fact that if we have an operation office of baluchistan, the more successful it is, the more in my blood pressure on our ally in pakistan. and we have to coordinated -- the more it might put pressure on our ally in pakistan. and we have to coordinate it. we have to move the ball for here in terms of close coordination. and i've talked to several
2:41 am
pakistani generals about this. they are very pleased with the constant flow of information between us and them. as i said earlier, the chairman of the joint chiefs and centcom have both been in islamabad. we are in constant communication. that does not make it perfect. and this is an important question. we are fully conscious of that and we're working on it continually in close collaboration with our pakistani friends and allies. how long >> like to thank ambassador holbrooke. -- >> i would like to thank ambassador holbrooke. and with
2:42 am
after that, a look at the attitudes of young americans for politics and public service with john della volpe. live at 7:00 a.m. eastern. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> thank you oliver much for being here and this hearing -- thank you all very much for being here at this hearing.
2:43 am
we will come to order. i have a statement, but instead of delivering it, i think i will tell a story. i am fresh out of auditing. i got a seat on the armed services committee. as i began to learn about the war in iraq, i came back to contacting, because the auditor in me was surprised at some of the things ibm learning about contract in iraq, so i went to iraq, and -- things i began learning about the contract in iraq, so i went to iraq, and the thing i began doing was not the same as others which is to look of the military mission.
2:44 am
i went specifically for the reason to oversee contract thing and what was going on with contrasting, so i spend more time in kuwait, which will not surprise some of you, then i spend their, and i had many things happen on that trip that turned steered into my hard drive -- realizations about the lack of coordination and integration between various pots of money. amazing lapses in scoping contracts and making contracts definitely not that they could be enforced, particularly from any accountability standpoint and the government getting their money back when it had been abused and misused by contractors. i will only tell you one of many stories i could tell you because i think it is so illustrative of how bad the problem was in iraq. we were sitting in a room in
2:45 am
iraq. when you're giving a briefing from the military, there was a power point. i think there should be a loss of more that you're not allowed to get a briefing without a power point. -- there should be a law that you are not allowed to get everything without a power point. there were a lot of people in the room. there were lots of people that clearly had the military command authority in the room, but they turned over the discussion of the contract to a woman in the room, clearly a civilian, and made me the most knowledgeable about the contract in the room, and i think they turned it to her because she was the one trying to make the trains run on time and knew a lot about it. she put a pow reports of showing the contract by year -- she put up a power play at showing the contract by year, and is widely exceeded estimates by billions
2:46 am
of dollars. my estimate was $17 billion or $18 billion, and the original estimate was less than a billion, and then she showed us a bar graph, and you saw a big drop after the first year, and then it leveled out, and it was still a huge amount of money, so she got to the presentation, and you could tell she was still nervous, so i was trying to help her. i was trying to be kind. kind. -- and i was trying to be kind. and i said to her, you left out what you all did to bring that contract down so much after the first year. there were is an uncomfortable silence in the room as ever when shifted and looked into each other. with god as my witness, she looked at me across the table and said it was a fluke.
2:47 am
that is the best example i can give you of several examples of how contract thing went wild in iraq. so, here we are, in afghanistan. and i know many of you, because you reference in your testimony, have gone through siger's book of hard lessons. i know you understand the challenges we face in contracting, but one thing is clear -- we will have more contractors in afghanistan and we will have men and women in uniform. there is no doubt about that. we will spend a significant chunk of the tens of billions of dollars in afghanistan and will be spent for contractors. the purpose of this hearing, and it will be the first of several hearings we will have, is to get an overview as to how the ground has changed as a relates to contract in during a
2:48 am
contingency. how is the coordination occurring? how integrated is the effort? most importantly, is the mission now saturated with the knowledge that if we are going to have contractors, do supply lines, make breakfast, do the laundry, build not only the buildings for men and women in uniform but buildings and roads for the people of afghanistan, do that taxpayers have a better shot of getting value for their money this time than they did in iraq? i certainly hope they do. i want to thank all of you for being here. i look forward to your testimony. o work in progress, as we begin to get a real handle on how we spend money in a contingency to make sure we do not waste the billions and billions and billions of dollars that went up in smoke in iraq. and i will turn it over to you, senator bennett, for your
2:49 am
statement. >> thank you, matter and chairman. i'm interested in your story. -- thank you, madam chairman. i have a quick story about iraq. i was being shown in kuwait -- as you put it, that is where everything jumps off. the transportation program of how they were shipping material from kuwait to iraq. a very competent lieutenant colonel was in charge of this, and he was very much on top of the whole thing. i ask him, are you army corps reserve? he said, i am reserve board. he said he has a distribution manager for walmart. for once, the army has the right joint of the civilian experience and the military assignment. that may be a jumping off the pick up on where you have led us with their opening statement.
2:50 am
the challenge in afghanistan where, as you correctly noticed, r which is a counterinsurgency kind of battle, which means the contractors cannot sit back and say i have done my job, but i am not engaged in the counterinsurgency, because the way we deal with counterinsurgency, to take the slogan of the iraq surgeon -- surge, you contacted and you build it -- it must work hand in glove and cannot have its own separate command and control
2:51 am
system and its own separate management plan without being completely integrated in this kind of circumstance. management plan without being completely integrated in this kind of circumstance. it is not your traditional war with the military does all of the fighting in the contractors simply fills in the back functions. i agree with you that you have described this properly. i am in cursed by initiatives, some of the things we have learned in iraq. i agreed that there are a lot of lessons and iraq that we need to learn that maybe we have not, but the commanders of emergency response program that allows the military -- if something needs to be done quickly, to put out the money to do it quickly. do we make sure that we do not cross the line there of having the commander do something that aid and the state department should be doing in the name of
2:52 am
the commanders of emergency response program? that is another part of this where there needs to be some coordination. so, i guess basically what i am saying is, when the government agencies outsource the work that they want performed, they cannot outsource the results. and that is too often what happens. you outsource the work and you say that is the contractor's responsibility and we do not oversee the results. everything has to be coordinated, and the challenge we have from our witness panel is to see that the military and state department, aid, and the contractors are meshed together for the best results there. i believe in contracting. i think it is a great improvement over the old military where everything had to be done by a soldier somewhere, even if had nothing to do with
2:53 am
the military mission. as we move to that good idea, the challenge of coordinating all of that becomes very serious. and it is very laudatory that you are holding this. to try to probe into how that is done. -- holding this hearing to probe into how that is done. >> let me introduce the witnesses. we have william campbell, the director of operations for the undersecretary of defense at the department of defense. he has responsibility for the development of the overseas contingency operations request. he served as becky -- acting deputy assistant secretary of the army for budget. we have edward harrington, a deputy assistant secretary for the army. he has more than 28 years of experience in weapons acquisition and contract no. he served as director of the
2:54 am
defense contract management agency from 2001-2003. charles north is the senior deputy director of the afghanistan-pakistan taskçó fore at the u.s. agency for international development. he has been with u.s. a-n-d since 1987. he previously served -- he has been with usaid since 1987. he was in the state department in the office of foreign assistance. daniel feldman is the special representative for afghanistan and pakistan at the department of state. he is one of two deputies to ambassador holbrooke. he previously served as director of the humanitarian affairs at the national security council during the clinton administration and was the council and communications adviser on this committee. he was a partner echo foley and hope. jeff parsons is the executive
2:55 am
director of the army command. he serves as the principal adviser to the commanding general of the army material command on contract in matters@r >> do you swear to tell the truth? thank you. we will be using a tiny system today. we would ask that your oral testimony be no more than five minutes, and we will put your entire written testimony as part of the record, and once again, i want to thank all of you for your service. none of you are in these jobs because you're making the big bucks. are working because you care
2:56 am
about your country and want to contribute. let's start with that, and i will begin with mr. campbell. >> thank you, chairman mccaskill, and senator bennett. my remarks will focus on the commanders emergency response program. cerp began as a u.s.-funded program in 2004 and is designed to enable local commanders to respond to urgent humanitarian relief and reconstruction departments within their area of responsibility. it is a tool that commanders used to fund projects that will immediately assist the local populations. in testimony before the senate armed services committee last april, general petraeus called cerp a vital counterinsurgency
2:57 am
tool for our commanders in afghanistan and iraq. he said they can be the most efficient means to address all local communities' needs. where security is lacking is often the most immediate means for addressing these needs. since 2004, dod has obligated $1.60 billion for cerp programs in afghanistan. that includes about $551 million in fiscal year 2009. of those projects, about 23 projects in 2009, 2/3 of those funds were spent on transportation projects. about 90% of all projects were valued at five and a thousand dollars or less -- $500,000 or less. congress has authorized for 2010, about $1.3 billion. centcomm plans to allocate the
2:58 am
bulk of those funds to operations in afghanistan. by its nature, we involved decentralized implementation by local commanders. its hallmarks our responsiveness to urgent needs and flexibility. we have heard the concerns expressed by members of congress here today as well. we have studied the recent findings of audit reports and examined lessons learned. we have taken steps within the army and with an centcom to improve the oversight of the program, all with the goal without diminishing flexibility and responsiveness. within dod the office of the comptroller provides guidance. they went through an update of june and december of 2008. this guidance is supplemented by field-level instruction and training. all guidances' updated to respond to changing operational
2:59 am
conditions. to improve oversight of the program, the army enhanced training for four positions -- project manager, project purchasing officer, the paying agent and the unit commander. the first to inform a triad of expertise that every project must have. they make sure the appropriate projects are identified and training is provided to provide the checks and balances in every project. in there precipitation prevents duplication of efforts and helps identify any problems with sustainment of projects nominated by the program. the time, energy, and ingenuity people have devoted to improving it helps both a desire to spend tax dollars wisely and a program that is a valuable tool in afghanistan and iraq.
3:00 am
we recognize more improvements can be made to maintain the flexibility and accountability of this essentially field-driven program. to that end, the deputy secretary will leave their review to determine how best to enhance the guidance, management, and oversight. this will be completed and made available to congress this spring. let me thank you for the tremendous support of congress to this program, and i will be glad to address any problems. >> chairwoman, senator, distinguished members of the subcommittee on contacting oversight, thank you for this opportunity to discuss the contract in operations in afghanistan, where we strive to be expeditionary and responsive while assuring of proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars. with me is jeff carsons, the executive director of army
3:01 am
contract agree we have a joint witness statement i respectfully request be made a part of the record of the hearing. we thank the subcommittee and members of congress as we work to execute the increasing workload and the number of contract it actions -- to reduce the increasing workload and number of contract actions. with your help and the health of the office of secretary of defense, we are working aggressively to restore their skills to deal with the growing complexities of contract in. numbers and restore their skills. along with additional personnel, we thank you for authorizing five additional general offices. our progress and filling these positions is outlined in our written statement. our major general bill phillips wilson relinquish command of jccia, and become the principal
3:02 am
military deputy for acquisition, -- and technology in the army. both of these require a three- star billing. major-general camille nichols will replace the general phillips. he was the first contract in general officer to be the principal military jeopardy. -- deputy. jcia is authorized to contract for goods and services that include emergency response programs. the mission does not include reconstruction of afghanistan because that mission is assigned to the u.s. agency for international development. jccia does have a direct role in developing the economy of afghanistan, for example, through the afghan first program we are awarded $1.80 billion to afghani businesses since october 1, 2008.
3:03 am
they awarded more than $39 million to women-owned businesses. we supported the president's decision to send an additional 30,000 troops to afghanistan. general phillips is discussing a mission -- working on a mission analysis to determine the resources, personnel and locations were contractor support will be required. we are engaged with jccia to provide that direct support. earlier this year, we developed a joint theater contract support office within my office at the pentagon to and shore jccia has fully-funded, amanda and supported resources in this contract in mission. as additional troops deployed, this mission takes on greater importance. we are continually improving our process used to leverage stateside contrasting capabilities to augment jccia's.
3:04 am
wheat -- we established a reach back contract in office as a center of excellence in illinois. through this center, we are working with the army contract in command to identify requirements and theater that can be performed at rock island. we have initiated coordination with the air force to provide a team of contrasting officers to augment rock island's reach back capability. to ease the workload in theater, the army has established the specific contract close out task force and in san antonio, now in the process of closing at 80,000 contracts. thank you very much. mr. parsons will now discuss the logistics of the augmentation program. >> jim mccaskill, senator bennett, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide information on the
3:05 am
status of the contracts in afghanistan. from the logcap 3 contracts to this logcap 4 contract. they enable the army to provide critical support to the troops serving on the front lines of afghanistan. the highly complex and challenging program is accomplished by a team of up to four deployed and rear echelon department u.s. army civilians, army reserve officers, and noncommissioned officers and a support unit and the officers nco's of the defense contract management agency. these hard-working, highly skilled people make up teen logcap and provide oversight -- team locap. [unintelligible] the defense contract audit agency provides for support and is a key partner. team logcap is supported by the
3:06 am
men and women in in the u.s. army material command in the u.s. army contract in command and the u.s. army sustainment command. today i plan to provide your status and answer your questions of what we are doing to support deployed forces through the logcap forces in afghanistan. i thank you for your continued interest. the army contract in command is committed to excellence in all contract, including is very complex and critical contracts. we continue to collect less and learns and make improvements -- and collect lessons learned. it is my honor to lead the contractor team in the achievement of these goals. thank you for inviting me to speak with you today. this concludes my opening remarks spurred >> thank you, mr. parsons. mr. north? >> chairman mccaskill, senator
3:07 am
bennett, and senator kirk, and other members of the subcommittee, thank you for your opportunity to speak before the subcommittee. i will keep my remarks brief and asked that my written statement be submitted as part of the official record. within the president's afghanistan-pakistan strategy, usaid 's mission in afghanistan is to support afghan-led development, built afghan capacity at local and national levels and to strive for sustainability. afghanistan is a high risk environment in which corruption and extortion pose risks. as a result, it would be impossible for usaaid under these circumstances to declare that wrongdoing will never occur. at the same time, it is important to underscore that we have systems and practices to minimize opportunities for misconduct and misappropriation
3:08 am
of funds. based on these requirements, we aggressively manage and monitor performance, review and improve our systems and practices and respond to all allegations. we work closely with be usaid inspector general as well as the special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction and that general government accounting office. to best respond to the president's strategy, usaid has become an integral component in the unity of effort in afghanistan. all of our planning streamlines in accordance with government agencies. on the ground, we work under the leadership of ambassador eikenberry and ambassador wayne. -- with the reconstruction teams and in regional command teams, we work daily with the military and civilian counterparts to implement the u.s. government's
3:09 am
mission in afghanistan. they serve as additional eyes and ears on the ground to further improve our program effectiveness and to fly potential issues. -- to flag potential issues. çóour on the ground presence zaq doubled since january and continues to grow. as of december 7, usaid çó afghanistan has 180 americas staff in country. usaid expects to have a total of 333 americans on the ground early next year. we also have 136 afghans and 16th third country nationals on our staff afghanistan. we currently have 10 contract in offices and -- officers to focus on afghanistan and more than 57 officers on our staff in country as well. ñiour staff operates with a new initiative called afghan-first, which othersçó referred to it as
3:10 am
the guiding principle -- afghans lead, not follow in their path to a secure and economically viable country. the program strives to buy afghan project -- products, use afghan specialists whenever possible in order to build capacity in afghanistan. in conclusion, afghanistan is hungry for development. the united states, in coordination with partners, is providing jobs for the jobless, a voice to the voiceless, food for the one great and hope for the hopeless. we know will be difficult. we remain optimistic, even during weeks like this when five members of our team from the development alternatives international were killed by a suicide bomber. but these principles,ñi extendig and monitoring and oversight, as skilled courses and
3:11 am
development, civilian development specialists and placing afghans first, will make a difference for the people of afghanistan. thank you. >> thank you, mr. north. we are continuously standing in of people who lose their lives -- stand in awe of people who lose their lives, whether civilians or part of our ñimilitary, it is beyond bravery that people are willing to stand up and go into a contingency like that, especially in some ways, i do not think civilians dead end of pats on the back. we love which eight civilians get-- we think civilians do not get enough pats on the back. >> thank you for your invitation to appear before the subcommittee to discuss our efforts to enhance oversight for development and contracting in afghanistan.
3:12 am
as a former staffer on this committee, it is a unique experience to be back in this hearing room. >> can't wait. [laughter] >> as you know, this is a complex topic with many agencies going various aspects. the state department po's office has a role in approving and improving contracts, while our embassy and usaid colleagues can speak more directly to the issue of implementation. as secretary clinton noted in her recent appearance before the foreign relations committee, the obama administration inherited in under resources civilian effort in afghanistan. efforts since 2001 have fallen short of expectations. we have conducted a review of our objectives but also how we go about delivering our assistance programs. the result is a new, more focused effort aligned with our
3:13 am
core of disrupting al gaeda. we are in partnership with the afghan government and local afghan partners. what we have not resolved all the problems we uncovered, i believe we now have a more robust system in place that will deliver improved results over the next 12 to 18 months. let me outline our approach our civilian assistance aims to build the capacity of afghan government institutions to diminish the threat posed by extremism. [unintelligible] it focuses on the job creation, especially in the agricultural sector and improving service delivery at the national, provincial and local levels. long-term construction efforts aim to provide a system for sustained economic growth. we have pursued four discrete categories -- one, smaller
3:14 am
contracts, decentralization, increased direct assistance and improved accountability and oversight. on smaller contracts, we are shifting away from large contracts to more flexible reconstruction contracts with your subcontracts that enable greater on the ground oversight. the premise behind this flexibility is simple -- in a dynamic conflict environment, we need to adapt our programs as issues change on the ground. it will be managed by u.s. officials on the field. it will make it easier for the officials to direct and monitor and oversee projects to ensure the proper use of taxpayer funds. i did centralization, usaid officials bring with them at finding and flexible authorities to enhance the responsiveness of programs and better coordinated afghan parties. we found that not only does decentralized programs enhance productivity, but it is also a
3:15 am
3:16 am
the insured that our new contracts introduce mechanisms to improve performance. washington remains involved, ambassador tony wayne, are coordinating director in kabul, as day-to-day responsibility for reviewing each contract to ensure its adherence to national security goals. the international assistance of afghanistan has the potential to contribute to corruption, we have deployed new personnel to enhance oversight as well as additional technical staff. the special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction is congress's eyes and ears on the ground. the secretary and all of us who worked in afghanistan believe we have a duty to ensure the resources provided by the american people are used for purposes intended and approved
3:17 am
by the congress. the reforms we implemented it will decrease overhead costs for assistance programs, increasing the amount per dollar directly benefiting the afghan people and afghan institution. it is a dynamic operational environment. we are making every effort to ensure that the required operational flexibility is matched with the highest dedication to accountability. we are committed to make -- to taking corrective actions when a problem occurs. >> thank you, mr. feldman. we will do as many rounds as we need to do in order for everyone to cover their questions today. let me start out by asking a question that probably individuate none of you can answer, but it might be one of those moments for collaboration. could somebody give me an number in terms of how much we're spending on contracts in afghanistan?
3:18 am
what would you guess the number is going to beat for this year or next year? -- is going to be for this year or next year? can anybody do that? let's do it by stovepipe. are there significant contractual obligations of thencerp and iad -- other than cerpa n and aid? am i missing other contracts? >> from an army perspective, the joint command will contract for all of the goods and services. >> i left out l ogcap. >> and the joint contract in committee in afghanistan contracts for specific goods and services for those requirements outside of the bound oflogca logcap. trucking, air support, services
3:19 am
such as that. >> we have cerp, logcap, i will refer to what you just said as other, and aid. anything else i have missed? any big pots of money being spent that i have missed? mr. feldman? >> state department, all together, we are in a state of flux. one of our latest contracts for police training in the process of being transferred back to dod, about $450 million. if you take that out, that will be back at the department of defense and the first quarter of next year, we have about $900 million of programming. -- it is fort counter-narcotics, justice programs -- for counter- narcotics and justice programs. taking out the police, under
3:20 am
1500 contractors altogether. >> how big is logcap? >> different -- the current contract in afghanistan is in the neighborhood of $1.8 billion . [unintelligible] i would like to add that i know we are doing a bit of contracting for the combined security transition committee in afghanistan. we are buying a lot of equipment that is being provided to the afghan army and the afghan police, plus some other training support contracts that we do for them. those i know are averaging probably total about $1 billion per year if not more. >> that is not in "other." that is additional? >> yes. >> tell me again? >> the combined --
3:21 am
>> cistica. you guys kill me. you have never found an acronym you did not love. >> the funds they front -- they spend are out of the afghan security forces fund that is a separate account operated by dod. >> we will try to do a chart after this hearing as to where the money is being spent. what i want to make sure i know is who is responsible for each pot of money. that is one of the things that made my eyes cross in iraq. it was not clear who was the one that would be held accountable when things went badly. let me ask this, one of the things that happened in iraq, is you had army corps of engineers that got layered in there. it was interesting to me, because i would go to talk to the army corps of engineers, and i would hear one set of facts.
3:22 am
then i would move to somewhere else and you're a completely different set of facts. where is army corps of engineers in here, if at all? >> the army corps of engineers is the other component of this. i will take a question for the record to get an accurate dollar account for you. some of this is still slightly on known, because requirements are going to be generated throughout this time frame, but we will get you the actual numbers. >> what will they be doing? >> primarily construction projects, permanent building construction projects. >> for the military or for the afghan people? >> essentially for both. >> and their money is going to come from where? from your money or from state's money? >> i do not know. i will find out. >> ok
3:23 am
i appreciate your honesty that you do not know. but it is a problem. >> yes, ma'am. >> my understanding is the army corps engineers will oversee the large projects. that is why you get different facts. the army is going to be executing funds appropriated to the army, appropriated in the case of iraq, to security forces funds. there could be so miltcon projects that go through our record engineers and not through the commands in theater. i can understand why you would get different facts. >> that is how things get lost in the shuffle. cerp is doing big stuff now. i am going to turn it over to senator bennett. cerp is no longer fixing a broken glass on storefront. they are doing a large, large projects. the question is, are they
3:24 am
contrasting with people to do that or will army corps come in to do that? that is where i am not clear? have they drifted from their initial walking around money? as it drifted into the category aid or army corps reconstruction major project, and are we losing expertise in the shuffle, and are we going to get the oversight and monitoring we need? thank you. senator bennett? >> thank you very much. following through with what the chairman has said, i have talked about the coordination between it the combat units and the contractors. when combat units are in the field, they expect to have a high degree of situational awareness established between operating centers at higher levels of command. this means the tactical
3:25 am
maneuvers of one unit do not get messed up with the tactical maneuvers of another unit. what is the command structure at all local, provincial and national level in afghanistan to ensure you have the same degree of coordination or avoidance of duplication that is expected of combat units, with respect to reconstruction units? >> senator, within the central command, the joint contract in command, or rat-afghanistan has the responsibility for theater business clearance for the central command. that is the clearing house with respect to where our responsibilities lie, executing -- [unintelligible] outside of that, we do not have the purview of those requirements. in coordination with logcap, it
3:26 am
is the central point to which we find ways to execute requirements for the war fighters that we support. >> since you have that group in place, do you have any information about how often they stumble into situations where what is being done in reconstruction you unit a does t correlate with what is being done in your b, and they exercise their authority -- in unit b, in the exercise their authority? can you give me some examples of how it works? >> the organizational structure in terms of executing those requirements and geographical locations, when a requirement comes in for a certain to clerical location for operating base, they get the responsibility to execute that. if it is a more complex unit,
3:27 am
that is when we turn it back to reach back at what island. -- at rock isalnd. land. the staff that supports that oversees the functions toward those contracts and has the purview of all of those contracts coming to it. that is with centcom. that is our responsibility. >> any other comments? >> i can tell you, i have a budget person. on cerp, what they have done that in afghanistan and from lessons learned in iraq -- learned in iraq, they have set up a review board. as i mentioned, it has eight usaid rep on it. it is on the command level. it is not segregated in the field. all of those projects come back up to two-star or higher level
3:28 am
command were taken to the integration you refer to. i cannot say they have everything in there, but they do their best to integrate at least aid. >> there have been reports of friction between states aid, exacerbated after the 2006 merger ofai aid into state. i am not asking you to tell any details of the school, but can you give us some characterization of the relationship between aid and main state? >> i think we should both answer. [laughter] >> everything is fine? >> we work closely with the state department at all levels. ambassador holbrooke's staff is an interagency group that includes the aid staff. [inaudible] >> they are asking that you pull
3:29 am
the microphone closer. >> sorry. we have three usaid officer on ambassador holbrooke's staff to help with coordination in washington. out in kabul, we work with ambassador dwaine and ambassador eikenberry -- and ambassador wayen. ne. we have in your agency strategies on agriculture, with the u.s. department of agriculture and the national guard. how do we go forward on implementing agricultural programs in afghanistan? when you go to the provincial level, the planning level there, aid does participate in cerop decision making, but also with
3:30 am
3:31 am
non-military assistance. we have created a counterpart in pakistan to have the same coordination. he directs and supervises a wide range of sections, programs, agencies. there are 15, national-level working groups. not only do we believe we have to work towards as a coordinated injure agency to be successful. >> inter agency to be successful. >> i have another subcommittee to go to, so i am at your mercy. you can do whatever you want by unanimous consent. >> i would like us to vote on the health care bill by monday and go well for christmas. [laughter] will that work? >> maybe not at third >> i thought i would give it a shot. ho ho ho. senator kirk? >> thank you, madame chairman and senator bennett for this opportunity.
3:32 am
it is a timely hearing. welcome, gentlemen, and tahnhank you for your service. we are about to spend billions of dollars in afghanistan, a country that enjoys a reputation of having a culture of corruption. i sometimes said it is the second-most corrupt country in the world. general mcchrystal, when he was here, and he has written before hand that the success of the american operation in afghanistan will largely be measured on how we do, paraphrasing, by, with and through the afghanistan government. my first question is, with that as a backdrop, and each of you are -- york agencies and departments -- york agencies and
3:33 am
departments, are the particular systems that you are going to undertake that will give us some assurance in the american tax payers some assurance that the money that is going to be spent over there will be properly overseen, accountable, so that we do not fall into that trap of that culture and find that a lot of our taxpayer dollars are being expended for kickbacks or wheneveatever. maybe i will start with you, mr. north, and that others want to join in in terms of your respective departments and agencies it would be helpful. >> thank you. we recognize the issue of corruption is a major concern in afghanistan. but we are also looking to put
3:34 am
more of our resources through the government of afghanistan, but doing it responsibly. we have ongoing programs to strengthen the capacity of government ministries, not only personnel about their systems, so they can bring them up to standards that we require for us to provide direct assistance to the government. we signed an agreement with the ministry of health year-ago for over to a million dollars -- $200 million and we provide assistance to the ministry of finance. in addition to strengthening their systems, we have ongoing assessments of other ministries, including the ministry of education, agriculture, and the ministry of rural rehabilitation. by going through these assessments, we can identify the weaknesses and support their efforts to strengthen their
3:35 am
systems, not just for being able to manage our resources but also to improve the overall accountability of afghan resources for the long term. so this is very much part and parcel of what we are about, is strengthening systems but also working with and through the afghan government. >> thank you. >> there are a range of initiatives we have tried to implement since the beginning of this year to try to improve contract oversight and performance, and they fall into five categories. the first is the overarching organizational structure. having ambassador tony wayne there helped to do that. that position did not exist a year ago. it helps improve oversight and interagency coordination. second is the contract in methods.
3:36 am
-- contacting methods. usaid is increasing one-year contracts. they are designed with your subcontracting layers and more supervision. we're moving towards afghan contractors. international contractors that have a strong percentage of afghan personnel. this includes working with certified afghan ministries. the third category is the personnel divisions. state and eight are increasing their technical officers and program officers -- to ensure that contractors are performing according to standards. the fourth is the general civilian increases in the field. we have more than doubled the number of u.s. civilians deployed to the field this year. the more that are there, were the contracts are located, and
3:37 am
their projects are happening, the more oversight we can provide. the fifth is the extra oversight mechanisms, and that is working in close concert and supporting the missions of the various inspectors general, the gao and other external reporting mechanisms. what i would say about corruption is that this is an issue that is at the core of our strategy in afghanistan. we have made a very robust and consistent case are dealing more aggressive on corruption to the karzai government. it was part of his inaugural speech, as we hoped it would be. he held just yesterday the anti- corruption conference. it is something that we and the rest of the international community will watch very closely. there has been all range of suggestions from revitalizing it and anti corruption commission to bring in some high-level prosecutions.
3:38 am
if we cannot deal with it nationally, to work at a regional level where we can work around corruption if we have to. so, it is something that is at -- it is very central to our core mission. >> thank you very much. >> if i could add real quickly, one of the things we are doing with our soldiers as we see them as the front line on being able to identify bad business practices. we are teaching all of them ethics training and that things they need to look for is they perform their duties as contracting officers. that will go a long way. i met with the expeditionary fraud investigation before this hearing. -- division of the army, and they are increasing their presence in afghanistan. >> thank you. i know my time is up, but may i just ask if there and the other -- mr. campbell, mr. harrington? >> yes, thank you.
3:39 am
what i would do is give you an example that will get at the local level issue. all cerp money is executed and managed by u.s. government employees or soldiers. in rare exceptions, coalition forces can use it. one of the things that the resource manager at centcom has implemented it is moving more towards electronic transfer of funds. in iraq, years ago where we used to have plane loads of cash, what you're finding in afghanistan is a lot of this is being transferred in local currencies, but also an electronic fund transfer. once it gets into the local population, it is up to them to deal with. >> sir, to reinforce mr.
3:40 am
parson's comments, we are taking more than active role in training are contrasting officers earlier in the process and ensuring that they are identified as trained and assigned with certificates such that when they do arrive in theater, they are linked with their contract and officers and they go through a good briefing on the contractor's performance and functions. that training includes being able to a valuate the contractor's performance and provide that information to the contract in officer. that culminates in ascertaining the deliverable we are supposed to get, a supply a product, and executing of payment, as mr. campbell notes, electronically, so that we have a good, to process all the way through the payment of the contractor. . .
3:41 am
>> this is a great amount of dollars, a variant -- importance of theater. -- a very important here. part of this is going to be the civilian component of it. ines wondering about the licensing program being administered -- i am just wondering about the licensing program be administered by afghanistan. is that something that each of you subscribe to as the right way to go? >> ambassador eikenberry addressed this in his recent testimony. we do support that and we think it would help to provide a
3:42 am
certain amount of consistency. this came up in part due to the rates that international contractors pay compared to the rates that afghans may make. the lesser rate at this point, if they go into the army or police and other things. we want to make sure that we create the right incentives and do not create disincentives for them to join the security forces. we do see this as one way to help address that and we would certainly favor it. >> thanks very much. chairman, i am also going to have to excuse myself. thank you for your forbearance and i thank you gentlemen as well. >> thank you, senator kirk. i'm glad you were here. let me start drilling down on a lot cap -- log cap. you know, i feel about log capp
3:43 am
3, like the movie that never ends. by philip we are continuing to utilize it and not transitioning into logcap 4, even though we have awarded to under 4, it appears to me that less than $1 billion has been funded under logcap 4 and logcap 3 is totaling $34.4 billion. what is the holdup? why can't we let those of the kbr dynasty? >> i think we are letting loose of that. we have been deliberately moving from logcap 3 to 4 and we have talked with many of the staffers there is a deliberate process that we would move from some requirements from three to four and then move to afghanistan and then move to the more complex
3:44 am
situation, which was in iraq. i think that is what we have been falling. i think you are aware that all of the logcap requirements transitioning it from three to four were in the beginning part of the transition in afghanistan from the old logcap 32 logcap 4 -- 3 to logcap4. is not a simple transition process, especially with the equipment that would have bought from kbr and the different camps. and having to account for that and also getting men and women and equipment into a transition into afghanistan. we have got to be cognizant of the commanders operational requirements as well. logcap requirements in iraq, we should be making an award at the end of this month and maybe into january before services in iraq. what has been holding us back on late-based life support is not
3:45 am
3:46 am
there. plus, we did not want to have a single point of failure. which is what we recognize in iraq. we were tied to kbr in iraq and kbr decided not to perform any more, we did not have a back up. this way, if we have performance problems with one of the contractors, we will have two there in the theater on the other one can pick up. i know you have concerns about the way that we structured these task orders. we recognize that if we were going to select one for the north and one for the south, we would have to find a way to preserve the competition that we had with those awarded the task orders. we established a service price matrix and took about 80% of all of the key services that are provided under those task orders for all of the basic life support. and we have the majors with the base line pricing which the fee was paid on. the feed at these contractors will earn are tied back to -- the fees that these contractors will earn are tied back to these matrix.
3:47 am
>> what you're telling me, which is great news -- a huge improvement -- that somebody that is pitting a potato of north is going to get paid about what somebody who is is down south. >> not necessarily, ma'am. there are differences for some of the services between what we have in our price matrix for the north versus the south, but that is because the contractors have different rate structures, took different approaches at it. what we will also have is dca * is going in and auditing -- dca8 is auditing and going in to negotiate. >> let's say something a little bit easier. per head breakfast. i assume that we are buying breakfast by head. >> very close, there was no bounce pricing debora zabul we did the competition. -- that we saw when we did the
3:48 am
competition. >> ok, i saw that dyncorp's partner are invited. agility, crinolincriminally in r violations of false claims act. basically, they are caught ripping us off. i understand that you have suspended them, but it is also might understanding that the way the wheels and laws work, they can continue to get work under their contract for even though they have been indicted for ripping us off. is that accurate? >> it is interesting that you bring this question up. mr. harrington and i met with dyncorp officials this week to discuss another matter, but they did bring up agility. what they informed us was that they would no longer be using vagility as a partner. they set up an agreement with their partners -- be using a
3:49 am
vagility as a partner produced an agreement with their partners that they would reestablish a relationship. >> more progress. ok, i also understood that you recently suspended $14.2 million in costs that were built by floor. -- built by four. under logcap 4 that there were $14.2 million in expenses that were there. >> there have been some questions about floors compensation and also their purchasing and compensation system. the contracting officer has been looking at withholds in those systems and making sure those systems are corrected.
3:50 am
>> i would love to know the details. it would reassure me that we have transitioned into a situation where we will try to take money away instead of paying them and saying later, maybe we should not have given that to you, but too late now, we will not try to claw back. >> right. >> i would like to know the underlying details. if we are withholding, i would like the details. >> we will get that for you. but let's talk about contractors verses police -- >> lets talk about contractors vs. police and military. these answers are very important for the record. i went over this with secretary gates in the armed services hearing and with general mcchrystal. it is my understanding that many of these contract positions, people need to understand this is a world of difference from iraq in terms of use of afghans. we have got more than 50% -- in fact, almost 100% of security contractors are afghans.
3:51 am
and right now, if we got about 11,000 security contractors and 10,000 of them are the afghans. clearly, that is a much different scenario than in iraq when it was almost all third- party nationals. the same thing is true with the other contractors. more than half -- in fact, i think is close to two-thirds of the 100,000 contractors we have in afghanistan are, in fact, afghans. it is my understanding, and some of this was from talking to ambassador holbrooke, he mentioned that karzai talked about this problem in his inauguration address. we are paying our contractors more money than they are paying the police and military. if you are an afghan and you can make more money a a cooking for american troops then you can make picking up again -- taking up a gun to fight the taliban, i am betting that they will cook for the troops. our entire mission is to build up the afghan military and
3:52 am
police. how do we accomplish that is the last panda is not know what the right hand is doing -- if the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing and we are paying our contractors more than the military? can any of you confirm that this is the case and what is being done to fix this problem? because we will never accomplish our mission. we are hiring many, many more contractors and we will ever be able to attract to the police or military. >> let me take that question for the record and get the fax back to you. >> ok, if it is true, then it worries me. that means once again we have not had the integration between the military mission and the realities of contract in. in fact, the realities of contract in in this instance -- of contract in in this instance are completely under cutting the military mission and i'm betting the military did not realize that was potentially occurring.
3:53 am
>> i understand. >> it is really important and i want to know specifics. how much does someone make doing laundry for our troops? how much did make in the different regions? what do they make in the police department locally? we can do an apples to apples comparison about the local salary and if we are cutting off our noses to spite our face. let me go to the state department for some questions about that. i know there is a reason we have six ambassadors in afghanistan. but it is not clear to me who is doing what. who is the ambassador? who is in charge? what is the difference between eikenberry and holbrook? and who is answerable to them? can you help me with that? mr. feldman?
3:54 am
>> i would be happy to. we do have six ambassadors in kabul, but we feel extremely well served by having them there given the critical nature of our mission and the talent that they bring. ambassador eikenberry is charged with all of our work coming out of the embassy. i'm just looking for the actual organizational chart that i brought with me and i am happy to share. >> that is fine, you can get it to us for the record. the reason i ask the question is not to try to -- i am sure that there is a valid, substantial reason for all of the work that all of them are doing. i'm trying to focus on this just because i have learned the hard way that the accountability peace never happens if you do not know who is in charge.
3:55 am
i'm trying to determine among these ambassadors who is the ambassador that has the authority and accountability and responsibility in terms of the contract and that is going on -- the contract iing that is going on. >> ambassador eikenberry runs much of what is going on. ambassador wayne, as we said, is the coordinating developed -- director for the economic development and assistance. he oversees all of the u.s. government and nonmilitary assistance to afghanistan. he directs and supervises the range of offices in the field. he is our point of contact on many of the specific contract in issues, but many things would go up to ambassador eikenberry. ambassador holbrooke here in washington and coordinates the interagency events and the
3:56 am
strategic events between afghanistan and pakistan. >> ambassador holbrooke would be the one looking to see if circuit was trying to do the same thing and a id is try to do the same thing that state is trying to do. >> yes, in washington we do all of that. the interagency coordination is done from our office. but importantly, much of this work is actually done in the field, obviously. on serp, the decision is on local councils, on how the project is implemented, we need and rely on what is being done in the field and that ultimately goes through ambassador wayne for coordinating basis. but we do the coordinating in washington. >> it was determined on the line that there was a lack of coordination that caused a massive amount of waste -- if so, the book would stj at ambassador holbrooke's desk? >> indeed, and we would be
3:57 am
working with other people here as well. and ambassador kearney was there for the specific collections purpose. now that they are over, he will be returning. >> ok, usaid, you are not putting your contracts into the data base. >> into which? >> spot. the fact that you had to ask was a problem. there is supposed to be one and everyone is supposed to be using it so there is transparency in all of the contracts that are outstanding in the work that are being -- is being done. >> we are putting contracts into spot. we're putting it at the company and organizational level. we have not putting individual names because of concern for the security of the individuals. of the 20,000 people who work under aid contract andts are
3:58 am
afghans there is faced -- are afghans. there is concern for their security and privacy. in terms of all those are working for us, we have not as yet put those individuals into the system. >> let me ask, is the information that the army is putting in, i assume it is more comprehensive than what aid is putting in? >> i do not know what fayed is putting in, but the army requires -- what aid is putting in, but the army requires names of the contract in personnel in the data base. >> i think we need to resolve this. clearly, everyone is hiring afghans. this is an unprecedented hiring of locals. in terms of our country.
3:59 am
i do not think we have ever embarked on this kind of massive hiring program in country when we have been in and -- in a contingency. not even close. i think we have got to decide if it is a security problem for the people at aid, then it is a security problem for the people working through the military. the problem is going to be, this whole spot was designed so that we could at least have one central repository, which we never had -- i mean, we did not even have electronic in iraq. it was all paper everywhere. the accountability is very important, -- the accountability, it is very important this data base work. in peter, you know, everybody using it. i would ask -- in a theater, you know, everybody using it. i would ask aid to come back with their concerns as to why they are not using the data base and what needs to be done to get
4:00 am
everyone together and doing the same thing. >> i would note that we are having a separate meeting on going this afternoon on spots here on the hill. >> good timing. >> thank you. it was this afternoon, but has now been delayed, the ngo community, about 40 members, asked to meet with us about their concerns about the system. it was also to be today. we have put that off now to the first week in january. we have considered the possibility of using a classified version for putting individual names in. that is a possibility we can look at. but we still need to work through those issues. we want to fully comply with the law and be a joined to the full u.s. government effort on this, but we have to be mindful of the
4:01 am
groups that we work with. >> if everyone gets in the same room -- it defies common sense that you all would not share the same set of values as to what should go in the data base and what should not. i think we have just got to all agree on what we are going to put in or not in. if we are not putting in something, then there has to be great justification for it. my concern is that not everyone is utilizing it the same way, and until they are, it is of limited value. i am really tired of databases with limited value. there is about every 5 feet you walk in federal government you find a data base that is of little value. i was involved in trying to make sure we had some kind of central data base. i'm determined to stay on it to make sure it is working the way it should.
4:02 am
>> may i make one last comment on this? >> sherer. >> there is an understanding that we are working with dot on spot and that is in draft. we are trying to figure this out. we are also hiring a full-time person just to administer this database from our side and make sure that we are keeping up-to- date on data entry. as we go forward, we will have to -- >> that is terrific. i know how long those m.o.u. draft takes sometimes. we have got a lot of people are there and a lot of contractors on the ground and the ability to do oversight is going to be hampered if we do not get things working the way they should. i am trying to get handled on the evolution of serp. and especially when you realized it is such a large percentage of the monies that are being spent on projects that cost more than
4:03 am
$500,000. general mcchrystal told me in the armed services hearing that there was sign-off that goes as high as patraeus on some of these. is jccia doing the oversight recordings on serp? is it your responsibility that that is where is occurring? >> at $500,000 and above, jccia chondroitin office of executes serp and are paid in accordance with our payment processes within normal base contracts. yes, on those types of transactions -- for our actions below $500,000, it is much as mr. campbell described in terms of an pinnock officer -- a payment project control officer. >> is the core still involved in
4:04 am
the serp? are they doing part of this? >> yes, ma'am. the requiring top -- activity requires the representative in all of these types of actions. wendy serp requirement -- when the serp requirement comes forth, we require these types of services to prevail. >> would it make sense when it is over $500,000 that it would trent lott -- transfer over to aid? wouldn't that make more sense? the idea that we have the military overseeing a massive road-building project as seems weird to me. yes? that is a nod for the record. he is nodding yes. >> we will take whatever job comes to it and try to do our best with it. but if it is more corporate and the expertise lies in another
4:05 am
area, then absolutely. and we're just here to take the mission on when it assigned to us. >> we are going to build up a whole level of expertise within the military on overseeing massive building projects and, to me, that is very duplicative of what we are trying to maintain at aid, right? he is nodding yes for the record. >> yes, ma'am. >> we have worked very closely with the military on serp planning of the district level. when the striper brigade was going into areas of canada are -- the striker brigade was going into areas of canada are, before that, there was close coordination planning with aid officers with civilians at that level to work with the military to figure out what needed to happen. we have held on the revised use
4:06 am
of to serp so we developed appropriate use and we're going in 24 to 48 hours behind the military. there is a close relationship that we are working on building, continuing to build at the provincial and down to the district level. when an idea comes up here or something that we need to do to finance, it is a joint interagency team of the military, usaid, state department, and others to figure out which is the best mechanism to get the job done. >> i have a sneaking suspicion -- and maybe i am being cynical -- that is easier to get money in the budget for servep then it is for aid. and i have watched serp grow and it is my observation that folks
4:07 am
around here are much more willing to go wherever they are out to go to support the military on a contingency, whereas when you start talking about to aid it does not feel as important to many members. we do this all the time around here, which was up like pretzels in terms of what our responsibility -- we twist up like pretzels in terms of our responsibility should be. if you are quick to try to continue to continueserp money -- continue to try to get serp in the budget, i want to make sure that is not duplicative. >> we are working to make sure that is a command emergency response requirement. >> building roads, i know it may seem like an emergency in afghanistan, but i do not ever
4:08 am
remember someone saying, we have an emergency, we have got to build 15 miles of highway. >> in the case of road, one of the reasons that serp was see it as a reason for finding it, be employing the use in the region and pulling royalties away from the taliban. >> that makes perfect sense. >> if i could expand a little but, i would say that the reason that serp has expanded is one just because of the large phasing in of projects in afghanistan, but there are about 300 aid officers in afghanistan. there are 60,000 soldiers in afghanistan out in the field. they act as the eyes and years of what is needed art and the population and bring those back up through their command levels -- the eyes and years of what is
4:09 am
needed out in the population and a spike through their kurram levels. what they -- and bring those back to their command levels. less than 20% of the villages are actually connected by a road. serp was originally walking around money, but they need something to walk around on in afghanistan that is why you are seeing so many more road projects. >> that makes sense. >> it should transition to a more of a state aid, but right now it is in the military interest. >> on serp, we believe it is a viable program and is closely integrated with a civilian efforts. i just want to be sure they you understand that the department had requested and received $30 million through congress for a fiscal year 2009 for a quick response fund, which is designed to be that kind of walking
4:10 am
around money and in 2010 it will be used for state department civilians in the field. nothing approaching serp, but trying to get at the same core mission. >> okay, great. let me talk about projects that do not work. we have a $1.4 billion contract to restore afghanistans infrastructure, a joint venture between berber and black and beach, a id. it was supposed to build two power plants, projected to deliver 140 megawatts of electrical power. $240 million have been spent, it is two years later, the two projects to get the world capable of producing 12 mike -- 12 megawatts of power and not meant -- not one that what has been delivered to a single
4:11 am
citizen of afghanistan. worse than the failure to complete the project from the inspector general at usaid found that the afghan government may not even be able to operate to the kabul power plant because it cannot afford to pay for the diesel fuel it needs to run it. the other plant, which is producing zero power, is costing usaid $1 million per month to be guarded. we have got $250 million spent, we have got a little bit of electricity been generated but not delivered, and we have got one plant that has been built and we are spending $1 million per month to guard it with nothing going on. what is the problem here and have the contractors been held accountable? >> security has been a major issue, certainly, for many infrastructure programs. in the case of the kabul power
4:12 am
plant, the latest figures i have is that it is now producing 105 megawatts of power. >> is any of it being delivered? >> yes, it is. >> ok. >> and we are also concerned about the sustainability of this. mind you, there was the intend in addition to the economic needs for kabul, the need to demonstrate for the government of afghanistan as we are into this time of war and they are able to deliver it. there is a short-term political need, but at the same time looking at the sustainability of it. we had negotiated with the government that they would pick up the cost of this, but with the understanding that we are also building transmission lines
4:13 am
coming from the north integrated with central asia to provide power to kabul so the power plant becomes a pack of system rather than the main -- the primary means of power. the other plant i believe you are referring to is the dam that is producing 33 megawatts of power. can are now has power 24 hours. -- qantarkandahar now has power4 hours. the third needs to be installed at the dam, this was a year-and- a-half ago, one of the largest nato operations since world war ii to move the turbine into place. due to security concerns, we are unable to get that turbine installed as well as to build
4:14 am
additional transmission lines. we are taking actions to hold off on further costs to us tuntl we -- working with the military, nato, to secure the region. we would -- with the third person -- turbine we would increase the power to 50 megawatts. but we have already increased the power to kandahar and some of the smaller cities in that region from what we were able to do. >> i think -- i am glad that you have updated information based on our research. i would appreciate getting all of that for the record so we can compare the information that we have it came from the ig -- aog and -- aig and frankly, it did
4:15 am
4:16 am
terms of how well you are integrating, according to my train and overseeing contractors? mr. campbell's? >> yes, ma'am, i can start. right off, i would say about a "c." i think we have done a good job on the front end, where we have put together some lessons learned. we put out guidance, training for these officers and enlisted soldiers here in the state's been trained before they go over to afghanistan on serp and serp management. i think we have done well on the front end. where we are lacking and concentrating our efforts now is more of the back end. we have systems in afghanistan that track a a contract in and systems that track the financial piece. we have systems that track with the corps of engineers do to track content -- construction projects. to what we have got to do now on
4:17 am
the back end is link them together. that is one of the things that we do in this review group that we do in this review group that we're looking at. transformation agency looking at the entire business process in afghanistan. the rather than going in and inventing a new database or process or system, how do we link together first what is out there to get immediate feedback and immediate results so that we do not have soldiers and civilians doing spreadsheets pulling numbers out of three different databases? on that part, i would say we are still in the d - 4 or "f ." >> i would give us a "c" also but for a different reason. in the awarding of contracts over time, but margins get a bit of because other agencies and organizations are contracting
4:18 am
with the same contractors and the contractors are enjoying be able to present products at a higher price. the organization aspect of this needs to be addressed further. we have requirements review boards, we have priorities, allocation processes in place to evaluate what comes first in the order for addressing the most urgent needs and most widespread needs. but it is an organization at a higher level that gets together and collaborate in theater to determine overall requirements being placed and how to best leverage the contractor community, the vendor spread, if you will, to be sure we are getting the best deal from the government as a whole. -- for the government as a whole. there is an organizational level that is needed to be able to accomplish that. we would participate as a component to that and be able to present our priorities to that. and as well, coordinate with the other agencies to determine how to get the best contracts in
4:19 am
place, perhaps on a wider basis, and agency level basis as opposed to an individual basis. >> mr. north? >> i guess i am a bit more optimistic. i think we have a "b." but i think a lot of that relates to the efforts and progress we have made in the past 10 months. things like the agricultural strategy, the government's strategy clearly defining roles and responsibilities among the respective agencies involved, but also, the clarity of purpose and where we are trying to go in the agricultural sector. this is one example where we have developed -- there are others, certainly with the health sector with the u.s. military and the cdc that have been quite strong. an area that we need to improve on and are working on, certainly, is getting our staff -- more of our staff into theater so that there are more
4:20 am
developments out there to help with the coordination and manage our programs. there are systems that still need work, of course, but we are moving in the right direction. >> mr. feldman? >> showing the secret is to be between state and usaid -- >> you guys get along so well, you're going to give yourselves of the -- a "b"right? >> i would say that it would be a the end we have gone up quite a bit. -- it would be a "d" and we have gone up quite a bit. we have been working quite hard to do all the things that we have uncovered in the course of our review and that we have tried to put in place to make sure that we were the best possible start of taxpayer money. i think that we're going in the
4:21 am
right direction with the coronation of civilian agencies with the military partners with the international committee, with the civilian search. -- surge. but yes, this is one to take a while to do and there will be a lot more to be done and we will have to continue to be very vigilant and rose in implementing this. there's always room to do better. -- and rigorous in implementing this. there is always room to do better. >> mr. persons? >> i would say we have learned a lot of lessons out of iraq. certainly, with the establishment of the army contract in command and been part of bnc with logcap there is a lot of good coordination going on there. what we have been allowed to do from enterprise approach, where we duplicating efforts and where can we be more effective in these types of kondracke
4:22 am
instruments -- contracting instruments. even though we have a established some of these joint logistics and support board where we are trying to bring the different parties together to look at the procurement requirements in afghanistan, you know, those are more of a collaboration and cooperation by the parties to come to those boards and a look at it. we do have coalition partners here and one of our concerns is that we understand that nato is doing quite a bit of contracting in afghanistan as well for some of their forces. i know that general nichols is going to put that as one of her priorities. there's a lot of room for improvement. >> if we are getting integration and coordination between nato and our efforts, then i will give all of you an "a" because that means we have got our horicon -- our house in order and i still think we have a ways
4:23 am
to go. as time goes on, we will see if the rates hold up. i think it is maybe a little grating on a curve, mr. feldman, to go from a "d" po a "b" in 10 months. this is a very large organization that is neither new bolt or flexible. when it is nimble and flexible, it generally is a bad contract because it happened to kuwait and nobody was paying attention to what was in it and whether -- because of nobody was paying attention to what was in it and it happened too quickly. i think that -- i want to make sure that i understand what every silo is in terms of contract in money. -- contract in moneing money.
4:24 am
now that i finally logcap finally -- i finally figured out logcap, use bring anyone with me. if you will all give us within your siloi of yourng money and -- what is in your silo with contracting and where it is, i believe we can get on the same page. we have a huge obligation to try to get this right. if you will get that to me, that will be great and we will begin to drill down in those various places and make sure that the on the ground oversight -- and the other thing that we would like from you is that if you believe you have enough oversight personnel in place in theater, and if not, what you need to get the -- enough people in
4:25 am
oversight in theater. i will say this, and i do not mean to embarrass her or mr. north or mr. feldman, but the woman on the front row that keeps handing you notes, i think i want to have lunch with her. >> [laughter] i think she knows -- >> i think she knows quite a lot. every question i asked -- ok, all of you. >> she is an aid 81c mr. baucus: madam president, it has been more than a month since
4:26 am
the majority leader moved to proceed to the health care bill before us today. this bill will provide real reform for our nation's flawed health care system. this bill is a product of years of hard work, study, deliberation in both the finance committee and the "help" committees. and i mean years. all transparent, all above board, out in the open. in fact, the finance committee, might add, mr. president, we even initiated a new requirement that all amendments to the bill be posted to us in advance and put on the internet in advance so everybody could know what they were. same thing with the bill, it was on the internet for a couple, three days before we went to markup. unprecedented how open the process has been and the same is true in the "help" committee as well. the culmination of these efforts has been the weeks of debate that we have heard on this bill
4:27 am
and the weeks of debate that we've on this bill on the senate floor. it has been weeks. it's been over a month. it is true, there could be some minor changes here and there. but most of this has been in the public domain for a long time. we've considered numerous amendments. we've engaged in full and healthy discussion. the bill before us is fully paid for. it is important to keep reminding our colleagues over an over and over again -- and over again, this is fully paid for. fully paid for. don't take my word for, it that's what the congressional budget office said. fully paid for. the american people, i hope and realize, that according to the congressional budget office, nonpartisan organization, this bill is fully paid for. it doesn't add one thin dime to the deficit. others who don't have their own proposals, want to be negative, want to try to shoot holes in this. trying to say it has a deficit. that's their opinion, that's not the congressional budget office. the c.b.o. said that it does not
4:28 am
add one thin dime. this bill will also reduce the federal deficit in the short term and over the long term. it reduces the federal deficit in the short term and long term. we are so very concerned about our deficits, madam president, we in the congress are, the country is, we've got to begin as soon as we can to start getting the deficits down and our national debt lowered. this health care reform bill, not only does it provide health insurance coverage and reform the health insurance industry very dramatically, it also takes that step of lowering our deficits and lowering our long of this term debt. let me quote from the congressional budget office letter that came to us yesterday. quote, "c.b.o. and j.c.t., estimates that on balance the direct spending and revenue fix of enacting the patient protection and affordable care act, the health care bill, incorporate in the managers'
4:29 am
amendment would yield net deficits of $132 billion over the next 10 years. net reduction of $132 billion. that's even better, madam president, than the merged bill was just before we concluded the managers' amendment. that was a $132 -- that wa was $130 billion reduction in the national deficit. now the managers' amendment incorporated in the bill, according to the congressional budget office and joint committee on tax concludes there is a net reduction in federal deficits of $132 billion over a 10-year period. what about later? often people say, oh, gee, i hear you, senator. you're taking care of things in the short term. you are enacting legislation that will have a long-term effect. you hear that often. let -- let me tell you what the congressional budget office says about that. this legislation before us now will reduce the deficit marketedly in out years. here's what the c.b.o. said in a
4:30 am
4:31 am
30 million americans who today do not have insurance will get health insurance. that is so so important. i forgot the exact figure, madam president. there was a harvard study that concluded that -- that 45 -- i think -- i've forgotten the figure. thousands of americans die every year because they have no health insurance. because they don't have health insurance. obviously people without health insurance die at an earlier age. just for the sakes of their own health, -- sake of their own health, that they get health insurance, let alone the benefit that has with hospital -- by reducing uncompensated care at hospital. this legislation will increase insurance coverage to more than 30 million americans, and i have just been passed a note that people have a 40% higher chance of dying without health insurance.
4:32 am
40% higher chance of dying if they don't have health insurance. we're saying to those folks, those 31 million americans, we're going to figure out a way to get health insurance so you don't have to 40% higher risk of death. okay, here's what c.b.o. says about coverage. quote, by 2019, the c.b.o., joint committee on tax, estimate that the number of noneligible people not insured will be reduced by 31 million. the c.b.o. goes on to say under the legislation the share of legal nonelderly residents would rise from 33% currently to 94ern. that is 94% of the people in our country, excluding seniors, excluding -- because they have medicare and excluding unauthorized documents, they're not here because they're not authorized, the total number will rise from 83% up to 94%.
4:33 am
and this legislation will drive down premium costs for virtually all of us. it will drive down premium costs for virtually all. in an earlier letter, the congressional budget office indicated that premiums will go down for roughly 93% of americans. that's -- that's the underlying bill. premiums will go down 93% for americans. it's in the letter. i was going to put a table, madam president, in the record a couple, three days ago, our rules don't allow us to put tables in. i had to summarize and that is 93% of americans will experience lower premiums. not dramatic for some -- some folks, but none the h nonethele, and down is better than not down. insurance costs would go down sig antly for those receiving tax credits in the new insurance exchanges. it will protect consumers from harmful insurance company practices. this is so important, as you know, madam president. no longer will insurance companies be able to deny coverage for those with preexisting conditions. it's an outrage how much
4:34 am
insurance companies deny coverage based on preexisting conditions. an absolute outrage. we all hear stories many, many times, if not from family members, friends of families, we run into this so common, especially in the individual market, that is, people who buy insurance for themselves, insurance companies denying coverage to -- deny giving health insurance to somebody because of some preexisting condition. it is just wrong. no longer will insurance companies be able to drop coverage for those who are sick. that's very important too. companies often rescind, willy-nilly, they find a background of the person, oh, you didn't tell us about that, so we're rescinding your policy. that's not right. that's just not right. and we prevent that from happening in this legislation. it will also improve choice and competition in the insurance market. we talked a lot about choice, we talked a lot about competition. this legislation provides more choice in choosing policies and more competition in the insurance market.
4:35 am
it will also create a true marketplace where plans complete on cost and quality rather than on their ability to cherry pick the healthiest among us. and it will represent the largest tax@@@@@ @ @ @ h@ @ @ @ that people received, helped them buy insurance. that totals up, i think, madam president, to $440 billion. i forgot the exact figure. this is the largest tax cut for the american families that congress has passed since 2001. it will provide tax credits by quality, affordable health insurance. the managers' amendment makes this good bill even better. it will provide even more consumer protections against harmful insurance industry practices.
4:36 am
for example, it will hold companies accountable for excessive premium rate increases. it will require them to spend more on consumer benefits and less on administrative costs and profits. that's new. that's even better consumer protection for -- compared with the -- with the underlying bill. it will restrict the ability of health plans to -- that's new. restricting the ability of health plans on annual limits on benefits. that's wrong. you get an insurance polls andy the insurance company says, we didn't know you would get that sick. we stop the benefits you will get. and restrict the building of health plans not only annual limits but also lifetime limits on benefits. and this managers' package will ensure that companies cannot discriminate against children with preexisting conditions, and do so right away. beginning with plans that become
4:37 am
effective mid year next year. that is the preexisting condition restriction would ordinarily not take effect for a couple of years, but for children, the preexisting condition prohibition will take affect right away. so they're right away protected. and the other provisions to help people between now and 2014. there's the high-risk poolg, for example, a -- polling, for example, a lot of different protections for people to get protections quickly. this will provide tax credits to more small businesses. the managers' amendment will provide more tax credits than the underlying bill. and these benefits will now be available right away in 20 106789 it's always a concern, gee, when are the tax credits for small business go into effect. shouldn't it go into effect earlier? under this managers' amendment these benefits will be available right way in 2010. this will provide more health insurance choices through a new multistate option. that option offering consumers
4:38 am
the same health insurance that congress has today. no small matter. it will extend extra funding for the children's health insurance program for two additional years. we're all very concerned about kids. kids' health care. the children's health insurance program has done a pretty good job. we want to make sure it stays there so it is extended under the managers' amendment for an additional two years and it will do more to control rising health care cares while more providers have more quality care through the health care program. it will invest $10 billion in community health centers. they're so important, community health centers for people who need help right away and don't have insurance and need the care right away. especially help in rural communities to provide access to critical care for -- who are often -- that care -- where often that care is most needed. these are reforms that americans have been waiting for for decades, madam president. americans are waiting for these changes. they're waiting for these
4:39 am
reforms. have been for a long time. decades may be an understatement. our health insurance system is just -- doesn't do what it should for our americans. for the american people. people who represent. and now, finally we're taking a significant first step to -- to finding those reforms. these are reforms that american families, workers and businesses desperately need. they're reforms on which the economic stability depends. that's no small matter either, madam president. we get our insurance matter under control, that's more economic stability. it's not just for families who don't know what the insurance company is or is not going to do. small businesses don't know whether premiums are going to be up or by how much next year. you know, why? more economic stability for families and small businesses. and soon economic stability for budgets, state budgets, our federal budgets. we just need to get a little
4:40 am
more control over the, all the excessive costs that are going up and also the volatility, the yo-yo effect that premiums have and out-of-pocket@@@@@@@@@ this is a big vote on both sides of the aisle. then we can next year keep going from there. new provisions that may be added, correct mistakes that probably this legislation is going to have, but work together because most americans want us to work together back here. they don't like us being partisan or political. i must say this place is getting a little more partisan over the last couple of years than it was earlier. it's not what the american people want. they want us to do our job, do what's right. this bill clearly is the balance
4:41 am
of reasonableness of what's right and what's the right thing to do to get control of our health care system. again, i hope that we can get this passed. madam president -- by a large margin. it will pass, but i'd like to t to pass by a large margin. madam president, i now yield 20 minutes to the senator from rhode island, senator whitehouse. mr. whitehouse: thank you, chairman baucus. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. whitehouse as we are here today, -- mr. whitehouse: as we are here, washington rests under a blanket of snow, reminding us of the christmas spirit, the spirit of bringing families together for the holidays. unfortunately, a different spirit has descended on this senates. the spirit that has descended on the senate is one described by chief justice john marshall back in the burr trial, those
4:42 am
malignant and vindictive passions which rage in the bosoms of con tending parties struggling for power. two-time pulitzer prize winner captured this in an essay called the paranoid style. vindictive passions often arise, he points out when an aggrieved minority believes that america has been taken away from their kind. though they are determined to try to repossess it and try to prevent the final destructive act of subversion. does that sound familiar, madam president, in this health debate? 40 years ago he wrote that. hoffstetter continued those aggrieved fear what he described as the now familiar conspiracy. familiar then. 40 years ago.
4:43 am
persistent now. whose supposed purpose hoffstetter is to bring the economy under the direction of the federal government and to pave the way for socialism. again, familiar words here today. more than 50 years ago he wrote of the dangers of an aggrieved right-wing minority with the power to create what he called a political climate in which the rational pursuit of our well-being and safety would become impossible. a political environment in which the rational pursuit of our well-being and safety would become impossible. the malignant and vindictive passions that have descended on the senate are visibly creating just such a political climate. far from appealing to the better angels of our nature, too many colleagues are embarked on a
4:44 am
desperate, "no holds barred" mission of propaganda, obstruction and fear. history cautions us of the excesses to which these malignant, vindictive passions can ultimately lead. tumbrils have rolled through taunting crowds, broken glass has spar keld in darkened street. strange fruit has hung from southern trees. even this great institution of government that we share has cowered before a tail guter waving secret lists. those malignant moments rightly earned what he lord acton called the undying penalty which history has the power to inflict upon wrong. but history also reminds us that in the heat of those vindictive passions, some people earnestly believed they were justified. such is the human capacity for
4:45 am
4:46 am
pundits. married to a bush administration official, noted about the house health care bill, the appalling amount of misinformation being peddled by its opponents. she called it a flood of sheer factual misstatements about the health care bill and noted that the falsehood peddling began at the top. the respected head of the mayo clinic described recent health care antics as scare tactics and mud. congress itself is not immune. many of us felt president bush was less than truthful, yet not one of us yelled out "you lie" at a president during a joint session of congress.
4:47 am
through panics and depressions, through world wars and civil wars, no one ever has. never. until president obama delivered his first address. and this september, 179 republicans in the house voted to support their heckleer comrade. and here in the senate this month, one of our republican colleagues regretted why didn't i say that? a nobel prize winning economist recently concluded thus, the takeover of the republican party by the irrational right is no laughing matter. something unprecedented is happening here, and it's very bad for america. history's current verdict is not promising. how are these unprecedented passions manifested in the senate? well, several ways. first, through a campaign of obstruction and delay affecting every single aspect of the
4:48 am
senate's business. we have crossed the mark of over 100 filibusters and acts of procedural obstruction in less than one year. never since the founding of the republic, not even in the bitter sentiments preceding the civil war was such a thing ever seen in this body. it is unprecedented. second, through a campaign of falsehood about death panels and cuts to medicare benefits and benefits for illegal aliens and bureaucrats to be parachuted in between you and your doctor. our colleagues terrify the public with this parade of imagined horrors. they whip up concerns and anxiety about socialized medicine and car reasons deficits and then -- and careening deficits. then they tell us the public is concerned about the bill. really? third, we see it in bad
4:49 am
behavior. we see it in the long hours of reading by the clerks our republican colleagues have forced. we see it in christmases and holidays ruined by the republicans for our loyal and professional senate employees. it's fine for me, it's fine for the president. we signed up for this job. but why ruin it for all the employees condemned by the republicans to be here? we see it in simple agreements for senators to speak broken. we see it tragically in gentle and distinguished members, true noble men of the senate who have built reputations of honor and trustworthiness over decades being forced to break their word and double cross their dearest friends and colleagues. we see it in public attacks in the press by senators against the parliamentary staff. madam president, the parliamentary staff are
4:50 am
nonpartisan professional employees of the senate who cannot answer back. attacking them is worse than kicking a man when he's down. attacking them is kicking a man who is forbidden to h@@@@@@@@@ care, they tried to stop the appropriation of funds for our soldiers. there is no excuse for that. from that, there is no return. every single republican member was willing to vote against cloture on funding our troops, and they admit it. it was a tactic to obstruct health care reform. the secretary of defense warned us all that a "no" vote would
4:51 am
immediately create a serious disruption in the worldwide activities of the department of defense. end quote. and yet, every one of them was willing to vote no. almost all of them did vote "no." some stayed away but that's the same as "no" when you need 60 "yes" votes to proceed. voting "no" and hiding from the vote are the same result. those of us on the floor to see it, it was clear the three of them who voted yes did not cast their yes votes until all 60 senate votes had been tallied and it was clear that the result was a foregone conclusion. and why? why all this discord and discourtesy, all this unprecedented destructive action? all to break the momentum of our new young president. they are desperate to break this
4:52 am
president. they have ardent supporters who are nearly hysterical at the very election of president barack obama. the birthers, the the fanatics, the people running around in right-wing militias and aryan support groups, it is unbearable to them that president barack obama should exist. that is one powerful reason. it is not the only one. the insurance industry, one of the most powerful lobbies in politics is another reason. the bad behavior you see on the senate floor is the last thrashing throes of the health insurance industry as it watches its business model die. you who are watching and listening know this business model if you or a loved one have been sick. the business model that won't insure you if they think you'll get sick or if you have a preexisting condition, the
4:53 am
business model that if you're insured and you do get sick, job one is to find loopholes and throw you off your coverage and abandon you alone to your illness. the business model when they can't find that loophole, that they'll try to interfere with or deny you the care your doctor has ordered. and the business model that when all else fails and they can't avoid you or abandoned you or deny you, they stiff the doctor or the hospital and deny their payments for as long as possible or tell their doctor to collect from you first, and maybe they'll reimburse you. good riddance to that business model. we know it all too well. it deserves a stake through its cold and greedy heart. but some of our colleagues here are fighting to the death to keep it alive. but the biggest reason for these desperate acts by our colleagues is that we are gathering momentum and we are gathering strength and we are working
4:54 am
toward our goal of passing this legislation. and when we do, when we do, the lying time is over. the american public will see what actually comes to pass when we pass this bill as our new law. the american public will see firsthand the difference between what is and what they were told. facts, as the presiding officer has often said, are stubborn things. it is one thing to propagandize and scare people about the unknown. it is much tougher to propagandize and scare people when they are seeing and feeling and touching something different. when it turns out there are no death panels, when there is no bureaucrat between you and your doctor, when the ways your health care changes seem like a good deal to you and a pretty smart idea, when the american public sees the discrepancy
4:55 am
between what really is and what they were told by the republicans, there will be a reckoning. there will come a day of judgment about who was telling the truth. our colleagues are behaving in this way, unprecedented, malignant, and vindictive, because they are desperate to avoid that day of judgment. frantic and desperate now and willing to do strange and unprecedented things, willing to do anything, even thousand throw our troops at war in the way of that day of reckoning. if they can cause this bill to fail, the truth will never stand up as a living reproach to the lies that have been told. and on through history our colleagues could claim they defeated a terrible monstrosity. but when the bill passes and this program actually comes to life and it is friendly, when it
4:56 am
shelters 33 million americans, regular american people in the new security of health insurance, when it growls down the most disgraceful abuses of the insurance industry, when it offers better care, electronic health records, new community health centers, new opportunities to negotiate fair and square in a public market, and when it brings down the deficit and steers medicare toward safe harbor, all of which it does, americans will then know, beyond any capacity of spin or propaganda to dissuade them, that they were lied to and they will remember. there will come a day of judgment, and our republican friends know that. that, mr. president, is why they are terrified.
4:57 am
mr. president, i yield mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, i intend to take ten minutes of the republican time. will you please let me know when one minute remains. the presiding officer: the senator will be notified. mr. alexander: i thank you, mr. president. mr. president, there may be a number of americans who are switching over from the minnesota v. carolina football game and they may be wondering what in the world is the united states senate doing coming into session at midnight on a sunday in the middle of a snowstorm and getting ready to vote at 1:00 a.m. so let me try to explain that for just a moment. the reap is that the majority leader, the democratic majority leader, who's the only one that can set our schedule, showed up yesterday with a 400-page amendment. yesterday. this amendment had been written in secret for the last six weeks. the assistant democratic leader said last week on the floor he had no idea what was in it. of course, none of us on the republican side knew what was in
4:58 am
it. so almost no one here knew what was in it. it was presented to us and then the democratic leader said, well, we're going to start voting on it and we're going to pass it before christmas. now, this is an amendment to the health care bill which when fully implemented will cost about $2.5 trillion over ten years, according to the congressional budget office, which restructures one-sixth of our economy, which affects 300 million people, which will raise taxes by about a trillion dollars when fully implemented over ten years, which will cut medicare by about a trillion dollars when fully implemented over ten years, not to make medicare more solvent, because, as we know, it's -- it's going to become insolvent, according to its trustees, by 2015. but to spend on a new entitlement. and it will also shift to the states a great many expenses, so much so that our democratic governor has said it's the mother of all unfunded mandates.
4:59 am
the governor of california has said it's the last thing we ne need. take your time, get it right. but the democratic leader and his colleagues insist that we need to bring this up in the middle of a snowstorm, write it in secret, vote on it in the middle of the night, and get it passed before christmas eve. now, why would they want to do that? well, mr. president, i think the answer is very clear. it's because they want to make sure they pass it before the american people find out what's in it. because the american people by nearly 2-1, according to the cnn poll, don't like what they've heard about the health care bi bill. and when they have to start explaining what's in it, they're afraid it will be worse and it will never pass. republicans are not the only ones who believe that we ought to stop and think about big issues before we deal with it. eight democratic senators -- senator lincoln and bayh and landrieu, lieberman, mccaskill, nelson, pryor and
5:00 am
5:01 am
posting the legislation and the congressional budget office scores 72 hours before it's t to a vot >> scores. 72-hours before it's brought to a vote in the senate. by publishing our constituents will have the opportunity to evaluate the policies. it's our duty to listen and to provide them with a chance to respond to proposals that will impact their lives, yet we're presented with it amid of a snowstorm on saturday. that it be passed even though most of the provisions, as the senator from maine has said, don't even begin to take effect for four more years. what's the rush, mr. president? i think the rush is that our friends on the other side don't want to explain to 40 million seniors how you can cut a trillion dollars out of medicare. now, it's exactly $470 billion
5:02 am
over the next ten years, but when fully implemented, a trillion out of medicare and spend it on a new program without reducing medicare services to 40 million seniors. the director of the congressional budget office has already that said for the 11 million seniors who are on medicare advantage that fully half their benefits will be affected. i think our friends on the other side don't want the american people to understand why the $578 billion in new taxes that are going to begin to be imposed next year, they're going to have a hard time explaining how that will create new jobs in america at a time when we have 10% unemployed. and they really don't want the american people to find out that the director of the congressional budget office said that if we put those new taxes on insurance premiums, on medical devices, all al almost f them will be passed on to the consumers, and as a result,
5:03 am
premiums will go up. there are some very strong words that have been coming from the other side about republicans saying that this bill will actually increase the cost of health care. it's not republicans who are saying that, mr. president. here's what david brooks in "the new york times" said in his analysis of the bill when he gave the reasons for it and the reasons against it this week. and came to the conclusion that if he were a senator, he'd vote against it. the second reason to oppose this bill, said mr. brooks is that -- and i quote -- "according to the chief actuary for medicare, it will cause national health care spending to increase faster." that's right, mr. president, we're going to raise taxes, cut medicare, send the big bill to the state. all for what? quote -- "according to the chief actuary for medicare, it will cause national health care spending to increase faster." so if you're paying x for premiums, you're going to be paying more as a result of this bill. health care spending goes --
5:04 am
continues david brooks, "is already zooming past 17% of our gross domestic product to 22% and beyond." then it's going to be hard to explain to the 9 million people that the congressional budget office letter said would lose their employer insurance under this bill why that will happen. of course, it will happen because under the bill as a whole, as employers look at the mandates and the costs, many will decide not to offer health insurance and so those employees will find themselves either in medicaid, the program for low-income americans into which 15 million americans are going, a program which 50% of doctors won't see new medicaid patients. it's like giving you a ticket to a bus when the bus only runs half the time. that's where many of these americans will go. or they'll go into the individual market and the
5:05 am
individual market will have higher premiums. now, the other side says, ah, but there will be subsidies for long-term insurance act, a new entitlement, which sounds wonderful, but the democratic chairman of the budget committee described it as a ponzi scheme worthy of bernie madoff. that is because the amount of money that would be paid in -- a person pays a people are july of $28.80 per yea year for five ye, and then they'll have a long-term benefit for a long time after that. mr. president, it's obvious why
5:06 am
the majority -- thank you, mr. president. it's obvious why the majority has cooked up this amendment in secret, has introduced it in the middle of a snowstorm, has scheduled the senate to come in session at midnight, has scheduled a vote for 1:00 a.m., is insisting that it be passed before christmas -- because they don't want the american people to know what's in it. it's a deeply disappointing legislative result but our friends on the democratic side seem determined to pursue a political kamikaze mission toward a historic mistake which will be bad for the democrats, i am convinced, but, unfortunately, even much worse for our country. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona is recognized. mr. mccain: mr. president, as we approach in less than an hour the -- a very important vote. some have called it historic. some call it pivotal. some -- it's been given very --
5:07 am
various adjectives and adverbs. i think it might be appropriate to discuss for a minute or two how this all began. it all began in the presidential campaign. i don't really like to spend much time recalling it. but health care was a big issue in the presidential campaign. and on october the 8th of 200 2008, just less than a month before the election, then-candidate obama said -- and i quote -- concerning health care reform -- quote -- "i'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. we'll have negotiations televised on c-span so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies" -- keep that in mind, the drug companies -- "or the insurance companies." now, that was a statement made by then-senator/candidate obama. so what we have seen here --
5:08 am
what we have seen here is a dramatic departure. there's never been a c-span camera. there's never been a negotiation, a serious negotiation, between republicans and the other side. there has never been. i s -- i say that with the knowledge, mr. president, of someone who has negotiated many times across the aisle on many agreements. so don't stand up and say that there were serious negotiations between republicans and democrats. there never were. but there was negotiations with the special interests, with phrma, the same ones that the president said he was going to see who the american people were on the side of. clearly this administration and that side of the aisle were on the side of phrma because they got a sweetheart deal of about about $100 billion that would have been saved if we had been able to reimport prescription drugs. the aarp has a sweetheart deal. there is a provision in this deal for them, plans that
5:09 am
medigap insurance sold by aarp are exempt from tax on insurance companies. the a.m.a. signed up because of the promise of a doc fix. there was throughout this. we should have set up a tent out in front and put persian rugs out in front of it. that's the way this has been conducted. so of course then the special interests were taken care of. then we had to take care of special senators. and one deal is called we've got new words in our lexicon now -- the louisiana purchase, the cornhusker kickback. i got a new name. the florida flimflam. the one that gives the medicare advantage members in florida around the country the benefit, but my constituents in medicare advantage don't. and so in answer to this -- in answer to a question today, the majority leader said, quote -- "a number of states are treated differently than other states."
5:10 am
really? "a number of states are treated different than other states. that's what the legislation is all about. president of the united states said where he says we'll have negotiations televised on c-span so that people can see who is making arguments. i see the leader from illinois over there. just a few days ago, i said what's in the bill? the senator from illinois says i don't know. i'm in the dark, too. i can give him his own quote. so here we are, as the senator from tennessee said, in the middle of the night, and here we are, my friends, about to pass a bill with 60 votes.
5:11 am
now, 60 votes represents 60% of this body, but i can assure my friends on the other side of the aisle it doesn't represent 60% of the american people! in fact, 61% of the american people, according to a cnn poll, say they want this stopped. they approve -- they disapprove of it. and i guarantee you when you go against the majority opinion of the american people, you pay a heavy price, and you should, and you should. and i'll tell you -- i tell my colleagues right now that when you -- this will be -- if it is passed and we are not going to give up after this vote, believe me. when you -- for the first time in history, for the first time in history, there will be a major reform passed on a party-line basis. every reform -- and i have been part of them -- has been passed on a bipartisan basis. this will be a strict party-line
5:12 am
basis. you know, i was thinking today about this vote, and i was thinking about the other times and other examples i have had of courage or lack of or the fact that in the face of odds that you have to stand up for what you believe in, and i thought about back when i first entered the united states naval academy at the young age of 17, and one of the first things they told us about in our learning of naval traditions was about a battle that took place early in the revolutionary war. an american ship run by a captain engaged a british ship, the mighty british navy, and the american ship was outgunned and it was outmanned, and as they came together in mortal combat, the dead and dying all around and the british captain said do you surrender, and that captain, that captain john paul jones said "i have not yet begun to fight." i tell the american people we're
5:13 am
going to go around this country, we're going to the town halls, we're going to the senior centers, we're going to the rotary clubs, we're going to carry this message. we will not do this. we will not commit generational theft on future generations of americans. we won't give them another another $2.5 trillion of debt. we won't give them an unfair policy where deals are done in back rooms, and we, we, all of us on this side of the aisle will stand up for the american people and we have just begun to fight.
5:14 am
mr. harkin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa is recognized. mr. harkin: mr. president, you know, for the last several weeks, all we have heard from the other side is attack, attack, attack. all we have heard from the other side is no, no, no. you know, they keep talking. i just heard the senator from arizona saying that this is not a bipartisan bill, and i heard so much talk on the other side in the last several weeks about how this should be bipartisan. well, let's look at that for a second. as i see it, the republicans have no bill of their own. our bill has 60 democrats, a >> a super majority.rats, a well, i guess there is a bill
5:15 am
over there, the coburn-burr bill. it has 7 co-sponsors. that's it. nothing else. not all republicans are supporting it. my friends on the other side are all over the place. they can't each free among themselves what they want to do. they have no comprehensive bill like we have come up with. so i keep hearing that we democrats are not bipartisan but who do we deal with? just the senator from arizona or the senator from tennessee or the one from oklahoma or south carolina? well, i'm sorry, i feel sorry the republicans are all split up. they have not done their own homework to pull their own senators together for something positive so. what they've done is they've
5:16 am
pulled together to say no, to try the kill the reform bill we've worked so hard on all year. now we extended an and. now if we had really wanted to ace out the republicans we would have to load they're lead in 2001 when they ramped through that tax cut for the wealthy. we couldn't filibuster it, so we couldn't have any debate on it. that's what they did. that's what they did. we didn't do it that way. president obama said we want to hold the olive branch out, we want to work with republicans, so that's what we tried to do. under the leadership of senator dodd on our committee, we had numerous meetings with republicans. we had a markup session that lasted 13 days, 54 hours. we accepted 161 of their amendments. and in the end, everyone on the republican side voted against it. senator baucus bent over backwards. week after week he went -- he
5:17 am
not only went the extra mile, he went the extra hundred miles to try to get republicans to work with them on this bill. and in the end, only one republican would vote for the bill out of the committee. so that's what we have. we just have -- i'm sorry to say my friend on the other side were in total disarray. they have nothing we can agree on. well, we have something we have agreed on. 60. a supermajority that have greap greap -- that have agreed upon moving a bill forward, a pivotal point in our history in a decades-long march towards comprehensive health reform. eluded congresses and presidents going back to theodore roosevelt. my friends on the other side defend the status quo. they want us to vote our fears, fear, fear. everything you hear it seems on
5:18 am
the other side is fear, be afraid. well, it's not going to work this time because what the american people want is not fear. they want hope. they want the hope that they will have the health care that they need when they have to have it at a price that is affordable. they want to have the peace of mind and security of knowing that their children, if they have a pre-existing condition, will be covered by health insurance. they want to have the peace of mind of knowing if they lose a job, they don't lose their health insurance. the american people want the hope and the security of knowing that if they get ill, they won't be dropped by their insurance company. they want the hope and the security to know that they aren't just one illness away from bankruptcy. we are the only country in the world, the only one where people can go bankrupt because they owe a medical bill. no other country would allow
5:19 am
that to happen. we're the only one. this bill is going to stop that. people won't have to fear going bankrupt because someone in their family got a chronic illness for a disease that's going to cost a lot of money. the american people want us to move forward, and we're going to do it tonight at 1:00. we're going to move forward. we're not going to vote fears. we're going to vote hope. we're going to tell the american people that we are going to do three big things. first of all, we're going to cover 94% of americans with health insurance. 94%. 31 million people out there without health insurance are going to get health insurance. secondly, we're going to crack down on the abuses of the
5:20 am
5:21 am
health insurance. johns hopkins did a study and said that kids, children, who have no health insurance are 60% more likely to die because of hospitalizations than kids who have health insurance coverage. it's a moral disgrace. the health insurance policies of america, what we have right now, is a moral disgrace. you can talk to people from other countries, our closest allies, our closest friends that share so many of our values. and when they find out about our health system, they say how can you put up with it? this is disgraceful. you're the leader of the free world. you're supposed to set the
5:22 am
example. and what a terrible example we have set in health care. what a terrible example. we finally arrived, mr. president, at one of the most significant moments in the history of the united states senate, one of the most significant. our former chairman, senator ted kennedy, who fought all his life for national health insurance, who years ago, back in the 1960's said that health care ought to be a right, not a privilege, said that over 40 years ago, almost 50 years ago, that health care should be a right and not a privilege. it was always his highest priority. it was his great dream of an america where quality, affordable health care is that
5:23 am
right. he thought of it as a moral imperative. a more imperative. a lot of times we lose that. we hear all this debate about how much this and this and who's going to lose this and all these scare tactics. we see all these numbers and all that kind of stuff. we forget the essence of it. it is a moral imperative. we are called upon to right a great injustice, a great wrong that's been put upon the american people for far too long. it is a moral imperative that confronts us now, that we will vote on in a half an hour. we are closer than we've ever been to making ted kennedy's dream a reality. a lot of people have worked very hard on this bill. i mentioned senator baucus. i mentioned senator dodd. senator reid, our leader.
5:24 am
the amount of hours that he has spent and the days he has spent here without his family, without going home, being here all the time working. our assistant leader, senator durbin. so many people have worked so hard on this bill. we've had so much input on this. everyone has had input on this bill. our republican friends have had input on this bill. they had it in our committees. i said we accepted 161 amendments. so i guess you can say this bill has a lot of authors. but there's really only one author of this bill: senator ted kennedy. senator ted kennedy. it's his bill because it does get us the start -- the start. to my friends, i say this is not the end of health care reform. it's the beginning. but we must make this beginning
5:26 am
at the time >> earmarked disclosure requirement. at the time they indicated the disclosure list was not submit at the time. my inquiry is the chair made available as required by rule 44, now as we vote in the next 30 minutes? made. the senator from connecticut is recognized. mr. dodd: mr. president, i want to take a few closing minutes if i can. i spoke earlier this evening about the importance of this moment that we all have come to appreciate, i believe, a moment that has been years in the making. going back, as all have pointed out, or most pointed out in favor of this legislation,
5:27 am
dating back to the early part of the last century with theodore, a former republican who first advocated the notion of a national health care system in our nation. harry truman articulated in very specific terms. it was 69 years ago this month, mr. president, that mr. roosevelt identified the four freedoms. the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech, the freedom from want and the freedom from fear. it is that last freedom that franklin roosevelt talked about in december of 1941 that is deserving of our attention at these closing minutes. whatever else one may argue about the specifics of this bill it is that fear that so many of our fellow citizens have over whether or not they will be confronted with a health care crisis and have the resources to address it and the ability to have a doctor, a physician, a health care provider, a hospital to provide them with that kind
5:28 am
of help when they need it. that fear is not just for those who are without health care, even for those who have health care insurance. that fear persists. this evening, more than anything else, beyond the specifics of the legislation in front of us is our desire to address that freedom, that freedom from fear that was addressed so eloquently almost 70 years ago. so this evening we attempt anyway to begin that journey of eliminating those fears that so many of our fellow citizens have over the loss or the inability to acquire the kind of health insurance or the ability to have a doctor. so we're poised to make a monumental vote on legislation that finally makes access to quality health care a right for every american. if you don't believe it's a right, it's only a privilege, i suppose you could come to a different conclusion. and there are those, i guess, who believe it is a privilege to have access to health care as an american citizen. those of us on this side of the
5:29 am
aisle believe it is a right that you have. and as such, as a right, you ought not to be denied that right based on the economic circumstances, your gender, your ethnicity in this nation. you ought to have access to that health care as a fundamental right in our nation. obviously we need to participate, engage in responsible activities that will make sure that we contribute to the well-being of all of our nation to reduce the cost of health care. this is a comprehensive bill. it's been more than not just a year specifically on this effort, but goes back 40 or 50 years in terms of drafting and efforts have been made to achieve what we're trying to achieve this evening. at the end of the day, however, this legislation is really about freedom from fears, i said a moment ago. the bill frees americans from the fear that if they lose their job they'll never find insurance coverage again. the bill frees americans from the fear that they might get sick and be unable to afford the treatment they need. and the bill frees americans
5:30 am
from the fear that one illness, one accident could cost them everything they built -- their homes, their retirement, their life savings. in a nation, mr. president, founded on freedom and sustained by unimagib,@@@@@ ys @ @ @ @ @î >> this fight is older than @î most in this body. a torch has been will it year ago. in the harry truman years ago by good people republicans and democrats. nixon and republicans. members that worked tirelessly on behalf to try and craft a good healthcare bill. heard others talk about not acknowledging his ideas when he proposed them that we might have been able to address this issue years and years ago. good people have tried to
5:31 am
someone answers to this issue. it's with a notice of sadness we'll have apart san votonmatte. i wish it was other wise. many others have fought and challenged us to someone these answers. but tonight this is our answer. the 60 of us that vote to go forward. senator har ken said it's hardly the final answer but allowed the final answer of addressing the issues in a more comprehensive thought throughout the years. no one was a better champion than our deceased and beloved colleague from massachusetts ted kennedy. he thought these battles and understand you could never solve all of these issues in one fail swoop. it would take a big approach to get us there if you read this bill there would be disappointments to have it in. i know him well enough to know
5:32 am
that. if he could written it on his own he would have. this evening that were he among us this evening he would urge all of us to move forward on this bill, address it, vote forward to allow this nation to begin to gap pell with this issue -- grapple with this issue that should have been solved more than 50 years ago. this evening as we come down to the final minutes of this debate, let us remind ourselves that i think history will judge us well for taking up this challenge once again and asking ourselves to give americans the opportunity to live with freedom from those fears that they have this very evening. and tonight we begin to alleviate those fears. and i urge my colleagues to support this effort. i yield the floor.
5:33 am
mr. mcconnell: stphr-pt. the presiding officer: the republican leader -- mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: tonight marks the culmination of a long national debate. passions have rung high, and that's appropriate. because the bill we're voting on tonight will impact the life of every american. it will shape the future of our country. it will determine whether our children can afford the nation they inherit. it is one of the most consequential votes any of us will ever take, and none of us take it lightly. but make no mistake, if the people who wrote this bill were proud of it, they wouldn't be
5:34 am
forcing this vote in the dead of night. here are just some of the deals we've noticed. $100 million for an unnamed health care facility at an unnamed university somewhere in the united states. the bill doesn't say where. and no one will even step forward to claim it. one state out of 50 -- one state out of 50 -- gets to expand medicaid at no cost to itself while taxpayers in the other 49 states pick up the tab. the same senator who cut that deal secured another one that
5:35 am
benefits a single insurance company. just one insurance company in his state. do the supporters of the bill know this? i would say to my colleagues, y@ bht@ yaú@ @ e@f >> a year after the debate e@f started few people would imagine this is how it would end. with a couple of chief cheap deals. a couple of cheap deals. and a rush vote at 1:00 in the morning. but that's where we are. and americans are wondering tonight, how did this happen?
5:36 am
how did this happen? so i'd like to take a moment to explain to the american people how we got here. to explain what's happened, and yes, what's happening now. now everyone in this chamber agrees we need healthcare. healthcare reform. everybody agrees on that. the question is how. some of us haven taken the view that the american people want us to tack it will cost issue. it. our friends on the other side have taken the opposite approach, and the result has been just what you'd expect. the final product is a mess. a mess. and so is the process that has brought us here to vote on a
5:37 am
bill that the american people overwhelmingly oppose. any challenge of this size and scope has always been dealt with on a bipartisan basis. the senior senator from maine made that point at the outset of the debate and reminded us all of how these issues have typically been handled throughout our history. the social security act of 1935 was approved by all by six members of the senate. the medicare act of 1965 only had 21 dissenters. and the americans with disabilities act in 1990 only had eight senators who voted no.
5:38 am
americans believe that on issues of this importance, one party should never be allowed to force its will on the other half of the nation. the proponents of this bill felt differently. in a departure from history, democratic leaders put together a bill so heavy with tax hikes, medicare cuts, and government intrusion that in the end, their biggest problem wasn't convincing republicans to support it, it was convincing the democrats. in the end, the price of passing this bill wasn't achieving the reforms americans were promised. it was a blind call to make history, even if it was a historical mistake.
5:39 am
which is exactly what this bill will be if it is passed. because in the end, this debate isn't about differences between two parties, it's about a $2.3 trillion, 2,733-page health care reform bill that does not reform health care and, in fact, makes the price of it go up. the plan i'm announcing tonight, the president said on september the 9th, "will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government." "my plan," the president said, "would bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family."
5:40 am
"i'll not sign a plan that adds a dime to our deficit," the president said, "either now or in the future." and on taxes?@ nia% e)ä,8lf anh >> he said it wouldn't cut anh medicare and people that like plans they have, wouldn't lose they're coverage and americans were promised an open, and honest debate. that's what i'll do in bringing all parties together. then senator obama said on the campaign trail. not negotiating behind closed doors. but bringing all parties together and broadcasting these negotiations on c-span.
5:41 am
well, that was then. and this is now. but here's the reality. the democrat bill we're voting on tonight raises healthcare costs. that's not me talking, it's the administrations budget scorekeeper. it raises premiums and that's not the nonpartisan congressional budget office that is really talking. raises taxes on tens of millions of middle class americans and it plunders medicare by half a drill trillion dollars. it forces people off the plans they have including millions of seniors. it allows the federal government for the first time in our history to use taxpayer dollars for abortions. so, a president
5:42 am
that was voted into office on a promise of change, said he wanted to lower premiums. that changed. he said he wouldn't raise taxes. that changed. he said he wanted lower costs. that changed. he said he wouldn't cut medicare. - and that changed too. and 12 months and 2.3 trillion dollars later. lawmakers who have made the same promises to constituents are posted to won't make healthcare more a fortable and will make are real reform even harder to achieve down the road. our friends on the other side
5:43 am
are feeling and i don't doubt for a moment their sincerity. but my message tonight is this: thmpact of >> my message tonight is this. the impact of this vote will long out live this one frantic snowing weekend in washington. mark my words, this legislation will reshape our nation. and americans have already issued their verdict. they don't want it. they don't like this bill. - and they don't like lawmakers playing games with their healthcare to secure the votes they need to pass it. let's think about that for a
5:44 am
moment. we know the american people are overwhelmingly opposed to this bill. and yet, the people who wrote it won't give the 300 million americans whose lives will be profoundly effected by it over 72-hours to study the details. imagine that? when we all woke up yesterday morning, we still hadn't seen the details of the bill we're being asked to vote on before we go to sleep tonight. we woke up yesterday morning, we still hadn't seen the details of the bill we're going to be asked to vote on before we go to sleep tonight. how can anybody justify this approach? particularly, in the face of such widespread and intense
5:45 am
public opposition. can all of these americans be wrong? don't their concerns count? party loyalty can be a powerful force. we all know that. but americans are asking the democrats to put party loyalty a side tonight. to mutt the interest of small business owners and taxpayers, and seniors first. and there's good news. it's not too late. all it takes is one. just one. all it takes is one. one can stop it. one can stop it.
5:46 am
or everyone will own it ch. >> one can stop it. or every single one will own it ch. my so leagues, it is not too late. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: all over this great country of ours, people are dying soon, far too soon. more and more americans who come down with the flu or even develop diabetes, suffer a stroke are dying far earlier than modern science says they should die. more and more americans who contract skin cancer or have a
5:47 am
heart condition are dying rather than being cured. pull out the medical records of these patients and the official forms will tell you they died from complications of disease or maybe some surgery. but what's really killing more and more americans every day are complications due to our health care system. much of our attention this year has been consumed by this health care debate. and a national study done by harvard university found that 45,000 times this year -- nearly 900 times every week -- more than 120 times every day, an average every 10 minutes without end, an american died as a result of not having health insurance. every ten minutes. the numbers are numbing. they don't even include those who did -- have health insurance but who died because they couldn't afford a plan that met their most basic needs. this country, the greatest and
5:48 am
richest the world has he have see --has he have seen, is the y advanced nation -- has ever seen, is the only advanced nation on earth where dying for lack of health insurance is even possible. and to make matters worse, we're paying for that privilege. the price of staying healthy in america goes up, it goes up, it goes up and not surprisingly, so do numbers of americans who can't afford it. in fact, medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy in america. and there's -- the second choice is way down the list, it's medical bills. that's why we're here. just as we have the ability to prevent diseases from killing us too soon, we have before us the ability to provide quality health care to every american, and we have the ability to treat our unhealthy health care system. that's what this historic bill does, it protects patients and consumers, it lowers the cost of staying healthy, and greatly reduces our debt. this landmark legislation
5:49 am
protects america's youngest citizens by making it illegal for insurance companies to refuse to cover a child because of preexisting condition. mr. president, it protects america's oldest citizens by strengthening medicare and extending its life for almost a decade. we're also taking the first steps to close the notorious loophole known as the doughnut hole that costs seniors thousands of dollars each year for their prescription drugs. these are some of the reasons that aarp, the american association for the advancement of colored -- i'm sorry, the american associatioamerican assd people, not the naacp -- i'm sorry about that, mr. presiden mr. president -- these are some of the reasons that aarp and its 40 million americans are supporting this bill. contrary to what we heard my distinguished friend, the republican leader, say, premiums are reduced, mr. president, by 93 -- 93% of people who have insurance will have reduced
5:50 am
premiums. this effort also strengthens our future by cutting our towering national deficit by as much as $1.3 trillion over the next twoz >> these aren't numbers i came up with. these are the numbers the congressional budget came up with. 1 point 3 trillion dollars. it cuts the testify sit more sharply than anything congress has done in a long, long time. lowers cost, we talked about medicare. my friend the republican leader said it's going to reshape our nation. that's why we're doing it, mr. president. that's why we're doing this. we want to shape the healthcare delivery system in americas. it right that america has
5:51 am
750,000 bankruptcies a year? about 80 percent causes by healthcare cost? 62% of the people that have filed bankruptcy have medical insurance? we have to reshape the nation. that's what we want to do, we have to do it. with this vote, we're interjecting a system where one class can stay hell this think and another cannot. it demands that good health will not depend on great wealth. good help should not depend on how much money you have. it acknowledges that healthcare is a fundamental right that my friend senator harkin spoke about so clearly. not just a privilege for the most fortunate. president johnson, formative majority leader of the united states senate signed healthcare
5:52 am
into law when he was president. with the ad vice, and i quote, we need to see beyond the words to the people they touch. closed quote. that's just as true today as it was 44 years ago when he signed that legislation. this is not about partisanship or about procedure. and everyone knows we're here at 1:00 in the morning because of my friends on the other side of the aisle. for them to say with a straight face and some of them didn't have a straight face, we're here without any foundation whatsoever and everyone knows that. it certainly is not about polling. it's about people. it's about life and death in america. it's about human suffering, and given the chance to relieve this suffering, we must. citizens in each of our states have written to tell us they're broke because of our broken health care system. some >> some send letters.
5:53 am
with even worse news. news of grave illnesses and preventable death. for weeks we've heard opponents complain about the number of pages in this bill. but i prefer to think of this bill in the terms to of people it will help. one name, lisa sullka lives in nevada. beautiful city in ve da da. lives there with her two beautiful daughters. the youngest suffers seizures and she's the high risk officer sorry call cancer. though she's supposed to get an exam three months, she doesn't go. she's lucky she goes once a year and most times she's not very lucky. when she lost her job, she lost her health coverage and now both her daughters and herself miss
5:54 am
tests that could keep her healthy. her letter ended with a simple mreechlt we want to be able to go to a doctor. that's a correct quote from her. that's why this won't prevent any american from getting the tests and screenings they need. we think they deserve to be able to go to the doctor. teenager named kay celebrity a high school student from sparks, nevada. he used to play soccer when he was younger and now he sticks to skiing and rock climbing. you can forgive them i'm sure for giving up soccer, mr. president. caleb was born with legs that end above his knees. as children mature, even caleb, they grow out of their clothes, most kids grow out of their
5:55 am
shoes and caleb doesn't. lots of kids probably gets new things but he's needed new prosthetic legs since he was five. unbelievable his insurance company decided they know better than his doctor, decided caleb doesn't need those lebs. that's why this bill will makt illegal for insurance companies to use pre six exist pre-exist as an excuse to not give you coverage. this is a good change. i'm voting yes because i believe caleb deserves a pair of prosthetics that fit. ken hansen from mess quit, nevada wrote to me. his chronic heart problems and parts of his feet have been amputated. he can't go to the doctor
5:56 am
because he can't afford private insurance and can't qualify for medicaid. i share with the senate exactly what ken wroted. i'm fraus straightened because my only hope is that idea soon. i can't afford to stay a live. end of quote. that's why this bill will expand to cover people like ken from nevada. caught in the middle. i'm voting yes because when someone tells me his only hope is to die. we have to take a close look at that. i can't look away. i cannot possibly do nothing. man by the name of mike tracy lives in north las vegas, nevada. his son has been an independent diabetic since he was a baby. his insurance from work won't cover his treatments. his families are more than just about money. since they could about ford to
5:57 am
treat they're son's diabetes it developed into a disease called ats ons and they can't afford to treat it either. this can be fatal. mike wrote be two weeks ago i quote, i don't know what to pray for first, thatly die before my son will, so i don't have to bear the burden or that i out live him so i can provide support to his family when he's gone. end of quote. quite a set of prayers mr. president. this shouldn't be a choice. no american should have to make that choice. it shouldn't be a choice any father or mother should have to make. and when given the chance to help people just like mike, our choice should be very easy. that's what this legislation is all about. these are hardworking citizens with heart-breaking stories. they're people that played by the rules and simply want
5:58 am
they're insurance companies to also do the same. they're not alone. these tragedies don't only happen in nevada and only to people that find time to write they're leaders in congress. these tragic events happen on the east coast, west coast and everywhere between in small towns and in big cities. these happen to citizens on the left side of the political spectrum and right side. as mike tracy wrote, powerful letter about his son. again i quote. democrats need healthcare. republicans do. independent need healthcare. get it done. end of quote and he's writright. everyone of us comes from a state where these in justicing happen every single day. every senator represented hundreds of thousands of people
5:59 am
that have to choose between paying electricity and a medical bill. between filling a doctor's prescription for maybe just hoping for the best between they're mothers chemotherapy and they're doubt doubters college tuition. every ten minutes that means in a short time i've been speaking our broken system has claimed at least two lives and another american has died. two have died a preventable death. each of them. so as our citizens face heart rendering decisions every day. tonight every senator has a choice to makes a well. that choice, are you going to do all you can to avert the next preventable death. i urge the stopping of this fill buster. mr. president, i would
321 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on