Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
ace....,if you think the bill is unnecessary, under what current federal contracting/procurement law: are Exec Department agencies required to develop and implement plans to minimize the use of: (1) noncompetitive contracts; and (2) cost-reimbursement type contracts.
Or required to make justification and approval documents for noncompetitive contracts, including defense agency contracts, publicly available.
Or required to submit quarterly reports on unjustified contractor costs and audits identifying deficiencies in contractor performance. I dont know the answer, but if no such requirements exist under current law, Congress cant enforce these regulatory controls.
The House Dems requested oversight hearings from 2004-2006 and the Repub majority refused....so the Dems, under Waxman, held "informal" hearings.
Much of the findings are here:
http://oversight.house.gov/search/re...earch22=Search
One of the results was this bill, introduced by Waxman within days after the Dems became the majority. |
I would still like to see a formal investigation, with people under oath. If Haliburton defrauded us, I would like them to pay a price for it. If they are clean, let the record reflect that. I don't side with Republicans not wanting this issue to be cleared up, one way or the other.
In every spending bill Congress can include financial controls. Specific controls to fit the spending in question. Congress at any point can excercise their right to Congressional review of budgetary expenditures. That is what I mean when I say the bill seems unnecessary.