Official says fraud loophole was a mistake(foreign contracts in Iraq)

[maddezmom]

Official says fraud loophole was a mistake
By EVAN LEHMANN, Reformer Washington Bureau



Wednesday, April 16
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration inadvertently exempted foreign contracts in Iraq from fraud oversight, a top administration official said Tuesday, resulting in a loophole that Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., said could have protected private firms that steal taxpayer money.
The admission follows weeks of controversy surrounding the exemption's mysterious appearance in a new rule guiding contractors being paid billions for government work in the U.S. and in foreign countries around the globe.

The administration removed the single paragraph exemption on Monday, hours before a House panel convened a hearing to question officials about its origin and to debate legislation introduced by Welch to close the loophole and punish fraudulent contractors.

"We did not knowingly, thinkingly put in the exemption," said David Drabkin, the top acquisition officer at the General Services Administration. "The exemption language was a drafting error."

That didn't comfort Welch.

"What you're saying is this wasn't a conspiracy," Welch told Drabkin. "It was a mistake. Well, that's not reassuring to taxpayers."

more:http://www.reformer.com/headlines/ci_8941224

Administration says contracting fraud loophole was mistake
By LARA JAKES JORDAN – 1 day ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Bush administration officials acknowledged Tuesday they mistakenly added a multibillion-dollar loophole to a planned crackdown on contract fraud, then urged Congress not to get involved in fixing it.

Instead, the officials said, they have removed the loophole — an exemption for overseas projects — from proposed rules that would force contractors to report misuse of taxpayer dollars to the Justice Department.

The loophole "was a drafting error, and we now have a draft proposed rule without that language in it," said David Drabkin, acting chief acquisition officer for the General Services Administration.

Testifying before a House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee, Drabkin added: "We did not knowingly, thinkingly put in the exception. We have taken that exception out in the proposed rule. It got no real thought, it wasn't examined, it wasn't raised and it never went anywhere."

Democrats on the panel sounded dubious that the administration could ensure similar mistakes aren't made in the future.

more:http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ieXNQKlfOClbz6jEKYziPZBJ-fVgD902IFAO1

[maddezmom]

1. House committee approves bill to close contracting

House committee approves bill to close contracting loopholeBy Elizabeth Newell [e-mail] April 16, 2008 A bill that closes a loophole exempting companies working on overseas contracts from fraud-reporting requirements was approved by voice vote on Wednesday by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

On Tuesday, Bush administration officials told lawmakers on the Government Management, Organization and Procurement Subcommittee that they were removing such language from a recent proposed rule, rendering legislation unnecessary.

"Our initial preference is to proceed through the regulatory mechanism before going through the legislative process," said Barry Sabin, acting chief of staff and principal deputy assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's criminal division. Justice was the agency that requested the regulatory change.

But Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., who introduced the bill (H.R.5712) to close the loophole on April 3, expressed skepticism that the administration would have acted without congressional pressure.

"I don't think it's a coincidence that there was no action toward fixing the rule until the chairman held a hearing and we introduced the legislation," Welch said. "Also, no one on the panel is committing to when that final rule will be published and implemented. So it raises significant questions as to whether if we drop the pressure, the ball will be dropped." Administration witnesses called the language in the proposed rule a "drafting error."
more:http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=39792&dcn=todaysnews

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. "Inadvertently." Yeah, right

:eyes:

An administration that is a neurotic stickler for details does not do things like this "inadvertently."