A new bill introduced today by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and other Democrats aims to punish war profiteers with tough penalties and to “force real competition'’ in bidding for lucrative federal contracts. Democrats have been critical of contracts awarded to companies like Halliburton for the reconstruction of Iraq and the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina.

The Accountability in Contracting Act of 2006 would crack down on cronyism, corruption and war profiteering associated with federal contracting. Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) is quoted as saying:

“Some of the funding that is supposed to go to help rebuilding efforts in Iraq and in the Gulf Coast Region has simply disappeared into thin air at the same time the federal budget deficit continues to rise at an alarming rate. One way of controlling spending is to be sure that contractors for the U.S. government act responsibly and are held accountable for their actions if they don’t. Values teach us all that stealing is wrong, but the law should hold those who steal accountable. This law would crack down on those who steal from American taxpayers’ pockets.”

According to a release from USNewswire.com:

Recent reports of corruption among contractors like Custer Battles and Halliburton, as well as at the CPA, reinforce the need for stronger oversight, increased transparency and stiffer sanctions. The bill introduced by Dorgan and Obama includes specific provisions that the Center for Corporate Policy has strongly supported as essential to clean contracting:

– Strengthen suspension/debarment standards. Companies that repeatedly break the law and abuse taxpayer money should not be eligible for further contracts. Vague standards have allowed for weak enforcement of Federal Acquisition Regulations regarding “responsible” contractors.

– Close the revolving door. The bill would address conflicts of interest inherent to situations where individuals either leave government for lucrative positions in the private sector or come to government from contracting companies (reverse revolving door).

– Establish a clear definition and stiff penalties for “war profiteering.” The bill establishes a clear definition and strong penalties (up to 20 years and $1 million fine).

– Force greater competition in contracting. The bill would break up huge mega-contracts like the LOGCAP contract awarded to Halliburton, so that large task orders can be competitively bid. Halliburton is the largest contractor operating in Iraq. According to Defense Department auditors, Halliburton “alone represents 52 percent of the total contract value” of DoD contracts in Iraq.

– Create a publicly-accessible record of contractors’ violations.

– Support whistleblowers who report waste, fraud, bribery and other abuses.

The Navy Times reports that there are “25 Democrat co-sponsors for what is being called the Honest Leadership and Accountability in Contracting Act, which is enough to get attention but not enough to pass the bill.” Let’s hope the Accountability in Contracting Act of 2006 will get a more impressive and unified response from Democrats than Senator Obama got on the Congressional Ethics Enforcement Commission Act of 2006.

There have been suggestions made for an independent war profiteering commission to investigate unaccounted-for expenditures in the Iraq War and publish a report that includes tough recommendations for legislative action and, if found, criminal action.

Recently at the Nation magazine, Katrina vanden Heuvel’s latest “Editor’s Cut” focused on the issue of war profiteering. She reminded us of a story she saw on a recent 60 Minutes show on CBS:

On Sunday night, 60 Minutes aired an important story exposing Iraqi war profiteering that has stolen billions, crippled reconstruction and put the lives of troops at fatal risk.

Ms. vanden Heuvel suggests:

… an independent war profiteering commission, which would investigate the multibillion-dollar, unaccounted-for expenditures in the Iraq War and publish a report for public distribution that includes tough recommendations for legislative action and, if found, criminal action. It would be modeled on the Truman Commission, which then-Senator Harry Truman chaired during World War II to expose and eliminate waste, mismanagement and corruption, and would consist of a group of dedicated, visible current and former public servants–Democrats, Republicans, Independents–committed to examining the financial and military transactions related to the Iraqi war effort.

She believes that this is an issue that cuts to the common heart of American decency:

Given the revulsion that decent people–of all political hues–feel about war profiteering, this is a project that could have a real impact in these coming weeks and months.

The Nation’s John Nichols read Katrina vanden Heuvel’s ‘Editor’s Cut’ and thought her ideas were quite good. He said he believed that “the Truman model is a good one for today’s muckrakers.” “But,” he wondered, “who will go down the trail Truman blazed?”

Mr. Nichols came up with this idea, which involves former Senator and 2004 VP candidate John Edwards:

Why not John Edwards? He’s a skilled trial lawyer who knows how to go after corporate misdeeds. As a former member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a former presidential and vice presidential candidate, he’s prominent enough to draw media attention to the hunt for profiteers. And Edwards has been on the right side of this issue for a long time…