Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Mark Dayton, along with 26 Senate colleagues, today introduced the Accountability in Contracting Act of 2006, a proposal which would hold Administration-awarded contractors accountable for completing their work. The bill seeks to stop many contracting abuses in Iraq and in the wake of Hurricane Katrina that have been outlined in recent hearings by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee. The new bill would, among other provisions, punish war profiteers with harsh new penalties, crack down on corporate cheaters, force real competition for government contracts, and ban cronyism in contracting.

“As we continue spending billions to rebuild Iraq and the Gulf Coast, contracting abuses and wasted taxpayer dollars are running rampant under the Bush Administration's watch,” said Dayton. “The American people deserve to know that their money is being used appropriately and effectively; this legislation is an important step toward restoring that accountability and toward eliminating fraud and waste.”

Several firms that have been awarded contracts as part of the reconstruction efforts in Iraq have come under scrutiny for waste, fraud, and abuse. According to a February 10, 2005 USA Today article:

“Halliburton alone has earned more than $9 billion. Pentagon audits released by Democrats in June showed $1.03 billion in ‘questioned’ costs and $422 million in ‘unsupported’ costs for Halliburton's work in Iraq.”

Additionally, the Inspector General for Iraq recently reported that $8.8 billion in reconstruction contracts is unaccounted for.

Key provisions of the bill include:

• New penalties of up to 20 years in prison and at least $1 million in fines for war profiteering.

• Restoration of a rule, dropped by the Bush Administration, that prohibits awarding federal contracts to companies with a pattern of failing to comply with contracting laws.

• Establishment of a “Truth in Contracting” public website identifying significant over-charges by major contractors.

• A prohibition of huge monopoly contracts, in order to ensure price competition from multiple companies.

• A requirement that federal agencies conduct their own contract oversight, rather than paying contractors, often with conflicts of interest, to oversee each other.

• Strengthening conflict of interest rules that now allow federal contracting officials to take jobs representing companies to whom they once awarded contracts.

• Requiring that political appointees to key federal jobs relating to federal contracting and public safety have credentials and experience that qualify them for those positions.

###