China's Currency Policy

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. I would like to take a few moments before we have a vote this afternoon to discuss a serious concern I have about the original stimulus package, and I want the Senate to consider my remarks and my research as we consider the President's latest modified so-called jobs bill--in actuality, stimulus bill No. 2. I want to ensure the taxpayers' money is spent responsibly on programs that create viable, long-term jobs, not lost to waste, fraud, and abuse. The marching orders for the stimulus funding under the Obama administration have been ``spend now, chase later.'' But when governments spend money quickly, it leads to massive waste, fraud, and abuse.

President Obama promised us he would use ``the new tools that the Recovery Act gives us to watch the taxpayers' money with more vigor and transparency than ever'' before. He also said that ``if a Federal agency proposes a project that will waste that money,'' he would ``put a stop to it.'' It is past time for the President to live up to his words because we all know, up to now, that certainly hasn't been the case. I will give several examples.

A year ago, I asked the Department of Labor to explain why $500 million in green job training grants had been spent when the Department had just asked the public to help them define just what a green job is. Now, over a year later, the Department of Labor's inspector general issued an audit report showing that the President's promises are much different from reality. The reality is that only 8,000 program participants found employment--only 10 percent of the promised results. The reality is that $300 million still remains unspent in the program. The reality is that this money won't be spent or produce the jobs before the grants expire. But instead of learning from this failure and using this money for more effective job training, the administration continues to push good money after bad into so-called green jobs, which I don't think has actually even yet been defined to this very day.

The administration left much of stimulus 1 oversight to the inspector general offices of the respective departments but has largely disregarded their findings and recommendations. I strongly support efforts of our inspectors general and am extremely frustrated that the administration ignores rather than enforces the recommendations of the various inspectors general.

Thanks to the audit work performed by these IGs, I have also questioned the administration's ability to track stimulus funding after it was distributed to the first recipients. For instance, the Department of Education provided $1.7 billion to the State of New York even though the inspector general reported that the State has ``serious internal deficiencies'' that would make tracking the money extremely difficult.

The Housing and Urban Development Office of Inspector General released a series of reports that questioned why additional funding was given to troubled housing authorities with significant financial and management problems. HUD Secretary Donovan stated that these housing authorities needed that money to improve their inventory and make needed upgrades.

The weatherization program has also been fraught with waste. The inspector general found that in many cases contractors never did the work, and some work was so shoddy

that it endangered the health and safety of the owners.

I continue to raise strong concerns about the Department of Energy's failure to monitor State and territory programs.

I am not aware that the administration has ever demanded any of the taxpayers' money back, even for the blatant cases of waste, fraud, and abuse.

The administration also spent $84 million of the stimulus funding to establish the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board to guard against wasteful spending. The Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board can hold hearings and compel testimony about stimulus fund waste. I have referred two cases to this board, but so far it has refused to use this authority. In the first case, HUD's Office of Inspector General questioned nearly $32 million of stimulus money spent by the Philadelphia Housing Authority to rehabilitate scattered-site housing. According to the inspector general's report, most of the work was never done and the housing authority couldn't provide detailed invoices to show what the contractors were charging the government for.

I also referred the $535 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy to Solyndra because I understand the board may have detected possible problems with guarantees.

So President Obama made lots of promises about transparency and accountability when he asked Congress to pass the first stimulus bill. Before we consider giving him another over $400 billion, the President needs to turn his promises into reality or it is the American taxpayers who will lose once again, even beyond the examples I have already given.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to proceed to this latest modified tax-and-spend proposal that even the Washington Post has called ``political.''

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source