Tony Zelenka was among the first contractors the government hired after Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast.
No government official called to ask for his assistance. But Zelenka, who runs Bertucci Contracting Corp. in New Orleans, had long worked with the Army Corps of Engineers and knew when Katrina hit that the Corps would need help if he could get to Vicksburg, Miss., where the Corps was setting up an emergency response center.
So in the middle of that first night after Katrina hit, Zelenka spent 30 minutes wading through chest-deep water, carrying a bicycle over his head, to reach a highway so he could pedal to a car and make the four-hour drive to Vicksburg. By the first hours of that Wednesday, with just a verbal agreement as a contract, Zelenka's company was at work hauling stone to repair the breached levees that had flooded his city.
That kind of handshake deal, with contract details to be filled in later, has been common in the rush to aid the victims of Katrina. It is also central to a debate that continues in Washington, as the Bush administration and Congress seek the right balance between speeding money to the stricken region and ensuring that the $62 billion already appropriated is not wasted or stolen.
Proposals being floated on Capitol Hill push in both directions.
Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, introduced a bill yesterday that would significantly loosen procurement rules to allow government agencies greater latitude in using no-bid contracts. It would also reduce the amount of information contractors are required to provide the government about their profit.
The legislation is designed to let agencies "quickly acquire the goods and services they need to assist relief and recovery efforts," according to a statement by Davis.
The bill follows a change Congress passed last week upping the amount officials can buy with their government credit cards to $250,000 for Katrina-related expenses from the usual $15,000 allowed in an emergency.
The moves have been opposed by government watchdog groups, which argue that the unparalleled amount of money being spent demands more scrutiny, not less.
"There's definitely a need to get the money on the ground fast. But I don't think any of these proposals would do that. What I see them doing is lessening the transparency," said Keith Ashdown, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. "It's the opposite of the way we should be going. We need to know more so we can know if all this money is being spent in a wise and responsible manner."
Some members of Congress share Ashdown's concern.
Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) late Tuesday introduced a bill that would create a special inspector general's office exclusively to oversee spending related to Katrina.
