A few weeks ago, I reported on the 10-year, $21-million investigation into former HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros. To summarize, Cisneros, during an FBI background check, acknowledged an extramarital relationship he had years prior, and admitted to having paid the woman, but misled investigators about how much he gave her.
An independent investigator, David Barrett, began a relentless inquiry, leading a full-time staff of 30 federal investigators and spending three years (and $9 million) to unveil the truth — that Cisneros low-balled the FBI about the size of the payments. Cisneros plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge and paid a fine of $10,000. He left Clinton’s cabinet, returned to San Antonio, and was ultimately pardoned in 2001.
Seven years later, Barrett’s investigation is still going strong, spending about $2 million a year. Thankfully, the Senate hopes to put an end to this nonsense.
The Senate agreed Thursday to cut off money to the decade-long investigation of former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros, which has cost nearly $21 million.
Legislation that provides money for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan includes an amendment sponsored by Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., to stop spending by June 1 on the probe led by independent counsel David Barrett. The Senate added the amendment on a voice vote this week.
A report by the Government Accountability Office, Congress’ investigative arm, shows Barrett spent $1.26 million during the six months ending Sept. 30, 2004. The largest expenses were for salaries and benefits and contracted services. Dorgan’s amendment would require a detailed report on spending by July. […]
“This is the most unbelievable waste of taxpayers money I’ve ever seen,” Dorgan said. “It’s been 10 years since the investigation started, six years since the subject of the investigation pleaded guilty and four years since the subject was pardoned.”
Dorgan predicted the measure will have little trouble becoming law. “I doubt anyone is willing to stand up for this waste,” he said.
We can at least hope that’s true. The provision is not in the House version of the bill, and the differences will have to be worked out in a conference committee. No one should be willing to defend this kind of waste, but we’ll have to wait and see.