Some $9 billion managed by the Coalition Provisional Authority and intended for the rebuilding of Iraq has gone missing, journalists Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele report in Vanity Fair, and the U.S. government doesn't seem particularly interested in finding out where it went. Barlett and Steele describe the Wild Wild Middle East atmosphere, in which two guys with no experience can get millions from the C.P.A. to protect civilian flights in and out of Iraq, and Bahamanian P.O. Boxes are the business addresses of choice for those supposedly keeping the books. Perhaps the most disturbing bit among many was just how out of touch Congress was on the doings in Baghdad during the C.P.A.'s tenure starting in 2003:

Over the next year, a compliant Congress gave $1.6 billion to Bremer to administer the C.P.A. This was over and above the $12 billion in cash that the C.P.A. had been given to disburse from Iraqi oil revenues and unfrozen Iraqi funds. Few in Congress actually had any idea about the true nature of the C.P.A. as an institution. Lawmakers had never discussed the establishment of the C.P.A., much less authorized it—odd, given that the agency would be receiving taxpayer dollars. Confused members of Congress believed that the C.P.A. was a U.S. government agency, which it was not, or that at the very least it had been authorized by the United Nations, which it had not. One congressional funding measure makes reference to the C.P.A. as "an entity of the United States Government"—highly inaccurate. The same congressional measure states that the C.P.A. was "established pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolutions"—just as inaccurate. The bizarre truth, as a U.S. District Court judge would point out in an opinion, is that "no formal document … plainly establishes the C.P.A. or provides for its formation."

"Confused members of Congress" seems like both a phrase that should be far more common in news coverage, and an inappropriately charitable description. In any case, it's an incredible story from two of the best investigative reporters in the business -- well worth reading (and don't miss the Q&A

The New York Times today broke a story that I first learned about nearly two years ago – that the federal government’s annual accounting of federal contracts going to “small businesses” is routinely overstated, with much of that money actually going to large corporations.

I stumbled onto the story while analyzing six years of Pentagon contracts for the Center for Public Integrity. I’d been tipped off to the practice by a Defense Department analyst who’d been working with the contract data for years. He told me – and I subsequently documented it in the records – that under the contracting rules, if a small business is bought by a larger one, the contract is still counted as going to small business.

We do not know whether Congress will pass an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws; we do not know whether such a bill would follow the House's preference for border enforcement or the Senate's preference for amnesty for those already here plus increased ceilings on the number of legal immigrants for those aspiring to come. We do not know how the debate over this contentious and emotional issue will be resolved--to date the conventional wisdom has proven to be a bit off target, to say the least.

One thing that apparently has been resolved, however, is that whatever results from the immigration debate, the solution will be implemented by a private company:

Muckraked! (second item) notes a Government Executive report that tells us that auditors are going to look into the FAA's outsourcing of operations at 58 FAA flight centers around the country to Lockheed Martin. Already, the Transportation Department has realized that $500 million of the supposed $2.2 billion in savings will, well, not be realized.

Among other issues, the IG office plans to look into changes in projections for how much the agency expects to save. When the contract was awarded, FAA announced that private sector performance would save the government $2.2 billion over the life of the contract, based on a 10-year estimate for the 5-year base period with up to five extension years. In its announcement of the audit this week, the inspector general's office quoted an anticipated savings of $1.7 billion.