[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 18 (Wednesday, February 12, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1265-S1267]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY AT DOD

  Mr. GRASSLEY. I want to speak on a problem that I have been speaking 
about in the Department of Defense, but it also emphasizes the need for 
having a balanced budget, because the shenanigans that go on in the 
Defense Department would not go on if we had more discipline in this 
town in regard to the expenditures of taxpayers' money.
  On January 28, I spoke here on the floor about irresponsible 
financial accounting policies being pursued over at the Department of 
Defense. This policy is the responsibility of the chief financial 
officer at the Pentagon. The person holding that position now is Mr. 
John Hamre, but it would be applicable to anybody holding this 
position. The chief financial officer is supposed to be tightening 
internal controls and improving financial accounting. That is exactly 
why we passed, in 1990, the Chief Financial Officer's Act. Mr. Hamre 
should be cleaning up the books at the Pentagon and watching the money 
like a hawk. If that had been the case, we would not need to have a 
constitutional amendment for a balanced budget, if we had been doing 
that properly over the last 25 years.
  Sadly, the job is not being done. To make matters worse, the 
bureaucrats are pushing a new policy on progress payments that will 
loosen internal controls and cook the books. This new policy is 
embodied in draft bill language that was being circulated in the 
Pentagon for review as recently as January 30. I expressed my concerns 
about the new policy in my statement on January 28. In a nutshell, this 
is what I said then and it is still appropriate today:
  I am afraid that this new draft language would subvert the 
appropriations process that is so key to keeping tight control on how 
the taxpayers' dollars are expended by the Congress of the United 
States.
  I even alerted the chairman of the Appropriations Committee to the 
bad aspects of this language. The new language is not one bit 
constructive. It would not fix Defense's crumbling accounting system. 
It would merely condone and perpetuate crooked bookkeeping practices.
  Since raising this issue here on the floor, I have exchanged letters 
with Mr. Hamre. I ask unanimous consent that correspondence be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                   Under Secretary of Defense,

                                 Washington, DC, January 29, 1997.
     Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Grassley: I was astounded yesterday to see 
     that you went to the floor of the Senate to personally attack 
     me. You made no effort to discuss your concerns with me 
     either directly or through your staff. You did not contact me 
     to ask me to explain my position on a draft proposal 
     circulating within the Department for comment. And the 
     ``concerned citizen'' you cite in your letter who provided 
     this information has never contacted me. This was a Pearl 
     Harbor attack, and I am very disappointed in it.
       Frankly, we have done more in the past 3 years to clean up 
     financial management problems in the Department than anyone 
     else has done in the past 30 years. Secretary Perry deserves 
     high praise for making this a priority. I have certainly 
     dedicated myself to this task. You can ask any objective 
     individual in town and they would tell you we have made 
     enormous progress.
       In the past 3 years we have closed over 230 inefficient 
     accounting offices and consolidated them into new operating 
     locations with improved business practices and equipment. We 
     have closed over 300 payroll offices and transferred accounts 
     from some 25 old outdated payroll systems into a new modern 
     system with a 500 percent improvement in productivity. We 
     have reduced problem disbursements by over 70 percent in 3 
     years. We have instituted new policies that freeze activity 
     on accounts that are in deficient status, and I am forcing 
     the Services to obligate funds to cover negative unliquidated 
     obligations. We are prevalidating all disbursements of funds 
     for all new contracts and have lowered the prevalidation 
     threshold on existing contracts.
       Yet without even offering to discuss the issue with me, you 
     blast me from the floor of the Senate, claiming I am ``ready 
     to throw in the towel'' on financial management reform. That 
     is nonsense, and I am disappointed that you would suggest it. 
     I don't blame you personally. I worked for the Senate for 10 
     years and I know how busy Senators are. I know that you are 
     often given material by staff who represent the fact as 
     correct. But it is disappointing that you would not even ask 
     me to come over to discuss it with you. After you had heard 
     my side, it would be perfectly fair for you to blast me if 
     you still disagreed. But you didn't even ask me to meet with 
     you.
       For the record, the language which you criticized has 
     nothing to do with the M account as you allege. It would not 
     ``thumb our nose'' at the appropriations process or the law 
     as you state in your speech. It would not pool funds at the 
     contract level. This language merely clarified that progress 
     payments are a financing device to lower borrowing costs. In 
     their 40 year history, progress payments were never designed 
     to do anything other than finance a contract. Every progress 
     payment we make is linked directly to the source funds 
     identified to the contract, and detailed audits are conducted

[[Page S1266]]

     before the contract is closed. We don't reimburse contractors 
     for the full costs they incur precisely to guarantee that we 
     don't overpay contractors. This language was designed to 
     clarify a problem we have with progress payments. Progress 
     payments cannot be linked to funding sources unless the 
     acquisition community mandates that every contractor in the 
     country change its accounting systems to accommodate DoD 
     fiscal law prohibitions and invoice us in terms of 
     congressional appropriation categories. That would not be 
     good business sense and violates the underlying purpose of 
     progress payments.
       Next time, Senator Grassley, please contact me first before 
     you attack me on the floor of the Senate. You actually set 
     back financial management reform by your attacks because 
     people pull back from actions just to avoid the criticism.
           Sincerely,
     John J. Hamre.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                 Washington, DC, January 30, 1997.
     Hon. John J. Hamre,
     Under Secretary of Defense, 1100 Defense Pentagon, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear John: I am writing in response to your letter of 
     January 29, 1997, expressing anger and disappointment about 
     my recent speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate about the 
     lack of ``Accountability at the Department of Defense.''
       Your anger and disappointment seem to flow from one main 
     source. You think I made no effort to discuss this matter 
     with you before blasting you on the floor of the Senate. You 
     state, and I quote:
       ``You made no effort to discuss your concerns with me 
     either directly or through your staff. You did not contact me 
     to ask me to explain my position on a draft proposal 
     circulating within the Department for comment.''
       John, that statement is totally false, and I demand an 
     apology.
       As soon as the draft language on progress payments came to 
     my attention, my staff contacted your personal office 
     directly at 703-695-3237 to express concern about it. That 
     was the very first thing we did. My staff was informed that 
     you were out of the building on travel and to call Navy 
     Captain Mike Nowakowski, one of your congressional liaison 
     officers. That was done immediately. Initially, on January 
     14th, Captain Nowakowski reported that he could find no trace 
     of the draft language on progress payments but indicated that 
     he would keep looking. At that time, my staff communicated my 
     grave concerns about the proposal in detail, including a 
     warning that I would go to ``battle stations'' if this 
     language was, in fact, under active consideration. When 
     Captain Nowakowski was unable to locate the language, I was 
     able to obtain a copy elsewhere. My office faxed the document 
     to him at 4:03 pm on January 14th. During a subsequent 
     conversation on January 22nd, Captain Nowakowski confirmed 
     that the language was indeed under review within the 
     department. He also told me that he had personally briefed 
     you on all my concerns.
       John, those are the facts. The facts show that I did 
     everything humanly possible to communicate my concerns 
     directly to you. Your letter is out of line and inconsistent 
     with the facts.
       Furthermore, I believe Captain Nowakowski is telling the 
     truth. He briefed you in detail about my concerns. He made 
     that statement on January 22nd and reconfirmed it again this 
     morning. I shared my concerns with you--as best I could 
     through that unresponsive and cumbersome bureaucracy that is 
     your office. So why did you say I made no effort to discuss 
     my concerns with you either directly or indirectly through my 
     staff? And why didn't you react and respond to my concerns? 
     You should have called me and asked to see me. My door is 
     always open to you.
       John, you know that when I am disturbed about some 
     development at the Pentagon, I usually go to the floor and 
     talk about it. My staff informed one of your other 
     congressional liaison officers--``Hap'' Taylor--that I was 
     planning to do exactly that. When I do it, it is usually an 
     unpleasant experience for some. But it's unpleasant only for 
     those who fail to be responsible and accountable for the 
     taxpayers' money. Since I am not a member of the Armed 
     Services Committee, I think of the floor as my committee 
     forum for defense issues.
       John, you owe me two things. First, you owe me an 
     explanation. If Captain Nowakowski is tell the truth--and I 
     believe he is, then you need to explain the inaccurate 
     assertions in your letter. Second, you owe me an apology.
       I look forward to your response.
           Sincerely,
                                               Charles E. Grassley
     U.S. Senator.
                                  ____



                                   Under Secretary of Defense,

                                 Washington, DC, January 30, 1997.
     Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Grassley: I have received your January 30 
     letter demanding an apology. I am sorry that I won't do that 
     because I believe I am the wronged party. You blasted me on 
     the floor of the Senate and I wrote you a personal letter. It 
     seems to me that a modicum of decency would hold that if you 
     intend to criticize me by name on the floor of the Senate, I 
     should have a chance to talk with you first before you do 
     that. Yet you didn't do that.
       You state in your letter ``I did everything humanly 
     possible to communicate my concerns directly to you.'' I 
     really don't know how you can conclude that. On two separate 
     occasions in the past I had breakfast with you. I have spoken 
     with you in previous occasions on the phone and at hearings. 
     I have repeatedly stated my willingness to meet with you at 
     any time. You have written me numerous letters and I have 
     written back. Yet on this occasion you did not call my 
     office, you did not ask me to come to meet with you, you did 
     not send me a letter outlining your concerns.
       My staff aid, Captain Nowakowski, told me that your 
     staffer, Mr. Charles Murphy, had a copy of this language and 
     ``had some serious concerns.'' At the time the document was 
     in circulation for comment and did not represent Department 
     policy. It is still in the coordination stage. We hadn't 
     decided on what to do yet, so it was inappropriate to respond 
     to a staff call expressing concerns on something that the 
     Department had not adopted. Even then, Charlie (whom I have 
     known for 10 years and consider a friend) didn't call me or 
     ask to meet with me to relay your concerns.
       Senator, I do respect you, but I owe you no apologies.
           Sincerely,
     John J. Hamre
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                 Washington, DC, January 27, 1997.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Ted: I am writing to express concern about a 
     legislative proposal that is under consideration within the 
     Department of Defense (DOD).
       This provision, if approved, would significantly loosen 
     controls over progress payments. DOD progress payments total 
     about $20 billion per year. A copy of the proposed language 
     is attached.
       First, the Inspector General (IG) has been keeping a close 
     eye on this whole problem for a number of years. IG audit 
     reports consistently show that the department regularly 
     violates the laws that the proposed language would undo. This 
     is like legalizing the crime--instead of trying to fix the 
     problem.
       Second, this proposal is inconsistent with Comptroller 
     Hamre's commitment to begin the process of matching 
     disbursements with obligations before a payment is made. In 
     last year's Report No. 104-286 (pages 18-19), your Committee 
     directed Mr. Hamre to develop a detailed plan, including 
     dollar thresholds and milestones, for eliminating all problem 
     disbursements. The attached language would put that whole 
     idea on a back burner indefinitely.
       Third, the attached language would subvert the 
     appropriations process. If DOD is to be authorized to merge 
     and pool acquisition monies--R&D and procurement funds--at 
     the contract level, then Congress must make some kind of 
     corresponding adjustment in the way those monies are 
     appropriated. To do otherwise might make the appropriations 
     process irrelevant somewhere down the road.
       I would like to ask you to urge Mr. Hamre to reconsider the 
     attached proposal and search for a better way to solve the 
     problem. Ted, there is obviously a problem in the payments 
     process. We need to understand the problem before we try to 
     fix it.
           Sincerely,
                                              Charles E. Grassley,
                                                     U.S. Senator.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. Hamre's letters tell me that he may not understand 
this issue. He seems confused. It is confusion like this that dictates 
more fiscal discipline in this town, and that can only come from a 
constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.
  His letter of January 29, I think, contains two contradictory 
statements. In one breath he says that payments and appropriations are 
in sync. In the next breath, he admits that payments and appropriations 
are out of sync.
  But then he goes on to say that the cost of getting them in sync 
would just be too high, that we cannot worry about whether payments are 
matched with a particular product or a particular invoice or 
appropriation account. He says, ``that would not be good business 
sense.'' It would place an unfair burden on the contractors.
  Just think, when it comes to matching disbursements of money with an 
invoice, it might also place an unfair burden on contractors and 
government accountants.
  So just what is the thinking of the chief financial officer? Clearly, 
there is a problem in the Department of Defense's payment process. 
There is a major disconnect. On the one hand, we have a whole body of 
law governing the use of appropriations; on the other, we have payments 
for factory work that are supposed to be matched with corresponding 
appropriations.
  Unfortunately, the law and the payments just don't mesh. They can't 
be reconciled. So long as the two are not

[[Page S1267]]

in sync, the Pentagon is operating outside the law, and it doesn't 
reflect the fiscal discipline that we need in this town and that we 
would get with a constitutional amendment.
  Unfortunately, the new policy in this draft language that is floating 
around the Pentagon does not put them back in sync. It will keep them 
out of sync permanently.
  To understand the root cause of this problem, we need to step back in 
time. Bureaucrats do not like it when congressional overseers revisit 
history, but that is what we need to do. We need to revisit an old IG 
report, the inspector General's audit report dated March 31, 1992. That 
is number 92-064. It is on the Titan IV Missile Program.
  That is where the problem was first detected and exposed, and that is 
the problem the bureaucrats are trying to cover up in this new policy.
  The Titan IV was not an isolated case. Unfortunately, the practices 
uncovered on Titan IV typified common practices throughout the 
Department. This report showed the Defense Department regularly 
violates the laws that the draft language would undo. Instead of fixing 
the problem, this proposed language would legalize the crime.
  Mr. President, the laws that were violated were designed to protect 
Congress' constitutional control over the purse strings. Progress 
payments to Martin Marietta on the Titan IV contract were made in 
violation of those laws. Those payments were made on a predetermined 
sequence of appropriations. Those are words that mean the money was 
drawn from available appropriation accounts using a random selection 
process.
  What a way--random selection to justify the expenditures of the 
taxpayers' money. That is a blatant violation of the law. That is the 
inspector general talking, Mr. President, not the Senator from Iowa.
  Yet, as difficult as it may be to comprehend, this unlawful procedure 
was sanctified by Air Force Regulation 177-120, starting February 15, 
1988. In other words, that is an outlaw decree.
  Congress appropriates money for specific purposes. Those purposes are 
specified in law, and that is how the money must be spent. That's what 
the law says. The Pentagon bureaucrats promise to straighten up this 
mess after the fact, down the road, after the money goes out the door. 
They try to retroactively adjust--that's their language--adjust the 
ledgers--to make it look like the payments and the appropriations were 
in sync.
  That is fine and dandy, Mr. President. It makes the books look nice 
and neat, but the books then do not reflect the reality of how the 
taxpayers' money was spent or what the appropriators intended. The 
books do not tell you how the money was really spent. If they don't do 
that, then they are inaccurate, and that's what I call cooking the 
books.
  Back in 1992, the inspector general tried to shut down the Defense 
Department's unlawful payment process. Mr. President, the inspector 
general told the Department to get on the stick, obey the law, fix the 
problem.
  Well, guess what? The big wheels over at the Pentagon nonconcurred 
with the IG. That means, take a hike, in other words. They said the 
payment process was working just fine; it doesn't need any fixing; 
don't mess with it.
  We should be thankful that the IG had courage and did not back down.
  This dispute came to a head, after years of talk, in March of 1993. 
There was a high-level powwow at that time. The financial wizards in 
the Pentagon got together and signed a peace treaty. They said, 
basically, obey the law.
  They were given 120 days to do it.
  The treaty was signed by: Ms. Eleanor Spector, Director of Defense 
Procurement; Mr. Al Tucker, Deputy Comptroller; and Mr. Bob Lieberman, 
assistant IG for auditing.
  Mr. President, 4 years have passed since that agreement was signed. 
Those same officials are still in the same place. But nothing has been 
fixed.
  Now, we have the DOD CFO telling us that nothing will be fixed. The 
status quo will be institutionalized and legalized. Titan IV is the 
model for the future.
  CFO Hamre is responsible for this mess.
  Why didn't Mr. Hamre enforce the March 1993 agreement? What exactly 
has happened in the 4 years since the agreement was signed? How did we 
end up where we are?
  We need to know the answers to these questions. We need to understand 
the problem before we try to fix it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________