[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 80 (Tuesday, June 10, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5439-S5441]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




OPPOSITION TO POSSIBLE NOMINATION OF JOHN HAMRE TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY 
                               OF DEFENSE

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on May 27 I sent a letter to President 
Clinton.
  In it, I expressed opposition to the possible nomination of Mr. John 
J. Hamre to fill the No. 2 spot at the Pentagon.
  He would be the Deputy Secretary of defense, and it's a big job.
  I told the President why I would oppose this nomination--if it's ever 
made, and I'll give my reasons in just a moment.
  But 2 days after writing this letter, the Washington Post ran a story 
about my opposition to the nomination.
  Mr. Hamre was also interviewed.
  He attempted to respond to my criticism.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my letter and the 
newspaper article be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to address some of Mr. 
Hamre's assertions.
  First, Mr. Hamre's remarks imply that my criticism is somehow 
personal.
  Nothing could be further from the truth. He is a very likeable 
person.
  But my personal feelings have absolutely nothing to do with my 
position on his nomination.
  What I have tried to do is examine all the facts and then reach a 
conclusion based on those facts.
  These are the facts as I know them.
  In 1992, the inspector general [IG] examined the Department of 
Defense's [DOD] progress payment procedures.
  The IG along with legal counsel declared that these policies 
``resulted in the rendering of false accounts and violations of the 
law.''
  The IG told the Department to get on the stick and fix the problem.
  The bureaucrats balked.
  Under pressure, they finally signed an agreement in March 1993.
  In signing this document, they agreed to comply with the law.
  One of the persons who signed this agreement was Mr. Alvin Tucker.
  Well, 7 months after Mr. Tucker signed the agreement, Mr. Hamre 
became Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer or CFO.
  Well, guess what?
  Mr. Tucker became Mr. Hamre's most senior deputy. He became the 
Deputy CFO.
  Mr. President, after becoming CFO, Mr. Hamre did nothing to meet the 
terms of the agreement and comply with the law.
  Instead, he sided with the bureaucrats who were thumbing their noses 
at the law.
  He gave them the green light to keep breaking the law.
  He personally reauthorized their illegal operation.
  Then, early this year he floated a legislative proposal.
  His draft language would have sanctioned the procedure that the IG 
had declared illegal and that he, Mr. Hamre, had personally authorized.
  Mr. President, those are the facts.
  In my opinion, Mr. Hamre was attempting to legalize a crime.
  Mr. Hamre knew full well his progess scheme was operating outside the 
law.
  Otherwise, why would he feel like he needed some legal cover?
  Second, he accuses me of making a mountain out of a molehill.
  He claims I am focusing on a ``small policy'' issue.
  I take issue with the notion that this is somehow an insignificant 
issue.
  The statute that Mr. Hamre's progress payment scheme violates is 
section 1301 of title 31 of the United Statess Code.
  This law embodies a sacred constitutional principle: Only Congress 
has the power to decide how public money many be spent.
  This is the device that Congress uses to control the purse strings.
  So, Mr. President, this isn't Mickey Mouse stuff. I'm talking about a 
constitutional principle.
  When a constitutional principle is involved, it's very difficult for 
me to see the smallness of an issue.
  Third, Mr. Hamre claims this is an acquisition issue--not a finance 
and accounting question.
  This is an obvious attempt to deflect responsibility--away from 
himself.
  It's an attempt to make it someone else's problem.
  His reasoning is flawed.
  If Mr. Hamre thinks this is an acquisition issue, maybe he has 
abdicated his responsibilities under the law--as CFO.
  The CFO's responsibilities are spelled out in the ``Money and 
Finance'' section of the United States Code. That's in title 31.
  His payment scheme violates section 1301 in the same book--title 31.
  It does it by deliberately charging payments to the wrong accounts 
and then juggling the books to cover it up.
  Anyone who thinks this is an acquisition issue needs to consult the 
law books.
  When you go to the law library and locate title 31 and open the book, 
the subtitle staring you in the face is: ``Money and Finance.''
  Section 1301 lies in a chapter entitled ``Appropriations.''
  Mr. President, misappropriation, mischarging and cooking the books 
takes Mr. Hamre deep into the realm of money and accounting.
  If this is just an acquisition issue, I'll eat my hat.
  Fourth, when Mr. Hamre became CFO in October 1993, he declared war on 
financial mismanagement.
  To claim success today, he cites ``steep drops in contract 
overpayments.''
  Mr. Hamre's claims are not supported by the facts.
  The General Accounting Office [GAO] has issued a series of reports on 
DOD overpayments.
  These reports demolish Mr. Hamre's success stories.
  The most recent report says Mr. Hamre's progress payments scheme is 
the biggest, single driver behind overpayments. He's to blame.
  That's right, Mr. President, Mr. Hamre's own operations are causing 
overpayments to happen.
  That's exactly what it says on page 12 of the GAO report entitled: 
``Fixing DOD's Payment Problems is Imperative.''
  This report is dated April 1997 and has the designation NSIAD-97-37.
  GAO reports also say that DOD has no capability to detect 
overpayments.
  Virtually every overpayment ever examined by the GAO was detected by

[[Page S5440]]

the person who got the check in the mail--the contractor--and not the 
Government.
  In almost every case, overpayments were voluntarily refunded by the 
contractor who got the checks.
  Now, Mr. President, if Mr. Hamre were really serious about 
eliminating overpayments, why didn't he just shut down the illegal 
progress payments operation--like the IG asked?
  That would have removed the primary source of overpayments.
  If Mr. Hamre has no capability to detect overpayments, how does he 
know whether they are going up or down?
  How does he know they are going down, if he doesn't know how many 
there are?
  Perhaps, if overpayments are really going down--like he says, it must 
mean the contractors have stopped making voluntary refunds.
  Maybe they have decided to keep the money. That would help to keep 
the numbers down.
  Mr. President, I will have much more to say about Mr. Hamre in the 
weeks ahead.
  Some of my colleagues have asked me why I oppose this nomination.
  I want to be sure they know where I am coming from.

                               Exhibit 1


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                     Washington, DC, May 27, 1997.
     President William J. Clinton,
     The White House, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: I am writing to inform you that I am 
     opposed to the nomination of Mr. John J. Hamre to fill the 
     number two position at the Department of Defense (DOD).
       Secretary Cohen has recommended that Mr. Hamre be the next 
     Deputy Secretary of Defense.
       I am opposed to this nomination because Mr. Hamre has 
     authorized and protected an illegal payment operation.
       The procedure in question is the one DOD uses to make 
     progress payments on contracts. Under Mr. Hamre's policy, 
     payments are deliberately charged to the wrong accounts. 
     Then, after the payments are made, DOD attempts to ``adjust'' 
     the accounting ledgers to make it look like the checks were 
     charged to the right accounts when the money was, in fact, 
     spent some other way. Deliberately charging the wrong 
     accounts and then juggling the books to make them look right 
     is what I call ``cooking the books.''
       Legal counsel has said that DOD's progress payment 
     procedures ``result in the rendering of false accounts and 
     violations of Section 1301.'' Section 1301 is a little known 
     but very important law. It embodies a sacred constitutional 
     principle: Only Congress decides how public money may be 
     spent. Section 1301is the device the Congress uses to control 
     the purse strings.
       After the Inspector General declared that DOD progress 
     payment procedures were illegal, the department's Chief 
     Financial Officer (CFO), Mr. Hamre, had a responsibility to 
     institute some reforms. In fact, his senior deputy made a 
     formal commitment to obey the law. But instead of fixing the 
     problem, Mr. Hamre tried to legalize the crime. Earlier this 
     year, he circulated a piece of draft legislation for review 
     and comment. His legislation would have sanctioned the 
     payment procedures that the IG had declared illegal and that 
     he had personally authorized in writing after becoming CFO.
       Mr. Hamre's draft bill tells me that he knew full well that 
     his progress payments process was operating outside the law. 
     Otherwise, why was he seeking legal cover?
       Mr. President, when I found out about what Mr. Hamre was up 
     to, I went straight to the floor of the Senate to denounce 
     his actions. I did it on two occasions. Once on January 28th 
     (See pages S695-696 in the Record) and again on February 12th 
     (S1265-1267).
       I think Mr. Hamre has probably done an excellent job in 
     making a case for the DOD budget before Congress. And that is 
     the John Hamre that most senators know--the one wearing the 
     budget hat. That's John Hamre, the Comptroller. But the 
     budget is just part of his job. He wears another hat. He is 
     also the department's CFO. As CFO, he is responsible for 
     financial management and accounting. This has been his 
     downfall. In the accounting field, Mr. Hamre has done a lousy 
     job. I would give him a grade of F for his performance. The 
     department's books are in a shambles. True, they were that 
     way when he became CFO, but that was four years ago, and they 
     are still that way. The department's books are in such a 
     mess--so much documentation is missing--that they can't be 
     audited as required by the CFO Act of 1990. And the situation 
     is not expected to get much better anytime soon. The IG 
     expects to keep giving DOD disclaimers of opinion ``well into 
     the next century.''
       One reason why DOD keeps flunking the CFO audits is sloppy 
     bookkeeping. DOD refuses to do routine accounting work on a 
     daily basis as transactions occur. And one of the most 
     flagrant examples of sloppy bookkeeping is the progress 
     payment process. As legal counsel said, it results in the 
     rendering of false accounts and violations of Section 1301. 
     Payments are deliberately charged to the wrong accounts and 
     then DOD doctors the books to make them right with the law. 
     With this kind of bookkeeping operation, it's next to 
     impossible to either locate or follow the audit trail.
       Mr. President, this is not ``mickey mouse'' accounting 
     stuff that only ``bean counters'' need to worry about. This 
     is about the breakdown of discipline and internal controls. 
     That leaves the department's accounts vulnerable to theft and 
     abuse. In recent years, several employees succeeded in 
     tapping into the DOD money pipe undetected, stealing millions 
     of dollars. They were caught as a result of outrageous 
     personal behavior and not because of effective internal 
     controls. How many others are still out there, ripping off 
     the taxpayers?
       Under the CFO Act, Mr. Hamre is responsible for ``improving 
     internal controls and financial accounting.'' Because of his 
     personal involvement in the illegal payment process and his 
     failure to clean up the books, I do not believe that Mr. 
     Hamre deserves to be promoted to Deputy Secretary of Defense.
           Sincerely,
                                              Charles E. Grassley,
     U.S. Senator.
                                  ____


                [From the Washington Post, May 29, 1997]

            Official in Line for No. 2 Defense Post Rebuked

                          (By Bradley Graham)

       John Hamre, the Pentagon comptroller in line to become the 
     Defense Department's new second-in-command, has come under an 
     unusually sharp attack from Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) 
     triggered by a dispute over how the department accounts for 
     progress payments on contracts.
       In a letter to President Clinton made public yesterday, 
     Grassley accused Hamre of having ``authorized and protected 
     an illegal payment operation'' and announced he would oppose 
     Hamre's expected nomination.
       The accounting practice, Grassley said, is symptomatic of 
     the Pentagon's chronically ``sloppy bookkeeping.'' He charged 
     Hamre had ``done a lousy job'' revamping the Pentagon's 
     financial management during his four years as comptroller, 
     adding that the Pentagon's books remain a ``mess.''
       Hamre, a former Senate staff member who enjoys widespread 
     favor on Capitol Hill, was stunned and puzzled by the 
     harshness and personal focus of Grassley's remarks. At issue, 
     he said, was just an honest disagreement over a Pentagon 
     contracting practice that dates back several decades.
       ``The senator has taken an important but small acquisition 
     policy issue and applied it to my entire tenure,'' Hamre said 
     in a brief phone interview. ``I'm sorry he's done that, and 
     I'd welcome a chance to talk about it.''
       Grassley repeatedly has called attention to the Pentagon's 
     antiquated accounting system, deploring its waste and 
     vulnerability to fraud. Hamre, in turn, declared improvements 
     in controls and methods a top priority when he took over as 
     the Pentagon's top financial officer in 1993. Since then, the 
     Pentagon has reported steep drops in contract overpayments 
     and unmatched disbursements, begun a shift from paper-based 
     to electronic payments and consolidated financial offices.
       But what troubles Grassley is the Pentagon's continuing 
     practice of making periodic payments on contracts without 
     correlating them to the work done, a process that Grassley 
     says the Pentagon's inspector general declared illegal in 
     1992.
       ``Under Mr. Hamre's policy,'' Grassley wrote, ``payments 
     are deliberately charged to the wrong accounts. Then, after 
     the payments are made, DOD attempts to `adjust' the 
     accounting ledgers to make it look like the checks were 
     charged to the right accounts when the money was, in fact, 
     spent some other way.
       ``Deliberately charging the wrong accounts and then 
     juggling the books to make them look right is what I call 
     `cooking the books,' '' the senator added.
       Hamre maintains there is nothing nefarious about the 
     practice. He said the system of progress payments was adopted 
     years ago to allow the contractor to avoid having to borrow 
     money, and thus keep project costs down. Whether the Pentagon 
     should move to a more precise billing process now, he said, 
     is a contracting issue, not a financial management one. Just 
     how far Grassley intends to go in thwarting Hamre's accession 
     is unclear. While Defense Secretary William S. Cohen has 
     recommended Hamre for the job of deputy secretary, Clinton 
     has not publicly affirmed the choice.
       If the nomination goes to Capitol Hill, Grassley could 
     simply vote against it or, as he has done in previous 
     instances, exercise his senatorial prerogative to block the 
     nomination from coming to a floor vote.
       ``I don't know what we're going to do yet,'' a Grassley 
     aide said.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I may speak 
for a few minutes about some concerns about the budget that I have. I 
understand the chair will be occupied during that time. I therefore ask 
consent I be permitted to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S5441]]



                          ____________________