[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 122 (Thursday, July 2, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4181-S4183]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                        Office of Net Assessment

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have made a career in the Senate 
fighting against government waste, fraud, and abuse. Most recently, I 
have found this waste in an office within the Department of Defense 
called the Office of Net Assessment. Its purpose is to produce an 
annual net assessment, which is a long-term look at our military's 
capabilities and those of our greatest adversaries.
  I am here to say to my colleagues that that office has lost its way. 
When I began a review of Stefan Halper's contracting work at the Office 
of Net Assessment, something didn't look right. So I asked the 
inspector general to look into it.
  For those who are unaware, Stefan Halper was a central figure in the 
debunked Russia collusion investigation. Stefan Halper secretly 
recorded Trump campaign officials during Crossfire Hurricane. Halper 
also received over a million taxpayer dollars from the Office of Net 
Assessment for several ``research'' projects, but the inspector general 
found some problems with that contract.
  The Office of Net Assessment didn't require Halper to submit evidence 
that he actually talked to the people he cited in his work, which 
included Russian intelligence officers.
  Secondly, the Office of Net Assessment couldn't provide sufficient 
documentation that Halper conducted all of his work in accordance with 
the law.
  And, three, the Office of Net Assessment didn't maintain sufficient 
documentation to comply with all Federal contracting requirements and 
Office of Management and Budget guidelines.
  The inspector general also found that these problems were not unique 
just to Halper's contracts, which indicates, then, systemic issues 
within the Office of Net Assessment. Moreover, it has been reported 
that some of the individuals that Halper cited as sources in his 
research have denied contributing to Halper's work.
  Oddly, Office of National Assessment Director James Baker has 
repeatedly told me that Halper's deliverables were ``high quality'' and 
``conformed to the requirements set forth in the contract.''
  What planet does the Office of Net Assessment live on?
  The office spends almost $20 million a year of taxpayers' money every 
year. Yet according to a deposition of Mr. Baker, the Office of Net 
Assessment hasn't performed any annual net assessments since 2007.
  A net assessment is the Office of Net Assessment's core mission. It 
even says so in the title. Its purpose of doing net assessments got 
lost along the way.
  Moreover, after I began my oversight work at the Office of Net 
Assessment, a Department of Defense directive regulating the Office of 
Net Assessment was changed to provide cover for the unit's lackluster 
performance. Isn't that convenient? When your work is to do net 
assessment and you have been in existence for decades, and since 2007, 
you haven't been doing your net assessment, you issue a directive 
changing what the purpose of the Office of Net Assessment is all about. 
They did it pretty simply.
  On April 14, 2020, the word ``shall'' was removed from the December 
23, 2009, version of the directive that required the Office of Net 
Assessment to produce what their title said--``net assessments.'' The 
new version also changed the Office of Net Assessment's research scope 
to generic research, seemingly untethered to a net assessment--how 
convenient.
  This swamp needs to be drained.
  Last week, I introduced an amendment to the Defense bill that does 
several things. First, it reduces Office of Net Assessment's budget to 
$10 million a year instead of $20 million a year. Second, my amendment 
requires the Secretary of Defense to create a comprehensive plan to 
ensure that the Office of Net Assessment performs what the title of the 
agency says it is supposed to do--an annual net assessment--and 
complies, at the same time, with every dollar they get with Federal 
contracting requirements. This would take it back to the reason why it 
was first created decades ago.
  Third, the amendment would require the Department of Defense 
inspector general to study and report on the Office of Net Assessment's 
contracting failures and determine if the net assessment can be done 
for less than $10 million.
  And, fourth, it requires the Government Accountability Office to 
perform an audit of the effectiveness of the comprehensive plan.
  Right now, it is pretty clear that the Office of Net Assessment lacks 
leadership and discipline, and it is also pretty clear that it has 
wasted tens of millions of dollars over the years. Congress must take a 
stand. That is why I am here to encourage my colleagues to support my 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                 Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 645

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, before we break for the Fourth of July 
recess, I think it is important for the Senate to go on record 
condemning the rising tide of mob violence that we see across the 
country and the increasingly prevalent mob mentality that is fueling 
it. The violence struck home for me this week when one of my 
constituents was shot after an armed mob surrounded his vehicle in 
Provo, UT.
  This resolution is not controversial. Even in these divisive times, 
it is something, I think, we can all agree on, and I want to read 
through some highlights right now so you get a feel for it.

       The United States of America was founded in 1776 on 
     universal principles of freedom, justice, and human equality.
       Throughout our nation's history, Americans have struggled 
     to realize those ideals . . . but nonetheless [have made] 
     greater progress toward them than any [other] nation on 
     earth.
       [The United States is a diverse nation] committed to 
     cultivating respect, friendship, and justice across all such 
     differences, and protecting the God-given equal rights of all 
     Americans under the law.
       America's law enforcement officers do an extremely 
     difficult job extremely well, and despite the inexcusable 
     misconduct of some, the overwhelming majority of such 
     officers are honest, courageous, patriotic, and rightfully 
     honored public servants.
       In recent weeks, people across the United States have 
     organized legitimate, peaceful, constitutionally protected 
     demonstrations against instances of police brutality and 
     racial inequality.
       [Some of these Americans have organized these peaceful 
     protests, asking for investigations into serious problems 
     meriting investigation and reform.]
       Some Americans, unsatisfied with peaceful and positive 
     demonstrations, have instigated and indulged in mob violence 
     and criminal property destruction, not in service of any . . 
     . coherent cause, but simply as an arrogant, bullying tantrum 
     of self-righteous illiberalism and rage.
       These mobs have demonstrated not only contempt for public 
     safety (as evidenced, among other crimes, by an unprovoked 
     physical assault on a Wisconsin State Senator and the [more 
     recent] shooting of a motorist in Provo, Utah) and common 
     decency (as evidenced by their . . . obscene berating of law 
     enforcement officers standing their posts to protect their 
     communities), but also their manifest ignorance and 
     historical illiteracy (as evidenced by their destruction of 
     public memorials to historical heroes like Ulysses S. Grant, 
     St. Junipero Serra, Miguel Cervantes, George Washington, Hans 
     Christian Heg, and a reported plan to target a statue of 
     Abraham Lincoln financed in 1876 entirely by private 
     donations from freed African-American slaves).
       It is the sense of the Senate that the rising tide of 
     vandalism, mob violence, and the mob mentality that feeds 
     it--including its cruel and intolerant ``cancel culture''--
     should be condemned by all Americans; [that] peaceful 
     demonstrations and mob violence are different in kind; [that] 
     physical assault and

[[Page S4182]]

     property destruction are not forms of political speech but 
     violent crimes whose perpetrators should be prosecuted to the 
     full extent of the law; and [that] the innocent law 
     enforcement officers, public officials, and private citizens 
     who suffer the mob's violence and endure its scorn while 
     protecting our communities from them deserve [every 
     American's thanks and appreciation].

  As I say, it is very straightforward.
  As we saw in Seattle this week, these mobs are not going to stop 
until they are stopped. A nonbinding resolution is the tiniest first 
step of a response--the merest exercise of the Senate's atrophied 
institutional muscles. We need to do much, much more, and I look 
forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
develop the legislation to do it.
  Yet, in this divided political moment, heading into the 244th 
birthday of the greatest, freest, most tolerant, and prosperous nation 
the world has ever known, I think showing that Senate Republicans and 
showing that Senate Democrats can work together and speak with one 
voice against woke mob violence and in defense of equal justice and 
civic peace would be a welcomed step.
  Therefore, Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 
Res. 645, submitted earlier today. I ask unanimous consent that the 
resolution be agreed to; that the preamble be agreed to; and that the 
motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with 
no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, look, 
there are nuggets in the Senator's resolution--certainly recognizing 
that, overwhelmingly, law enforcement does an honorable and valuable 
job in our society. It is a tough job. The bad ones make it difficult 
for all the good ones. I would agree with that. But I have to be honest 
with you. There are also elements of this resolution that are not as 
straightforward as the gentleman would have you believe.
  First of all, the very first paragraph says that we were founded on 
universal principles of freedom, justice, and human equality. Of 
course, slavery existed at the time. There is no mention of America's 
original sin, which is slavery. Certainly we cannot think of slavery as 
human equality.
  Then, to go on to suggest in his third paragraph that we are morally 
committed to justice ``across all such differences, and protecting the 
God-given rights of all Americans under the law,'' well, I can tell 
you, in my home State of New Jersey and across the Nation, there are 
many Americans who clearly do not believe that we are morally committed 
to justice across all such differences. As a matter of fact, we saw 
that in how the majority responded to the George Floyd death and others 
across the Nation--a lot of rhetoric; very little reform. So we would 
be hard-pressed to believe that paragraph has legitimacy as well.
  Then the resolution reeks of supremacy, self-righteous illiberalism, 
manifest ignorance, and historical illiteracy. It reeks of a 
supremacist view: We know better.
  Even with all of those problems and even with the fact that it has 
come at the last moment, there was no effort to work with anybody to 
offer maybe a bipartisan resolution that would capture all of this. 
Even though it seeks to mischaracterize overwhelmingly what has been 
the peaceful protests of people in the Nation, I would consider not 
objecting to the Senator's request if he also recognized and added to 
his resolution the fact that we have a President of the United States 
who ultimately provokes inciteful language and inciteful violence.
  I mean, we have a President who retweets a video of people saying 
``White power. White power.''
  We have a President who retweets a video of White citizens with arms, 
pointing them at peaceful protesters who--at the end of the day, it is 
their right to peacefully protest.
  We have a President who said that there were good people on all 
sides, including the White supremacists, in Charleston.
  We have a President who used violence--the armed force of the State 
and violence against peaceful protesters in Lafayette Park, who were 
doing none of what the Senator suggests in his resolution.
  Despite all of that, if the Senator would modify his request to 
include the following language: Insert at the end of his last line, 
line 15, section--make a new section (5): ``Our elected officials, 
especially the President of the United States, should not incite 
violence or legitimize those who engage in hate-fueled acts,'' I would 
consider allowing the Senator's resolution to move forward and not 
objecting to it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). Does the Senator so modify his 
request?
  Mr. LEE. Reserving the right to object, as I look at the language 
proposed by my colleague from New Jersey, I would accept the rest of it 
except for the words ``especially the President of the United States.'' 
The rest of it is unobjectionable.
  The point here is that without pointing to any one specific 
individual, we should all be able to acknowledge, as a sense of the 
Senate, that we do hold these truths as self-evident; that our country 
was founded on these very strong ideals. Even if, as the resolution 
itself acknowledges, we have failed at times to live up to them, we 
have still done it.
  So I would accept the modification but only with the removal of the 
words ``especially the President of the United States.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, it is especially the President of the 
United States--the person who leads our Nation--who should be a 
unifying force, not one who incites violence; therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, what is happening here? This is the U.S. 
Senate. Just so everyone is clear about the bat guano-inspired insanity 
we just witnessed, I just proposed a nonbinding resolution condemning 
mob violence, and Senate Democrats objected. I don't know whether to be 
outraged or embarrassed for them. This isn't even a bill; it is just a 
statement that says mob violence is bad. Democrats can't say mob 
violence is bad without simultaneously taking a jab at the President of 
the United States?
  By the way, what about the mayor of Seattle? What about the city 
council of Minnesota? What about the countless other people who have 
perpetuated or enabled or facilitated or coddled mob violence across 
the country?
  It is one of the reasons why we are not going to engage in this task 
of making it a political tit-for-tat. It is not that. People are being 
shot. Businesses are being looted. Innocent Americans are being 
attacked and threatened. Lives are being ruined. Communities are 
burning--literally burning.
  So whose side are you on? This resolution was designed to be 
unifying. It avoided controversial subjects.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, may I ask the Presiding Officer to remind 
us of rule XIX.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will remind Senators of both parties 
that rule XIX provides that no Senator in debate shall directly or 
indirectly, by any form of words, impute to another Senator or to other 
Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming of a Senator.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the resolution was designed to be unifying. 
It avoided controversial subjects. All it asks of us is basic dignity 
and respect.
  As long as we are on the topic of rule XIX, it is unbecoming to 
accuse a colleague of using language that is supremacy simply by 
reflecting on language in the Declaration of Independence, simply by 
reflecting on language that acknowledges the incivility and 
intolerability of mob violence. But apparently that is too much to ask 
today. I guess we should be thankful for clarity. And now we know. We 
don't have to ask. They told us how they feel about this resolution.
  You can't really oppose this, it seems to me, without being on the 
side of the mobs, of mob violence, of mob mentality, of cruelty and 
intolerance and terror. Now we understand what this resolution is 
about. I don't think one can oppose this without being comfortable with 
those things. These mobs

[[Page S4183]]

are not progressive. These mobs are not enlightened. These mobs are not 
edgy. They are not hip. They are frauds. They are dim-witted, phony, 
drama addicts----
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Is this line not 
in direct violation of rule XIX?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair concludes that pointing out that mob 
violence is dangerous to our Nation is not contrary to rule XIX or any 
other rule of the Senate.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, further parliamentary inquiry. There is 
not a question of mob violence. The question is that imputing to 
Members who did not agree with the framework and language of this 
resolution that they are supporting mob violence--that must be in 
violation of rule XIX if this is going to be a deliberative body.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is more than entitled to express 
his views in the course of debate, but other Senators will likewise 
express their views in the course of debate
  Mr. LEE. Failed by an education system and addled by a social media 
culture that taught them to be victims instead of citizens. A 
privileged, self-absorbed crime syndicate with participation-trophy 
graduate degrees, trying to find meaning in empty lives by destroying 
things that other Americans have spent honest, productive lives 
building.
  Today we learned--today we learned--that there are those who are 
comfortable with this. There are those who are at least not inclined to 
vote for this resolution, which simply condemns mob violence. Now we 
know. Now we know.
  I want all my colleagues to know that when we return from recess, we 
are coming back to the Senate floor and we are not just going to be 
debating nonbinding resolutions. It is long past time to expose the 
shiftless idiocy of the anti-American, anti-science, anti-
establishment, anti-Constitution mob and remove their snouts from the 
Federal trough.
  Colleges and universities that punish free speech and discriminate 
against conservative and religious students; city councils that defund 
their police departments and refuse to protect public safety; States 
that force doctors to mutilate confused children without their parents' 
consent; school districts that embrace the ahistorical nonsense of the 
1619 Project; the smug, sneering privilege of all of the above and much 
more--the whole garbage fire that is the so-called ``woke'' ideology--
depends on Federal money.
  The mob hates America on America's dime. It is time to cut off their 
allowance. I think the American people would be very interested to know 
who stands for them and who stands for subsidizing the mob. I intend to 
show them.
  Mr. President, this debate is not ending today; it is only the 
beginning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, we have learned something today. We have 
learned that my colleagues are unwilling to call out the President of 
the United States when the President of the United States uses language 
that incites violence; says that White supremacists in Charleston are 
as good as everybody else; retweets a video of White Americans saying 
``White power;'' retweets a video of two individuals with guns pointed 
at peaceful protesters; uses the force of the State to clear out 
peaceful protesters in Lafayette Park; goes and says, in fact, ``when 
the looting starts, the shooting starts.'' That has a historical 
context to it, and the ``liberate Virginia. It is under siege,'' and 
so, so much more.
  So, yes, I look forward to that debate because I have legislation to 
deal with the rising tide of White supremacists' actions that, at the 
end of the day, have even been recognized by some of our law 
enforcement entities as a growing national threat. So I look forward to 
having that debate, look forward to having that legislation on the 
floor, and we will see how our colleagues act then.
  But it is totally unacceptable to cast aspersions that do not equal 
those of the person who leads our country, and we should recognize 
that. What it shows me is that I guess President Trump is right--he 
could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it, and certainly 
my colleagues here would not hold him responsible.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, all I asked in my counter was that we remove 
the words ``especially the President of the United States.'' Why? 
Because it is different than the entire approach taken by the 
resolution.
  As long as we are calling each other out on casting aspersions on 
each other's intentions, no one's intention here is to shield anyone 
from anything, as evidenced by the fact that, as my proposed 
modification would have provided, it would have said that ``our elected 
officials should not incite violence or legitimize those who engage in 
hate-fueled acts.'' Last I checked, the President of the United States 
was and is an elected official. This would apply to him. My counter in 
no way insulated--not him, not any elected official, not any of us from 
this resolution, which simply condemns mob violence.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I will be very quick. I understand we have 
work to do on the Defense authorization and the vote coming up, but I 
am glad the majority leader is on the floor, and I am glad so many 
Members are on the floor.
  We have a problem in this institution of the uneven enforcement of 
rule XIX, and it is hurting this body.
  I have just by happenstance been on the floor for various violations 
being called by the Presiding Officer, usually with the advice of the 
Parliamentarian. It is very clear to me that the rules are not being 
applied equally to each party, and I think that is something we are 
going to have to wrestle with if we are going to continue to be worthy 
of the moniker ``the world's greatest deliberative body.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, could I ask my colleagues to yield 
momentarily?
  I would request that Senator Inhofe be able to lock in an agreement 
on the NDAA, and then the discussion could resume.
  So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Inhofe be 
recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________