[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 122 (Thursday, July 2, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Page S4181]
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.