[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 24 (Monday, February 7, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S533-S534]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        OFFICE OF NET ASSESSMENT

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, on November 18 of last year, I came 
here to speak about the Office of Net Assessment. That is an office 
within the Pentagon. That office's purpose, under law, is to produce an 
annual net assessment, which is supposed to be a long-term look at our 
military's capability and those of our greatest adversaries. I don't 
think it lives up to its mission.
  In 2018, according to the Director of the Office of Net Assessment, 
that office had not produced a net assessment since 2007. Not doing its 
job for those 11 years and--who knows--possibly longer calls into 
question whether this office should even exist. Yet a recent inspector 
general report states that the office ``produces . . . highly 
classified net assessments.'' I question the IG's conclusion based upon 
available evidence that I know about, and I will give some of that 
evidence.
  In last year's speech here in the Senate and others that I have given 
over the years on this subject, I discussed my oversight of this office 
dating back to 2019. I also discussed my amendment to the national 
defense bill. That amendment would have done one very simple thing: 
required the Government Accountability Office to determine how much 
taxpayer money the Office of Net Assessment actually uses for net 
assessment--its purpose for existing. I want to know how much we can 
cut from their budget to save the taxpayers money.
  Apparently, this type of pro-taxpayer legislation was too much to ask 
for. Accordingly, it appears that the Office of Net Assessment in the 
Department of Defense gets to keep operating like a Pentagon slush fund 
for irrelevant and political research projects.
  On February 5, 2020, the Director of the Office of Net Assessment 
told me:

       We review all deliverables to ensure they're consistent 
     with the statement of work. We evaluate each deliverable to 
     assess whether we should seek additional information or 
     require a resubmission of commissioned work.

  Now, I am going to return to that statement in a little bit, but I 
want to give you some evidence of why what he said doesn't work out in 
reality.
  In December 2020, I asked the inspector general to take a deeper dive 
into the Office of Net Assessment's contracting practices. That means 
connecting all the dots in the contract transactions to ensure that 
everything matches up. The inspector general reviewed 20 contracts. On 
January 25 of this year, the inspector general issued its results and 
found these three or four points:
  Office of Net Assessment acquisition personnel inappropriately 
performed contracting officer representative duties for 20 contracts.
  Next point. Office of Net Assessment acquisition personnel and an 
office providing contract support did not maintain complete contract 
files, including preawards and contract administration documentation. 
That also included the failure to maintain signed contracts and 
modifications. Since 2019, I have repeatedly asked for a full 
accounting of Stefan Halper's contracts. Either they never had one or 
they have decided to obstruct Congress.
  Next point. Office of Net Assessment acquisition personnel and an 
office providing contract support inappropriately approved invoices for 
payments totaling $9.8 million dollars due to the lack of oversight. 
And that is just for the 20 contracts the inspector general sampled. So 
without required supporting documentation for payment, the door is, 
obviously, wide open to fraud, theft, and improper payments.
  Next point. Without established and documented surveillance measures 
for Office of Net Assessment service contracts, the Office of Net 
Assessment may not have received all services outlined in a 
contractor's statement of work.

[[Page S534]]

  Next point--and last point. At this point, the next finding ought to 
be no surprise from the inspector general. The Office of Net Assessment 
did not administer contracts in accordance with the Federal Defense 
Department and Washington Headquarters Services internal regulations 
and policies.
  Further, the audit states the ``[Office of Net Assessment] 
acquisition personnel cannot verify whether they received services, 
valued at $4.1 million, in accordance with the statement of work.''
  Now, let's return back to that first quote I gave you from the 
Director of Net Assessment.

       We review all deliverables to ensure [that] they're 
     consistent with the statement of work. We evaluate each 
     deliverable to assess whether we should seek additional 
     information or require a resubmission of commissioned work.

  Based upon all of the available evidence from these 20 contracts that 
were inspected by the inspector general--and that is not all the 
contracts that the office negotiated--this Director's statement is 
absolutely false.
  So here is the bottom line: The Office of Net Assessment has no clue 
what they are paying for and whether they even received a complete work 
product. And whatever they are actually doing, it is not in compliance 
with Federal regulations, policy, and law.
  This is a complete embarrassment and a slap in the face of American 
taxpayers. While the Office of Net Assessment wasted millions of 
dollars in taxpayer money every year, the communist Chinese Government 
developed hypersonic missiles that can travel the globe.
  If this unit isn't doing the job that they are supposed to, to assess 
our national security capabilities and the capabilities of our enemies, 
why are we still funding it? It would be better to take the $20 million 
budget and give it to our servicemembers. At least we know that those 
servicemembers have earned it.
  A government slush fund will always be a government slush fund unless 
Congress, with our power of oversight and appropriations, steps up and 
fixes the problem. So I encourage my colleagues, especially those on 
the Senate Armed Services Committee, to take a stand against this 
blatant waste, fraud, abuse, and gross mismanagement.

                          ____________________