Senate Proceeding on Jun 6th, 2011 :: 0:08:50 to 0:45:45
Total video length: 4 hours 52 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Views:189 Duration: 0:36:55 Discussion

Previous speech:

Next speech:

0:08:46 to 0:09:07( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i would ask unanimous consent that i would speak for 30 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: when it comes to

0:08:50 to 0:45:45( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Chuck Grassley

0:09:08 to 0:09:28( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: doing oversight, i think i have a reputation of doing just as vigorous oversight when we have republican presidents as much as when we have democratic presidents and what i'm speaking to the senate about today has no partisanship in it because i could have said the same thing

0:09:29 to 0:09:50( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: and did say about the same thing when there was a president bush or a president clinton or a president reagan. i speak today about watchdogging the watchdogs, as i have done many times in the past. i first started watchdogging the

0:09:51 to 0:10:15( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: pentagon back in the early 1980's when president reagan was ramping up defense spending. then a group of defense reformers were examining the pricing of spare parts at the defense department and we uncovered some real horror stories, like $750 toilet seats

0:10:16 to 0:10:37( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: and $695 ashtrays all going into military aircraft. ridiculous, of course. as news reports of these horror stories were hitting the street, offices of inspectors general -- we call them o.i.g.'s -- office of inspector general -- these were sprouting up in every

0:10:38 to 0:11:00( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: federal agency as a result of a recently passed act of congress in 1978. the defense department o.i.g. officially opened for business march 20, 1983. today, thanks to the inspector general act of 1978 and the

0:11:01 to 0:11:24( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: taxpayers, we now have a real army of watchdogs. the question is, to what extent are they doing their business? this mushrooming ig bureaucracy is very expensive. it costs over $2 billion a year. but it now occupies a pivotal oversight position within our government.

0:11:25 to 0:11:45( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: a very important role to play. as a senator dedicated to watchdogging the taxpayers' precious money, i looked to the i.g.s for help. that's because i just don't have the resources in my own office to investigate every allegation that might come my way.

0:11:46 to 0:12:06( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: like other members of congress, i regularly tap into this vast reservoir of talent that's called the inspector general. we count on him. we put our faith and trust in their independence and honesty. we rely on them to root out and deter fraud and waste in

0:12:07 to 0:12:29( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: government, where ever that waste and fraud rears its ugly head. if -- and that's a big if -- if the i.g.'s are on the ball, then the taxpayers aren't supposed to worry about things like $750 toilet seats. but i underscore the word "if" because fraud and waste are

0:12:30 to 0:12:51( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: still alive and well in government. now, you could legitimately ask, how can this be? we created a huge watchdogs. yet fraud and waste still exist unchecked. so i keep asking myself that same question that you might ask: who is watching dogging the watchdogs?

0:12:52 to 0:13:13( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: true, there is an i.g. watchdog agency called the consult of inspectors general on integrity and efficiency, but that's just another toothless wonder. so the senator from iowa has the duty today. i'm here to present another oversight report on the pentagon watchdog.

0:13:14 to 0:13:34( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: i call it -- quote -- "a report card on fiscal year 2010 audits issued by the department of defense inspector general." it assesses progress towards improving audit quality in response to recommendations that i made on an oversight report that i gave to my fellow

0:13:35 to 0:13:57( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: senators last year. after receiving a series of anonymous letters from whistle-blowers alleging gross mismanagement at the office of inspector general and the audit office within that office, my staff initiated an in-depth oversight review. my staff focused in this audit

0:13:58 to 0:14:18( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: on reporting by that office and our work began two years ago. on september 7, 2010, i issued my first oversight review. it evaluated the 113 audit reports issued for fiscal year 2009. it determined that the offices

0:14:19 to 0:14:39( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: of inspector general audit capability, which costs the taxpayers about $100 million a year, these capabilities were gravely impaired. as a watchdog, degraded audit capabilities give me serious heartburn for one simple reason:

0:14:40 to 0:15:00( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: it puts the taxpayers' money in harm's way, it leaves the huge sums of money vulnerable to theft and waste. audits are the inspector general's primary tool for rooting out fraud and waste. audits are the tip of an

0:15:01 to 0:15:23( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: inspector general's spear. a good spear always needs a finely honed cutting edge. right now the point of that spear is dull. the inspector general's audit weapon is effectively disabled. in speaking about my first report here on the floor last

0:15:24 to 0:15:44( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: september 15, i urged inspector general hedell to -- quote -- "hit the audit reset button" and give audits -- and get audits to refocus on the core inspector general mission of detecting and reporting fraud and waste. my report offered 12 specific

0:15:45 to 0:16:07( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: recommendations for getting the audit process back on track and lined up with the inspector general's act of 1978. the office of inspector general's report or response to my report has been very positive and very constructive. in a letter to me dated december

0:16:08 to 0:16:31( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: 17 last year, inspector general hedel promised to -- quote -- "transform the audit organization" consistent with recommendations in my report. the newly appointed deputy i.g. for auditing, mr. dan blair produced a road map pointing the way forward.

0:16:32 to 0:16:52( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: blair's report laid out a plan for improving -- quote -- "timeliness, focus and relevance of audit reports." he promised to create -- quote -- "a world-class oversight organization providing benefit to the department, the congress and the taxpayer." end of quote. as part of the response to my

0:16:53 to 0:17:13( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: report, the audit office also tasked two independent consulting firms: quest government services and knowledge consulting group, to conduct an organizational assessment of the audit office and its reports. these independent professionals

0:17:14 to 0:17:34( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: seemed to reach the very same conclusions that i have. the quest report issued october 2010 put it this way -- quote -- "we do not believe audit is selecting the best audits to detect fraud, waste and abuse." the auditors of quest reports states have lost sight of that

0:17:35 to 0:17:55( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: goal and -- quote -- "need to step back and refocus on the i.g.'s core mission." end of quote. so, mr. president, that is exactly what i saw last year and what i continue to see today. however, i want to be not totally pessimistic.

0:17:56 to 0:18:16( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: all of the signals coming since my report from the i.g.'s office are encouraging. they tell me that i am on the right track. the best question before us is this: when will the promised reforms begin to pop up on the radar screen?

0:18:17 to 0:18:40( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the fiscal year 2010 reports examined in my report card are issued between october 2009 and september 2010. they were set in concrete, so to

0:18:41 to 0:19:02( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: speak, long before mr. blair's transformation was approved. so the full impact of those reforms will not begin to surface in published reports until later this year or in the fiscal year 2011-2012 reports. however, that is not to say that some improvement is not possible any time now since discussions

0:19:03 to 0:19:23( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: regarding the need for audit reform actually began in june 2009. as you will soon see, mr. president, there is no sign of sustained improvement, not yet today, but a faint glimmer of light can be seen in the distant horizon.

0:19:24 to 0:19:46( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: in order to establish a solid baseline for assessing the i.g.'s transformation efforts, my staff has taken another snapshot of recent audits. my latest overview report is best characterized as a report card because that is exactly what it is.

0:19:47 to 0:20:07( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: each of the 113 unclassified audits issued in fiscal year 2010 was reviewed evaluated and graded in five categories as follows: category number one was relevance. category number two, connecting the dots on the money trail. number three, strength and

0:20:08 to 0:20:28( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: accuracy of recommendations. four, fraud and waste meter. and, five, timeliness. grades of a to f were awarded in each category. it was necessary obviously to use numerical grades of one to five and then convert them to

0:20:29 to 0:20:50( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: standard a to f grades. scoring was based on answers to key questions like this: was the audit aligned with the core inspector general mission? did the audit connect all the dots in the cycle of transactions from contract to payment? did the audit verify the scope of alleged fraud and waste using primary source accounting records?

0:20:51 to 0:21:12( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: were the recommendations tough and appropriate? and lastly, how quickly was the audit completed? then each report was given a score called the junk dog index -- junkyard dog index. that is the overall average of the grades awarded in the five

0:21:13 to 0:21:34( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: evaluation categories. for grading timeliness, the following procedure was used: audits completed in six months or less received a grade of "a." those completed in six to nine months a b. those completed in 9 to 12 months, a c. and those taking 12 to 15 months a d.

0:21:35 to 0:21:55( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: and those that took over 15 months an f. after each report was graded individually, all the scores for each report in each rating category were added up and averaged to create a composite score of all 113 audit reports. the overall composite score

0:21:56 to 0:22:17( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: awarded to the 113 reports was d minus. this is very low indeed. admittedly the grading system use is subjective. however, subjective as it may be, my overall staff has determined that it is reasonable and a rough measure of audit quality. and right now overall audit quality is poor.

0:22:18 to 0:22:42( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the low mark is driven by pervasive deficiencies and surfaced in every report examined, with 15 -- 15 notable exceptions out of 113. those deficiencies are the same ones pinpointed by the quest report previously referred to.

0:22:43 to 0:23:05( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: instead of being hard core, fraud-busting contract and financial audits, most reports were policy and compliance reviews having no redeeming value whatsoever. that's basically the recommendations that i gave to the inspector general last september when i criticized then what they were doing. spending too much time on policy

0:23:06 to 0:23:26( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: audits and not enough time on chasing the money on the waste of taxpayers' money. because you've got to follow the money if you're going to find out where there's waste, fraud and abuse, particularly the fraud. so what's been done for most of these have no redeeming value

0:23:27 to 0:23:47( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: whatsoever because they did not pursue fraud-busting contract and financial audits instead of policy and compliance reviews. quite simply, the auditors then were not on the money trail 24/7, where they need to be to root out fraud and waste as mandated by the i.g. act.

0:23:48 to 0:24:11( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: there is one bright spot, however. the auditors got it right, mostly right in five reports and partially right in ten other reports. clearly, this is a drop in the bucket. but these 15 reports which constituted just 13% of the total that we reviewed for fiscal year 2010 output prove

0:24:12 to 0:24:32( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: that the audit office is capable of producing quality reports. the 15 best reports earned grades of good to very good. overall with excellent grades in several categories. they involve some very credible and commendable audit work. each one deserves a gold star.

0:24:33 to 0:24:54( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: while the top five reports earned overall scores of c-plus to b-minus, those scores would have been much higher were it not for long completion times. the average time to complete the top five reports was 21 months. long completion times make for

0:24:55 to 0:25:15( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: stale information, and of course makes the reports irrelevant. had they been completed in six months, for example, they could have earned a high b-plus scores, such long completion times clearly show that doing knitty gritty, down in the trenches audit work requires

0:25:16 to 0:25:38( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: large audit teams. if -- and i want to emphasize "if" -- they are to be completed in a reasonable length of time. right now there are no specified goals for audit completion times. they are desperately needed. and then audit teams can be organized with the right skills

0:25:39 to 0:26:00( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: set to meet those goals. my report includes seven individual report cards, six on the best reports, and one on the worst report. i think the best way for my colleagues to understand my audit report card is to briefly walk through two of them, the best and the worst.

0:26:01 to 0:26:21( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the highest grade was awarded to an audit that the department of defense entitled "foreign allowances and differentials paid to d.o.d.'s civilian employees supporting overseas contingency operations." end of title. this report examined the

0:26:22 to 0:26:43( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: accuracy of $213 million in payments to 11,700 d.o.d. civilians in fiscal year 2007-2008 for overseas -- quote, unquote -- danger and hardship allowances. after reviewing the relevant payment records, the auditors

0:26:44 to 0:27:04( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: determined that the defense finance and accounting service -- and i'm going to refer to that as their acronym, dfas -- made improper payments, underpayments and overpayments totaling $57.7 million. the audit recommended that dfas director -- quote -- "take

0:27:05 to 0:27:27( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: appropriate corrective action to reimburse or recover the improper payments." end of quote. and that new policies and procedures be put in place to preclude erroneous payments in the future. this report received an overall grade of b-minus, however it received excellent grades --

0:27:28 to 0:27:49( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: a-minuses in three categories, relevance, connecting the dots on the money trail, and fraud and waste meter, but earned a b-minus for incomplete recommendations and an f for timeliness because it took too long -- over 21 months to complete -- and so it's stale at that point. the auditors went to the primary source records to verify the

0:27:50 to 0:28:10( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: exact amount of erroneous payments. and i want to emphasize to the auditors at the i.g. that this move is the one reason why this report earned high scores. very few audits, just a handful

0:28:11 to 0:28:33( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: actually verified dollar amounts using primary source accounting reports. and that's why i emphasize so often to follow the money trail if you're going to find the fraud and the waste. now, in this report the recommendations were good but did not go far enough. recommending recovery or reimbursement of over or underpayments was worth a

0:28:34 to 0:28:54( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: b-minus, but responsible officials were not identified and held accountable for the sloppy accounting work that produced $57.7 million in erroneous payments. it's kind of a rule of thumb around this place. if you don't identify who screwed up and make them feel personally responsible and send a message to other people, how are you going to get changes to

0:28:55 to 0:29:15( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: be made? did the audit office follow up to determine whether dfas director had made steps to reimburse underpayment or recover overpayments? the answer is probably no. in fact, nothing has been done. on february 23, 2011, in

0:29:16 to 0:29:37( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: response to a question from my office, dfas reported that the department of defense was still -- quote -- "developing a policy" to fix the problem. isn't it funny that they've got to develop a policy for what's so obviously wrong? and once that process is completed, though, dfas will --

0:29:38 to 0:30:00( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: quote -- "take appropriate corrective action to reimburse and initiate collection action." end of quote. when auditors make good recommendations like here in this audit and nothing happens, it's like they are kind of howling in the wilderness. and of course, that's got to be

0:30:01 to 0:30:22( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: very demoralizing. at this late hour, probably correcting these mistakes, the chances of correcting are fading fast. for starters, this audit work began over two years ago. couple that with the fact that it looked at payments that were made in the year 2006. that's five years ago.

0:30:23 to 0:30:45( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: with the passage of so much time, this has become essentially an academic exercise. that is exactly why reports need to focus on current problems and why they must be completed promptly, and that is exactly why this one, which took 16 months to complete, earned an f

0:30:46 to 0:31:07( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: for timeliness, but otherwise was a pretty good audit. the rest of the audits examined in my report card, 98 of all or 87% of the total output for fiscal year 2010, were poor quality and earned grades of d and f.

0:31:08 to 0:31:28( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: these are prime examples of the kinds of audits in the request report previously referred to. that's an outside report brought in by -- have the department of defense bring them in to do some investigating that isn't questionable because they don't have an interest in what comes out. but these audits were not

0:31:29 to 0:31:50( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: designed to detect fraud and waste. well, that's what the i.g.'s department ought to be doing. follow the money trail. now, it happens that they did not document and verify financial transactions. they were not on the money trail where they needed to be and where their audit manuals tell

0:31:51 to 0:32:11( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: auditors to go to detect fraud and waste. they did not audit what truly needs to be audited. they had little or no monetary value or impact. some were mandated by congress, including 27 memo style audits of stimulus projects.

0:32:12 to 0:32:34( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: that's from the stimulus act that we passed here in 2009. tiger teams should have been formed to tackle these audits. unfortunately, the exact opposite happened. these were the worst of the worst. they contain no findings of any consequence. they offered few, if any, recommendations.

0:32:35 to 0:32:55( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: most did not even identify the cost of the project audited. the taxpayers were deeply concerned about the value of these so-called shovel-ready jobs that were supposed to be quickly consumed by the stimulus bill of 2009.

0:32:56 to 0:33:17( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the taxpayers were looking for aggressive oversight. the taxpayers wanted assurances that huge sums of money were not wasted. the taxpayers got none of the objectives they sought. instead of probing audits, the taxpayers got the equivalent of an inspector general stamp of

0:33:18 to 0:33:38( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: approval like a rubber stamp that reads okay, approved. mr. president, i will not review the worst reports. it typifies -- i will now review the worst report that typifies the ineffectiveness and

0:33:39 to 0:34:01( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: wastefulness of the bulk of the fiscal year 2010 audit production. i remind my colleagues, each one of these reports costs an estimated $800,000. the report that received the lowest scores entitled by the auditor -- quote -- "defense contract management agency

0:34:02 to 0:34:23( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: acquisition work force for southwest asia." it received an f score in every category across the board. the purpose of this report was to determine whether the defense contract management agency had adequate manpower to oversee contracts in southwest asia.

0:34:24 to 0:34:44( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: it concluded that the defense contract management agency was unable to determine those requirements, and there was no plan in doing so. the report recommended that the defense contract management agency -- quote -- "defined acquisition work force

0:34:45 to 0:35:08( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: requirements for southwest asia." end of quote. this is one of the many o.i.g. policy reviews, but this one is unique in that it took 18 months to review a policy that did not even exist. this audit should have been

0:35:09 to 0:35:30( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: terminated early on but as the report points out, the inspector general's office has no process -- quote -- "for stopping audits that have no longer -- that are no longer relevant." end of quote. so this is kind of like a runaway train. and what redeeming value did

0:35:31 to 0:35:53( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: this report offer to the taxpayers? none that i can see. this is the stuff for the department of defense staff study or some think tank analysis, not for an independent office of inspector general audit. this audit, like so many others

0:35:54 to 0:36:15( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: like it, did not focus on fraud and waste and not surprisingly found no fraud or waste. the defense contract management agency has a long history of exercising lax contract oversight. the office of inspector general resources would have been better

0:36:16 to 0:36:36( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: spent auditing one of the defense contract management agency's $1.3 trillion in contracts. go where the money is if you want to find the fraud, follow the money. the inclusion of individual report cards on the best and worst audits is meant to be

0:36:37 to 0:36:58( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: constructive educational exercise. so i am hoping the analyses accompanying these report cards will serve as a guide and a learning tool for auditors and managers alike. i am hoping the auditors will read my report and use it to sharpen their skills.

0:36:59 to 0:37:19( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: i hope it will help guide them on a path to reform and transformation. if the auditors adopt and follow the simple guidelines used to gauge the quality of the best and worst reports, they will begin producing top quality audits that are fully aligned

0:37:20 to 0:37:40( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: with the core i.g. missions prescribed by that 1978 law. before wrapping up my comments, i'd like to call the attention of my colleagues to several very interesting charts presented in the final section of my report card. they appear in the chapter entitled "comparative

0:37:41 to 0:38:03( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: performance with other o.i.g. audit offices." meaning in other departments of our executive branch. these two sets of charts highlight striking contrast. they show that the department of defense auditors are being significantly outperformed by their peers at three other agencies -- the department of health and human services, housing and urban development

0:38:04 to 0:38:24( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: and homeland security, and by very substantial margins indeed. their peers may be five times more productive than they are at the department of defense and able to produce audits at one quarter of their costs. i would offer one caveat of what i have said, though, about the

0:38:25 to 0:38:46( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: other department's i.g. while i have reviewed comparative costs of productivity dated from all four audit offices, i have not evaluated the quality of reports issued by the other three o.i.g.'s, meaning health and human services, department of homeland security and housing and urban development as i did

0:38:47 to 0:39:07( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: report on quality of the department of defense report card. i happen to think it's a fair apples to apples comparison. now, it may not be, and i want to say that i don't know for sure. deputy i.g. of auditing, mr. blair, needs to provide a

0:39:08 to 0:39:28( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: satisfactory explanation for these apparent disparities, otherwise he may need to hit the reset button once again on audit production and costs as well as what he has said he is doing now. while inspector general haddell cannot be happy with an overall audit grade of d-minus, i think

0:39:29 to 0:39:49( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: he understands the problem and i believe that his heart is in the right place and he's taken the right steps to fix it. his apparent commitment to audit reform and mr. blair's promise to --quote, unquote -- create a world-class auditing oversight organization, tho

0:39:50 to 0:40:11( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: to be music to my ears. they bode well for the future. in other words, bode well for the future that these people do their job and do it right. fraud and waste will be rooted out as people would fear to commit that in the first place, considering the fact that people are going to be on their tail and find out about it. for right now, though, i cannot

0:40:12 to 0:40:33( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: report that i see sustained improvement in audit quality. not yet, not by a long shot, but the signals coming my way are good, and i said that at the beginning of my comments. the ray of hope can be seen on a distant horizon. maybe we'll see it in the next batch of audits and i'll be here to report to my colleagues what

0:40:34 to 0:40:55( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: those audits show and i hope i can give every one of them b's and a's. the 15 best reports show that the department of defense office of the inspector general audit office is capable of producing quality reports. that number is obviously just a drop in the bucket, but these fine reports could be a solid

0:40:56 to 0:41:18( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: foundation for building on the future. repeat them ten times and mr. blair could well be on his way to creating that world-class auditing operation, one that would be capable of detecting, and not only detect but because people are going to be so scared of them that it's going to deter fraud and waste. mr. president, before those

0:41:19 to 0:41:39( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: lofty goals can be changed -- achieved, mr. haddell and mr. blair need to tear down some walls, and i call them the top ten audit roadblocks, and these roadblocks are these. one, top management lacks a clear and common vision of and commitment to the inspector

0:41:40 to 0:42:03( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: general's core mission, a problem that adversely affects every aspect of auditing. two, second roadblock, most audits are policy compliant reviews that yield zero financial benefit to the taxpayers. roadblock three, auditors are

0:42:04 to 0:42:25( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: not on the money trail 24/7 where they need to be to detect fraud and waste. roadblock four, auditors consistently fail to verify potential fraud and waste by connecting all the dots in the cycle of transactions. they need to match contract requirements with deliveries and

0:42:26 to 0:42:47( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: payments using primary source documents. by making these matchups, auditors will be positioned to address key oversight questions like did the government receive what it ordered at an agreed upon price and schedule, or did the government get ripped off, and if so, ripped off by how much money?

0:42:48 to 0:43:10( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: roadblock five, most audits take so long to complete that they are stale and irrelevant by the time they are published. reasonable time to complete goals need to be set and the audit team then can be organized

0:43:11 to 0:43:32( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: with the right skills set to meet -- the skill sets to meet these goals. roadblock six, until the department of defense accounting system is fixed, complete audits will require large audit teams if reports are to be completed within a reasonable length of time. roadblock seven, audit findings

0:43:33 to 0:43:54( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: and recommendations are usually weak. responsible officials are rarely held accountable, and wasted and stolen money is rarely recommended for recovery and returning to the treasury. roadblock eight, while relentless follow-up is an important part of audit effectiveness, it is not

0:43:55 to 0:44:19( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: practiced by the audit office. and the last roadblock, nine, since the department of defense broken accounting system is obstructing the audit process, contracts designed to fix that system need to be assigned a much higher audit priority. these mighty barriers stand

0:44:20 to 0:44:40( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: between all the promises and reality. i.g.haddell and deputy blair must find a way to tear down these walls. otherwise, audit report and transaction will never happen. these unresolved issues will demand tenacious watchdog by my

0:44:41 to 0:45:01( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: oversight team and by other -- i should say all other oversight bodies as well, including the committees on armed services and appropriations. mr. president, my oversight staff will keep reading and evaluating the office of inspector general audits until

0:45:02 to 0:45:24( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: steady improvement is popping up on my oversight radar screen every day. i yield the floor. i quorum. the presiding officer: the c will call the

0:45:25 to 0:45:30( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: quorum call: