[国会记录：2011年7月28日（参议院）][第S5004-S5005页]国防部监察长审计格拉斯利先生。总统先生，在过去的几个月里，我至少两次来到这里，向我的同事们讲述我在调查国防部的浪费、欺诈和滥用职权方面所做的一些工作，主要是为了让他们关注监察长办公室在如何进行审计方面的工作。因此，我今天来到会场，再次呼吁改进审计报告。作为一名致力于监督纳税人资金的参议员，审计是我工具箱中的主要工具。它们就像一把锤子和一把扳手。它们是交易的工具。但和其他国会议员一样，我不能做审计。我们没有这方面的工作人员，所以我们必须依靠各部门的监察长对这些部门的工作进行独立审计。所以今天我要谈谈国防部总督察。审计应该是监察长根除欺诈、浪费和盗窃的主要武器。审计应该是他们的矛尖，而且这个矛尖应该非常尖锐。仅仅是审计的可能性，就应该让欺诈者——那些实施欺诈的人——吓得直哆嗦，但事实并非如此，至少在国防部是这样。属于国防部监察长的审计武器并没有发挥应有的效力。这个问题不完全是监察长自己的事。国防部会计系统的崩溃也是罪魁祸首。不能生成准确完整的财务会计数据。当账本乱七八糟的时候，我们就没有审计线索可循了，跟着钱走就是我们ReportsReports在浪费、欺诈、滥用职权和管理不善的问题上找到问题的根源。当然，这使审计师的工作加倍困难。因此，审计人员需要调整审计策略，以应对国防部内部财务管理体系不完善的挑战。作为一个监管者，降级的审计能力让我心痛不已。它使纳税人的钱受到损害。当我们拥有不可靠的会计数据，再加上无效的审计，偷窃和浪费会在不被发现的情况下蓬勃发展。这些问题是我目前进行的审计监督审查的驱动力。从2009年1月开始，我开始收到举报者的匿名信。他们指控审计署管理严重不善。对此，我的工作人员发起了一项深入的监督审查。它侧重于监察主任办公室的审计报告。2010年9月7日，我发布了第一份报告。它评估了2009财年发布的113份审计报告。这项研究确定，那些花费纳税人约1亿美元的审计没有达到目标。我提出了12条建议，让审计工作回到正轨。赫德尔总督察对我的报告作出了非常积极和建设性的回应。他承诺要“改革审计机构”。新任命的审计代表丹•布莱尔（Dan Blair）提出了一份指明前进方向的路线图。他也承诺要改革和转型，建立一个“世界级的监督组织”。当然，所有这些对我来说都是音乐。所有的信号都非常鼓舞人心。但现在摆在我们面前的一个大问题是：承诺的改革何时开始出现在雷达屏幕上？雷达屏幕是我们对本财政年度和未来审计的进一步解读。我们什么时候才能看到审计质量的持续改进？为了建立一个评估备受推崇的转型计划的可靠基准，我的员工对最近的审计进行了另一个快照。我最新的监督审查报告最好用成绩单来描述，它是今年6月1日发布的。2010财政年度公布的113份非保密报告都经过了审查、评估和评级。在对每个报告进行评分后，将每个报告在每个评分类别上的所有分数相加并取平均值。这为113份报告中的每一份都创造了一个综合得分。尽管报告卡中突出显示了15项高质量审计，但所有113项的总分均为D-负。我知道这很低。也许分数应该高一点。显然，评分制度并不完善。它可能需要一些微调，我们正在努力。但我仍然相信，它提供了一个粗略的衡量审计质量的标准。显然，2010年的报告中没有一份反映出赫德尔监察长在2010年12月实施的任何改革，因为所有这些报告都是在2010年10月1日之前实施改革的3个月前公布的。在这些改革获得批准之前，这是一个不错的3个月。就在我的成绩单发出后不久，海德尔总督察就抓住了它。他反对低分。他抱怨说它没有充分参考lect $4.2 billion in what he calls ``achieved monetary benefits'' identified in the 2010 audits. To address Mr. Heddell's concerns, I had my staff ask the audit office to prepare an information paper on the reported savings. That document was provided to me on June 20. I call it a ``crosswalk.'' It takes me to the exact page in each report where savings are discussed and identified. This document lists $4.2 billion in ``identified potential monetary benefits'' and $4.2 billion in ``collections.'' These alleged savings were uncovered in 19 reports, including one classified report we didn't look at. After reviewing the crosswalk, I concluded that Inspector General Heddell [[Page S5005]] had a legitimate gripe about the report card. The report card should have included a section on savings. The first time around, we did not give sufficient credit for those accomplishments. As a practical matter, we gave those reports only partial credit for pinpointing waste. I say partial credit because six of those reports were given top scores in my report card, so they did get some credit--just not enough credit. In order to fully assess Mr. Heddell's complaints, I directed my staff to reassess the scoring process for all 18 unclassified audits. In rescoring the reports, we asked ourselves key questions such as, Was the audit objective aligned with the inspector general's core mission? Did contract audits connect all the dots in the cycle of transactions? Did they match contract requirements with payments? Did the audits answer the key oversight question, which is, Did the government receive what it ordered at an agreed-upon price and schedule? Did the audit verify the exact dollar amount of alleged fraud and waste using primary source payment records? I do not have time to go into this, but the use of primary source payment records is very important if we are going to follow the money, and following the money is where we determine whether there is fraud, waste, and abuse. Other key questions we asked were: Were the recommendations tough and appropriate? Did they recommend accountability for waste and mismanagement? Did they propose workable remedies for recovering improper payments? How quickly were the audits completed? The answers to these questions take us right to the heart and the soul of an audit--any audit, in any department. They are a good yardstick for measuring audit quality. This is my bottom line: Were the audits hard-hitting, down-in-the- trenches audits that produced results or were they softball audits with no redeeming value? After completing the review, my staff upped the overall score of those 18 reports from a D-plus to a solid C. Excellence in several reporting categories pushed the scores up as follows: All reports were highly relevant and were aligned with the core mission. They detected and reported $4 billion in waste. Most reports offered reasonable recommendations for recovering unauthorized payments. Poor performance in other categories pulled scores down as follows: Most reports did not verify exact dollar amounts of waste using primary source payment records. I wish to emphasize again the necessity of using primary source pay records. Follow the money. Most dollar amounts for alleged savings were taken from untested Army budget documents. Most did not offer meaningful recommendations for holding responsible officials accountable for waste and mismanagement. Of course, in government, if people are not held responsible for what they do and accountable for what they do, then, of course, we do not see change in culture. So accountability and responsibility and holding people responsible is very important if we are going to bring changes. Then, lastly, I would say, most reports were old and stale, having taken far too long to complete. I wish to point this out by saying, the single biggest factor that keeps dragging the scores down into the pits is timeliness or lack of it and, in most cases, the lack of it. The Audit Office continues to publish old, stale reports. Of these 18 reports we reviewed and on which I am reporting to you, they took an average of 17 months to complete. Eight took a total of 168 months to complete, and none of these numbers includes the 4 to 6 months it takes to get an audit started. So we are looking at a minimum of 2 years to complete top- quality audits. Under my scoring system, audits completed in 6 months or less earn a grade A, those completed in 12 months earn a C, and those that take more than 15 months get an F. These 18 reports, of course, as we can see from my comments, were over the top. So they earned a grade of F for taking so long to finish. I have said this before, and I wish to say it again. The power of top-quality audit work is greatly diminished by stale information. Out- of-date audits have little impact--with the passage of time, records disappear, particularly financial records--because following the money is a very important part of good auditing. People retire and move on. Money cannot be recovered and no one can be held accountable, and without people being held accountable, we do not change the culture of organizations. The new Deputy for Auditing, Mr. Blair, is part of the problem. He has not set any goals for audit completion times. I hope he will do that. Reasonable goals need to be established. I would like to summarize. In my summarization, I would point out that I wish to talk about the $4 billion that was potential waste and was saved. These 18 reports clearly put the spotlight on $4 billion of potential waste. The auditors detected it. They reported it. They did exactly what they are supposed to do. That is a major accomplishment worthy of recognition and praise. So they ferreted out waste. They presumably saved the money. But what happened to the $4 billion? Busting $4 billion in waste did not produce $4 billion in savings. The savings touted by Inspector General Heddell were lost, in a sense. Then there is a technical lingo around government: The money got reprogrammed. In plain English, that means it got put to better use but not necessarily saved. As seen through the eyes of this skeptical watchdog, all the loose change got scooped up and shoveled out the backdoor and into the jaws of the Pentagon spending machine on some other program. That machine is known to have an insatiable appetite for money. The disappearance of the savings is part semantics. The word ``waste'' is not in the audit lexicon. Sprinkling waste with perfume and calling it savings does not make it savings. Perhaps if the auditors started calling it what it is--waste--it might be easier to reach the Promised Land, but they never got there. Mr. President, 99.9 percent of the $4 billion got spent. Only in government could we spend all the money and still claim savings. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. ____________________