tv Today in Washington CSPAN November 19, 2010 2:00am-6:00am EST
2:00 am
number of years. >> let me just add, maybe a little bit counterintuitive. big heart of our messaging is, if you get sick, seek treatment. so, in some ways we hope the members that are -- numbers that are seeking treatment go up because it shows people are listening to us and taking advantage of the centers in the units we are setting up around the country. so, when i get a daily report about more people going to seek treatment, it is unfortunate that they have to seek treatment but it tells us that they are getting their messaging and in those treatment centers, they can get the i.v. drip. they can get the ors if they haven't arctic.net and take steps to turn this around
4:13 am
services committee this morning considered the nominations for air force general to head the u.s. strategic command and army general to lead the u.s. africa command. the generals these questions on a wide range of issues including don't ask don't tell policy, national missile defense and the start missile treaty. this is just over two hours.
4:14 am
first let me put this to the witnesses and the people attending this hearing. this has been an incredibly busy week and i got caught up in a meeting and couldn't get out so i apologize for being a few minutes late. the subcommittee on contract and oversight of the u.s. senate committee on homeland security will come to order and i will have an opening statement about the hearing today and dever to my colleague senator brown for his opening statement and then we will have three panels of witnesses to get at the issues we want to cover this afternoon. this is a hearing on the role of the special inspector general on contracts and afghanistan. the subcommittee was created beginning in the congress to provide oversight of government
4:15 am
contracting. over the last 18 months we have focused on two key areas come in prison the government oversight and reducing waste fraud and abuse. four of the subcommittee's 15 hearings including today have examined contracting in afghanistan and how to ensure the government is getting the best possible value for the billions of dollars we spend. today's hearing on the special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction called cigar this began in march, 2009 when i joined senator lieberman, senator collins, senator coburn and senator grassley to introduce legislation to give better hiring authority. at that time, general fields had been the cigar for more than seven months and cigar hadn't completed in the original audit
4:16 am
or investigative work. this raised serious concerns about the effectiveness at protecting against waste fraud and abuse in afghanistan. even though cigar received additional money and new hiring authorities in the summer of 2009, the organization did not improve. cigar continued to have difficulty in recruiting adequate experienced staff. we learned cigar performed only one contract audit prior to december, 2,009 while devoting time and resources to review subjects outside of its mission like a 2009 review of the role of women in afghanistan elections. we were particularly concerned that cigar was failing to establish the priorities for its work and so in december of 2009 senator collins, senator coburn and i asked the president to conduct a thorough review of cigar in july 2010 the inspector
4:17 am
for efficiency abbreviated completed their review. this review confirmed many of the problems that my fellow senators and i had been concerned about. cigar didn't have a plan and wasn't dealing with assessment. they haven't put the right investigative team in place. their audits were more for guest on quantity and quality. and their management and leadership failed to create an efficient, effective organization. the focus of today's hearing is how cigar under the leadership of general arnold fields, who i hold in high regard as a decorated retired general in the united states marine corps and one of the nation's heroes has fallen so short on the market. cigar's investigation division field to meet minimum standards and referred its findings to the attorney-general to consider revoking cigar's law enforcement authority. they also found speed's audit
4:18 am
position had no less than five major deficiencies. today we will ask a general fields how this happened on his watch. in the course of today's hearing we will also examine general fields decision to award a 96,000-dollar source contract to joseph smith, the former defense department inspector general who did resign in 2005 and did have allegations made against him. general fields hired mr. schmidt to act as a, quote, independent monitor of compliance with the review and report cigar progress to the department of justice. we have learned that cigar understood by rewarding the contract to mr. schmidt they will also be obtained the services of louis free the four fbi director pumas cigar thought would act as an advocate for them at the justice department. interestingly we have learned his organization spoke only briefly with mr. schmidt about
4:19 am
the contract and quickly decided they were not interested in participating. we will ask general fields when he thought this contract was in the best interest of the taxpayer. we will also hear from four experts on conducting oversight in the war zone. the inspectors general for the defense department, the state department, usaid, and the special inspector general for iraq reconstruction. they will share their lessons learned and what needs to have been going forward. the government record on contract in in iraq and afghanistan the the has not been pretty. that's why it's so important we have aggressive independent quality oversight with hundreds of billions of dollars at stake there is no room for error and no time to delay. we are having this hearing today because a frank, open and on the record discussion is imperative to adequate oversight going forward and to make sure that we protect the men and women in
4:20 am
uniform in the contingency fielder, and also protect the american taxpayer. i look for to the hearing of the testimony of witnesses today and providing general fields to the opportunity to address the subcommittee's concerns the of and i now refer to my colleague senator brown. schenectady's ranking member of the subcommittee i would like to specifically thank you for scheduling this afternoon's hearing on this very important topic and since i joined the subcommittee this is the second hearing i've participated in on this very important topic. the oversight of contract in afghanistan. as general petraeus recently stated in the contract in guidance, the scale of the contracting efforts in afghanistan represent both an opportunity and a danger with proper oversight contracting can spur economic dilemma and support the afghan government, and isaf objectives. however we spend large quantities of money on international contracting funds
4:21 am
quickly and with insufficient oversight it is likely that some of these funds will unintentionally fuel corruption, financing surgeon organizations, strength and criminal activities in networks and undermine our efforts in afghanistan. and madame chair, i agree with general petraeus the guidance of the soldiers are willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice for the success of the mission at least we can do in congress is to ensure the american taxpayers' funds go to the right people for the right purpose. since the u.s. and coalition partners begin operations in afghanistan in october 7, 2001, the united states has invested approximately $56 billion in afghanistan, which is more than 53.8 billion invested in iraq. despite the commitment on the part of the american tax payers, problems continue to persist such as waste, fraud and fueling of corruption by far most troubling findings of american taxpayers' money has been flowing to taliban insurgents, which i find unconscionable.
4:22 am
today we will examine whether the oversight in afghanistan is meeting the necessary level to accomplish the mission and protect the taxpayers and using our soldiers expected to be used to can be provided the tools and resources to do the job. january 28, congress created sigar to provide leadership in protecting waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer funds used in the afghanistan conflict. to date congress has appropriated 46.2 million for this mission. while i fully appreciate the difficult circumstances in which sigar must work, i am convinced that we are not receiving the necessary return on our investment in our oversight activities as noted we will soon hopefully find out more about those numbers. the recent council known as sigy reported they did not have the robust on we program of the risk assessment and that it was not looking in the right places for fraud, waste and abuse.
4:23 am
the oversight army in afghanistan includes the dod, state agencies for international data element inspector general's and sigar that the accountability of the american taxpayer funds in afghanistan remains limited. this hearing today i plan to ask the inspectors general how we can better strategically aligned use oversight resources to maximize the return on taxpayer investment and achieve the accountability of the motion requires and our soldiers deserve. thank you, madame chair. >> thank you, senator brown. let me introduce the first panel. john t. rymer served as inspector general for the federal deposit insurance corporation since july of 2006. he's also the chairman of the audit committee of the council of inspector general on integrity and efficiency couldn't which we have been referring to as sigy. mr. rymer served 30 years in the reserve component of the u.s. army prior to his confirmation as inspector general mr. rymer served as a director at kpmgllp.
4:24 am
richard moore served as the inspector general since may of 2003. he is also the chairman of the investigations committee of the council of the inspectors general on integrity and efficiency known as sigy. prieta joining mr. moore served as assistant u.s. attorney for the seventh district of alabama for 18 years. it is the custom of the subcommittee to swear in all witnesses to appear before us so if you don't mind i would like to ask do you swear the testimony will give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? let the record reflect the witness has answered in the affirmative. we will be using a timing system today. we would ask that your oral testimony be no more than five minutes especially since we have three panels today. you're written testimony will be printed in the record in its entirety. mr. moore. >> thank you, chairman
4:25 am
mccaskill. my name is john rymer, inspector general of the fdic. i'm appearing today on my capacity of the sigy committee. you asked me to address the recent review of moore and specifically the conduct audits. you have already agreed to put our report into the record. thank you. in late february 2010, the sigy chair received a letter from the general army field special in inspector general for afghan reconstruction requesting that evaluation of the operations. the sigy council was convened to discuss moore's request and determined that conducting three separate yet coordinated standards based reviews would provide sigar with the information that was requested. fi led a team to conduct the review of the sigar audit organization and i will speak on the results of that review in just a moment. mr. moore led the team to conduct the quality assessment of sigar investigative operations and he will discuss
4:26 am
the results of that review. mr. moore and i lit a joint review to the management support operations not covered by either of the peer reviews. i will focus the remainder of my remarks on the external peer review of sigar's audit and the request for a follow-up review. in the audit community and external peer review is an independent backward looking review requiring a year to examine and opine on at least once every three years and audit organization system of quality control. the peer review was done in accordance with the audit. review god and is based upon the gal yellow book standards. the goal of the peer review is to provide reasonable assurance that the audit organization has, one, adopted audit processes are properly designed to produce accurate reliable information and reports, and number two, following those prophecies and conducting its work. the peer review was not designed to assess reliability of individual reports. on july 14th this year, we issue
4:27 am
our report on the results of this review. we concluded sigar's system of quality control suitably designed but it was compliance with those policies and procedures was inconsistent and incomplete. we specifically identified five deficiencies in the audit organizations practices could generate situations in which sigar would have less than reasonable assurance performing and reforming on audits and with the yellow book and its own policies. these deficiencies relate to quality assurance, audit planning, documentation and supervision, reporting and independent referencing. we made eight recommendations for improvement. we believe the process followed procedures we perform and the deficiencies we identified in sigar's all the organization provide a reasonable basis past deficiency opinion. in its response, sigar concurred with the results of the peer review in committee to implementing the corrective actions to overcome the
4:28 am
deficiencies. last month general fields contacted the sigy chair to request a follow-up review to address the extent to which the audit organization had implemented recommendations. earlier this week my office began focused limited scope review to do so. in this review will not modify the opinion and conclusions reached in the july, 2010 report nor will it qualify as an external peer review of the stifel's of the organization. i scheduled a full scope. the realists sigar organization to next october. at this time i would like to make to concluding comments. first, sigar's request for the peer evaluation was unprecedented and a unique approach. despite the competing demands and challenges of individual offices faced, we responded in a fare professional manner conduct a thorough review and provide sigar with useful in a meaningful information. second, i would like to recognize the professionals you volunteered to participate in his reviews and the support of the respective ivies.
4:29 am
i also like to acknowledge the courtesy and cooperation extended by general fields and his staff and to acknowledge the assistance of those who facilitated the travel to and work in afghanistan. this completes my testimony and i look forward to answering questions. thank you. >> thank you mr. rymer. mr. moore. >> german mccaskill, senator brown, good afternoon. as you mentioned i am richard moore the inspector general and i am appearing before you today in my capacity as the chair of the investigations committee or cigie. michael e. mr. rymer has the lead out how we got here in terms of these peer reviews and i will not want to restate that. i would like to make a few comments about the work we did, however. the reviews particularly in the investigation here review was not the work of one on eg or one office, it was a community wide
4:30 am
review in the case of the investigations peer review there were six ig who participated in that review. with the peer evaluation there were seven ig offices that participated in that particular review. the investigation. review resulted in a finding that sigar was not in compliance as you mentioned with our quality standards. there are only two possible outcomes in the investigation pure review and the would be either you are in compliance or you are not. the determination that sigar was not in compliance with our peer review standards was based on ten specific findings which were attached to the report and i would be happy to discuss in detail if you would like leader. as you mentioned, chairman mccaskill, we were required to
4:31 am
alert the attorney-general of this finding which i did. the attorney general supervises all of the igs who exercise all powers and it is conditioned to exercise those powers based on our compliance with attorney general standards and the cigie peer review standards. and as mr. rymer mentioned, there will be an audit follow-on review and there will be one on the investigation side as well. i reiterate what mr. rymer said the audit review for the investigation. you this is not a new peer review and will not change the finding or the decision on peer review that as long complained. this is a determine whether or not there has been free mediation of the deficiencies that we faugh to of -- sound. the civil review as we call it was done pursuant to standards that were called a quality standard for federal offices of inspector general.
4:32 am
the book sets forth the overall approach for managing operating and conducting the work of the inspector general. there are nine categories in the civil book that we address with sigar, and in the end, the team found 22 suggestions or recommendations for improvement of sigar. that concludes my testimony. i look for to answer many questions you may have. >> thank you, mr. moore. let me first start by asking -- putting on the record what peer review, how conservative peer reviews are, and let me just say that every three years as the elected auditor of missouri we had a peer review and i loaned some of my senior staff to the peer review effort that goes on nationwide so i am very
4:33 am
intimately aware of what the peer review is and what it means. i also know that all the terse by nature are extremely conservative. and the only time they become even more conservative is when they are passing judgment on their peers. so let me start with this question. how often does an organization based on your all experience in the council for efficiency and operation, how often those an organization feel it's peer review especially in light of the failure of sigar? >> let me start by saying the audit committee has conducted -- the audit committee of cigie has supervised or administered now 58 peer reviews in the last --
4:34 am
from 2006-2009. of those, 55 were passed and there were three pass with deficiencies. so three out of 58. >> and, so we had repast with deficiencies. have there been any that have field? >> not in that period that i know of. >> okay. and what about on your end in terms? >> on the investigation side in terms of the investigation peer reviews i believe there has been one long compliance in the last -- since we've been conducting the peer reviews in 2003. >> how many have been done since 2003? >> approximately 50. >> so one time out of 50 and that would be this one? >> yes. >> one other. stomachs of this would be the second time since 2003 and can you share with us with the organization was that had these
4:35 am
serious problems, the other organization that was evaluated? >> i was not the chair then. my recollection you may recall i believe was opm. >> office of personnel and management? >> yes. >> how serious would you characterize the failure is to document in your review of hospital? >> i think what you've already pointed out and established, senator, is the fact that it's very rare. the deficiencies noted, the five deficiencies on the audit site were problems of noncompliance. we did positively no that sigar established policies and procedures manual and process that we thought that the standards, that is we often found that they were not in compliance and in those cases, we found situations where the
4:36 am
compliance levels were in two-thirds or so and we would find many of the findings were of the 12 reports that we've reviewed we would often find five, six -- six, seven or eight reports would be in compliance and then three or four would not be so that is the range i think i would describe. >> and i would say on the investigation side, the seriousness is of course if you of special agents in a component of ig shock who have not been trained or confronted with the guidelines they are required to adhere to come and use of deadly force, and use of confidential informants, the surveillance techniques, those kind of things are in the attorney general's guidelines. he put at risk the
4:37 am
investigations that you are conducting and potentially put at risk all the federal law enforcement simply because the reputation will damage that can occur if the agents are not fully knowledgeable of the guidelines and adhering to them. >> which of these can be exacerbated in the contingency theater where we are fighting a battle and one of the battles we are fighting is in fact corruption. >> i believe that's true. >> one responsive sigar had to these issues as they are in the organization and inspector general's are given a peer review for three years. i understand the reason this happened is because general fields asked for the review. but is that a valid response that the kind of problems that you found could be attributable to the fact that they had not been in existence for three full years? >> manama, we took into consideration from the -- to think it's valuable to note that
4:38 am
as i sit in my statement it is unprecedented. no one else asked for the peer review at this stage, and as a ig particularly none of the three now special igs in existence. so i think that was positive. i think -- i think we noted that in terms of how we conducted the review. we were concerned that over a fairly short existence come 18 months or so when we began the review that there wouldn't be sufficient evidence of really how they were performing. so to accommodate the fact that it was a short term or accelerated peer review i chose to do 100% sample of every audit they did frankly to try to give the organization the opportunity to show improvement. >> to give them the benefit of the doubt. >> is nam. if there were opportunities to show improvement from the audit one or audit ten or 12 we can demonstrate that the results were really mixed. there were some improvements on
4:39 am
location and some did not show improvement. >> so you did 100% sample? >> yes, ma'am. >> you don't need to tell me that is very unusual. >> yes, ma'am. >> on the investigation side, again, as mr. rymer suggested, we have not looked at an organization this early in their development. we were surprised to see the absence of policies and procedures and the fact that the agents we interviewed, and we interviewed agents here in the united states and in afghanistan , and they were not conversant with the guidelines they had to adhere to or the standards, and as we reflected in the report, it appears that there were no manuals or standards at sigar's headquarters that were being taught to the agents' and holding them accountable when we went in, but there were blocked
4:40 am
on policies after the time that we conducted the peer review, so it appeared that they were making good faith efforts to adopt policies, but they have not been in existence before april of this year. >> okay. senator brown. >> thank you, madame chair. first of all, thank you very much for your testimony. i'm trying to get my hands around the fact that we have the group like sigar and while i am appreciative they said they can come and audit us and see what is up and report back, i certainly appreciate that, but the results in terms of actual numbers that we have actually spent in terms of providing them the resources and then the return -- i know senator coburn has the comparison of oversight in afghanistan and fun discovered by olver entities,
4:41 am
usaid, the dot and sigar. if my numbers are correct, we have given approximately $46.2 million to sigar for this mission, yet it only identified 8.2 million. and by not -- i know the value of the dollar but that doesn't seem to be a good value for the taxpayer dollars. you have any comment as to whether you feel we are getting value for our dollars and or why do you feel -- also why do you feel the recovery is so low compared to these other entities? >> i might start to get to answer that. the funds put to better use i think is a function direct function of the audits the organization chose to do. one of the -- one of the observations we had in the peer review and the capstone review
4:42 am
is we were concerned about the process that sigar went through in selecting the initial audits of the first 12 or so at least the ones in the sample. we were concerned perhaps were not as focused. we heard this in some of our interviews that the audits were not recall of its that were focused on either contract oversight funds put to better use or improper payments -- >> wasn't that the mission of contract oversight? >> the would certainly be a large part of the mission. of the audits that we looked at -- let me explain a little bit and put it in context. we didn't really see any of its that were specifically designed to recover funds. that's the principal objective of the audit. but the ig has the responsibility also to detect and comment on lapses of
4:43 am
internal controls. we saw a few of its that were directed on internal controls that really were a preventive process, but and i think we sold three audits that were in my judgment internal control related audits and then of the 12 we looked at, three were internal control and the other nine were audits that were at least in my view of -- audits looking at u.s. policy rules and of regulations or international policy reviews and regulations. so in a continuum, we suggested -- and sigar certainly agreed that a more risk-based approach to identify the audits that should be focusing on was something it should do. >> but you'd think after given 46 plus million dollars, the fact that nobody gave them the proper guidance as to where to go and what to do or they just
4:44 am
chose to ignore the guidance and do their own thing, and you just commented upon and let me also ask this your independent professional opinion as to whether we are actually getting our money's worth out of this particular group? >> senator i have to be careful. i have to say as a professional auditor i have to stick to the -- [inaudible] will agree to this the the concern i had as i said is the sort of level one, tier one auditing was not in the original plan. we suggested it be in their plans. the other concerns i think would be ones of the perhaps not paying as much attention and in the early stages to the suggestions of the audits of folks that have responsibility for management programs. there was a bit of in my view a bit of top down and not enough
4:45 am
bottom-up audit planning. sweating the audit planning process was one that wasn't quite balanced and i think needs improvement. >> and i recognize certainly i think everybody does the difficult operating environment in afghanistan. i've been there. understand it. in your opinion, does sigar have the sufficient resources to overcome that lack of direction or obstacles or not? >> senator i would say we looked at funding for sigar because that was released to us by sigar staff that there were funding issues early on, and we are particularly concerned about that on the investigating side with the had the proper funding to put agents in afghanistan. we found that they did have appropriate funding levels. and i would just say in terms of performance of the organization, which you've been asking about today, there are at least three
4:46 am
things that can detect the organization in my opinion and we covered this in the report. if one is what we mentioned before which is the lack of risk assessment. what are the risks to the money if you will but you're charged with overseas? typically in offices we look at what are the likely frauds that are likely to occur, what's the likelihood of that happening and then we look at the severity if it does and be given an indication where we should put our dollars where they would be most effective. that wasn't done at sigar. the second thing is strategic planning. everybody i think appreciates the importance of having goals, making sure your priorities are understood, and unfortunately, that was not done very well at sigar at least in the period we reviewed and i would say in terms of performance, the
4:47 am
handicapped that we saw was the way that human-resources issues were handled. that is the hiring decisions. as we point out in the report, there was the decision to weight to hire that is investigations to pursue one candidate and that cost them almost a year on performance on the investigative side. they decided not to higher speed a deputy until recently. there's some other human resource issue that made it more difficult for them to perform. >> so with a hiring the lack of experience or knowledge in what the job at hand was? i mean, where do you see the breakdown? >> i would say that it goes back to not having the kind of focus on risk and the plan if you are not sure exactly what the strategic plan is, what your priorities should be, it can affect the whole year in the
4:48 am
decisions that made. >> before i turn it back over to the chair, i would think out of everything we've been talking about here today, that the number one priority of every independent group here is obviously dealing with afghanistan specifically now, is to find out how much and where the money is going if they are going to the taliban and other groups that want to the cyclicals. it's a shock we don't find out where that money is going and who is delivering the funds and under what circumstances, where is the breakdown. i'm just flabbergasted and i know i'm going to be asking the questions to the next panel, but am i missing something? i mean, shouldn't that be the priority of sigar and any other entity that is a fair fighting waste, fraud and abuse? we are giving money to people that want to kill us and they are not entitled to it.
4:49 am
i'm sorry, folks, i know i am still semi new, but give me a break. islamic fell one thing i would say, senator, with a special ig, as to differentiate the special igs that are assigned to work in existing federal agencies my opinion is both a special igs in this case should be primarily focused in my opinion on contract oversight and management of dollars. those are the two special igs that exist because they are attached to an appropriation or series of appropriations meaning to me financial oversight should be primary responsibility. take the case of my organization, my primary responsibility in the regulatory agency is to look for waste, fraud and abuse in the progress of a regulator which don't give
4:50 am
me the same opportunities in a regulatory agency to look at situations where appropriations are controlled over cash in the extent and contracting so i think there is a difference and i think it speaks to each of three of the special igs that their principal in my view at least looking at controls associated with contract and and looking at specifically how cash is being used. >> think you for that assessment because the taxpayers are being heard and do their jobs and they are being provided with -- because a disadvantage because the money is the potentially used to hurt or kill them and i find it deeply troubling. i will turn it back over. >> thank you, senator brown. in reading your report i was struck by how factual -- which
4:51 am
wasn't surprised and this would be by the book that that trouble and compliance in the yellow book and silver book. and i think that what i -- i just have one area i would like to cover and that is the management and oversight issue. the head of an audit agency, their responsibility is to make the decision about how the resources of that agency are going to be used. i think you'll both agreed general fields was never expected to do these audits or investigation, is that correct? >> it is correct. >> his entire responsibility is taking over in this position is to look at what was flowing into afghanistan and figure out where there was a risk. that was his most important job was first the risk assessment
4:52 am
and second, the audit plan that would address the risks set within the scope of the work that he had the legal ability to audit or investigate. would that be correct? in in this context we of been informed by major problems in iraq, my frustration with general fields and his position is as a former auditor, his job was like shooting fish in a barrel. there was so much work to be done as an auditor. everywhere you look, there was a contract that needed another set of eyes. there was a flow of money that needed investigation. there was potential for corruption, waste, misuse of money in almost every single
4:53 am
location this money was flowing. i mean, this is a free-for-all in terms of risk assessment, but yet in the first 16 months of his tenure, there was not one audit performed on one contract; is that correct? >> yes, ma'am believe that is correct. >> that is hard for me to get around. >> the wally control assessments of internal control specifically of contract audit i don't recall the contract -- >> there was the assessment of control and there was also a study done on the participation of women in the afghan election and i don't mean to minimize the participation of women in the afghan election is an important policy problem and important part of the mission in afghanistan because we want
4:54 am
obviously the capabilities of that country in terms of keeping the taliban et et essay with all due respect as auditors, with that study have been -- with that of majeure risk assessment if you had been given this job in the first 18 months? >> the afghan election as i said i think the special ig to be on the dollars that should be principal responsibility of any of the three specials we have i think. >> mr. moore? >> i would agree and when not in addition to the risk assessment as to the pot of money if you will, one of the things we discussed with sigar staff and pointed out in the report was you have to do that internal office risk assessment are so
4:55 am
you know what your skill sets are, what your priorities are, what's likely to limit you from getting the mission accomplished that was not done at sigar. >> that is all the questions i have for this panel. >> thank you very much for your service, and cigie is a very important part of oversight in this government. it's unfortunate most americans have no idea that many professional inspector generals and the federal system give of their time and overseeing other inspector general's in the system, but i certainly understand that we wouldn't have the quality inspector general's that we have in the federal government were it not for the work of cigie. so thank you and please convey our thanks to your entire organization that does these peer reviews. >> thank you.
4:56 am
>> general fields, welcome, thank you for your attendance. let me introduce you to the hearing. in general fields has served as special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction since july of 2008. general fields previously served as deputy director of the african center for strategic studies data at department of state and is assigned u.s. embassy in iraq where he forms duties as the chief of staff of the iraqi reconstruction management office. he retired as a major general from the united states marine corps in january of 2004 after
4:57 am
34 years of active military service. let me state for the record how much your record speaks of you as an american, as a patriot period, and how much our country owes you a credit negative gratitude for your years of service on behalf of the united states of america. it is the custom of the subcommittee to swear in all witnesses to appear before us, so if you don't mind i would like you to stand. do you swear the testimony you will give before the subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god. >> we welcome your testimony, general fields. >> [inaudible] >> thank you, chairman mccaskill and a ranking member, senator brown. i appreciate this opportunity to
4:58 am
be here today. i would say that is a pleasure, but i would be telling a lie if i were to say so that it is a privilege as well as an opportunity and i wish to take full advantage of that opportunity. i have worked in support of sigar the last basically have year-and-a-half. funding we received in june of 2009 fully funded disorganization. i have built sigar from nothing but legislation to 123 very well-informed and talented staff, of which 32 today are on full assignment for 13 months to a very dangerous place known as afghanistan.
4:59 am
this work is challenging. i have to find people who are willing to put their lives in harm's way in afghanistan conducting this work in midst of a very competitive market of investigators and auditors. i am proud of the staff that we have. we have conducted work in 22 of 34 provinces and afghanistan, and 48 separate locations. we have produced 34 audits. over 100 recommendations. 90% of which have been accepted by the institutions of this federal government that we have scrutinized. they are using our work. i could cite many cases, but i will not at this point. but our work is in fact making a difference. i did, and i appreciate that the chairwoman acknowledged that i
5:00 am
requested the cigie assessment. we wouldn't have normally undergone such a thing until as the earliest would have been 2012. i wanted to make this organization what senator mccaskill wished that it would be, and that assessment for which i come individually and unilaterally, made requests was intended to do just that. my leadership has been referred to as at bat. that is the first time, senator, that in all of my life, and man of 64 years of age, who has support this federal government for 41 straight years of which 34 have been as a military officer. i don't even allow my own auditors to refer to the people in afghanistan as inept because
5:01 am
there is too general the statement for any human being. i have met with many people in afghanistan from the president of afghanistan to the little children in the province. and when i asked those little children what is it on which this reconstruction effort and $56 billion that the united states has invested in afghanistan should be based, and i want you to know those children who were no higher than my knee said to me the same thing that president karzai said as well as his minister. they want energy, electricity, light, they want agriculture, they want education. and what really broke my heart is when those little children told me what we really want is a floor in our school. that is what we are up against in afghanistan. we have created by way of this $56 billion an opportunity for
5:02 am
the children in afghanistan who i feel represent the future of afghanistan as well as the rest of the people. and i would be the last, senator mccaskill and senator brown, to condone in any form or fashion, any activity that these less than the full measure of the 56 billion being used for the purposes of which made available. i won the subcommittee to also know that i take this work very seriously. why? because i raised up in south carolina and a family not unlike that in afghanistan, where the level of education from both my mother and father was less than fifth grade. but nonetheless the best education i received came from my mother who had less than a fifth grade education.
5:03 am
i wish someone had brought $56 billion to bear upon my life. but here i am in a very important position trying to influence what going on in afghanistan to the best of liability using a very knowledgeable and competent staff by which to do so. i raised apart, ladies and gentlemen come in poverty myself. i worked for less than $1.50 per day, about the average afghan makes today, in the year 2010. on the day president kennedy was buried, which was a no school day for me, my brother and i shuffled stuff out of a local farmer septic tank with a shovel for 75 cents per hour for the two of us. i know what it is to live in poverty, and i know what it is to have an opportunity and why country has given me that.
5:04 am
and by which i am pleased and very grateful. i will do my best, senator mccaskill and senator brown, to measure up to your full of expectations. i appreciate the emphasis you've placed on a contract in afghanistan, what i want also to say that the legislation the line carrying out has three dimensions. contracts is not the exclusive one but i will agree with you that is where the money is and we should focus more on that. but i'm also asked to look at the programs as well as the operations that support this tremendous reconstruction effort, and i promise you, senator, i will do so. thank you. >> thank you, general fields. general fields, i certainly respect your life story and what he accomplished, and no 1i can speak confidently for senator brown and every united states
5:05 am
senator, no one questions your commitment to the united states of america. that is not the question here. the question here is whether or not the important work of the inspector general in afghanistan has been fulfilled and completed, especially within the timeframe that we are working with because of the contingency operation. you've submitted 12 pages of testimony for this hearing. less than one page of those 12th addresses the serious deficiencies found in your peery view by other inspector general's trying to measure the work of your audit agency against the standards that are required in the federal government. you did say in your testimony defined itself to strengthen your organization and that you have now made changes. let me talk about of the law
5:06 am
5:07 am
and i'm pleased to say at the top of that list is in fact contracting. that was followed up with the hiring of mr. john brennan as my principal auditor. >> wended that higher occur? >> that hiring actually occurred the first week of january of 2009. that is when mr. brandon actually came aboard. we commence the process of bringing him to avoid much earlier that. to make you abandon the agency held on when he joined the agency? >> i had been at the agency -- >> since july 2008, correct? >> that's when i was sworn in, correct. >> now, the audit plan the love requires and i'm sure, i hope the person you did was to look at public law 110 and 181, 122, statute to 35 and look at the statutory requirements of the job. the plan that was required to
5:08 am
lease out that it must be consistent with the requirements of subsection h. which are the audit requirements that the congress placed on sigar. are you familiar with the audit requirements in subsection h., general? >> in general, yes i am. >> could you tell us what those requirements are? >> that we would conduct a thorough audit of the spending associated with our contribution to reconstruction in afghanistan . >> i'm not trying to play.thank you or, general, that there are several requirements in section h. i'm going to lay them out for the record. after i do each one, i would like to tell you if that has been completed and if so, when? >> yes, ma'am. >> the first one is, these are the thing at a minimum to
5:09 am
required to examine a special inspector general. the first one is the man which contract requirements were developed in contracts for task and delivery of orders were awarded. has that been done by sigar? have you examined contract requirements in afghanistan and contracts are task and delivery orders, how they were awarded. has your agency done that at this stage? >> we have conduct that several contract audits. each of those audits has not addressed associated with how contracts can about. >> how many contract audits have you completed? >> we have completed about four contract audit. >> anytime for contract audits. but isn't it true that all of those have occurred essentially in the last 12 months? >> that is correct. >> numbers to come in the manner
5:10 am
in which the federal agency exercise control over the performance of contract various, have you done that work? >> we have examined in each of our audit, the extent to which controls have been in place to guard against waste, fraud and abuse of the american taxpayer's dollar. and in so doing, yes, ma'am, we have looked at those matters as they relate to contracts, specifically in those areas in which we have conducted focus contract audits of specific initiatives for which funding has been available. >> already. so the first requirement dealt with contract requirements and task and delivery orders. the second requirement, the model of control over contractors of the federal government. number three, the extent to which operational field commanders were able to coordinate or direct the performance of contractors in the area of contract obligation.
5:11 am
has that been done? >> senator, the very first auto reconnect it wasn't audit -- a contract being supervised by cystic or, which is responsible for the oversight of training and equipping the afghanistan security forces. that contract is with $404 million to the american taxpayer. >> how many artists have you done that address the oversight of contract first by field commanders? >> 40%, senator, of our audits have either been direct order of focus contract audits or contract related audit. >> i thought you said you done for audits on contracts? >> i said for audits because i was referencing for focus contract audits, which were of
5:12 am
multimillion dollars infrastructure initiatives, specifically associated with the standout of the afghanistan security forces. but i am also saying that we have looked to contracts, not so much focus contract that is not necessarily addressed a specific infrastructure initiatives, but those audits address contracts in general they relate to the standards of the afghan security forces and other initiatives in afghanistan. >> number four, the degree to which contractor employees are properly screened, selected, trained and equipped for functions to be performed. is there report you can point me to oregon give reassurance that we are doing adequate selection training, equipping and screening of contract personnel in afghanistan? >> senator, first audit that we published, the $404 million contract, we found him not audit
5:13 am
that first the supervision of that particular contract was inadequate, whereby the actual entity, the export and contract was really living in maryland and not physically located on a permanent basis in afghanistan. >> how many contracts are operational in afghanistan right now? >> i don't know, senator. >> can you give me a ballpark? >> i know based on our most recent audit between 2007 and 2009 of all contracts for which we could find information at that point in time, 6900 contracts, among which i'm confident are a number of the type you just mentioned. >> okay, so i've asked several questions in each one you refer to the same audit of one contract. so of the 6000 -- would you say
5:14 am
the number was? >> 6900, senator. >> with almost 7000 operational contracts and there have been for audits completed of those contracts? >> the 6900 is a wallop of contracts in general regarding afghanistan between the years 2007 in 2009. how many of those may be defined as operational contracts, i don't know. >> you don't have any reason to believe that's gone down, do you? in fact, it's probably gone up. >> absolutely. >> absolutely. the nature and extent of any incident of on conduct by contractor employees. how many audits have you done that would reassure the american people that you have in fact looked for, found or are confident there is no unlawful act to duty by contractor employee? >> senator, i would say in each
5:15 am
of the 30 for audits that we have conducted, but those matters have been of concern. but each of those 30 for audits may not necessarily have been directly related to a contract. >> company findings have you issued dealing with misconduct or unlawful activity by contractor employees, how many findings in these audit? >> i don't think we have identified misconduct per se. we have identified issues that we have given to our investigation for further follow-up. >> i'm sorry, excuse me. >> i'm sorry, senator. i can specifically tell you at a specific audit we conduct did, which started out as a general audit of the kabul power plant, an item worth $300 million for the american taxpayer.
5:16 am
and during the course of that audit, we found anomalies that we felt were investigatory in nature, so we tailored and shortened the scope of our audit and the rest of those founders were turned over to our investigators and they are still being pursued. >> the remaining two requirements in terms of audit that must be performed, the nature and extent of any duty by contractor employee that was inconsistent with the objections of operational field commanders. and finally number seven, the extent to which an incident of misconduct on the tbd recorded, documented, investigated and prosecuted. to what extent have you been able to produce the report as to how much i'm off like tbd has actually been investigated and prosecuted? >> i don't have an answer to that question at this time. but i will assure the senator,
5:17 am
that as we conduct our audit work and as we conduct our investigation, all of those matters are in fact taken into consideration. >> thank you, general. senator brown. >> thank you, madam chair. emir general mccaskill -- senator mccaskill's kind words about your service as someone who is still serving. i greatly appreciate the service and i noticed in your testimony with great concern for the afghan children enemies of the people of afghanistan. and i understand that. i also have however great concern about our soldiers and the men and women who are fighting and also the taxpayers who are providing that $56 billion. it doesn't grow on trees. and happy inside, i know you've know you've been in that position since july of 08 and alaska now that you've heard noted serious deficiencies and
5:18 am
management deficiencies during that review. now that she's held the office for over two years, what major course corrections are you currently taking to rectify these serious deficiencies? [inaudible] >> -- that was the month during which i was privileged to be sworn into this position. but funding for sigar did not really come until much later. that is why i point out that we did not get and receive full funding for this organization until june of 2009. >> so noted and that's a good point. but in reference to course collections, one of the reasons i ask for the sigar to come in early, about two years in advance of the comment it would normally have which we anticipated was to help me set
5:19 am
the course correctly for this organization. and i am using the result of both the audit, the investigations and the so-called capstone review of the sigar to help chart the course. so i have put in place, as at the 30th of september of this year, the recommendations and suggestions made by the review team. >> cowdrey ..? was specifically is the biggest thing right think senator mccaskill and i are concerned about, which is the money. i know you've done some good reports and investigations on other things that you commented on, which is policy issues relating to the ability to the afghan people to live and grow. but in terms of the things that many taxpayers right now are concerned about is the dollars,
5:20 am
the growing weary. they want to know what the money's gone. but actions based on the recommendations do you have in place? >> thank you, senator. i'm a taxpayer as well. i've as much interest if not more in my particular case as the individual american taxpayer. we are doing a better job of risk assessment. we found that to be a weakness to which earlier your attention and a much more pointed way should have been turned. so we are improving the means by which we determine where it is that we should focus our effort. >> and where is that leading you now? >> well, it is leading us to a greater focus on contracts because that isn't packed with the the money is. but as the initial questioning by madam chairman, we have to also address the front end of
5:21 am
this reconstruction effort to what extent are the policies being put in place by those who are implementing this $56 billion? >> no, and i understand and respect that approach. tonight he been put on notice by everybody that hey, we understand the policies and all that stuff. but what specifically are you doing now based on the recommendations you've been given? what do you specifically doing so i can tell the people back home in massachusetts and all of our viewers we have, where are you focusing? give me specific examples like an advocate and say hey, he's kind of learning. you know, he is serving a growing. he's gotten the funding after european sworn in. he's now been given an independent requested audit. to give me some specific examples. i do want to beat a dead horse
5:22 am
here, but i need to know where exactly are you focusing? refocusing for example on how the taliban is allegedly getting money from us taxpayers? are you focusing on that? are you focusing on the bright and payouts? refocusing on the fact that the afghan army is not after this six plus billion we've spent is still not up and running. i mean, where are you focusing exactly? >> sir, we are focusing on several broad areas. but at the top of that list abends to be contracting. >> was specifically contracting? what area are you doing? bridges, roads, what specifically? i know contracting is so big. with 7000 contracts or more. have you actually initiated some investigations already? >> sir, with 89 investigative underlings. >> they are focused on fraud and
5:23 am
theft. >> and based on not, what types of things are you investigating? what examples could you give to me and the american taxpayers of what your initial -- what made you go to that particular area versus another area? >> because that's where we feel the vulnerability is for the american taxpayer's dollar. >> a somewhat? some tip off, some prior contracts? why do you specifically want to go for that area? >> a sum all of the above commissary. >> okay. can you share your thoughts about how we can strategically deal with this very complex challenge did not in your testimony you stated your concern about the role and cost of private security contracts, specifically as it relates to fueling, corruption and finance surgeons that are strengthening criminal networks.
5:24 am
what tangible actions are required to try to do for this corruption? what do you think -- what can you tell me about that? >> sir, i believe that the fight against corruption must take place on several levels and many dimensions. the first of which we need to give consideration to what it is that we are doing in support of the reconstruction effort in the government of afghanistan. we -- we are conducting a reconstruction effort in three broad areas: security, governance and development. and each of those we feel needs to be addressed. we are developing and have devoted $29 billion to security in afghanistan itself. stand up of the afghan security forces, the police and the army. we have devoted $16 billion to governance and development. and therein lies the
5:25 am
vulnerability of the american taxpayer's dollar. so we are pursuing audits and investigations that will help mitigate the potential for the american taxpayer dollar to be wasted, fronted or abused. >> i know you've got $46 million to complete her mission. that's a lot of money. i noted here in the chart that senator coburn reference to basically identified in terms of fraud, waste and abuse of about $8 million. so 46 have been given $8 million in the time frame. can you tell me and asked why there hasn't been more of the, kind of a collection on the fraud waste and abuse up to this point? >> sir, a contributing your is the slow start this organization had been standing up, a part of which i am inclined to attribute to the lack of funding.
5:26 am
>> listen, i'm going to give you that one because that something you sworn in, got the funding, getting it up and running. i think the last nine months. have you had a success want to share with us? >> we have had some success. we have $6 million we reported on her most recent report. we have an ongoing forensic audit of $37 billion, looking at over 73,000 transactions for which we intend to be vector towards crime, potential crime. and were moving in that direction. the were using forensics as a means by which to fairly quickly identify vulnerabilities and then we are structuring audit accordingly. >> one final and then i'll turn it back. in your latest sigar quarterly reports on page six, imagine afghan private security
5:27 am
contractor, a thing as it's wartime risk management has been suspended and debarred after was found funneling large amounts of money to insurgents. i met with general petraeus on many occasions concerning afghan policy and a crew much better buyers and buy from better people. what oversight actions are you taking for your audits and investigations to prioritize general petraeus is objective that those funds will be given to better people and not our enemies? >> first, i applaud general petraeus and the initiatives that he is taken to address this issue of corruption. the standup on task force 21 is one of those very significant initiatives. we are working very closely with task force 2010. we are also working with the international contract corruption task force in order to harness the investigatory
5:28 am
initiatives of the federal agencies so that we can bring our wherewithal very quickly to bear on the finding folks who were milking the american taxpayer out of money. >> thank you, madam chair. >> general fields come in your testimony to me a minute ago, you refer to is the sticky audit, this is sticky, the first audit you did? >> yes, ma'am. >> is that correct? >> that is correct. >> and of that -- do you recall how long the audit was, how many pages? >> i don't recall how many pages, but i'm pretty sure wasn't a very large audit, senator. >> does 12 pages sunray? >> that may be about right. the summary of that audit, ma'am. >> how many pages not audit actually contains the audit
5:29 am
work? >> i would have to route that audit. >> with four pages are correct? >> may be, senator. the other audit you refer to in the testimony was on the kabul power plant. >> that is correct. >> had a similar audit been done by usaid exactly one year prior to the time he do that audit? >> that is correct. >> let's talk about the funding. usaid did a similar audit one year prior on the kabul power plant. do you know what the funding for usaid had done in terms of their general inspector work in afghanistan over the last five, six years? do you know what their total funding has been? >> funding for usaid in terms of its operations in afghanistan, i do not know. >> $10 million. do you see what they've are covered for $10 million taxpayer
5:30 am
investment? 149 million. and you have received $46 million, is that correct, general? >> 46.2 million. >> and you'll have recovered a $.2 million? >> at this point in time, yes. >> can you understand as a matter of select those numbers is hard for me to reconcile the notion that a lack of funding has been your problem? >> senator, the recoveries that we invest our experienced our small. but the full measure of the outcome of audits and investigations that are under way are -- that full measure has not thus far been determined. at our forthcoming numbers will be much larger and the numbers we submitted to the city and there will up of work that the federal community in general,
5:31 am
federal ids in general had done for 2009. >> let's talk about contract team. you know, one of the things that is very important is how audit agency's contract because your job is to oversee contracts. and your job is to determine if there are contracts that are not needed, put to better use. and out of the $46 million that should have received, how much money are used ending to deloitte & touche, just to prepare your reports for congress? >> that contract, senator, started out at 3.7 million, at a time when we had a paucity of people to do the very specific type of work for which we have contracted, to lock in touche to
5:32 am
help us with. that arrangement was to facilitate the gaps in their own personnel and the skill sets that were needed at that point in time. and over a period of time we would commensurately reduce the contract as we were able to bring that particular level of talent aboard and sigar and we are doing that, senator. >> use that 2.72.7 million this year for deloitte & touche. and there'll a function is to produce reports to congress, correct? >> deloitte provides also assistance to us and database management. that's one aspect of it. but they principally assist cigar and putting together the reports that we do submit to congress, which is a very detailed report, a very important report. and we feel that the extent to which we have gone to insure that report is put together
5:33 am
correctly and it's presentable to this congress is commensurate with the money that we have invested into deloitte & touche to do so. >> i want to clarify this. because i will tell you candidly candidly -- i do want to layout my fellow members of congress here, but an investment of that kind of money and report to congress, when there was the kind of out of work that needs to be done and when he is an lack of funding is one of the rationale because of wide war on a work has not been done and why it's taken so long for audits to really be performed or produced in a manner commensurate with the size of your agency. let's compare here. the contract total of deloitte church to $6.6 million. and the total amount of funding to aig is 10 million. and for that telling dollars, with a $149 million back. meanwhile, the 6.6 million at deloitte & touche, always have a
5:34 am
shiny report and pretty pictures for members of congress, most of which will never see it. could you understand why that causes one path about why that is a strong leadership physician, general fields? >> senator, we've been told the members of the congress that they appreciate the report we provide for them. similarly, federal community elsewhere have told us that they appreciate the detail in the correctness of the reports that we produce. >> let's talk about the contract with joseph schmitz. now come you haven't audit and it's completed your peer review and it's not good. and in fact, for only the second time in 50 peer review is coming you have been recommended to lose your law enforcement capability in an arena for desperately needed law-enforcement capabilities absolutely essential. you've have decided and after the audit is done, you hire someone -- it's my understanding, to help you monitor compliance with the
5:35 am
audit recommendations. is that a fair carrot or station of which are contract with joseph schmitz was supposed to represent? >> is a fairly fair carrot or station, senator. but we hired this independent monitor, commensurate with a plan of action and milestones that i put in place and response to the result of this cd, in order to remove sigar quickly along to putting in place the corrective action that then identified for us. i set that date at 30 september of this year. and we are a better organization, sender, because we have this external agency to come in and provide us, this particular expertise during this period. >> and this is a no-bid contract. >> it was a source contract for which we made requests.
5:36 am
>> that is a no-bid contract, sole source. >> that is correct. >> what she said as he meet the immediate establishment of an independent monitor to independently à la fight agency actions and compliance in response to issues contained in the city letter july 15, 2010, it to the attorney general of the united states. that's the document that -- the information in the document for the justification and approval of a no-bid contract. >> senator, we wanted to quickly correct the areas of concern pointed out by that. out. we did not wish to lose or put in jeopardy any further the authorities for criminal investigations that have been provided to me by way of the department of justice. and we felt that this entity would provide that independent
5:37 am
look at us. and we felt that would help mitigate any concerns that this congress and the overseers on capitol hill sigar might have as well as to reassure anyone else who might be interested in the outcome of that purity vow. >> well, is that feedback to an independent monitor on whether you complied with the monitor now? >> repeat the question. >> is meant seeking now to see if you complied? aren't independent body are looking for in terms of theme if you have in fact looked at the deficiencies? >> it is now looking at the audit piece, but the investigation piece has yet to get underway. nonetheless i have made requests as they come back in. >> okay. >> and so, army contracting command awarded the contract on behalf of sigar said it was sole-source because there is only one person, mr. schmitz was available and qualified.
5:38 am
did you reach out to any other retired ig is if you're going to hire someone else to come in and tell you whether or not you are complying with the audit? >> not at that time. >> is your aqua suggestions with mr. rymer are more important, mr. moore? >> no, we did not. >> did you talk to mr. moore and his team, the group of independent peer review auditors that looked at your process and quality control in criminal investigations, did you discuss mr. schmidt with them? about hiring mr. schmidt? >> no, i did not appear to someone they've done so on my behalf, but i do not personally. >> what my status spoke with her staff in september, your staff said they had expected mr. schmidt be entered into a subcontract with lewis freeh, former director of the fbi who also works with mr. schmitz on the independent monitor team for
5:39 am
don chrysler. sigar officials say they believe he would be quote intimately involved in the quote in the outreach to attorney general holder. was that your understanding? >> that is not necessarily my understanding and i cannot account for what folks may have communicated to your staff or to anyone else. my intent, senator, was to bring aboard an independent entity to provide the oversight of the plan of action that we were putting in place to move the software quickly along so that we could come in compliance with the department of justice regulations. >> did you expect that mr. freeh would be working on this contract, mr. fields? >> i did at the onset, man. >> was mr. freeze function as it related to what you expected them to do?
5:40 am
reach out to general holger? >> no, ma'am. i did not expect anyone to reach out per se. i expected the oversight been provided by this entity to help sigar in the inspector general correct the issues that a good point about. >> well, your staff said to us that mr. freeh would be intimately involved in an outreach to general holger. you understand what this looks like, don't you? >> i would ask that the senator explained what you're referring to. >> it looks that you all went out and found somebody who could get to lewis freeh who could get to attorney general holder and make sure you didn't lose your ability to exercise law-enforcement function. that looks like you are trying to hire someone to help influence the attorney general of the united states as opposed to fixing the problem and then having the same independent audit group come back and
5:41 am
certify that should fix the problem. >> senator, i is the inspector general had confidence in mr. freeh because he is a former director of the fbi, because he is a former judge and because, as i learned along the way, mr. schmidt was associated with this firm. and in which way i had been confident of mr. freeze contribution to the government and also mr. smith's contribution to the government in a world that i was playing at that time. that was my line of thinking. it had nothing to do, senator, with any other potential influence in reference to the attorney general. i wanted to correct the issues that have been pointed out to me by the purity vow and that was my only objective.
5:42 am
>> is my understanding that mr. moore's team, this contract is worth $100,000, correct, to mr. schmidt? he got 100 grand? >> no, senator, the contract is worth 95,000. >> excuse me, contract was worth $95,000. and how many days did mr. schmitz work on this for $95,000? >> he was with said 10 for approximately two months. >> so 60 days and they got 95,000? >> that is correct. >> about $45,000 a month? >> senator, we follow the rules in engaging in this contract. we utilized the contract center of excellence in washington that many other entities use. and the $95,000 was the fair
5:43 am
market value for the specific work we were requesting. >> with all due respect, general, i got to tell you the truth. you were supposed to be finding ways to save the american taxpayers dollars. and please, i don't think it's a good idea to say that it was fair market value to pay somebody $45,000 a month to try to fix the problem in your investigations unit to the satisfaction of the attorney general. isn't it true that mr. moore is going to complete the work in just a few days and isn't going to cost anything? in terms of determining whether or not you now have proper procedures in place to do law enforcement work as the special inspector general of afghanistan? >> senator, i believe that the decision i made at that point in time was a good decision.
5:44 am
i did not anticipate all of the scrutiny that this particular initiative has received since that decision had i had an opportunity -- if i had an opportunity to do it all over again, i probably would've made a different decision. >> that's good news. that's good news, general. senator brown. >> thank you. i just have a couple of questions. in fy 11, general, you stated again $16.2 billion. if approved, with the money be tracked and how will it be measured? somewhat expected return would you expect the taxpayer to get? >> senator, we would expect that the full measure of the 16.2 billion, which is primarily designed for printing and equipping of the afghanistan security force. we expect the full measure of
5:45 am
the taxpayer's investment in terms of a return will be achieved. to that end, we have asked additional funding for cigars that we can increase the number center staff so we can provide the coverage and all the oversight necessary to ensure the american taxpayer that money as completely as for the purposes of which made available. >> when you say full measure, what does that in exactly four layman's terms, full measure? >> well, there's the military in there, i get it. just when do you expect to get the full measure, what does that mean exactly? >> full measure means, sir, that the 16.2 billion was requested for specific initiatives associated with the standup of the afghanistan security forces. so the full measure means that 16.2 would be exclusively used for that purpose without waste, fraud and abuse. that's what i'm referring to,
5:46 am
senator. >> if i'm reading this correctly, i much do you -- are you going to spend in personal compensation? do you have any idea? >> personal compensation not unlike the rest of the federal community is tied. and our personal compensation is, i believe, commiserate with my secure counterpart. our staff who work in afghanistan by way of a compensation package approved by this congress, received 70% in addition to their regular pay for danger pay and location page. we have to pay that, senator. sigar is an independent agency. i must pay, as we go for everything we receive, personal and otherwise. and the cost is very high. but we are also a temporary
5:47 am
organization, senator. so when we bring people to work, they know that. we bring people board for 13 months. it's not like this been deemed an statutory federal agency and the inspector general thereof. we also are competing in a market worth 70 other inspector general is in the city are looking for auditors and investigators. and we have to compete in that regard with their compensation in order to bring aboard the level of talent we need. i wish it were cheaper, senator, i certainly do. >> let me finish with them time on the font that will go on to the next panel. i point you to focus -- i just want you to follow the money. i want you to find out where the money is going and zero in on the television issue, why and how they're getting any of our monies, number one. i want to know if there's any bribes and payoffs and criminal at to be going on with the money should be going, if there are people doing it, but what were
5:48 am
going to do to stop it and plug the leak, you know, and i understand, but not for you telling me, i would've overlooked the fact that she got appointed and there's a transitional period. so i get that. but now that you've done all the elections in poly status and the focus, the measure for me and senator mccaskill and the folks at future independent, i commend you for reaching out and doing that. either it was a cya situation for you seriously wanted to get there and get some guidance because maybe it was new or maybe it was any guidance. we're giving you some guidance. protect our money, find a way to bring that number up so we can feel confident that the millions we are giving you, we're getting millions in return. at least make it a wash. that is my only message i have nothing further. thank you.
5:49 am
>> let me clean up a couple of things. i don't have a lot of other questions. in fact, lewis freeh never was engaged or decline to participate in any way in this contract, correct, general fields? >> that is correct. senator, as far as i know, with assistance mr. freeman is given, mr. schmidt at which i'm not aware that i'm not able to comment on that, senator. >> i have not gone into any of the issues surrounding mr. schmidt in his previous tenure at the department of defense, but were you aware at the time you hired him. then some controversy concerning his previous tenure as department of defense inspector general? >> senator, i was completely unaware. >> that is what you might've done basically a google search for his name that would've revealed that there was in fact some questions ask him if he would have had a chance to ask him before you hired him and be clear that there weren't any
5:50 am
problems associated with them? 's >> senator, our initial initiative was to engage the lewis freeh group of which mr. smith, to our understanding, was a part. >> so now you've said that the reason for hiring him was to get to lewis freeh? 's >> not necessarily, senator. the reason for hiring these entities was to help ring that talent and expertise that we needed at that point in time to address the issues in sigar. >> yeah, i just said whether to back him and he said because we were hired him to get to lewis freeh. he just said that. >> i did not say i was hiding anybody. >> why did you not that mr. schmidt's before you hired him? >> i personally had no cause to do so. these matters, senator, were being handled by way of my contracting officer and by way of cce.
5:51 am
i did not have any reason to doubt the integrity and so forth of mr. smit. and as i understand it, the issues of which he may have been accused during his tenure as inspector general aired and this is information i found out subsequent to the senator of having raised questions about my decision in hiring this particular contract. as i understand that, the issues are brought up concerning mr. smit were not cooperated in the final analysis. >> you understand that the reason this is even common up is in preparation for the investigatory work, that sigar should be doing. but we do investigate tory work and we can't senator grassley had a lot of questions about mr. schmitz when he was inspector general at dod. i'm not saying whether senator grassley was right or wrong. i'm saying it is very troubling
5:52 am
that you would not be aware of those questions before paying someone the amount of $450,000 a year to do work for the federal government, general fields, that's what i'm getting at. this audit agency is careful about who they hired and whether or not there is any appearance or problem. i'm not saying there's a problem, but the fact you do know there might be one is what i'm trying to bring to your attention. did mr. schmitz ever go to afghanistan? >> not under the contract involving sigar to my knowledge. >> so it is to pay for and that you claim his market value, $45,000 a month did not involve any high risk for mr. schmitz part other than calling lewis freeh's office? >> potentially, correct as far as i know, senator. >> already. >> let me also say, senator, that mr. schmidt is a registered
5:53 am
government contract your -- is registered to contract with the government of the united states as far as i understand. >> i see, general, but i think the point i'm trying to make your is your job is to oversee contract. your job is to set the gold standard on contracting. so you do a sole source contract, no-bid good you immediately hire someone. clearly there wasn't even at that time apart part to your attention that there were questions you need to ask him about his previous services as inspector general. that's the point i'm making, general fields. that is the point i'm making. ask -- did you ever done her work of an audit agency before you're given this job? have you ever done any out of work or been around any auditors before you're given this job? >> yes, senator, i have been. >> okay, tell me what capacity you would work with auditors
5:54 am
prior to taking this job. >> i worked with auditors in conjunction with my support with the iraq management and reconstruction office worker mel. this is a direct to the work associated with reconstruction and support of iraq. >> what audit agencies did you work with? 's >> i did not specifically work with another agency per se, but in chief of staff of our mall, my work covered multiple dimensions of reconstruction in iraq. prior to that, senator, i served as inspector general for united states central command. i did that work for two years. and that work involved some degree of oversight, involving audit type work, but not
5:55 am
necessarily the professional audit caused by which sigar is characterized. >> in fact, this is something the public is not aware of, but there's a vast difference between inspector general's with an active military and inspector general for the federal government? >> i would say that is correct. >> said report to the commander and they are the eyes and ears of the commander. they had no duty whatsoever to report to the public courts as the congress or to perform an independent function in terms of monitoring taxpayer dollars, correct? >> those inspectors general are traded by the basic intent to last of the inspector general act of 1978 by which i another federal inspector general's are guarded as well. >> i understand. i was shocked when i direct my first contract oversight trip and i'm sitting with inspector general said i didn't really speak to her 80s that were
5:56 am
vastly different to the federal government. in fact, i wish they were called the same thing. i wanted to rename the military specter general's and they informed me they had a name first a little tricky. these are not the same function they don't do the same work. the reason i ask this question, general, is the first venue to come if you had an audit agency, is to figure or the risk is no risk assessment injury. analysis as to what tier is the top tier of work that you should do for the highest risk. then, you go down and you do your audit plan, determining how much resources you have and how you can get to the most risk. at what point in time with a risk assessment completed as sigar? >> i will go back, senator, to what i said earlier. we conducted the risk assessment , which was published in our 2008 report to congress. that risk assessment was made up
5:57 am
of several elements. it may not look like a risk assessment as the senator -- >> is on the yellow -- it's not a yellow book risk assessment? >> it would not be a yellow book assessment per se, but would certainly contain the elements relevant to any risk assessment when it comes to oversight of money. >> to the auditors working for you at the time tell you that with sufficient in terms of a yellow book risk assessment? >> i've no auditors at that time because we completed that assessment in conjunction with their october report to congress before his privilege to higher papers auditor. >> so you were saying that you performed what you would consider a professional risk assessment of a major responsibility in terms of audit function without any auditors? >> i performed that assessment,
5:58 am
senator, with intelligent folks. and i feel that this is not -- i don't feel that this is necessarily rocket science in order to determine what needs to be done, senator. >> i've got to tell you the truth. once again, i do not mean to be cruel. i do not mean to -- this is not fun for me either. it's very uncomfortable to say that i don't think you're the right person for this job, general fields. but i don't think you're the right person for this job, please, no, that's very appropriate. please leave the room. [inaudible] >> please, please. please. [inaudible] >> the risk assessment -- the reason that you had the findings from peer review was because he fell short of the professional
5:59 am
standards that are demanded in the world of auditing. and i'm not saying the people that worked for you weren't intelligent. i'm not saying you weren't intelligent. i'm not saying you're not a hero, sir. i'm saying this is too important a government function to not have the very highest level of experienced qualifications and expertise they been this kind of agency. and i have no other questions for you. we will keep this record open if there's anything i've said in this hearing you believe is unfair, if there's any information you want to bring to our attention, we will keep the race hearing of the record open and i will assure you i will look at all of it with the auditor and examine it and make sure that our final record in this hearing is fair and balanced and we are happy to include anything else you would like to include. and i thank you very much volunteer services to america.
113 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN2 Television Archive TV News Test Collection Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on