https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/18/2023-06330/electronic-submission-of-certain-materials-under-the-securities-exchange-act-of-1934-amendments

 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/11/28/2022-23757/listing-standards-for-recovery-of-erroneously-awarded-compensation

 

This is not about “surplus property” and that was already declared.

 

This IS about “S 300’s.”

 

This IS about the USMCA.

 

This IS about …

 

S. 466.

 

And what is this two years after S. 300 is referred to committee:

 

Committee on Rules, Full Committee, hearing on a house joint resolution disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of the Interior known as the Stream Protection Rule; a house joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of a rule submitted by the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to ``Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers''; and a house joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Social Security Administration relating to Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, 5 p.m., H–313 Capitol.

 

Now as I understand it, if you do not vote down a bill it goes off the table, so to speak, within two years. Correct?

 

This is my concern upon reading this bill.

 

First: That Vice-Presidential and Presidential candidates get Secret Service protection under the Department of the Treasury. This is one reason why putting the Department of Defense – especially through the Defense Finance and Accounting Services – under Treasury in this manner is a “No.” Second, why is there no requisite safeguard put into effect regarding the Department of State and audits regarding access to – or the relationship regarding “procurement” of – armaments included? Third, all agencies are required to submit quarterly reports and then submit to regular audits for a reason. As is stated in the Congressional Record  of July 25, 1986 by Senator Proxmire, there is not just a matter of “duplication” in more than one agency providing an audit. Not only that, but the two articles that were read into the record – each of which was printed for a different intended audience – provides an example of why one might justify having more than one audit review, especially of the Department of Defense.

 

Then there is the matter of the realignment of authority, including by first referring through an Under secretary of Defense, and then delegation to three of the military departments. My understanding is that by January of 2015, there had already been efforts to subordinate the United States Marine Corps under the Department of the Navy. This is specifically a bad idea because a) the USMC is notoriously underfunded relative to the other departments for explicitly strategic reasons that are b) part of the specific strategic implications of the USMC procurement and stockpiling strategy that goes all the way back to WWI. Leaving the USMC out in a realignment of this sort specifically puts Congress and the Senate on the spot about what they are willing to do under the rubric of “defense procurement.” This does not meet any minimum standards of accountability or the kind of responsibility that a civilian government needs to provide in regard to military leadership and operations.

 

Following the explication of the realignment is the implication of the contracting out of military financial accountability to private agencies, including private agencies providing the human capital backing for what is purported to be the qualifications for those authorized to oversee the audit-related processes. There is no exception or exclusion from noncompetes or proprietary requirements of the individual by virtue of their human capital accumulation, which is being required for the position. This has implications in regards to the role of procurement and contracting, including in consideration of the requirements for priority to be given to individuals whose human capital requirements include contractors with demonstrated performance in meeting timelines that are explicated herein. 

 

These three-year timelines are of concern in relationship not only to the failure – or refusal – of the United States Senate to approve three-year time frames regarding required disclosure of accusations of fraud pending at the time of a contract submission, but also correlating three-year time frames regarding the Office of Management and Budget when it comes to accounts connected to implementation of new policy. This provides substantial possibility for exploitation not only when it comes to contract bidding processes, but also in regards to waste, fraud, and even crimes connected to bad faith bidding or sabotage in the event that the three-year time frame is not met.

 

What happens to an Enterprise Resource Planning System that does not make the three-year deployment requirement?

 

I contend we have seen that in the last…three years. 

 

The intentions for how to exploit this are already provided in the proposed bill, including the three-year difference between Sec. 5(a) and Secs. 6(2) and 6(3).

 

At this time I am not going to refer to any other proposed bills by the sponsor or co-sponsor to address potential implications. What is contained herein as critique should be enough to understand the perils associated with moving forward on this bill. On the other hand, one needs to ask if this bill – while not officially taken out of committee and brought to a floor vote – was allowed to be used as an appropriation in regards to the later Pentagon audit, including by virtue of ascribement of a process to the four approved independent auditing agencies per Sec. 5?

​

Did the sponsor or the co-sponsor – or anyone who supported the appropriation based on this process – have any conflicts of interest in regards to family members and their relationships with the associated auditors, including regarding their personal human capital acquisition? Did the sponsor, co-sponsors, or anyone who supported the appropriation have any human capital conflicts of interests with the requisite auditing forms by virtue of agreement to accept funding for an election campaign from the auditing firm? Were any of them running as a candidate for President or Vice-president? Would not such a matter already have been attendant with consideration of hiring of military spouses within attendant agencies?

 

How about their children or other family members?

 

Yes they would.

 

That would include members of the military and their families who have been deported.

 

2:12 pm CST

Aug. 25, 2023

President Charity Colleen Crouse

​

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

​

2:21 pm CST

Aug. 25, 2023

President Charity Colleen Crouse