    [House Hearing, 113 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

         REDUCING WASTE IN GOVERNMENT: ADDRESSING GAO'S 2013 REPORT ON
                          DUPLICATIVE FEDERAL PROGRAMS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                             COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
                             AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 9, 2013

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 113-13

                                   __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

             Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
                          http://www.house.gov/reformm

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    80-719                    WASHINGTON : 2013
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                  COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

                     DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
    MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio                  Ranking Minority Member
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee       CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
    PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina   ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    JIM JORDAN, Ohio                         Columbia
    JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah                 JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
    TIM WALBERG, Michigan                WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
    JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
    JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan               JIM COOPER, Tennessee
    PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona               GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania         JACKIE SPEIER, California
    SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT,
    TREY GOWDY, South Carolina               Pennsylvania
    BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas              MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
    DOC HASTINGS, Washington             TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming           DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
    ROB WOODALL, Georgia                 PETER WELCH, Vermont
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              TONY CARDENAS, California
    DOUG COLLINS, Georgia                STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina         MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
    KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan        VACANCY
    RON DeSANTIS, Florida

                       Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director
                    John D. Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director
                         Robert Borden, General Counsel
                           Linda A. Good, Chief Clerk
                     David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on April 9, 2013....................................     1

                                    WITNESS

    The Honorable Gene L. Dodaro, Comptroller General of The U.S.
      Government Accountability Office
        Oral Statement...............................................     5
        Written Statement............................................     7

                                    APPENDIX

    The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings, a Member of Congress from the
      State of Maryland, Opening Statement...........................    83
    GAO Response to Follow-up from Duplication Hearing: IRS and
      Return on Investment (ROI).....................................    85

         REDUCING WASTE IN GOVERNMENT: ADDRESSING GAO'S 2013 REPORT ON
                          DUPLICATIVE FEDERAL PROGRAMS

                                  ----------

                             Tuesday, April 9, 2013

                      House of Representatives,
                  Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 p.m., in Room
    2153, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Darrell E. Issa
    [chairman of the committee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Issa, Lankford, Duncan, Lummis,
    Woodall, Collins, Meadows, Bentivolio, DeSantis, Cummings,
    Norton, Connolly, Duckworth, and Horsford.
        Staff Present: Will L. Boyington, Press Assistant; Molly
    Boyl, Parliamentarian; Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director; David
    Brewer, Counsel; Daniel Bucheli, Assistant Clerk; Steve Castor,
    General Counsel; Katelyn E. Christ, Professional Staff Member;
    John Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director; Gwen D'Luzansky, Research
    Analyst; Adam P. Fromm, Director of Member Services and
    Committee Operations; Linda Good, Chief Clerk; Tyler Grimm,
    Professional Staff Member; Christopher Hixon, Deputy Chief
    Counsel, Oversight; Michael R. Kiko, Staff Assistant; Justin
    LoFranco, Digital Director; Mark D. Marin, Director of
    Oversight; Tegan Millspaw, Professional Staff Member; James
    Robertson, Professional Staff Member; Peter Warren, Legislative
    Policy Director; Rebecca Watkins, Deputy Director of
    Communications; Eric Cho, Detailee; Krista Boyd, Minority
    Deputy Director of Legislation/Counsel; Beverly Britton Fraser,
    Minority Counsel; Adam Koshkin, Minority Research Assistant;
    Elisa LaNier, Minority Deputy Clerk; and Dave Rapallo, Minority
    Staff Director.
        Chairman Issa. The committee will come to order.
        We exist to secure two fundamental principles. First,
    Americans have a right to know that the money Washington takes
    from them is well-spent. And, second, Americans deserve an
    efficient, effective government that works for them. Our duty
    on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee is to protect
    these rights.
        Our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable
    to taxpayers because taxpayers have a right to know what they
    get from their government. It is our job to work tirelessly, in
    partnership with citizen watchdogs, to deliver the facts to the
    American people and bring genuine reform to the Federal
    bureaucracy.
        Today's hearing will focus on the GAO's third annual report
    on areas of duplication within the Federal Government. The GAO
    is our key partner in eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse and
    providing transparency and an honest, nonpartisan view of
    government and its spending.
        In the past, the GAO has made almost 300 recommendations
    among 131 issue areas to Congress and to the executive branch
    to reduce cost, duplication, fractured and overlapping
    programs. As of today, sadly, only 16 of 131 have been fully
    addressed.
        However, to be timely, just tomorrow we expect the
    President's budget to have a number of these addressed. Perhaps
    sequestration was the impetus, perhaps simply a fifth year of a
    Presidency. But as budget pressure increases and the American
    taxpayer says, ``I cannot afford to buy the same services
    twice,'' both Congress, including the GAO, and the executive
    branch must find these programs--must find this waste and must
    do our job differently.
        One of the things that this report cannot do is it cannot
    talk about the pure inefficiency of branches thinking
    separately. Even when there is not pure duplication, ultimately
    every part of government, every administrative part, at least
    26 different entities, buy separately, think separately, staff
    separately, and have separate executives to do substantially
    the same work.
        I am pleased that the committee has already been
    responsible to the GAO's--or, responsive to the GAO's
    nonpartisan recommendations. Several of the cost-saving
    recommendations addressed by the GAO were addressed in the
    Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act that was
    unanimously voted out of this committee last month.
        IT procurement is a classic example that I believe all of
    us on the dais and all of us in America can understand. The
    buying of computers, the buying of software to meet the basic
    needs of communication and of contact with the public, and
    database management is, in fact, the same both in and out of
    government, for the most part, and certainly the same within
    government.
        If we implement this and other harmonizing programs, we can
    save many of the dollars that the Comptroller General will
    speak of today. But only a thorough reorganization of
    government will, in fact, prevent these from happening again.
        My first question today to our witness will be just that.
    Isn't it inherent within our government that as long as we have
    individual budgets, individual authority, individual freedoms
    by Cabinet positions and bureaucrats, won't they inherently try
    to build their organizations, not because they are evil, not
    because they choose to waste money, but because ultimately it
    is their career?
        We need to change that. We need to create a career path in
    government that says, where you are in government and what you
    do in government do not have to be based on protecting your own
    bureaucracy. Congress must focus on this. And I am delighted to
    say that, with the President's pre-announcement of as much as
    $25 billion addressed by the GAO and others, we will, in fact,
    for the first time see a budget that dramatically reduces
    duplication.
        As I said earlier, this isn't enough. And fundamental
    change must be in Congress' hands, and we must rise to that
    occasion.
        And, with that, I would like to recognize the ranking
    member for his opening statement.
        Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I
    thank you for holding this very important hearing.
        And I want to thank you, Mr. Dodaro, for being here to
    testify about GAO's findings.
        Today's hearing will examine GAO's latest annual report on
    duplication in Federal programs and opportunities for
    significant cost savings.
        And before I go on, let me, Mr. Dodaro, thank you and your
    hardworking staff for the excellent work that you all do. So
    often, Federal employees do not get the credit that they are
    due, but the integrity and the excellent work that you all put
    out is a real benefit to not only the Congress but the people
    of the United States of America. And I just want to make sure I
    say that.
        Hearings like this one provide an important opportunity to
    identify ways to cut government waste, save money, and make our
    taxpayer dollars go further. But holding hearings is not
    enough. Congress must follow up with concrete action to save
    the taxpayers money.
        GAO issued two of these reports previously in 2011 and
    2012, and GAO made 300 specific recommendations to the
    executive branch and to Congress. This year's report provides a
    status update on those recommendations, and it finds that
    Congress is doing a much poorer job than the executive branch
    in implementing these recommendations.
        Specifically, GAO finds that the executive branch has fully
    or partially addressed 80 percent of their recommendations, but
    Congress has fully or partially addressed only 32 percent of
    their recommendations. This is a poor record that Congress
    should strive to correct.
        In this year's report, GAO highlights 11 areas of
    unimplemented recommendations from its previous reports that,
    if implemented, would save billions of dollars. Seven out of
    the 11 areas would require congressional action, but so far
    Congress has failed to act.
        For example, in previous reports GAO found that the Federal
    Government could save up to $2 billion over the next 10 years
    if Congress authorized the Department of the Interior to revise
    the royalty rates for oil and gas revenues in the Gulf of
    Mexico. But Congress has failed to act on this recommendation.
    As a result, it is listed yet again in the GAO's report for
    2013.
        GAO's new report also identifies additional ways our
    government can save money. For example, according to GAO, if
    Congress limited subsidies for crop insurance, it would save up
    to $1.2 billion a year. GAO found that agencies could save
    billions of dollars by improving oversight over their
    information technology investments, and GAO also found that
    agencies could save millions of dollars by using cloud
    computing.
        It seems to me that this is one hearing in which Democrats
    and Republicans can join forces to eliminate waste, fraud, and
    abuse.
        I shall never forget, Mr. Dodaro, when I first ran for
    Congress and was 15 points behind. And I hired this guy to
    manage my campaign, and he said, Although you are 15 points
    behind--and the race was only a 2-month race--he said, Always
    remember this. He says, Most people know what to do, they know
    the plan, but they don't execute it. He said, If you execute
    the plan, you are going to win. And I won by 15 points.
        And so I think this is about coming up with a plan and
    trying to execute it, make it happen. So whether you believe
    the savings should go toward deficit reduction or making our
    current government programs more effective and efficient, we
    should all be able to agree that a dollar wasted here is a
    dollar that is not put to better use elsewhere. I think
    Republicans and Democrats will agree that we want to see the
    taxpayers' dollars spent in an effective and efficient manner.
        Mr. Dodaro, I look forward to hearing your testimony,
    including specific recommendations to cut waste and save the
    government money. I would also appreciate your guidance on
    steps we can take to remove some of these longstanding
    recommendations from your list so we are not here again in 2014
    asking the same questions.
        And as I said a little earlier, I compliment your staff,
    but we also want them to feel that we are doing what they have
    suggested that we do after all of their hard work.
        And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
        Chairman Issa. Members may have 7 days to submit opening
    statements for the record.
        Chairman Issa. We now have the honor of welcoming our
    primary witness and the ladies and gentlemen he brought with
    him.
        The first witness is the Honorable Gene Dodaro. He is
    Comptroller General of the United States.
        We are also pleased to welcome several experts from the
    United States Government Accountability Office that will be
    with him here today. And we would ask that they also rise to be
    sworn in a minute.
        I would like to recognize, though, specifically--and there
    may be others, but--Ms. Janet St. Laurent. She is the Managing
    Director of Defense Capabilities and Management. Mr. Joel
    Willemssen is Managing Director of Information Technology. Mr.
    Mark Gaffigan is Managing Director of Natural Resources and
    Environment. And Ms. Cathleen Berrick is Managing Director of
    Homeland Security and Justice.
        Will those individuals and anyone else who may provide
    information to the Comptroller General please rise to take the
    oath? Would you please raise your right hand?
        Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
    about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
    but the truth?
        Please be seated.
        Let the record reflect that all witnesses have answered in
    the affirmative.
        Gene, you have been here so many times, it is almost crazy
    to say look at the lights. Your statements are always
    sufficiently short, and our questions are always long. So your
    entire opening statement will be placed in the record, and you
    are recognized to give your abbreviated opening statement.

     STATEMENT OF THE HON. GENE L. DODARO, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF
        THE UNITED STATES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

        Mr. Dodaro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a
    pleasure to be here this afternoon.
        Ranking Member Cummings, I appreciate your comments about
    our staff.
        Members of the committee, I am very pleased to be here
    today to discuss our most recent report on ways to make
    government more efficient and effective. We, in this report,
    highlighted 17 areas where we have focused on areas of
    fragmentation, overlap, or duplication in the Federal
    Government and made recommendations to address these issues.
        For example, from 2002 until most recently, the Department
    of Defense has moved from two camouflage ground-based uniforms
    to up to seven so that they are service-based purchases rather
    than joint purchases, thereby foregoing the opportunity for
    tens of millions of dollars of savings but also, importantly,
    from ensuring equivalent protection of servicemembers during
    joint operations. We have made recommendations to address that
    issue.
        Also, in the Medicaid program, which is an area where there
    is a large amount of improper payments, billions of dollars a
    year, the Department of Health and Human Services, CMS, has
    taken a number of actions. However, we have pointed out one
    action where they actually hired two contractors for every
    State--one to review the data to decide which claims to audit
    and another contractor to audit the claims. We said that is
    inefficient, duplicative; one contractor will do.
        And then, also, in the area of geospatial or mapping
    information, there are billions of dollars spent every year by
    the Federal Government to buy this information, and it has been
    well reported that there are duplicative investments.
        And so we have focused on recommendations to ensure more
    effective coordination of a joint committee that is focused on
    these activities. It needs to do a better job. OMB needs to
    have more visibility and to be able to prevent these
    duplicative investments. And it needs to become a priority.
        In this case, Mr. Cummings, they have a plan. It is not
    executed, Mr. Chairman, and it is not a priority. And it has to
    be both, thereby reaping benefits of millions of dollars in
    this area.
        Now, we also identify 14 other areas where there are
    opportunities for cost savings and revenue enhancements.
        In cost savings, we have testified before this committee on
    the Medicare demonstration pilot on Medicare Advantage and
    recommended the pilot be canceled. At the time we did that,
    there was the possibility of saving $8.3 billion because this
    pilot only rewards average performing plans and is not really
    going to demonstrate what it is intended to demonstrate. Right
    now, there is still an opportunity to save $2 billion, but
    Congress has to act soon in order to cancel this pilot.
        Also, in the Medicaid area, there are billions of dollars
    spent, in addition to reimbursements for claims, in order to
    make sure that there is money provided for uncompensated care.
    We think there is not enough oversight over these areas, and
    there are costs being reimbursed that are well in excess of the
    costs that are spent to deliver those services, and this
    doesn't make sense. So there needs to be more transparency and
    accountability.
        We made recommendations on the revenue side, for example.
    We have made a number of recommendations to the IRS in order to
    help close a $385 billion tax gap. There are also opportunities
    for the Congress to legislate in the tobacco tax area to make
    the tax equivalent for similar types of products. That could
    garner the Federal Government several hundred millions of
    dollars and up to a little over a billion dollars a year and
    make that more equitable.
        Now, turning to our prior reports, if I could direct your
    attention to the chart here, this shows the percent of actions
    that have been taken on the 130 recommendations we have had
    already. Twelve percent, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, 16, or
    12 percent, have been acted on. Sixty-six percent have been, or
    87 of them, we have partial addressment. And 21 percent, or 27
    of those actions, have not been addressed at all. So there are
    plenty of opportunities.
        And the opportunities are throughout government. I will
    show my last chart. This is, for all 3 years, we have 162
    areas, 380 specific recommendations for action, that go across
    virtually every major department and agency of the Federal
    Government. Many here are in defense, HHS, and Treasury, which
    are about 56 percent of total obligations for the year.
        So, many opportunities, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to
    answering your questions today and working with this committee
    to make government more efficient and effective on behalf of
    the American people.
        Chairman Issa. Thank you.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Dodaro follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.046

        Chairman Issa. I will recognize myself for a couple of--a
    quick statement and then a couple of questions.
        The ranking member in his opening statement mentioned
    raising the revenues from drilling of oil and natural gas. That
    is not a cost savings. He called it a cost savings. It is a tax
    increase, right? It is not one of your recommendations that you
    simply increase the percentages that you charge for royalties?
        Mr. Dodaro. What we recommended is that the Department--
    there were studies showing that other agencies--that other
    entities that give those leases were gaining more revenues from
    the leases than the Federal Government. So we recommended that
    Interior conduct a study to determine whether or not it was,
    you know, maximizing the revenue capabilities. The study has
    been done, but they haven't made any recommendations.
        Chairman Issa. Well, but isn't it true that they actually
    don't know what they are entitled to? They are not able to
    properly audit how much oil or natural gas they get out? There
    is a huge amount of areas that have not been available for
    leasing?
        In other words, if we were to look at this as a savings--I
    kind of look at it as a tax or a revenue, but if we were to
    look at it as revenue, we would have to make these things
    comparable to the highest and best selling price you could find
    in the private sector--in other words, get at least what you
    would get on private lands--recognizing that the State of
    Texas, for example, has rights in shallow water. So there is a
    comparable between the State of Texas in the State versus our
    offshore leases and so on. But it would be there, it would be
    Federal lands for grazing.
        And, ultimately, wouldn't there be a return if they simply
    got their audit? And I know this is where you have an expert
    about to jump up.
        Mr. Dodaro. Right.
        Chairman Issa. But if they did proper audits so they
    actually knew what they were entitled to and could ensure they
    get 100 cents on the dollar of what they are entitled to.
        Mr. Dodaro. Yes. And I will ask our expert, Mark, to come
    to the table.
        But there are really two issues. And we are looking at a
    revenue issue, all right? Number one, are we charging the right
    royalties in the first place? And, number two, are we really
    getting what we are owed due to the volume and extraction of
    the oil? So you are exactly right.
        Chairman Issa. And, as you know, this committee, on a very
    bipartisan basis, went back and forth trying to get the
    revenues. There were contract failures that led to no revenues,
    when, in fact, that wasn't the intent nor the letter of the law
    that Congress passed.
        Please, Mark.
        Mr. Gaffigan. Thank you, Chairman Issa. Yes. And we enjoyed
    working with your staff, Larry Brady and company, on that back
    in the day.
        There are sort of three parts of this. One is sort of the
    product verification, and that is what you are alluding to. We
    have 19 recommendations we made to what was MMS and is now----
        Chairman Issa. Changed the names, but they are still not
    doing their job, right?
        Mr. Gaffigan. --still within the Department of Interior.
    They have made some progress, and that is why we addressed it
    as partially addressed. They have gotten together a committee
    that meets to talk about current trends in measurement.
        But they are missing in some other areas. For example, they
    really don't have real realtime production data so they can
    verify, you know, what we are producing.
        The other part of it is the diligent development concern.
    We have leases that aren't being--that aren't being utilized.
    And there have been several proposals in Congress, and Interior
    has made some proposals, to charge a rent for those leases that
    aren't being used as a motivation to seek development. And that
    is part of where that $2 billion potentially could come from.
        Chairman Issa. Although that wouldn't be able to come under
    current leases.
        Mr. Gaffigan. Right.
        Chairman Issa. That would be part of the bid process. So
    wouldn't there be an offset in that if I know I might have to
    pay the rent, in my bidding process I might bid a little less?
        Mr. Gaffigan. Yeah, that is definitely a possibility. But
    the idea is it would provide that incentive to them.
        Chairman Issa. Sure.
        Mr. Gaffigan. And the other part is the revenue collection.
    We did recommend that they do some studies on what the
    government take was compared to others. They have done three of
    those studies, but they just haven't acted with the
    recommendation to either affirm what we are charging now makes
    sense or whether we want to adjust it, up or down.
        Chairman Issa. Sure. Well, I can tell you that it is a heck
    of a deal until you get into the regulatory time it takes to
    get an oil well or a natural gas well drilled sometimes. But
    you are absolutely right, we should try to maximize that
    revenue.
        Switching slightly, Mr. Dodaro, your previous report and
    this report continue to identify the IT investment. And I am
    particularly interested in your view on what I--if I read it
    correctly, from 2012, still today, OMB has essentially been
    tasked to find out how much is being spent on IT. We recently
    did a hearing on this $80 billion nominal amount.
        But if I read correctly, what you are telling me is that it
    is underreported, that, in fact, because they are not reporting
    their IT expenditures to the OMB and the OMB is not forcing
    them to, that, in fact, we may be spending more and spending it
    poorer.
        Is that a succinct way of saying it?
        Mr. Dodaro. Yeah. I will ask Joel Willemssen to come up and
    explain that. But I think that that is a correct statement.
        And I also would say, Mr. Chairman, I meant in my opening
    statement to commend this committee for passage of the IT
    Acquisition Reform Act. That act touches on a number of areas
    that we have reported in all 3 years.
        Chairman Issa. If you stop over at the Senate, mention
    that.
        Mr. Dodaro. I will. I will be there next month.
        Joel?
        Mr. Willemssen. Mr. Chairman, as you mentioned, when OMB
    talks about the amount of money the Federal Government spends
    on IT, it is an understated figure for a variety of reasons.
        One is that a number of smaller independent agencies don't
    report this information to OMB. That is about 58 agencies. In
    addition, there are a number of IT projects, whether they are
    R&D projects or space projects, which include a huge percentage
    of IT, that are often not reported.
        In addition, from a total Federal Government perspective,
    we are only talking about a slice of the executive branch. We
    are not talking about the legislative branch, we not talking
    about the judicial branch. In addition, the intel area is not
    included.
        So, with all of those exclusions, what is the total amount
    spent? Nobody knows. Is it slightly north of $100 billion
    annually? Probably, but we don't know for sure.
        Chairman Issa. Thank you.
        I will mention, the only thing I take away from my time on
    the Select Intelligence Committee is that I learned the
    definition of ``petabyte'' of data. So I share with you that
    that it is a lot of procurement over there.
        Mr. Cummings?
        Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Dodaro, you know, the more I am in government--and I
    have been here 17 years, been in the State legislature for 14--
    you know, I am always reminded of something that my mother used
    to say. She said, So often you have motion, commotion, and
    emotion, and no results.
        You know, the older I get, the more I am concerned about
    that. Because we come here, the government spends billions of
    dollars for staff, you have people working 365 a year. And the
    question is, you know, how do we--you mentioned a few success
    stories in your opening. And you, you know--and I know you want
    to see things implemented.
        Have you seen something that gives you some hope so that
    when you go back to your staff you say, You know what, guys,
    you know--and ladies and gentlemen, we have done some great
    work, and, you know, I think this is an area that we are going
    to see some change?
        Because I can imagine that--and I alluded to this in my
    opening--that when people work hard and give it everything they
    have, and then if they see the recommendations put on the shelf
    and turn dusty, they begin to wonder whether or not they are
    truly feeding their souls. In other words, a lot of people come
    to government because they want to make a difference, the ones
    I talk to. And so when they don't see those differences being
    made, they get frustrated and they may move on to something
    else. And these are great people.
        So I am trying to get to bottom lines. You know, I go back
    to that ``motion, commotion, emotion, and no results.''
    Because, as I say to people all the time, we only have a
    limited amount of time on this earth and a limited amount of
    time in these positions.
        The question is, I mean, do you see something, can you tell
    us something, based upon the things that you have seen enacted,
    that might help us to get there? Are you following my question?
        Mr. Dodaro. Yes. Yes. Definitely. Definitely.
        First of all, 80 percent of our recommendations at GAO are
    implemented. I mean, we are----
        Mr. Cummings. So you feel good about that.
        Mr. Dodaro. We feel good about that.
        Mr. Cummings. Is that something new? Is that new?
        Mr. Dodaro. No. That is about the average----
        Mr. Cummings. Great.
        Mr. Dodaro. And, actually, last year, there were financial
    benefits accrued to the Federal Government, over $55 billion,
    as a result of GAO work. That is $105 for every dollar invested
    in GAO. So we feel good about it.
        Now----
        Mr. Cummings. But do you all have a party or anything,
    like, when you have one of these big--I mean, seriously.
        Mr. Dodaro. No.
        Mr. Cummings. No?
        Mr. Dodaro. No.
        Mr. Cummings. Oh, all right.
        Chairman Issa. We would investigate----
        Mr. Cummings. That is right, you would be investigated.
        Mr. Dodaro. Yeah, right, right, right. We just keep feeding
    our souls. We just keep going at it.
        Chairman Issa. You can have ``Donut Friday.''
        Mr. Dodaro. But, I mean, among that, though, I will just
    give two examples of good successes related to this area.
        We recommended that the ethanol tax credit be looked at
    because it was duplicating the renewable fuel standard.
    Congress let that tax credit lapse, and that was about $5.7
    billion in revenue losses to the Federal Government.
        We also recommended that--DOD was planning on sending all
    the families of the servicemembers over to South Korea to
    enable them to have more of a normal tour of duty over there.
    We said, you know, that is going to cost a lot of money; have
    you done a business case? They did the business case, decided
    against it, avoided over $3 billion that would have been spent
    on that activity.
        And there are stories like that all the time. We are here
    talking about some tough issues that haven't been addressed yet
    and need to be addressed. But be sure that the people at GAO
    are working hard to make sure that these things do get
    addressed.
        Mr. Cummings. I want to go back to, you know, this whole
    oil and gas royalties. In that report 2 years ago, you found
    that the Federal Government could receive an additional $1.7
    billion in oil and gas royalties over the next 10 years if the
    Federal Government started getting a fair market value for the
    leases. Is that right?
        Mr. Gaffigan. The estimate that we got from Department of
    the Interior was $2 billion over 10 years. About $800 million
    would come from the rents that I spoke of and another $1.2
    billion from changes to the royalties.
        Mr. Cummings. And GAO has also included management of
    Federal oil and gas resources on its annual high-risk list for
    the last 3 years. Is that right?
        Mr. Gaffigan. Right. I think we put that on in 2009.
        Mr. Cummings. And do you get frustrated?
        Mr. Gaffigan. We stay at it. We see some progress being
    made. There is still some work to be done. For example, we were
    concerned about the reorganization, and we think they came
    through on that with the high-risk series.
        But we still think in two major areas they have some work
    to do: the revenue collection, which we alluded to, and as well
    as the human capital challenge of having the staff to be able
    to implement these programs.
        Mr. Cummings. And you all said, Mr. Dodaro, that the
    administration had at least partially implemented 80 percent of
    the recommendations and the Congress, 32 percent. Is that
    right?
        Mr. Dodaro. That is correct. And, actually, if you look at,
    though, to put it in perspective, if you just look at fully
    addressed, executive branch and Congress are about the same,
    about 20 percent. But if you look--the executive branch has a
    lot more partially addressed areas. In order to get a partially
    addressed in Congress, you have to get a bill at least reported
    out of committee to be able to do it.
        But what you said is correct.
        Mr. Cummings. Now, last year, the Obama administration
    requested a legislative change from Congress to allow it to
    implement certain recommendations. The administration requested
    authority from Congress in its fiscal year 2012 budget request
    to charge a $4-per-acre annual fee on nonproducing Federal oil
    and gas leases, but Congress still refused to consider
    legislation to implement this recommendation, according to your
    report. Is that correct?
        Mr. Gaffigan. That is correct. And that is the basis of the
    estimate from Interior of almost $800 million over 10 years.
        Mr. Cummings. I see.
        I see my time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Issa. Thank you.
        I just want to ask a clarifying question so everybody else
    understands what is in Congress to do and what is in the
    administration to do.
        We in the House, including you, have about $4.5 billion in
    budget. You are not talking about us saving money on our
    budget. When you talk about ``congressional,'' you are talking
    about the need to pass laws, presumably that the President
    would sign, and that is what is on our plate.
        When you talk ``the President,'' you talk about an
    Executive authority. He gets on the phone and says to the OMB
    Director, Do it.
        Am I correct that that is----
        Mr. Dodaro. Yes. Yes. That is exactly right. That is
    exactly right.
        Chairman Issa. Okay. And I think the gentleman knows that.
    I just, hopefully, for all the new Members particularly, that
    one of them--I am not trying to make excuses for our body, but
    one of them requires that we get the Senate to agree with us,
    the President to agree with us, and make a law. The other is,
    in fact, direct. All you have to do is order it done, and if it
    is not done, you find somebody new that you order to have it
    done.
        It is a little bit of a difference. And I am not making
    excuses because I think we should have a ``partially done'' on
    every one of your recommendations.
        And speaking of people that would get a lot of that done,
    we now recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lankford.
        Mr. Lankford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        There is a semi-unprecedented recommendation that is in the
    middle of all this, as well, and it is the Medicare Advantage
    demonstration program. GAO seemed to stick its neck out last
    year and to say there is a program that HHS is implementing
    that, I think the term was, is outside the bounds of the
    statute, what they are given permission to do. And it is about
    an $8 billion program that you said is not only wasteful but it
    is probably not even legal, though, obviously, you didn't make
    that statement. The GAO was very careful to say, We are not
    attorneys, we are not making this recommendation about the
    legality of it.
        But of all the demonstration programs that have happened
    since 1995, it is larger than all of them combined. You
    recommended and said, This program is not demonstrating
    anything; we recommend to the administration that it be
    canceled. Was that program canceled?
        Mr. Dodaro. No.
        Mr. Lankford. Can you determine why the program came into
    existence? A program that is outside of the bounds of the
    statute, that they don't have legal authority to do, that is
    larger than all of the demonstration programs combined. Were
    you able to get an answer from the administration why they are
    doing this program at all?
        Mr. Dodaro. Yeah, with the chairman's permission, I would
    like to bring up another person who wasn't sworn in.
        Chairman Issa. Oh, no, absolutely.
        Mr. Dodaro. Okay. James Cosgrove was our witness before
    this committee and is our expert on this matter.
        Chairman Issa. Just to be technical, please rise and raise
    your right hand.
        Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give will be
    the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help
    you God?
        Let the record reflect an affirmative also.
        And you are in.
        Mr. Lankford. What is your best guess of why the
    administration did it in the first place?
        Mr. Cosgrove. The stated intention from the administration
    was that they wanted to test a way of giving plans a stronger
    incentive to improve their quality.
        Mr. Lankford. The way they had designed the program, was
    that possible to get that outcome?
        Mr. Cosgrove. What we determined was that it was impossible
    for an evaluation to be done to see whether the demonstration
    worked or not, which is why we recommended that the
    demonstration be canceled.
        Mr. Lankford. So they dumped $8.3 billion over 3 years into
    a program to demonstrate something that it is not possible to
    demonstrate something with. Why would they do that? They are
    very smart folks. Could you ever determine, did you ever get an
    answer back from them?
        We had a hearing with this committee, as well, to try to
    ask some of the same questions. Were you able to determine why
    they are spending this 8-point-some-odd billion dollars?
        Mr. Cosgrove. What we have is simply their stated reason
    for doing the demonstration.
        This is also in the context that Congress passed and the
    President signed into law provisions that would have given
    plans an incentive to increase their quality. CMS, instead of
    implementing those provisions, set those aside and implemented
    the demonstration program instead.
        Mr. Dodaro. We are still, in this report that we are
    talking about today, recommending that this demonstration be
    canceled. There is still $2 billion that hasn't been spent yet
    that the Congress could act to stop the demonstration.
        Mr. Lankford. Correct. So Medicare Advantage was to be cut,
    based on the existing law that is sitting out there. The
    Affordable Care Act I assume is what you are talking about when
    you talk about the law that has been passed. There was a
    reduction in the Affordable Care Act. That reduction was
    replaced with this demonstration program, appropriately right
    before last year's election, to sustain it over 3 years, and
    then it goes away at that point.
        So we are still trying to figure out where they came up
    with $8 billion to be able to move into a program that everyone
    said this is not legal and that everyone has said this is
    wasteful, it is not actually demonstrating--you can't do a
    demonstration project that doesn't demonstrate anything, and be
    able to just insert money into the process on that.
        We are still dealing with the same dynamic here of now we
    have $2 billion left. Their full recommendation is, continue to
    cut this off for next year because it is not actually
    accomplishing anything? Is that correct?
        Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
        Mr. Cosgrove. Yes.
        Mr. Lankford. There is also the Medicaid portion of this,
    as well, to deal with the uncompensated care. Can we go through
    a little bit of those recommendations also? Because you made
    some pretty strong recommendations on that. This is a high-risk
    area and has been for a while.
        Mr. Dodaro. Yes. I would like to bring our expert up on
    this, Mr. Chairman, Carolyn Yocom, please, if I might indulge
    the committee.
        Chairman Issa. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the
    testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole
    truth, and nothing but the truth?
        Let the record reflect another yes.
        Mr. Lankford. Thank you.
        Let's talk a little about the recommendations that are
    there for uncompensated care reimbursement from Medicaid going
    to the States. What was the recommendation?
        Ms. Yocom. One of the main recommendations had to do with
    the way that States calculate their disproportionate share
    payments and the use of supplemental payments. In general, the
    issue that--there are several issues. One of the main points is
    getting some transparency and some accountability to how States
    are managing these payments.
        We have also suggested that Congress require CMS to take
    three broad actions: first, to improve the State reporting of
    these supplemental payments; secondly, to clarify the methods
    of calculating how these payments will be made; and then,
    thirdly, to require independent audits of these payments.
        Mr. Lankford. Are there some States that are more prone to
    these supplemental payments than others?
        Ms. Yocom. That is a difficult question to answer because
    we don't have the full picture of all the supplemental payments
    that are out there.
        Mr. Dodaro. But the nature of these payments has grown over
    the years quite extensively, correct, Carolyn?
        Ms. Yocom. Yes.
        Mr. Lankford. Right. But, at this point, we don't even know
    which States are more open to this or using it more often than
    others, even able to get that level of information from CMS?
        Ms. Yocom. We really don't. What we know is that reporting
    on these payments is improving but it is still not 100 percent.
    And we know that from 2010 there was $32 billion and in 2011 it
    is up to $43 billion, so they are on the rise.
        Mr. Dodaro. And, basically, I believe in this area that
    Congress will need to act to require CMS to take these actions.
    And I believe it is appropriate. There is a lot of money at
    stake here, and there is not a proper amount of transparency
    and accountability.
        Mr. Lankford. Thank you.
        With that, I yield back.
        Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
        We now go to the very timely gentlelady from Illinois, Ms.
    Duckworth.
        Ms. Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Dodaro, I was particularly interested in the portion of
    the report which deals with the need for better collaboration
    between the VA and the DOD in their delivery of healthcare
    services. I think a lot of folks in the civilian community
    think that it is the same population, and oftentimes it is not.
        For example, the VA has not had to deal with combat
    veterans giving birth before, but since Iraq and Afghanistan we
    actually now have female veterans of childbearing age, and yet
    that care is not available on the VA side. So, being able to go
    to DOD for that care will actually cut down costs, as opposed
    to sending them to civilian providers.
        I was especially interested in your discussion about
    improving the exchange of electronic health records between DOD
    and VA, and I was hoping that you could perhaps elaborate and
    summarize that. Because they are the two systems. We do have in
    Illinois and also in Georgia two joint DOD-VA facilities that
    are supposed to be becoming a single system and they are really
    not.
        Could you speak to that a little bit?
        Mr. Dodaro. Yes. I find this area very perplexing. And Mr.
    Willemssen has been following it for many, many years, and I
    would like him to provide--he will give you a thorough answer.
        Mr. Willemssen. Congresswoman, in 2011, the DOD and VA
    Secretaries agreed that they were going to pursue a unified,
    single system for veterans and Active Duty personnel.
    Unfortunately, just this past February, they elected to no
    longer pursue that route, and they now are going back to trying
    to have interoperable exchange of information between the major
    two systems.
        We testified on this in late February and expressed concern
    about the lack of a plan to do that and how they are actually
    going to carry it out. Not the least to say is the amount of
    time that has passed and the money that was spent in trying to
    develop that single system, which has now been set aside, and
    they are going back to their original plans of trying to go
    with the two systems.
        Ms. Duckworth. What was the reason for going with the two
    different systems?
        Mr. Willemssen. At the February hearing, the DOD and the VA
    witnesses said that they thought they could do it in a more
    cost-effective manner by continuing with the two systems.
    However, when pressed on that, they said the analysis of that
    was not yet complete. So we will have to wait and see whether
    the conclusion of that analysis bears that out or not.
        Mr. Dodaro. I think the analysis also ought to include an
    analysis of using one of the two systems that they currently
    have and just going with it and having the other agency adopt
    that system, as well.
        I mean, this has gone on way too long. I think a lot of
    people, both veterans and military, Active Duty military,
    deserve a better system. And it is possible. The technical
    difficulties aren't the problem here; it is a management
    decision, and there needs to be some action taken. I would
    encourage the Congress to have active oversight over this issue
    until there is a satisfactory resolution.
        Ms. Duckworth. Am I correct in my understanding that
    between the two systems, the VA's VistA system and the DOD's
    AHLTA system, the VistA system is generally perceived to be the
    better system but we are not abandoning AHLTA? Is that
    understanding correct?
        Mr. Willemssen. AHLTA is not being abandoned at this time.
    That is correct.
        Ms. Duckworth. But it is not--but the VistA system is
    superior. Is that--from the practitioner's point of view, those
    who have to use it.
        Mr. Willemssen. I would hesitate to come to that
    generalization. It depends on the user population you are
    talking to. But as a generic conclusion, most would probably
    agree with your statement.
        Ms. Duckworth. So, then, if we were to go with what you
    just said, Mr. Dodaro, as a recommendation, which is just use
    one of the two instead of trying to build a whole third one,
    which is even more expensive, how do we go about doing that? Is
    it a requirement from the White House? Is it Congress saying
    that you will use one of these two systems? That seems to be
    meddling down to a level in the services that we may not want
    to get into.
        Mr. Dodaro. Yeah. Well, my recommendation would be for the
    Congress to ask for the analysis that supports their current
    decision and ask for that analysis to be expanded to include
    the pros and cons of going to one of the two other systems and
    to see, at that point, you know, what the proper decision would
    be. And if the Congress then is not satisfied with that
    decision, it can legislate.
        Ms. Duckworth. Do you think that--in their testimony, well,
    what they are saying is it is too expensive to develop a new
    system and they are going back to the two. Is it because they
    were each counting their money that each was spending and not
    the cumulative between the two together? Do you see what I am
    saying?
        Mr. Willemssen. I want to clarify one thing. When the 2011
    decision was made to go to a unified system, it was not
    necessarily stated that they would develop a brand-new one. In
    fact, we assumed they would default to one of the existing
    ones, from a cost perspective. So I just wanted to make that--
    clarify that for you.
        Ms. Duckworth. Thank you. I think this goes back to Mr.
    Chairman, what he has been working on with the purchase of
    software.
        And I yield back my time.
        Mrs. Lummis. [presiding.] The gentlelady's time has
    expired.
        We will now yield our time to the gentleman from Georgia,
    Mr. Collins.
        Mr. Collins. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Just a quick question. You used a term there, and before I
    get to it, you talked about depending on the population that
    was using it. Is that just a very nice way of saying that this
    is the one I am trained on so I like it better?
        Mr. Willemssen. Yeah, and depending on the practitioners.
        Mr. Collins. Right. So, basically, we are not talking
    costs, we are not talking effective. We are just saying, I was
    trained on this, I like this better. We are not looking at a
    big picture.
        I think we are hitting--I think that right there may have
    summed up the entire hearing that is really concerning me, is
    we are looking at what we like, we are looking at what we are
    trained on. And in many of these departments--but I appreciate
    the way you said that. It was a very nice way of saying it,
    just basically I like what I am doing and I don't want to
    change.
        Mr. Willemssen. That is correct.
        Mr. Collins. Okay. Thank you.
        An overview question here. One, as I was looking over this
    report, which are always fascinating, I was--as a boy from
    north Georgia growing up, I didn't realize catfish needed that
    much inspection, but--I usually just caught them. You know, I
    inspected them and said, Yep, that is a good one, put it in the
    bucket, you know, we are good.
        An overview question here. What is the greatest problem--
    and it may not be an easy answer--fragmentation, duplication,
    or overlap?
        Mr. Dodaro. Well, of the three, we typically find most of
    it in the overlap area.
        Mr. Collins. Okay.
        Mr. Dodaro. Among those three options, I would say.
        Mr. Collins. Okay.
        Going back to the reality of what you had commented on
    earlier, I was reading in the report on page 211, and it came
    to the checked baggage screening, TSA. And this one really
    disturbed me as we were going along. And, basically, your
    report says that TSA has not yet conducted a study to determine
    about the 90 percent cost-share. And it went on and actually
    stated this. It said that it generally applies--the
    reimbursable agreements of the checked baggage--absent
    direction from Congress that TSA conduct a study, the agency
    currently has no plans to do so.
        Ms. Berrick. That is correct.
        TSA was actually mandated to do that study back in 2004.
    They attempted to do the study in 2006, but they really
    couldn't reach consensus. Some of the issues they were
    grappling with was, what was the appropriate Federal role in
    terms of paying for these systems? They also couldn't reach
    consensus on who benefited the most. Was it the Federal
    Government? Was it the traveling public? Was it the airports?
    Because there are significant benefits to the airports,
    themselves, in terms of fewer bags being lost and stolen.
        So they couldn't reach consensus, so they decided just to
    stay with the 90 percent cost-share. And they identified that
    they wouldn't review that again unless Congress directed it.
        Mr. Collins. I mean, again, shouldn't the appropriate role
    of any Federal agency, stewards of taxpayer dollars, be to run
    the most efficient, most productive organization that they can
    and not to bog down in what-if scenarios?
        Ms. Berrick. We agree. We think they need to tackle this
    issue. We think they need to look at it. There are
    opportunities for savings here.
        Also related to checked baggage, we also identified that if
    TSA deployed more of these in-line systems, they could achieve
    significant savings just in reduced personnel costs.
        Mr. Collins. Well, I think it is very disturbing that they
    had a mandate do it, they chose--that they found problems and
    stopped. I mean, it is a story here almost like my child. When
    my child, once I tell him to do something, he says, Well, it is
    hard, Daddy, I don't want to do it, so we give up. This is the
    part that most Americans don't understand and they don't get
    when we come to this.
        Moving along, page 41, the uniform procurement. As a member
    of the Air Force, this one is one, as just a general member, it
    is like any new--and with no offense to my higher-up generals--
    it is like the new general comes along, ``We need a new
    uniform.'' That is crazy. And especially when we are doing--is
    this a service branch issue?
        And I agree with my colleague here, not wanting to meddle,
    but why do we come along in looking at the cost of production--
    I am still trying to figure out why it took $400,000 to redo
    the Navy uniform when they actually look like the others. I
    would have done it for a lot less than that because it is the
    same pattern.
        What can we do there? Or is there anything we can do there
    to continue this process? I know the Air Force has now decided
    that they will use something with Army, but they are not really
    sure what they can use. I can use a lot of examples here of
    people that didn't like the new ones. And, really, a force
    protection issue here.
        Can you elaborate on that real quickly?
        Ms. St. Laurent. Yes, I definitely think there is more that
    the Department of Defense can do. It has a board that is
    responsible for establishing policies and procedures with
    regard to uniforms and managing this whole process.
        And there are a couple of issues. One is certainly from a
    cost perspective. The Defense Logistics Agency will waive a fee
    if two services go together and procure uniforms. And that is
    really probably just the tip of the iceberg here in terms of
    potential cost savings because there could be further
    efficiencies and economies of scale if two services are
    purchasing uniforms.
        I think a lot of this, again, stems to each service has
    their own culture, each service has their own acquisition
    process. And it is often easier for them to be able to go their
    own route, do their own testing, and develop a uniform exactly
    to their own specifications.
        But particularly in a joint environment, there are also
    security and safety risks if you have people in a combat
    environment with different types of uniforms, different
    camouflage patterns.
        Mr. Collins. I have experienced that in Iraq.
        Real quickly, and I am out of time, but are personnel
    costs--I know you look at the cost of the program savings, but
    is personnel, like elimination or others, included in your
    potential cost savings or streamlining?
        Mr. Dodaro. It depends on which of the options we are
    talking about.
        Mr. Collins. Okay. And I will have some questions I will
    provide after, because I would like some answers on that.
        Mr. Dodaro. Yeah, we'd be happy to talk to you more about
    it.
        But I would just say on one point, this combat uniform
    issue, if you look at many of our other options, there are much
    more expensive examples of what is happening here--unmanned
    aircraft systems, electronic warfare. There are huge
    opportunities there to be more efficient in the Department.
        Mr. Collins. Well, thank you for your work.
        And I yield back my time.
        Mrs. Lummis. Thank you.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Nevada, Mr.
    Horsford.
        Mr. Horsford. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Dodaro, good to see you again. Thank you for your
    agency's work.
        I have a technical question first, just on the report
    itself. Once you do a review of an agency, I am reading through
    here, sometimes an agency comments, sometimes they don't
    respond at all. What is the requirement on an agency to respond
    to your--the GAO's recommendations?
        Mr. Dodaro. Yeah, there is really no requirement. We give
    them an opportunity in accordance with our procedures and our
    generally accepted auditing standards, provide them an
    opportunity to comment. There is no mandatory requirement that
    they do so.
        Mr. Horsford. That seems like a fundamental flaw in the
    process, as well. As a former State legislator, you do an audit
    or a review of an agency, at a minimum that agency should
    respond to those recommendations to say whether--you know, and,
    again, sometimes they have, they agree. Sometimes they explain
    further why there may be an overlap or duplication. And
    sometimes they don't respond at all, which, to me, if they are
    not responding at all, that is completely being unresponsive.
        Mr. Dodaro. Yeah, I don't disagree with you at all on that.
    And two things I would say. One is it is relatively rare when
    they don't; usually they do. And they will agree or disagree.
    Sometimes they will comment on our findings but not on the
    recommendations. If I think it is a significant issue, I try to
    meet with the heads of the agencies and talk them through those
    issues. But, by and large, we get good comments and good
    cooperation because they know it is in their interest.
        Mr. Horsford. Okay.
        So let me turn specifically to the higher education
    assistance portion. And another technical question is, you say
    here that, as of April 9th, GAO has not been able to assess the
    2013 areas identified. What does that mean?
        Mr. Dodaro. Let me ask Barbara.
        Madam Chair, we need to have her sworn in, please, if I
    might?
        Mrs. Lummis. Thank you.
        Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or
    affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the
    truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
        Thank you, ma'am. You may take your seat.
        Let the record reflect that the witness answered in the
    affirmative.
        Ms. Bovbjerg. My name is Barbara Bovbjerg. I am the
    Managing Director for Education, Workforce, and Income Security
    Issues.
        And we wanted to discuss higher education assistance,
    because there are three different kinds of assistance out
    there. There are grants, like the Pell Grants. There are
    student loans, loans to students and parents. And there are tax
    benefits. And these are not necessarily well-coordinated.
        There are programs in Education, in the Veterans Affairs
    Department, in DOD that assist students with education. There
    are multiple tools for different situations; they don't all get
    used. There is not a lot of coordination across agencies.
        Mr. Horsford. But on this report, it shows an ``A'' next to
    ``Completion.'' What does that mean?
        Ms. Bovbjerg. You are talking about the STEM program, I am
    thinking.
        Mr. Horsford. No, it says, Area 16, Higher Education
    Assistance. You know, if it is fully enclosed, it has been
    addressed; if it is half-enclosed, it is partially. And then
    there is a thing that says, ``A, as of April 9, 2013, we have
    not assessed the 2013 areas identified.''
        Mr. Dodaro. Oh. Okay. It is because it is a new issue, it
    is really not addressed. That is a footnote A. That means it is
    a brand-new issue, and so we haven't yet--they haven't had a
    chance to implement it yet.
        Mr. Horsford. Okay.
        So let me ask my question specifically. And you pointed out
    the three agencies--actually, four different Federal agencies
    that administer Federal aid. On one of them, the report states
    that, in 2009, 1.5 million taxpayers failed to file for an
    education credit for which they were eligible.
        Have the Treasury and Education Departments taken any steps
    to improve the public's knowledge of these education tax
    credits, to your knowledge?
        Ms. Bovbjerg. As in many areas, they are starting to think
    about this. We had suggested that they look at the
    demographics, at the characteristics of the households and
    individuals who were eligible but didn't file.
        We also asked that they improve the information to them.
    People don't well understand how these programs work. They also
    don't understand how the Federal aid programs work generally.
    So the application, the FAFSA that you fill out for Federal
    financial assistance, even though there has been an effort on
    the Department of Education to streamline that and to
    prepopulate it with IRS information, it can be difficult and
    tedious for people to fill out, and people don't.
        And so there are people who not only don't get to take
    advantage of the tax benefits that could accrue for education
    expenditures, but there are doubtless people who don't apply
    for benefits for which they would be qualified and perhaps do
    not get the education to which they may be entitled.
        Mr. Horsford. Yeah, and, obviously, that is troubling at a
    time when the costs for education are going up.
        Madam Chair, I know my time has expired. I don't know if
    the time of her having to be sworn in counts against me or if I
    get any extra time or not.
        Mrs. Lummis. I will grant the gentleman additional time.
        Mr. Horsford. Thank you.
        On the improper payments in the VA's comprehensive Post-9/
    11 GI Bill program, apparently that quadrupled between 2009 and
    2010. And your report recommends that the Department of Ed
    share best practices with the VA and the Department of Defense.
    In what ways do you recommend that that collaboration occur?
        Ms. Bovbjerg. Well, one of the issues when this program was
    first implemented was how to get improper payments back. And if
    the funding is going to the schools, it is much easier to get
    things back because we have institutional relationships and
    there are a number of people getting funding via the school. We
    can withhold money--we can do different things to get that
    money back. It is much more difficult when it goes to the
    individual.
        And this was something that was really a little bumpy at
    the beginning of the Post-9/11 GI Bill implementation. And we
    felt that the Department of Education has for many years run
    grant programs and loan programs for students in higher ed and
    that they might have been able to help with certain common
    practices that are used.
        Now, in the VA's defense, they have begun talking to the
    Department of Education. I don't want to hold out the education
    programs as being perfect, by any means, but, certainly, there
    is a level of experience and lessons learned from many years of
    practice that could help.
        Mr. Horsford. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mrs. Lummis. Thank you.
        And now we will--the chair recognizes the gentleman from
    Michigan, Mr. Bentivolio.
        Mr. Bentivolio. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        My question deals with combat uniforms. Now, just for
    clarification's sake, the two uniforms we went from was desert
    camo and forest BDU, if I am not mistaken? ``BDU'' meaning
    battle dress uniform. Correct?
        Ms. St. Laurent. Yes. There were--we went from two to seven
    different uniforms.
        Mr. Bentivolio. So these are not----
        Ms. St. Laurent. Different patterns.
        Mr. Bentivolio. Right. These are not Class A's, they are
    not dress whites. These are everyday-wear working uniforms,
    correct?
        Ms. St. Laurent. Yes. Correct.
        Mr. Bentivolio. Great. That is what I thought. And we went
    from--if I am not mistaken, the difference between the old
    forest green camouflage for a Marine and an Army was the name
    of the branch, upper right-hand pocket, and I think the Marines
    wore their sleeves differently than the Army? Correct?
        Ms. St. Laurent. Again, there have been a number of changes
    made----
        Mr. Bentivolio. Yeah.
        Ms. St. Laurent. --over the years.
        Mr. Bentivolio. A number of changes. Now we have seven. We
    have the blue digital Navy, Air Force; Marine brown digital;
    Army gray-greenish digital. And we have a--do we have a special
    camouflage? I am trying to find the other three or four.
        Mr. Dodaro. There are pictures of them all in our report.
        Ms. St. Laurent. Right.
        Mr. Dodaro. Let me get the page.
        What is the page?
        Mr. Bentivolio. Okay. Well, I will look at that.
        Mr. Dodaro. Yeah, we have them all listed, pictures of them
    in the report.
        Mr. Bentivolio. All right. But I think I saw an $82 million
    savings if we reduced it to one?
        Ms. St. Laurent. Right. That would be the savings
    estimated, for example, if the Army and the Air Force go
    together in designing a new uniform. And the savings that we
    are reporting, these are the savings because the Defense
    Logistics Agency, which procures uniforms for all the services,
    will waive their initial inventory fee if two or more services
    join together in a procurement of a same uniform.
        Mr. Bentivolio. And that was the $82 million that I read?
        Ms. St. Laurent. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
        Mr. Bentivolio. So what is your estimate of the cost
    savings, for instance, if we went to just one digital uniform?
        Ms. St. Laurent. We don't have a specific cost estimate.
    Again----
        Mr. Bentivolio. Okay. But it would be considerable?
        Ms. St. Laurent. It would probably be significantly more
    because we would expect that there would be economies of----
        Mr. Bentivolio. Scale.
        Ms. St. Laurent. --scale in the procurement of the
    uniforms, as well as some savings in the design and
    acquisition.
        Mr. Bentivolio. And the only difference would be the name
    of the branch, and possibly the way they wear their sleeves or
    their hat would tell the difference, correct?
        Ms. St. Laurent. Right. Each service has to examine, look
    at their mission and determine where do you need pockets, how
    much material do you have to carry, and those kinds of things.
    So that is why the current Department of Defense guidance does
    not require all the services to have the same uniform. But it
    highly encourages them to explore opportunities to partner
    together and see if they can reach compromises and work through
    the requirements.
        Mr. Bentivolio. Okay. So when you said cargo pockets, I
    mean, it is my understanding the cargo pocket on your leg has
    to be big enough to fit an MRE. So an MRE is eaten by all
    branches----
        Ms. St. Laurent. Right, that is correct. But, again,
    looking at the services' different missions, they may be
    carrying different types of equipment and want to modify things
    a little bit.
        Mr. Bentivolio. Okay.
        Ms. St. Laurent. So that is where some of the individual
    requirements come from.
        Mr. Bentivolio. Have there been any studies on exactly what
    the cost savings would be if we went to one uniform?
        Ms. St. Laurent. No. We checked with the Department of
    Defense, and we do not think that they have--we do not think
    that they have identified or done any particular studies. So,
    again, our analysis was based on the Army and Air Force going
    together and the inventory fees that could be saved.
        Mr. Bentivolio. Eighty-two million dollars. Thank you very
    much.
        I yield back my time.
        Chairman Issa. [Presiding.] Would the gentleman yield?
        One quick follow-up. In this year's statement, you talked
    about the uniforms, obviously the branches buying additional
    uniforms. Have you ever looked into the aborted program to
    consolidate non-uniformed service personnel in combat, their
    uniforms?
        Apparently, they have repeatedly had these studies to try
    to come up with sort of what--when I visit Afghanistan or Iraq,
    civilians, other employees, the press, they are in haphazard
    different uniforms, sometimes sort of camouflage. I have become
    aware of it on multiple occasions, that apparently they keep
    getting ready to design one and then they can never get buy-in
    from the services.
        Does that fit at all into sort of this, not invented here,
    I won't buy an Army solution even for civilians?
        Ms. St. Laurent. We focused on the service uniforms,
    military officials in this study, so we haven't looked
    specifically at that issue.
        Chairman Issa. Okay. Thank you.
        I thank the gentleman.
        We now go to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you and Mr. Cummings for holding this hearing. I
    think this is one of the most important hearings we have every
    year, but I guess it is not sexy, looking at the press table.
    And yet, when we think about the potential for savings----
        Chairman Issa. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Connolly. I would.
        Chairman Issa. You cannot insult the esteemed members of
    the press who are here. I would like to personally thank the
    esteemed members of the press who saw the importance of this.
        Mr. Connolly. That is right. But thank you for being here.
    I just wish more of your colleagues understood how important,
    actually, this topic really is.
        General Dodaro, you had 381 recommendations--and thank you
    to you and your able staff for this very illuminating report.
    You had 381 recommendations since 2011, I think. What is the
    total estimated ballpark figure of savings to the government if
    all 381 were implemented?
        Mr. Dodaro. The estimate we have is tens of billions of
    dollars. We don't have a specific estimate.
        Mr. Connolly. Well, actually, it is a lot more than that.
    Just, I am going to get to one of them, tax collection. But, I
    mean----
        Mr. Dodaro. Well, if you closed the tax gap, you could, you
    know----
        Mr. Connolly. Yes. And improper payments.
        Mr. Dodaro. Right, right.
        Mr. Connolly. There is another $125 billion a year, so, I
    mean----
        Mr. Dodaro. We are being very conservative.
        Mr. Connolly. You really are.
        Mr. Dodaro. Yeah.
        Mr. Connolly. I mean, because this committee actually has
    explored just those two items, and they exceed $500 billion a
    year, just those two.
        Mr. Dodaro. Which two.
        Mr. Connolly. Well, the tax gap----
        Mr. Dodaro. Well, the tax gap is $385----
        Mr. Connolly. And improper payments are $125 billion a
    year, maybe more.
        Mr. Dodaro. Right. Right.
        Mr. Connolly. So uniforms is interesting, and certainly we
    should effectuate an efficiency. But when we are looking for
    savings, we ought to go, it seems to me, after the big stuff.
        And let me do that. In your looking at the tax gap, the
    figure from 2006 is $385 billion estimated. Is that correct?
        Mr. Dodaro. That is correct. That is the net tax gap,
    right.
        Mr. Connolly. Net tax gap. Now, could you define for us
    what ``tax gap'' means?
        Mr. Dodaro. ``Tax gap'' means the difference between taxes
    that are owed but not collected. For example, the voluntary
    compliance tax rate is about 84 percent, so about 84 percent of
    citizens voluntarily comply and file their taxes. And it has
    been that way for a number of years now. So if you think about
    it that way, 16 percent of the population is not properly
    filing their taxes.
        And that can include companies, as well. The tax gap is
    really widely distributed across both corporations and
    individuals and different types of taxes.
        Mr. Connolly. And, in fact, you went into that, General, in
    the report, saying that taxpayers' underreporting is less
    likely to occur when the tax information is also reported to
    the IRS by a third party. Is that correct?
        Mr. Dodaro. That is correct. That is correct. And we
    recommend more third-party reporting.
        Mr. Connolly. What does that mean?
        Mr. Dodaro. That means getting information from other
    agencies outside the IRS or the particular employer of the
    individual. For example, there is a number of reports that are
    out there that show business activity of different businesses,
    and we have suggested IRS get those reports and compare them to
    the businesses that are reporting taxes to compare the data.
        Mr. Connolly. Okay.
        Mr. Dodaro. The data-matching aspect of this is the most
    efficient and effective way to spot potential problems.
        Mr. Connolly. And why would we be leaving $385 billion of
    revenue that is owed the government--not new taxes, not cutting
    critical investments--why in the world would we leave $385
    billion, given our fiscal crisis, on the table? But for what?
        Mr. Dodaro. That is one of the reasons I have included it.
    It has been on our high-risk list for years, and I have
    included it in every single one of these three reports that we
    have put out. I just think we are not focusing enough
    attention----
        Mr. Connolly. Well, General, could it have something to do
    with resources at the IRS?
        Mr. Dodaro. In some cases, resources would be helpful, but
    not in all cases.
        Mr. Connolly. What is the ROI, what is the return on
    investment for every dollar in collection resources we invest
    in IRS? Do you know? Would at----
        Mr. Dodaro. My experts tell me they don't have good data on
    that.
        Mr. Connolly. Would at least $1.60 be in the ballpark, do
    you think?
        You can get back to us.
        Mr. Dodaro. Yeah.
        Mr. Connolly. You can get back to us.
        Mr. Dodaro. Okay.
        Mr. Connolly. But if you could get that for the record.
        Mr. Dodaro. All right.
        Mr. Connolly. And then I have 37 seconds, so real quickly,
    the chairman and I have introduced a bill, as you know, called
    FITARA in trying to streamline and make more efficient and
    effectuate savings in our Federal IT acquisition process. And
    in that bill there is something called the working capital
    funds to help cloud service transitions for a period of up to 5
    years.
        Real briefly, if the chairman will entertain it, would you
    comment on that provision? Because I think it is consistent
    with some of the findings in your report.
        Mr. Dodaro. Yes. I will ask Mr. Willemssen----
        Mr. Connolly. If the chairman would allow the answer.
        Chairman Issa. Of course.
        Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair.
        Mr. Willemssen. Yes, Congressman, that provision would be
    clearly consistent with our message in the cloud area. And we
    are in--that is in part why we are supportive of the bill. The
    bill overall includes at least eight areas that are included in
    our duplication report that was issued today.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you very much. And I knew the chairman
    would like to hear that.
        Chairman Issa. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Connolly. Absolutely.
        Chairman Issa. General Dodaro, the gentleman asked about
    additional audit. And no question at all, I think he had an
    accurate, known figure. But isn't it that watchdog groups and
    others have come up with items that would, in fact, provide
    data that would give you a sense of people who you can't audit
    because they haven't filed a return that are in the cash or
    somewhat-cash economy? Isn't that a big part of that
    nonreported? You know, the 84 percent is who you audit, but the
    16 percent would be the ones you are not auditing, right?
        Mr. Dodaro. Well, it could be. It could be the ones you are
    not auditing. I agree with you. That----
        Chairman Issa. Has the IRS ever audited someone who didn't
    file taxes?
        Mr. Dodaro. Well, only if they would get a tip or
    something----
        Chairman Issa. Yeah.
        Mr. Dodaro. --from somebody that indicates that they are a
    nonfiler in that area.
        But there are other things that--like, we recommend that
    Congress give IRS math authority so they could fix some of
    these returns when they come in. That doesn't cost any
    additional money.
        We recommend that IRS, in our most recent report, redirect
    some of their resources from auditing lower-income taxes
    returns to the higher-income taxes. They would get more ROI
    back on the money that they, you know, spent. Same amount of
    resources they would have, auditing different types of tax
    returns, yields more revenue back to the IRS.
        So we have a long list of recommendations in this area that
    we think could be implemented without additional resources that
    would yield greater revenues to the government.
        Chairman Issa. Okay. I thank the gentleman.
        We now go to the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
    Meadows.
        Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
    holding this hearing on this important topic.
        And as I have just come back from the district, this
    particular issue continues to come up over and over again.
    American--the hardworking American taxpayers have a hard enough
    time paying for something once, but paying for it twice is
    really a problem.
        And so I want to focus a little bit on something that was
    put in your GAO report on renewable energy initiatives. And I
    have an energy background going back some 35 years ago. And as
    we looked at that initiative, Federal spending over a 7-year
    period from 2002 to 2008 averaged about $4 billion a year and
    increased in 2010 to some $15 billion.
        And in quoting you--this is a quote: ``We found that
    Federal support for renewable energy is fragmented, as 23
    agencies and their 130 sub-agencies implemented hundreds of
    initiatives in fiscal year 2010. We assess that the Federal
    wind energy initiative found that there were 82 wind-related
    initiatives that we examined that had overlapping
    characteristics.''
        And so my question is this. In 2012, the GAO found that
    there were 700 government initiatives to promote renewable
    energy, and the report finds that there was overlapping
    initiatives throughout this entire area. Would it be safe to
    say that the Obama administration's spending on renewable
    energy is lacking coordination?
        Mr. Gaffigan. I would say that this has been a problem even
    before the Obama administration, in terms of the number of
    initiatives we have out there.
        Just to go out and do the inventory and come up with those
    numbers was a huge effort on our part. We couldn't go out and
    go to one source. You would think you could go to the
    Department of Energy and get that number, right? But the
    Department of Energy is just one of those agencies involved in
    dealing with renewable energy initiatives.
        And we have in the body of the work that we have worked on
    energy issues for a long time, this has been an issue going
    back as long as I have worked in the area, in the early 1990s.
        Mr. Meadows. Okay. Well, let me----
        Mr. Dodaro. It is also----
        Mr. Meadows. Okay. Go ahead.
        Mr. Dodaro. It is also fair to say that a number of those
    initiatives were enacted by Congress, as well, that they
    weren't just administration initiatives. It is a mixture of
    both.
        Mr. Meadows. Well, but let's look at the coordination. If
    this was a problem and we had a problem with coordination, why
    would we increase the spending by 400 percent because we take
    an inefficient program and make it more inefficient?
        Mr. Gaffigan. I don't think we spoke to the efficiency of
    the particular initiatives. There are a lot of initiatives out
    there, and some of them, you know, some initiatives, some
    projects may benefit from multiple sources.
        What we are trying to point out is, does anybody have a
    sense of all these different initiatives, as the Comptroller
    General mentioned, established by Congress many of them, both
    on the tax side, the tax expenditure side, which tends to have
    the least amount of transparency, as well as program
    initiatives that every administration puts forward.
        Mr. Dodaro. But I think this goes back to Chairman Issa's
    point, too, about the visibility over these things. Nobody
    really had visibility over it. Nobody is responsible for
    focusing in on this. And if it wasn't for us going in and
    identifying this, nobody would know how many programs there
    were.
        Mr. Meadows. Basically, if it is green, it is good. And
    that is what we are--and that is why I wore my tie today, to
    make sure that--but as we look at this, let's go on a little
    bit further then. How much cost savings could we achieve if we
    resolved this coordination problem? I mean, what are we looking
    at?
        Mr. Gaffigan. Yeah----
        Mr. Meadows. Seven hundred government initiatives.
        Mr. Gaffigan. Yeah. That is very hard to say, because we
    think that there could be some cost savings, but there also
    could be greater efficiencies, you know, more effective
    programs. So it is a combination of those two things.
        The first step is to figure out what all these initiatives
    are. And even though we did those numbers, in 2011 they are
    going to change, in 2012 they are going to change, in 2013 they
    are going to change, because initiatives are coming in and
    going out. So it is very difficult to get a sense of the
    snapshot every time. It is a huge amount of our resources just
    to figure out and identify those 700 initiatives.
        Mr. Meadows. And so those are changing on a regulatory
    basis? Because Congress is not changing it from year to year.
        Mr. Gaffigan. Well, there are programs being, you know,
    implemented and different emphasis on various programs within
    the government. So----
        Mr. Meadows. From a regulatory standpoint?
        Mr. Gaffigan. I think it is a combination of changes in the
    Tax Code. You know, you have different Tax Codes that may be
    expiring and being renewed. Some are renewed, some aren't. So
    there is the changing landscape. And then agencies are making
    decisions on what to emphasize.
        Mr. Meadows. All right. Let me--I am running out of time--
    let me ask one last question here. As we have seen, you know,
    there has been quite a bit of malfeasance uncovered within the
    administration in terms of spending on green energy over the
    last 2 years. And as we see this--you know, a lot of it coming
    from the Department of Energy.
        What energy efficiency programs do you find most concerning
    out of these 700 government initiatives?
        Mr. Gaffigan. Well, there is a lot of work we have done in
    the energy sector. I would say when we looked at the Loan
    Guarantee Program, we had some concerns about documentation of
    that program.
        But, by and large, our main concern was just bringing forth
    the notion that no one had a good sense of how many different
    initiatives there were, and was there good coordination.
        Mr. Meadows. So if you were to eliminate three--I can see
    my time has expired. Would the chair yield for one last
    question?
        Chairman Issa. I ask unanimous consent the gentleman have
    an additional 30 seconds.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        Mr. Meadows. Okay.
        As we see this, if you were to put three programs that if
    you had a magic wand you could make disappear and save the
    hardworking American taxpayers money, what three programs would
    those be?
        Mr. Gaffigan. You know, we haven't identified programs that
    we would eliminate. And, I mean, ultimately, that is Congress'
    decision in terms of policies.
        What I would say is, if we want to make savings in green
    energy, renewable energy, we have to address the question and
    the issue of fossil fuels, which we are very heavily dependent
    on both for transportation and less so in the electricity
    sector, and recognize that we pick those because they are the
    most cost-competitive sources of energy. And to force changes
    through government interaction is just one piece of that. And
    we have to really get an understanding of what government role
    should play. Should it be in the R&D sector? And those are
    policy decisions that are made by the Congress.
        Chairman Issa. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Meadows. I thank the chairman, and I yield back.
        Chairman Issa. What are you yielding back? I thank the
    gentleman.
        We now go to the gentlelady from the District of Columbia,
    Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        This is always an important hearing, but it also is more of
    the same. And I want to suggest--ask a question concerning
    approach. The gentleman before me spoke of coordination. I want
    to speak of consolidation. I think both are important.
        But it is in the nature of government, Mr. Dodaro, that we
    are going to have functions that overlap, even duplicate,
    because we have 12 appropriations subcommittees and they are
    pretty independent. We have many more authorization committees
    and subcommittees. And so it is the nature of the beast that
    they are going to put out duplicate programs. There comes a
    point when one has to look at those programs and say--make the
    kind of evaluation, the very helpful evaluation, you have made.
        May I say how much I appreciate that a part of your report
    opens with a definition of the differences between
    fragmentation and overlap and duplication, although I do note
    that you still lump them all together in the text. And yet
    there is a tremendous difference, considering, for example,
    that you could easily have programs that are fragmented because
    it is too early to put them together, or that overlap for
    reasons that would be perfectly sensible.
        But, at some point, if they are to be retained, one has to
    ask the questions that the GAO has asked. So I went out to get
    from staff the latest version of an attempt to consolidate--in
    other words, an approach that would try to take this and keep
    it from having a revolving-door aspect, as I think you will
    find the next time the Appropriations Committee comes out with
    yet another--with yet another provision.
        Now, the President, in 2012, early 2012, submitted a
    proposal to consolidate some agencies within the trade-related
    sector. Now, put aside the sector; that is really not my
    question. As I recall, we had a hearing on that. That did not
    move forward.
        It seemed to me fairly compelling, so I went looking for
    the letter, because it was focused on business and trade, and
    it indicated that it was difficult for firms and especially
    small business to get assistance. And so the proposal was to
    have one phone number, one mission. And it was said that this
    would help business succeed and support competitiveness,
    exports, job creation. Now, of course, that is all description.
    We would have to see if that would happen.
        But does there not come a point when GAO itself, perhaps,
    might suggest a more comprehensive approach than simply
    pointing out the pockmarks and hoping that somebody will pick
    them up? The President hasn't had this authority since Ronald
    Reagan.
        My question goes to the authority. Do you think that, given
    the nature of the problems you continue to uncover on an annual
    basis, that some of them might be eliminated through
    consolidation of some of the functions themselves?
        Mr. Dodaro. Yes. In certain areas, we have recommended
    that. For example, we have looked at the loans--loan programs
    at HUD and at Agriculture in the rural housing area. In fact,
    HUD is giving as many loans in rural communities as the Rural
    Housing Authority is in urban counties. And so----
        Ms. Norton. So how would you consolidate that?
        Mr. Dodaro. Well, you would put the two agencies together.
    You could locate them at HUD. HUD has a more extensive network.
    You could create another entity. I mean, there are different
    options for how to do it, but where we have identified that
    opportunity, we have pointed that out in those areas.
        Ms. Norton. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Dodaro. And I might say, as it relates to the scope of
    our work, I mean, we were mandated by Congress to have a
    routine set of audits and annual reports that outlined
    duplication across Federal Government agencies. I mean, that is
    why we are issuing these products. In some cases, you can do
    some consolidation, of course. And where we think it is
    appropriate, we have pointed it out.
        Ms. Norton. Well, I appreciate that you have pointed it
    out, because there is a kind of repetitive nature to this
    report. And the problem--I am not bothered by the repetitive
    nature. I am bothered by the fact that the next appropriations
    cycle is going to dump equal amounts of uncoordinated and
    unconsolidated even, of course, programs.
        So this particular one didn't move forward. I never was
    able, frankly, to get a view because we didn't--we never got
    that deeply into it. But it does suggest that--and, by the way,
    only the Congress can give the President that authority, isn't
    that not the case?
        Mr. Dodaro. That is correct.
        Ms. Norton. Finally, could I ask you, on----
        Chairman Issa. Would the gentlelady yield for a second?
        Ms. Norton. Yes.
        Chairman Issa. Your question is a good one, but if we
    perhaps could ask it both ways. We can give them the authority,
    but, of course, the President can either get the authority to
    do something he hasn't asked for or he can ask for
    reorganization specific and then get that bill from the
    Congress. Either one is allowed.
        Ms. Norton. Say that again. He can either ask for it or?
        Chairman Issa. As you were alluding to, since Ronald
    Reagan, off and on, there has been reorganization authority.
    But Congress has the actual right, and we abrogate our rights
    when we give reorganization authority.
        On the other hand, if the administration asked for a
    reorganization that he had planned and said, ``I would like to
    do this, this, and this,'' then, in fact, he would be asking
    Congress to pass a bill, and he would send us a draft bill.
        The two are rather interesting differences. And the only
    reason I mention that is, every time Congress sends a proposal
    for effectively reorganization, the administration--we could
    sua sponte pass a bill and send it to the White House, where
    the President could say, I like parts of this, I don't like
    parts of this, and ask for it.
        But I think the gentlelady's point is good. Without a
    reorg, without real change in the organization, you will
    probably not have full implementation of these at all.
        Ms. Norton. Indeed, that is a very important point that the
    chairman makes. And I note that the President asked for fast-
    track authority. Because once you do it by saying, Here are a
    set of agencies, then what you do is to have the Members, who,
    for reasons of their own, perhaps that function is in a
    Member's district or in a Member's State, pick and choose, and
    they pick the bill apart.
        So the experience has been that if you don't give the
    President the authority in some kind of fast-track order, the
    way we do with trade itself, the notion of consolidation
    becomes just that, a notion.
        So I am not--I just wanted to get on the record that that
    would be a way, although we haven't used it in some time, to
    deal with the overlapping. I don't even want to use that word
    because my next question is going to be, is there a way to
    unbundle how much of it has been fragmentation, how much of it
    has been overlap?
        Because you appear to understand and want us to understand
    the difference. In this graph that you have on page 2, that
    speaks of what fragmentation means, what overlap means, and
    what duplication means, and, hence, a final--you know, somebody
    needs to go, with the duplication.
        Chairman Issa. The gentlelady's time has expired, but
    please answer.
        Mr. Dodaro. Right.
        I mean, we can segregate that out. But I would make a very
    important point. We are just not reporting fragmentation to say
    things are fragmented. We are only pointing out areas of
    fragmentation where we believe there to be inefficiency.
        Ms. Norton. No, I understand that.
        Mr. Dodaro. You know, because you are right, I mean, we
    could point out a wide range of things that are fragmented but
    are not necessarily leading to inefficiencies.
        Ms. Norton. No, and I appreciate that, that this involves
    the analysis----
        Mr. Dodaro. Right.
        Ms. Norton. --that shows there is an underlying problem.
        Mr. Dodaro. Right. But we could identify that, recognizing
    in some areas there are both fragmentation and overlap and
    duplication. So there are elements of some, elements of three
    of them in several different areas. But we can attempt to
    isolate those and provide the committee with a listing.
        Chairman Issa. If you would do that.
        Ms. Norton. I would appreciate it.
        Chairman Issa. The gentlelady from Wyoming is recognized.
        Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I would like to continue this conversation with the
    opportunity, I hope, to not only ask you questions, Mr. Dodaro,
    but also our chairman and the delegate because of their
    longtime experience on this committee.
        Has there ever been a joint reorganization council in the
    Federal Government between the executive and legislation
    branch?
        Chairman Issa. There has. Probably--the Hoover Commission
    probably would be the huge success story where it was long-
    term, ongoing, and bought in by all the bodies.
        Most recently, I think the Homeland Security standup would
    be a major reorganization, where the administration came to us,
    said what they wanted in this new entity, and then we passed a
    bill.
        Those would be the two most current examples, one doing it
    one way, one doing it the other way.
        Mrs. Lummis. Do they work better if they are topical, or
    can you do something broader than a consolidation on one topic?
    Meaning----
        Chairman Issa. I think that is where somebody has to come
    up and talk about the success of Hoover, because it is the
    poster child for how you do it right.
        Mr. Dodaro. If I could have Mr. Mihm come up and be sworn
    in.
        Chairman Issa. Please raise your right hand. Do you
    solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give will be the
    truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
        Let the record indicate the witness answered in the
    affirmative.
        Mr. Mihm. Well, first, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much
    for raising the Hoover Commission. I mean, it is music to my
    ears, as a management geek here.
        The reorganizations that work best are those in which the
    Congress is deeply involved at the outset in making sure that
    they understand what the proposals are going to be, what will
    be done, and how it will be done.
        One of the concerns that I know various Members raised, you
    know, as regards to the last reorganization proposal that came
    in from the administration was that they hadn't been brought in
    at an early enough point to understand the implications of
    this.
        And it doesn't mean that at the end of the day that it
    couldn't all have been resolved. But the experience, as the
    chairman just mentioned, of the Hoover Commission, of where you
    get the Congress and where you get the administration,
    supplemented by outside experts that can help them on that,
    deciding on an approach, whether it be a comprehensive or an
    agency-specific approach, such as the Department of Homeland
    Security, getting them all working together is really the best
    way to do it.
        Mrs. Lummis. Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to follow up with
    this line of questioning then.
        How long has it been since the Hoover Commission completed
    its work? Is it a----
        Chairman Issa. You weren't born, young lady.
        Mr. Mihm. It has been a while, yes, ma'am.
        Mrs. Lummis. Is it time--is it time to do it again?
        Mr. Mihm. There is certainly, you know--it is, you know,
    given the current fiscal crisis, given how difficult the set of
    policy questions are that Congress confronts, given the track
    record of our overlap, duplication, and fragmentation efforts,
    it is certainly may be worthwhile to step back and say, do we
    have the right organization in shape here for a 21st-century
    government?
        Technology has changed fundamentally in the way we can
    deliver services, and yet the basic institutional structure of
    Federal agencies, the way they deliver programs, has not
    changed in generations. In some cases, we have agencies that
    were put together to deliver services for an earlier time, an
    earlier client base. That continuously needs to be refreshed.
    Whether or not we do it on a big, broad commission or do it on
    a case-by-case basis is a different question. But, certainly,
    we need to be reviewing not just the increments but the base of
    government in the current environment.
        Mrs. Lummis. Now, was the Hoover Commission created by
    Congress?
        Mr. Mihm. I will have to----
        Chairman Issa. Technically, yes.
        Mr. Mihm. Thank you. I will take the chairman's----
        Mrs. Lummis. And with the assent and participation of the
    executive branch?
        Mr. Mihm. Right.
        Chairman Issa. Yeah, it was actually Presidentially asked
    for, authorized, and then included all of them.
        And do you remember how many years, sort of, between the
    beginning and the end? It was huge. Hoover 1 and Hoover 2.
        Mr. Mihm. There was Hoover 1 and Hoover 2. I will have to
    refresh the history on that, but, you know, there were a number
    of years there.
        I mean, there have been other attempts. You know, there was
    the Ash Council and other councils that have--you know,
    President Nixon, of course, had a huge effort. President Carter
    had a reorganization effort that was attempted.
        But there really hasn't been a zero-base one. The closest
    we came to that in recent memory has been the National
    Performance Review under President Clinton, of course. But that
    really wasn't a big reorganization. That was about improving
    effectiveness of government with some reorganization elements.
        Mrs. Lummis. And did it? Did the Clinton administration
    performance reviews improve performance?
        Mr. Mihm. Overall, when we looked at--we have done a number
    of reviews of the 380 or so recommendations that they made. You
    know, we thought they were sensible recommendations.
        They certainly--one of their big achievements, I think,
    was--whether or not we give the NPR credit for this--was
    bringing a focus to customer service within many Federal
    agencies. Agencies hadn't been familiar with thinking of the
    public in which they deal with as customers that have a right
    to polite, fast, and efficient and effective service.
        Certainly, one of the other pieces that was put in place
    during the National Performance Review era, but it was a
    congressional initiative, was the Government Performance and
    Results Act. Congress, of course, has modernized that within
    the last couple years to try and get agencies to do a better
    job in setting long-term goals, annual performance goals,
    measuring performance, and, most importantly--and this was the
    thing that we haven't done since the first GPRA was passed in
    1993 and a point of personal frustration for me--is to begin to
    get agencies to do a better job in using that performance
    information in order to improve performance.
        Mrs. Lummis. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Mihm. We produce volumes of information and data on how
    programs are doing. We do a very poor job across government in
    using that information to pinpoint improvement opportunities,
    making changes, and then following up rigorously to see if
    those changes were actually effective. And if they were, let's
    leverage them; if they are not, then let's go to something
    else.
        Mrs. Lummis. I thank the gentleman and the chairman.
        Chairman Issa. And just for the record, the Hoover
    Commission was officially named the commission when it was
    organized by the executive branch, and the body was appointed
    by Harry S. Truman. But it went on to, Hoover 1 and Hoover 2,
    throughout the Eisenhower administration.
        And I believe it is the last one that was essentially
    chaired by a former President. Is that right?
        Mr. Mihm. That is my understanding.
        Chairman Issa. And perhaps that is the hallmark difference
    between it and other notables.
        With that, we go to the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.
    Duncan.
        Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you
    for trying to continue to call attention to this staggering
    problem.
        And I want to, first of all, commend Mr. Dodaro and his
    colleagues. And I suppose you could say that I am hopeful but
    not optimistic. It seems to me that we have allowed the Federal
    Government to get so big and so bureaucratic that it just is
    out of control and these problems just continue.
        In fact, the Washington Examiner story today says,
    ``Government overlap and duplication have dogged the Federal
    Government for years. President Reagan formed the Grace
    Commission to identify examples of the problem, and President
    Clinton assigned to Vice President Gore to the task of ending
    it by 'reinventing government.' But the new GAO report makes
    clear that the examples continue to pile up.''
        And then I was given this a short time ago. It is from a
    report, and it says, quote, ``The last major study of Federal
    surveying and mapping nearly 40 years ago found a disturbing
    proliferation of duplication of activity among many different
    agencies. Today these activities are found among an even
    greater number.'' And that was from a 1973 report, 40 years
    ago.
        And, you know, it is really sad. I mean, you have done a--
    you and your colleagues have done what I think is an absolutely
    great job finding all these examples. The Justice and Treasury
    Departments' forfeiture programs lost $2.2 billion in 2011
    because the agencies cannot find a way to share storage
    facilities. Drug abuse prevention programs are strewn over 76
    programs, costing taxpayers $4.5 billion. Veterans
    Administration, which seems to feel that they are immune from
    efforts to save money or immune from criticism because we all
    love veterans, but I think there is waste and inefficiency even
    in the VA. And your report says it could save $1.2 billion by
    consolidating employment training programs. And contractors for
    the Defense Department foreign language services run over 159
    separate contracting organizations. I mean, it just goes on and
    on.
        Let me ask you this. How hopeful are you, Mr. Dodaro, that
    5 years, 10 years from now, we won't be coming back finding
    that this program is just as bad or worse?
        And, secondly, what do you--I was not able to get here for
    your testimony. Maybe you have covered this. But how much do
    you do in follow-up, like when you suggested to the--when you
    suggest that the training programs could be consolidated, do
    you write the VA and suggest that? And then when nothing
    happens, do you contact them again 30 days or 60 days or 90
    days later? How does that work?
        Mr. Dodaro. First, we regularly follow up on all our
    recommendations on an every-6-month kind of cycle. And if we
    don't see enough progress made by the executive branch, then we
    will work with the Congress to try to get them involved.
        Part of the issue here is that when we identify these
    programs and activities, they cross multiple Federal
    departments and agencies. And, really, OMB isn't the only
    position to help be a catalyst to look across the executive
    branch agencies. In my opinion, a fundamental flaw of our
    current organization in the executive branch in the government,
    notwithstanding the need to update them, as we were just
    talking, is there is really no accountability when multiple
    agencies are involved in the process. And more and more
    problems are requiring multiple agencies to be involved, I
    mean, because of the complexity of the problem.
        So if we do ever get to the point of studying the
    government's organization, we have to deal with that
    fundamental issue. Because no matter how you reorganize the
    government, there are going to be multiple agencies that are
    going to have to be involved, and we need a way to be able to
    do it.
        On your point about am I optimistic, I am cautiously
    optimistic. My term goes to 2025. I am hopeful that I won't be
    reporting all these same issues in that year. But I can tell
    you that it won't change unless the Congress gets involved in
    this process with active oversight.
        The only times--and I was before this committee recently in
    February talking about our high-risk update. And the only areas
    that come off the high-risk list are where you have top-level
    executive branch attention and Congress is relentless in its
    oversight. Without those two elements, I mean, particularly in
    this overlap and duplication area, you know, you are not going
    to see very many major changes.
        Mr. Duncan. You probably don't want to criticize any
    particular department, but I would be interested to know if
    there is one department that, more or less, is worse than
    others. Or the other side, is there one department that you
    feel does the best job in responding to your suggestions?
        Mr. Dodaro. Well, first, in my opening statement, I talked
    about how pervasive this problem is across government. We have
    recommendations for virtually all major Federal departments and
    agencies.
        I would say that the areas where there is a need for
    rigorous follow-up on the part of Congress is the Defense
    Department and CMS, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
    Services. I would say those two departments need attention in
    order to effectuate implementation of our recommendations.
        Mr. Duncan. All right. Thank you.
        Thank you very much.
        Chairman Issa. Thank you.
        General, you have been very kind.
        I am going to do a short couple more questions. Is anyone
    else going to want a second round?
        Okay, seeing none, I will be brief.
        Mr. Duncan just brought up a point, and you named two great
    names: CMS, meaning Medicare and Medicaid; Department of
    Defense, meaning all of what it obviously means. Isn't that
    sort of saying that look for where the big dollars are and you
    look for the big savings, something that Mr. Connolly said very
    well? And, fortunately, he said it to a national television
    audience that is watching it, not just the fine gentlemen in
    the room.
        To that extent, when we look at those large dollars, the
    Department of Defense, duplication within the Department of
    Defense, isn't that a self-inflected wound? Waste and
    duplication and fail to get information and do their job right
    within CMS and, obviously, all the Medicare funding, isn't that
    primarily a self-inflicted wound?
        And I ask that for a reason. A lot of what you did in this
    fine study is you talked about a lot of diverse groups--you
    know, fisheries and catfish and just everything under the sun.
    But the big dollars, the ability to reorganize DOD so that you
    don't have a Pentagon just as filled as it was at the height of
    World War II--and you try to explain why there have to be as
    many people in this day and age in the white-collar, non-
    uniformed part of DOD, and the answer is because of,
    essentially, a wasteful way of management. And when you look at
    CMS, and we just had a hearing on $15 billion that was simply
    paid out in excess of what the law allowed, aren't we, to a
    certain extent, having to find ways to make them do their job
    better?
        And the question comes from, isn't that where something
    like the DATA Act, which was passed out of this committee
    unanimously in the last Congress and again is going to go
    through a process in this Congress, isn't that part of the
    process? Create a level of transparency to where these large
    agencies, it becomes so transparent, particularly potentially
    even to watchdogs and the public, that you can get them to do
    their job where it is really all in their turf?
        Mr. Dodaro. Definitely. Definitely. I am very supportive. I
    think that transparency is needed. I think there needs to be a
    statutory underpinning so it is enduring over time and there is
    consistency. Data standards need to be put in place.
        I am very supportive of the need to have that type of
    legislation that would require that level of transparency, and
    from that transparency, can lead to better questions, can lead
    to better oversight and hopefully better results.
        Chairman Issa. Now, the DATA Act calls for recipient
    reporting. In a sense, I think I heard you say that this is one
    of the problems with the IRS, is they are not looking at both
    sides of the transaction in order to find people who don't
    report here but they report to Visa and Mastercard, they report
    to a lot of other transactions; that if you looked at that, you
    would realize that you are missing the very report you needed.
        Is that basically the same thing you are looking at in the
    DATA Act? Do you see those as the same sort of a problem? That
    government, if they are going to audit, has to, whenever
    possible, get information from multiple sources in order to
    realize what they don't know?
        Mr. Dodaro. Oh, that is definitely the case. That is
    definitely the case. And I think the implementation of the
    Recovery Act was a perfect example of how that could be used
    effectively to minimize fraud, waste, and abuse in programs.
        Chairman Issa. Yeah.
        And I think, for the freshmen that are here, the Recovery
    Board is still in business for a reason: that Congress has
    recognized the need for it, kept it open, kept the mission for
    it. Because I think Congress and the GAO, certainly, we have
    recognized that it serves a purpose of showing you can do
    better.
        Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
        Chairman Issa. General, I am very thankful for every
    appearance here, but I think the discussion, because of Ms.
    Lummis, that occurred of the Hoover Commission--and she has
    left now, but Delegate Norton--the idea that, in fact, we have
    to create--and this committee is the committee of
    jurisdiction--create an environment in which Congress buys in,
    the executive branch buys in, to be honest the private sector
    has to be included, if we are going to have the kind of
    reorganization that in 2025 you can say, ``On my watch, we made
    it better.''
        Mr. Dodaro. I think it is imperative we do that,
    particularly given our fiscal precarious nature. I mean, we
    can't afford to continue to operate the way we are operating,
    and it needs fundamental reexamination. We can do better, and
    we have to.
        Chairman Issa. And I am going to close with one thing. The
    ranking member opened thanking your staff, which I will
    reiterate thanking your staff.
        I also will perhaps decry in a strange way the fact that
    sequestration hit your part of Congress, too. And I realize
    that you are now doing more oversight, more investigations,
    more of everything you are mandated to do, and you are doing it
    with less. So I would like to see that reversed as soon as
    possible. I don't think you lay off the auditors when you have
    a problem with accountability.
        But I want to thank you for the good work you are doing----
        Mr. Dodaro. I appreciate---
        Chairman Issa. --and all the men and women that work for
    you.
        Mr. Dodaro. Thank you. I appreciate those kind remarks and
    for your support.
        Chairman Issa. You will continue to have it.
        We stand adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0719.050