    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                  DATA ACT: MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS

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

                                 JOINT HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                             GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

                                    AND THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                             INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

                                     OF THE

                             COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
                             AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 19, 2016

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-156

                                   __________

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

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    26-065 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2017
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
             DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                              Washington, DC 20402-0001

                  COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

                         JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, 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
    JIM JORDAN, Ohio                     ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    TIM WALBERG, Michigan                    Columbia
    JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan               WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
    PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona               STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
    SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          JIM COOPER, Tennessee
    TREY GOWDY, South Carolina           GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas              MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
    CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming           TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina         BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
    RON DeSANTIS, Florida                TED LIEU, California
    MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina        BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
    KEN BUCK, Colorado                   STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
    MARK WALKER, North Carolina          MARK DeSAULNIER, California
    ROD BLUM, Iowa                       BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
    JODY B. HICE, Georgia                PETER WELCH, Vermont
    STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma              MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
    EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
    GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
    WILL HURD, Texas
    GARY J. PALMER, Alabama

                       Jennifer Hemingway, Staff Director
                          Katy Rother, Senior Counsel
                              William Marx, Clerk
                     David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
                     Subcommittee on Government Operations

                     MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina, Chairman
    JIM JORDAN, Ohio                     GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia,
    TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Vice Chair        Ranking Minority Member
    TREY GOWDY, South Carolina           CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina            Columbia
    KEN BUCK, Colorado                   WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
    EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia    STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
    GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
                                     ------

                     Subcommittee on Information Technology

                           WILL HURD, Texas, Chairman
    BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas, Vice Chair  ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois, Ranking
    MARK WALKER, North Carolina              Minority Member
    ROD BLUM, Iowa                       GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona               TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
                                         TED LIEU, California

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on April 19, 2016...................................     1

                                   WITNESSES

    Ms. Michelle Sager, Director, Strategic Issues, U.S. Government
      Accountability Office
        Oral Statement...............................................     6
        Written Statement............................................     8
    The Hon. David Mader, Controller, Office of Federal Financial
      Management, The Office of Management and Budget
        Oral Statement...............................................    38
        Written Statement............................................    40
    Mr. David A. Lebryk, Fiscal Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department
      of the Treasury
        Oral Statement...............................................    49
        Written Statement............................................    51
    Mr. Michael Peckham, Executive Director, Data Act Program
      Management Office, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
        Oral Statement...............................................    57
        Written Statement............................................    59

                                    APPENDIX

    Letter for the Record to Secretary Jacob Lew.....................    84
    Letter for the Record to Mr. Shaun Donovan.......................    86

                  DATA ACT: MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS

                                  ----------

                            Tuesday, April 19, 2016

                      House of Representatives,
     Subcommittee on Government Operations, joint with
            the Subcommittee on Information Technology,
                  Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 2:31 p.m., in
    Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mark Meadows
    [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Meadows, Hurd, Walberg, Blum,
    Buck, Carter, Grothman, Connolly, Kelly, and Lieu.
        Mr. Meadows. The subcommittee on Government Operations and
    the Subcommittee on Information Technology will come to order.
    And without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
    recess at any time. My apologies for running late to all of my
    colleagues and obviously each one of you as well.
        The American people deserve to know that their Federal tax
    dollars are being wisely spent. However, the GAO and others
    have consistently reported that Federal spending data is often
    incomplete, out of date, or inaccurate. Just last week the GAO
    told this committee that there are over 200 areas in the
    Federal Government with wasteful duplication, overlap, and
    fragmentation. OMB recently reported that Federal improper
    payments of nearly $137 billion, that's billion with a B, for
    fiscal year 2015, the largest annual total since 2004, when
    agencies first began reporting this data. Without accurate
    information, the GAO, Congress, and the American people are
    limited in their ability to prevent waste, fraud, abuse, and
    mismanagement.
        The DATA Act can help change all of that. If implemented
    properly, the DATA Act will allow us to finally know how much
    our government is spending, and that money is being spent
    wisely. In fact, before testimony to this committee in 2014,
    the GAO comptroller general said that the DATA Act is the
    single biggest thing Congress could do to address wasteful
    spending. Quite a statement. Today we are weeks away from the
    2-year anniversary of the DATA Act passage. Treasury, OMB are
    leading the implementation efforts and they're responsible for
    telling agencies what data to report and how to report it.
        Now, while OMB and the Treasury have made progress on the
    implementation, many questions are left to be answered. I've
    heard real concerns directly from the stakeholders that the
    implementation of the DATA Act is lagging behind. OMB has
    released little information on the contractor portion of the
    pilot program that is required by statute. Several guidance
    documents that the agencies need in order to implement the act,
    have not been finalized by Treasury and OMB. And without a
    clear and timely guidance, agencies may struggle to meet the
    statutory reporting timeframes.
        We're here today to determine what parts of that
    implementation are on track; where OMB, Treasury, and Federal
    agencies are falling behind; and while statutory deadlines are
    important. I want to make sure that agencies are implementing
    this bill thoroughly and correctly, not just on time.
        As recent as just an hour or so ago, I heard stories from a
    stakeholder that would suggest that the intent of Congress is
    perhaps not being best served by the direction in which we are
    going. So I look forward to working with the agencies to ensure
    that we realize the benefits of transparency in Federal
    spending that the DATA Act can certainly provide.
        I thank each of our witnesses for attending here today. I
    look forward to hearing your testimony.
        And I now recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee
    on government operations, Mr. Connolly, for his opening
    statement.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank
    my colleagues, you of course, the other chairman, Mr. Hurd, and
    my good friend, Ms. Kelly, the other ranking member. The four
    of us, I think have a common view about the role of IT in the
    Federal Government and how we can use it as a transformative
    tool, but how we need to use it as a transformative tool.
        And I want to thank all of you for the partnership. I think
    it's made a real difference in building some cohesion within
    the Federal Government in at least this area. And it does kind
    of give a lie to the fact that we can't really get anything
    done around here and we never act in a bipartisan, indeed,
    nonpartisan way, and that, you know, at least in this case is
    not true.
        Today we revisit the Digital Accountability and
    Transparency Act, which this committee supported in a
    bipartisan basis and was signed into law 2 years ago. The DATA
    Act, if properly implemented, as the chairman just indicated,
    will bring enhanced transparency to Federal spending that will
    in turn, I hope, lead to better decisionmaking.
        Agencies will now be required to report spending at a more
    granular level, and that data is to be communicated using a
    common language that will enable true comparisons across the
    Federal Government. Agencies, Congress, watchdogs inside and
    outside of the government will now be able to connect the dots
    on how agencies are spending, which will help identify
    duplication and waste, something the committee examined last
    week with the annual GAO Duplication Report. The DATA Act holds
    great potential for creating efficiencies and government
    savings.
        While the OMB and the Treasury Department continue to make
    progress in defining those new standards, a recent GAO report
    notes that some definitions will require additional work, as
    they could lead to inconsistent reporting. I look forward to
    hearing how those concerns are being addressed, and also I want
    to hear more about the status of the pilot program to reduce
    the reporting burden on the recipients of Federal grants and
    contracts. The DATA Act directed OMB to create such a pilot
    program to streamline such reporting.
        For the grantee program, OMB partnered with the Department
    of Health and Human Services and is working with GSA on the
    contracting portion. The law also calls for input of a diverse
    group of Federal award recipients. However, GSA and OMB have
    yet to present a detailed plan to achieve this goal. As a
    Member representing a number of Federal grant recipients and
    contractors, and that's an understatement, I want to hear how
    OMB plans to better engage those communities in this effort.
    I'm hopeful that as the pilot moves forward, specific grantees
    and contractors will have that opportunity to test proposals
    that agencies might use to reduce duplicative or unnecessarily
    burdensome reporting.
        While the design of the grants pilot program appears to be
    on track, I am concerned by the GAO's assessment that OMB is
    taking a more narrow approach with respect to the contractor
    portion, focused on certified payroll reporting. For example,
    the GAO said, and I quote, ``the plan did not include specific
    information on the methodology, strategy, or types of data to
    be collected. Further, a scalability was not addressed to
    result in the recommendations that could be applied
    governmentwide. The design also did not indicate how data will
    be evaluated to draw conclusions,'' unquote.
        At this point, the procurement portion of the pilot is at
    risk of not meeting the 12-month reporting cycle deadline as
    set by Congress.
        These new DATA Act reporting requirements for agencies are
    not scheduled to be implemented until May 2017. So today's
    hearing, I think, Mr. Chairman, is the perfect opportunity to
    look at what's working so far and to examine those areas that
    might need more work a year out from that deadline.
        As my colleagues know, I was pleased to coauthor the
    Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act, FITARA,
    also known as Connolly-Issa, which has a better ring to it, we
    think. GAO in its 2015 report on duplicative wasteful spending
    said, and I quote, it should improve the transparency and
    management of IT acquisitions and operations across the
    government. I think the DATA Act and FITARA will both
    complement each other and help agencies make smarter
    investments. The DATA Act holds tremendous potential.
        I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses any
    suggestions they might have for ensuring that we realize that
    potential and stay on course.
        Mr. Chairman and Mr. Hurd and Ms. Kelly, by the way,
    something we may also want to have a hearing on in terms of
    what can go awry with the best of intentions in the IT field is
    FedRAMP. And it may be time for us to have a hearing on that
    and--because this reminds me of that, though this, I hope, is
    in better shape than FedRAMP.
        With that I yield back.
        Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman for his comments and his
    kind words.
        The chair now recognizes the chairman of the Subcommittee
    on Information Technology, who's forgotten more about
    technology than I have ever known, the gentleman from Texas,
    Mr. Hurd, for his opening statement.
        Mr. Hurd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
    including our subcommittee on this important issue. Good
    afternoon to our witnesses today.
        Yesterday was tax day in the United States, millions of
    Americans filled out their tax forms and sent a portion of
    their hard earned income to the Federal Government. In fiscal
    year 2015, the Federal Government spent $3.7 trillion, which
    amounted to about 21 percent of the Nation's gross domestic
    product. That's about $12,000 for every man, woman, and child
    in the United States. What are taxpayers getting for that
    investment in their government? Is the government spending
    their money wisely? Are there some programs that work well and
    should be expanded and others that are duplicative and should
    be eliminated?
        The unfortunate reality is that the Federal Government's
    spending data is housed in disconnected and silo systems that
    use various unrelated formats, making those questions very
    difficult to answer. And the costs of our inability to
    accurately track Federal tax dollars are steep. Chairman
    Meadows mentioned the over 200 areas in the Federal Government
    where the GAO Duplication Report identifies areas of
    duplication, overlap, and fragmentation. Eliminating these
    areas of waste and duplication would save us approximately $125
    billion from 2010 to 2025.
        The monetary cost is devastating, as is the cost of
    citizens losing trust and confidence in their own government.
    Government secrecy and corruption results in loss of trust from
    citizens, but so does general incompetence. That is why the
    DATA Act is so important. If implemented properly, the DATA Act
    will allow us to begin to untangle the web of Federal agency
    spending and start to restore trust between government and its
    citizens.
        I thank the witnesses for their testimony today. I'm
    looking forward to working with them to effectively implement
    the DATA Act.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
        The chair recognizes the ranking member of the Subcommittee
    on Information Technology, Ms. Kelly, the gentlewoman from
    Illinois, for her opening statement.
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our
    witnesses for appearing on today's panel to discuss the
    administration's progress in implementing the DATA Act.
        The act requires that agencies report spending data in a
    consistent way, which in turn will create opportunities to
    improve operational efficiency and oversight. The transparency
    that the DATA Act is designed to provide will help enhance
    accountability for agencies' spending decisions. Once
    implemented, the DATA Act will provide the public with Federal
    spending data that is accessible, reliable, and useable. Mr.
    Lebryk has stated at this committee, and I quote, better data
    leads to better decisions and ultimately a better government.
        The Office of Management and Budget and the Department of
    Treasury have initiated multiple efforts to carry out the
    requirements of the DATA Act. I commend the way the
    administration has embraced the act and worked diligently to
    set the executive branch on the right path.
        The Department of Health and Human Services has taken a
    significant role in designing a plan to test the pilot program
    to streamline and reduce the reporting burden on grantees. I
    look forward to hearing more about their plans for the pilot,
    some of the potential outcomes, and the timeframe for results.
    However, the procurement portion of the pilot program, which
    intends to test areas for reducing the reporting burden on
    contractors, has taken a narrow approach, focusing on only one
    area in which contractor reporting be reduced.
        In a report released today on the pilot program, GAO raised
    concerns with the design of the procurement portion and its
    ability to provide meaningful and useful data for effective
    testing of the pilot. GAO recommends that OMB clearly document
    how the procurement portion of the pilot will contribute to the
    DATA Act and requirements, and ensure the design reflects
    leading practices. It is important that congressional oversight
    helps ensure that the opportunity to reduce reporting burden
    and streamline areas of reporting is not missed during the
    implementation of the DATA Act.
        The work of Congress does not end with the passage or
    oversight of the DATA Act. It is equally important that
    Congress provide sufficient resources for Federal agencies to
    make the necessary changes to implement the DATA Act and
    transform the collection and reporting of Federal spending
    data. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentlewoman for her opening
    remarks.
        And I will hold the record open for 5 legislative days for
    any member who would like to submit a written statement.
        Mr. Meadows. We'll now recognize our panel of witnesses.
    And I'm pleased to welcome Ms. Michelle Sager, Director of
    Strategic Issues at the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
    Ms. Sager, it is our understanding that you are accompanied by
    your colleague from GAO, Ms. Paula Rascona, who has expertise
    that we may need during questioning.
        Next we have the Honorable David Mader, controller at the
    Office of Federal Management--the Office of Management and
    Budget; Mr. David Lebryk, Fiscal Assistant Secretary of the
    U.S. Department of Treasury; and Mr. Michael Peckham, executive
    director of the DATA Act Program Management Office at the U.S.
    Department of Health and Human Services. Welcome to you all.
        And pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be
    sworn in before they testify. And we will also swear in Ms.
    Rascona. So if you'd please rise and raise your right hand.
        Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you
    are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
    but the truth?
        Thank you. Please be seated.
        And let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in
    the affirmative.
        And in order to allow time for discussion, we would
    appreciate it if you would please limit your oral testimony to
    5 minutes. However, your entire written testimony will be made
    part of the record.
        And so I will go ahead and recognize you, Ms. Sager, for 5
    minutes for your opening testimony.

                           WITNESS STATEMENTS

                      STATEMENT OF MICHELLE SAGER

        Ms. Sager. Thank you. Chairman Meadows, Chairman Hurd,
    Ranking Members Connolly and Kelly, thank you for the
    opportunity to discuss GAO's ongoing work on DATA Act
    implementation. As we heard in your opening statements, DATA
    Act holds great potential, and I'd like to take just a moment
    to talk about that potential.
        If fully and effectively implemented, the DATA Act holds
    the possibility of transforming what we know about Federal
    spending; that includes grants, contracts, and loans. This
    holds great potential for you and your work as policymakers
    considering appropriations and authorizations, for Federal
    agency officials trying to connect the dots about various
    programs, for your constituents, and for all of us as taxpayers
    trying to understand where the Federal dollars go. However,
    transforming this promise into a reality does require a very
    heavy front-end investment as well as leadership from OMB and
    Treasury in collaboration with their colleagues across the
    Federal Government.
        In my statement today, I'd like to talk about some of the
    complex technical and policy issues that have already been
    addressed, and we acknowledge that these issues are ongoing. At
    the same time, there are a number of challenges that must be
    addressed in order to assure full and effective implementation.
        I'd like to briefly highlight three specific areas: first,
    the data standards and the associated technical guidance;
    second, what Federal agencies are reporting as some of the
    challenges in their DATA Act implementation plans submitted to
    OMB; and then third, the current status of the design of the
    Section 5 pilot to reduce recipient reporting burden.
        First with regard to the data standards, OMB and Treasury
    have made considerable progress in establishing data element
    definitions for reporting on Federal spending data. However,
    more complete and timely guidance is needed in order to ensure
    consistent and comparable reporting of high quality data. A
    lack of finalized guidance to date has slowed agencies' ability
    to operationalize the data standards and the technical schema.
    It is our understanding that additional guidance is forthcoming
    very soon, and we look forward to analyzing this guidance to
    follow up on the recommendations and findings from our January
    2016 report.
        Second, with regard to what Federal agencies are reporting
    as challenges in the implementation plans they began submitting
    to OMB in September of last year, continuing through January of
    this year, these challenges fall into a couple of main
    categories, and they include competing priorities, resources,
    systems integration, and guidance.
        Agencies do also acknowledge that they have identified some
    potential mitigating strategies to mitigate these challenges,
    and these include effective communication, information sharing,
    and the opportunity to leverage existing resources. Agencies
    also reported that additional support from both OMB and
    Treasury is needed to ensure full and effective implementation.
        Third, with regard to the pilot to reduce recipient
    reporting burden, as you noted in your opening statements, OMB
    has taken action to implement the pilot in two parts, one
    focused on grants and one focused on procurement. The
    Department of Health and Human Services has been designated as
    the executing agency for the grant portion of the pilot, while
    OMB leads the procurement portion along with the General
    Services Administration. We did find that if implemented
    according to HHS's proposed design, the grants portion of the
    pilot will likely meet requirements established under the act
    and does follow leading practices for effective pilot design.
    However, as you also noted and as we state in the report that
    we're issuing today, the procurement portion of the plan does
    not document how it will contribute to meeting the act's
    requirements as well as following leading practices for
    effective design of the pilot program. We are concerned that
    the design of the procurement portion of the pilot could hinder
    effective implementation.
        GAO will continue to monitor OMB and Treasury's progress to
    address DATA Act recommendations, including those calling for a
    data governance structure, for developing a Federal program
    inventory, and for expanding two-way dialogue with stakeholders
    as implementation proceeds.
        In conclusion, almost 2 years into the DATA Act's
    implementation, we are faced with a mixed picture. Given its
    governmentwide scope and complexity, effective implementation
    of the act requires sustained progress and attention to known
    policy and technical issues. Although progress has been made in
    several areas, the challenges that we in Federal agencies have
    identified could lead to inconsistent reporting and must be
    addressed in order to ensure full and effective implementation.
        This concludes my prepared statement. I look forward to any
    questions. Thank you.
        [Prepared statement of Ms. Sager follows:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Ms. Sager.
        Mr. Mader, you're recognized for 5 minutes.

                 STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAVID MADER

        Mr. Mader. Thank you, Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member
    Connolly, Chairman Hurd, and Ranking Member Kelly, and members
    of the subcommittees. I appreciate the opportunity to be back
    here. As you recall, Mr. Lebryk and I were here in July of 2015
    to talk about the progress we had made on sort of almost the
    first anniversary of the DATA Act. What we'd like to do this
    afternoon is talk a little bit about the progress that we've
    made since we were last here.
        What I'd like to do is talk a little bit about the
    accomplishments over the last 9 months. First, we established
    the data definition standards for 57 data elements required
    under the DATA Act. And I do acknowledge the comment from GAO
    that this is an ongoing effort. We are really going to be
    looking on a forward-going basis at all the data elements,
    because we agree with the concern about how agencies understand
    the definition and then actually apply it so that the
    descriptors that are in USAspending accurately represent the
    spending.
        Second, we've provided additional guidance to the agencies
    on the initial guidance that was issued in May of 2015. In
    December of this past year, 2015, I issued an OMB controller
    alert that actually emphasized and provided some additional
    direction to that previous guidance.
        Third, as part of the President's fiscal year 2017 budget
    proposal, we did actually receive implementation plans, which
    GAO has reviewed and commented on. It's also to note that in
    the President's 2016 budget, we asked for a total of $92
    million to implement the DATA Act. If you recall, when the
    legislation was passed, CBO actually scored it at about $300
    million for the full implementation. Unfortunately in the 2016
    President's budget, of the $92 million that we asked for, only
    $31 million of it was appropriated, $25 million of that going
    to the Treasury Department, and rightfully so, because of the
    expansive role that they play in implementing this act, so that
    basically left about $6 million for three other agencies. In my
    written testimony in exhibit B, you'll see a table of both 2016
    as well as 2017.
        Fourth, OMB has continued to support Treasury in their
    iterative approach in developing the data schema, which I think
    we all recognize is key to successful implementation. I want to
    note, and I know my colleague is going to talk more extensively
    on this, that the approach that Treasury took and that OMB
    endorsed was basically an agile, or iterative, approach, so
    over the course of the last year, agencies actually saw at
    least four versions of the data schema, and this allowed them
    to begin to actually develop implementation plans. If we had
    taken sort of the traditional waterfall approach, what we would
    have been waiting for is actually the final guidance. So the
    fact is that we've actually, over the past year, been sharing
    with agencies the progress that we've made on the design.
        Lastly, I want to comment on the continued outreach that we
    have had both with Federal agencies as with stakeholders as
    well, external stakeholders. We have had extensive conversation
    both with stakeholders in and outside of the government, and
    our commitment is, as we move into this last year of
    implementation, we'll continue to have that exchange and
    dialogue.
        I'd like to talk now about the critical nature of the next
    year. First, it's important, and my colleague from GAO has
    testified to that, that OMB and Treasury move forward on the
    release of their documents; respective for OMB is the final
    implementation guidelines, and for Treasury, it's the data
    schema. I'm pleased to say that by the end of April or very
    early May, both of those documents will be issued in final,
    but, again, I want to emphasize that both for the schema as
    well as for the guidance, agencies have been working with us
    all along.
        Second, tracking the agency progress to implement, Dave
    Lebryk and I last week, kicked off an initiative to do
    readiness reviews of each of the agencies, each of the 24
    agencies that are covered by the DATA Act. We are personally
    leading these efforts, and last week we completed two,
    Department of Interior, Department of Energy, and actually
    tomorrow we're doing Transportation. We're going to continue to
    work with the agencies in updating their plans and milestones.
    Once all of the guidance is finalized, in the last week or two,
    agencies will begin working on implementing the revised plans.
        I think we are making progress and I am interested in
    continuing to work with the Congress in securing the resources
    that we need to fully implement the Act. I look forward to your
    questions. Thank you.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Mader follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman for his testimony.
        Mr. Lebryk, you're recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF DAVID A. LEBRYK

        Mr. Lebryk. Chairman Meadows and Ranking Member Connolly,
    Chairman Hurd, and Ranking Member Kelly, thank you.
        I would just echo what Dave has said is, both he and I have
    been very personally committed to making sure that the DATA Act
    is implemented in the spirit that Congress intended it to.
        This really is an important piece of legislation. I think
    it's not an understatement to say it has the ability to really
    transform the way government functions. We have a
    responsibility to taxpayers to be good stewards of their money,
    and the DATA Act, I really do believe, truly will make, you
    know, better data, better decisions, better government, and
    that will save taxpayers money.
        As we get better insights into what we're trying to do as a
    government and the programs that we have, the DATA Act, I
    think, is a really foundational piece to that better future for
    government.
        Treasury was established over 225 years ago, and we were
    established to sort of make sure we were accounting for
    government money, and Alexander Hamilton issued the first
    monthly Treasury statements to Congress in 1789, and we've been
    doing that every month since. We also issue something called
    the Daily Treasury Statement and the Financial Report of the
    United States Government, and while those are good and
    interesting documents, the DATA Act actually allows people to
    see data more specifically as it relates to decisions on a day-
    to-day basis. And so this evolution is a very important one, I
    think one that will really, again, very much improve the way
    government functions.
        I will focus a little bit on Treasury's responsibilities
    with respect to three elements of the act: one is the schema,
    and I'll talk about that in a second about what that means; the
    broker; and then ultimately the newly designed USAspending Web
    site.
        Critical in the discussion of those three elements picks up
    on some points that Dave made. When we approached the design of
    these efforts, we did it with an agile user-centric approach.
    Traditionally, in my experience 25 years of government, when
    government takes on a technology project, quite often what we
    do is we sit down and we think about what the functional
    requirements are and then we go off into a corner and we build
    that system and then we kind of release it in a very linear
    fashion. This idea here was that we want to make sure that we
    were doing quick releases and agile releases so that we knew if
    we were going to fail fast, that we knew that if something
    wasn't working, we could get input and feedback from users and
    from a variety of communities to make sure we could make those
    adjustments, and this has proven critical with respect to the
    schema.
        The schema, kind of in plain language, is we've--we--Dave
    mentioned the 57 data elements that we identified. Well, we're
    actually collecting more than 57, because to get that full
    picture of Federal spending, you need more than 57, and as a
    result of that, you need to ask agencies, where are you going
    to get that information? And the approach that we took was a
    mapping and extraction process. Rather than building a new big
    system of sort of a big database, we sort of identified this
    and philosophically said we need to find out where the good
    data exists in the Federal Government, tag that data, extract
    it, and then be able to present it.
        The schema is about taking those 57 data elements as well
    as the other elements to round out that life cycle picture of
    Federal spending and then to organize it. And we've identified
    that seven files need to be submitted to the broker. The broker
    accepts those files, and then kind of validates them, and
    ultimately then prepares them, presented to the public under
    the USAspending Web site as it goes forward.
        We issued the first schema in March of last year, version
    .2, and we've issued four iterations of it since then. So while
    in December of this--we were hoping at December we would have a
    finalized version. We submitted--we issued version .7 in
    December. And that version really pretty much kind of rounded
    out the picture. In late March we issued version .1, and we
    closed the comment period in the beginning of April. As Dave
    mentioned, we're expecting to finalize the final version at the
    end--in the next several weeks. Agencies have had the
    opportunity to see that schema, they know exactly what's in it.
        We've also done something called a prototype broker, which
    is allowing the agencies to come into our sandbox to take that
    data and test it against the broker to make sure that they can
    validate whether the data is good or not. As a result, agencies
    are further along than they would be in a linear sort of
    waterfall kind of approach by using the agile process.
        So, you know, this gives us better confidence. And the
    discussions that Dave and I have had with agencies, the
    agencies are--have done the kinds of things that they need to
    do to get ready. And there are certainly challenges going
    forward, I don't want to underestimate those challenges, but
    Dave and I are both very much committed to ensuring that we're
    keeping on top of where the agencies are and making sure that
    we understand what impediments there are and facilitating the
    implementation the best we can.
        Treasury has established something called a Program
    Management Office, which is designed to actually follow through
    on a regular basis with the agencies to help them. We did an
    eight-step playbook, telling the agencies you need to do these
    certain things in order to get ready. Agencies have been
    following that playbook, and so I think that that gives me
    confidence that we're very much on the right path.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Lebryk follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Meadows. I thank you so much for your testimony.
        Mr. Peckham, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF MICHAEL PECKHAM

        Mr. Peckham. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Meadows
    and Hurd, Ranking Members Connolly and Kelly, and distinguished
    members of the committee. I'm the director of the Department of
    Health and Human Services DATA Act Program Management Office
    within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial
    Resources, or ASFR. I'm pleased to be here along with my
    colleagues to discuss HHS's activities as the executing agent
    of the DATA Act's Section 5 grants pilot.
        Under the HHS mission to enhance and protect the health and
    well-being of all Americans, various goals of the Department
    are carried out through HHS-funded grants, where services are
    provided at the local level by State and county agencies or
    through private sector grantees. In support of our mission, HHS
    awards more Federal grant dollars than any other agency.
        The DATA Act PMO is strategically located within ASFR. This
    was a natural place for our PMO to reside, given the focus of
    the DATA Act on financial data and ASFR's unique role in
    understanding the entire ward life cycle, from budget
    formulation to program policy oversight and, finally, audit
    resolution. We are working closely with all HHS operating
    divisions and staff divisions to carry out and implement the
    reporting goals set forth within the statute.
        In May of 2014, OMB asked HHS to be the executing agency
    for the grants portion of the Section 5 pilot. We are happy to
    partner with OMB taking on this role, given our past experience
    as a leader in the Federal grants community and our recognition
    that there is a valid need to reduce duplication and burden in
    recipient reporting. HHS sees this as an opportunity for
    increased recipient engagement to understand where we can find
    efficiencies in the reporting process throughout the grant's
    life cycle.
        Section 5 of the DATA Act calls for the creation of a pilot
    to develop recommendation for standardized reporting elements
    across the Federal Government, the elimination of unnecessary
    duplication in financial reporting, and the reduction of
    compliance costs for recipients of Federal awards. Based on
    this structure, HHS, worked in close coordination with OMB to
    create the Section 5 grants pilot framework, containing six
    test models. A test model is a grant tool, form, or process
    that we will analyze for improvement where the outcome will be
    documented within the final report.
        When developing the test models for the pilot, HHS
    considered three other factors in addition to the legislation:
    user feedback received during our recipient outreach efforts,
    leveraging existing system development efforts and technology,
    and minimizing the impact to pilot test participants. The first
    two tests will be performed using the Common Data Elements
    Repository Library. Through this tool, we will test the
    functionality of standard grants terminology that has been
    developed as a result of the DATA Act and the Uniform Grants
    Guidance.
        The second test is focused on better management and
    reduction of forms currently used during the grantee reporting
    process.
        The third test is consolidated Federal financial reporting.
    Here we will test the benefits of having grantees submit all
    information required for Federal for the Federal financial
    report into one system and potentially to allow the further
    sharing of that data electronically.
        The next test is based on single audit. Single audit is an
    organization-wide financial statement and Federal awards audit.
    We are testing a consolidated work flow of forms to minimize
    grantee entry of required information.
        Notice of award proof of concept is our fifth test model.
    The notice of award is a form letter or other instrument that
    provides a breadth of information the grant recipient needs to
    perform routine accounting and financial reporting. We will
    test the benefits to grantees of a standardized notice of
    award.
        And, finally, we have learned grants. The learned grants
    model is intended to be a single source of guidance regarding
    the grants life cycle.
        Our tests will provide insight into advantages for grantees
    of having this information available through one consolidated
    Web link.
        In March of 2016, HHS began testing its first model, single
    audit, and is in the process of commencing the remaining test
    models. We will have final results for all models by the May
    2017 deadline for inclusion in our report to OMB.
        On behalf of HHS, I appreciate the opportunity to testify
    today and share with you the work we've done on the Section 5
    grants pilot. We look forward to our continued partnership with
    the committee, and welcome any questions that you may have.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Peckham follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Meadows. Thank you so much.
        The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, the chairman
    of the Subcommittee on Information Technology, Mr. Hurd, for a
    series of questions.
        Mr. Hurd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I always like to start these things off with a positive
    thing. When we had this hearing last time, the first question I
    asked is what is the deadline for the agencies to justify
    identifying those 57 pieces of information, and we got it done.
    So kudos. That's an important step.
        Now, the question is making sure that all the agencies are
    mapping their data to those 57 standards. And my question was--
    my question was going to be, when is the finalized technical
    schema going to be made available, you all said probably in
    May, so that agencies can solidify their data plans--submission
    plans, but what I heard, Mr. Lebryk, was that some agencies are
    already doing that. Correct? How many?
        Mr. Lebryk. So when we put the eight-step implementation
    plan together, all the agencies are through the first four.
    We've had 17 or 18 of the CFO Act agencies come to the sandbox
    already to test their data.
        Mr. Hurd. Say that again. How many?
        Mr. Lebryk. Seventeen or eighteen of the 24----
        Mr. Hurd. Gotcha.
        Mr. Lebryk. --have actually come to the sandbox already and
    actually taken files and put them into the prototype broker.
    Those who have not, many of them have come back and said they
    feel pretty comfortable about where they are. Now, we want them
    to come in sooner, but that has not been a major concern to us
    yet that those other seven----
        Mr. Hurd. So the folks that have come into the sandbox,
    tested this on your test broker, what--were there problems? Did
    it work? Were you satisfied?
        Mr. Lebryk. I think when you--the first time you go through
    something like this, and I know you're very much familiar with
    this, is that when you bring data in for the first time, you
    realize that there are relationships and there are quality of
    data issues that you need to address. So those who come in
    early are quicker at getting at kind of quality issues and also
    some of the relationship issues that they need to understand
    across files.
        So that's a significant challenge for the agencies, because
    you're asking for seven different file formats, and in those
    file formats, there sometimes can be information that doesn't
    line up the right way, and so you have to go back and then
    start really working on the data, which is why, again, we've
    been very pleased that people have been coming in early rather
    than later.
        Mr. Hurd. So agencies are mapping their information to the
    57 pieces, the standards, you have a broker site that is
    functional, but the final guidance that is to be issued in May,
    what is the difference between version 7 and what is going to
    be issued in May?
        Mr. Lebryk. Some of what you--I mean, when you do kind of
    the agile process, you're taking comments back from the
    agencies and you're getting some of the feedback from the
    broker, for example, about what needs better clarity and how
    the broker can be improved, and how the schema can be improved.
    So in that process, we've been taking a lot--some of those
    comments back.
        And in the version that we released at the end of March, we
    received a good number of comments back, but we've gone through
    that list. There are none of them, in our view, which are show
    stoppers, they're more about better explanation and some
    tweaking of kind of the schema to make it work better.
        Mr. Hurd. So agencies are supposed to begin reporting data
    in a little over a year, May 2017? Are we going to hit that?
        Mr. Lebryk. The short answer is yes. A little bit more
    complicated answer, I believe, is that we will see between now
    and then about how quickly they come along in terms of how--the
    quality of their data and how quickly in some cases some of the
    issues that GAO has identified of linkages. One of the critical
    linchpins of the act is the award ID, and that is the ability
    to link data across different kinds of government activity.
        Mr. Hurd. So this is a pilot in addition to the sandbox
    that you've been running with the other 17 or 18 agencies. Is
    that correct?
        Mr. Lebryk. Correct.
        Mr. Hurd. And how did Treasury use their feedback from that
    pilot program to improve the broker?
        Mr. Lebryk. Well, I think that, you know, when you have the
    SBA, it very much encouraged us that we are on the right path.
    And so when we look at what SBA was able to do and what their
    CFO came back and said, is they talked about sometimes agencies
    right now are going to USAspending today to get information
    about their own agency, because the information is siloed, they
    can't get to it by themselves.
        The SBA pilot, I think, proved the concept that when you
    bring this data together and you do presentation, you can get
    much more granular information, much better information across
    the enterprise.
        Mr. Hurd. And was that SBA pilot just for--limited to
    grants, or have we tested--have we done a test for contracts as
    well?
        Mr. Lebryk. It was initially limited, and we expanded it
    further into the portfolio. So they do have more than just
    grants and that we--we piloted.
        Mr. Hurd. So when is the centralized broker service going
    to be finalized?
        Mr. Lebryk. So we are expecting to have--I mentioned it was
    a prototype broker. We're expecting to have a beta broker this
    summer and we are expecting to have the production broker in
    the fall, early fall.
        Mr. Hurd. So we should be able to start seeing more bulk
    data on USAspending in the fall?
        Mr. Lebryk. I would say that we are more likely to see it
    in May of 2017, because I think what you're trying to do
    between now and then is make sure that you're comfortable with
    the quality of data, you're making sure things are functioning
    the way that they should.
        Mr. Hurd. Gotcha.
        I yield back the time I do not have.
        Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman.
        The chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
    Connolly, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Sager, what's your understanding of what the objective
    was when Congress passed the DATA Act? What were we trying to
    achieve?
        Ms. Sager. The DATA Act has several purposes, as you know,
    and it's to increase transparency over spending, improve data
    quality, and to provide information on the full Federal
    spending life cycle for grants, contracts, and loans.
        Mr. Connolly. In a way that we didn't have before.
        Ms. Sager. Exactly.
        Mr. Connolly. And you would concur, Mr. Mader, with that?
        Mr. Mader. Absolutely.
        Mr. Connolly. Okay. So given that, one of the things GAO
    found was deadlines may nonetheless be missed 2 years after
    passage. How concerned are you, Mr. Mader, with deadlines being
    missed?
        Mr. Mader. So I think that the readiness reviews that we
    started last week and then the finalization of the guidance and
    the schema will allow agencies to lock down their
    implementation plan.
        I would suspect come the end of July, August, I could
    probably say with a certain amount of certainty this number of
    agencies are surely going to make it, and these are--you know,
    these may be not going to hit that exact date, but I couldn't
    tell you today that all 24 of those major agencies are going to
    make it.
        Mr. Connolly. Well, I'll tell you what, I think all four of
    us would love to have that report by August, so even though
    we're not in session in August, some of us will be around, and
    I think all four of us would welcome your getting that to us so
    we can just monitor how's it going.
        Mr. Mader. Yeah.
        Mr. Connolly. Speaking of implementation plans, what's your
    guess, because that was a milestone, you know, self-set, right?
    So what is our expectation of how many agencies are going to
    meet that goal of having an implementation plan by a date
    certain in the summer?
        Mr. Mader. So everybody has an implementation plan. Those
    implementation plans were submitted late in the summer, those
    were the plans that GAO reviewed and commented on in their
    report, but going back to last summer, we didn't have the final
    data schema then to actually look at and say, okay, now I
    understand we have the data elements, as Chairman Hurd said, we
    now have the data schema, we have the enhanced guidance, and
    now what they need to do is look at their environment, their
    specific environment, and understand what interfaces they need
    to make within systems and what data they need to clean up. One
    of the----
        Mr. Connolly. I'm sorry. If I'm a citizen watching what you
    just said, I haven't got a clue what you just said.
        Does--everyone submitted an implementation plan that was a
    draft.
        Mr. Mader. It was a draft last summer, correct.
        Mr. Connolly. So when do we finalize those plans so that we
    now get to implementation?
        Mr. Mader. So those plans will--I would guess that those
    plans will be finalized in the late June, early July timeframe,
    because one of the systems that all the agencies need to update
    is the financial management system, because that's the
    authoritative source.
        We have three predominant software providers. They're in
    the process now of designing the patches that they need to
    make. So once we have the design of the patch, the agencies can
    finish their plan, because there are going to be interfaces
    between some of these systems, and then, you know, we can go
    into full implementation.
        Mr. Connolly. Okay. So next step is finalizing
    implementation plans that were drafted last year----
        Mr. Mader. Yes.
        Mr. Connolly. --because of all the things I can't repeat
    you said, and then we get on to actual implementation?
        Mr. Mader. Yes. Absolutely.
        Mr. Connolly. And then we monitor how well we're
    implementing after that?
        Mr. Mader. Right.
        Mr. Connolly. Okay. And we hope to be able to say we're
    doing that, by and large, starting around August, September?
        Mr. Mader. Correct.
        Mr. Connolly. Okay. Good.
        One of the other concerns GAO had was we may end up, with
    the best of efforts notwithstanding, with nonuniform reporting
    standards. Is that a concern to you, and what are we doing to
    make sure that's not the outcome?
        Mr. Mader. So the additional guidance that we put out in
    December and the additional guidance, which everybody has, it's
    just going through the OMB clearance process. The additional
    guidance that goes out formally in another week or two will
    reemphasize the importance of adhering to not only the 57, but
    the additional data standards.
        Because I think in GAO's testimony, they point out, and
    rightfully so, even though we've defined a data element in a
    certain way, agencies are not necessarily all the time
    interpreting it correctly. So it's going to be, you know, a
    continuous process of just monitoring what agencies are doing.
        Mr. Connolly. Well, does it also involve some guidance from
    your office?
        Mr. Mader. Which is the guidance that I mentioned has
    already been out there in draft, and it will be final----
        Mr. Connolly. So if you're noticing real very--I mean, you
    know, somebody might say po-tah-to and somebody might say po-
    tay-to, that's one kind of reporting variance, but if
    somebody's talking about potatoes and someone else is talking
    about, you know, asparagus, we've got a problem, because we're
    not speaking the same language, we're looking at different
    things. So presumably part of your role is to catch that early,
    OMB's role, so that we're avoiding that as much as we can?
        Mr. Mader. That's correct. And I want to emphasize what
    Dave said. 18 of those agencies brought real data in, it wasn't
    test data, it was real data that they brought in to the broker,
    and they actually, some of these agencies, walked away and say,
    wow, we have a lot of work to do over the next couple of months
    to clean up our data.
        So not only did it help us validate as a proof of concept,
    it actually helped them then to start identifying things that
    they need to do with their data systems.
        Mr. Connolly. My time is up. And, Mr. Chairman, I want to
    thank you and my colleagues for doing this.
        I just want to say to the panel, you know, this is not the
    sexiest of topics, apparently. Witness the press table. Lonely
    man. There he is. God bless him. And he--he will find
    redemption. What? And one over there. Sorry. Sorry. Two.
        But this is the kind of initiative that actually can be
    transformative for government, can save lots of money, can make
    us more efficient, make us more effective, free up resources
    for the mission, and make people feel better about actually
    their core mission and what they're doing, so thank you. And we
    want to work as a team to try to make sure it happens and
    happens well. And the four of us will stay on it. So we look
    forward to your report to us, Mr. Mader, in August.
        And, Mr. Chairman, we may want to consider another hearing
    in September. I thank my colleague.
        Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman.
        The chair recognizes himself for a series of questions.
        So, Ms. Sager, as you look at this particular program, what
    would you say is the most critical missing element that is out
    there? I know you've got a wide breadth within your report on
    what you've acknowledged, but what's the most critical aspect
    that we're missing?
        Ms. Sager. There are actually a couple of things that we've
    highlighted in our report, and I'll just emphasize them
    briefly. First is the data standards themselves. As we have
    heard, the data standards do exist, but agencies may still
    interpret them differently.
        We used a couple examples in our January report, award
    description and primary place of performance, which can mean
    very different things, and our prior work on USAspending showed
    that it does, in fact, mean different things to different
    agencies. So the standards and the forthcoming guidance, we
    can't emphasize enough that it needs to be paired with a
    technical guidance with the technical schema so that agencies
    know what they have to report, how they have to report, and
    when they have to report. So those are a couple of the critical
    areas.
        And then for the pilot, as we noted in our report, the
    grants pilot appears to more or less be on track. We do have
    concerns about the procurement pilot, and that begins with kind
    of all the basics about the leading practices for effective
    design of a pilot, what's your hypothesis, what are you
    measuring, how are you measuring it, how are you going to know
    if you've achieved success. I think if you put all of that
    together, it's kind of a couple of critical links that are key
    to effective implementation.
        Mr. Meadows. All right. So, Mr. Mader, let me follow up on
    that, because we're having this hearing today because I left
    the last hearing, hearing from you and Mr. Lebryk on the
    progress we were making, and ended up giving a speech to people
    who really knew about the implementation of the DATA Act. And
    so I went away feeling real good based on your last testimony
    only to find out that the devil in the detail perhaps is not as
    glowing as it was portrayed to be.
        And I'm going to say this in the kindest way that I can.
    You and I go way back, and I remember you--I know your first
    hearing was on GSA properties, and I told you you were given a
    pass, I like you, you're an engaging kind of guy, but let me--I
    need you to respond to this.
        There is the comment out there that OMB is going through
    the motions with some of these agencies, allowing them to take
    data and just move it from one reporting system to another
    without really changing the quality of the data. The 57
    components are treated by OMB as 57 suggestions, not 57
    requirements.
        How do you respond to that, because that's--that was the
    question I had to respond to, and I didn't have the answer, so
    I'm hopeful that you have the answer so I can go back and share
    it with the stakeholders.
        Mr. Mader. So let me start with the 57 data elements. Those
    are sort of in our policy guidance now, so----
        Mr. Meadows. Is it a requirement or not? Yes or no?
        Mr. Mader. Oh, it is a definite requirement.
        Mr. Meadows. All right. So you believe that the statute
    requires those 57----
        Mr. Mader. Right. And we spend----
        Mr. Meadows. Because there are some people out there that
    say that you think that it's only 11. So your sworn testimony
    is the 57 are required?
        Mr. Mader. Oh, absolutely.
        Mr. Meadows. Okay.
        Mr. Mader. Absolutely.
        Mr. Meadows. Go ahead.
        Mr. Mader. And then that's what--I think if you go back to
    my testimony from last July, that's what we said----
        Mr. Meadows. I just want to clarify. I'm just saying
    there's something between your testimony and the implementation
    thereof that we're missing, and I'm not sure what level that's
    at, but some people are getting conflicting reports. So go
    ahead.
        Mr. Mader. So--well, the other point I'd like to make, Mr.
    Chairman, is, as Chairman Hurd mentioned when we were here last
    summer, we said we would be done by the end of August, and we
    were done. So----
        Mr. Meadows. Done with which part?
        Mr. Mader. With the 57 data----
        Mr. Meadows. Right.
        Mr. Mader. --elements.
        Mr. Meadows. It was----
        Mr. Mader. --you know, and people are starting to use them
    in their system. I think that should give you confidence that
    when we make a commitment, we're going to fulfill that
    commitment.
        Mr. Meadows. All right. So how do you respond to the second
    part that we're not just--so let me ask you this. Are you
    taking information from legacy systems and bringing it over and
    saying, okay, this is corrupt data, you know, it meets this
    sort of guideline, and allowing yourself to put it in a
    different format? How do you reconcile the two?
        Mr. Mader. So you think about several different--and Dave
    mentioned seven different files, but what I want to focus on is
    basically three data sources. One is the financial data system,
    right? These are the systems that actually are audited every
    year. We have a high degree of confidence in the quality of the
    data that's in the financial system. So the financial system is
    the system of record that's going to be used heretofore for
    current U.S.--it's being used now for USAspending. It will be
    used to enhance, as you said, when we start displaying the full
    government spend. So I have 99.9 percent confidence in that
    financial data.
        The other system of record that we're going to be using is
    the procurement and contract system. And my colleagues both in
    GSA, as well as the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, have
    been working for the last couple of years and have had an
    extensive program of cleaning up the data in that system. So
    you're going to bring these two data----
        Mr. Meadows. So how do you do that without guidance, you
    know, because here's the interesting thing is you've continued
    to offer guidance, and went and looked at some of the budgets
    for the different agencies on how they're going to--and it's
    all over the place, I mean, you know, in terms of some agencies
    asking for a whole lot of money to implement, some--and I can't
    find any rhyme or reason in terms of where the numbers would
    come--from a business standpoint.
        Mr. Mader. Right, right.
        Mr. Meadows. I mean, you know, big agencies asking for big
    dollars, big agencies asking for very little dollars, small
    agencies asking for a huge number. I mean, there is no rhyme or
    reason. So how do they do that without real complete guidance
    from you and Treasury on what is going to be required?
        Mr. Mader. So I'd go back to we have had complete guidance
    out there, it might not have been the final version, but it was
    close to the final version, for months now. So people have been
    commenting, but----
        Mr. Meadows. So there hasn't been a wink and a nod that
    just says, get this information so we can comply to the DATA
    Act without really changing anything by anybody on your staff
    to your knowledge?
        Mr. Mader. It's not coming from me, it's not coming from
    OMB.
        Mr. Meadows. Are you aware of----
        Mr. Mader. I am not aware of any, no.
        Mr. Meadows. Is that the first time you've ever heard that
    accusation made about OMB?
        Mr. Mader. That surprises me, sir.
        Mr. Meadows. Okay. So it's the first time you've heard it?
        Mr. Mader. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Meadows. All right.
        Mr. Mader. So let me go back, though, why there's a
    variance in request for funding both in 2016, 2017, because--
    and let me use the financial system as an example and touch on
    SBA, because we used SBA sort of as the early proof of consent.
        SBA over the last couple years actually had built a totally
    integrated system, so their financial system is totally linked
    with their contract system as well as with their loan system.
    Now, compare and contrast that to a place like DHS that has 20
    some odd financial systems.
        So what's driving a lot of the cost of implementation is
    the state of their legacy systems. We have systems that are
    totally, you know, integrated and upgraded, like Small
    Business, like National Science Foundation, like the Department
    of Energy, but then we have legacy systems stretched across
    some of the bigger departments. That's why you see that
    variance in requests for funding.
        Mr. Meadows. Really? Because I'm going to go back and look
    at that. I don't know that that's totally accurate, but that's
    the new realm of thinking.
        I'm out of time, and I want to be sensitive to the ranking
    member, Ms. Kelly, so I'll go ahead and recognize her. We will
    have a second round after Mr. Grothman.
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Lebryk, I understand
    that Treasury has released multiple versions of the DATA Act
    schema for testing for a final release.
        Can you explain the significance of the schema and when it
    is expected to be completed and released?
        Mr. Lebryk. So when you look across the Federal Government,
    you have enormous different kinds of systems, and you have
    information that resides in lots of different places. So one of
    the things that we did in the Program Management Office was to
    help give a blueprint to the agencies about how they can map
    those 57 data standards and sort of show and identify where the
    authoritative source of that information is and then extract
    that information. And that's what the schema is about.
        It's about taking those 57, in addition to some other data
    elements and describing to the agencies how they have to
    arrange that information, how they have to orient it to make
    these three files or seven files, depending on how you want to
    look at it, that they can then report into the broker. So the
    schema really is about which elements you're going to report,
    how you're going to organize those elements, and in what format
    you're going to submit them to Treasury.
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you. Mr. Mader, your testimony explains
    that Congress appropriated one-third of the amount requested in
    the President's fiscal year 2016 budget request for DATA Act
    implementation. Can you explain the impacts on implementation
    of these short falls?
        Mr. Mader. I think if you go to the GAO report and
    testimony, I think they do a good job of raising, through the
    review of the implementation plan, the concerns that agencies
    have in resource constraints that they have been subject to in
    2016, and we don't know obviously where in 2017 the President's
    budget is going to go. What it has basically caused agencies to
    do is to reprioritize other initiatives. For example, I also
    work on moving agencies to administrative shared services.
    There's a lot of work that needs to be done by an agency to
    prepare to move to another service provider. Those are the
    kinds of initiatives that we have actually had to slow down to
    redirect resources to implementing the DATA Act.
        I think it's important to note you haven't heard OMB. You
    haven't heard the administration say at all since the beginning
    that we're not going to implement the DATA Act, that we are
    moving as fast as we can in making tradeoffs in order to move
    forward.
        Ms. Kelly. Well, I hope we can do our part to make sure we
    successfully support you or support you so you will be
    successful.
        The DATA Act requires the Secretary of the Treasury and the
    Director of OMB to consult with public and private stakeholders
    to establish the new data standards required under the Act. Ms.
    Sager, do you agree that stakeholder engagement is important to
    the full and effective implementation of DATA Act and why?
        Ms. Sager. Absolutely, and we are aware that there has been
    extensive stakeholder communication to date. Part of what we
    are talking about in some of our GAO recommendations is the
    importance of that stakeholder communication being two-way
    communication; in addition, the importance of documenting and
    widely distributing that communication. So, for example,
    although it may be very valuable for those at a particular
    conference to hear from OMB and Treasury officials, certainly
    there's a much broader community that would benefit from
    knowing about some of the challenges that are faced by
    agencies, what the plans are going forward for implementation,
    and then making sure that that information is shared,
    particularly as we head toward a change in presidential
    administration.
        Ms. Kelly. Mr. Mader, during the last hearing you
    identified ways OMB and Treasury have engaged in outreach with
    stakeholders, a critical piece to your efforts to reform
    Federal spending data. What are your future plans to engage
    with stakeholders outside of government?
        Mr. Mader. Congresswoman, I think we're committed to
    continue the kind of outreach that--I mean, I don't think a
    week goes by that Dave or I are not out speaking at some
    conference with stakeholders, external stakeholders, about the
    DATA Act. As GAO has testified in the past, all the work that
    we have been doing actually is posted on our external facing
    Web site. So people have the opportunity to see what we're
    doing and to also comment on it.
        Ms. Kelly. Some of the stakeholders have called on Treasury
    and OMB to go beyond the statutory provisions to consult and to
    fully collaborate with Federal and non-Federal stakeholders. Is
    there a forum for Federal stakeholders to collaborate with each
    other and share best practices?
        Mr. Mader. So for the Federal stakeholders, there are a
    couple of forums. Dave and I chair an Executive Advisory
    Committee. We also chair an Interagency Advisory Committee
    where we have representatives from various departments and
    various communities.
        We have folks from the contracting profession, from the
    grants profession, from the financial profession. We also
    interact with the various councils. I'll give you an example.
    This afternoon while we're here, there is a CFO Council
    meeting, so if we get done early enough, Dave and I will
    probably go back and talk about the hearing. So we use those
    kind of standing forums to communicate with folks. I mean, I
    would be shocked if a Federal agency said they really haven't
    heard from the OMB and Treasury. That would mean they were
    probably sleeping.
        Ms. Kelly. You know, the Sunlight Foundation has said in
    order to truly engage DATA Act stakeholders and the public,
    that Treasury and OMB must conduct their policymaking process
    in an open and transparent manner. So I yield back the time I
    don't have.
        Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentlewoman. Before I recognize
    Mr. Grothman, which I intend to do, Mr. Peckham, it's real easy
    for us to start focus, and you haven't had any questions, but I
    want to say that's most of the time a good thing in this
    committee. And so by saying that, I want to recognize the great
    job that you and your team have done with regards to the pilot
    and really taking this thing seriously on the grant side of
    things. It's very easy to condemn and point out the things that
    are not going right. And so I want to just say thank you. You
    may get some questions, but keep your head low.
        So Mr. Grothman, I'll go to you for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Grothman. Sure. I hope we don't cover old ground here,
    but I'll start off with Mr. Mader. First of all, I want to make
    sure that in your mind the DATA Act applies to all Federal
    agencies, and cover everybody?
        Mr. Mader. Yes, sir. It covers all Federal agencies who
    have appropriations, yes.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. Could you, just to clarify things,
    eventually provide the committee with a list of agencies that
    is you feel broken out that it covers?
        Mr. Mader. Absolutely.
        Mr. Grothman. Have all these agencies submitted
    implementation plans to you guys already?
        Mr. Mader. I don't believe some of the smaller commissions
    have submitted plans. We're in the process, and it's timely
    that you ask for the list of finalizing who we believe under
    the statute is covered. And I think it's important to, not only
    to sort of capture the total, but also to put it in the
    context.
        The 24 CFO Act agencies, the ones that we have been
    interacting since day one, represent 90 percent of the spend
    that we're talking about. So we're going to have in the DATA
    Act when we go live, at least 90 percent of the total
    government spend. You know, whether we get every last
    commission to that place in May, again, let's see what goes on
    over the course of the summer.
        Mr. Grothman. Maybe it would be a good idea, not just for
    us but for your own benefit, if you provide a list of the
    agencies that you feel the status is of each of the agencies,
    and then you can kind of know and they can judge themselves
    where they are compared to the other agencies whether they're
    up to speed at the appropriate time.
        Mr. Mader. We will.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. Thanks. Ms. Sager, can you just in
    general give us your opinion of the role that the OMB and
    Treasury have in addressing these challenges, or how they're
    helping agencies?
        Ms. Sager. OMB and Treasury are charged with leading the
    DATA Act implementation effort, and so they are responsible for
    providing the guidance, for providing what we refer to as kind
    of the governance structure, for how this is going to happen,
    for memorializing changes as they occur, and for developing the
    technical schema that brings all of the data together.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. Thank you. Just in general, Mr. Mader
    and Mr. Lebryk, how have your agencies made use of the
    information that's been forwarded to you so far? What do you do
    with it? I guess Mr. Mader is always on the spot, so we'll go
    with Mr. Lebryk.
        Mr. Lebryk. One of the things that Dave and I hold a
    monthly senior accountable officials call with the agencies. So
    we have identified in each of the agencies a senior accountable
    official who is responsible for making sure the DATA Act
    information is flowing right in the organization and getting
    implemented correctly.
        In addition, I have mentioned this PMO, the Project
    Management Office, we hold--or the program management office--
    we hold office hours on a regular basis. We hold webinars where
    we hold--a question had come up earlier about our outreach to
    States. We hold a monthly call with State and local officials
    to give them feedback on where we are and updates on where we
    are. If you ever meet the people in the PMO, they're just
    enormously energetic and committed to what we're doing. And I
    think it's because if you are kind of in this area of data,
    this is really kind of a great place to be right now because
    you can see the difference you're going to be making across
    government.
        So they're very active and aggressive in going out and
    talking to the agencies on a regular basis to make sure that
    we're keeping them up to date and giving them the opportunity
    to ask questions. They're the ones who have been holding the
    sandbox sessions with the agencies, and we're hopeful, when we
    get to the broker, the beta broker, that agencies will actually
    be able to do that from their agency, rather than having to
    come to Treasury to do that information, so that there will be
    more realtime feedback and better to work with our data sooner.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. In general, a couple agencies have
    mentioned, you know, lack of resources. Of course, everybody
    always talks about lack of resources. But do you feel that's a
    valid complaint, or do you feel you're able to leverage
    additional resources and that won't be a problem?
        Mr. Mader. As I mentioned to Congresswoman Kelly, I think
    we're committed to implementing this, and we're trying the best
    we can to reallocate and redirect resources.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. Thank you. One final question. How
    frequently are you going to ask the agencies to update their
    implementation plans? I guess another way of saying that is how
    often do you check in with them and make sure they're on
    schedule?
        Mr. Mader. So because of the, sort of the place where we
    are with the implementation schedule, as I mentioned, we're
    going to receive the updated implementation plans, so let's say
    in the June, July, timeframe, which we will provide to the
    committee a summary. What we're also going to do is actually
    implement a monthly dashboard where we're going to require
    agencies to report in to us against the timelines that they
    have in their revised implementation plans.
        So we'll be able to monitor between now and the first of
    the calendar year, and then through May of 2017 the status of
    each of these. I mean, it's not like Dave and I are absentee
    landlords. We're talking to these folks all the time.
        Mr. Grothman. Thanks. Very informative.
        Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman. The chair recognizes
    the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hurd, for a second round.
        Mr. Hurd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mader, correct me if
    I'm wrong, or if you don't want to throw people under the bus,
    you can just blink twice. What I bet you is probably happening
    is, the fact that Treasury is doing these agile developments,
    right, so you have the versions, different versions of the
    schema, and you have interim guidance. I bet you there are some
    agencies that are using the fact that it's interim guidance to
    not implement or not begin implementation--and so was that two
    blinks? Did you just blink twice? I'm joking.
        So what I would like to see is if we do another hearing on
    this, let's start bringing some of these agencies that are
    responsible for doing this, because guess what? You have
    guidance on what those 57 data elements are. They can start
    mapping their information to those 57 data elements. The
    agencies can start linking their financial systems to their
    award systems. All right. You don't have to have the final
    guidance. So I would be interested in if you could provide to
    this committee the agencies that have been to the sandbox and
    used their system, and then also let us know which agencies
    haven't been to the sandbox. Because you all shouldn't have all
    the fun in sitting here and answering these questions. We
    should be bringing some of these agencies and let them know
    that, you know, we're going to hold them accountable for
    implementing this.
        You all are providing the guidance. You all are providing
    interim guidance to help them move along so they don't have to
    do everything at the last minute, and if they're not taking
    advantage of it, the problem is on them.
        All right. So this is something that I would think we do,
    Mr. Chairman, in September. And also I'd like to know if you
    haven't already provided this to the committee, the list of all
    the officials that's responsible for the DATA Act
    implementation, whether it's the CIO or the CFO, so we know
    who's responsible, and so if we're not seeing movement at that
    agency, we know who we can call and have sitting right here.
        Mr. Mader, you look like you want to say something.
        Mr. Mader. Yeah, I want to reassure both subcommittee
    members, there isn't an agency that has come to us and said
    they're not going to be able to implement. They haven't come to
    us yet. So I don't think anybody is deliberately slow rolling
    us in the implementation. I think there are challenges, and I
    think that agencies, depending on their size and complexity,
    are starting to realize the list that they have between now and
    next January, to really get ready with the second-quarter data,
    which is the quarter of data that's going to be voted in May of
    2017.
        One of the reasons that Dave and I decided to go out and do
    these readiness reviews is it's easy to just send emails back
    and forth with people. I think it's more effective when you sit
    across the table of other senior executives and you look them
    in the eye and you sort of go over their plan and ask them, are
    you going to make it? And what I've been saying to agencies for
    the last several months is, if you're not going to make it,
    then what you need to do is have your cabinet Secretary write
    to Sean Donovan and tell him, and then we'll have a meeting.
        Mr. Hurd. Mr. Mader, I apologize for cutting you off. But,
    listen, you have, Treasury has done the program, Management
    Office, you're holding these conversations, but at this point,
    and, Ms. Sager, I'd be interested to know who's mistaking what
    those data standards actually mean, because this is as simple
    as picking up the phone and calling one of you all and saying,
    hey, does this mean X or does it mean Y?
        And so getting to a point, I don't think any agency
    should--it should be unambiguous at this point now that all 57
    data standards have been outlined, and you all are open, and
    you have people that are willing to help these agencies with
    implementation.
        So, Ms. Sager, if it hasn't been identified, I would like
    to see a list of those agencies that are still a little
    confused on what those 57 data elements are supposed to be.
        Ms. Sager. And I would just say that based on our prior
    work on USASpending, one of the things we discovered there is
    although agencies may think they fully understand the
    definition, it's once they implement submitting data and
    they're doing it differently, they're trying to make those
    cross-agency comparisons, that's where it becomes clear that
    what you thought was a shared understanding of a definition,
    upon implementation it then becomes clear that that shared
    understanding may have been different given the breadth of the
    Federal Government.
        Mr. Hurd. And my last question--I don't know if this is
    best for you, Mr. Lebryk, or you, Mr. Mader--have agencies made
    adequate progress on linking their financial and award systems
    in order to meet the DATA Act requirement?
        Mr. Mader. Let me start, and I'll ask Dave if he wants to
    add. I think that, as I mentioned, one of the advantages that
    we have is we only have three predominant software providers
    for financial management. They're in the process now of
    working, as I mentioned, on those patches. Putting the award
    data into the financial system, you know, that's been a guiding
    principle since day one. So agencies are working on that. They
    didn't need additional guidance to actually move out on that.
        And again, we want to see the revised implementation plans
    because we have actually given them--basically Treasury
    developed an implementation roadmaps that takes us from where
    we are to May of 2017, and with critical milestones. And what
    we're asking the agencies to do is take that template and
    actually put your critical milestones over the top of that. So
    we'll be able to see come December where there is a disconnect
    from a timing standpoint.
        Mr. Hurd. Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. My last quick question.
    This is easy for a yes or no to the gentlemen at the end of the
    table. Mr. Lebryk, has Treasury mapped its data to the 57
    elements?
        Mr. Lebryk. Treasury is right on progress.
        Mr. Hurd. Excellent. Mr. Peckham, has HHS?
        Mr. Peckham. We are very close.
        Mr. Hurd. Excellent. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman. Chair recognizes Ms.
    Kelly for a second round.
        Ms. Kelly. I know we asked about resources, and sometimes
    people just think about money, but do you feel across the board
    there are enough skilled people or people to get the work done?
        Mr. Mader. I think that when we talk about resources, we're
    talking not only about dollars, but we're talking about human
    resources. And, you know, with this particular initiative, this
    is very technical, I think, as Chairman Hurd will appreciate
    when he sees some of the detail. We don't have all of the
    Federal resources. That's why we rely on our partners,
    contractors to bring in those additional resources. When
    budgets are constrained, it constrains how much we can bring in
    from the outside. So, again, it's a challenge, but we haven't
    let anybody off the hook.
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
        Mr. Peckham, I really appreciate the work that HHS has put
    into piloting the implementation of the DATA Act. Your
    leadership and the hard work of your staff has set
    implementation off to the right foot, as you said. I would like
    to discuss your successes in implementing the grant portion of
    the pilot. How have you been able to do so much progress in
    designing and preparing for testing the grant portion of the
    pilot?
        Mr. Peckham. Thank you, first of all.
        We at HHS take this very, very seriously. We understand
    that there are a lot of benefits to be gained, not only for the
    grantees, but for the Federal Government, and we believe that
    if we can lead by example and establish some efficiencies
    within our processes and pass those on to the grant recipients,
    there is a win-win situation for both areas. And that is
    generally the approach. I'd also like to recognize the staff
    that I work with. They are very committed. We have folks from
    different areas throughout the Department, from different
    business lines, and we are working in a collaborative fashion
    to make sure that we understand where we need to go and finally
    engaging the public as much as we can.
        Ms. Kelly. The GAO report concluded that the grants portion
    of the pilot will meet the requirements of the DATA Act if
    implemented according to HHS' proposed plan. What expectations
    does HHS have for the outcome of the grant portion of the
    pilot?
        Mr. Peckham. We are hopeful that all six models are
    successful and that we can find efficiencies from them that we
    can recommend and then report to OMB and Congress and see what
    action can be taken.
        Ms. Kelly. Okay. Thank you.
        Ms. Sager, thank you for being with us today. According to
    the recent GAO report, the design of the procurement portion of
    the pilot will not meet the DATA Act requirements. What are the
    potential consequences of the procurement portion of the pilot
    not meeting the specified DATA Act requirements?
        Ms. Sager. I would mention a couple of things here and also
    point out that as OMB has defined it, the Section 5 pilot
    consists of the two portions, so it is the grants portion and
    the procurement portion, both together to meet the requirements
    in the Act itself. Given that, the procurement pilot
    particularly, I think one of the things that is unclear is the
    extent to which the dollar amount will be specified and met by
    the procurement portion of the pilot as you saw it in the
    written statement. It is a fairly narrow portion of the pilot
    given its focus on certified payroll. That may provide
    informative information. At this point, there was not enough
    information available in the plan itself for us to fully
    understand how the procurement portion of the pilot contributes
    to meeting the specifications in the Act itself.
        The other thing is the diversity of pilot participants.
    Again, it was not entirely clear how that particular
    requirement in the Act would be met by the plan, or by the
    pilot, as it is currently specified. We understand this is a
    work in progress, but we look forward to learning more about
    that so that we can understand how this portion of the pilot
    also contributes to scaleability. Given its narrow focus, it's
    important to know that the evaluation and the lessons learned
    from this portion of the pilot do have broader applicability to
    the procurement community.
        Ms. Kelly. Mr. Mader, how do you respond to the concerns
    raised?
        Mr. Mader. We accept the criticism that GAO has documented
    around the procurement pilot. We're in the process of
    replanning that effort to ensure that the necessary methodology
    documentation is in place, and we will work with GAO on that. I
    think it's important though to also recognize that long before
    there was a DATA Act, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy
    actually has been working on reducing contractor burden. I know
    Congressman Connolly knows this market very, very well from
    being in Northern Virginia. I don't think a day goes by that my
    colleague Anne Rung doesn't hear from the Professional Services
    Council, around things the government can do to reduce the
    burden that we put on doing business with the government. Our
    commitment is to come back with a replan in the next 45 days so
    that we can assure ourselves and you that we'll meet all of the
    objectives of the DATA Act.
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you. And I yield back.
        Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentlewoman. So in 45 days, you're
    going to come back to this committee with a revamp of what you
    plan to do on the procurement side of it. Is that what I heard?
        Mr. Mader. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Meadows. Okay. So how did we end up with such a narrow
    scope? You've got Mr. Peckham, whose expertise is not this
    particular area, yours, Mr. Mader, where it is your area, and
    he is working on six. You're working on one. But it's not even
    just one. It's one narrowly tailored to include Davis-Bacon.
    How in the world did you come up with that as a criteria?
        Mr. Mader. So we, as I mentioned, we have been working on
    burden reduction for contractors for several years, and there
    were several----
        Mr. Meadows. How is that working? If I were to ask the
    general population that Mr. Connolly has the privilege and
    honor of serving, would they say that you're getting an A or on
    the other end of the spectrum?
        Mr. Mader. I think they would comment, as my colleagues in
    GAO would, like in a blue book cover is some progress but more
    work to be done. I think the community would recognize----
        Mr. Meadows. I think you're generous with your analysis,
    but go ahead. We'll leave it at that.
        Mr. Mader. I think they would recognize that we have made
    progress. They would probably say you could make more progress.
        Mr. Meadows. So answer the question. How did we come up
    with such a narrow--my understanding is the whole national
    dialogue, you got three responses originally from a contractor,
    three contractor responses. None of them referenced this, but
    yet you picked this.
        Mr. Mader. Because of the work that we had done previously
    with the community.
        Mr. Meadows. So what you're saying is you did a pilot based
    on work you had already done, because I don't think that's what
    we wanted?
        Mr. Mader. So we felt, we feel that the pilot as it's
    currently scoped, using wage reporting for Davis-Bacon, and for
    folks in the audience that don't understand the size of that,
    so any Federal funds over $2,000 that are used in construction
    or renovation are subject to Davis-Bacon.
        Mr. Meadows. I understand. But we're talking about
    certified payroll. Again, we're talking about a narrow scope
    within a narrow scope. So it may be big in the universe of
    those that qualify, but we have narrowed the scope. And I think
    you've just admitted under testimony that it may not be a
    meaningful pilot. Would you agree with that?
        Mr. Mader. No, I would not agree with that.
        Mr. Meadows. So you disagree with GAO that it's meaningful
    in all respects to what the DATA Act was seeking to find out,
    that it will provide enough meaningful data that you will be
    able to implement the DATA Act properly?
        Mr. Mader. We believe we can.
        Mr. Meadows. So you do disagree with Ms. Sager?
        Mr. Mader. Right, yes.
        Mr. Meadows. But your testimony a few minutes ago was that
    you agreed with her and that you were going to revise this in
    45 days.
        Mr. Mader. What I agreed, Mr. Chairman, was that we did not
    do a good job of documenting our methodology and our approach.
        Mr. Meadows. All right. So you're suggesting that this
    narrow, tailored, pilot is indicative to make informed
    decisions across, all Federal agencies on procurement. That's
    your testimony here today?
        Mr. Mader. With regard to this particular area of focus.
    And as GAO has testified, there's two components of this that
    need to be better actually put together.
        Mr. Meadows. Ms. Sager, would you like to have seen more
    inclusive on the procurement side in terms of a pilot? Would it
    have helped you to identify the strengths and weaknesses by
    having a broader scope?
        Ms. Sager. If the pilot had broader, certainly that would
    have given us a better indication of how this would apply to
    the procurement community more broadly.
        Mr. Meadows. So do you have doubts that with the narrow
    scope of the procurement pilot, that we may not be able to make
    the best informed decisions in terms of the general procurement
    side of the implementation of the DATA Act?
        Ms. Sager. Based on what we have seen to date, we are
    unable to take the limited documentation that we have to
    understand how certified payroll narrowly has lessons to be
    learned for the entire contracting community.
        Mr. Meadows. All right. So here's what I would ask you, Mr.
    Mader, since you're going to revisit this in 45 days or get a
    plan back to this committee, is how we can potentially expand
    the scope. I think you've already said on the pilot program
    you're going to miss the deadlines. Is that correct? I think
    that was in your earlier testimony, maybe not?
        Mr. Mader. No, it wasn't.
        Mr. Meadows. Okay. Are we going to have a full year's worth
    of data from the pilot program?
        Mr. Mader. That's why we're going to go back and take a
    look at our plan, so I don't know.
        Mr. Meadows. Okay. All right. Well, here's my request of
    you. We want a full year's worth of data, even if it's going to
    take you beyond the original target date, because less than a
    full year's worth of data is meaningless in terms of really
    making informed decisions. Does that make sense?
        Mr. Mader. That makes sense.
        Mr. Meadows. So you can commit to the committee that you'll
    give us a full year's worth of data?
        Mr. Mader. We can, yes.
        Mr. Meadows. Thank you. All right. So let me close with one
    last area. You've been talking about the implementation plans
    for the agencies, that they've submitted these implementation
    plans. Is that correct?
        Mr. Mader. That's correct.
        Mr. Meadows. All right. Can we get a copy of those
    implementation plans from the agencies? Will you supply those
    to us? Because I'm sure those would be very informative in
    terms of the understanding of agency to agency based on those
    implementation plans.
        Mr. Mader. When we receive the revised plans, we would be
    more than happy to come----
        Mr. Meadows. You can go ahead send us the ones you have
    now. Your testimony was that you had implementation plans, and
    so obviously in the DATA Act, we're going down that you're
    making informed decisions on guidance based on those
    implementation plans, on what's in them, what's not in them, I
    would assume. Is that correct?
        Mr. Mader. No. I don't think we're making decisions based
    on the----
        Mr. Meadows. You've looked at an implementation plan for
    all the agencies, and you've made no changes in your guidance?
        Mr. Mader. No, no. I didn't say that, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Meadows. Okay.
        Mr. Mader. What I said is implementation plans were done
    early on last year, right, a year ago this past summer. And I
    think, as Dave Lebryk has testified, this iterative process
    allows us to have a----
        Mr. Meadows. That's fine. I guess what I'm saying is just
    send us the implementation plans as you have them, as they are
    revised and change from agencies, will you go ahead and send
    those to us as well?
        Mr. Mader. We will. We will.
        Mr. Meadows. So with that, I appreciate the specificity,
    Mr. Mader, of you answering some of the difficult questions.
    Let me share about the communication, because it's one thing to
    give a speech. It's another to have communication. Sometimes
    the only way that you get two-way communication when you give a
    speech is on the receiving end of either insult or things
    thrown from the audience. Let's hope that that didn't happen.
        But in doing that, one of my concerns is that I'm hearing
    from stakeholders that there is still ambiguity, and there is a
    lack of commitment in terms of the quality of the data. And the
    big concern that is being expressed, and so I'd like you to
    address it, not in a question and answer here, but it sounds
    like that you're serious about reaching out, that you and Dave,
    as you've said, are reaching out on a regular basis. Here's my
    ask of you, is to get with those that have, not just the
    agencies, but subcontractors, others that have to implement
    this, and ask them what are the problems. And give them cart
    blanche to be able to say, because sometimes they may not say
    it to you. They're saying it to me. Because they've got to do
    business with you, and I don't.
        And so as we look at that, if you would redouble your
    effort on a two-way communication and not allow it to go out,
    but then say, okay, based on this input that we have gotten
    from stakeholders and agencies and across the board, we are
    modifying it based on this input in this way, where they
    understand that their input is actually having a direct impact
    on you and Treasury. Now, from your testimony here today,
    you're indicating that that is happening, and I just would ask
    that you redouble your efforts there and as we look at that, go
    forward.
        If there are no closing statements, I would just like to
    thank all of you for your testimony. Thank you for your
    diligence in protecting the hardworking American taxpayers'
    dollars and transparency. If there is no further business, the
    committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:02 p.m., the committees were adjourned.]

                                    APPENDIX

                                  ----------

                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]