[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]