[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
GAO'S DUPLICATION REPORT AT FIVE YEARS: RECOMMENDATIONS REMAIN
UNADDRESSED
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 14, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-30
__________
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
95-420 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Sean McLaughlin, Staff Director
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
Katy Rother, Counsel
Sharon Casey, Deputy Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 14, 2015................................... 1
WITNESSES
The Hon. Gene L. Dodaro, Comptroller General of the United
States, U.S. Government Accountability Office
Oral Statement............................................... 1
Written Statement............................................ 6
The Hon. Beth Cobert, Deputy Director for Management, The Office
of Management and Budget
Oral Statement............................................... 40
Written Statement............................................ 42
APPENDIX
Chairman Chaffetz Opening Statement.............................. 84
2015-04-21 GAO 4-14 Hearing Responses............................ 86
RESPONSE Cobert-OMB-Blum QFRs.................................... 88
GAO'S DUPLICATION REPORT AT FIVE YEARS: RECOMMENDATIONS REMAIN
UNADDRESSED
----------
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in Room
2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jason Chaffetz
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Chaffetz, Mica, Duncan, Jordan,
Walberg, Amash, Massie, Meadows, Mulvaney, Buck, Walker, Blum,
Hice, Russell, Carter, Grothman, Palmer, Cummings, Maloney,
Norton, Connolly, Duckworth, Kelly, Lawrence, Lieu, Plaskett,
DeSaulnier, and Grisham.
Chairman Chaffetz. Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is
authorized to declare a recess at any time.
This afternoon, the United States Government--or sorry--
this morning, the United States Government Accountability
Office released its annual report on duplicative Federal
programs. It has been the case for the past 5 years there's a
vast opportunity for the Federal Government to save hard-earned
taxpayer dollars.
One day before Americans have to on the--one day before
Americans have to pay their taxes, the GAO report identifies 24
new areas where Federal Government agencies are wasting
resources. To help remedy this waste and improve the
effectiveness of our government, the report recommends more
than 66 actions to save money. Some examples from this year's
report include eight Federal agencies administer more than 100
programs to support individuals with serious mental illness.
The GAO also identifies 42 Federal, State, and local
nonemergency medical transportation programs that currently
lack coordination, leading to poor outcomes.
Further, the GAO noted that the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, often referred to as NOAA,
maintains 21 separate systems to monitor sea surface
temperature and 14 to measure just one--just ocean surface wind
speeds. Even NOAA has admitted this level of redundancy is
unnecessary.
Finally, the report also draws--also draws new attention to
the broken down FOIA process at the Department of Homeland
Security. Today, Department of Homeland Security is responsible
for more than half of all reported backlog FOIA requests. This
is completely unacceptable.
All told, in the first 5 years of the report, GAO has
identified more than 200 areas with wasted Federal resources.
As a result, GAO has recommended more than 500 actions to save
money and approve efficiency. By implementing about a third of
these, GAO recommendations in prior years, the government
managed to save roughly $20 billion, which is a start, but more
needs to be done.
Addressing the remaining recommendations has the potential
to save American taxpayers $80 billion by the year 2023. Over
and again, the GAO's duplication reports have shown how
precious dollars are wasted when Federal agencies fail to work
together. GAO has specifically identified dozens of areas where
increased guidance, oversight, and coordination from OMB would
create greater efficiency. These would also reduce costs to the
taxpayers, including the way for the Federal Government to
acquire needed goods and services.
Yet OMB to date has only fully addressed about a third of
GAO's recommended actions. It has to do better to fully justify
the taxpayers' trust in its mission. With Americans projected
to pay the government $1.5 trillion in individual income taxes,
we must ensure greater return on taxpayer investment by
reducing inefficiencies and redundancies.
I want to thank the GAO for, once again, providing Congress
and the executive branch with a road map to achieve the needed
savings. There are literally thousands of good men and women
who work tirelessly through the course of a year and beyond, to
develop these reports, and we very much appreciate it. Look
forward to hearing from the witnesses on how the government can
make greater progress in achieving a more efficient, effective,
and accountable government. That's what we're all here to do,
and this is a good opportunity for both sides of the aisle, the
administration, the GAO, to all to come together and discuss
these topics and figure out how we can make more of the
precious Federal dollars.
Chairman Chaffetz. I want to let members know that we
will--I will hold the record open for 5 legislative days for
any members who would like to submit a written statement.
We will now recognize our panel of witnesses. I am pleased
to welcome the Honorable Gene Dodaro, Comptroller General of
the United States Government Accountability Office. Mr. Dodaro
is accompanied by a panel of staff from the GAO behind him
whose expertise may be needed during the questioning.
We also have the Honorable Beth Cobert, deputy director for
management at the Office of Management and Budget. Did I
pronounce it properly?
Ms. Cobert. Yes.
Chairman Chaffetz. Okay. Good.
We welcome you. Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses
will be sworn before they testify. We will also swear in those
accompanying Mr. Dodaro who may be offering testimony. And so
if you all would rise.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
by the truth?
Thank you. Let the record reflect that all members--all
people who raised their hand answered in the affirmative.
And prior to having our witnesses testify, we're going to
now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Cummings, from Maryland
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
holding what has become a critical annual hearing for our
committee and for making sure that GAO's report gets the
attention it warrants.
Today's hearing will focus on GAO's fifth annual report on
duplicative programs and opportunities for cost savings. It
will allow us to zero in on areas where we can work together to
cut waste and save money. That is what this committee is all
about and that is what our constituents expect of us.
Unfortunately, today's report from GAO indicates that
Congress has been doing far worse than the executive branch in
implementing recommendations to eliminate duplication and to
promote the efficiency and effectiveness of the Federal
Government. According to GAO's report, the executive branch has
fully or partially completed 86 percent of GAO's
recommendations, while Congress is struggling around 45
percent. Clearly Congress must do a better job of focusing on
its own actions, rather than trying to blame everything on the
executive branch. Specifically, GAO has made 369
recommendations for the executive branch and 317 have now been
fully or partially completed. In contrast, GAO has made 69
recommendations for Congress, but only 31 of those have been
fully or partially completed.
This year's report from GAO highlights some areas where
Congress could legislate to eliminate waste and duplication.
For example, GAO recommended that Congress consider permanently
rescinding the entire $1.6 billion balance of U.S. Enrichment
Corporation fund. According to GAO, the Congress authorized
this revolving fund in the U.S. Treasury for environmental
cleanup costs associated with disposing of depleted uranium at
two specific facilities and for expenses related to the fund's
privatization. GAO has determined that both of the funds
purposes have been completed, but only Congress can permanently
rescind the entire balance of the fund.
Overall, it is clear that significant progress has been
made in implementing GAO's recommendations over the past 4
years. GAO made a total of about 440 recommendations between
2011 and 2014, and about 348 of these have been fully or
partially addressed by the executive branch and Congress. GAO
estimates that these efforts have resulted in about $20 billion
in financial benefits to date, with another $80 billion in
savings projected through 2023. We must recognize these
accomplishments and shine a light on them. We want them to
become the model that we'll strive to achieve.
And at the same time, it is also clear that more work
simply needs to be done. For example, GAO identified potential
duplication in laboratory inspections. GAO highlighted one
laboratory that had been inspected eight times by the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Drug and Food
Administration over an 8-year span. Of course these facilities
must be rigorously inspected. But if relevant information had
been shared between the two agencies, they might have reduced
duplication and been able to direct attention to other needed
inspections. Better leveraging of resources and potentially
increasing the number of facilities inspected serves not only
the best interest of the agencies, but of the taxpayers as
well.
To conclude, I want to thank both of our witnesses, Mr.
Dodaro and Ms. Cobert, for being here today. Mr. Dodaro, you
and your talented staff, are providing a critical service to
the Congress and the American people by issuing this report. I
also appreciate the work that you and your colleagues at GAO do
every day to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the
Federal Government and to help ensure that our tax dollars are
spent wisely.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank the gentleman.
Chairman Chaffetz. I will now recognize Mr. Dodaro for 5
minutes.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GENE L. DODARO
Mr. Dodaro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good
afternoon to you. Ranking Member Congressman Cummings, members
of the committee, I'm very pleased to be here today to discuss
GAO's 2015 report.
We identified 24 new areas with 66 recommendations. These
include a recommendation to the Congress to create a formal
coordinating group to focus on the oversight of consumer
protection issues. There are 20 different agencies involved in
this effort at least. There's fragmentation, overlap of
responsibilities, and greater efficiencies that can be achieved
as well as better protection to the public.
We also have recommendations for greater coordination among
the 42 programs and six agencies that provide nonemergency
medical transportation. Here we're concerned that not enough
cooperation has been gained yet from the Medicaid and VA
programs, which are big players. And there's not a cost sharing
agreement in place. The council coordinating this activity
hasn't met since 2008. This is a big issue, particularly with
the aging of our population and the need for these nonemergency
medical services among the aged, the disabled, and those
without the means to provide their own transportation for
needed health care.
We also identified a component of provider within the DOD
healthcare system that was set up originally in 1982. It's now
being duplicated by the TRICARE program, which was established
in the 1990s, and we recommend that that component can be
eliminated, thus saving millions of dollars with a careful
transition to ensure that nobody has interruption in services
that are provided.
We also recommend reexamination of the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve. With U.S. production now at record levels, and
reserves growing both in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and
the--and private sector reserves, we now hold much more than we
have to to meet international requirements in the reserve. This
could free up potentially, based on the reexamination, oil that
could be sold to reap billions of dollars that could be used
for other government priorities and also reduce the operating
costs of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is aging and in
need of further repair.
We also identified areas that were established of 11
hospitals that provided cancer treatment in the 1980s when most
cancer treatment was in-patient concern. Now, more hospitals
can provide it as outpatient concerns. And if those hospitals
were treated the same way other hospitals that are treating
cancer payments now and at a level playing field, the Federal
Government could save $500 million a year in Medicare spending,
healthcare spending. So these are a few of the examples.
As has been mentioned, in the past 4 years, we've had over
440 recommendations. Thirty seven percent have been fully
implemented. Thirty nine percent partially. Twenty percent not
at all. The amount of money that's been saved so far has been
$20 billion in implementing our recommendations, with another
$80 billion in the works that should be achieved in the coming
years. But there's plenty of money left on the table here in
areas that can produce additional billion dollars in savings
and efficiencies. We've grouped them into a number of
categories. You could be more aggressive on strategic sourcing,
the leverage, the government's buying power. Right now, OMB is
moving on this as Beth will talk about, but we need to be more
aggressive in setting targets and to achieve the savings that
are necessary.
In February, I was before this committee talking about IT
operations and the acquisitions. We put it on our high-risk
list across government. Their concerted efforts could save
millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars in waste and
inefficiencies in IT operations. We've had many recommendations
to streamline activities at the Defense Department to reduce
overhead, help control their healthcare costs, reduce the cost
of weapon systems. We have recommendations to reform Medicare
and Medicaid payment processes and oversight processes to
reduce healthcare spending, which is much needed at this point
in time. We've got recommendations to also increase tax
revenues and to rationalize some benefit programs where there's
some overlapping and duplication in benefit programs.
So I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and
discuss these areas in further detail during the questions-and-
answer period when it's appropriate. Mr. Chairman, thank you
very much.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you. We appreciate that.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Dodaro follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Chaffetz. I will now recognize Ms. Cobert for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BETH COBERT
Ms. Cobert. Thank you, Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member
Cummings, and distinguished members of the committee for
inviting me to discuss the Federal Government's efforts to
reduce fragmentation, overlap, and duplication across programs.
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this important area
because it is critical that the administration and Congress
work together to advance reforms that help sustain a high
performing, cost effective government.
GAO is a key partner in OMB's efforts to create more
efficiencies and cost savings. GAO's 2015 report provides
helpful updates on actions the administration and Congress have
taken on recommendations from previous reports and offers new
recommendations. I also particularly appreciate this
opportunity to testify along with Comptroller Gene Dodaro.
Whether it is a GAO high risk list, this report, or other
specific issues, Gene and I are regularly working together
towards the common goal of creating positive outcomes for
citizens and thoughtful and careful spending of taxpayer
dollars.
GAO's report recognizes some of the overall progress the
administration has made since the initial areas of
fragmentation, overlap, and duplication were identified in
2011. The executive branch and Congress together, have
significantly engaged in 337 of the 440 broad areas GAO has
identified over the past 4 years. Within these broad areas, the
executive branch has made progress on 79 percent of GAO's
recommendations, with 30 percent fully addressed and 49 percent
partially addressed.
The President's management agenda provides a strong
foundation for tackling duplication, fragmentation, and
overlap. The President's management agenda is built on four
core pillars; effectiveness, efficiency, economic growth, and
people in culture. By focusing on how we can simplify processes
to make services better, finding ways to share best practices
and information more effectively across the Federal Government
and with the public and leveraging the talents of America's
Federal workforce, the administration is driving an agenda that
enables the government to operate more efficiently in the 21st
Century.
Addressing the government's critical priorities requires
focus, discipline, and collaboration, often across
organizational boundaries. Whether it is in corporate,
nonprofit or government entities, in my experience, it boils
down to prioritizing, focus, and working together.
One key way that OMB helps support this prioritization and
collaboration is through the agency priority goal and cross-
agency priority goals established as part of the Government
Performance and Results Modernization Act, GPRA.
The administration is pleased to update you on progress in
several specific areas related to GAO's extensive
recommendations as well as the President's management agenda.
I'd like to share a few specific examples. Saving on real
property costs. Through the administration's Freeze the
Footprint Policy, agencies achieved a 21.4 million square foot
reduction in office and warehouse space between Fiscal year
2012 and Fiscal Year 2014. And in Fiscal Year 2014 alone, the
government disposed of 7,350 buildings, 47 million square feet
of space and eliminated $17 million of annual operation and
maintenance costs as a result of Freeze the Footprint. We
recently issued the national strategy for real property, which
builds on these efforts and requires agencies to reduce their
real property footprint going forward.
Acquisition. Through strategic sourcing efforts, the
administration has generated $417 million in savings and
reduced contract duplication by up to 40 percent in targeted
areas, but we know we need and can do more. We're building on
the success through our category management efforts, an
approach that allows us to further reduce duplicative
acquisition practices and better leverage government-wide
buying power and expertise.
Smarter IT delivery. Through the data-driven PortfolioStat
process, the government has achieved more than $2.3 billion in
savings in the past 3 years around spending on IT.
Eliminating homelessness. Through strong collaborative work
across agencies through the U.S. Interagency Council on
Homelessness and community partnerships, the administration has
made significant progress toward the President's ambitious goal
of ending homelessness, particularly among veterans. Veterans
homelessness is down 33 percent, and people experiencing
chronic homelessness on a single night is down 21 percent with
great cooperation across agencies on this effort. The Fiscal
year 2016 budget also continues to propose reforms and target
duplicative programs for reduction or elimination. In the
President's first six budgets, the administration identified on
average more than 150 cuts, consolidations, and savings,
averaging more than $23 billion each year.
We are also working to oversee the implementation of two
new key pieces of legislations that will further strengthen
efforts to improve efficiency and save taxpayer resources. The
Digital Accountability and Transparency Act, the DATA Act; and
the Federal Information Technology Reform Act, FITARA.
Our efforts and success to date showed that we can improve
the way government works and provide the American people with
an efficient, effective, and high performing government. We
look forward to continuing to work with Congress and the GAO
and other stakeholders to identify additional opportunities to
create a government that makes a significant tangible
difference in the economy and the lives of the American people
and spends its dollars wisely.
I thank the committee for holding this hearing and for your
commitment to improving Federal performance. I'd be pleased to
answer any questions you may have.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Cobert follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Chaffetz. We will now recognize the gentleman from
Tennessee, Mr. Duncan, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman, and thank you for holding this what I think is a
very, very important hearing. And I first want to join the
ranking member, Mr. Cummings, in complimenting the GAO for the
$20 billion in savings thus far and the what I see as the
potential of $80 billion in the years ahead.
I can--one area that's of great interest to me for many
years has been this disposal of excess Federal property. The
chairman and I both have worked on that for several years. And
I notice that the OMB says they have a national strategy in
place, but the GAO says or does not agree.
Can you explain why the GAO does not agree with the
approach that OMB is taking on this thus far, Mr. Dodaro? And
then we'll have Ms. Cobert respond.
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. The information in our report about the
status of actions taken by agencies was as of March 6 last
month. OMB's strategy just came out at the end of March, March
25. So we believe that it's responsive to our recommendation,
in part, and are pleased that the national strategy has how
been issued. It needs--it's a document that's going to require
some additional development and support on the details to
implement it, but it addresses some of our concerns so far. So
we're pleased with the document, but it's a timing difference,
Mr. Congressman.
Mr. Duncan. Okay. Well, then, another area that we held a
hearing on last year was this $80 billion in annual purchases
of new technology. And I'm wondering if you think that's an
area where there are potentially some pretty big savings in
that regard because I know that they say that all the computers
are obsolete the day they're taken out of the box. The
technology is moving so fast, yet much of that technology--and
it seems that any time a government agency runs--has cost
overruns or has real problems, they say their technology is out
of date. And I'm wondering what's being done, if you feel
enough is being done to take advantage of potential savings
there. Because a lot of that technology, even though it may not
be brand new, is still very useable.
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. No, I do not think enough is being done. I
think there have been some steps made. You know, I was so
concerned about this area that I added it to our high-risk list
across the Federal Government.
There are really a couple of dimensions. One, is more money
is going in to continue to support the legacy systems, the old
systems from the past, and that's a trend that's different than
what's happening in other parts of the economy, and we think
more could be done there to review ongoing spending operations
to see if there can be greater efficiencies and drive down the
cost.
Secondly, OMB has moved forward on the data center
consolidations, looking at the portfolio for duplicative
investments, doing these tech stat assessments on troubled
projects that are high risk. But much more needs to be done to
be consistently implemented across government. There are huge
opportunities here to get better service at less cost.
Mr. Duncan. Also, I notice that--I know that all of us
favor a strong national defense, but your report says that the
Department of Defense may be underestimating some of the total
resources dedicated to supporting the headquarters staff. And
I'm wondering if you could give us a little more specific
information on that.
And then, also, I've read over the last several months that
even many former chiefs of staff and former secretaries--the
last, I think, three secretaries of defense have said that
military personnel costs are spiralling out of control and
we're not going to be able to buy some of the necessary weapons
and equipment that we need if something is not done. What do
you have to say in those areas?
Mr. Dodaro. Yeah. Definitely military costs are something
we point out as a big cost driver, along with healthcare costs.
Now, healthcare costs are on an escalating course just as they
are in other sectors of the economy.
Mr. Duncan. Right.
Mr. Dodaro. With regard to the headquarters operations,
I'll ask Cathy Berrick, who is our expert in defense. But
basically, Congressman, they're only looking at certain aspects
of their headquarters operations when we believe they ought to
be looking more broadly across the department. And as a result,
they're not seeing good opportunities, as many opportunities as
we believe need to be reviewed. And they need to do it on a
regular basis.
Cathy.
Ms. Berrick. Sure. There's really two issues with the
growth and management headquarters of the Department of
Defense. The first issue is there has been significant growth
and DOD hasn't been doing a periodic reevaluation of resources
dedicated to headquarters. So, for example, we recently issued
a report looking at the three functional combatant commands.
There's about 10,500 civilian and military personnel dedicated
to headquarters at these three commands. That's grown over 50
percent in the last 10 years. And that is a similar trend that
we've seen across the geographic combatant commands, OSD to
joint staff, and other organizations. So we think that DOD
needs to do a periodic reassessment of resources devoted to
those entities.
The second issue is DOD is pursuing cuts within its
management headquarters functions at the Department. The
Secretary of Defense directed a 20 percent cut. The problem is,
as the comptroller general mentioned, it's focused on a very
small percentage of the headquarters within DOD. So, for
example, of the functional combatant commands that I reference,
there's 10,500 personnel--headquarters personnel dedicated.
These cuts will only apply to less than a quarter of those
personnel. So we've recommended that DOD look more broadly at
all of its headquarters personnel versus just this small--
relatively small portion called management headquarters.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you. Thank you very much. I will
say this, we need more fiscal conservatives at the Pentagon, I
can tell you. And I appreciate the job you-all are doing in
that regard.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank the gentleman.
Will now recognize the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia, Ms. Norton, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I note that tomorrow is so-called Tax Day, April 15. And
that--and I'm going to really be interested in next year's
report because it looks like the Congress has shot itself in
the foot and added to the deficit by what it's done to the IRS.
I've never seen anything like it.
The reports all over the country are of people waiting in
line to get audits and other questions answered. As of April
15, you could get no information in. Before that, you could get
very little information. And if so you had to go to the tax
advocate. This is a recipe for inefficiency in an agency that
we depend upon if we want to reduce our deficit. Now, of
course, much of that is going to come out in some way, I
suspect, Mr. Dodaro, in your--in your report next year. But
this so-called tax gap is, I believe, already showing it.
The most recent figures I've been able to get about the tax
gap, that's the--the difference between what people owe in
taxes and what they actually report, the figure I get is close
to $400 billion or $385 billion. Does that sound about right?
Mr. Dodaro. That's correct.
Ms. Norton. Look what that would mean for the deficit if we
could just get those funds.
Now, a lot of this is due not just to people avoiding
taxes, but underreporting. So they need to talk to somebody
and, in order to talk to somebody, there needs to be an audit.
You can't just say ``Give us the money.''
By the way, Mr. Dodaro, I read that the IRS is saying up
front now, in light of what looks like a 17 percent cut,
that's--that's the figure that sticks in my mind. That's way
times more during the sequester than any other agency. But the
IRS is saying, unless it amounts to a million dollars, sorry,
we can't even look at your--look at auditing to look to see
whether you're underreporting. In other words, home free,
they're saying up front because of this unusual cut that shoots
ourselves in the foot, the gut, you name it.
Now, if one looks at your report today, we find talk of
backlogs and audits. And here I am looking at the years 2013
and 2014, which coincided with these cuts. Isn't that correct?
Mr. Dodaro. I'd have to----
Ms. Norton. When there's been backlog--backlog for
taxpayers needing audits in order for the IRS to collect what
is due to the people of the United States.
Mr. Dodaro. I'm going to ask Jay McTigue, who heads up our
IRS work, to respond.
Mr. McTigue. Yes, Congressman. Over the last several years,
since about 2010, the audit rate for individuals is down about
25 percent, and the audit rate for businesses larger than $10
million in assets has also declined, in that case, about 30
percent.
Ms. Norton. Heavens, are we ever going to be able to
collect that money? Is there a statute of limitations? I mean,
if it's down by that because you don't have the staff and you
obviously don't--they obviously don't have the staff, is that
money gone for the taxpayers?
Mr. McTigue. Generally, the IRS has 3 years from the time a
taxpayer files his or her tax return to complete an audit.
Ms. Norton. With these backlogs, I can't imagine that some
people just aren't off scot free just by virtue of the statute
of limitations. I think we have to note that.
The IRS budget has been reduced by $1.2 billion over 5
years. That's an amount that's inconceivable. Isn't that
approximately correct?
Mr. McTigue. Yes, Congressman.
Ms. Norton. With that kind of reduction--and you've got to
decide what you've got to do. They've already decided they
can't take care of you and me because we're too far down on the
totem pole. What in the world can they do?
Mr. Dodaro. Well, in that respect, we have made a number of
recommendations on how our IRS could more efficiently use the
resources that they have. For example, to get return on
investment information, we identified, if they shifted $124
million from field exams to correspondence audits, they could
increase revenue by a billion dollars during that period of
time.
There's also things that Congress can do to help the IRS.
For example, we've recommended that paid tax preparers have
some certification requirements and that the Congress give IRS
the authority to do that. Most of the tax returns are prepared
by paid tax preparers. The last time we looked at this, we did
undercover operations, only two of the 19 paid tax preparers
gave the right answers to the questions we asked.
Ms. Norton. So Congress should do what with respect to
that?
Mr. Dodaro. Give IRS the authority to regulate paid tax
preparers.
Ms. Norton. I see.
Mr. Dodaro. And also----
Ms. Norton. The way, by the way, they regulate VITA sites,
volunteer--the VITA sites, all of us have it in our
jurisdictions where volunteers have to be certified tax
preparers, those are complete volunteers, but they've been
certified by the IRS. They serve the--they save the American
people billions upon billions, and they don't have to pay for
it.
Mr. Dodaro. And the biggest thing Congress could do is
simplify the Tax Code.
Ms. Norton. You're right on that, Mr. Dodaro. Thank you.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentlewoman.
I'll now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Ms. Cobert, I appreciate you being here. One of the things
you mentioned was the--following up on what Jimmy Duncan from
Tennessee was talking about, is the underutilized property. It
is something he has worked on, I have worked on, Mr. Mica has
worked on. We have literally tens of thousands of buildings
that are underutilized at this point.
Freeze the footprint. One of the things, I guess, I would
want you to consider or, at least, think through, when you talk
about acquisitions, one of the things that drives us a bit nuts
out West is the acquisition budget within the Department of
Interior. We have a 10-plus-billion-dollar backlog with the
national parks and monuments and whatnot, I mean, the gems of
this country, and yet we've got tens of--you know, more than a
$10 billion backlog but at the same time that we're acquiring
more property.
Have you given any consideration to stopping or slowing
down or freezing the footprint in terms of acquisitions within
the Department of Interior as well?
Ms. Cobert. Thank you for your question, Congressman.
As we think about real estate and the portfolio as a whole,
what we've tried to do is to take a very data driven approach
to understand our starting point, where we're going, and what
the needs are. What are buildings used for today, and do they
still fulfill the purpose that they had? What are the new
purposes for which real estate is needed and important to do
that way, so to try and get that balance right and to use that
data in better decisionmaking across.
Chairman Chaffetz. And I guess what I don't see in your
consideration--and Mr. Dodaro, I don't know if you've looked at
this--but the acquisition budget is roughly $500 million to
acquire additional properties within the Department of
Interior, and yet we still have a $10 billion backlog. And what
I don't see is the same Freeze the Footprint approach
prevailing within the Department of Interior. Am I wrong on
that?
Ms. Cobert. The acquisition of properties for different
purposes, you have to go back and say what are we acquiring
those properties for? I don't have the specifics the programs
on the Department of Interior, but I do know we are trying to
think about what buildings and what properties we have for
which purpose and can we use those or reuse those or find a way
to get rid of them.
Chairman Chaffetz. Now, a lot of these aren't actual
buildings. A lot of them are lands. Mr. Dodaro.
Mr. Dodaro. Yeah. Mr. Gaffigan is our expert in this area.
Mr. Gaffigan. Mr. Chairman, the--we have some ongoing work.
We haven't been looking at the park service in a long time.
There are 407 different park units throughout the country
ranging from Yosemite to small little sites like the Rosie the
Riveter historic sites.
Chairman Chaffetz. You can go ahead and mention Arches,
which happens to be in Utah's 3rd Congressional District, one
of the most beautiful places you can visit.
Mr. Gaffigan. I didn't want to be--I didn't want to be too
obvious.
Chairman Chaffetz. Go ahead, you have my full permission.
Mr. Gaffigan. Yeah. There----
Ms. Cobert. It's beautiful.
Mr. Gaffigan. Yeah and, you know, they're struggling to
deal with what they have right now. And this is our first look
at it in a while. Because the only sources of revenue come from
potential park fees, concessions. And--and they're really
struggling to deal with what they have right now. So we have
some ongoing work looking at that issue right now.
Chairman Chaffetz. Okay. And, I guess, on behalf of those
out West, this is of keen concern because the acquisitions
continue. I think you've highlighted the problem. I just worry
that--that you have not yet also included the Department of
Interior, because these aren't--these are typically old
buildings and pieces of property and other acquisitions. They
all sound great. But then the problem is that the Grand Canyon
and at Arches and at Canyonlands in places all across, we've
got backlog that doesn't get taken care of. And, right now,
that's to the tune of 10-plus-billion-dollars, and you don't
have things like camp sites and waste removal and very basic
things that people, as they get out and enjoy the outdoors.
So--and to the GAO, we would appreciate it if you can continue
to look at that as well.
I've got a host of other ones, but we've got other members
here. I'm going to go ahead and yield back, but thank you for
your consideration on that.
Will now recognize Ms. Kelly from Illinois, I believe, is
next on the list. And we'll recognize her for 5 minutes.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Dodaro, one issue identified in today's GAO report as
an area of potential cost savings is the management of
information technology investments. This is particularly--
particularly an important area to invest in, giving our
committee's growing focus on cybersecurity and, to me, as the
ranking member on the IT subcommittee. Today's GAO report
estimates that, at least, $79 billion will be spent on
information technology by the Federal Government in fiscal year
2015. Is that accurate?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. That is.
Ms. Kelly. And in your opinion, what opportunities exist
for reducing duplication and improving efficiency in this area?
Mr. Dodaro. There are billions of dollars that can be saved
in that area. I will have--Mr. Powner is our expert in the IT
area. He can enumerate for you.
Mr. Powner. Yeah. Probably the key area is data center
consolidation. Right now we have 9----
Ms. Kelly. Data center consolidation?
Mr. Powner. Data center consolidation. We have 9,700 data
centers, of which about 4,000 are planned to be closed. We have
accomplished about 1,200 closures to date and about $1.5
billion in savings, but there's still about $6 billion on the
table. So when the comptroller mentions 60 more billion in
savings, you could get $6 billion right from data centers
alone.
Ms. Kelly. And how many employees does that effect in a
negative way, like losing their job?
Mr. Powner. Well, actually, there's a lot of repurposing of
jobs. The other thing, too, is some of these centers are rather
small centers where there's portions of FTEs that are
associated with that, so it's not all jobs going away.
Ms. Kelly. Okay.
Mr. Powner. But, again, we only have 10 percent utilization
on an average government server. That's nowhere near the
industry standard of 60, and we need to do something about
that.
Ms. Kelly. Okay. Thank you.
Also, OMB in 2012 launched the PortfolioStat initiative.
Under this program, agencies are required to review their IT
investments in order to make more efficient decisions. How does
the PortfolioStat help reduce wasteful spending by Federal
agencies and has it?
Mr. Powner. Yes. So PortfolioStat really tackles
duplicative what we refer to as commodity IT or business
systems. And if you look at--there are about 200 initiatives
across all the departments and agencies where we could save an
additional probably $2 to $3 billion. The numbers fluctuate at
times.
But in addition to the data center savings of $7.5, there's
roughly $2 to $3 billion in that range. And there's already
been many accomplishments to date that, I think, Beth mentioned
in her statement on the savings to date with PortfolioStat. So
we've gotten out of the gate well, but there's still a lot on
the table. And that's where the recent legislation that this
committee sponsored is critical to drive this home to closure
so that we accomplish all those savings.
Ms. Cobert. If I could add, we worked closely with GAO on
these issues and the ability to get better data and better
control over the spending through actions like FITARA, through
the work of this committee, really gives us a foundation for
something to have to keep managing very closely going forward.
Mr. Connolly. Yeah. We prefer to call it Issa Connolly up
here but----
Ms. Kelly. This year's GAO report states, ``While the 26
Federal agencies required to participate in PortfolioStat have
made progress implementing OMB's initiatives, weaknesses
existed in agency's implementation of the initiative.'' Do you
feel like that's correct?
Mr. Powner. Yeah. That is true. There's still room for
improvement. In fact, we're issuing another report on
PortfolioStat this Thursday, and it's going to talk about
additional steps that need to occur.
One of the things that's critical here is OMB's oversight
as well as congressional oversight with FITARA is critical
because agencies, they get out of the gate real aggressively
and then, over time, you actually--you start to see that the
savings that are planned aren't actually accomplished. So,
OMB's oversight and the Congress's oversight with FITARA and
the reporting will be essential.
Ms. Kelly. Well, I want to thank you so much and I
sincerely hope that we can work together to achieve the nearly
$6 billion in savings with the proper implementation of the
program. So thank you so much.
Mr. Connolly. Would my friend yield?
Ms. Kelly. Yes. Your friend----
Mr. Connolly. I thank my colleague.
Just real briefly, let me urge upon you, I hope that in--
because you've been enthusiastic supporters of the acquisition
reform for IT. OMB and GAO I hope can work with us in setting
metrics.
General Dodaro, for example, you mentioned data center
consolidation. Well, we actually went, as you may recall in our
field hearing, we went in the wrong direction. We didn't
consolidate. We actually discovered thousands of new ones. And
so we've got to make--we've got to set metrics for agencies,
and they've got to meet them, and they've got to know you're
going to be reporting at least annually on that.
I know my friend, Mr. Meadows, shares my concern, and we're
going to use our subcommittee to--to get periodic progress
reports. But anything you two can do to--in trying that in
metrics, I think, would be a great help and people will benefit
from it. Thank you.
Thank you, my friend.
Mr. Meadows. [Presiding.] I thank the gentlelady. The chair
recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Mulvaney.
Mr. Mulvaney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks everybody for
doing this. This is actually one of the enjoyable hearings that
we get to do. If you were here earlier today, you got an
example of the unenjoyable ones.
Mr. Dodaro, let's start with you and some general language.
I'm curious as to how we can help. I was struck by Mr.
Cummings' opening comments saying that Congress is actually
sort of lagging behind the executive branch when it comes to
fixing things. Give me a couple of examples for me and my
colleagues as to what Congress could be doing to help implement
your recommendations. What--what have we ignored so far?
Mr. Dodaro. Yeah. Well, there's--to put things in,
perspective though, of the amount of money that's been saved so
far, planned to be saved, the 100 billion, the 80 and the 20 so
far, most of that has come through the Congress passing
legislation. So, I think, you know, for balance purposes, I
think Congress has taken some actions that have resulted in
probably about 75 or 80 percent of the dollar savings has come
from the Congress taking action over a number of areas.
Mr. Mulvaney. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Dodaro. So, I wanted to put that in perspective.
There are number of areas in this--in this area. One, I
mentioned some in the IRS areas right now. You could also
increase the requirements for electronic filing that would give
IRS more data to be able to use, give them increased
information sharing areas. We have recommendations on how CMS
ought to adjust the Medicare Advantage payments for Medicare
payments, fee for service payments that could result in about,
at least, $2 to $3 billion in increased savings.
I mentioned in my opening statement the--these 11 cancer
hospitals that were established in 1982. They have a different
payment method. They get reimbursed all their costs, where
other hospitals are providing cancer treatment get reimbursed
at negotiated rates. Put them on a level playing field, you'd
save half a billion dollars a year right there.
I mentioned the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The energy is
going to move in that area. Congress should pay oversight in
that area. We've had recommendations that there are duplicative
situations that are unintended where you have somebody
receiving a disability benefit and an unemployment benefit at
the same time. Changing that statutorily would save about $1.2
billion.
Mr. Mulvaney. Do we need to change that statutorily or can
that be done from an administrative or regulatory position?
Mr. Dodaro. I believe it has to be statutory, but I'll
double-check and provide an answer for the record on that.
Mr. Mulvaney. Got you.
Mr. Dodaro. There's also--we're not offsetting--the
government is not offsetting pensions for State and local
governments from Social Security benefits for spousal and
survivor benefits. The administration has made proposals in
this area to get this corrected for the last 4 years, and we
think they're right, and the Congress just needs to pass
legislation in this area. This is where, you know, for Federal
employees, they have the information. They can offset it. For
State and local governments don't pay into--some of their
pension systems, they don't pay into Social Security, so they
get a separate benefit, and the Federal law says that should be
offset in that area and over time.
There's also an area where, through demonstration projects,
right now, the administration has the ability to approve tens
of billions of dollars in additional Medicaid spending without
the Congress having any insight into it, and we believe that
that spending has not been budget neutral and according to the
policies for HHS. And we think that that could be, you know,
attended to as well to deal with these healthcare spendings.
We've also suggested--there's a component in the DOD health
system that was established in 1982 and before TRICARE was
established in the 1990s. Now, TRICARE offers the same benefits
as the component within DOD. We think that could be eliminated,
could save millions of dollars. That has to be done
statutorily.
Mr. Mulvaney. Stick with me on DOD because you've mentioned
this a couple of times in your testimony to the other members.
Talk to me about weapons procurement. I think everybody in here
is interested in a strong national defense, but everybody in
here is also interested in doing it a little more cost-
effective way. You've got some interesting recommendations,
don't you, on weapons acquisitions program--weapons program
acquisitions?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. Yes. Yeah. We find that there are many
reviews within the system that are duplicative and take years
to complete and thousands of man hours to be able to handle
those things. I will ask Paul Francis to explain.
But we think the weapons systems acquisition process can be
streamlined from a process standpoint, but they also need to
implement best practices to mature technologies before they go
into production. Both things have the potential to save tens of
billions of dollars.
Mr. Francis. Good afternoon. Yes. So what Mr. Dodaro just
said, on the efficiencies, we found that, for a major milestone
decision it takes 2 years for programs to get all the documents
lined up for that, 5,600 staff days. And we find half of that
time is reviewing documents, not preparing them.
Mr. Mulvaney. Is that just for the big programs or is that
for the smaller ones as well?
Mr. Francis. The ones we looked at are for the big
programs.
Mr. Mulvaney. Okay.
Mr. Francis. And I think we did a survey about half--the
participants in the process view about half of the documents as
having high value. The rest not. And about 10 percent of the
reviews are considered to be high value. So there's a lot that
could be streamlined there.
Then on the other programs, the issue there is getting a
good start, having a good business case to start a program. And
that's where best practices and other techniques could really
take hold. We get programs started that are underestimated at
the beginning. They are too technically ambitious at the start.
And it's years after a program is underway that reality sets in
and we report on these cost increases.
So, the easy answer is there's practices that we could
employ to get programs started earlier. The real challenge is
the acquisition culture. So I think a common way of looking at
the acquisition process is to say it's broken and needs to be
fixed. But I'd ask you to look at it a little differently. I
think it's in equilibrium. I think all the players kind of get
what they want out of it, and the cost we pay in terms of
additional time and money is just the cost of doing business.
So, we have to have a process that does a better job of saying
no when no is to be said. But our process prefers to say yes.
Mr. Mulvaney. I could do this all afternoon, but
unfortunately I don't have that time. Thank you. Gentlemen,
thank you.
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
Lieu.
Mr. Lieu. Thank you. Let me first thank the panel for your
public service.
And I have questions about the laboratory inspections in
the report. And it's my understanding that both the EPA and the
FDA conduct laboratory inspections, is that correct?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
Mr. Lieu. And based on reports analysis, many of the
regulations are very similar for both these agencies?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Lieu. And as a result, for example, some laboratories
in Maryland unknowingly were inspected by both agencies. One in
Maryland was inspected eight times by the EPA and FDA roughly
in the same time period. Is that correct?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
Mr. Lieu. Do these agencies talk to each other before they
go do these inspections?
Mr. Dodaro. I will ask Mr. Gaffigan to talk about that.
They used to have a formal agreement, which is expired. And
we're recommending they reinstate the agreement. I think it
mostly had to do with one of the agencies moving to a quarterly
inspection process and from an annual process and they got out
of sync. And so they haven't talked to one another in the way
that they should. And both have had trouble staffing, even
though the inspections that they do.
Mark.
Mr. Gaffigan. Mr. Dodaro is correct. They haven't
coordinated since 2007. So our recommendation was they come up
with a memorandum of agreement to start working better
together.
Mr. Lieu. Are these surprise inspections or do the folks
know they're coming?
Mr. Gaffigan. I believe, most of the time, they know
they're coming, but I can get you an official answer for the
record.
Mr. Lieu. It could be as simple as just notifying the other
agency, right, that you're about----
Mr. Gaffigan. Yes.
Mr. Dodaro. This is not----
Mr. Lieu. It's not rocket science.
Mr. Dodaro. Yeah. This is not complicated.
Mr. Lieu. Okay. All right.
Mr. Dodaro. Now, we do work at NASA. That is rocket
science, but this isn't.
Mr. Lieu. When did that agreement that they used to have
expire, do you remember?
Mr. Dodaro. 2007 or 2004.
Mr. Gaffigan. I think it's in that 2004 or 2007 range.
Mr. Dodaro. Yeah.
Mr. Lieu. Were these the only two agencies you serve find
duplication in terms of laboratories, in terms of inspections?
Mr. Gaffigan. These are the two that will do lab
inspections looking at the good laboratory practices, which as
you mentioned are very similar in their criteria. So there are
other labs and other inspections, but this has the specific
purpose to ensure that they have good laboratory practices.
Mr. Dodaro. Yeah. And this can have--if the inspections
aren't done properly, it can have implications for industry as
well because they need to have the certification that they meet
these requirements, and so that's one of the things we point
out in the report. So this has not only implications for the
Federal Government not leveraging its resources properly, but
for industry as well.
Mr. Lieu. Do you also look at duplication between other
levels of government, such as State or county?
Mr. Dodaro. Yeah. We're starting to do that now. The
statutory requirement we have to produce this report is
confined to across the Federal Government, but I believe there
are areas of opportunity in streamlining across Federal, State,
and local governments. And we're starting a pilot program now
in the housing area to look at that, and I plan to do other
areas.
It's a complicated analysis because most of the States are
different and they don't have standard procedures, but we have
a very complicated intergovernmental delivery system in our
country that, I believe, is pretty expensive, and I'm not sure
we can afford to maintain it going forward. So I want to move
into that area into the future.
Mr. Lieu. I came from the California State Legislature, and
I had noticed duplication in various areas. So I'm glad you're
moving in that direction. I remember looking at weights and
measures and some supermarkets would get inspected pretty much
exactly the same thing, by the Federal, State, and city. So I
commend you for going in that area, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. Dodaro. Okay. Actually, I have an advisory group of
State auditors and local auditors that advise us. Elaine Howle,
the State auditor from California, is on that group. So they're
working--we're working collaboratively with State and local
auditors as well.
Mr. Lieu. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Gaffigan. Congressman, just to clarify your question
that they had the agreement from 1984 to 2004, although they
kept meeting until 2007.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Blum.
Mr. Blum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for being here today. I appreciate your service
to the government.
I'm a career small businessman, so I may be one of the few
here that--that, A, gets into this and, B, I personally think
the GAO is one of the most important departments in our Federal
Government. I'm also new here. I'm a freshman congressman, so I
get a pass when I get to ask these dumb questions.
First question. There are 24 programs, I believe, on your
report for duplication of services. If you were a betting man,
how many do you think are going to be on that report next year
that were on the report this year?
Mr. Dodaro. Two-thirds.
Mr. Blum. Two-thirds. And how about in the 20----
Mr. Dodaro. Now, I'm not a betting man, just for the
record.
Mr. Blum. We can strike that from the minutes.
How about, how many will be on the report that are on the
report this year in 2017?
Mr. Dodaro. I'd say about half.
Mr. Blum. 2018?
Mr. Dodaro. Still about half.
Mr. Blum. Yeah. And this is part of the problem. When I go
back to my district in Iowa, people say the Federal Government
spends too much, regulates too much, and wastes too much.
Being a private sector guy, your department does a
fantastic job of identifying these problems. What we're
concerned about with is the ``A'' in GAO, which I believe
stands for accountability.
Mr. Dodaro. Correct.
Mr. Blum. Who is accountable for eliminating this
duplication of services next year and the year after? Who is
accountable for eliminating waste in the Federal Government?
Mr. Dodaro. It's both the administration and the Congress.
That's why we have--keeping separate scores for what actions
we've recommended that the Congress has to take and what
actions the administration has to take. And that's how we
define accountability.
Now, accountability gets fuzzy when multiple agencies are
involved in fixing a problem. And really our government
structure is not well postured to deal with problems that
involve multiple agencies. In the executive branch, an OMB
would have to take action, but they have limited resources and
the ability to produce change across time. And in the Congress,
you have multiple committee jurisdictions. And so it's
difficult to solve problems.
Forty percent of what we have recommended that involve a
single agency have been addressed. Only 25 percent where
multiple agencies are involved have been addressed. And that's
where I think the real weakness is in how we're organized both
in the executive branch and the Congress.
Mr. Blum. As a new person here, it seems to me that almost
everything in the Federal Government is top down when compared
to the private sector. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Dodaro. Well, I'm not sure I would say everything is
top down. I think there's a lot of things that go on throughout
the bureaucracy that the top doesn't know about, you know, and
so I think there's--you know, it's like parallel universes. I
think that there's, you know, no such thing as a command and
control structure except in the military that works
effectively.
Mr. Blum. Something I have noticed in the first 90 days
here is it seems to me the incentives in Washington, D.C., the
incentives in Federal Government, are backwards.
And I'd like to ask you this: What incentive is there for a
rank and file Federal employee to eliminate waste? What
incentive is there for a rank and file Federal employee to
eliminate duplications of services? In the private sector,
there's incentives.
Mr. Dodaro. Yeah.
Mr. Blum. What incentives are there in the Federal
Government for that to happen?
Mr. Dodaro. No.
Mr. Blum. I'm not seeing them.
Mr. Dodaro. Right. Right. No, no, no, you're astutely
observing. One of the more enduring problems in the government
is that the incentives are more perverse than they are in the
proper direction, and, you know, there's more incentive to make
sure that you have the budget necessary. There's more incentive
to pay quickly and then worry about whether you paid the right
person later. There's more incentive to build structures.
Now, they're all well intended in terms of trying to
accomplish the mission of their agencies, but there's really--
you know, aside from an individual's sort of view on what their
role as the Federal Government should be, as being a good
public servant, there aren't really built-in systematic
incentives to help produce the right outcomes.
Mr. Blum. Because it seems to me that the incentive is to
spend the entire budget or our budget will get cut next year.
And do you think--do you think there's a chance we can
introduce some best practices from the private sector into the
Federal Government so that it comes from bottom up instead of
top down, eliminating duplication, waste, fraud, from the rank
and file Federal employees, and when someone identifies it that
they are actually rewarded for that. Is there a chance of that?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. Yes. I mean, we've looked at a lot of best
practices and have tried to get them implemented in agency
policies and moving things forward, but they run against this
tension that occurs in the backdrop, and it's--it's really
exacerbated too by the fact that we're not producing regular
budgets on time in the Federal Government. I mean, in the last
50 years I think we've only had three instances where we've
passed a budget without some form of continuing resolution for
the rest of the government.
So when you're in an uncertain budget environment, that
complicates even if you have a good incentive structure in
place. So I think we have to get to a regular order and then we
can, you know, work to build better incentives into the system.
Mr. Blum. My time is up, but once again I'd like to commend
the GAO and yourself on the outstanding work that you do.
Mr. Dodaro. Thank you.
Mr. Blum. And I yield back to the chair.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman.
The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois, Ms.
Duckworth.
Ms. Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Inspector Dodaro, I was pleased to see that you included in
your report the savings the government is already realizing
from the Army's choice not to introduce a new family of
camouflage uniforms into its inventory. Your report notes that
this will save taxpayers about $4.2 billion over the next 5
years, and in fact I offered the amendment in the 2014 NDAA
that requires DOD to establish a joint camouflage pattern when
developing new combat uniforms so that the taxpayers won't have
to pay millions to the government to keep developing new
patterns for every branch of service, that also sometimes don't
protect troops in combat such as the Navy's blueberry uniform
that they can't wear on ships because when they fall over into
the--fall overboard, they are blended with the ocean and you
can't actually rescue the sailors.
Can you give me an update on where DOD's compliance is with
this requirement?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. Let me ask Ms. Berrick to come and provide
that. I appreciate your sponsorship of the amendments. It was
very important. Thank you.
Ms. Berrick. Yeah. Thank you for the question. There has
been significant progress. In fact, we identified that DOD
saved over $5 billion in savings from pursuing a consolidated
uniform moving forward. When we started the work and issued
last year's duplication--or the year before's duplication
report, the Army was getting ready to move forward with a
procurement for their own camouflage uniform, but thanks to the
legislation that you helped sponsor and which required DOD to
pursue this in a more coordinated fashion, they did, in fact,
do that and made some progress.
In addition, DOD issued some joint criteria to ensure that
the protection of the servicemembers on the battlefield when
they're developing uniforms, and that they do that in a
coordinated fashion as well. So there has been some good
progress.
Ms. Duckworth. That's good to hear. Thank you.
In reviewing the GAO report, Ms. Cobert--is it Cobert or
Cobert?
Ms. Cobert. Cobert's correct.
Ms. Duckworth. All right. Thank you.
Ms. Cobert. Not Colbert.
Ms. Duckworth. Not Colbert. I almost went there, but I
didn't.
Ms. Cobert. Most people do.
Ms. Duckworth. We've all been trained by popular cable
shows.
I noted that better management of software licenses is
known as an area where savings can be achieved. Can you please
help me understand OMB's view on how agencies can better manage
their software licenses? Specifically, I'd like to hear how OMB
believes agencies should inventory that software, see how much
of it is actually deployed to end users, and how much of what's
deployed is actually being put to use. If you can't inventory
it, how can you--how can you effectively control waste if you
can't inventory it?
Ms. Cobert. Thank you for raising this issue, and I also
want to thank our colleagues at GAO for raising this issue in
the report. It is something that we believe is important to
address and working with them and working with agencies, we are
moving to tackle that.
One of the first places starts where you said, which is
having an accurate inventory of software licences. Software and
IT purchasing across the Federal Government has been highly
decentralized both among inside of agencies and components
within agencies as well as across agencies. One of the first
steps that we're taking as part of our category management
initiative around IT is to develop a much more accurate
inventory of licenses that exist and the utilization of those
licenses today. As the way agencies use software changes, for
example, as we are succeeding in moving more to the cloud, the
ability to have a consolidated view of licenses becomes much
easier and the ability to be smarter about how to manage those
licenses, how to think about what you're paying for for those
licenses, how to make sure that these things are current and
used and you're not paying for what you don't need becomes much
easier. So we are in the midst of an effort to do that now.
As I mentioned earlier, the FITARA legislations gives us
more authority in terms of how we get agencies to consolidate
and coordinate their buying. And as we're putting together the
guidance for that newly enacted law, this is one of the areas
that we're focusing on. It is a big priority for our Federal
CIO, who just joined us from industry. So he really brings a
lot of the best practices that industry is using to this
important area. Something we're going to a be a big focus for
our work in 2015.
Ms. Duckworth. Thank you. Are any of those--is there a
practice in Federal Government where a license is automatically
renewed and nobody's reviewing whether or not we're actually
using old licenses and they've gone on and bought new software
packages but they're still--we're still paying for stuff that's
automatically renewed?
Ms. Cobert. I don't have the specifics of that, but in my
life in the private sector, when I looked at those issues, you
would find many instance of that. And I wouldn't be surprised
if my colleagues would tell me that were the case, at least in
some places.
Mr. Powner. Yeah. The key here starts with the inventories,
Congresswoman. Our work has showed that when we looked at
software licensing, out of the 24 agencies only 2 had a
complete inventory. We had 22 agencies that did not have a
complete inventory. So--and there's a big effort afoot, part of
OMB's efforts with portfolio, start looking at application,
rationalization, what do we have on our servers, inventorying
all that. So it wouldn't be surprising if you had many licenses
that we don't even know they're getting renewed. There's huge
opportunities here. There's pockets of success. DHS went
through some really nice efforts where they saved hundreds of
millions of dollars. There's hundreds of millions of dollars on
the table if we did this right, but we really don't know what
we have right now collectively.
Ms. Duckworth. Thank you very much.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentlewoman.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hice.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I, like my other
colleagues, thank you both for being here and all that you do.
Of course you've just got a critical responsibility, and we
appreciate the information that you provide.
I think we all know and probably most of us would readily
admit the obvious appearance is we've created a monster around
here, and you guys are tasked with the responsibility of
keeping us aware of just how big that monster is and what we
can potentially do to, to reign it in a little bit. And I
wonder in that context with all the duplication that you've
mentioned, are there any areas that you would just come out and
be able to identify as unnecessary, that we've got so much
duplication, that this area or the other one we could just do
away with?
I'll start with you, Mr. Dodaro.
Mr. Dodaro. There's not been an area where we've said you
could do away with all activity in a particular area. I mean,
most of those are policy judgments that would require the
Congress to say there's not a need in this particular area for
you to do that. We have, you know, recommended where you
clearly have duplication, and this year's--our prime example is
this institution that was created in 1982 within DOD. It was
well intended. It was a public service function that was turned
over to DOD to help serve the military and their families, but
then TRICARE came along about 15 years later, and as typical in
the Federal Government, we just layer things on. You know, we
don't never go back and take anything away, and so now the same
people can be served by the TRICARE community and you don't
need this separate system. And within--when Congress created
this, it gave DOD a difficult task because they can't even get
the information from the providers in this contract to know
what their direct costs are and what profit margins and
administrative costs are. So they're really disadvantaged of
this area. So we're identifying where you have clear
duplication, you can eliminate that duplication, save a lot of
money. That's been most of our focus.
Mr. Hice. Okay. Ms. Cobert, do you have anything to add to
that?
Ms. Cobert. I'd like to add to Gene's comments about the
need to both think about areas where there are duplication and
where there are areas where there may be more fragmentation or
overlap that you're not able to address immediately through
some other structure is finding a way to coordinate across
agencies.
One area we did that quite successfully is looking at
science, technology, engineering, and math education, where we
looked at the effectiveness of programs, put together a 5-year
plan. We've reduced the number of programs from 220 to 140 and
now have those programs much more balanced and effective. It's
a critical area of importance for our Nation's future. And what
we tried to do in that is get the interagency process to say:
Who is doing the best job at each one of these things, and then
reallocate within that to the people who had the best
capabilities. Those kinds of processes can work. They take a
lot of work to make happen.
Mr. Hice. Sure they do. I'm positive of that.
Do you find--and that's a great example, do you find most
of the time that these agencies follow your recommendations, or
is that a challenge in itself?
Mr. Dodaro. Yeah. Our experience over a 4-year period of
time, 80 percent of our recommendations get implemented. And
what we feature in our high-risk series and this overlap and
duplication report are those where they haven't yet been
implemented that require some difficult decisions. They're
among the more difficult areas in the Federal Government. But
also to your earlier question, one of the things that's really
inhibited us from making stronger recommendations about whether
you need to retain some of these functions is the lack of good
performance evaluations in the Federal Government. And Beth
just mentioned in the science, technology, and engineering
area, what we first looked at--there were 209 programs, 66
percent of them had never been evaluated. So you really didn't
know what was working and what was not working, and this is not
atypical across Federal Government.
Mr. Hice. Okay. What about--some of the issues you brought
up with the DOD, we hinted around this, but the enormous amount
of property and facilities that they own. And my understanding,
53 percent of it is all that they can really account for in
terms of being utilized, and even a lot of that information is
inaccurate. This has got to be problematic. I'm sure you've
given recommendations. Are they following the recommendations
that you've provided?
Mr. Dodaro. Yeah. I'll ask Ms. Berrick to explain in that
area, but I was very concerned. They've made such incremental
progress in correcting the data in their database, it was
almost imperceptible, but they need to do a lot better job. If
you're going to intelligently manage things, you need better
data.
Mr. Hice. Right.
Mr. Dodaro. Cathy.
Ms. Berrick. Yeah. And I'll start off by saying that GAO's
designated this actually a high-risk area for DOD, that they
get a better handle on their property. But just to give you a
few statistics, DOD has over 500,000 real property entities
that's valued at about $850 billion. So the magnitude of this
is really enormous. DOD manages their real property through a
database, as you mentioned. Most of the records in that
database are blank. And there's only data elements for about 53
percent of those facilities.
In addition, the data that's there, there's lots of
inaccuracies. So, for example, we found another 7,500 records
that showed a zero percent utilization record in their
database, yet it was shown in active status, which means it's
needed for DOD to meet its mission. During the course of our
work we actually visited 12 installations to see if we could
find facilities just visiting those 12 that were underutilized
or unutilized. And, by the way, this is important because those
facilities could be disposed of to achieve savings or
underutilized facilities could be consolidated to achieve
savings. At just those 12 facilities we identified a number of
examples. Four buildings specifically that were sitting empty.
They weren't reflected on the property management records. And
there was an opportunity with those four to potentially dispose
of them or consolidate space.
So we'll continue to monitor it. DOD's made some
incremental improvements in their data. They recognize it's a
problem, but more work remains.
Mr. Dodaro. I think this is an area for congressional
direction to DOD. That works effectively through the
authorization bills to get their act together in this area.
Mr. Hice. Right. I thank you. My time's expired, but if you
could send us some information as to why they have not gotten
to this, I think that would be helpful.
Mr. Dodaro. Sure.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Dodaro. Be happy to.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman. And the chair
recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan, Ms. Lawrence.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank you for being here today on this liquid
sunshine day.
The report issued by GAO details major progress made by the
executive agencies and Congress. Based on this year's report it
looks like Congress is not doing as well as the executive
branch at implementing the GAO recommendations on waste, fraud,
and abuse. According to the report, GAO made 369
recommendations to the executive branch, and 317 of those
recommendations have been fully implemented. Is that correct?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
Mrs. Lawrence. Okay. The report also stated that 69
recommendations for Congress were made and only 31 of those
have been fully or partially completed. Is that correct?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
Mrs. Lawrence. So, your agency is often called the
Congressional watchdog by investigating how Federal Government
spends tax dollars, and you are the ones that are supposed to
identify those and make sure that we are aware of
recommendations--make recommendations. Is that correct?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
Mrs. Lawrence. Okay. So, can you--you know, I know we have
a short period here, but can you sum up--talk to me about the
31 recommendations made to Congress in its report that deal
directly with waste or abuse that has not been completely
addressed?
Mr. Dodaro. Right. We've made recommendations, for example,
on this eliminating the overlap between the disability benefits
and unemployment insurance and people receiving those at the
same time. We've made recommendations on crop insurance, for
example, that there be limits placed on the amount of subsidies
for purchasing the premiums on crop subsidies. We believe that
could save a couple billion dollars, and to--Congress a while
ago changed the taxes on certain tobaccos for cigars and
cigarettes, but the industry moved to using less taxed items,
you know, like roll your own tobacco instead. So there's
unlevel playing field. We believe if Congress could implement
those changes, you'd get about $600 billion or a billion more
in revenues by level the playing field on tobacco taxes.
We've recommended many changes to the IRS to help deal with
their challenges over there, giving them math authority, et
cetera. We've recommended that there be additional information
collected for offsetting pension costs for survivors and
spouses and Social Security, and in order to equitably treat
people the same under the rules. That hasn't been acted as
well. So we've got a long list.
Now, in fairness to the Congress, every new Congress our
clock restarts, is partially completed. So anything the last
Congress did to partially complete, which would have been to
introduce a bill, get it marked up through committee. You can
get through a committee mark up we rate it as partial. And so
with this new Congress sort of the re-clock set there.
Also I would say that most of the major savings to date,
the $100 billion that's been saved or will be saved, has
largely come from congressional action. So just--just to put it
all in perspective.
Mrs. Lawrence. And that's my point of putting it in
perspective. So we're being evaluated on whether we are in
compliance. You've said the clock is reset at every one--and
if--it's only partially addressed if it's made it to--through
committee.
Have you ever--or not you, but have the GAO ever considered
revising its methodology for determining whether an action is
partially addressed by Congress? Have you--have you all had any
discussion on that, considering, you stated, that the clock is
resetting every Congress, and so it gives the impression that
Congress is not addressing these issues.
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. We have not yet, you know, reevaluated the
criteria for making these determinations. This is the first
time it's come up as an issue. But we'd be happy to take a look
at it and see if there's any--a better way to do that, but we
try to provide in the report a balanced perspective. If you
just look at the table out of context from the narrative in the
report, you can draw the wrong conclusion.
Mrs. Lawrence. Yes.
Mr. Dodaro. But if you read the whole report, I belive
you'll get the proper perspective.
Mrs. Lawrence. Well, I just want to, you know, to the chair
and to--and thank you all for being here today. So that clearly
here in Congress as Representatives of the people, and stewards
of the taxpayer's dollars, we should be doing at least as good
as the executive branch if not better. I would--I would
respectfully ask that we look at this methodology because we
will continuously as the clock resets, appear to the taxpayers
that we are not giving serious actions and considerations to
your report.
Thank you. And I yield back my time.
Mr. Dodaro. Yeah. We will do that, but I've been informed
by my team that only two issues have been reset among the
recommendations that we have, but we'll take a look at it.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you.
Mr. Palmer. If the gentlelady would yield, I'd just like to
point out that the GAO recommendations from last year are in
this year's budget that was passed by the House.
Mr. Meadows. All right. The chair recognizes the gentleman
from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman.
Mr. Grothman. Yeah. Thanks for being here, and you
certainly presented a--many, many ways for the government to
save money, and we hope they all survive the appropriations
process. There are two I want to focus on in particular.
One is you talk about abuse of children's SSI benefits, and
I know recently that the number of people--children who are
being described as disabled has gone through the roof, and of
course there's certainly a lot of anecdotal evidence of severe
abuses here. I wonder if you could elaborate on that a little
bit.
Mr. Dodaro. Yeah. Basically I'll ask Ms. Bovbjerg, who's
our expert in the area, to elaborate a bit. But the basic
issue, Congressman, is that they're supposed to have continuing
reviews to see if the situation has improved so that the
children or even adults in that matter can overcome their
disability, but Barb.
Ms. Bovbjerg. Yeah. Continuing disability reviews are
medical reviews to see if they're still qualified for
disability benefits. And the Social Security Administration has
really not been doing many for children. And they have told us
that the reason for this is that they--they're husbanding their
resources and they've chosen to focus on the adults. But the
fact of the matter is they really have not done the level of
continuing disability review for any age that they should be
doing. This is something that every dollar spent saves $9 in
Federal funds. And in this case we were talking about children
in Supplemental Security Income, which is a general fund
program. But if you think about it also for disability
insurance, which is a trust fund funded program, this is a
program integrity issue in programs that are going to run out
of money. So it's really important that they take this very
seriously because otherwise they will be paying disability
benefits for years to people who have medically improved to the
extent that they don't--they don't any longer meet the
eligibility requirements.
Mr. Grothman. Or maybe they weren't disabled in the first
place and they slipped between the cracks. Is that possible?
Ms. Bovbjerg. It's always possible, but I like to think
that that doesn't happen a lot.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Do you know right off the top of your
head the increase in the number of people on SSI, children on
SSI?
Ms. Bovbjerg. I don't, but it has gone up. Disability in
all categories has gone up.
Mr. Dodaro. We'll provide the specific numbers for the
record.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Could you elaborate a little bit more
on some of your suggestions for the SNAP program?
Ms. Bovbjerg. Well, the one in this year's report is really
about how they--how States who are responsible for managing
waste, fraud, and abuse in the food stamp program, are trying
to discern who is essentially selling their cards. And the
guidance given by the Food and Nutrition Service suggests that
whenever somebody has gotten four replacement cards you better
look at that individual. And in our work, we took to heart that
the State said can't look at all those people and it's not--
it's not--we're not getting anything from this. We're
essentially getting people who have an unstable living
environment. You know, they might be homeless and they're
losing their cards. They weren't finding people selling their
cards. And we found a way that they could use the same data and
they could just better target their approach, that we felt that
if they looked for someone who asked for four replacement cards
in four different benefit periods, that reduced the number of
people they were looking at, at least in the three States that
we examined, by almost half, and then they could focus much
more greatly on these people who are much more likely to have
been selling their cards.
Mr. Dodaro. Yeah. We find that there's a greater need to
use technology and data analytics and data mining to target
Federal efforts to find fraud, waste, and abuse. And there
really, in some cases, aren't that great of incentives for
doing it. This is a case where the Federal Government pays all
the cost, the States are administering the program, and so
there's, you know, not that great of incentive for them to do
this. So we're trying to urge them to take--use more techniques
then to try to urge the Federal agency to provide support to
the States and urge them to look better at this area.
Mr. Grothman. There were people who didn't believe there
was a lot of evidence that people were selling cards?
Ms. Bovbjerg. The ones that they looked at--the ones that
they looked at just on the basis of the four card rule, it
wasn't panning out for them at the level that you would expect
and you would want. And, we felt that the States should spend
their resources--their limited resources on the people who are
more likely selling the cards. Certainly you want to look at
everybody, but if you don't have the resources you definitely
want to target.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you for calling on me.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr.
Russell.
Mr. Russell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you each
for being here and for the work that you do.
The Social Security department shows six and a half million
active accounts to Americans that are at least 112 years old or
older. Have you run into any of this in your own accounting for
the problems that we have on--I mean, we talk a lot about the
disability, and we know the trouble that it is in, but six and
a half million active accounts of Americans that are 112 years
old or older?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. Go ahead, Barb.
Ms. Bovbjerg. We have done work on the Social Security
records. We've been very interested in their death records. And
why you would have people who were 112 and older who were not
in the death records is troubling. And I think the Social
Security's response to this has been the people that were
identified, in particular by their inspector general most
recently, are not active beneficiaries. So, we don't really
need to verify that because it's not part of our program.
But the death records are a very important aspect of
program integrity across the Federal Government. They're shared
with other agencies to make sure that we're not sending checks
to dead people, and it would be very important to keep that
information up-to-date. So, yeah, we're very concerned about
that.
Mr. Russell. Do you think with six and a half million of
them that are still listed as active accounts that maybe some
of those might be abused?
Ms. Bovbjerg. Absolutely. And some of them are.
Mr. Russell. And with the things that have been pointed out
with TRICARE and Veterans Administration, as a military
retiree, I'm on TRICARE for life, which really means TRICARE to
65 and then it rolls over to something else. We went through a
gyration in the military even when I was on active duty when
they revamped to go to TRICARE, and we see a reduction in base
hospital and healthcare facilities that could not accommodate,
and then they would move you to the local community and you
would receive your care there, which is much what I do now.
Even as a Member of Congress I have those exemptions under a
different title of law. I pay a copay, I go out and I--as a
veteran of several wars, I have my medical desires met.
Do you feel that a construct like that would be adequate to
even replace the VA?
Mr. Dodaro. You know, I don't know if we've----
Ms. Bascetta. We haven't done work specifically on that
question, but we do know that for many years before the recent
concerns about waiting times at the--at the VA, there were--
there were limitations in their ability to take care of all of
the veterans. So they've always had a capacity to send veterans
out on the market for what they then call fee basis care. That
was greatly expanded through the Choice program. We have very
significant concerns not only in the civilian sector, but
actually in--for all of us about coordination of care in those
situations. It's one thing to have the most cost effective care
available. That's critically important, but the quality of that
care and the coordination to ensure that the care is actually
value based is where we are really trying to drive care for
everybody in----
Mr. Russell. I would suggest that the lack of overhead, the
lack of payment of salaries, the lack of all of the other
things, just paying for the care outright might be a way to
solve a lot of the VA issues that we're dealing with and we
have other medical systems that are proving that to be at a
rate lower than Medicare which was the basis of some of your
reports.
The Department of Defense, it spent $14.4 million in
storage of items that have not been requested in over 5 years.
For example, a $391 power mast that hasn't been asked for and
has cost $8,000 to store in over 5 years, and this while we had
active theaters of war in both Iraq and Afghanistan. How do we
address the things that--I understand giant gears and things
that we might need in some national global emergency, but
that's not what we're talking about here. What--what is being
done to address this massive storage problem of things that
aren't even asked for in over 5 years?
Ms. Berrick. Sure. This is--actually is another GAO high
risk area, supply chain management, of which inventory is one
of three elements of it. There's actually a good news story
here in that DOD has paid considerable attention to making sure
that they only have the inventory on hand that they need. They
set aggressive inventory reduction goals over the past years
and largely have achieved them. There's only one remaining area
that we're really focused on, is that they maintain the
progress that they've made to date, and that they put in a
framework to ensure that this continues as leadership changes
within the military, that they keep this emphasis in focus. So
we think this is actually a good news story, but that DOD needs
to continue the progress that it's made in this area.
Mr. Russell. Thank you. And thank you for your answers.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman. The chair recognizes
the gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome
to all the witnesses. Good to see you again, Mr. Dodaro, and
I'd like to ask you about the Data Act which was passed in a
bipartisan way by this committee, and it helps reduce
duplication by making spending data comparable across all
programs. This also allows the executive branch to better
measure the cost to the Federal Government for these
investments. When you testified last year before this
committee, you said that passing the Data Act, ``One of the
biggest single things that could be done in order to provide
more transparency on the cost of these programs and
activities.'' Do you remember saying that?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
Mrs. Maloney. Can you explain why you believe this? Why you
believe this so strongly, it's an important--important
statement you made?
Mr. Dodaro. Well, one of the areas that we have had the
most difficulty in looking at the overlap and duplication in
the Federal Government is lack of good information about what's
being spent for all these programs and activities. And the
other area that we've identified as a problem is that there's
not a lot of good performance--measurement of performance
evaluation information.
So if you don't know what you're spending on a program and
if you don't know whether the program's effective or not,
you're really handicapped at making good intelligent decisions.
And for us to be able to advise the Congress on that area and
the American public, who fund the government and have
responsibility for eventually servicing all the debt that we're
accumulating, basically have no visibility and to the
government's activities on information that they can see what
the results are of all the Federal Government's activities. So
if you don't have an informed set of decisionmakers and elected
officials that have access to this data and the public is not
in a good position to have good confidence in government
because they can't see what's being done, then I think you have
problems. And that's why I said what I did and I--I meant it.
Mrs. Maloney. And then the President signed it into law in
the last session. And how are we coming about in implementing
it? It certainly makes good sense. If you don't have good data
you can't make good decisions, and certainly we need to
understand and make comparisons, but it just got passed I guess
a year ago. So, when will it be completely implemented in
Congress----
Mr. Dodaro. Well, it had a phased implementation in the
legislation. By May, next month, OMB and Treasury are to issue
the data standards, and I'm sure Beth can speak to what OMB and
Treasury are doing to implement this. Then there's a 2-year
period to allow the agencies to prepare to implement the data
standards properly, and then GAO and the IGs have the audit
responsibilities down the road. But I'm--I'm going to issue a
report to Congress this year. Under the statue, the first
report that was asked for was 2017, but I want to give the
Congress a good up-to-date report on how its early
implementation is going. So, you'll get a report from us later
this year. I think they're off to a good start, but there's a
lot that needs to be done.
Mrs. Maloney. When do you expect it to be up and running so
you can make these good decisions? Is it 2 years or----
Mr. Dodaro. Well--yeah, under the law, the--the--2017 would
be the first year that it would be implemented.
Mrs. Maloney. Okay. And what are the--have you compiled the
data standards yet, Ms. Cobert? Are you compiling them?
Ms. Cobert. We are working on the data standards that are
due in May. There's been an active process of consultation with
many different stakeholders inside the executive branch, with
Congress, external stakeholders, to get those data standards
defined in a way that makes sense. And we have been actively
working on that to meet the May deadlines. As Gene said, this
is a big focus of our office. We do believe that the Data Act
creates real potential to provide better information to
decision makers inside all parts of government, and are taking
our responsibility to execute against the recommendations and
the Congressional mandate that's been given to us very, very
seriously.
Mrs. Maloney.And have there been any--any unexpected
problems that have come up from OMB or Treasury that you've had
to address?
Ms. Cobert. It is a complicated process to take financial
systems that were in some ways designed for a different purpose
and turn them into being used this way. So there is a lot of
hard detailed work. We've requested funding in the fiscal year
2016 budget to help ensure we can meet the implementation
timeline. So we've been working our way through this, and we
will continue to be working our way through this according to
the time table that Congress has set out.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, my time is expired, but I would be very
interested in seeing what your data components are, and I'd
like to see if you could give them to the chairman and maybe he
could share them with me. Because I really would be interested
in seeing them. Congratulations. I think it's a really
important project and one we should already have up and
running. Thank you.
Mr. Dodaro. I think it would be very helpful to have
congressional input into the standards to make sure that
they're going to produce the type of data that you would like
to see. So I think that's an excellent idea.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentlewoman.
Let me--one follow up question, Ms. Cobert. So it doesn't
sound like you're going to meet the May 9 or you are going to
meet it. So if you're not going to meet it, when could we
expect it since a lot of this--you know, you've got to get
yours in before the rest. So just as a follow-up.
Ms. Cobert. We've been working for the May deadline. That
is the path that we're on right now. So, you know, that's--
that's----
Mr. Meadows. So if we miss it, we're going to miss it by
days and weeks not months or years?
Ms. Cobert. Yeah. Oh, no. No. Yeah.
Mr. Meadows. All right. Thank you.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama, Mr.
Palmer.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really love the work
you guys are doing. This is--having run a think tank for 20-
something years, it's right in my sweet spot. So I commend you
for the work you're doing and hope you'll keep it up. Just have
a couple of questions about the work you did on the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve and the potential for generating revenues by
getting that down to a 90-day reserve. I think we're in excess
of that right now.
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. Yeah, that's--that's correct. The
international standard is a 90-day supply considering both
government and the private sector having total resources. Right
now the Federal Government has a 106-day supply. The latest
estimate on the private sector is 141-day supply. We think that
it's time to reexamine this. Mostly because of the increase in
production. You know, we've had a lot of technology
improvements. Last year's 2013 and 2014 were some of the most
record years of oil production in the United States history,
and so we're on track by international standards to be the
largest producer in the world. So we think it's a good time to
reevaluate this. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is aging. The
infrastructure is aging. We think you could not only sell some
of the oil potentially, depending on the reassessment, to get
billions of dollars, you could reduce administrative costs. And
then also maybe you could minimize the cost of replacing the
infrastructure eventually.
Mr. Palmer. On the private sector that's holding 141 days,
do you know if that includes what's sitting in tanker cars
because they've got nowhere to go with it right now?
Mr. Dodaro. Yeah. Mark?
Mr. Gaffigan. I'd be surprised if it includes that. It's
very hard to measure these things after it reply--and rely on
the industry, self-reporting, but I do know that the numbers
Mr. Dodaro was quoting was based on the work we did in December
of 2014, the 140-plus days, that's increased, and we think it's
over 200 days at this point and----
Mr. Palmer. That's the good news. The bad news is is that I
think at that time the price was about $65 a barrel and we're
down to $52 something or----
Mr. Gaffigan. Right. We looked at it this morning, and $56
is what it is based on. But still if you look at--and it's--the
other part of this is it's based on the net imports. So when we
did the analysis in 2014, it was based on net imports for 2013.
Looking at net imports for 2014, the number of days has
increased as well. So, while the price has dropped some, the
number of days beyond the 90 has increased substantially.
Mr. Palmer. I'm also looking at the reserves that the
Federal Government owns in places like the Green River
Formation. I think there's some interest in expanding our
research into the outer continental shelf and the potential for
generating revenue to meet our revenue needs, everything from
infrastructure to defense to running the government, are
enormous.
Let me ask you--let me switch horses on you here for a
moment and go back to the IRS, and I don't know if the GAO has
any ideas on this, and that is the fact that I think we only
collect about 84 percent of the taxes that are owed us. I think
we wind up collecting some additional amounts, but on a year-
to-year basis. And that has to do, I think, with the difficulty
of pursuing these cases, the cost. Does the GAO--have you
looked into this and do you have any recommendations for what
the IRS could do to facilitate this so that we actually collect
the money that's owed us?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. We've been very concerned about the tax
gap between taxes owed and taxes collected. Right now the
latest estimate of IRS is that an $385 billion gap between
taxes owed and taxes collected under the current structure. We
have a long list of recommendations of things that the IRS
could do in order to enhance collection activities revolved
around a couple of themes. One is getting better return on
investment numbers of exactly what--tying their initiatives to
specific revenue collection activities. They don't have a lot
of good data. We illustrated what could be done by shifting, if
they shifted based on looking at return on investment, $124
million from field audits, exams, to correspondence audits,
they could collect an additional billion dollars. So that--
that's it.
We have recommendations to the Congress, two of things
Congress could do, to increase the collection figures. For
example, to allow IRS to set standards for paid tax preparers.
Most of the tax returns are--people use paid tax preparers. We
found that in a lot of cases, when we did undercover
operations, sent people into 19 paid tax preparers, only two of
them gave us the right answers to the questions. So we think
this could be something that Oregon has done, some of the
States have done, that could be implemented at a broader level.
Simplifying the tax code would help greatly in this regard. So
we have a lot of recommendations that both IRS and the Congress
could implement to address this issue.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you for your work.
I yield the balance of my time.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
Walker.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Dodaro,
appreciate your time, and all the witnesses there. Only two
have nodded off in the last 30--no. I'm just teasing you. We
wouldn't blame you at certain times, but I am--I've got a
couple questions here but I want to get more in depth in the
process a little bit. Sometimes we get a little bit more
subjective than objective, and even heard the gentlelady from
Michigan talking about if we could only replicate more the way
the executive branch operates.
And I want to talk a little bit about the process.
Obviously, you have a very distinguished career, winning many
awards, and except the 2013 Braden Award, most of those awards
came before you took over the GAO office, and I don't know if
that means you did a great job or exactly what. But my question
is, my first question is, when you're implementing or taking
action steps, can you talk about the process when you see
there's an issue, there's a concern, I'd like to take it from a
30,000-foot perspective, but then hone in on a couple Medicare
questions in just a minute.
Mr. Dodaro. Yeah, sure. Well, we produce reports, have
recommendations in the reports. Agencies will let us know
whether they agree with the recommendations or not. In our
reports, in addition to making recommendations to executive
branch agencies, we also make recommendations to the Congress.
Matters for the congressional consideration. We have a regular
follow-up process on those recommendations. Over a 4-year
period, 80 percent are implemented. On average last year
implementation of our recommendations resulted in $54 billion
in financial benefits to the Federal Government. So about $100
back for every dollar invested in GAO. About 1,200 non-
financial benefits, improvements in public safety and other
things that are in place.
Now, after a while, if our recommendations aren't
implemented, I'll either go to an agency head and say--in fact,
we're getting ready to send letters to all of the major
executive branch agency heads with--highlighting key
recommendations that are not yet implemented. We'll go to the
Congress and try to get the Congress to implement the
recommendations in the appropriations process or authorization
bills. So a lot of our recommendations get implemented that way
through the Congress.
Mr. Walker. That helps me tremendously. Are most of those
self-initiated observations, or do you get those from Congress?
How would you come about putting on these smorgasbord of things
need to be done?
Mr. Dodaro. Yeah, yeah, we do a strategic plan for serving
the Congress and the country looking ahead on a 5-year period
of what work we think makes sense in consultation with the
Congress, outside experts across government. We receive
requests from committee chairs and ranking members and have
requirements to do studies in law or in conference or committee
reports. Last year we had about 900 requests from the Congress.
I'd say about 75 percent of those were things that we thought
were good ideas for us to work on. So it was a collaborative
process between GAO and the Congress.
Mr. Walker. Thank you for addressing that. If there's--if
you've already--I apologize for the redundancy. Specific
question I want to talk to you about. Thirty two years ago
Congress required the establishment of criteria I believe it
was 11 cancer hospitals.
Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
Mr. Walker. My question was, I think it was--they were
exempted from a predetermined Medicare payment.
Mr. Dodaro. That's correct.
Mr. Walker. How does care at these exempted cancer
hospitals compare to other hospitals providing similar
services? Can you address that?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. I'll ask Ms. Cindy Bascetta who's our--
head of our healthcare service to address that issue.
Ms. Bascetta. We were concerned about the issue because
when the prospective payment system was put in place many years
ago, the cancer hospitals were designated as exempt because at
the time the belief was that the payment system wouldn't
adequately reflect their costs. It hasn't been revisited since
then, and we believe now, based on an analysis that we did that
compared the populations that were cared for in regular
teaching hospitals that are paid under the prospective system
and the PCH hospitals, that in fact there aren't differences in
outcomes and that the care is comparable. So we believe based
on that analysis that the savings to the--up to about $500
million.
Mr. Walker. Okay you just took my second question. Are you
say--are you feel good about estimating a number there----
Ms. Bascetta. Yes.
Mr. Walker. --that we could save?
Ms. Bascetta. Absolutely.
Mr. Walker. And you said around?
Ms. Bascetta. It's $156 million on the inpatient side and
about $303 million on the outpatient side.
Mr. Dodaro. It's about $500 million a year could be saved.
Mr. Walker. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Walberg.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the
panel for being here.
And Mr. Dodaro, I wish you could have talked about
comprehensive tax reform a little longer. And as I sit here and
listen, I am constantly brought back to the fact that maybe
just per chance we've let the Federal Government get too large,
but I appreciate the work you're doing in looking into what's
going on.
Relative to FOIA review process, DHS has the largest
backlog of any Federal agency. How does the duplicative
processing like with USCIS and ICE where USCIS process certain
requests, and then sends requests to ICE which processes them a
second time? They had a different working relationship earlier
on. How does that duplicative processing of requests contribute
to the backlog?
Mr. Dodaro. It's a great contributor. I'll ask Mr. Powner
to explain how--why that happens, but we think it can be
streamlined.
Mr. Powner. So they have one of the largest backlogs of
FOIA requests. So if you start with that, you want to
streamline operations. So if you look at what USCIS does at
CBP, they have an agreement where they don't duplicate efforts.
And what we looked at we saw a situation where ICE and USCIS
they were duplicating. So our recommendation was really to
follow that memorandum of agreement that USCIS and CBP has in
place, and that would actually help the backlog.
Mr. Dodaro. Yeah. So you have three different components of
the Department of Health--or Homeland Security. Two of the
components have an agreement. They don't duplicate. The third
component doesn't have the agreement with ICE. So you have
inconsistencies even within the department.
Mr. Walberg. Why weren't they able to come to an agreement
like they had in the past? What kept them from that?
Mr. Powner. I think a lot of it's just a history of how
they've done it in the past and culture and bureaucracy on how
they process that information. It's their information so they
want to process it instead of letting another organization do
it. That's what CBP does with USCIS is they say it's okay for
the USCIS to process the FOIA requests using our data, where
ICE doesn't have that level of comfort.
Mr. Walberg. Do we see any movement that direction?
Mr. Powner. Not to date. Not to date. That was a recent
report that we issued, but we're continuing to----
Mr. Dodaro. One of the things I have mentioned I'm sending
letters to the agency heads. This is one area I want to point
out. And I have frequent conversations, particularly with the
deputy for the Department of Homeland Security. So I'm going to
mention it to them too. See if we can get some movement.
Mr. Walberg. Okay. Ms. Cobert, in GAO's 2011 report found
that tracking undisbursed balances and expired grant accounts
could facilitate the reallocation of scarce resources or
returning funding to the Treasury. Per GAO's recommendation,
OMB has instructed executive departments and agencies to take
action to address undisbursed balances and expired grant
accounts.
GAO's 2011 report highlighted issues related to undisbursed
balances and expired grant accounts. OMB implemented GAO's
recommendation and the action is considered fully addressed.
What made this instance different from the other cases that OMB
has not yet addressed?
Ms. Cobert. Thank you for describing that particular
instance. It's an example of the many places where we work
closely with GAO on trying to take what they learn from their
work and work together both within OMB and across agencies to
put things into action.
The recommendations there were very clear, and we were able
to pursue that through our normal oversight of grants, which is
done through the Office of Federal Financial Management.
Actually a part of my responsibilities at OMB.
We are also on a number of other areas working to implement
the GAO reports, whether it's on elements around strategic
sourcing, portfolios that we discussed earlier, a data center
consolidation. In our mind, the input we get from GAO is
extremely valuable in helping us set our agenda for working
together with agencies. And, in fact, in particular, for
example, on things like the high-risk list. Gene and I have
meetings together with the relevant agencies. We sort of work
our way through the high-risk list on a monthly basis. Because
we think it's important to take these things seriously.
Mr. Walberg. So there is follow-up between----
Ms. Cobert. Absolutely.
Mr. Walberg. Are agencies responding?
Ms. Cobert. Agencies are responding. You can see that in
the number of reports, of the number of action items that have
been addressed fully or partially. Some of those are through
OMB actions. Some of those are through agency actions, and
where they haven't been addressed, we're continuing to try and
understand what's getting in the way. Sometimes they have--they
may have the same diagnosis of a problem as GAO, a slightly
different view on what the right solution is, and that's where
we enter into an active dialogue to say what's the best way to
try and get at the root problem we're trying to solve.
Mr. Walberg. Well, I wish you success, and----
Ms. Cobert. Thank you.
Mr. Walberg. --I yield back.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
Carter.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you
for being here. This is very important and very informative,
and we appreciate it very much.
Mr. Dodaro, I want to speak--I know that the previous
Congressman questioned you about DHS, but I'd like to go
further into that, and it's important to me for two reasons.
First of all, I'm a member of the Homeland Security Committee.
So it's important for that reason, but, secondly, and perhaps
most importantly, I have a bill, one of my first bills that
I've introduced, House Resolution 1615, that deals with this.
As you know, the Department of Homeland Security has more FOIA
requests than any other department, and not only that, but
right now the backlog of all Federal FOIA requests, the
Department of Homeland Security has more than half, which is
really alarming. Now, again, I want to ask you because my
legislation really calls for the elimination of duplication,
and I want to ask you again about USCIS and then ICE and the
duplication there. Is there indeed duplication in that process?
Are they both--are they both processing the FOIA requests----
Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
Mr. Carter.--separately?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
Mr. Carter. So your office acknowledges and believes that
they are indeed doing that?
Ms. Dodaro. Yes. Yes. And that's our recommendation is to
eliminate that duplication.
Mr. Carter. Okay. Well, let me ask you. It's my
understanding that--that Customs and Border Protection and
USCIS have an agreement in which they--they work together on
these FOIA requests, yet--yet ICE does not have that same
agreement?
Mr. Powner. Correct. And our recommendation is to replicate
that agreement that those two organizations have----
Mr. Carter. Did they give a reason why they don't have that
agreement? Is there----
Mr. Powner. No. There was some back and forth about was it
actually duplicative or not and some hand wringing there, but
the issue here is they both process some of the same FOIA
requests. There is duplication, there's an opportunity to
reduce it by having that agreement. This is a pretty
straightforward issue. This is really a simple one.
Mr. Carter. Okay. It's my understanding that at one point
they did have an agreement----
Mr. Powner. They did at one time.
Mr. Carter. --and it expired.
Mr. Powner. It expired, yes, and they have not revisited
that. So this is very straightforward.
Mr. Carter. I'm----
Mr. Dodaro. It's hard to explain. It's some type of
behavior that happens at times within large bureaucracies, and
I don't profess to give you a really good answer as to exactly
why----
Mr. Meadows. Can you turn your mic on?
Mr. Dodaro. I'm sorry. Excuse me.
What I was saying is, you know, it's sometimes hard to
explain behavior in large bureaucracies, and I don't profess to
try to explain exactly why it is what it is. All we know is
that it's not correct the way it is. It's contributing to the
backlog and needs to be changed.
Mr. Dodaro. So if your bill can help in that regard, I
think it would be a terrific idea.
Mr. Carter. Well, certainly we want to push this issue
because it would appear to me that not only would it help with
the backlog, obviously, but it would be less expensive to do it
that way.
Mr. Dodaro. That's correct.
Mr. Carter. You know, since I've been up here all of three
and a half months, common sense, I'm not sure that----
Mr. Dodaro. Sometimes it's----
Mr. Carter. --I have figured out where it's hiding at.
Mr. Dodaro. Sometimes it's not so common.
Mr. Carter. Well, you're exactly right.
But, again, it's my understanding that--that these two
subgroups, if you will, suborganizations, of Homeland Security
have established a study committee of sorts to work through
this.
Are you aware of that? Are they working on it? What's the
status of it currently?
Mr. Powner. I'm not--I'll have to get you a status for the
record. I'm not aware of the working group, so we'll get back
to you on that.
Mr. Carter. Okay. Well, if you could, that would be very
important because----
Mr. Powner. Sure.
Mr. Carter. --obviously this is a bill that's very
important to me and, I think, should be very important to all
of us to get rid of this backlog. Again, over half of the
Federal FOIA requests that are in backlog now are in Homeland
Security. No excuse for that whatsoever and no excuse for the
duplication. So thank you for your efforts and, please, watch
this bill very, very closely.
Mr. Dodaro. We will.
Mr. Carter. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Chairman Meadows.
And, Mr. Dodaro, welcome. Ms. Cobert.
One of the things we've worked on, in fact, worked closely
with Mr. Meadows, is my interest in fulfilling the findings we
did in the reports some years ago. The title of it was the
Federal Government Must Stop Sitting On Its Assets. And we
looked at properties as one part of it and we've actually taken
that on. I think you've endured a few of our hearings. We had
some pretty good successes when you drive down Pennsylvania
Avenue and you see the old post office building that was
costing us $6 to $8 million a year. It will soon be a five star
hotel and a first class commercial center, probably employing a
thousand people and paying us--I think the deal we cut was
about a quarter of a million a month, plus a percentage of the
gross. Not too bad. And other properties. But unfortunately the
successes are fairly limited.
DOD, for example, under the information I've gotten from
staff and, I think, from you all, says that DOD has 560,000
facilities worldwide and, as of September, only had a
utilization rate of 53 percent. Is that correct?
Who is going to----
Mr. Dodaro. Yeah.
Mr. Mica. Identify yourself.
Ms. Berrick. Okay. Just to clarify that. There was only
data in DOD's real property database for 53 percent of the
facilities. So basically----
Mr. Mica. Well, that's all you could confirm.
Ms. Berrick. Right. And the----
Mr. Mica. Yeah. Because we found in the past--and I think
some of your work, too--it was, one, agencies didn't know what
they had. They didn't know the conditions. Sometimes they
didn't--their inventory was--was never updated and then whether
it was utilized was a totally different question.
Mr. Dodaro. Yeah. That's correct, Congressman.
Mr. Mica. Okay. How----
Mr. Dodaro. And I found that--yeah.
Mr. Mica. But the other thing, too, is I think the GAO has
recommended that OMB develop a national strategy that could
provide a pathway to manage excess and utilize--access
underutilized properties. You recommended this?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Mica. And how are they doing on it? They've got it all
done? They've got a good plan?
Mr. Dodaro. Well, they've just produced a strategy document
a couple of weeks ago that toward the end of----
Mr. Mica. A couple weeks ago?
Mr. Dodaro. Right, right. And we looked at that. We think
it's a first good step.
Mr. Mica. Okay. You recommended that, as I recall, back in
June of 2012. So that's probably lightning rocket speed to get
it last week, so----
All right. OMB. I've got a--and DOD. I've got a specific
case in Florida. About a year or so ago, I dragged one of the
subcommittees down. We have--you know, when you have public
assets and we're sitting on them, you've got to look in your
own backyard. And at Cape Kennedy, I have 144,000 acres that
NASA has. They've been out of some of that business for 5 years
now. On that 500 buildings, half of them are vacant or
underutilized. 144,000 acres, that's six times the size of
Manhattan.
Then next to it is the Air Force property which is 16,000
acres. I'm not talking about Patrick. I'm talking next to it.
So I held a hearing, and we had--people laid out, the port
director came over and said, if I could get 50 to 200 acres
more right adjacent, which the Air Force controls, I could
create 5,000 jobs by making a cargo container port out of it.
Last week--and this guy is gone. Carter is gone. He said
``common sense.'' He's been here 3 months. I've been here 23
years, Carter, and you're not here to hear this, but it doesn't
prevail. Last week they told him that they couldn't--we'll send
him a tape, videotape.
But common sense was--would be they want less than 200
acres of 16,000, and last week they basically rejected a sole
source to the port. The port only happens to be the only entity
in Florida that's allowed to do port work at this site at Port
Canaveral and they couldn't give them a sole source.
OMB, DOD, somebody, can anybody--does anyone know--can you
look into sole sourcing?
Ms. Cobert. I'd be happy to.
Mr. Mica. Could you review this and tell me what the--what
idiotic determination would prohibit--I get a few more minutes
because he yielded back 41 seconds before he exited.
Mr. Meadows. The gentleman is recognized for another
minute.
Ms. Cobert. I'd be happy to look into that and get back to
you around that.
Mr. Mica. No. I mean, this is nut cases. We did the hearing
down there. We got them to--the port gave us unsolicited
proposal, and they came back and the Navy is a sublease to
that. They'll move them and pay for it. They need slight
reconfiguration, and they rejected it last week.
I just need to know the impediment because there's a way
to--there's a way to do this. You have to be a persistent
bastard, first of all, and then you've got to find a way to
make this work.
Five thousand jobs, I don't know, that wouldn't be
important in your district, would it, Mr. Meadows?
Mr. Meadows. Indeed it would.
Mr. Mica. Okay. And he was telling the whole truth and
nothing but the truth.
Well, if you could answer that, you would make my day.
Looking at that one case, I'll send you--we'll give you a
copy. It doesn't necessarily have to be part of the record, but
it's such a struggle.
We are working with Mr. Chaffetz, with the committee, we
had several bills for disposal of property and are trying to
straighten out that process. Usually we find the agencies are
not able to make decisions. They sit on it. No one in DOD could
have an initiative. No one at GSA could have an initiative. No
one at--almost any agency. I've got a list of VA properties. It
would go from here to the--vacant properties to the end of the
dais there's so many. But we do need a mechanism to better
utilize valuable public assets.
Thank you, and I yield back two seconds. Thank you.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman from Florida.
I'm going to close this out without going into a lot of
additional questions. You've been very gracious, both of you,
with your time.
I do want to say, Mr. Dodaro, thank you so much for your
leadership in a nonpartisan way, and a real thank you to your
entire staff for the work that you do. It gives us the tools to
work with, not only here, but at OMB and--and so we just want
to compliment you on a job well-done.
Obviously, there are a number of areas that we would like
to address, and so I would ask your staff to work with us, if
they would. On those ones that require legislative directives,
if you could put those in a list with a dollar amount,
everybody is looking for offsets.
Mr. Dodaro. Right.
Mr. Meadows. And so I think that that would be very good.
And we've heard some today.
Ms. Cobert, I want to follow up. Mr. Mica talked about this
whole aspect. I've got a real estate background. And based on
the way that we manage our real estate portfolio, it's--one,
it's costing us. It's not just the assets that are sitting
there. It's the management of those assets that become real
dollars. I know that you've made progress. I know that you've
had some changes at OMB, and I gave some time from the last
Congress. I have a long memory, though. And the year timeframe
that I gave is coming up this July. The progress of which we're
making on that particular issue, it would take 234 years to
dispose of all the property that we have. That's longer than
our country has been in existence, and so we could do better
than that. And I say that only to say that we're going to
continue to look at that, even if it is coming up with a
creative way to make sure that, when you dispose of the
property or GSA disposes of it, if it goes back to the agency,
you know, it's better that we deal with it than just to let it
sit there. Would you agree?
Ms. Cobert. We'd be happy to continue the dialogue with you
about practical ways to move the ball forward. We know there's
things there that--opportunities that can be captured, and we'd
be very interested in continuing the conversation with you and
others about how to move the ball forward faster.
Mr. Meadows. So I'm going to--I'm going to ask this last
request and that has to do with really what we know is tax
expenditures and the way that they go into the budget and are
accounted for.
Do I have both of your commitments to work very closely
together so that we can really fine tune that number from a
budget standpoint to know what it's costing us in terms of
credits, tax deductions, et cetera, so that we can make better
informed decisions?
I see a nodding yes, so I will assume that's a yes.
Ms. Cobert. Our team will tell you that I'm a data geek, so
better data is always helpful.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. Well, I--we're going to get along just
fine. So thank you so much.
Thank the witnesses. I want to thank the staff here for all
their hard work. And with that, if there's no further business,
without objection, the committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:06 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]