    [Senate Hearing 114-413]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                           S. Hrg. 114-413

       RISKY BUSINESS: EXAMINING GAO'S 2015 LIST OF HIGH RISK GOVERNMENT
                                    PROGRAMS

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

                                     HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                   HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               FEBRUARY 11, 2015

                                   __________

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

                           Printed for the use of the
            Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    94-274 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2016
    _________________________________________________________________________________________
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

            COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                        RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin Chairman
    JOHN McCAIN, Arizona                 THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
    ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
    RAND PAUL, Kentucky                  JON TESTER, Montana
    JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
    MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming             HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
    KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire          CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
    JONI ERNST, Iowa                     GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
    BEN SASSE, Nebraska

                        Keith B. Ashdown, Staff Director
           Patrick J. Bailey, Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs
                  Gabrielle A. Batkin. Minority Staff Director
               John P. Kilvington, Minority Deputy Staff Director
         Troy H. Cribb, Minority Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs
                         Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
                       Lauren M. Corcoran, Hearing Clerk

                               C O N T E N T S

                                     ------
    Opening statements:
                                                                       Page
        Senator Johnson..............................................     1
        Senator Carper...............................................     2
        Senator Lankford.............................................    13
        Senator McCaskill............................................    17
        Senator Baldwin..............................................    20
        Senator Heitkamp.............................................    22
        Senator Peters...............................................    25
        Senator Ayotte...............................................    27
    Prepared statements:
        Senator Johnson..............................................    39
        Senator Carper...............................................    40
        Senator Ernst................................................    42

                                   WITNESSES
                          Wednesday, February 11, 2015

    Hon. Eugene L. Dodaro, Comptroller General of the United States,
      U.S. Government Accountability Office; accompanied by Cynthia
      Bascetta, Managing Director, Health Care; Debra A. Draper,
      Director, Health Care; Phillip Herr, Director, Physical
      Infrastructure Issues; David Maurer, Director, Homeland
      Security and Justice; J. Christopher Mihm, Managing Director,
      Strategic Issues; David A. Powner, Director, Information
      Technology; James White, Director, Strategic Issues; and
      Gregory Wilshusen, Director, Information Technology............     4
    Eugene Dodaro, prepared statement................................    43

                                    APPENDIX

    GAO Report submitted by Senator Baldwin..........................    78
    Statement submitted by the Department of Homeland Security.......   142
    Information submitted by Mr. Dodaro for the Record...............   148
    Questions submitted for the Record from Mr. Dodaro...............   149

     RISKY BUSINESS: EXAMINING GAO'S LIST OF HIGH-RISK GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2015

                                         U.S. Senate,
                               Committee on Homeland Security
                                      and Governmental Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
    room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson,
    Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Johnson, Lankford, Ayotte, Ernst, Sasse,
    Carper, McCaskill, Baldwin, Heitkamp, and Peters.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON

        Chairman Johnson. This hearing will come to order.
        I want to welcome everyone. I appreciate my colleagues
    coming here and all the members of the audience and, of course,
    Comptroller General Eugene Dodaro and other members of the
    Government Accountability Office (GAO).
        This is an important hearing. There is a reason this is the
    third hearing that we are having in this Congress on this
    Committee. The good work that GAO has done is demonstrated by
    the fact over the last 2 years, just recommendations
    implemented from previous High-Risk Lists have generated $40
    billion of savings over the last 2 years. I mean, that is a
    remarkable figure.
        Today, we are going to be talking about the update to the
    list. There is some good news. I am happy to report that the
    Department of Homeland Security (DHS) management has made solid
    progress and there are some prospects of DHS coming off that
    list. We are looking forward to that. There has been progress
    made in terms of the Department of Defense (DOD) contract
    management, progress made with the Food and Drug Administration
    (FDA's) oversight of medical devices.
        Unfortunately, there has been some expanded scrutiny--tax
    code enforcement and fraud. I appreciate the fact that the GAO
    is pointing out the fact that cybersecurity is a real issue, a
    real threat, and that is a top priority of this Committee, to
    start taking pieces of legislation or be involved in the
    passage of legislation that will address the first step in
    providing some measure of additional cybersecurity, and that
    would be information sharing. So, I appreciate that.
        I hate to report that there are some new areas added.
    Information technology (IT) acquisition--that is really not
    much of a surprise, but it is very disappointing to hear that
    Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care, has been added to this, and
    this hits pretty close to home with both Senator Baldwin and
    myself.
        We have a facility in Tomah. Over the last couple of years,
    we have lost three veterans to the system. Two died with deaths
    related to potential opiate drug over-prescription, and not
    even a month ago, a 74-year-old veteran--I am not a doctor, but
    pretty obvious stroke symptoms sat and waited in a waiting room
    for 3 hours to be treated, probably had a stroke, was wheeled
    into an examination room, waited another 45 minutes, had a
    massive stroke, was finally ambulanced to a different hospital.
    The CT scanner was apparently not operational, so they could
    not administer anticoagulant drugs, and this gentleman died 2
    days later.
        So, it is noteworthy to understand that GAO has been making
    recommendations to the Veterans Health Care System for a number
    of years. There are more than 100 recommendations that have not
    been implemented, about 80 percent of the recommendations.
        So, certainly what I would like to get out of this
    Committee, out of this hearing and hopefully out of Committee
    action, is coming up with some kind of method, some kind of
    control to make sure that these good recommendations that save
    the taxpayer so many dollars, that could potentially save
    lives, are actually implemented. I mean, that has to be a top
    priority of this Committee. Let us utilize the guidepost of the
    GAO High-Risk List and the other good work they do and let us
    make sure these recommendations are finally implemented at the
    agency level. It will save money. It will save lives.
        So, with that, I would like to turn it over to our Ranking
    Member, Senator Carper.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER

        Senator Carper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for
    convening us today.
        And, to Gene Dodaro and to the many members of your team
    that are in the audience and may be listening or watching
    outside of the building, we want to just say a big thank you to
    all of them for giving us a great to-do list. My wife is a big
    believer in to-do lists, and every morning, I go down to the
    kitchen and there on the island in the kitchen, usually is a
    to-do list. Sometimes it is for her. Sometimes it is for me.
    And, what you have provided, you and your colleagues at GAO
    have provided us, is an incredibly important to-do list, and
    you do this every 2 years. We take that responsibility on your
    part seriously and we take the responsibility just as seriously
    for ourselves.
        It is interesting how you can make progress in addressing
    any number of the areas that need to be addressed within that
    to-do list you are providing for us. We can hold a hearing, and
    over the years, we have been able to make real progress just by
    scheduling a hearing and bringing folks to this table, in some
    cases, folks who are in charge of acquisitions at the
    Department of Defense for weapons systems. Just hold a hearing.
    In other cases, we send letters, and they can have an amazing
    effect.
        We not only will introduce legislation, we will simply call
    the Secretary of the Department or the senior person within the
    Department and say, we want to meet with you and here is why.
    And, you and your team are complicit in a very positive way in
    all of that.
        For those of you who have joined us, we had a press
    conference here early on and I talked about from time to time
    people say to me, ``I do not mind paying taxes. I just do not
    want you to waste my money.'' I do not want to waste their
    money, either, and this Committee is committed to making sure
    that we continue to fight. It is like whack-a-mole, and the
    government is so big, and there are so many people trying to
    defraud our government for money.
        I have an entire statement I want to make part of the
    record,\1\ but I just want to say, the kind of passion and
    commitment that we have brought to addressing the entire to-do
    list remains. Tom Coburn is gone, but that spirit that he
    brought to this Committee for all those years is still being
    nurtured by me and, I think, by Ron, and by a new Member from
    Oklahoma. A lot of work to do, and we are going to work it
    together.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Carper appears in the
    Appendix on page 40.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I will say one other thing that I think bears repeating. I
    am a big believer in leverage. When I chaired with Tom and led
    a Subcommittee of this Committee, we tried to be effective in
    addressing waste, fraud and abuse in government, and we found
    that we could be a lot more effective as a Subcommittee or this
    full Committee if we partnered with you and with your team. We
    found that we could be more effective if we would partner with
    the literally dozens of Inspector Generals (IGs) across the
    Federal Government. We found that we could be more effective if
    we would partner with the Office of Management and Budget
    (OMB), with the nonprofit organizations that are committed to
    reducing waste in government, and it works. It actually works.
        It is a little bit like changing the course of an air craft
    carrier, but if you stick with it, you do not give up, you can
    change the course of an air craft carrier, and we can change
    the course of our government and improve the service that we
    provide for the people of this country.
        So, we look forward to hearing from you, anxious to watch
    you read your notes yet again--actually, he never reads his
    notes, and is one of the most amazing people I have ever seen
    testify in the Congress. I always say this and hope maybe it
    will spook him so that he will forget where he is. [Laughter.]
        I remember Winston Churchill used to give speeches before
    the House of Parliament and he would, like, memorize his
    speeches, and one day he was giving a speech, a terrific
    speech--you know how good he was--and he forgot his speech and
    he lost his way. So, I keep waiting for that to happen with
    you---- [Laughter.]
        But I have been calling all these years, Gene, and you
    never do, so I do not want to jinx you today, but thanks very
    much for being here and talking with us and we look forward to
    this conversation.
        Chairman Johnson. That is that accounting background,
    right?
        I should have mentioned earlier, I do have a formal opening
    statement that I would like to enter into the record.\2\
    Without objection, so ordered.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the
    Appendix on page 39.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is the tradition of this Committee to swear in
    witnesses, so Mr. Dodaro and any other GAO employees that might
    assist in the testimony, please rise. Raise your right hand.
        Do you swear the testimony you will give before this
    Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
    the truth, so help you, God?
        Mr. Dodaro. I do.
        Ms. Bascetta. I do.
        Ms. Draper. I do.
        Mr. Herr. I do.
        Mr. Maurer. I do.
        Mr. Mihm. I do.
        Mr. Powner. I do.
        Mr. White. I do.
        Mr. Wilshusen. I do.
        Chairman Johnson. Please be seated. Mr. Dodaro.

     TESTIMONY OF HON. EUGENE L. DODARO,\1\ COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF
       THE UNITED STATES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE;
      ACCOMPANIED BY CYNTHIA BASCETTA, MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEALTH
      CARE; DEBRA A. DRAPER, DIRECTOR, HEALTH CARE; PHILLIP HERR,
        DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES; DAVID MAURER,
     DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY AND JUSTICE; J. CHRISTOPHER MIHM,
    MANAGING DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC ISSUES; DAVID A. POWNER, DIRECTOR,
       INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; JAMES WHITE, DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC
    ISSUES; AND GREGORY WILSHUSEN, DIRECTOR, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

        Mr. Dodaro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good morning
    to you, Ranking Member Senator Carper, and Members of the
    Committee. I am very pleased to be here today to discuss the
    update to GAO's High-Risk List.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Dodaro appears in the Appendix on
    page 43.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We provide this update with the beginning of each new
    Congress to help the Congress set its priorities for oversight
    and to help the Administration focus on areas that we consider
    to be of highest risk for either fraud, waste, abuse, or
    mismanagement, or in need of broad-based transformation across
    the government.
        This year, we are reporting solid, steady progress in the
    vast majority of the High-Risk Areas that we have had on the
    list to date. We are also providing ratings for the first time
    against each High-Risk Area's status and progress getting off
    the list.
        In order to get off the list, High-Risk Areas need to meet
    five criteria. They need to have top leadership commitment.
    They need to have the capacity, the resources, and the people
    with the right skills to get off the list. They have to have a
    good corrective action plan that goes to the root cause of the
    problems. They have to have a monitoring effort with interim
    milestones and metrics to make sure they are making progress.
    And then they have to demonstrate that they are actually
    beginning to fix the problem. They do not have to have it 100
    percent fixed to get off the list, but they have to have
    tangible progress that they are on the right path and are
    actually fixing the problem.
        Now, of the 30 areas that were on the list based on our
    last update, 18 of those areas have at least partially met each
    of the five criteria for coming off the list. Eleven of those
    areas have fully met at least one or more of the criteria and
    partially met the others. So, there is good, steady progress as
    we report.
        In two areas, we report enough progress that we are
    actually narrowing the scope of the High-Risk Area. First, in
    FDA's oversight of medical devices, in the area of recalls, we
    were concerned that they were not consistently applying recall
    criteria, actually ensuring that the recalls were effective,
    and did not analyze recall data over time to identify potential
    trends that warranted some alerts to the industry. They are now
    doing that. They have analyzed 10 years of data. They are
    ensuring greater consistency in having recalls. They are
    documenting whether the recalls have occurred and were
    effective.
        And, also, we have seen progress in their ability to
    process new device requests. In the past, they were slow to
    implement legislation that provided a dual-track process where
    certain devices that were similar to those on the market could
    go to an expedited review, but new devices that passed the
    highest risks needed to go through a more stringent review.
    They were slow to implement the Act. They have now corrected
    that and they are on track to implement the legislation by this
    year.
        They still have issues in ensuring the adequacy and the
    safety of medical products and devices in a global marketplace.
    Right now, 80 percent of the active ingredients for
    prescription drugs, 40 percent of finished drugs, and about
    half of medical devices come from about 150 countries around
    the world. So we have encouraged them to move from an oversight
    process focused on overseeing domestic production to overseeing
    what is now a global marketplace for drugs and devices, and
    also to focus on drug shortages. They still have work to do in
    that area, and many of these are life-sustaining and life-
    saving drugs that are of concern.
        We have also seen enough progress in the contract
    management area at DOD to warrant narrowing that area,
    particularly as it relates to contracting tools and techniques.
    This is to ensure that they do not use overuse undefinitized
    contracts and time and materials contracts, which are more
    risky to the government. They also plan to ensure more
    competition and they have better oversight over those processes
    now. But, the remaining areas they need to fix are: (1) service
    acquisitions, (2) ensure they have an acquisition workforce
    commensurate with the challenges associated with that, and (3)
    they have to make improvements in operational contracting where
    they are using contracting to support military operations in
    the theater.
        We have also noted improvements in the Department of
    Homeland Security management functions. That area has been on
    the list for a number of years. We are very pleased with the
    leadership commitment of that Department and the Secretary,
    Deputy Secretary, and Under Secretary for Management. They have
    a very good corrective action plan and they are starting to
    make progress. They have received clean opinions on their
    financial statements for 2 years in a row right now, but there
    are other areas that they need to fix. They have fixed about 9
    of the 30 areas that we have identified and they have agreed it
    needs to be fixed. So, they have to fix the remaining 21 areas,
    but they have a good plan. They just have to execute the plan
    over a period of time, particularly in the acquisition area and
    some remaining areas in financial management, particularly on
    internal controls.
        Now, we are adding two new areas. First is VA's provision
    of health care services to our veterans. We have been very
    concerned about this area and really have five overarching
    themes of concern. One is ambiguous policies and inconsistent
    processes over time. The fact that they have inadequate
    oversight and accountability mechanisms. They have information
    technology challenges that they have to solve. There is
    inadequate training of VA staff and unclear resource needs and
    allocation processes. And, I can talk more about this in the Q
    and A session.
        Congress has passed legislation providing them with
    additional money, $15 billion, but the legislation has to be
    implemented effectively. And, as Senator Johnson has mentioned,
    we have over 100 recommendations that we have made to the VA
    that have not yet been fully implemented and they need to do
    so.
        The other area, new, that we are adding is IT acquisitions
    and operations. The report that we are providing today outlines
    a litany of failed IT modernizations in the government, where
    hundreds of millions of dollars, and in some cases billions of
    dollars, have been spent, but the effort has been terminated or
    failed. There is even a longer list of areas that have cost
    overruns, schedule slippages, or provide less functionality
    than initially intended, thereby not really improving
    operations in the agencies that much.
        Congress passed some legislation late last year, the
    Federal Information Technology Reform Act, that gives Chief
    Information Officers (CIOs) additional authorities and puts in
    place in statute a number of good practices that we have
    identified, but it has to be implemented effectively.
    Typically, we have found these areas lack discipline and
    requirements management and project management to actually
    manage IT acquisitions effectively.
        We also talk about operations. Fifty-eight of the $80
    billion that is spent each year is on operations and support of
    legacy systems that we believe may not be needed, may be
    duplicative, and may no longer be performing as efficiently and
    effectively as possible, particularly given opportunities in
    the marketplace to get IT services at less cost.
        In this new High-Risk Area, over the last 5 years alone, we
    have made 737 recommendations and only 23 percent have been
    fully implemented. So, again, Congress has made efforts in VA
    and IT, but the efforts need to be monitored. Congressional
    oversight is imperative, in my opinion. And, the agencies need
    to make reforms.
        We are expanding two areas. One is in tax administration.
    We had been focused on the next tax gap, which the annual
    latest estimate is $385 billion between taxes owed and taxes
    paid. But, identity theft has become a growing problem, so we
    are adding that to the list. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
    was successful in stopping about $24 billion last year, but
    they missed, on their estimate, about $5.8 billion in fraud. We
    have some potential action to remedy this situation and
    recommendations for the Congress and the IRS we can talk about
    in the Q and A session.
        The last area is cybersecurity. We initially designated
    computer security across the entire Federal Government at High-
    Risk in 1997. In 2003, we added critical infrastructure
    protection, because most of the computer assets are in the
    private sector. But, now, we are adding privacy to the High-
    Risk issue as more personally identifiable information (PII) is
    being collected. The number of incidents at the Federal
    Government level involving inadequate controls over IT,
    controls over the personally identifiable information, has more
    than doubled in the last 5 years. There have been a lot of
    high-profile incidents in the private sector, as well. Privacy
    law was passed in 1974. We believe it needs to be updated to
    provide greater controls, and we can talk about our
    recommendations.
        In closing, I would like to recognize that the progress
    that we did note in many of the areas was due to the Congress
    taking action, passing legislation. For example, five bills
    alone in the cybersecurity area, but more is needed, as we have
    talked about, in that area. Top leaders in the agencies and OMB
    have been focused on our High-Risk list. I have regular
    meetings with OMB Deputy for Management Beth Cobert and top
    officials in the agencies to discuss the High-Risk Areas and
    what needs to be done specifically to get off the list and to
    make continued progress.
        I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss
    this further and look forward to working with this Committee.
    Fixing these high-risk problems as the potential to save
    billions of dollars, improve services to the public, and
    enhance trust and confidence in the Federal Government's
    activities.
        So, thank you very much for the opportunity to be here. I
    would be happy to answer questions.
        Chairman Johnson. Well, thank you, Mr. Dodaro.
        Let me start with an apology. You are so familiar to me--
    you are the face of the GAO--I forgot to introduce you to those
    that may not be as familiar, so let me do it right now.
        Eugene Dodaro has been the Comptroller General of the U.S.
    Government Accountability Office since 2010 and has more than
    40 years' experience at the agency, including as Acting
    Comptroller General, Chief Operating Officer, and Head of the
    Accounting and Information Management Division. So, you have
    extensive knowledge and we certainly appreciate your service.
        Let us talk dollars. We are both accountants. I was really
    pleasantly surprised at the answer I got when I asked for how
    much have we saved just in the last couple of years and the
    figure was $40 billion. I will not investigate that. We will
    take you at your word.
        If we were to implement the recommendations on the current
    High-Risk List--I realize this is impossible to probably
    answer, but I would like you to take a stab at it--what would
    you think might be the potential savings?
        Mr. Dodaro. Well, I will just give you two benchmarks that
    would give you some idea of the magnitude of the potential
    savings. Improper payments this past year alone in the Medicare
    program were $60 billion. In Medicaid, it was over $17 billion.
    And, in the Earned Income Tax Credit, it was over $14 billion.
    So, any effort to reduce the size of those improper payments
    and ensure better integrity in the payment process can yield
    billions, if not more, in savings, right in those three
    programs alone on the list.
        The DOD weapons acquisitions area has hundreds of billions
    of dollars in potential investments. Some of the $40 billion in
    savings have come from identifying weapons systems that were
    not ready to go into production, that would have wasted funds,
    and DOD or the Congress made decisions to reduce the
    procurement orders for those areas.
        And, let us take the tax gap alone. Any amount reducing one
    percent the tax gap--right now, there is 84 percent compliance,
    so we have about 16 percent noncompliance in the country, and
    it goes across the range of different taxpayers, whether it is
    business or individual taxpayers or small businesses. Any one
    percent increase in collection of taxes owed is $4 billion
    right there.
        So, there is lots of money on the table that is not being
    collected that should be collected. There is money being paid
    that should not be paid. So, there are plenty of opportunities
    to save money in these areas.
        And, I am particularly concerned that in the Medicare and
    Medicaid area, because they are the fastest growing Federal
    programs, if the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
    (CMS) does not get a better handle on these areas, that problem
    will get a lot worse before it will get better.
        Chairman Johnson. Well, my back-of-the-envelope
    calculation, you are already talking about close to $100
    billion just right then and there.
        I know Senator Carper talked about Senator Coburn earlier
    using GAO reports. Senator Coburn always used to publish the
    ``Waste Book,'' unfortunately, after the money was spent. My
    goal would be, let us publish a ``Waste Book'' before the money
    is spent, and again, you gave us the guideposts for doing that.
        Talk about implementation. I mean, what can we do? What
    could this Committee potentially do to induce, might I say,
    force implementation, because you have so much money at stake.
    And, like I say, it is not just money. Take a look at the VA.
    It could be lives. I mean, what can we do to prompt, induce,
    force as full implementation of your recommendations as
    possible?
        Mr. Dodaro. I will give you an example of one of the things
    that I have done that I think could be replicated in the
    Congress to really induce more progress. One is, since I became
    Comptroller General, I went to OMB and I said, look, you have
    real serious problems here across the spectrum of the Federal
    Government. During the Bush Administration, GAO started having
    meetings with OMB and the agencies on the High-Risk List, but
    it was usually at the Assistant Secretary level and below.
        And I said, look, if you get the head or the deputy of the
    agency here to the meeting and the Deputy Director for
    Management is at the meeting, I personally will participate in
    those meetings to focus on what needs to be done to make
    improvement. We have been doing that for the past couple of
    years. I attribute raising the elevation of that level to the
    top agency leaders in the agency to the degree of progress that
    we have seen over the past several years.
        I believe engagement with those top officials, whether it
    be in a hearing or it be in a private meeting, it be with
    correspondence or other efforts, with the Congress and with the
    agency, is really important.
        The second major thing Congress could do, on the High-Risk
    List, you will see an asterisk beside every area that requires
    Congress to act and pass legislation in order to rectify the
    High-Risk Area. Financing the Nation's surface transportation
    system is an example. Postal Service reform is another example
    in that area. And, there are many other areas on the High-Risk
    List where Congress is an integral part of actually fixing the
    problem, and we have noted that so that the Congress could
    focus on those areas.
        So, those are two real fundamental things that I think are
    very important, and ensuring continuity over time so that
    progress can be achieved.
        One of the reasons I was very convinced to put VA Health
    Care and IT acquisitions and reform on those areas is because,
    I believe neither one will be fully resolved during this
    Administration's watch and will have to be continued and
    sustained into the next Administration. And, so, it is very
    important to have that continuity to focus on these problems.
        Chairman Johnson. Well, certainly, one of the things we can
    do with this Committee is hold those hearings. We will work
    very closely with you to schedule those hearings and have you
    have a seat at the table as we are talking to those agencies.
        Mr. Dodaro. We would be happy to.
        Chairman Johnson. I do want to, in my remaining time, I
    want to drill down in terms of the VA Health Care System. A
    hundred recommendations. Over what time period have you been
    issuing those recommendations? Why have they not been
    implemented? And, can you just kind of speak to the major
    recommendations that you think really need to be prioritized
    for implementation.
        Mr. Dodaro. Sure. I will ask my colleague, Debbie Draper,
    who is focused on that work, to come to the table to help me
    answer the questions, but I will start.
        We first started reporting on this problem in the year
    2000, so the recommendations have been made over a number of
    years. And, I might point out, in a number of these cases, VA
    agreed to implement the recommendations, but they were not
    being implemented over time effectively. I met with Secretary
    Eric Shinseki when he was there, talked about the need to
    implement the recommendations. I have just met with Secretary
    Robert A. McDonald and he agreed to make it a priority to
    implement the recommendations.
        Most of them are on access to care issues, where they do
    not have good scheduling systems put in place. The IT system
    that supports the scheduling system is about 30 years old. One
    of the IT failures that we point out in our report explained
    that after 7 or 9 years and over $200 million, they terminated
    their effort to upgrade and modernize that system.
        They do not have good data in a lot of areas to compare
    whether it is cheaper for certain particular services to give
    treatment in a VA facility or send the person to a non-VA
    facility, and this is really important because Congress has
    just given them $10 billion to make those decisions. They do
    not have good information to make well-informed decisions in
    those areas.
        But, Debbie has been doing a terrific job. I will ask her
    to elaborate a little bit more.
        Chairman Johnson. Please.
        Ms. Draper. Thank you. So, we made 167 recommendations over
    the past 5 years, and there are actually more prior to the 5-
    years, but more recently, it is 167. Just over 20 percent of
    those have been completely implemented and closed. So, there is
    a large number of recommendations, as Gene talked about. There
    are a lot related to access to care. And, it is not just the
    policies. It gets back to the five broad buckets of why we
    included VA Health Care in the High-Risk List.
        Inconsistent processes that play out at the local level--
    you have a lot of variation at the local level, and this is
    really attributed to ambiguous policies, which are widely
    interpreted. Policies do not tend to be standardized processes
    across the VA Medical Centers (VAMC). We also see certainly
    inadequate oversight and accountability and, for example, VA
    tends to rely on self-reported compliance with policies, and
    that information is often not verified. So, when we go in, we
    look at those compliance issues and, contrary to what the
    facilities have reported, most of the times, they are not in
    full compliance with the policy. So, there are a lot of
    different areas, but there are a large number of
    recommendations that remain open.
        Chairman Johnson. Well, thank you. We will work very
    closely with you in terms of trying to push and prod the VA to
    implement those recommendations as rapidly as possible, so we
    look forward to working with you. Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        You mentioned how large the tax gap is, and I think the
    number you mentioned, Gene, was $385 billion, is that correct?
        Mr. Dodaro. Yes. That is the net amount. There is a gross
    amount, and then IRS expects to collect so much. Yes.
        Senator Carper. Is that money that is owed in one-time
    money, or is it money that is lost on a recurring basis?
        Mr. Dodaro. It is the latest estimate based upon tax year
    2006. One of the reasons that the IRS has been on the list for
    many years, and the original list in 1990, was tax
    administration, where they were not measuring the tax gap. And,
    so, after a number of years and prodding by us and the
    Congress, they finally started measuring it. It is expensive to
    measure it, so that is the latest estimate. But, it is an
    annual estimate.
        Senator Carper. All right. The Commissioner of the IRS is a
    fellow named John Koskinen, whom you probably know. Have you
    met with him?
        Mr. Dodaro. I have worked with John in many areas over the
    years. He used to be the Deputy for Management at OMB.
    Actually, John and I worked to put in the Chief Financial
    Officer structure into the government and on legislative
    initiatives to actually create CIOs across the government and
    fixing the Y2K problem. So, I have much knowledge of working
    with John and I have met with him in his new capacity.
        Senator Carper. That is good. He is a very impressive
    leader, and I am hopeful he is going to provide wonderful
    leadership at the IRS.
        He testified before the Finance Committee last week, and
    later I met with him in my office. One of the things that he
    mentioned to me is that for every dollar that we invest in the
    IRS and their people and their technology, they generate
    roughly $10 worth of revenue. And, if you look at the amount of
    money that we provide for the IRS to do their job now, we
    actually provide less than we did a few years ago. And, as you
    suggest, we are leaving about $400 billion of money on the
    table of money that is not being collected. Would you just care
    to comment on his observation?
        Mr. Dodaro. Yes. We have reported--in fact, we rate IRS as
    ``not met'' in the capacity area to fix this problem, largely
    because of some of the resources and the uncertain budget
    environment in this area going forward. Now, that being said,
    though, we also have a number of recommendations that they need
    to look at and evaluate the return on investment that they are
    getting from different enforcement efforts, and they could do
    more with the resources that they have been given and
    prioritize those efforts. So, we have a number of
    recommendations in those areas.
        But, that is an area that I believe needs attention to make
    sure that they have the resources necessary to be able to
    improve collections. They have been having budget cuts and they
    have been given increased responsibilities in the Affordable
    Care Act and a number of other----
        Senator Carper. And, the other thing they have been given
    is a tax code that is not made more simple every year, but
    generally made more complex. And, we muck around with it and
    change it at the last hour or do not change it and we make it
    difficult for them to actually provide the information to
    people who want to file their taxes in a timely way. There is
    plenty of work to be done here, but a good deal of that work is
    to be done by my colleagues, not just on this Committee, but
    our colleagues in the House and Senate working with the
    Administration, and thank you.
        Mr. Dodaro. And there are some things that Congress could
    do to help IRS. One thing to do would be to increase the
    requirement for electronic filing. Another would be to give
    them additional math authority where they could fix errors
    right on the spot rather than generating and spending a lot of
    time over those errors. So, we have a lot of recommendations.
    Obviously, simplifying the tax code would be tremendously
    helpful.
        Senator Carper. They have also been asking for legislation
    that would enable them to better ensure some quality in terms
    of capability of the people who help prepare returns and file
    returns.
        Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
        Senator Carper. I think that is a very large problem.
        Mr. Dodaro. Yes. We have made that recommendation. We
    studied the use of that in Oregon. Oregon was actually piloting
    it for their own State and they found that making
    certification, training requirements for paid tax preparers
    increased their collections and we recommended that IRS do it.
    They went forward and the courts have ruled they did not have
    the authority to do it, and so it is really in Congress' hands
    right now to give them that authority. We continue to recommend
    that would be a good thing to do.
        About 60 percent, of the people go to paid tax preparers.
    We have done work in the past where we have sent undercover
    teams in to paid tax preparers, and the last time we did it,
    three out of ten were making mistakes and particularly errors
    in the Earned Income Tax Credit area.
        Senator Carper. Good. Thank you for that.
        You mentioned the number of items that have been listed on
    the High-Risk List for years, and I think there are hundreds
    that still remain to be fully addressed and resolved. But, we
    have made progress. The agencies throughout the government have
    made progress. You mentioned a number of those areas where that
    progress has been made. Some of it is in the Department of
    Homeland Security, which we have jurisdiction over. We are
    pleased with that. Some is within the Department of Defense,
    and they have a lot more to do, but there is some good work
    that is being done.
        But, if you think about the areas, where it is department-
    wide or with respect to specific parts of the departments'
    jurisdiction where actually real progress is being made, the
    real attention is being paid to the recommendations that they
    are receiving from you and, frankly, the hearings that we hold
    and the oversight that we conduct. What are the factors that
    better ensure progress? I like to say, find out what works, do
    more of that.
        Mr. Dodaro. Right.
        Senator Carper. What are the factors that appear again and
    again to be successful here?
        Mr. Dodaro. Yes. No. 1 is top leadership commitment. If you
    do not have the head of the agency or the deputy focused on
    this issue, you will make marginal progress, at best, in those
    areas. And, what I have seen, in Homeland Security, I have
    talked to Secretary Janet Napolitano, Secretary Jeh Johnson,
    the deputies, Jane Holl Lute, and Alejandro Mayorkas are
    focused on this, as well as the Under Secretaries for
    Management, just to give one example. The same thing at
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The
    deputy has been focused on this, Bob Lightfoot, and I know John
    Koskinen at IRS. So, the top people need to be focused. These
    are big, tough problems. They require prioritization in the
    agencies. They require changes in the culture of the agencies,
    and if they are not led from the top, they are not going to be
    successful.
        Second thing is a good plan. A number of agencies start
    initiatives. There are no real performance measures or metrics
    in the initiatives. There is no way to hold people accountable
    for interim progress. The next thing you know, they are gone
    and there is a new political person that we are dealing with in
    the agency and we kind of start all over again. If there is a
    plan in place that has been followed, that is a good plan that
    has milestones and metrics that can transcend changes in
    political leadership in the Departments.
        And, so, those two things are really very imperative, and
    the third thing would be engagement from the Congress. If it
    does not matter to the Congress and does not matter to the
    agencies appropriation and does not matter to its oversight, it
    is not going to matter to the agency. And, I can say all that I
    can say and encourage them, but Congress has to be a real
    partner in this effort to ensure success.
        Senator Carper. Thank you for all that. Let me just
    conclude, Mr. Chairman, on one last point.
        I say to my colleagues, particularly those that are new,
    improper payments are a huge problem, and while they are being
    actually addressed, satisfactorily addressed in a number of
    areas, a big one that is still the elephant in the room is
    health care, Medicare especially, where the improper payments
    have gone up by about $15 billion, and Medicaid, which has
    ticked up by about another few billion dollars.
        Dr. Coburn and I introduced in the last Congress something
    called the PRIME Act. It had over 25 cosponsors, and some of
    you on this Committee were cosponsors. We put it in the
    sustainable growth rate (SGR) fix, could not get it passed, but
    we are going to reintroduce it. My hope is that many Members of
    this Committee will be cosponsors of that legislation. We need
    to get it done. It will help ratchet down some of those
    improper payments, especially in Medicare and Medicaid, and we
    need to make progress.
        Mr. Dodaro. Senator, if I might add, one additional area
    that I think Congress needs to focus on is the Temporary
    Assistance for Needy Families program. Right now, the
    Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) does not believe
    it has the authority to collect information from the States to
    measure improper payments, so it is one large program where
    there is no measurement going on at all, and I think Congress
    needs to send a signal----
        Senator Carper. Good.
        Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. That needs to be taken care of.
        Senator Carper. Thank you. We will add that to our ``to-
    do'' list. Thank you. Thanks so much.
        Chairman Johnson. Thanks, Senator Carper. I think you can
    rest assured that this Committee will be engaged, and the two
    of us working together, we will.
        Before I call on Senator Lankford, you mentioned a 10-to-1
    payback for the IRS. I did not mention in the Committee but I
    mentioned in the press conference, we often talk about cutting
    budgets and all we are really talking about is reducing the
    rate of growth in spending. Unfortunately, the GAO is one of
    these agencies where we have actually cut spending. We have
    gone from $556 million in 2010 to $480 million in 2013 and $522
    million in 2014.
        A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation in terms of
    payback, using your $40 billion figures, that is a 76-to-1
    payback. Now, some of those may be one-time savings. But, if
    you add the $100 billion of Medicare and Medicaid and the other
    things you mentioned, that is a 268-to-1 payback. So, I would
    recommend that certainly all the Committee members be somewhat
    supportive of making sure that the GAO is fully funded because
    it is a pretty effective payback. Senator Lankford.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD

        Senator Lankford. Comptroller Dodaro, thanks for being
    here, and thanks for all the work you and your whole team do to
    help keep us informed on some of these issues.
        I want to mention one thing that has been on your list for
    quite a while and that is managing Federal real property. I was
    surprised, because I know there has been a big initiative to
    try to lower the footprint of the Federal Government and the
    real property that are both owned and leased, the Freeze the
    Footprint Initiative that started several years ago to try to
    at least drop our hold to what we have.
        I was a little surprised to see in your report that it
    listed that you all had done some studies on some of the Freeze
    the Footprint data and the drop, the 10 million square feet
    that we have actually reduced, when you actually studied and
    looked at it, you said it actually did not happen. They had
    either just moved to the General Services Administration (GSA)
    or it was just a timing issue. I wanted to give you a chance to
    talk about that a little bit, because this is a big issue that
    we have to resolve at some point. We have a lot of Federal real
    property out there.
        Mr. Dodaro. Yes. I am going to ask our expert in the area,
    Phil Herr, to come up and talk about it, but you are exactly
    right. I mean, what we found was that many of the initiatives
    that were underway before they started Freeze the Footprint
    activities, so they really were not attributable to the
    initiative.
        A big problem in this area is lack of reliable data.
        Senator Lankford. Right.
        Mr. Dodaro. That is one of the biggest problems. The
    government has a lot of underutilized or not utilized at all
    properties that need to be taken care of. There is an over-
    reliance on leasing in the Federal Government, where it may be
    more cost advantageous to have ownership over those areas over
    time. We have pointed out the program is not doing a very good
    job in securing the property, as well.
        But, Phil can talk a little bit more about that particular
    study that you have talked about, but your characterization is
    accurate, for sure.
        Mr. Herr. Yes. I would just add that it is a great example
    of the need for continuity and to followup. We know that OMB is
    working with GSA on a governmentwide strategy that is due in
    2015. That is one we will be looking at closely. But, it is
    also really important, and I think it emphasizes the point that
    the Comptroller General just made, about just looking at the
    data and ensuring that there is integrity and looking and
    making sure those calculations are correct. When we did that,
    we found that there were some questions about double-counting,
    things being counted in multiple years, so--and that is a good
    example for the kind of oversight your Committee can do.
        Senator Lankford. When we deal with actual disposal of
    property, obviously, we have all gone through for years the
    difficulty of actually disposing of real property that we own.
        Mr. Herr. Correct.
        Senator Lankford. So, have you all done any examinations
    for those independent disposal authority, those agencies that
    have that, their capacity to be able to dispose of property
    versus other agencies in the Federal Government, or when you
    deal with, for instance, the Department of Interior (DOI) and
    some of their authorities to be able to move out properties
    versus others?
        Mr. Herr. We have not looked through that particular lens.
    The one thing we have looked at consistently are some of the
    barriers that agencies encounter in doing this. There is the
    processes--we just did a report on the McKinney-Vento process
    and how that might be streamlined and how there could be better
    accountability, because that is something the property has to
    go through--agencies have to go through before proceeding with
    the disposal.
        Senator Lankford. So, the Department of Interior that has
    the expedited conveyance process, where they can look at State
    and local governments, if this is going to be transitioned into
    other public uses, seems to be a faster process. Have you all
    had any opportunity to be able to examine that process and see
    if it is being effective----
        Mr. Herr. Not in real depth, but that would be something we
    would be happy to work with the Committee on.
        Senator Lankford. OK. that is one of the issues that I hope
    we can take a look at some point, to find out what is working,
    because it does not seem like every agency has this issue, but
    a lot of agencies do----
        Mr. Herr. They do.
        Senator Lankford [continuing]. To find out which agency is
    being effective at actually transitioning property that really
    works and what process is helping us in this.
        I want to go back to some of our conversation on tax
    issues, as well, if I can jump back to that. The identity
    theft, you all brought up a very interesting set of statements
    there and I would like to go into a little greater depth on it,
    about the W-2 form and the time period of the W-2 form and how
    we have identity theft basically because the W-2 form does not
    come in late and we are doing returns early and there is a
    great opportunity for identity theft. How does that get
    resolved?
        Mr. Dodaro. Under the current approach, IRS starts
    processing returns early. They do not receive the W-2s from the
    employers until April. They go to SSA first. There is a
    different deadline in statute. So, we are recommending that the
    Congress should give IRS authority to require employees to file
    W-2s earlier. But, IRS really has not studied the costs and
    benefits of that. It may impose some burdens on the employers,
    and so we are recommending IRS study that. So, that is No. 1.
        Senator Lankford. So, is it possible to just have that the
    returns cannot go out until the W-2s are in?
        Mr. Dodaro. Well, that is another possibility, but it will
    delay refunds, and, the----
        Senator Lankford. People get pretty excited about that.
        Mr. Dodaro. Yes. Right. [Laughter.]
        Particularly those that are expecting a big refund----
        Senator Lankford. Sure, but we have also $5 billion of
    fraud that is sitting out there from identity theft----
        Mr. Dodaro. Right.
        Senator Lankford [continuing]. And people are filing their
    taxes and finding out someone has already filed under that same
    number.
        Mr. Dodaro. Yes, and that is why we are asking IRS to study
    this thing, so Congress can make an informed decision. You
    might want to delay it a little bit and accelerate the
    reporting. I mean, there is a lot of room between the end of
    January, when employees receive their statements, and April.
    But, right now, the only way they find out that there is fraud
    is when the honest taxpayer actually files their return and IRS
    says, whoops, we already paid the refund to somebody else who
    used your identity. And, the way people can get the information
    to file fraudulently now, either at the Federal or at the State
    level, is so easy to be able to do it.
        The other thing that could be done is to give IRS math
    authority. In some cases, they know that a return is incorrect.
    They could fix it right away and not cause a problem over a
    period of time.
        And, the third thing would be what we were talking about a
    little bit earlier, in having certification requirements and
    training requirements for paid preparers in a lot of cases. We
    know in some cases paid preparers are not giving the best
    advice to people. In the vast majority of cases, they do.
        So, those three things, we think, can really help address
    this problem.
        Senator Lankford. One quick transition, as well, and that
    is to the surface transportation. I know that you looked at
    some of the needs, obviously, that are sitting out there that
    are financial needs and that Congress needs to address. Have
    you had the opportunity to be able to look at the expansion of
    what is considered a Federal project over the last 20 years,
    just on the number of miles or roads or type of roads, because
    there has not only been an expansion of the need, but there has
    also been a tremendous expansion--my perception is--of the
    number of miles that are considered Federal project or the
    number of things that are considered Federal project in the
    last 20 years.
        Mr. Dodaro. Phil also happens to be our transportation
    expert so he is----
        Mr. Herr. I will double-dip here. We have done some work
    related to that. I mean, one of the things that gets put into
    the Highway Trust Fund, you get a lot of the safety programs
    and things of that nature. Transit is also funded out of the
    Highway Trust Fund. So, you have a lot of things that have been
    put in there, a lot more demands, and the system is aging, so
    additional resources need to go into that to just help maintain
    those systems. And, the Interstate is now 50 years old, so
    rebuilding that is a big part of it.
        Mr. Dodaro. Yes, and our focus has been on the financing
    streams that go in there. Obviously, the Highway Trust Fund has
    not been able to meet the needs, and it is declining for a wide
    number of reasons.
        Senator Lankford. Right.
        And part of my question was just related to the actual
    roads themselves. I understand the safety and the transit and
    other things, but the actual number of roads that are
    considered Federal projects versus 20 years ago, the number of
    roads that were considered Federal projects.
        Mr. Herr. Well, they worked to bring in the National
    Highway System, so that would be one area where you Federalized
    some of those. But, we can get back to you with additional data
    on that.
        Senator Lankford. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairman Johnson. A real quick question. Is not the W-2 a
    multiple-part form? Would not a pretty simple solution be to
    add another copy?
        Mr. Dodaro. I will talk to our experts about it and see
    what----
        Chairman Johnson. Senator McCaskill.

                 OPENING STATEMEN TO SENATOR MCCASKILL

        Senator McCaskill. Yes. I was going to say the same thing.
    If the employee gets it in January, or early, that means the
    employer has it, so it is not like we are asking the employer
    to produce something earlier, because it has already been
    produced. We are just asking employers to get it in the hands
    of the IRS earlier. So, I do not know that asking the IRS to
    study this is a good idea--because I know what that ``study''
    word means. It means we are going to be at this for much longer
    than we should be at it. So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to----
        Chairman Johnson. We will cosponsor a bill.
        Senator McCaskill [continuing]. See if we cannot, with the
    protection of the Chairman, who would stand for the proposition
    that we are not trying to burden businesses, maybe we can get
    through this.
        Chairman Johnson. They should not be a burden.
        Senator McCaskill. There we go.
        Our Subcommittee last year held hearings, as you know.
    First of all, good to see all of you. Your stuff is required
    reading in my shop. Someone asked me about how depressing it
    must be to be in the minority, and I said, one thing about
    oversight, a GAO report is the same when you are a Democrat in
    the majority and the same when you are a Democrat in the
    minority. Thank you for all of your work and please share that
    with all of your colleagues at the mother ship. [Laughter.]
        We held a hearing last year, in the last Congress, about
    the overpayments in medical equipment, as you know. I want to
    make sure everybody understands how bad this is. In 2012,
    according to the data provided by the Centers for Medicare and
    Medicaid Services, they made improper payments on medical
    equipment of almost $6 billion. So, that means there is $6
    billion worth of pure waste, overpayments being made, on
    durable medical equipment. And, that is an error rate--just so
    people have a concept of how bad it is--of 66 percent. They
    recover hardly any of these payments. I think in the last data
    we had available, CMS recovered only $34 million of an
    estimated $5.2 billion in improper payments.
        We learned in that hearing that they do not do anything up
    front to screen. They keep sending to one address, thousands of
    businesses registered at one address, until after the fact,
    then clawing back and they are gone. They are indicted. In
    fact, one of the companies was at that hearing. As you recall,
    I was very suspicious about their name. Their name was Med-
    slash-Care. They were calling seniors and saying, ``This is
    Medicare.'' And you can get this and you need this. They were
    sent all this stuff out and they were criminally raided by the
    FBI a few weeks ago.
        So, your recommendations to CMS have not been followed.
    What is your sense as to what is the problem at CMS that they
    will not accept and adopt the recommendations in this
    incredibly low-hanging fruit where we could save a lot of
    money?
        Mr. Dodaro. Yes. Cindy Bascetta is our expert in that
    health care area. I will give my take and I ask her to provide
    more detail.
        First of all, part of this is changing this culture that
    had been ingrained in CMS for years. It was to pay fast and get
    the money in the hands of the providers to make sure there was
    nobody who needed care that was not receiving care, and so that
    culture is really ingrained in the process over a period of
    time.
        And, they have established a Payment Integrity Center, but
    they are slow to implement these recommendations. You have to
    keep bad actors out of the system. One of the things was to
    establish a surety bond up front so that there is money that
    the contractors have put up. They finally now have gotten to
    where they have a contractor that can do fingerprint and
    background checks ahead of time, so they are going to put that
    in place.
        So, the first thing is to stop bad actors from getting into
    the system to be providers, and that has been difficult for
    them to grapple with, and they are starting to move slowly in
    that area.
        The other thing is they give an incredible amount of
    discretion to the contractors who are making these payments in
    error. You would think Medicare was one system, but it really
    is not. There is a lot of discretion given to the contractors.
    We have been trying to say, get the contractors to identify
    their best practices for preventing payments and recovering the
    funds and to share that with all the contractors so that there
    can be best practices. That has not been implemented. We have
    encouraged them to set up core compliance programs that
    providers have to follow. That has not been implemented yet.
        I have tried to raise this as an issue. I have met with
    Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell and the former head of CMS,
    Ms. Tavenner, and I emphasized these open recommendations we
    had and the need to implement the changes. So, I have certainly
    been doing everything I can. I think additional congressional
    oversight would be really helpful in this area, and I will let
    Cindy give anymore details.
        Ms. Bascetta. I would just add that we have also encouraged
    them very strongly to move more quickly on their predictive
    analytics, which would really help prevent the overpayments in
    the first place and identify bad actors rather than recoup
    payments. With respect to durable medical equipment (DME), I
    just point out that their competitive bidding program that was
    instituted several years ago----
        Senator McCaskill. It is working.
        Ms. Bascetta [continuing]. Has, indeed----
        Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
        Ms. Bascetta [continuing]. Yielded many savings. We are
    watching carefully to make sure that they do not get to the
    point where there might be negative effects on beneficiary
    access to the equipment that they need. But, they are making
    progress in that area.
        Mr. Dodaro. But, you are right. The problem is bad.
        Senator McCaskill. It is bad.
        Mr. Dodaro. And it is going to get worse, because of the
    fast----
        Senator McCaskill. It is going to get worse, and there are
    things that can be done to fix it.
        Mr. Dodaro. Right.
        Senator McCaskill. So, I know Chairman Susan Collins--she
    and I are serving on the Aging Committee now--I know we are
    going to continue this investigation, and continue to put
    pressure on CMS.
        In the comprehensive immigration reform bill that was
    passed by a wide bipartisan margin in the Senate, we funded an
    additional $46 billion in border security. I am confident, no
    matter how the immigration politics play out over the coming
    months in this Congress, that all of us agree that there has to
    be additional significant funding on the border. I am worried
    about whether or not DHS management is ready to absorb this
    flood of funding. I am trying to remember--53 miles of the
    border, I think, we did for a billion dollars. That is not
    exactly encouraging, that it took us a billion dollars to do 53
    miles.
        I would like, just briefly, if somebody could speak to
    that, and, frankly, if you have an opinion, I think the
    Chairman is a former businessman and I know if he did not know
    if his receivables, if and when they were ever going to arrive,
    it would be very hard to manage an ongoing enterprise? And
    whether or not the fact that we are budgeting by crisis in fits
    and starts and continuing resolutions (CRs) and threatening
    shutdown, if that is contributing to some of the mismanagement
    at DHS.
        Mr. Dodaro. Well, I can just speak from trying to run the
    GAO under continuing resolutions; it is a difficult process. I
    told our appropriators one of the things I never aspired to be
    in public service was an expert at managing under continuing
    resolutions. It does create a lot of uncertainty and make it
    difficult to manage.
        Dave Maurer is here. He is in charge of our work at DHS. I
    do think they are still struggling in the acquisition area to
    properly manage their acquisitions. That is something we are
    keeping an eye on and we will focus on this additional funding.
    Dave.
        Mr. Maurer. That is absolutely right. Acquisition is one of
    the major challenges DHS faces on the management front. They
    also face some significant challenges in other aspects, as
    well. Employee morale, for example, at DHS has consistently
    been bottom-of-the-barrel compared to other departments. Their
    numbers have been going down at a faster rate than in other
    Federal agencies. That is something of concern. We are
    encouraged by the fact that the Secretary and the Deputy
    Secretary have taken some efforts to address both of those
    issues head on--both acquisitions and morale. It is something
    we are going to be watching very carefully in the coming years
    and months.
        Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Johnson. Real quick, to answer your question of
    the Chair, it is our side of the aisle that is actually trying
    to get a bill on the floor to be debated to fund the
    Department, so----
        Senator McCaskill. Well, we would disagree on that.
        Chairman Johnson. I think, also, Senator Baldwin and I will
    also agree that I think our paper industry would kind of like
    our W-2 fix, so we will work on that.
        Senator McCaskill. That is right.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Baldwin.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BALDWIN

        Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Dodaro,
    thank you for being with us today.
        I would like to focus in on the problems that you have
    identified in the GAO report with the Veterans Health
    Administration (VHA), both systemwide but also in Wisconsin and
    facility-based issues. The GAO report provides ample evidence
    to corroborate what I have learned in disturbing detail over
    recent weeks, that the VHA suffers from mismanagement and
    inadequate oversight, especially of individual facilities. It
    appears that the Veterans Health Administration lacks not only
    clear and appropriate systemwide policies and protocols, but
    also lacks the ability to ensure that they are followed at the
    facility and the regional Veterans Integrated Service Networks
    (VISN) level.
        For example, at the Tomah VA facility in Wisconsin, current
    and former employees and veteran patients have brought to my
    attention allegations of inappropriate opioid prescription
    practices and abuse of administrative authority, including
    retaliation against whistleblowers. This facility is currently
    under investigation by Secretary McDonald and we all hope that
    it yields appropriate and positive results. But, make no
    mistake, extremely troubling issues have come to light
    regarding the VA and this specific facility, and I believe that
    Congress is going to have to act in a variety of ways to make
    improvements so that our veterans in Wisconsin receive the care
    that they deserve.
        Mr. Dodaro, in the case of the Tomah VA facility, a report
    initiated in 2011 and concluded in March 2014 from the VA
    Office of Inspector General found evidence of troubling opioid
    prescription practices that were at considerable variance from
    peer facilities in the regional network. This report
    recommended changes to address those problems at the facility
    level, and subsequently, actions were taken.
        In the last month, however, media reports have revealed
    that whatever those actions were that took place to remedy the
    problems had either not been implemented, not been implemented
    effectively, or were entirely insufficient. It is also unclear
    if any senior VA official ever was made aware of the report
    that the Inspector General did or the remedial actions that
    were recommended or taken at the Tomah VA.
        In your view, does the Veterans Health Administration have
    adequate oversight controls in place to ensure that facility-
    level problems are first, identified, and then sufficiently
    addressed?
        Mr. Dodaro. I will ask Debbie Draper to elaborate on this.
    She is our expert in the VA area.
        But, one of the areas we point out in the report we are
    releasing today is there really is inadequate oversight and
    accountability. The individual facilities have been given wide
    latitude to implement the policies and procedures. There are
    not reviews being done by headquarters that should be done of
    the facilities to make sure that they are adequately following
    the policies and procedures. And, when we go in, we find that
    those reviews are not done. They are relying on self-reported
    data from the facilities, which is not consistent with proper
    internal controls, and to have a good accountability and
    evaluation of function and program. So, it is a real problem
    over there that needs attention, but I will ask Debbie to
    elaborate.
        Ms. Draper. I mean, it is certainly a system that is in
    need of major transformation, and I think that we have seen--
    and one of the reasons we have added it to the High-Risk List
    is that over and over in the past 5 years, the reports that we
    have issued have constantly highlighted the inadequate
    oversight and accountability and ambiguous policies and
    inconsistent processes. So, there is an aversion to
    standardization within the VA, but when you have that much
    autonomy at the local level, you often hear the story, you have
    seen one VA medical center, you have seen one VA medical
    center, and that is really true, because there are, like, 150
    different processes that play out at the local level.
        We are particularly concerned because of the growing
    demands on the VA Health Care System. So, between 2002 and
    2013, the number of veterans enrolled in VA health care
    increased from 6.8 million to 8.9 million, and over that same
    period of time, the number of outpatient medical appointments
    increased by 40 million. So, if you have weaknesses in place
    and you do not correct them, then the problems are going to
    really become much bigger.
        Senator Baldwin. Mr. Chairman, I have a second question on
    Tomah, but I believe I am not going to have time to get to a
    third question on a GAO report that was issued in November 2014
    regarding protocols with treatment of veterans with major
    depressive disorder. I would like to be able to submit that
    remaining question for the record and get a response after the
    fact.
        But, to my next question in the case of Tomah, there seemed
    to be virtually no internal Veterans Administration
    communication and certainly no external communication to
    Congress or the public regarding the problems at this facility.
    In fact, when I first contacted the Tomah facility and the VA
    headquarters here in Washington on behalf of a constituent who
    had raised a number of concerns covered in the Office of
    Inspector General (OIG) report that I just referred to, no one
    at any level of the VA talked about the existence of this
    report or informed me of the existence of this report.
        And, in light of this lack of transparency, I wonder if you
    think that a GAO-type model of investigating, issuing
    recommendations, and requiring the affected agency or group to
    formally and publicly respond would improve the Veterans Health
    Administration's ability to perform successful oversight at the
    regional and individual facility level and hold them
    accountable for any wrongdoing uncovered.
        Mr. Dodaro. Well, there definitely needs to be
    accountability over reacting to audit findings. In fact, there
    is existing OMB guidance that agencies are supposed to track
    audit reports and track followup efforts and have a response. I
    met with Secretary McDonald last Friday, actually, and he said
    he has given high priority to begin following up on IG
    recommendations and GAO recommendations. So, hopefully, this
    will be addressed.
        But, you are exactly right. There are policies and
    procedures already in place that should have assured that they
    followed up on every IG report and recommendation that would be
    in place, and GAO reports, as well. Those could be
    strengthened, and there may be a need to do that in this
    particular case. But, those policies exist. So, it is a lack of
    compliance with existing policies that it sounds like. I mean,
    we have not looked at this specific information, so I really do
    not know for sure, but it sounds like from your description
    that they just did not adhere to the policies that already
    exist.
        Senator Baldwin. Thank you, and I will submit for the
    record the GAO report\1\ that was issued in November 2014
    regarding veterans who are diagnosed with major depressive
    disorder. It appears that there is a huge deviation from VA
    guidelines with regard to the treatment that you have uncovered
    and I think that is very disturbing and that we need to do more
    in followup to that, too.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The GAO report submitted by Senator Baldwin appears in the
    Appendix on page 78.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mr. Dodaro. And we will be happy to respond.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Baldwin. I can assure
    everyone, this Committee will be fully engaged to make sure
    these recommendations are carried out, and we are going to do
    everything we can to make sure they are carried out. Senator
    Heitkamp.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP

        Senator Heitkamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to get to process, because if we were going to go
    through each one of these and debate their relative merits,
    Comptroller, we would be here all day. And, so, I want to talk
    about why we have these hearings and then everybody retreats,
    goes back to their agency, goes back to what we do, and then we
    come a year later and have another discussion.
        So, I want to ask about ongoing supervision and get to the
    heart of what you were talking about earlier, which is agency
    heads change, administrators change, and then you are back in
    the game again trying to educate or re-educate on why these
    recommendations were necessary. Let us just presuppose that
    every time something like this was done, we had a sit-down, we
    had a strategic plan put together, time-lined, with
    accountability measures that everybody agreed to and said,
    ``Yes, we are going to do it,'' taking a look at--I think
    earlier, Senator McCaskill talked about return on investment,
    low-hanging fruit, prioritizing those things that actually give
    us the biggest bang for the buck, and then periodically
    actually getting reports on whether we are meeting those
    requirements so that this process becomes institutionalized
    between the Congress and the agencies and GAO.
        Mr. Dodaro. I think that would be an excellent idea and I
    would be happy to participate.
        Senator Heitkamp. I think it would be an excellent idea,
    but I have a tendency to fall in love with my ideas, so I just
    need---- [Laughter.]
        I need people to argue against me frequently, but----
        Mr. Dodaro. Well, I will not argue on this one.
        Senator Heitkamp. I think that is the level of frustration
    that we all have here, which is----
        Mr. Dodaro. Well, and I have the same frustration. I try to
    do what I can, working with the agencies and the Congress, but
    we need more concentrated focus on this. I mean, our
    government's financial condition is not sustainable over a long
    period of time and we are wasting too much money on these
    inadequate processes and procedures. So, whatever process that
    you can convince your colleagues to do, I will participate in.
        Senator Heitkamp. Well, it does seem to me that that would
    be a critical kind of component of followup, because the great
    work that you do and actually going out there and identifying
    these problems, identifying the areas of concern, if we do not
    have a systematic process piece to go behind it, we really are
    only talking to each other----
        Mr. Dodaro. Right.
        Senator Heitkamp [continuing]. And wringing our hands and
    decrying the waste of Federal dollars instead of actually
    fixing the problem.
        Mr. Dodaro. Yes. A good model is what we have been doing
    with DHS, for example. When I first met with them, the Deputy
    Secretary, they said they really did not know what to do to get
    off the High-Risk List, so I sent them a 29-page letter and
    specified all the things that they needed to do to get off the
    list. [Laughter.]
        But, to their credit, they said, ``OK, we understand now.
    We agree.'' They put a corrective action plan together. That
    plan has withstood changes in political leadership over at DHS.
    I meet with the current Deputy and they are making good, steady
    progress to that area. We have informed the Congress of these
    matters and Congress has given some attention. So, most of this
    stuff, except maybe for NASA, it is not rocket science, but----
    [Laughter.]
        And it just requires disciplined follow-up.
        Senator Heitkamp. Well, and it requires some continual
    oversight that is not sporadic----
        Mr. Dodaro. Right.
        Senator Heitkamp [continuing]. That is meaningful. And, I
    think that is to the extent that you guys need us to play bad
    cop, we are way willing to do that. So, we will work on a
    discussion, I think, going back and forth on what that process
    could be.
        I want to just, in the time that I have left, talk about
    the IRS and talk about what seems to be a systemic failure to
    institutionalize processes that would prevent fraud. And, I
    want to start out by saying, obviously, if someone has a W-2 in
    their hand, there is a W-4 somewhere that has been filed with
    someone relaying this information. But, this information,
    according to Social Security dollar amounts, is relayed every
    time there is a payroll, is it not?
        Mr. Dodaro. I am not sure. Jim, do you know? This is Jim
    White, who is our tax expert.
        Mr. White. Some come in throughout the year, but the
    information that IRS needs to match, they do not have all of
    that information until after April 15 for the prior year----
        Senator Heitkamp. But Social Security has it.
        Mr. White. Social Security----
        Senator Heitkamp. When is the W-4 due to Social Security?
        Mr. White. It depends on whether it is paper or electronic,
    but it is due either February or March----
        Senator Heitkamp. Give me the date, though.
        Mr. White. Well, some of them are due at the end of
    February. Some are due at the end of March.
        Senator Heitkamp. So, the employer can have prepared W-2s,
    but transmittal of those W-2s to Social Security does not occur
    until the end of February?
        Mr. White. Correct. And, part of the reason for that is
    there does need to be a window in there for employers to
    correct errors, so they give it to the employee. Sometimes the
    employees go back. There are errors there that need to be
    corrected. Social Security also has an error correction
    process. And then those go to IRS.
        The other problem is IRS does not have the information
    systems, the computer systems that would allow them to do real-
    time matching. So, that would be another part of this. If the
    forms came in earlier, IRS would need improved computer systems
    to be able to match real time to taxpayers' tax returns.
        Senator Heitkamp. It is really hard for those of us who
    deal with the complexities of Amazon.com to really believe that
    in this day and age, they do not have real time matching
    capability. And, so, that is something, obviously, that needs
    to be funded if we are going to be serious about fraud
    detection.
        I want to get to the identity theft, because none of this
    would really solve the problem of someone seizing that Social
    Security number, filing a fraudulent return, and what would be
    a way that we could prevent that if, in fact, the real taxpayer
    does not file until April 15?
        Mr. White. Well, you are right. The crooks file early. They
    need to beat the honest taxpayers' tax returns. So, they file
    early. When the honest taxpayer files, IRS at that point
    discovers they have duplicate returns and they know they have a
    problem. But, they do not find out until after they have issued
    the refund to the crook, and at that point, then they are
    trying to chase the money.
        Senator Heitkamp. Yes.
        Mr. White. So, the solutions--the pre-refund matching,
    getting the W-2s in in time to match to taxpayers' tax returns
    before refunds are issued, would put a big dent in the fraud.
    It is not the only solution.
        Another solution----
        Senator Heitkamp. That, I do not understand, and I am
    obviously out of time, but if somebody is going to seize that
    Social Security number and file a fraudulent return, you need
    to know that that is a fraudulent return if you are simply
    matching it against--are you suggesting that because the dollar
    amounts would vary, that would----
        Mr. White. Right.
        Mr. Dodaro. Yes. The person perpetrating the fraud really
    does not know what is in the other person's W-2----
        They are just making up the numbers. The other thing that
    is related to this is another recommendation we have. For 54
    million Americans that are enrolled in Medicare, their Social
    Security number is right on their Medicare card, and we have--
    --
        Senator Heitkamp. Yes. Not good.
        Mr. Dodaro. Not good.
        Senator Heitkamp. Mr. Chairman, if I can just ask one more
    question, if we take and actually use old data--by that, I mean
    old numbers, this is your employer on that Social Security
    number, and use the previous tax year, you might actually get
    at least a bank of those returns that would be incorrect or
    would not match unless that taxpayer changed their status or
    changed their address or changed their job. Would that not be a
    screening technique we could use?
        Mr. White. It is a possible screening technique. The
    tradeoff there is, given the number of Americans that change
    jobs, change home addresses each year, IRS would have millions
    of false positives with that kind of match so they really need
    current information.
        Senator Heitkamp. I agree, but what I am saying is at least
    then you might be down to 20 percent of those returns that you
    do not know. I mean, I do not think more than 20 percent change
    jobs or change addresses every year.
        Mr. White. Yes, and IRS has made real progress with their
    filter system, so they have caught--they have prevented $24
    billion worth of fraud because of filters that do some of what
    you are talking about right now. The problem is the $6
    billion--it is the $5.8 billion of fraud that is still getting
    out the door.
        Senator Heitkamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Peters.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS

        Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Dodaro, thank you for your testimony, and for appearing
    before this Committee this morning. I certainly appreciate all
    the work that you have done with your agency in developing a
    High-Risk List that we are discussing today. We are looking for
    common ground in Congress. I think we all can agree that trying
    to eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse, mismanagement, those are
    things we should all be able to agree on, focus on, and work to
    achieve.
        But, as you know, in many cases, there is only so much that
    a Federal agency can do to deal with some of these issues
    without legislation and congressional action, and the GAO has
    identified a substantial number of High-Risk List areas that
    will many times require some sort of legislative action in
    order to be addressed.
        Last Congress, when I was in the House, I introduced with
    my colleague Cory Gardner, who is now a Senator with me here,
    legislation that would have modified some of the House rules,
    put a process in place to require Committees to hold hearings
    on programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives with
    duplicative goals identified by your annual GAO report, which I
    always find a fascinating report. One example I often give,
    particularly in my district, is the example where you have
    multiple folks that inspect catfish in this country.
        Now, I would think we should at least have one government
    agency that regulates catfish. I would agree with that. I like
    to know when I am eating catfish that it is safe and it has
    been raised properly. But, whether or not we need more than one
    does not make a whole lot of sense to me, and oftentimes it is
    Congress, because of different jurisdictions that we have with
    our Committees, that we like to hold on to those jurisdictions,
    it is Congress is the problem here, not just the agencies, as
    to why we have to have that duplication, and I certainly think
    that we can do better.
        In the House, I also introduced with another one of my
    colleagues now, Senator Lankford, who is actually on the
    Committee with me here, a followup to a report that I requested
    from the GAO. I appreciate the reports that I get from you.
    Your report studied the use of remanufactured auto parts in the
    Federal vehicle fleet and found that these parts can reduce
    operation and maintenance costs, sometimes significantly. To
    ensure that the findings of this report are available and
    considered by all Federal fleet managers, together, we
    introduced the Federal Vehicle Repair Cost Savings Act to
    encourage all Federal agencies to consider remanufactured
    vehicle parts, and we are going to continue to work on that in
    this Congress.
        However, the reason I bring this up is I am concerned that
    too many of your GAO recommendations--I have heard that from
    some of the other questions here--are never implemented and
    Congress never follows up on these recommendations. It is
    Congress, the folks right here in this room and other places,
    that never followup on these.
        So, I am going to ask you to be candid. I am going to ask
    you to give us a critique of Congress. In your experience, how
    effective has this body been in actually responding to the
    incredible work that the GAO does? And, again, please be
    candid, and we will not hold it against you. I certainly will
    not. I know the Chairman will not, either.
        Mr. Dodaro. Well, that is good to know. [Laughter.]
        In the overlap and duplication work that we do and issue
    our annual report, we actually have a separate scorecard for
    the Congress and a separate scorecard for the Executive Branch
    in terms of responding to the recommendations. And, we found
    that the Congress was responding to the recommendations a tad
    less, the rate--but still responding--than the Executive Branch
    activity. So, on a comparative basis, the Congress's record was
    relatively less favorable to the Executive Branch, if my memory
    is correct. I will go back and I will give the exact numbers
    for the record.
        Our next report will be out this April. It will be our
    Fifth Annual Report. So far, we have made 440 specific
    recommendations for change in those areas. But, there is much
    more that Congress could and should do.
        Last time we updated the High-Risk List, I was before this
    Committee and I raised the issue of the need for legislation on
    the Postal Service. Their business model is broken. They are
    losing billions of dollars. One of the first hearings the
    Committee held was on the Postal Service. I testified at that
    hearing. The next one was on cybersecurity, and eventually,
    there were bills passed on cybersecurity. So, there is a lot
    more that the Congress needs to do in order to rectify these
    High-Risk Areas and address the overlap and duplication
    problems.
        If legislation is introduced again along the lines of what
    you talk about, that require hearings in the overlap and
    duplication area, my suggestion would be that it also require
    joint hearings of different Committees, because, really, the
    most difficult problems are because of jurisdictional issues in
    the Congress.
        But, that is not the only problem. The problem is in the
    Executive Branch, too. I mean, they are compartmentalized the
    same way that the Committees are compartmentalized in terms of
    jurisdiction, and I have difficulty getting OMB's attention
    to--and prioritize, because they only have limited resources--
    to get the agencies to work together or to say, these things
    ought to be combined into one function. So, that problem exists
    in the Executive Branch and the Congress, which compounds the
    difficulty in getting solutions to those areas.
        That is about as candid as I could be----
        Senator Peters. Well, we appreciate that.
        Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. At this point, and thank you for
    the question.
        Senator Peters. Well, I appreciate that, and what I am
    hearing from your answer, and obviously, there are problems in
    both the Executive and Legislative, but as you are saying, with
    the scorecard, we actually in Congress perform less than the
    agencies, which is not a good standard for us. We think the
    agencies should be doing a lot more, and if we are behind them,
    that just shows that we have more work to do, and particularly
    when you are as--which is a great suggestion about having the
    joint hearings to deal with some of the turf battles that are
    there.
        But, I think you would agree, then, that if we introduce
    bills like I have introduced with some of my colleagues here in
    the House and do that here, and putting in place a more formal
    process that forces Congress to deal with this in a formalized
    way, you think that is a good idea? You would support it and
    encourage it?
        Mr. Dodaro. Yes. And, I would participate.
        Senator Peters. Right.
        Mr. Dodaro. I would be here any day to testify.
        Senator Peters. Great. And be equally as candid.
        Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
        Senator Peters. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Dodaro. Sure.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Peters, coming from a
    manufacturing background, I certainly understand, without a
    good process, you do not have a good product. So, I appreciate
    your enthusiasm. I see you are on the Subcommittee under the
    Government Affairs part of this. We will stay engaged. I am
    looking for low-hanging fruit. When we are passing through the
    Senate, we need six Democrats joining us. We have seven on this
    Committee. That is an aspirational goal. Let us find those
    areas, and certainly the biggest bang for the buck, but also
    just those areas of agreement. So, we are committed to doing
    that and appreciate your engagement on the issue. Senator
    Ayotte.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AYOTTE

        Senator Ayotte. Well, thank you for your important work. We
    appreciate it. And, I think Ronald Reagan once said, there is
    nothing closer to eternal life than a government program.
    [Laughter.]
        So, one of the things is to followup on Senator Peters'
    comments, is I am not surprised that we have a low score in
    terms of when it comes to duplication and overlap. In fact,
    Senator Manchin and I have a bill--it is called the Duplication
    Elimination Act--and I hope the Chair might consider taking a
    look at that bill. Because this issue, as you have identified,
    is a problem on both ends. It is the Executive Branch and it is
    the Congress.
        And, so, this bill would actually require the President to
    submit to Congress a joint resolution to implement or reject
    GAO recommendations when they are made. And, if they are
    rejected, let us know why. If they are accepted, let us know
    why and how we plan to do it. And then it would require us in
    Congress to actually undertake an expedited review of those and
    to vote on them so that we could adopt things more quickly,
    because you do excellent work. GAO does excellent work and it
    sits on the shelf too often. The last thing we want is to
    continue funding programs that are not effective where we have
    places we need resources and it is a better allocation of
    resources.
        So, I am hoping that might be a bill we might consider
    making, but, basically, we all need a kick in the pants on
    this, and with your help, I hope we can do that, because what
    ends up happening, and I do not need to tell anyone here what
    happens. I have done it. Offer an amendment on eliminating or
    reforming one program on the Senate floor in an appropriations
    bill, and every program has a constituency. So, even if it is
    underperforming for almost every constituent it serves, that
    one constituency comes to their Senator and argues for it and
    here we are and nothing gets done.
        Well, we need to look at the big picture here, and I know
    that you are doing that and that is important, and so I am glad
    to hear Senator Peters focus on this, because this is a
    bipartisan issue. It is really--the Chairman, as well. And, I
    thank you because the work you are doing is excellent.
        I wanted to followup on the VA issue, because for New
    Hampshire, on the Choice Card issue, we are getting, as a State
    that is one of the States that does not have a full-service
    Veterans Hospital, the Choice issue in the veterans bill is
    very important to my State. So, what I am hearing from people
    in New Hampshire is that the third--the Choice Card is being
    processed through a third-party contracting agency and that we
    have veterans calling the office essentially saying that there
    is not enough information being given to veterans, that
    veterans are saying that they want to--if a veteran comes to
    you and says, ``I want to see a particular doctor,'' that might
    allow them to go and connect the veteran with the doctor. It
    may or may not. That has been complicated on that end. But,
    also, that if the veteran just says, ``I need this service,''
    they are sort of left hanging.
        And, one, I wanted to get your thoughts are, is one of the
    things that was identified on the veterans' end in the report
    that you issued is the provision of non-VA care. So, in a State
    like mine, it is really important, because we do not have a
    full-service Veterans Hospital. It is addressed in the bill.
    So, we are giving our veterans access to more non-VA care. Are
    you going to do further work on this non-VA care issue, because
    Congress clearly shifted and expressed a preference to
    introduce more opportunities for our veterans in it. It seems
    to me, though, that the Veterans Administration has been really
    resistant to reform. And, we talk about access in veterans
    facilities, but they seem somewhat resistant in terms of
    informing veterans on what their rights are on the non-VA care.
        And, so, I wanted to get your thoughts on what further work
    we think we need to do on this provision of non-VA care. How do
    we get this, the Veterans Administration, to stop being so
    resistant to reform, because Congress has clearly expressed on
    a bipartisan basis it is about the veteran and we want to make
    sure that we get them proper care.
        Mr. Dodaro. Yes. Well, I would just say that we will do the
    work necessary in the future to make sure that this issue gets
    resolved satisfactorily. Debbie Draper is our expert in this
    area. I would like her to speak to the issues that need to be
    resolved. But, in putting this area on the High-Risk List, a
    couple areas I was really troubled by. One was the fact that VA
    does not followup to make sure if there is a referral that it
    actually happens, and they do not have good information to know
    whether it is more economical----
        Senator Ayotte. Right.
        Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. To give VA care or non-VA care.
        Senator Ayotte. So, what makes me worried about all this is
    I hear it, because for New Hampshire, really important, and the
    issue is this, is that if the VA almost wants to--I mean, I do
    not want them to want to undermine the access to non-VA care,
    because if we have good data, we may find down the line that
    this is actually a better way to serve veterans, to avoid wait
    lists, and the cost efficiencies may be there. But, if they do
    not follow through on this, it is almost a self-perpetuating
    failure----
        Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
        Senator Ayotte [continuing]. Which is contrary to what
    Congress wanted to happen in the reform bill. So, I appreciate
    your being here.
        Ms. Draper. Yes, we have several concerns. I mean, before
    the Act was passed, we had done prior work looking at non-VA
    care and we found that the payment to providers was slow or
    often inaccurate and community providers were really unwilling
    to take some of the VA patients.
        But, beyond that, it was intended to improve access to
    health care, the timeliness of care. However, there was no
    infrastructure in place to really monitor wait times, how long
    people are actually waiting to get into those community
    providers. So, we do have a number of concerns and that is one
    of the reasons that we put VA health care on the High-Risk
    List.
        Many people see this as a panacea for some of the access
    problems. I think there is a lot of work that needs to be done
    to make sure that the infrastructure is in place, to make sure
    that people are actually getting timely care through that
    system. And, I think another important point is the VA Health
    Care System is a difficult system to navigate. So, now you are
    introducing a second system for someone to navigate. So, it
    just compounds the problems that exist or could exist.
        So, we do have a number of mandates under that Act to
    really look at the issue. So, we will be doing that over the
    next couple of years, looking at the non-VA care.
        Senator Ayotte. I think it is really important, and I hope
    that you also look at, as you look at this, how embracing has
    the VA been of access to non-VA care, because, again, I worry
    that if the VA does not embrace giving veterans access to non-
    VA care, then you can basically ensure that it really does not
    give veterans that option and it really becomes self-
    perpetuating in terms of the conclusions that can be drawn from
    it.
        And, for veterans in New Hampshire, for example, they were
    on buses being shipped to Massachusetts and other places. If
    they can go to a local provider in their community, which,
    obviously, people have been able to do through other Federal
    programs, then that, in the end, if you look at the cost
    efficiencies of not paying for the transportation, of access to
    care in terms of quality--now, not everything is going to fit
    in that category, but a lot of care can.
        So, I am hopeful, in the long term, that we are not just
    allowing the VA to want to perpetuate their own system, but we
    really do look at what is best for the veterans. So, I know
    that you can be a very important voice on this. Thank you.
        Ms. Draper. And, just one other thing. I think we have seen
    a lot of variation, as we do with most other things related to
    VA, about how each facility is handling the non-VA care. And,
    so, that is something that, again, there are not standardized
    processes, and they also rolled out this program very quickly,
    so over a couple months, Choice Cards were mailed to veterans--
    --
        Senator Ayotte. Yes, and they were not told anything about
    them and they were, like, all contacting our office. So,
    information, I think, is important, as well.
        I know I have gone over my time. I have a couple of
    additional questions that relate to the IRS and also the Earned
    Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC)
    tax payments that I will submit for the record. I appreciate
    all that you do. Thank you.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Ayotte.
        I think you can tell by the number of questions, by the
    depth of the concern, how much, first of all, we appreciate the
    fact that you are highlighting the problems in the VA, and so
    you can, again, rest assured, you will have support and we will
    continue to be fully engaged, which is certainly what you
    mentioned in terms of the process to make sure these reforms
    are implemented across your High-Risk List.
        You will have full engagement by this Committee on all the
    items, but in particular, that you can rest assured that the VA
    system is going to be a top priority of this Committee.
        Just real quick, I do want to followup on IT acquisition. I
    have been meeting with the different agency heads within DHS
    and I am pleasantly surprised by the repeated, I guess,
    assurance that they are starting to look more at off-the-shelf
    solutions as opposed to having the government specify something
    and have through government contract, trying to have some IT
    solution created specifically for the government, which is not
    particularly efficient. Are you finding that not only within
    DHS, but is that a reoccurring theme? Is that something you
    support, or are there any dangers to that?
        Mr. Dodaro. Well, we have long said that commercial
    solutions, and even if you have to change your business process
    a bit, are more efficient than customized software development.
    So, that has been something we have been emphasizing over time
    to agencies.
        Dave Powner is our expert in the IT area and he has a good
    vantage point, across government, so I will ask him to
    elaborate on that.
        Mr. Powner. Yes, Senator Johnson. If you look at commercial
    solutions, that actually is one area you should look at instead
    of building. That is buy. There are a couple of things in our
    High-Risk Area that endorse that. If you look at incremental
    development, if we go with smaller, quicker deliveries,
    commercial solutions will be considered more heavily.
        The other area is cloud computing. We need to look more at
    cloud solutions and have providers actually provide those
    services to agencies instead of always building them and go
    more to the cloud. So, I think with commercial, both
    incremental and the cloud solutions, which is emphasized in our
    High-Risk Area, will be quite helpful.
        Chairman Johnson. Well, thank you. Again, I am really
    encouraging that. Coming from the private sector, I never liked
    reinventing the wheel, so it just makes perfect sense.
        Before we conclude the hearing, I do also want to just
    touch a little bit on cybersecurity. Our first hearing was on
    cybersecurity. That is a top priority of this Committee, is
    that first step. Can you just speak to the privacy that
    Americans are going to lose if we do not address this problem?
    Again, part of the reason we have not been able to pass
    cybersecurity legislation is because we have not been able to
    provide the liability protection to facilitate the needed
    exchange of information within the private sector, the private
    sector to the government, and back down.
        And, again, there are legitimate concerns of privacy. But,
    one of the points I tried to make in the hearing and I think we
    need to underscore, and I just want to get your comment on it,
    if we do not take that first step, if we do not allow that
    information sharing, which does allow us to share that threat
    signature which can prevent attacks--it is not a panacea. It is
    not going to protect everything. But, the more attacks we can
    prevent, we are protecting Americans' privacy. Can you just
    comment on that?
        Mr. Dodaro. First of all, I think people need to understand
    that the amount of information that is collected, disseminated,
    and stored in the Internet by most projections is expected to
    double and triple every 2 years going forward. So, you have a
    tremendous amount of information available now, but the storage
    capacity is--such that so much more information is going to be
    collected and it is going to be shared and disseminated,
    including personally identifiable information, over time.
        The only way to deal with this, and we have been advocating
    sharing, partnerships with public-private sector for many years
    now, since we have been focused on this area, and people have
    to understand that the best safeguard is continuous monitoring
    and diagnostics and preventing these events from occurring.
        Greg Wilshusen is our expert in this area. I will ask him
    to elaborate on it. But, we will do whatever we can to help
    people understand that information, more information is going
    to be available. The question is how best to protect that from
    getting into unauthorized hands and information sharing is a
    critical component of that protection.
        Chairman Johnson. I would also, quickly, like to point out
    that every time you agree to the privacy statement of an
    application, you are giving up so much information that is
    widely disseminated in the private sector, and so people need
    to also understand that.
        Sir.
        Mr. Wilshusen. Yes. And, I would just like to say, too,
    that the need for sharing information, particularly about
    actionable cyberthreat information and incident information, is
    really critical to help better protect our critical
    infrastructures.
        A couple years ago, we did a report which identified among
    our private sector partners that they said that their
    expectations of the public-private partnership for protecting
    critical infrastructure, that 98 percent of them indicated that
    receiving actionable cyberthreat information and incident
    information from the Federal Government was of a great need for
    them. However, only 27 percent of the respondents to our
    survey, who were the critical infrastructure owners and
    operators, said that they were actually receiving that type of
    information to a satisfactory degree from the Federal partners.
    So, it is critical that the information sharing processes be
    improved.
        Chairman Johnson. One of the hangups always has been that
    liability protection, and I am not the person to say exactly
    what that liability protection ought to be, but I can say that
    the metric is going to be if we pass something with liability
    protection, the success or failure is whether or not that
    information actually is shared. I mean, can you speak a little
    bit in terms of the reluctance of private sector companies to
    share the information the threats they really do feel in terms
    of lawsuits if they share that information, and the reluctance,
    as a result, to share it without really strong liability
    protection.
        Mr. Wilshusen. Well, certainly, I think, liability
    protection is one of the areas that is an inhibitor to some of
    the private sector companies. Our reviews have also shown is
    that often when private sector companies do provide information
    to their Federal counterparts, they do not really receive
    anything in return. It is like giving this information and
    there is not really getting much in return for that. So, they
    are somewhat of a disincentive to provide that information.
        In addition, it is not always clear. They want to make sure
    that the information they do provide is sufficiently anonymized
    in order to allow it to be used by government agencies in an
    appropriate manner and not necessarily be shared with others.
        Chairman Johnson. Let me talk about that personal
    information. In terms of preventing further attacks, in other
    words, that threat signature, there is really no reason to have
    personal information attached to that information that is
    shared, correct?
        Mr. Wilshusen. I would say, generally, that would be the
    case.
        Chairman Johnson. But, if you actually want to solve the
    crime, if you want to trace back, where did that hacking come
    from--which, quite honestly, to prevent further attacks, it
    would be awful nice to find out who these bad actors are, who
    the criminals are--that is where you need some personal
    information, potentially. How much can we limit that?
        Mr. Wilshusen. Well, part of the what you would need would
    be, for example, the IP addresses from which these attacks are
    originating. And, so, while that may not be considered
    personally identifiable information, it is a key part of trying
    to trace attacks and the sources of those attacks.
        Chairman Johnson. OK. Oh, Senator Carper is back. He has
    returned. I have no further questions. Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. Thanks so much.
        Some days are busier than others. This is a day where, when
    my train finally got here, I had the opportunity to participate
    with you and Senator Johnson and others in a press conference
    announcing the updated list the High-Risk List. And then we
    have almost simultaneously a markup and we are voting on
    legislation, part of which I authored, in the Finance
    Committee, and defending, and the Environment and Public Works
    Committee is having a hearing as we speak on clean air
    legislation, which is very important to my State, which is
    threatened by rising seas, and this important hearing. So,
    there is a lot going on. People from Delaware want to see me.
    And, so, I apologize for being in and out.
        People sometimes say to me, I do not know if they say to
    Ron, but they say, ``Can we come to Washington and meet with
    you?'' And, I say, my life here is frenetic. Why do we not meet
    in Delaware? I go there every night. But, thank you for bearing
    with us.
        I want to ask you a question about the Federal workforce,
    but before I do, let me preface it by making this observation.
    One of the pieces of cybersecurity legislation that this
    Committee adopted, reported out, and was ultimately signed into
    law by the President was one that strengthens the ability of
    the Department of Homeland Security to hire people, well-
    qualified people, to better enable them to help defend not only
    the Federal dot-gov world, but also to help businesses, the
    private sector and others, to defend their personally
    identifiable information, their intellectual property, and to
    give the Homeland Security Department actually the ability to
    do some of the hiring and retention for employees that they
    have not been able to do.
        When I was Governor of Delaware, we used to lament the fact
    that on IT projects, we would hire people to work in the IT
    world for us, train them, they would become better and more
    proficient, and then they would get hired away. And, the same
    kind of thing actually happens with the Department of Homeland
    Security with their cyber warriors and they have asked for the
    tools to enable them to hire good people, retain people, and we
    have done that, and I am pleased the President has signed that.
    It is one of three or four pieces of legislation that has
    actually come through this Committee, signed into law last
    year, that will strengthen our cybersecurity.
        But, with respect to the Federal workforce, as your report
    highlights, there are gaps in mission critical skills in the
    Federal workforce and they have significant impact on many of
    the high-risk issues. Unfortunately, efforts to identify and
    address current and emerging critical skill gaps have been slow
    and not fully successful. Addressing these gaps needs to be a
    priority, given their impact on so many important issues facing
    our country.
        Let me just ask what strategies you think have been most
    successful. What strategies have been most successful in
    identifying and addressing those skill gaps, and how can we
    help to ensure that the Office of Personnel Management--and
    other agencies, too--are using the best strategies and giving
    this issue the focus that it deserves?
        Mr. Dodaro. First, I think the efforts need to recognize
    the skill gaps. I mean, we have pointed out this to a number of
    agencies and it is almost like they are not identifying them
    proactively on their own as much or using available authorities
    for retention and recruitment that could be used in the
    process. So, the first thing is sort of an awareness they have
    an issue, and also planning ahead for the future to be able to
    do this. At the same time you have critical skill gaps, you
    also have succession planning problems throughout the Federal
    Government because of the retirement of the Baby Boom
    generation. So, you have a dual problem that needs to be dealt
    with.
        Chris Mihm is our expert in these areas. I will ask him to
    elaborate on some specific best practices. But, this area
    worries me as much as any on the list because it really goes to
    the heart of the government's ability to effectively function,
    and you cannot do it without the right people, whether you are
    talking about petroleum engineers and making sure we are
    getting our right oil and gas estimates, cost estimating
    expertise at NASA, the right people in a lot of these different
    departments and agencies, cybersecurity you mentioned. So, it
    is a real critical issue. I am glad that you asked the
    question.
        Senator Carper. All right. Thank you.
        Mr. Dodaro. Chris.
        Mr. Mihm. Thank you, Senator. I agree very much with the
    preface of your question, that many of the High-Risk Issues
    that we find, a root cause of that is a critical skills gap in
    agencies. You had a discussion this morning about the problems
    over at VA. One of the five areas that you have heard about is
    a skills gap issue associated with training of staff over
    there. Skills gaps are certainly a big part of the acquisition
    area, in the acquisition workforce, notwithstanding an awful
    lot of attention that Congress and other agencies have given to
    that. The IT area, as you referenced in your question.
        When we see the successful efforts to get at this, it is
    actually the two things the Comptroller General just mentioned.
    First, it is heavy use of data analytics. There is a wealth of
    Federal personnel information that is in our personnel files
    that is not being effectively mined. We talk all the time about
    big data. One of the big data things that we are not
    effectively exploiting is Federal personnel information,
    stripping out all the PII, of course. But, it can tell about
    career paths and training and development and exactly what are
    the succession planning challenges that an agency should be
    expecting. So, mining this big data that is out there on
    Federal personnel is one of the first key steps.
        The second, as the Comptroller General also mentioned, is
    really effective strategic human capital planning. All too
    often in agencies, we go in and they seem to have a succession
    planning approach that goes under the very inelegant name of
    what is called ``truck sensitive,'' meaning if a truck hit the
    person, they know who is next in line. They are not thinking
    very far----
        Senator Carper. I like that, truck sensitive.
        Mr. Mihm. Well, unless you are the one that is being hit
    on.
        Senator Carper. Senator, what did you get out of your
    hearing today? Well, truck sensitive.
        Mr. Mihm. Well, here to contribute.
        Senator Carper. Among other things. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Mihm. Well, but they are not thinking, what are the
    knowledge and skills that we are going to need to be effective
    5, 10, and even 15 years in the future. We need to start
    recruiting on that now. We need to start training based on
    those skills now. We need to start developing those skills now.
    We cannot have a government where the working assumption is,
    the key to our future success is to be more like we are today.
    Many of the personnel systems that we have, certainly the human
    capital planning systems, seem to be implicit on that, is that
    if we just hire the same people that were just like us, we are
    going to be successful in the future. That is not going to be
    workable in the context that we face today.
        Senator Carper. All right. Thank you.
        Last question and I will make it real quick and I will ask
    for a short answer. This year's High-Risk Report discusses
    improvement in a number of High-Risk Areas. We are grateful for
    that. Unfortunately, no issues, I think, were removed from the
    list from last year. Are there issues on the list that you
    think are within striking distance of being removed from the
    list, maybe, by 2017? And, for those issues, are there any
    things that come to mind that you think are the final reforms
    that are needed? Just touch on one or two, if you would.
        Mr. Dodaro. Sure. I am very pleased with the progress that
    we have made working with NASA on their acquisitions area. The
    big challenge now is to get as many people trained up as
    possible in their cost estimating and using Earned Value
    Management techniques and issues.
        The big hang-up we have had with NASA is to agree on an
    approach to evaluate the design sophistication of their
    technology and the stability of it early in the process, before
    it develops along time, and they have implemented that for a
    number of their smaller projects. The big issue will be, can
    they extend that on their big major projects, like the James
    Webb telescope, the Space Launch System, the Orion capsule. So,
    we have been working with them. But, they have met, right now,
    three of the five criteria and they have top-level attention.
    They have a good plan. The question is whether they can execute
    over a period of time.
        I also believe the Department of Homeland Security is
    within this if they stay the course in those areas. They really
    have to improve their acquisition area, though. I am really
    concerned about that. That is one that they have been late in
    implementing. And, they have to improve their internal controls
    environment and deal with their morale issues over there. I
    mean, those are three. You need a workforce that is more
    engaged and feeling better about themselves to be successful
    over a period of time. You cannot have the situation that they
    have right now and be successful. No business would be
    successful with that level of dissatisfaction and no government
    agency will, as well. But, so, there are challenges there in
    those areas.
        So, those are two that I would mention off the top of my
    head that are successful and, I think, doable within a
    reasonable period of time.
        Senator Carper. Good. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that,
    in closing, what Gene has said reminds me oh how important the
    work is we have done to try to vet and clear and send on to the
    Senate the leadership team that the President has asked for and
    Jeh Johnson has asked for in that Department. There is one more
    that we are working on, a fellow named Russ Deyo, who we have a
    lot of respect for. He has been nominated for the No. 3
    position there, for management, and it is critically important
    that he be there.
        I will close with--you mentioned NASA, and Mr. Chairman,
    you may have heard this story, and Tammy, you may have heard
    this story. A friend of mine was going through visiting NASA
    one night. Most of the people had left and gone home for the
    day. This one guy was still there working, and he was the
    janitor. And my friend said to him, ``What do you do here? What
    is your job?'' And, the man said, ``I am helping to put a man
    on the moon.''
        The folks that are working at NASA to help make sure that
    they cleanup their performance with respect to high-risk, they
    are helping to put men and women not on the moon, but all over
    the galaxy and to do good things for our country. So, that is
    kind of making it real. Thanks so much.
        Chairman Johnson. Well, we certainly share that commitment
    to make sure the agencies have the best people working for
    them, and I continue--I have said this repeatedly--I am very
    impressed with the people who work for the Federal Government.
    Senator Baldwin.
        Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member. I
    did not expect to have a chance to return from the Budget
    Committee, but, indeed, I am here, and I appreciate the chance
    for another opportunity to ask a question that I was going to
    submit for the record.
        GAO found that local VA facilities are carrying out
    processes inconsistently, including those dealing with the
    provision of medical care. A GAO report from November 2014
    found that about 10 percent of veterans who received health
    care services through the VA were diagnosed with major
    depressive disorder, and of those, 94 percent were prescribed
    an antidepressant. VA policy states that antidepressant
    treatment must be consistent with the VA's current clinical
    practices guideline. However, the GAO's review of medical
    records identified deviations from those guidelines for most
    veterans reviewed, and I will quote the report now. ``As a
    result, VA does not know the extent to which veterans with
    major depressive disorder who have been prescribed
    antidepressants are receiving care as recommended in the
    clinical practice guidelines and, whether appropriate actions
    are taken by VAMCs to mitigate potentially significant risks to
    veterans.''
        In other words, the VA does not know if veterans with
    severe mental illnesses are getting the correct care. This is
    completely unacceptable, and I am extremely concerned that the
    VA may have a similar blind spot regarding the appropriate
    standard of care for mental health patients at the Tomah VA, as
    I have outlined earlier today.
        Indeed, in a tragic example last August, former Marine
    Jason Simcakoski died as an inpatient at the Tomah facility
    from mixed drug toxicity. At the time of his death, he
    reportedly was on 15 different prescription drugs, including
    antipsychotics, tranquilizers, muscle relaxants, and opioid
    painkillers. There are serious questions as to whether Mr.
    Simcakoski was receiving the correct standard of care, and your
    reports would indicate that the VHA's mental health treatment
    programs, including the drugs prescribed to patients, are
    deeply flawed.
        So, I would love it if you could take a moment to explain
    these findings from the November 2014 GAO report in further
    detail and provide recommendations regarding how the VHA can
    fix this problem as soon as possible.
        Mr. Dodaro. Debbie.
        Ms. Draper. Sure. We looked at a sample of medical records
    from six different VA Medical Centers and we did find exactly
    what you had talked about, and I think this really still gets
    at the issue of why we are putting VA Health Care on the High-
    Risk List. There are issues around oversight and
    accountability. Training is an issue, looking at how practices
    play out at the local level. Again, there are inconsistent
    processes and ambiguous policy.
        So, in this report, we did make a number of recommendations
    to VA, and one was to implement processes to review the data
    and assess deviations from recommended care, because it was a
    large number of the records that we reviewed, they deviated
    from the clinical practice guideline, and that included things
    like a necessary initial review of the situation and then a
    followup review. Those were not conducted as they were outlined
    in the clinical practice guideline.
        We also made recommendations--because in that same report,
    we looked at the template that was used to complete information
    about suicides and that information was also found to be
    incomplete. So, what happens is that it really diminishes VA's
    ability because they do not have complete data when they
    develop processes or initiatives on suicide prevention. So, we
    made a number of recommendations related to ensuring the
    completeness of that information, as well.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Baldwin.
        Mr. Dodaro, again, thank you and all of the associates from
    the GAO that have come here and provided some good information
    for all your good works. You can tell by the level of
    attendance at this hearing, you can tell by the level of
    engagement--it might be an overstatement, but this is this
    Committee's favorite agency. You do so much good work, and we
    truly appreciate that.
        From my standpoint, one of the major take-aways, of course,
    is we are going to be supportive of making sure the
    recommendations of the VA get implemented as quickly as
    possible. But, also, we are looking at what we can do to
    develop a process to ensure implementation of as many of your
    recommendations, or all of your recommendations, across the
    agency. So, we want to work very closely with you on that
    process.
        I was handed an interesting little fact. I talked about how
    you actually were suffering budget cuts. I guess last year, GAO
    had the fewest number of employees since World War II. Now, the
    Federal Government has kind of grown a little bit since World
    War II, so I think we would like to give you some more
    resources and some more associates to continue your good work
    and expand it so we can implement your recommendations.
        So, again, thank you for your testimony. Thank you for all
    your good work.
        This hearing record will remain open for 15 days, until
    February 26 at 5 p.m., for the submission of statements and
    questions for the record.
        Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, just one quick closing
    comment. If you read the Preamble--in fact, we all learned it
    as kids in school, the Preamble to the Constitution--and one
    part of it says, ``In order to form a more perfect Union''--
    ``In order to form a more perfect Union.'' It does not say,
    ``In order to form a perfect Union,'' but it does say, ``In
    order to form a more perfect Union.''
        What you and the folks that are sitting there behind you in
    the front rows of this hearing room are trying to do is to help
    us form a more perfect Union. We know we will never be perfect.
    But we strive for perfection, because we know everything that
    we do, we can do better.
        This is a team sport. You are critical members of the team.
    We like to think that we are, as well. Others within the
    agencies spread across the government, the President, OMB, we
    are all members of the team, and it is important that we pull
    together in the same direction, because if we do, some amazing
    things can happen. In fact, they already have, and we need more
    of that. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Dodaro. Thank you very much.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Carper.
        In manufacturing, good operations always engage in
    continuous improvement. GAO helps the government continuously
    improve, so, again, we thank you.
        This hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]