[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
TOP MANAGEMENT AND PERFORMANCE CHALLENGES IDENTIFIED GOVERNMENT WIDE BY
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL COMMUNITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 18, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-80
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://oversight.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
31-119 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, [email protected].
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, Chairman
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland,
Darrell E. Issa, California Ranking Minority Member
Jim Jordan, Ohio Carolyn B. Maloney, New York
Mark Sanford, South Carolina Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Justin Amash, Michigan Columbia
Paul A. Gosar, Arizona Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri
Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Jim Cooper, Tennessee
Thomas Massie, Kentucky Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Mark Meadows, North Carolina Robin L. Kelly, Illinois
Ron DeSantis, Florida Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Dennis A. Ross, Florida Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
Mark Walker, North Carolina Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Rod Blum, Iowa Jamie Raskin, Maryland
Jody B. Hice, Georgia Jimmy Gomez, Maryland
Steve Russell, Oklahoma Peter Welch, Vermont
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania
Will Hurd, Texas Mark DeSaulnier, California
Gary J. Palmer, Alabama Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands
James Comer, Kentucky John P. Sarbanes, Maryland
Paul Mitchell, Michigan
Greg Gianforte, Montana
Sheria Clarke, Staff Director
Robert Borden, Deputy Staff Director
William McKenna, General Counsel
Drew Baney, Professional Staff Member
Kiley Bidelman, Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 18, 2018................................... 1
WITNESSES
The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz, Chair, Council of the
Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, Inspector
General, U.S. Department of Justice
Oral Statement............................................... 4
The Honorable Allison Lerner, Vice Chair, Council of the
Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, Inspector
General, National Science Foundation
Oral Statement............................................... 5
Joint Written Statement of Mr. Horowitz and Ms. Lerner....... 8
The Honorable Glenn Fine, Principal Deputy Inspector General,
U.S. Department of Defense
Oral Statement............................................... 14
Written Statement............................................ 16
APPENDIX
DoD IG report titled, ``The DoD Did Not Comply With the Improper
Payment Elimination and Recovery Act in FY 2016,'' submitted by
Mr. Palmer..................................................... 58
TOP MANAGEMENT AND PERFORMANCE CHALLENGES IDENTIFIED GOVERNMENT-WIDE BY
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL COMMUNITY
----------
Wednesday, April 18, 2018
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in Room
2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Trey Gowdy [chairman
of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Gowdy, Duncan, Jordan, Sanford,
Amash, Massie, Meadows, DeSantis, Ross, Walker, Blum, Russell,
Grothman, Hurd, Palmer, Cummings, Maloney, Norton, Lynch,
Connolly, Kelly, Krishnamoorthi, Welch, DeSaulnier, and
Sarbanes.
Chairman Gowdy. The Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform will come to order.
Without objection, the presiding member is authorized to
declare a recess at any time.
I will now yield to the gentleman from Florida, my friend
Mr. Ross, for an opening statement.
Mr. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank you for
today's hearing.
The inspectors general conduct investigations and audits to
prevent and detect waste, fraud, and mismanagement in their
agencies' programs. They help Congress shape legislation and to
target our oversight and investigative activities.
Since their creation 40 years ago, the IGs have proven to
be one of Congress' best investments. In the last fiscal year,
the IG community used its $2.7 billion budget to identify
potential cost savings to taxpayers totaling over $45 billion.
That means that for every $1 in the total IG budget they
identified approximately $17 in savings.
We have an opportunity today to hear from leaders in the IG
community about the inefficiencies throughout the Federal
Government--which inefficiencies cost taxpayers money.
Specifically, we will discuss findings from a landmark report
issued by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity
and Efficiency, also known as CIGIE. The report is called ``Top
Management and Performance Challenges Facing Multiple Federal
Agencies.''
CIGIE compiled the Federal Government's top performance and
management challenges and distilled them down to seven
categories. When they did that, some interesting trends
emerged. For instance, CIGIE found misallocation of resources
and an inability to hire and retain top talent undermined the
effectiveness of programs throughout the executive branch.
CIGIE also found that a lack of performance-based metrics makes
it difficult to assess the effectiveness of government
programs.
But the CIGIE report is just a downpayment on what will be
a larger project to identify the root causes of the challenges
we will be discussing today. The burden will then fall to us at
the committee level to explore whether there exists any
systemic issues that might best be addressed through
government-wide policies. That is an issue that is squarely
within our committee's jurisdiction, and, as we will hear
today, we have our work cut out for us.
Today's witnesses and the larger IG community they
represent are the people on the front lines of the effort to
rout out waste, fraud, and abuse throughout the Federal
Government. These three widely respected inspector generals
have spent years examining the programs at the Justice
Department, the Defense Department, and the National Science
Foundation.
They also play key roles at the Council for the Inspectors
General on Integrity and Efficiency. CIGIE serves a vital role
in fostering a relationship between this committee, Congress,
and the IG community. CIGIE is uniquely positioned to
consolidate findings generated by the individual IGs and
communicate that information to us, the policymakers.
I commend Mr. Horowitz and his colleagues at CIGIE for
taking the initiative to release this compendium of analysis
for the first time. This report is extremely valuable, and I
encourage you to continue to be proactive with respect to
identifying government-wide trends.
I thank the witnesses for appearing today, and I look
forward to your testimony.
I yield back.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Florida yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, the
ranking member, Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Good morning.
I want to start by congratulating the inspector general
community on the 40th anniversary of the Inspector General Act
and the 10-year anniversary of establishing the Council on the
Inspectors General for Integrity and Efficiency.
In 2008, we here on the Oversight Committee passed the
Inspector General Reform Act, which was sponsored by Oversight
Committee member Jim Cooper, to establish CIGIE. One of our
witnesses today, Michael Horowitz, serves as the Chair of CIGIE
and has overseen significant changes aimed at making CIGIE and
the Federal Government more accountable and more transparent.
One example of the report CIGIE released this morning is
very important. For the first time, this report provides a
comprehensive review of the top challenges currently being
faced by Federal agencies. Their report exemplifies CIGIE's
critical mission of examining systemic issues across the
Federal Government.
I know my Republican colleagues want to talk about former
FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and that is all well and
good. But we are now into year 2 of the Trump administration,
and, at some point, this committee will have to start
conducting serious, credible oversight of the Trump
administration.
For example, CIGIE released a report today finding that one
of the most serious issues facing CIGIE is a culture at
agencies that negatively impacts their mission. I've often said
that we must always be about the business of effectiveness and
efficiency.
The CIGIE report includes information from 61 different
reports issued by IGs in 2017, the first year of the Trump
administration. CIGIE reported, and I quote, ``Many OIGs report
that their agencies face challenges related to their agency's
culture, including ethical lapses, lack of accountability, lack
of fiscal responsibility, lack of transparency and
communication, resistance to change, and low morale,'' end of
quote.
The IG for the Department of the Interior reported, and I
quote, ``DOI continues to face challenges holding its
employees, including senior officials, to the highest standards
of ethical conduct, ensuring the consequences of wrongdoing are
clearly understood, taking decisive actions to address
unacceptable behavior, and providing relevant ethics training
to all employees,'' end of quote.
It is Dr. King who said that, so often, silence becomes
betrayal. Silence becomes betrayal. And apparently there are a
number of people who do not want to be silent, and so they want
to come to us as whistleblowers, in many instances, and come to
CIGIE. And so you do play a very important role.
These findings are deeply troubling, and they warrant
rigorous and sustained oversight from our committee.
Unfortunately, our Republican colleagues have blocked every
single request we've made to issue subpoenas during the Trump
administration, more than 30 in all.
For example, Republicans blocked us from considering a
subpoena to the Agriculture Department for documents relating
to a senior adviser to the Secretary's communications with the
corporate lobbyists. They blocked us from debating and voting
on a subpoena for documents relating to allegations of sexual
assault and harassment by Customs and Border Patrol employees.
They blocked us from considering subpoenas for documents and
testimony related to Senior Adviser to the President Jared
Kushner's alleged conflicts of interest and security clearance
issues.
So, during the entire Trump administration, this committee
has not issued a single subpoena, not one, to any Federal
agency or any Federal official. And that's not because we have
suddenly had a massive increase in transparency and
cooperation. Just the opposite. The Trump administration has
withheld documents on dozens of topics, from the hurricanes in
Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands, to the first-
class travel of the President's top aides at taxpayers'
expense, to the lease of President Trump's hotel in Washington,
D.C., just a few blocks from where we sit this morning.
The IGs testifying today and staff that support them do
great work. And let me repeat that. We on this committee
believe and know that you all do great work. And we really
appreciate it. And if there were a time that we need you, we
need you now.
But they cannot do this work in a vacuum. Congress must
fulfill its own constitutional duty to conduct oversight of the
executive branch. The entire system of oversight must work in
order for the Federal Government to operate effectively and
efficiently all the time. And so I hope that today's hearing
can be productive and will be a step in the right direction.
And, Mr. Chairman, I failed to say it, but I want to thank
you for holding this hearing. I also want to thank you for your
courtesy to me, because, as I went through my ailments, you
were constantly there for me. You switched the schedule so that
you could accommodate me. You kept me informed of everything.
You made sure that I was involved in everything that you did.
And for that, I am truly grateful.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Maryland yields back.
I want to welcome all of our witnesses. I will introduce
you as a group and then recognize you individually for your
opening statements.
First, we are pleased to have the Honorable Michael
Horowitz, Chair of the Council of the Inspectors General on
Integrity and Efficiency and Inspector General of the United
States Department of Justice; the Honorable Allison Lerner,
Vice Chair of the Council of the Inspectors General on
Integrity and Efficiency and Inspector General of the National
Science Foundation; and the Honorable Glenn Fine, Principal
Deputy Inspector General at the United States Department of
Defense.
Welcome to each of you.
Pursuit to committee rules, I'm going to administer an
oath. So, if you would, please rise and lift your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you are about
to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you God?
May the record reflect all witnesses answered in the
affirmative. And they may take their seats.
I know each of you is an old pro--or, I should say, a pro--
at this, so you know what the time lights mean: green, fire
away; yellow, get under the light as quick as you can; red,
hope you don't see blue lights.
So, against that backdrop, we will recognize you, Inspector
General Horowitz.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MICHAEL E. HOROWITZ
Mr. Horowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Cummings, members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me
to testify at today's important hearing.
This year marks the 40th anniversary of Congress' passage
of the Inspector General Act. Over those 40 years, the IG
community has conducted independent oversight of government
programs to rout out waste, fraud, and abuse and to ensure that
the organizations we oversee spend tax dollars more effectively
and efficiently.
In fiscal year 2016 alone, as Congressman Ross indicated,
IGs identified about $45 billion in potential savings, or
roughly a $17 return for every dollar Congress invested in IG
budgets.
This year also marks the 10-year anniversary since
Congress, under this committee's leadership, as Congressman
Cummings pointed out, created the Council of the Inspectors
General on Integrity and Efficiency, which brought together all
73 Federal IGs into one organization.
One of the Council's mandates is to address integrity,
economy, and effectiveness issues that transcend individual
government agencies. The Council is actively pursuing this
mandate. At the start of the fiscal year, we launched
oversight.gov, a website where the public can find in one place
all publically issued IG reports in fully searchable formats.
And, this morning, the Council issued its first-ever report
on the most frequently cited management and performance
challenges facing the Federal Government, as determined by the
IG community in their individual top management and performance
challenges reports in 2017.
The report, which can be found at oversight.gov, identifies
seven challenges, which IG Lerner will discuss in more detail
during her testimony. Those seven challenges are: information
technology security and management, performance management and
accountability, human capital management, financial management,
procurement management, facilities management, and grant
management.
A number of other extremely important challenges, such as
national security, public safety, and public health, are not
included in the list, primarily because only a limited number
of IGs have oversight responsibility in those areas. Their
absence certainly does not reflect a qualitative judgment about
the impact or importance of those challenges.
Rather, we believe the Council's effort to identify the
most common government-wide challenges will inform the public
and policymakers in the executive and legislative branches by
identifying broad categories of challenges shared by the
majority of Federal agencies, notwithstanding vast differences
in their sizes and missions. They will also help the IG
community as we plan our oversight work going forward.
The Council and the IG community looks forward to
undertaking additional important initiatives on behalf of the
public we serve. As the public's watchdogs, we will not waiver
from our 40-year commitment to strong and independent oversight
that helps promote effective and efficient government.
Thank you again for this committee's strong bipartisan
support for our community, and I look forward to answering any
questions the committee may have.
Chairman Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Inspector General.
Inspector General Lerner?
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ALLISON LERNER
Ms. Lerner. Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Cummings, and
members of the committee, thank you for inviting me today to
discuss the top government-wide management and performance
challenges identified by the IG community. Our report focuses
on the top 7 challenges most frequently reported by 61
statutory IGs in 2017. I'll briefly discuss each challenge.
First, information technology security and management is a
serious, longstanding challenge. Agencies need reliable and
secure IT systems to perform their mission-critical functions,
yet across government we identified problems in key areas,
including the protection of sensitive data and information
systems from cyber attacks, modernizing and managing IT
systems, ensuring continuity of operations, and recruiting and
retaining a highly skilled cybersecurity workforce. Resource
constraints and a shortage of cybersecurity professionals
contribute to these challenges.
The second most reported challenge was performance
management and accountability. Although Federal agencies vary
greatly in size and mission, they face common challenges in
improving performance in agency programs and operations. The
key areas of concern we identified included collecting and
using performance-based metrics; overseeing private-sector
products or services that could affect human health, safety, or
the economy; and aligning agency operations to agency-wide
goals.
Third, human capital management is a significant challenge
that affects the ability of Federal agencies to meet their
performance goals and efficiently carry out their missions. We
identified key challenges including inadequate funding and
staffing; problems recruiting, training, and retaining
qualified staff; agency cultures that negatively affect the
agency's mission; and a lack of succession planning.
The fourth most reported challenge was financial
management, which covers a broad range of functions such as
program planning, budgeting, accounting, audit, and evaluation.
Weaknesses in any of these issues limit an agency's ability to
ensure that taxpayer funds are being used efficiently and
effectively. To mitigate risks to Federal programs and
operations, agencies need to improve their financial reporting
and systems and to prevent and reduce improper payments.
Estimates of improper payments totaled about $141 billion in
fiscal year 2017.
The fifth challenge, procurement management, encompasses
the entire procurement process, from pre-award planning to
post-award contract administration. In fiscal year 2017, the
Federal Government awarded more than $500 billion in contracts.
Many Federal agencies rely heavily on contractors to perform
their missions; as a result, weaknesses in procurement
planning, oversight of contractors' performance, and staff
training placed potentially billions of taxpayer dollars at
risk.
The sixth most reported challenge was facilities
maintenance. Agencies face challenges ensuring that their
facilities stay in proper condition and remain capable of
fulfilling the government's needs. IGs have identified
insufficient funding as the primary reason why agencies fail to
maintain and improve their equipment and infrastructure. The
key areas of concern we identified included the increased
likelihood of mission failure and the higher overall cost of
deferred maintenance.
The seventh and final challenge, grant management, involves
the process used by Federal agencies to award, monitor, and
measure the success of grants. Deficiencies in any of these
areas can lead to misspent funds and ineffective programs. In
fiscal year 2018, Federal agencies are expected to spend more
than $700 billion through grants to State and local
governments, colleges and universities, and community
organizations, among others. The key areas of concerns we
identified include ensuring grant investments achieve intended
results, overseeing the use of grant funds, and obtaining
timely and accurate financial and performance information from
grantees.
While we couldn't make conclusive determinations with
respect to the underlying causes of these challenges, the
report notes that many were affected by resource issues, both
human and budgetary, and by Federal agencies' failure to use to
use performance-based metrics to assess the success of their
programs and operations. By consolidating these challenges, we
hope to help policymakers determine how best to address them in
the future.
This concludes my prepared statement. Thank you again for
the strong support of our community's work. And I'd be pleased
to answer any questions you have.
[Prepared joint statement of Mr. Horowitz and Ms. Lerner
follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Gowdy. Thank you, Madam Inspector General.
Inspector General Fine?
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GLENN FINE
Mr. Fine. Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Cummings, and
members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to appear
before you today, along with my IG colleagues, to discuss our
top management challenges. We all appreciate the committee's
longstanding support for and interest in the important work of
IGs.
The DOD OIG's annual report on the DOD's top management
challenges is a critical tool that we use to perform our
important oversight mission, which is to detect and deter
waste, fraud, and abuse in DOD programs and operations; to
promote the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of the DOD;
and to help ensure ethical conduct throughout the DOD. That is
a significant challenge given the size, complexity, and
importance of DOD operations.
Our annual ``Top Management Challenges'' reports help us to
perform our mission. Preparing our report is a team effort that
draws upon the expertise and judgment of many individuals
throughout our organization, some of whom are here today.
We identify the challenges based on a variety of factors,
including OIG oversight work, oversight conducted by other DOD
components, GAO and other IG reports, congressional testimony,
and other important documents. We also seek input from DOD
leaders on what they consider to be the top challenges they
face. But we identify our top challenges independently, based
on our own judgment.
We do not simply draft this document as a paper or
compliance exercise. Rather, we use our report to identify key
areas of risk in the DOD and to decide where to allocate our
oversight resources. We also try to ensure that each DOD top
challenge receives some oversight coverage, and we therefore
link our annual oversight plan to the top DOD challenges.
In addition, we provide our report to new leaders when they
arrive at the DOD. We believe it provides them a useful summary
on risk areas, and we have received many positive responses
from them on the report's value.
I want to now turn to the top DOD challenges that we
identified for fiscal year 2018: one, countering strategic
challenges from North Korea, Russia, China, Iran, and
transnational terrorism; two, addressing challenges in overseas
contingency operations in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan; three,
enabling effective acquisition and contract management; four,
increasing cybersecurity and cyber capabilities; five,
improving DOD financial management; six, maintaining the
nuclear enterprise; seven, optimally balancing readiness,
modernization, and force structure; eight, ensuring ethical
conduct; nine, providing effective, comprehensive, and cost-
effective healthcare; ten, identifying and implementing
efficiencies in the DOD.
Some on our list of top DOD challenges overlap with CIGIE's
list. For example, the CIGIE report identifies financial
management as a challenge, as do we. The DOD is undergoing a
full financial statement audit for the first time, this year.
Inaccurate or incomplete DOD financial statements impairs the
DOD's ability to provide reliable, timely, and useful financial
information to support operating, budgeting, and policy
decisions.
The CIGIE report also identifies procurement management as
a crosscutting challenge facing Federal agencies. We do also.
For the DOD, delivering weapons and technology systems on time
and within budget continues to pose major management
challenges.
Some DOD challenges do not overlap with CIGIE's list. For
example, addressing challenges in overseas contingency
operations is a key challenge for the DOD. The DOD IG is
currently designated as the lead IG for three overseas
contingency operations: Operation Inherent Resolve, the effort
to degrade and defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria; Operation Freedom
Sentinel, the effort to build partner capacity within the
Afghan National Defense and Security Forces and to counter
terrorism in Afghanistan; and Operation Pacific Eagle, the
effort to support the Philippines' fight against ISIS and other
extreme groups.
Another DOD challenge, which is not unique to the DOD, is
ensuring ethical conduct. Any ethical failures by DOD officials
can undermine public confidence in the DOD. At its core,
ethical misconduct violates DOD core values and high standards
of integrity expected of DOD personnel. Therefore, DOD leaders
continually strive to deter and prevent ethical lapses in
misconduct and hold accountable those individuals who violate
the law or other ethical requirements.
Finally, we are now in the process of reassessing the DOD's
top management challenges for fiscal year 2019. We fully expect
that certain challenges will remain, and we will continue to
assess emerging challenges to make our report forward-looking.
In closing, I want to thank the committee again for your
support, for holding this hearing, and for asking me to discuss
the DOD's top management challenges. That concludes my
statement, and I would be glad to answer any questions.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Fine follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Gowdy. I want to thank all of you. And thank you
for meeting one of the Congress' benchmarks. You got all of
your openings in within the 5-minute time period.
With that, the gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized, Mr.
Russell.
Mr. Russell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank all of you just for the great work that you do. I
guess I'll have questions that any of you can answer, but I
know some of it will be specific to your particular areas.
One of the big things that you've identified in your
reports is the $141 billion over nine agencies in improper
payments. I mean, this seems like low-hanging fruit, and yet
that is an enormous dollar amount when we think about it.
Ofttimes, as we're looking to, you know, not balance the budget
each year, this is something that would make a significant
headway in that.
And so how do we get at? I mean, we identify it, we know
it. We've identified the dollar amounts. We know the nine
agency offenders. How do we stop it?
Mr. Horowitz. Let me tell you some of the challenges we
have faced at DOJ OIG and I think my colleagues have faced as
well, which is, in an era of big data, what we're learning as
many of us are doing data analytics work to try and get at
those issues is our agencies don't keep good data or no data at
all.
As an example, we went to see about healthcare fraud
questions at the Justice Department. The Justice Department
spends over a billion dollars a year on inmate healthcare. We
went to the 121 or so institutions to get their electronic
medical records to look for anomalies in payment patterns, and
we learned that about 100 of those 121 actually still have
paper records.
And so we issued a report to the Department--it is public--
expressing our concern about that. And they have issued now a
request to seek to turn all of those into electronic records.
But those are challenges we're seeing over and over again.
And the government needs good data. The committee is to be
recognized for passing the DATA Act, which hopefully moves us
towards better data.
Mr. Russell. Hopefully they can pay for it with the recoup
of who they're not improperly paying, rather than asking for
additional appropriation.
Mr. Fine. If I could add, I agree with that. I agree with
Michael Horowitz's comments.
I think there are three things that need to be done.
One, there have to be adequate internal controls so that
the money doesn't go out the door inappropriately. We've seen
that in healthcare in DOD, compounding pharmacy money, billions
of dollars going out because there's not good internal
controls.
Two, when we find that, people ought to be held accountable
for this, or there needs to be some deterrent. It just doesn't
move on.
And the third thing is data analytics. We need to do a
better job and have more capacity to analyze the massive
amounts of data within the DOD and the entire Federal
Government to rout out indicators of fraud to provide the leads
that we can go after.
Mr. Russell. Yeah.
Ms. Lerner?
Ms. Lerner. I would just make one final point. A lot of the
improper payment work that OIGs is driven by risk assessments
that agencies are supposed to perform. And I think sometimes
you need a culture change within the agency for it to be
acceptable for them to acknowledge that risk exists. Because
without that, the quality of the risk assessment isn't going to
be strong, and without a strong risk assessment, your ability
to identify and fight those improper payments is undermined.
Mr. Russell. Thank you for that.
And with my remaining time, I'll just hit the last three
areas, and whoever wants to comment on it.
Payment to grantee verification. This is another big thing
I know all of you are concerned about. With $700 billion of
grants issued each year, this is an enormous amount of the
American people's working capital that is sent to Washington,
and yet ofttimes we have problems of knowing who's identifying
the grants.
And then you stood up the Disaster Assistance Working Group
on your own initiative, which I applaud you for, because we
appropriated $26.1 billion that went out in disaster
assistance. Obviously, all the hurricanes, fires, and floods.
Only the United States could weather something so enormous. But
I'm glad that you've stood that up for that oversight.
And then the last item is the overseas contingencies in
Afghanistan, Syria, and Asia. You know, ofttimes we joke that
Afghanistan is the biggest black hole of waste in the
Department of Defense.
And so those are the three other areas, if any of you care
to comment.
Ms. Lerner. In terms of grant expenditures, again, I'll
repeat what Mr. Fine said: analytics, analytics, analytics. It
helps us--when grant funds are expended, it would be wonderful
to be able to, in situations where there are disasters to
happen, set up so that we can catch things even earlier.
Mr. Horowitz. Let me just touch on the Disaster Assistance
Working Group issue. It is something that's very important to
us.
One of the things that we're trying to do--and DHS OIG is
the lead on that--work closely with GAO so that we're
coordinated with each other, as well as State and local
oversight entities. There are State auditors, there are State
IGs involved in some of the hurricane relief locations. We want
to make sure we're well-coordinated with each other, and we
want to share information. We don't want to duplicate effort.
And that's one of the things we've all been doing--CIGIE, IGs
with GAO--to make sure we're coordinated on our oversight.
But one of the things we've also done, I just want to
mention, in connection with oversight.gov, is try to replicate
what the IG community did with the Recovery Act funds in 2009,
which is create a page on the oversight.gov website so the
public can see what we're finding and what we're seeing.
One of the issues we've come to Congress for in fiscal year
2018 and we didn't get funding but we are looking for in fiscal
year 2019 is a very modest amount of money, $1 million to $2
million, to build out oversight.gov. And that's one of the
things we'd like to build out further, is that web page. And
so, while Congress appropriated the $26-billion-plus, what
we're looking for is some additional funds to allow the
transparency to occur around that spending.
Mr. Fine. If I could address the overseas contingency
operation issue, yes, Afghanistan is a source of a lot of money
and a lot of waste. And both we and the Special IG for
Afghanistan Reconstruction have issued reports on that. There
needs to be better internal controls. There needs to
consequences for the waste when it's exposed. There are
bilateral financial commitment letters that are signed, but
they often don't have any consequences and are often waived.
I was there recently, and I met with the commanders, the
diplomatic personnel, as well as Afghan officials, including
President Ghani. They seem committed to internal controls, but
it's too early to say whether it will have any impact. There is
a massive amount of money that goes there, and a lot of it is
wasted.
Mr. Russell. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Oklahoma yields back.
The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just following up on Mr. Russell's questions, I noticed
that you all keep saying waste, waste, waste. I mean, do you
think any of it is fraud, Mr. Fine? I didn't know whether you
were limiting it to waste.
Mr. Fine. No, I'm not. Absolutely. Waste, fraud, and abuse.
Mr. Cummings. Okay.
Mr. Fine. It's all of that. And there are a lot of cases
that we make, criminal cases, to hold people accountable for
fraud.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Horowitz, the Whistleblower Protection
Enhancement Act of 2012 requires all Federal agency
nondisclosure policies, forms, and agreements to include
specific language making clear that the policy or the agreement
does not impact statutory protections that allow Federal
employees to communicate with Congress and IGs.
Are you familiar with the requirement?
Mr. Horowitz. I am.
Mr. Cummings. On January 29, 2018, Attorney General
Sessions issued a memorandum to the heads all Department of
Justice components and all U.S. attorneys, titled
``Communications with Congress.''
Are you familiar with that memo?
Mr. Horowitz. I am.
Mr. Cummings. The memo directed department employees that
communications between the Department and Congress must be
managed through the Office of Legislative Affairs.
The memo said, and I quote, ``Attorneys, officers, boards,
divisions, and components should not communicate with Senators,
Representatives, congressional committees, or congressional
staff without advance coordination and consultation with OLA,''
end of quote.
Attorney General Sessions did not include in his memo the
language required by the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement
Act that says these words: ``These provisions are consistent
with and do not supersede, conflict with, or otherwise alter
the employee obligations, rights, or liabilities created by
existing statute or executive order relating to: classified
information, communications to Congress, the reporting to an
inspector general of a violation of any law or rule,
regulation, or mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse
of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public
health or safety, or any other whistleblower protection,'' end
of quote.
Do you believe that the language was required to be
included, that language, in the Attorney General's memo?
Mr. Horowitz. Congressman, I think it's very important that
all employees understand their rights under the whistleblower
laws for the reasons you indicated. We've been in touch with
the Department about the issue, and it's certainly my hope that
that will be clarified and made clear.
Mr. Cummings. What was the response so far?
Mr. Horowitz. Well, I'd rather not get into the back-and-
forth that we might have that--that we've had internally. But
it's certainly my hope that there will be a clarification of
that.
Mr. Cummings. Because what happens, as you can imagine, if
people feel reluctant to communicate with their
Representatives, we can't do our job. You can't either, right?
Mr. Horowitz. That's--you know, whistleblowers play a very
important role. This committee has seen it over and over again.
We could go through many of the examples of that. So it's very
important that employees know, if they see something going
wrong, they have avenues to go to the IGs and, in appropriate
circumstances, Congress.
Mr. Cummings. Now, Senator Grassley wrote to the Attorney
General on February 5, 2018, raising concerns with the memo's
failure to comply with the law.
To your knowledge, has DOJ taken any actions to correct
this violation and ensure all employees know their rights to
communicate with the Congress and IGs? I know what you just
said, but has anything been done?
Mr. Horowitz. I haven't seen anything further at this
point. But we're certainly aware of the issue, and, like I
said, we've been in communication with----
Mr. Cummings. Now, DOJ is not the only agency that has
issued a policy on communications with Congress that violates
the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. The IG for the
General Services Administration issued a report March 8, 2018,
and found, and I quote, ``GSA policies regarding communications
with Congress operate as nondisclosure policies under the WPEA
but do not include the WPEA's whistleblower protection
language.''
Are you concerned that this could be a wider problem?
Mr. Horowitz. I'm not, as I sit here, familiar with, sort
of, what the other agencies are doing. But, as I said earlier,
I think it's very important for IGs to be able to get
information from whistleblowers. And I completely understand,
as well, from the WPEA how important it is--and from just
experience, how important it is for Congress to be an avenue of
reporting for individuals who want to come forward and report
waste, fraud, and abuse.
Mr. Cummings. As I close, do you consider this a top
priority?
Mr. Horowitz. For me, it's a top priority.
Mr. Cummings. I mean for your organization. You're the top
man now, right? You're still----
Mr. Horowitz. I don't know if I'm the top man, but----
Mr. Cummings. I mean for your organization.
I mean, I think this goes to the essence of--the chairman
talked about it, I've talked about it, you've talked about it--
being effective and efficient. I just want to know--I don't
want any Member of Congress to be cut off from information, or
you----
Mr. Horowitz. Yeah.
Mr. Cummings. --that you need to do your job. I mean, why
are we going to waste money, spend money on an agency that
can't even get the information that they need to do their job?
So I just want--all I'm asking is--I'm not asking, I'm
begging you to make this a top priority for your organization.
I think we need to look and see whether other agencies are
doing this kind of thing, and we need to address that.
Mr. Horowitz. Look, it's absolutely--whistleblower
protection is a top priority for me, for my office. The work
we've done in that area is very significant.
In fact, one of the reasons we've asked for an additional
six positions this year in our budget request to Congress and
wrote a letter to the Congress about our concern on this issue
is we're seeing a very significant increase in the FBI
whistleblower retaliation cases that are coming to us that, as
you know, by regulation, go to our office, not the Special
Counsel's Office.
And that very substantial increase, over the last 7, 8
years--it's not in the last year; we're talking about a growth
over time, 6, 7 years--requires us to meet certain timelines
that are in the law. And if we don't get those additional
positions, it's going to crowd out some of the other work we're
doing.
So we think it's a very important area. We think
whistleblowers are the lifeblood of IGs, of the work we do.
We've got to take steps to ensure that they understand they can
come forward, report to the IGs, to Congress, and not be
retaliated against, not be subject to threats. Because it takes
extraordinary courage to step forward and report out on waste,
fraud, and abuse in your organization.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Maryland yields back.
The gentleman from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. Palmer. I thank the chairman.
On the improper payments, they've been identified as a key
concern, as the gentleman from Oklahoma brought up.
Mr. Fine, your recent Department of Defense IPERA
compliance report noted that the Department did not comply with
five of the six recommendations. When was the last time DOD was
in full compliance?
Mr. Fine. I don't think it has been in full compliance.
Mr. Palmer. That's what I thought.
Due to noncompliance with IPERA, DOD is required to issue a
report describing actions the agency will take to come into
compliance. Have they issued that report?
Mr. Fine. I'm not aware of that report. We have issued the
recommendation so far.
Mr. Palmer. In the fiscal year 2016 report, your office----
Voice. Mr. Fine, could you turn your microphone on?
Mr. Fine. Sorry.
Voice. Thank you.
Mr. Palmer. I think he answered ``no'' to both questions,
for the record, that they have not complied and they have not
issued a report explaining actions that they will take to
comply.
In the fiscal year 2016 report, your office made a number
of recommendations that DOD agreed with. Have any of those
recommendations been fully implemented and enforced?
Mr. Fine. I would have to go back and look and see whether
that's the case. I wouldn't doubt it. But we are--we are in the
process, and we currently do that. We look to make sure that
the recommendations that we make and they agree to are actually
implemented.
And we have actually issued a report recently, a compendium
of open recommendations. There's more than 1,200 open
recommendations.
Mr. Palmer. Is this the report?
Mr. Fine. I think so, yeah.
Mr. Palmer. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to enter this into the
record.
Chairman Gowdy. Without objection.
Mr. Palmer. Okay. The Department of Defense is initiating
an audit, which is obviously long overdue. Would you agree that
that will help in identifying improper payments?
Mr. Fine. Financial statement audit?
Mr. Palmer. Yes.
Mr. Fine. Yes, absolutely. It's a very important audit.
It's critical.
Mr. Palmer. Okay.
Let me transition here quickly to Mr. Horowitz.
In your statement, you said, 2016, the IGs identified
approximately $45.1 million in savings. How much of that has
been realized, or do you know?
Mr. Horowitz. I don't know, as I sit here today, how much
has been realized. I think one of the things that we'd like to
see--I know we're doing this within our own organization--is
try and figure out how we can follow up on those numbers within
the Justice Department.
Mr. Palmer. That was what I was going to ask you. Is there
any way to determine whether or not--I mean, we identify them;
that makes them potential. If they're actually realized, then
that makes them, obviously, real savings. And I just wonder if
there's a way to make sure that, when we identify it, that
someone follows up on it and we are able to realize those
savings.
Mr. Horowitz. And we follow up on all our recommendations,
and they don't get closed until we decide to close them. What
we need to do more work on with the agency is to get reports on
what kind of recoveries there are. We're starting to do that.
And we've been putting out announcements, releases, to the
public to let them know when we have had recoveries.
Mr. Palmer. I want to also stay with you just for a
moment--and, Ms. Lerner, you can respond as well, if you'd
like. But when we're talking about the disaster relief funds, I
believe there's several billion in unspent totals from Sandy.
There's unaccounted-for funds from Hurricane Matthew. We know
that, prior to the disaster relief funds being approved for
Puerto Rico, they paid out $100 million in bonuses.
You identified $26.1 billion in disaster relief funds.
Those were Community Development Block Grants. And my concern
about this is there's no way to really manage these funds to
determine that the money is actually getting to where it needs
to go.
If this were a private contract, you would award money on
the front end to meet the immediate need, and then everything
else would be paid to invoice. Does that make sense?
Mr. Horowitz. It's been a significant concern of, I think,
all of the IGs that are looking at their agencies which put out
money through grants, contracts, and others, is the lack of
performance management and accountability that's going on there
and understanding at the end of the project what the successes
were, what the failures were, after-action plans. I mean, you
do all of that after spending a substantial amount of money.
And one of the things we've also seen at DOJ OIG and we
just issued a report on, and we've done in the past, is on
unspent grant funds and closing out grants in a timely fashion,
because that money is just sitting there and can be misused.
And so that's very important.
Mr. Palmer. Mr. Chairman, I want to further explore the
grant issue. So I think what I'd like to do is let everyone
else ask their questions and then come back to this afterwards,
if that's okay.
Chairman Gowdy. Sure. I'll consult with my ranking member,
or else one of your colleagues, including me, may actually
yield you some time so you can finish that line.
Mr. Palmer. Right now or afterwards?
Chairman Gowdy. Well, it's not my turn right now, but when
it is my turn, I will give you some of my time, assuming
Inspector General Horowitz answers my questions as quickly as
he normally does.
Mr. Palmer. You're a very generous chairman, and I----
Chairman Gowdy. And you're a very diligent member, and I
appreciate your interest.
Mr. Palmer. I yield back.
Chairman Gowdy. With that, the gentleman from Alabama
yields back, and the chair will recognize the gentlelady from
the District of Columbia.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Lerner, I have a question about the report that CIGIE
issued this morning.
This notion of draining the swamp seems to be turned on its
head, because we have had more--a virtual explosion of scandals
and ethical lapses during this administration, young as it is.
In fact, it's the most I can remember. So, in recent memory,
they seem to outnumber the explosions that come from year to
year in prior administrations of both parties.
So I'd like to ask about the culture of agencies that is
mentioned in the report. And here I'm quoting the report issued
today, that the ``OIGs reported their agencies faced challenges
related to their agency's culture.'' I'm trying to find out
whether the Congress or the IGs can do something about this
culture.
And cited were ethical lapses, lack of accountability, lack
of fiscal responsibility, lack of transparency and
communication, resistance to change, and low morale. That is as
comprehensive an indictment of agencies as I can remember
hearing as a member of this committee.
So I take it we're talking about a systemic problem
covering, what is it, two or three agencies? More? Across the
board? What do we mean by ``the culture that has set in''?
Ms. Lerner. It's unclear to me the precise number of
agencies that are experiencing those problems, but it's clear
that this is--it's not a handful. And it is incumbent, then, on
us as IGs to have our eyes open, to catch these issues, to
audit and investigate when necessary----
Ms. Norton. But one wonders--you know, these are agency
heads who ultimately have to be held accountable. And so one
wonders whether anyone is advising them, whether IGs ahead of
time, whether they ask for information.
I can tell you that staff members in their 20s, if I ask
them to do something, they'll say to me, Congresswoman, is
this--do you want me to check? I mean, they are sensitive to
this, to try to keep me from--you know, catch me before I
kill--from getting in trouble.
Who catches the agency head before the agency head kills?
Or is this just willful determination, as with Administrator
Pruitt, who may be in the worst trouble and have had the most
lapses? The notion of installing a classified phone booth for
$43,000. Somebody should have tapped him on the shoulders.
Is there any way, before that phone booth goes up, to catch
him before he spends $43,000, not to mention all of his other
lapses, for which he has yet to be held accountable? Or is this
all after the fact, and taxpayers have to say, well, nobody's
in charge, nobody's going to jail, and nobody's suggesting
jail, so what can we do?
Ms. Lerner. I think we hope that the general counsel's
office and the ethics officials provide the right advise to
folks----
Ms. Norton. Well, who is it--do the agency heads know that
there is somebody they should ask? Did Mr. Pruitt understand--
who did he ask before installing a soundproof phone booth?
Ms. Lerner. I can tell you who they should ask. They should
ask their designated agency ethics official and their
attorneys----
Ms. Norton. Have any of you, Mr. Horowitz, Ms. Lerner, have
any of you issued--seeing how systemic this is, have you issued
anything to the agency saying, ``We advise that, before you
undertake any action which has not been taken before in your
agency, that you inquire of,'' and you name who to inquire?
Ms. Lerner. I would imagine--and I'll let my colleagues
answer too. But that's one of the first topics of conversation
with new agency leadership that come on board.
Ms. Norton. Have you done it with agency heads of this
administration?
Ms. Lerner. We do not have an agency head from this
administration at my agency.
Ms. Norton. No, for the--agency heads for this
administration.
Mr. Horowitz?
Mr. Horowitz. We have not had some of those kinds of issues
in my agency with regard to, you know, the phone booths and
that sort of thing, so I can't speak to what has gone on there.
But one of the first things we do is meet with the Attorney
General. I have now served under three Attorneys General as IG
and done that in each instance. Sit with them, tell them--
remind them of what we do. In each case, all three Attorneys
General grew up in the Justice Department, so they understood
what my office was. But they still needed to hear what we do,
what kind of reports we expect.
And I agree with what IG Lerner said. The understanding is
that they need to go to the agency ethics official; they need
to go to their counsel. And we need to be, as IGs, diligent in
overseeing any wrongdoing that occurs and making sure that
people not only understand the rules but, if there are
violations of the rules, as my fellow IGs indicated, hold
people accountable, make sure the public understands and the
people in the agency understand that even the most senior
officials are held accountable for misconduct. We do that
through posting the summaries of our work. And that, I think,
is very critical to the deterrent message as well.
Ms. Norton. My----
Mr. Fine. I----
Ms. Norton. --time has expired.
Would you agree to let Mr. Fine respond? He seems to want
to respond.
Mr. Fine. I agree with that. That's what we try and do too.
I, for example, meet with each--with Capstone classes, which
are new admirals and generals, to talk about what will get them
in trouble, what they should avoid, what they need to do to
consult with their lawyer.
I've met with the heads of the agency as soon as they come
in to talk about that. The tone gets set at the top, and it's
very important for us to have that communication with them.
I've been very fortunate, myself. The Secretary of Defense has
made clear about the need for ethics and has made clear the
need for cooperation with the OIG and made clear the need for
people to be held accountable when they have ethical lapses. So
that is very important.
And we need to be out on the front end in terms of
education, as well as also on the back end when there are
lapses. And there will be lapses. We need to hold people
accountable.
Mr. Horowitz. Mr. Chairman, can I mention just one other
thing that we do as IGs?
We also issue advisory memos. We each call them something
different, but if we see a problem along the way, we issue a
management advisory memo to alert leadership to a problem we're
seeing so they can fix it systemically and avoid--and address
those kind of issues.
As an example, within the last year, we identified
substantial issues in a variety of ways through our work about
sexual harassment policies at the Department. We issued a
management advisory memo that got some publicity in the press
about that. But that was an important thing to identify early
on to leadership what we were seeing so they could take action.
Ms. Norton. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Could I just ask that, in light of the systemic issues that
have been identified, that the committee look for ways to be
more proactive. Even with all that has been testified here, we
still have this plethora of scandals arising, and perhaps more
proactive action than has been testified would be called for at
this time.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentlelady from the District of
Columbia yields back.
The chair will now recognize the gentleman from Tennessee,
Judge Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And, first of all, I want to say how much I appreciate the
work of the various inspectors general throughout our
government. I'm now completing my 30th year in the Congress,
and not all of that time has been on this committee, but
probably two-thirds of it has. And this committee over those
years has become really the main investigatory committee in the
Congress. And we couldn't have done our--we couldn't have been
nearly as effective in our work on this committee had it not
been for the information provided to us by the various
inspectors general.
Over the years, I've passed four bills--or introduced four
bills that have gone through this committee and through the
Congress. Probably the easiest or the less controversial was a
bill to create an inspector general for the Tennessee Valley
Authority, which I'm--while I say it was easy, that doesn't
denigrate--or doesn't mean it wasn't important.
But I think back over the years about all the different
investigations that have been brought to light. I remember my
shock at finding that the FBI had kept a man in Federal prison
for 30 years for a murder that they knew he did not commit
because he was going to disclose some vital information about
the Whitey Bulger case, which is one of the biggest cases in
the country at one time. And I remember thinking, I still
think, it's one of the worst things I've ever heard about.
And I think back about the findings of the EPA where they
had a man who didn't go to work for a couple years but drew a
high salary. And all these different things.
And I looked--I was given here this morning an article from
a few days ago about the waste in the Pentagon, or that the
Pentagon could not justify the spending in Afghanistan. I heard
Mr. Russell say that it's sort of a joke about how much waste
there's been on the spending over there. And I don't think--I
really don't think it's much of a joke. And I'm glad that the
inspectors general have taken it to heart and have brought
forth a lot of this information.
And I was also given an article about this University of
Pittsburgh professor that got $50 million in the last 20 years
from the National Science Foundation in 24 different grants and
how the inspectors--Ms. Lerner's office is starting to uncover
some scandalous information about some of these grants.
So I commend you in that regard.
And, Mr. Fine, I wasn't really clear, do you think--this
article I've got, it says the Pentagon--the Department of
Defense Inspector General cannot account for $3.1 billion of
spending that's been done over in Afghanistan in the latest
investigation.
Do you think that we're going to continue to see things
like that, or are we getting closer to getting things a little
bit under control? We're spending, this article says, $45
billion a year over there, and that's an awful lot of money.
Mr. Fine. It is a lot of money.
The article you're referring to refers to one of our
summary reports which talks about all the reports we've had
over the years to talk about how they could not account for
fuel and ammunition or payment for soldiers, and they did not
have adequate internal controls, and they did not enforce
commitment letters when the Afghans could not account for the
money.
So I do think it is a significant amount of money. I think,
in a deployed environment, it is more difficult than here in
the United States, but that doesn't mean that we should not
provide oversight and internal controls and ensure that the
money is being used for its proper purposes.
I know the Department of Defense is concerned about it and
is committed to this. As I mentioned, I was over in
Afghanistan, and there are, sort of, roadmaps and commitments.
But commitments are easy to do. It's important to make sure
that they actually happen. And so I believe that we will
continue to see problems, but we need to continue to stay on
top of that.
Mr. Duncan. Ms. Lerner, you know, there's too many things
in the Federal Government that are sweetheart insider deals.
And I do hope that you're looking more closely at people who
are getting repeated grants, like this University of Pittsburgh
professor that got $50 million from 24 different grants. Well,
he apparently had some really good connection there at the
National Science Foundation.
So do you look a little closer at some of those who are
getting the most grants or the most money?
Ms. Lerner. We have a risk matrix that we're constantly
updating as we learn and are exposed to new and different ways
that people try to misuse NSF funding. So I think we have
gotten pretty darn good at targeting areas of risk, but we know
we can always get better. And so we take and we add to that
risk matrix on an ongoing basis.
Mr. Duncan. Well, we have got so many good scientists in
this country.
Ms. Lerner. Exactly.
Mr. Duncan. That these grants should be spread out. They
just shouldn't be given to a small, tiny group of favored
individuals.
My time is up, but I really do appreciate all the work that
the inspectors general have done for this committee over the
years. Thank you.
Chairman Gowdy. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee yields
back.
The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the panelists, Mr. Horowitz, Ms. Lerner,
Mr. Fine, for your wonderful work. I'll just associate myself
with the glowing remarks of the gentleman from Tennessee with
regards to our appreciation for the work that you do and the
work that your people do. It is extremely important, and as
important now as it has ever been, I think, on behalf of our
country.
I do want to acknowledge the return of our ranking member.
I appreciate it. He has maintained constant contact with the
committee, so he never has really been out of the seat. But
good to seeing him physically back in the chair this morning.
I want to follow up on Mr. Russell's line of questioning,
especially regarding the situation in Afghanistan. So Special
Inspector General John Sopkohas been concerned about the new
practice in the Trump administration of classifying information
that has been publicly available, let's see, going back to 2003
at least. He has raised it in his report.
He has said, among other things, that data that was
originally reported publicly with regard to the Afghan National
Defense Force capability assessments, their attrition rates,
how many people we got within the units that are being paid
within Afghanistan, casualty counts, operational readiness,
actual and authorized figures on the number of personnel, he
talks here about for the first time the reports are now
classified with respect to information about the specific
security goals of Afghanistan outlining the Trump
administration's new South Asia strategy, information about the
increase in U.S. and coalition air strikes in Afghanistan since
mid-2017. He goes on and on.
That's the data, those are the data that we rely on in
making our decisions, and I know that that's very important to
you, as well.
On top of that, on top of classifying information--and I
can still get it, I can go down to the SCIF and I can request
access to the information. It just makes it more difficult for
me to get it. And a lot of Members, because they're so busy,
they don't get to do all that.
But what troubles me additionally is that now the
Department of Defense is denying--they have got blackout dates.
So Members of Congress cannot go--so, for instance, beginning
in June and lastly until September, we cannot go into Iraq.
This is the Oversight Committee, we can't go to Iraq. Beginning
in June and continuing indefinitely we cannot go to
Afghanistan. So what the administration is doing is pulling
down the curtain.
And this committee has a natural affinity with our
inspector general community. On my codels it was not unusual
for me to take Stuart Bowen or his staff, Mr. Fitzgerald, the
first couple of codels into Sadr City, where we're spending
billions of dollars on a sewage treatment facility and no one
is looking to see whether they're actually building it. We had
some satellite stuff, but you really couldn't see what was
going on.
But it wasn't until I actually got the commanding general
to that battle space to take us all in in an MRAP and we were
able to look at that to see that the work was actually being
done.
So we're spending all this money in Afghanistan and in
Iraq, but especially Afghanistan, and if there's no oversight
going on. I know Sopko is being denied--well, it is tough to
operate in Afghanistan anyway. You have to rely on, you know,
locals for some of the oversight.
So I mean this is a shutdown of a lot of information that
the American public used to have. The totality of what the
Trump administration is doing here is denying information to
the American people, denying it to Congress, putting
obstructions in the way of our special inspector general in
Afghanistan, on giving that information to the public.
I just ask you to speak out about this trend. I'm very,
very concerned about it. And we're relying on each other to
make sure that the best interests of the American people are
protected, and especially our military who are in harm's way in
Afghanistan and Iraq.
I just ask you to keep doing your jobs and let us know if
there are additional ways that we can put the pressure on to
make sure that your folks are protected and are able to perform
the jobs that we have asked them to do.
Thank you.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Massachusetts yields
back.
The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Meadows, you're
recognized.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
your leadership in holding this hearing.
Thank you all for your work. As most of you know, I'm a big
fan of the IG and of all of your work. And yet I guess this is,
what, the 40th anniversary of your authorization, but also the
40th anniversary of civil service initiatives that, quite
frankly, sometimes hamper and hurt your ability to get jobs
done and get things done.
So I guess what I would love to hear from each one of you
very briefly is how do we fix this? I mean, the ability to
hire, fire, and retain continues to be in the headlines each
and every day.
And sometimes even when we terminate, as Mr. Horowitz
probably knows better than most, it creates unbelievable
headlines when honestly dealing with the whole retention and
proper--I guess proper remedial actions on behalf of government
employees would be better if it is done in a different fashion.
How do we fix this? And I know that's a 1-hour question
that you have 1 minute to respond to.
Mr. Horowitz, if you could start.
Mr. Horowitz. It is a very challenging issue for IGs. It is
a challenging issue for us ourselves to get our people on
board. Security clearances, you add in an organization like
DOJ. If there are misconduct findings, getting people to take
them seriously, move them forward in a prompt way like we think
they should so that people are held accountable.
I think there needs to be a bringing together of the
stakeholders because I think everybody recognizes there's this
problem on the front end and the back end and in between,
frankly, the ratings, the reviews. The strongest performers, we
need to find a better way of acknowledging strong performance
and rewarding strong performance.
I think it largely requires Congress coming together with
the executive branch in doing that.
Mr. Meadows. So, Ms. Lerner, let me ask you maybe a
different version of that. Mr. Horowitz is saying we need to
talk and we need to get together.
You know, one thing that we're not short of here in D.C.
and the Beltway is talk without action. And I guess my question
to you is, who would be the key players to make sure that we
don't just talk about it? Because I think all of you, all three
of you want to actually do something about that.
So how do we make sure that Congress actually is hand in
glove with the executive branch on how actually do this?
Ms. Lerner. I think back on something Earl Devaney said
when the Recovery Act was going on, when you want to see things
happen, you know, give people responsibilities and deadlines in
a statute. You need to give people enough time for good
thoughts to percolate and be shared and shaped and formed, but
they can't have forever in which to do that. So a hard and fast
deadline is vital.
But I do think making sure that we remember all the things
that drove the creation of these protections in the first place
and we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Because when I hear that we need to protect whistleblowers,
we want to make sure that career employees have protections so
that they're able to perform in the nonpartisan fashion that
they're supposed to do without fearing that they could lose
their jobs because agency leadership doesn't agree with what
they're saying.
Mr. Meadows. All right. Well, you're the one group that
actually protects whistleblowers and actually supports the IG,
so maybe this is the key component.
Inspector General Fine, I'll let you close it out.
Mr. Fine. If I could add one thing, I do think it is very
important for people to be held accountable when they have
committed misconduct and to be cleared when they haven't and
for that to be done in a timely way. That's what IGs strive to
do.
One of the key things for us is to ensure that we have
adequate budgets and staff to do that because that does affect
timeliness. And there are some IGs who have not received the
sufficient budget to deal with the burgeoning caseload so that
things get elongated and things stagnate, and that is not good
for anybody. It is not good for the person who has not
committed the misconduct, and it is not good for the agency if
someone has committed misconduct.
So we need to strive for timeliness, but in order to do
that there need to be sort of significant budgets. It is a
small amount. The return on investment is huge both in terms of
recoveries to the Treasury and also in terms of importance of
holding people accountable. So I ask would that there be focus
and consistent adequate budgets for the oversight.
Mr. Meadows. Well, if you could do that then as part of
your group, if you could actually get to this committee. And I
would ask you maybe in the next 45 days to get to this
committee those areas that you feel like are most
underappropriated as it relates to IGs. Some of those are in
better shape than others.
And I thank you all for your testimony.
And I yield back.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from North Carolina yields
back.
The gentleman from California is recognized.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
the ranking member for this meeting. I always wanted to be on
``60 Minutes,'' I wanted to be asking questions. So since the
CBS camera is here let's act like we're on ``60 Minutes.''
So I really wanted first of all to tell you how important,
in my view, your jobs are, three of the most important
positions in the U.S. Government.
And the integrity part, Mr. Fine, I think is important. So
I wanted to focus on you.
In the last year or so ago we had the Defense Business
Board here who sat where you're sitting. One of the members who
was a longtime member sat and answered questions where he said,
he was quite demonstrative about you really can't give the
Department more money until you get this fixed.
And this was when they had a report, an audit from McKinsey
that estimated there was $125 billion worth of waste. And it
appeared that that report was attempted to be held back from
somebody in the Department, and then someone gave it to The
Washington Post.
So I wanted to ask you about that report. Also, this
concern I have about President Eisenhower's warning in his
farewell address about the military-industrial complex, given
the importance and the size of your jurisdiction and the audit.
If you could respond to the Defense Business Board, and I
have had multiple conversations with their members, their
former chair, Bobby Stein, and their concern about--this is the
business community that's been looking at the Department of
Defense since, I believe, the Nixon administration. So if you
could talk about their report, their role.
And then, secondarily, the audit. And you've mentioned the
importance of the audit. And give us a timeline as to the
expectation, understanding the challenges because the
Department's never had a full audit, and your role in making
sure that audit is done in a timely fashion. And I would
imagine this financial audit will set up hopefully a more
extensive look at management audits and outcomes.
And lastly, you mentioned, fifth on your list, financial
management, eighth, ethical conduct, tenth, efficiencies, and
then you mentioned weapons development to be on time and on
budget and the performance management of that.
So if you could address those sort of three areas.
Mr. Fine. So I'm familiar with the report there. It is
clear that there is areas of waste and areas for greater
efficiencies in the Department of Defense with the enormous
budget that it has. It has a $700 billion budget. It has $2.4
trillion in assets. That's a huge amount. And there is areas
for efficiencies.
The Department is looking to do that. One of the areas they
need to do is to have a look at the duplicative efforts they
have in the various services to do the same thing and whether
there can be efficiencies garnered from that, and they are in
the process of doing that, and it is important that they do. Do
we need all those separate entities doing the same thing?
A key thing is the financial statement audit that you
referred to. It is very important. It is important for a
variety of reasons. It is going to take a lot. It is probably
the largest financial statement audit in history. There are
probably over a thousand auditors that are going to do over 25
separate audits of various parts of the Department of Defense.
It is the first time the Department of Defense is under
full audit. It is highly unlikely they are going to get a clean
or unmodified opinion. The opinion is really not the most
important thing right now, in my view and also in the
comptroller's view and also the leaders of the Department. The
most important thing to identify the deficiencies, have us give
notices of findings and recommendations, and ensure that there
is corrective action taken.
The Department is on board with that. They have visibility
over all the findings that are coming in. There are different
independent public accounting firms who have been hired to
conduct the audit along with us. We provide oversight over
those independent public accounting firms, and we are the group
auditor and will roll up the opinions in a separate report into
an overall opinion. And the opinion will be issued November 15.
Now it may be a disclaimer of opinion. I would be surprised
if it was an unmodified opinion. They'll get what they deserve.
But it is very important that they keep doing this and that
there is sustained effort. Because why is it important? Because
it helps the Department manage its money, number one. It gives
Congress and the American taxpayer more accurate information
about how their money is spent. It benchmarks things so you can
look and see whether there are cost overruns. And it is useful
in determining where there is waste, fraud, and abuse.
It is useful in determining where the financial systems are
insecure and there are IT issues with them.
It is very important in determining where the property is
of the Department--by property I mean, for example, equipment,
spare parts, munitions--so they don't order too much and just
have it wasting in a warehouse or they don't have enough of
what they really need somewhere else.
So they need to know what they have and where they have it,
and the financial statement audit will help with that.
Mr. DeSaulnier. I'm going to interrupt you because I only
have 20 seconds, and I hoped to give time back to my friend
from Alabama, but that's not going to happen.
Just on the procurement, your quote about the procurement,
making sure that all these very sophisticated investments and
new technology is done in a way that's above board and ethical
and gets the best cost-benefit for the American taxpayer.
Mr. Fine. It is important. Procurement is a challenge.
There are numerous weapon systems. It is important that the
Department modernize and ensure that they are doing it in an
effective way to get the systems on board in a timely way so
they can be used, but not to do it in a wasteful way. It is an
enormous challenge. I think the Department is focused on that,
and it needs to continue to do so.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from California yields back.
The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized, Mr.
Walker.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the inspector general community and all the
different work that you do. You recommended the savings of
potentially up to $98 billion, almost $99 billion. And we join
your community in calling for accountable and effective
government.
Recently, I introduced the Good Accounting Obligation in
Government Act. Now, this legislation would save taxpayer money
and bring needed accountability to the Federal agencies by
requiring them to report on the status of the GAO and IG
recommendations in their annual budget justification. The GAO-
IG is a House companion to Senator Young of Indiana and Senator
Warren of Massachusetts' efforts in the Senate. We want to
continue to move that.
To Ms. Lerner, does your office currently work with
agencies to ensure recommendations are implemented and closed
within a reasonable timeframe?
Ms. Lerner. Yes, we do.
Mr. Walker. Thank you.
What is the average time period it takes an agency to close
new recommendations once they are issued?
Ms. Lerner. I don't know that we have that information. It
probably varies from agency to agency fairly substantially.
Mr. Walker. Okay. Can you unpack that a little bit for us?
Why it would it vary from agency to agency?
Ms. Lerner. Because of the complexity of the cases, the
complexity of the agency, the type of audit that you're talking
about. All of those contributes to it.
Mr. Horowitz. One of the things we have been doing for
about 3 or 4 years now is posting every 6 months the status of
the open recommendations chronologically so the taxpayers, the
public can see, and Congress can see the oldest
recommendations, the newer recommendations.
From our standpoint we would expect an agency to, depending
on complexity, close the recommendation within certainly 2 to 3
years.
Mr. Walker. And last question on this, do you think the
GAO-IG Act possibly, I don't know how familiar you are with it,
could help ensure timely implementation of new and old
unimplemented recommendations?
Mr. Fine. Congressman, I believe it is important to focus
attention on open recommendations. We do the same thing, issue
a compendium of open recommendations. There's 1,200 of them in
the last 10 years. Some of them are very old.
I think anything that provides transparency and sunshine is
important. I believe in what Justice Brandeis said, ``Sunshine
is the best disinfectant.'' And that is important in terms of
follow-up of recommendations, as well.
Mr. Walker. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield the balance of my time
to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. Palmer. I thank the gentleman.
Going back to the contract issue, Ms. Lerner, in your
testimony you cite $500 billion in fiscal year 2017 and $700
billion in fiscal year 2018. Is that the sum of contract values
or does that include change orders?
Ms. Lerner. I think the $700 billion----
Mr. Palmer. Would you turn on your microphone?
Ms. Lerner. I'll get this eventually.
I think the $700 billion figure in my testimony was on
grants. The $500 billion figure was on contracts.
Mr. Palmer. Contracts.
Ms. Lerner. So they're usually relatively close to each
other with grants, you know, tipping a bit on an annual basis.
Mr. Palmer. What I'm trying to get to is this committee has
looked into issues where we have had substantial overruns in
contracts, particularly with embassies. And one of the problems
I think we're having through the Department of Defense is how
we appropriate money for certain projects. And there's pressure
felt by the various agencies, including the Department of
Defense, to start something before the contract design is ready
and consequently we run into major overruns. It's something
that I'm trying to develop a remedy for that I would like to
talk to you later.
In the final minute or 20 seconds that the gentleman has
yielded to me, you have all testified that there are agencies
that do not comply with directives or recommendations, nor do
they produce the requested progress or action reports. And this
is for all three of you. What needs to be done to motivate
agencies to comply?
Mr. Horowitz.
Mr. Horowitz. From my standpoint, I think being
transparent, letting the Congress, the public know.
One of the things, as I mentioned I implemented, was
posting them publicly. The first time we did that drill we had
800-plus open recommendations. I told the Attorney General, the
Deputy Attorney General, I was going to do that. They
immediately sent out all the open recommendations to all the
components, and our phones were ringing off the hook from the
component heads who wanted to close their recommendations
before they went public.
I agree completely with IG Fine, the sunlight here is the
key to that and holding people accountable to make sure these
get done. We have to do that. That's one of the tools in our
toolkit.
Mr. Fine. I agree with that, and when we issued our
compendium it got the attention of the Department leaders. They
have taken it very seriously. The Secretary of Defense has
asked people, where are you on these recommendations? The tone
gets set at the shop.
Sunshine is, I believe, the best disinfectant. One thing
you could consider is having a hearing on open recommendations.
These hearings matter, and people focus attention on it when
they have to.
Mr. Palmer. My concern is, is that some of the stuff is
carried over so long, particularly on improper payments, the
amount keeps going up. And my staff and I are looking for ways
to motivate, encourage, figure out some way to reduce those
payments and encourage more compliance, particularly with the
IGs' recommendations.
Mr. Horowitz. And if I could add on your point on
contracts, I think one of the things that struck us as we did
this report, and we talk about this in the report, is on
contract management and oversight within the agencies.
Our staffs, we get--our budgets generally are 0.3 percent
of the agency's budget. They're a very small number. The real
effective day-to-day oversight has to happen by management. It
has to happen in the agency.
And what I think we have talked about that surprised many
of us is the same problem we were seeing over and over again in
contract management, which is not enough people to do it. It is
viewed as a collateral duty often. We have had examples, we
have put out reports where the Department's components are
buying fuel and they're paying the invoice before knowing
whether the fuel is there.
Now, we have checked, and actually the goods were there.
But that's so basic you would expect that to be understood. And
the problem that we hear is, and we're not really in a position
to know if it is true or not, is: Well, I'm managing dozens and
dozens of contracts, I can't get out to look at the contract
prison regularly or the other facility that we're using.
And that's something I think we all need to think about,
whether we're doing all these contracts and contracting and
grants without getting the infrastructure to manage the
additional moneys that are going out the door, to your point.
Ms. Lerner. The same thing happens at my agency with
grants. You know, there are far too many grants and one person
has to see, and they just can't add the value that the American
taxpaying public needs.
Mr. Palmer. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina and
the chairman for their indulgence. I yield back.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I know you were asked some questions about the ethics,
compliance, and integrity within the agencies before. I wanted
to just come back to that a little bit because we're really
putting a focus on what kind of reforms might be appropriate,
what kinds of things that may be operated as guidelines or
norms, but not actually put into statute or regulation where it
might be appropriate to take that next step.
So maybe you could speak a little bit more, I'm
interested--I know there's been some attention drawn to some of
the ethical lapses of senior officials within some of these
agencies. And, obviously, that's a major concern for us here
because that kind of--the culture of integrity and adherence to
ethical norms and standards, obviously, begins at the top.
But I was curious if you could speak a little bit more to
how you see the ethical blindness or some of these issues, how
that actually does flow down through an agency, and, also, how
that information comes to you.
Are there surveys that surface the employees' concerns
about this? Is it more anecdotal? Is it your perception that
when there's ethical lapses it forces employees into a very
difficult position because they are having to in a sense defend
or protect supervisors or officials up the chain even though
they don't necessarily agree with that and it puts them in a
kind of untenable position?
What are some of the elements by which the culture is
damaged in an agency based on ethical lapses and morale
suffers? I'm interested in getting a little more granular on
that. And I invite anybody on the panel to respond.
Mr. Fine. So I'll try and unpack that question because
there's a lot in there. But I do agree that the tone gets sets
from the top, and it is very important for the ethical culture
to be set from the top and to make clear what is acceptable and
what is not, and then, when it is not, to hold people
accountable in a timely way.
I'm fortunate that in the Department of Defense the
Secretary of Defense takes that very seriously and has done
that regularly and publicly, and that's important to the
conduct.
We also look at trends, and the trends are actually pretty
good in the Department of Defense in terms of substantiated
misconduct. It has gone down. That doesn't mean any misconduct
is acceptable, but it is going in the right direction.
There does need to be education, and we need to have a role
in providing proactive education to people about what they
can't do, what they shouldn't do, how they should deal with
things, and what's going to happen if they do it. So that's
very important.
It is also very important to operate effective hotlines. We
have hotlines where we get anonymous complaints that people can
take, get exposed to us in an anonymous way or saying their
names. And either way we need to take it seriously.
We get a lot of them. We get about 13,000 a year. Many of
them are just frivolous or just can be dismissed immediately,
they are the wrong agency. But some of them are serious, and
that is an important way.
And ultimately it is important that people be clear that
there will be consequences for misconduct, and we play an
important role in that, as does the agency taking action on our
reports in a timely way.
Mr. Horowitz. I think one of the things that has changed
and has been an important change is the IGs posting public
summaries of misconduct findings by employees at the GS-15 and
above level. Some of us were doing that were before Congress
passed the IG Empowerment Act, but we're now all required to do
that.
I can tell you from our standpoint, when we started posting
those summaries, back to the point of sunlight being the best
disinfectant, we started seeing much quicker action, much
quicker responses by the Department in responding to those
findings, whereas before it could take months or years.
The Department quickly understood that they would be
getting inquiries, whether it was from Members of Congress,
whether it was from the public, whether it was from the press,
about our findings and whether they had taken action. And so
that has been important.
But I think that is one of the consistent frustrations
among the IG community, what IG Fine said, is there needs to be
timely response to misconduct, certainly at the highest levels,
but, frankly, at all levels.
If you talk to folks about culture, a lot of people will
say midlevel management is equally important if not more
important at some level, because those are the people who touch
everybody. Very important for tone to be set at the top, but
midlevel managers need to walk the walk on those issues.
And we are seeing improvement in the timeliness of taking
action, but that's something that I think the committee could
consider, how we make sure that people are held accountable in
a prompt and timely way. Justice delayed is justice denied at
all levels.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks very much. I yield back.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Maryland yields back.
The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized.
Mr. Sanford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to follow up on the question that's just being
asked, because if you cut to the chase fairly uniformly and
fairly consistently your recommendations are ignored.
What can be done to change that? I mean, part of it is what
you were just getting at. Are there other things that can be
done so that your findings are not ignored as they are?
I mean, I think it is amazing to think there are in essence
$100 billion worth of savings that are floating around out
there and that there are indeed 39,000 recommendations on your
site, and yet, you don't see all that much action relative to
the amount of data that you have out there suggesting change is
needed.
Mr. Horowitz. A couple things I'll pick up on that have
been mentioned that I think are important and others I think it
is important that we as IGs make known to the public and
they're transparent.
I think it is very important for Congress to do follow-up
as well as the IG. We consistently do follow-up, but we're not
management. And we can't, other than continuing to issue
reports, continuing to make public what we're finding, we're
not management, we're not ultimately the ones who are going to
implement it.
The other thing we did, and I met with Director Mulvaney
when he first came on board, he asked us to put together a list
of some of the bigger outstanding recommendations. We have done
that. And I think OMB can also play a role through the budget
process.
Mr. Sanford. If you were to pick the single, each one of
you were to pick the single most glaring example of waste in
your view, it would be what? Waste or inefficiency or something
that should be changed.
Mr. Horowitz. I can speak to the DOJ recommendations. Give
you an example, a couple years ago we issued a report where we
found that----
Mr. Sanford. Just shorter because I have only got 3
minutes.
Mr. Horowitz. The Bureau of Prisons was making multiples of
the Medicare rate for healthcare, and it is not capped like the
Department of Defense and others.
Mr. Sanford. So you would say Bureau of Prisons.
Mr. Horowitz. Hundred million dollars.
Mr. Sanford. Okay.
Ms. Lerner, you would say what? Just one.
Ms. Lerner. We have issued many recommendations related to
large facility construction at NSF, and they have actually
finally taken significant action to put policies and procedures
in place to make that better as a result of our work.
Mr. Sanford. Something more concrete.
And while you're thinking on it, Mr. Fine.
Mr. Fine. There's so much in the Department of Defense, but
you're asking for one, and I would just say duplicative lines
of effort. They're all doing similar things.
Mr. Sanford. I know, but that's nebulous.
Mr. Fine. Healthcare. Why do we have separate healthcare
systems? Why do we have separate PXs for different services?
Why do we have separate, I don't even know, suspension and
debarment offers? Why can't we have more centralized services
in the Department of Defense, rather than have each one of them
have their own PX, MX, healthcare clinic, things like that.
Mr. Sanford. Ms. Lerner, you were about to say?
Ms. Lerner. We have made so much progress with the agency,
I don't really have a glaring problem right now. I have some
minor issues, but we are in a pretty decent place.
Mr. Sanford. So the National Science Foundation is
government nirvana when it comes to waste, fraud, or abuse?
Ms. Lerner. I would not say that. But if you had asked me
this question 2 years ago I would have had an entirely
different answer for you.
Mr. Sanford. Okay. Quick question. Given the charges of
Russians, given Facebook, it just seems that the internet,
social media and data, is in the news. In reading through some
of your stuff there have been any number of different threats
in terms of data. You look at some of the big breaches over the
years.
Is there anything that jumps out at you from the standpoint
of making the data systems that we have at the government level
within your respective areas tighter and more secure?
Mr. Fine. Absolutely. We have issued reports on that. For
example, in the NSA, which has had data breaches, particularly
from insiders, that they do not have adequate controls on that
in terms of the privileged users, in terms of enclaves, in
terms of all sorts of things, that they need to tighten up
their systems.
Mr. Sanford. Do you think culture is right there? It's a
systems question or a culture question?
Mr. Fine. I think it's both. I think it's a combination of
both.
Mr. Sanford. Okay. I have got one more question I just
wanted to get to, which was I noticed deferred maintenance as
showing up, something in a couple of different reports. You
know, borrowing from Peter to pay for Paul seems to be the way
of government. Is there something that you think systematically
might address that, whether that is a capital account versus an
operating account? Is there something that could be more
concrete so that you don't see the level of deferred
maintenance that you all's reports seem to suggest exist?
Mr. Horowitz. Let me say I think from our standpoint we
have seen it in the prison system, aging prisons. And what
happens is there's such a focus on finding either new bed space
or other places and thinking new as opposed to fixing what's
old.
I think it's a priority and a management issue at a certain
level, a culture issue, that people aren't focused on
maintaining what they have. They're getting funding and they're
thinking about building new.
Mr. Sanford. Mr. Chairman, I see I've burned through my
time. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from South Carolina yields
back.
The chair will now recognize the gentlelady from New York.
Mrs. Maloney. I thank Chairman Gowdy for yielding.
And it is such a great pleasure to see our ranking member
strongly here fighting for the people. We welcome you back to
your good post and office for the people.
And I want to really thank very much the IGs for the role
that you are not only playing today, but that you play every
day in trying to maintain the trust of the public and the
integrity of our government.
And if our government doesn't have trust, and that's a big
part of your job, then the people won't follow it. So I think
your role is one of the most important in government and I want
to thank you for it.
And I think working together, if we work together, we're
going to be stronger in our oversight. And I welcome the
opportunity when more comes out from your reports to try to
implement them into positive action for change to make
government work better for the taxpayers and for everybody.
I want to compliment the chairman for having a hearing on
the Census. I believe it is May 6 coming up, right, May 6, and
I'm looking forward to it.
But I would like to place in the record several letters
that I've written to Secretary Ross requesting information
about controversial items in it for which I have received no
response. And I'm hoping that at the May 6 hearing--excuse me,
May 8 hearing--that the information will be provided so we can
discuss it.
At issue is something that is critical. The Census is the
only document that is required of the executive branch in the
Constitution. It is the largest peacetime undertaking that this
country does, and it becomes the focus of all of the research
for what we do as a country. It is critical.
The private sector cares just as much about it as the
public sector for our planning, and it is the basis of the
distribution of over 700 billion yearly in Federal funding for
healthcare, transportation, everything else.
And also the basis of representation. Our representation
numbers on the city, State, and Federal level are based on
Census, and they ask for everyone to be counted.
And at issue is this question that they added at the last
minute asking about citizenship when the studies of the Census
had showed, and by outside groups, that it decreases
participation, so therefore, it would lead to an inaccurate
Census and possibly more moneys that have to be spent on it.
So I just wanted to ask if the questions could be answered
for the hearing.
And also, along with the ranking member, I have put in a
bill called the IDEA Act, that you wouldn't do last minute
changes without studying what the impact would be on public
policy.
So I just wanted to put that in as a request for the May 8
hearing coming up that our oversight will be stronger.
I am interested, a lot of you have talked about
inefficiencies, and we need to get IT into all of our agencies,
and we need to coordinate it, and we need to make it work, and
it is not working. And if we can put a man on the moon, we can
figure out how to get good IT into all of our agencies.
That's one of the areas that you called and talked about as
being an important area we need to look at. And I think one of
your reports said, and I quote, that our IT is outdated,
obsolete. You're pretty damning about our IT.
In your testimony, Mr. Fine, you stated that DOD is, quote,
operating with many decentralized and noncompliant information
technology systems.
Why are we putting money into things that are
decentralized? We should try to centralize for our procurement,
for our sharing of information, and everything else. And yet, I
read that we have a big budget for this. We have a bigger
budget than most countries in the world.
So why can't we get there? Why can't we get our act
together, basically? And what can we do to conduct more
rigorous oversight, working together?
Congress would like to be a partner with you on seeing if
we can get our IT systems working in a better way. I mean, I
think we have an example of where technology has far outpaced
our ability to keep up with it.
Mr. Fine.
Mr. Fine. Yes, that comment had to do with the multitude of
financial feeder systems that feed into the main system, and
many of them are obsolete, they are old. It is part of the
problem, is each entity, each defense agency, each service
wants its own system, wants to customize its system, is wedded
to that system, and resists going to a centralized system.
The Department is moving towards that, to their credit.
It's going to take a while. IT systems are very difficult, very
challenging. You need adequate staff to do that. And even
hiring and retaining and growing adequate IT staff within the
agency, certainly in the Department of Defense and others, is a
challenge, particularly given the salaries the government pays
versus what they can get elsewhere.
So that is tremendous challenge. And if you're not moving
forward every day you're going to move backward. You're going
to be way behind. IT changes so quickly that this does have to
be a focus. I know the Department of Defense is focused on
that, but they need to move forward with it, and they are
trying to do that.
Mrs. Maloney. I wish you would--my time has expired--but if
you can get to the chairman some ideas in writing of how we
could maybe work.
It seems silly to build an IT system that's not centralized
in payment and everything else and information sharing. You
know, we have all these lists about bad contractors, don't hire
this contractor, but how do people access them?
Any ideas that you have to make that system work better, I
think that's something that we in a bipartisan way would
welcome.
My time has expired, way, way over. Thank you.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, if I could just add one thing.
Chairman Gowdy. Sure.
Mr. Connolly. I would say to my friend from New York, Mr.
Fine's testimony notwithstanding, it is important to note this
committee has the scorecard on FITARA and the Pentagon got an
F.
So in terms of progress this committee has yet to see it as
measured by metrics set by the GAO and this committee in terms
of implementation of the information technology modernization.
Thank you.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentlelady yields back.
I prefer to go last. We have got a great issue today, which
is we have had wonderful member participation on both sides. So
I'm going get the gentleman from Alabama to close out the
hearing, but I'm going ask my questions now, with apologies to
my friend from Wisconsin and Iowa.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Gowdy. Yes?
Mr. Connolly. I have not yet had a chance to ask questions.
Chairman Gowdy. I was not going to exclude you either.
You'll go right in between the two R's.
Mr. Connolly. I'll try to be brief. Thank you.
Chairman Gowdy. Inspector General Horowitz, the 2008
reform, why was it necessary? And what progress has been made
as a result of the 2008 reforms?
Mr. Horowitz. Well, the importance of the 2008 reforms was
creating the Council of the Inspectors General to bring
together the 73 IGs, to look at issues that transcend the
Federal Government, so that we're not just only running in our
own lanes but we're thinking across IGs.
And it in the 10 years we have been in existence has
helped, I think, immeasurably IGs think broader than just our
own agencies and our own oversight, whether it is the cross-
cutting reviews we have done about IT issues, we're working now
on a Native American review, a lot of agencies touched that.
And we have put together oversight.gov to put in one place
all the reports so that the public, Members of Congress, the
executive branch can see our work across the 73 IGs.
Chairman Gowdy. I want to ask you a two-part question.
Assuming no additional funding, what reform could be
implemented with respect to your jurisdiction that would show
progress?
So I'm not going to give you any money, but I'm going to
give you free rein to make any reform that you want with
respect to your oversight of the Department.
Mr. Horowitz. Well, I think the biggest ask we have had for
several years now during the IG Empowerment Act was the ability
to issue testimonial subpoenas, which obviously is a no-cost
issue, an important issue we have identified, we have worked
with this committee on. You have reported out a bill. I would
note that Mr. Fine and DOD IG has that authority, and that's
what we're looking for.
Chairman Gowdy. All right. Now I'm going to give you
whatever amount of money you want. What reform would you
implement that would help you provide oversight if costs were
not a consideration?
Mr. Horowitz. I think there are a couple of things we have
looked for on the IT side. We have looked to modernize our own
systems and create more systems that will demonstrate
transparency and give us and the public and the Congress
greater oversight on disaster assistance. Multibillion dollars
being sent out.
We want to build a web page that shows the oversight work
we have done, as we have talked about today in this hearing.
Putting forward our findings, particularly where there are
failures, is much more likely to trigger reform than just
keeping them in-house and the public not seeing them.
So what we would like to do is improve, build upon
oversight.gov, and build a platform that would show open
recommendations and allow those kind of issues to be seen more
by the public and Congress.
Chairman Gowdy. From time to time I'm a slow learner, and I
know you have explained this to me before, but I want to give
you a chance to do it again: The interplay between your agency
and the Office of Professional Responsibility within the
Department of Justice.
Mr. Horowitz. So we are the only IG office of the 73
Federal inspectors general that does not have the authority to
investigate misconduct by all employees in our agency. The
exclusion that Congress put in place in the IG Act is for
misconduct by lawyers in the Department, including prosecutors
when they engage in misconduct, ethical violations in the
courtroom.
We have asked for that authority for the 30 years since we
were created in 1988. Mr. Fine, when he was IG, spent 11 years
arguing for that authority. His predecessors did, as well.
We think independent oversight matters, having a
statutorily independent IG do that rather than having an
organization that's overseen by the Department's leadership.
It's long overdue. It's something that should be done.
Chairman Gowdy. Well, in my remaining time I am just going
to make an observation.
It seems like a tough political environment we find
ourselves in. It has, frankly, been that way the whole time I
have been in Congress. So increasingly folks are looking to you
as kind of that neutral, detached arbiter to kind of separate
out what facts are relevant, what's not, and what conclusions
we should draw from those facts.
But you're only as good as your access to information and
witnesses. Your experience with the Department the whole time,
crossing three AGs and two administrations.
Are you getting access to the physical evidence, the
documents, and the witnesses that you think you need to be able
to do your job in a way that is confidence inspiring for the
public?
Mr. Horowitz. Thanks to the help of the committee in
passing the IG Empowerment Act and all the hearings you held we
are getting access to records, the records that we need, the
documents we need, and we have the ability to subpoena third
parties if we need records.
On testimony, if an employee is in the Department of
Justice, we have the ability to compel their testimony under
the IG Act. That's fine.
The issue remains third parties. And we often get voluntary
cooperation with us. But if individuals don't speak to us
voluntarily, if there isn't the ability to work with a
prosecutor to issue a grand jury subpoena, we have no ability
to reach those individuals, even if they have highly relevant
evidence. In a whistleblower case, they might have retired, in
other misconduct cases, we can't get that evidence.
Chairman Gowdy. Well, I appreciate the work of all three of
you and all the inspectors general. I think the public really
does view you all as the neutral, detached umpires that you
would want doing this work.
With that, the gentleman from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair.
And building a little bit on what the chair was just
asking, Mr. Horowitz, you know, you want transparency, you want
cooperation. Surely that would also apply to the IGs
themselves, would it not?
Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. Because in order to have faith in your work,
and this committee certainly puts great faith in your work
collectively, you have to be unassailable, you collectively.
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. Connolly. If there's a taint or a tarnish or questions
of ethics or methodology, that could damage the entire
credibility of a report or an investigation undertaken by any
and all IGs. Is that a fair statement?
Mr. Horowitz. It is.
Mr. Connolly. So what is the process for looking at
yourselves to make sure that those standards are adhered to and
complaints are judiciously and transparently adjudicated?
Mr. Horowitz. So one of the reforms that occurred in 2008
with the amendment to the IG Act was the creating of an
Integrity Committee. That was at the time chaired by the FBI.
That had seven members at the time, four of whom were IGs
appointed by the chair of CIGIE and the FBI appointee chairing
it, a representative from the Office of Government Ethics and
the Office of Special Counsel, the special counsel.
That process was changed with the IG Empowerment Act a year
and a half ago because of concerns over how it was being run
and operated and handled. And so Congress changed the process,
so now there is an IG chair of the committee.
Mr. Connolly. Instead of the FBI?
Mr. Horowitz. Instead of the FBI. The FBI is still a
member, but it is now a six-member committee. The special
counsel is no longer a member of the committee because of
potential conflicts that arose when there were whistleblower
issues that were within the special counsel's jurisdiction.
They wanted to make sure that that didn't occur.
And over the last year we have been transitioning control
over records from the FBI to the Council of IGs, the challenge
being because CIGIE has no appropriation and had no systems or
systems of records in place to control, collect those records.
We had to go forward and follow for public comments,
regulations, we have to create a data system.
So we have been doing that over the last year. It has taken
us some time. But, frankly, we have asked for funding to help
do that. We still don't have funding, so we're doing it through
the volunteer contributions of the membership.
Mr. Connolly. Something Congress obviously has to look at.
Ms. Lerner, you have the title of vice chair of CIGIE. Is
that correct?
Ms. Lerner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Connolly. And let me see, in fiscal year 2017 your
committee, the Integrity Committee, received 59 allegations of
IG misconduct. Is that correct? Take it on faith.
Ms. Lerner. If you have read that from reporting from
CIGIE, I'm assuming that's correct.
Mr. Connolly. All right. Of those 59, 50 closed with no
referral for investigation. Sound familiar?
Ms. Lerner. It does.
Mr. Connolly. Six were referred to another agency. And 2,
only 2, were referred to the Integrity Committee for further
investigation, 2 out of 59.
Now, without knowing the particulars, and maybe some of
them are frivolous and maybe some of them are just, you know,
payback, anyone can file a complaint, but just the raw numbers
and my own experience, frankly, with CIGIE would suggest that
the robustness of the willingness to investigate one's own is
lacking.
Ms. Lerner. I'm sorry that it appears that way. I can say
as someone who served on the Integrity Committee that we looked
at the allegations that came in really seriously. I was on it
several years ago. But we took our responsibilities very
seriously.
Mr. Connolly. Well, Ms. Lerner, I happen to be somebody who
filed a complaint along with a colleague on this committee. Two
of us from this committee filed a complaint against a specific
IG.
And I can tell you the process was most unsatisfying. It
wasn't rigorous. There wasn't accountability. There was no
explanation for the decision taken. There was no point-by-point
response to a fairly carefully worded complaint that was rather
lengthy. That's a pretty unsatisfying process for somebody
concerned about integrity.
Ms. Lerner. And I believe that that's one of the reasons
that we have seen some of the changes that we are seeing now,
that the frustrations that you felt and that some of us as
members on the committee felt at that time led to the shift
from the committee from the FBI's responsibility to CIGIE.
And I know that there are other changes that have been made
to try to respond to the type of frustration that you felt and
that some of us that served on the committee felt to make it
better.
Mr. Connolly. Well, I invite you and your colleagues, and
Mr. Horowitz and I have talked about this, but I am determined
that we're going to codify the process.
This committee on a bipartisan basis has to be assured as
to the integrity of IGs as they do their work. They can't be
compromised on partisan politics, they can't be compromised on
any grounds. Because we want you to work. We want you to be
successful. We want people automatically to assume that what
you are saying is a truthful rendition, unbiased, of where the
truth took you.
So look for legislation, and we could do it cooperatively
or not. But we are not satisfied with the process based on our
own experience. And I believe we are going to have to engage in
some codification.
I know my time is up, Mr. Chairman, but if you would allow
Mr. Horowitz to comment, he seems eager to comment on this
matter, and I will then yield back. I thank the chair.
Mr. Horowitz. Can I just briefly?
I certainly appreciate your concerns. We met shortly after
you became chair in 2015. And I think we have seen--we worked
with Congress on reforms that were needed and put in place in
the IG Empowerment Act.
I'm certainly happy to work with you and other members of
this committee on further reforms because we agree completely
that you, the public, in particular, at large needs to
understand, and people in our own agencies, that we're being
watched as well if there's something we did that was improper
or incorrect.
And, in fact, one of the things we did, and the report is
up here with the Congress as required by statute, we have put
in place twice revisions to the procedures and policies of the
Integrity Committee to address some of the concerns that we
spoke about.
And so I certainly take them seriously. I know IG Lerner
takes them seriously from her service on the committee. I have
never been on the committee. And I think it is very important
that we do the right thing by that and look forward to working
with you on it.
Mr. Palmer. [Presiding.] The gentleman yields back.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
Grothman, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Grothman. Sure, I have a couple of questions.
First of all, the report in general identifies procurement
planning as a challenge. Give us an example about how the lack
of enterprise-level procurement planning has impacted your
agencies.
Mr. Fine. I think, for example, in the Department of
Defense there are many issues with procurement, including
moving forward without having a requirement set. Often we have
requirements from different parts of the Department of Defense,
and it is hard to adjustment to them.
The F-35 fighters are, for example, a big one, and that has
created challenges and cost overruns because of the differing
requirements. So there's a massive amount of money in it, and
we need to make sure it's effectively moved forward.
Mr. Grothman. Okay.
General question. We talked before about waste, fraud, and
abuse. You know, that's a famous saying that's been around here
probably when I was a child. I guess I'll deal with each one
separately.
With regard to fraud, if there is genuine fraud, do you see
a follow-up or consequences for the employees involved in that
fraud?
Mr. Horowitz. I would say it depends, frankly. It varies
among the components in the Department. And one of the things
we have worked hard to do in our OIG is not only alert
management of the components, law enforcement going into other
components when we have had other concerns, but, frankly,
report to the Deputy Attorney General and the Attorney General
so that action is taken to reform the process.
Mr. Grothman. Now, I'm just going to say reform the
process. Fraud means criminal, right?
Mr. Horowitz. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were talking
about the misconduct side of it.
I agree. We bring it to prosecutors because we don't have
the authority to prosecute. And I will say from my standpoint
one of our frustrations has been some of what I'll call the
smaller dollar frauds that may not meet threshold levels in
U.S. Attorney's Offices because they're busy with so many other
matters, making sure those get attention.
That can be a challenge because I don't have, frankly, like
at DOD perhaps, frauds that involve tens of millions of
dollars. Nevertheless these are government officials engaging
in wrongdoing, theft, fraud. Those people need to be held
accountable criminally if they have engaged in a crime.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. And kind of a follow-up. Accountable
could be two things. Accountable could be at a minimum fired
and then appropriately criminal. What do you think usually
happens, criminally, fired, or nothing at all?
Mr. Horowitz. Again, I would say it depends. It is a
challenge for us to get the kind of cases we want taken
criminally at times.
If there's outright fraud and criminal conduct we do see
the agencies taking action ultimately. Our concern is
timeliness, particularly for someone who is engaged in criminal
activity, we think.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Oh, I'm sorry, Ms. Lerner. You were
going to say something.
Ms. Lerner. If I might add on that point, we've had some
success. We have some of the same situations that Mr. Horowitz
does with some of our cases being--the dollar amounts being not
sufficient to interest Federal prosecutors, but we've had great
luck with some State and local prosecutions. And the agency,
you know, has usually removed the person, you know, even before
those move forward.
But we try, if we can't get it at the State--you know,
we'll talk to any prosecutor that has an appropriate violation
that can work with us.
Mr. Grothman. And, Mr. Fine, obviously, we have--I mean, we
are again and again told we have to spend more money on
defense. And this budget, I think, contains a 10.5 percent
spending increase. Maybe a little more than I would have
preferred. But you read about stories about waste in the
Department of Defense, and some of that's not criminal, but
some is just amazing.
Are there any consequences for people who come up with
these amazing stories you talk about in the Department of
Defense, or do they just keep on with their same position or
rank or whatever?
Mr. Fine. It depends. It varies. Sometimes there are
consequences both in terms of not getting promoted, moved out,
not being viewed as effective. Sometimes there are not
consequences and people continue on. It really does depend on
the circumstances and often depends on the leader.
Any time there is that amount of money, there is going to
be inefficiencies, waste and fraud, and it varies across the
board. And there ought to be consequences for that.
Mr. Grothman. Right. I guess the question is, you know,
when you hear about massive cost overruns or things that
shouldn't happen, does anybody pay a price for that or they
just hang around with, perhaps, the ability to do it again and
again?
Mr. Fine. Like I say, it depends on the circumstances. It
depends at what level it is. It depends who was responsible for
it and why it happened. And sometimes it's judgments, you know,
where mistakes were made, but sometimes things that are
avoidable.
And so I can't say there are never any consequences. But
are there always consequences? No.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Well, I'd like to thank you all for
being here today. It always makes a great day when I look at my
committee schedule and I get to see the IGs here. So thanks.
Mr. Palmer. The gentleman yields.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Blum,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Blum. Thank you, Chairman Palmer.
And thank you to the panelists for being here today. And
thank for what you do in the IG community. It's very much
appreciated.
I think I'm the last questioner, so that's good news.
I'm from the private sector, and seldom does a day go by in
the Federal Government that I don't shake my head. I view
Congress as the board of directors of a very large enterprise
doing trillions of dollars of business, and I see the IG
community as our auditors.
So I want your opinions on some of these questions. I want
to go to the 60,000-foot level, if we could.
First of all, is there accountability, in your opinion, in
our agencies in the Federal Government?
Mr. Horowitz. From my perspective, in our agency,
sometimes. It varies.
Mr. Blum. Thank you for your honesty.
Is there accountability?
Ms. Lerner. I think I would have to agree with my
colleague, Mr. Horowitz. Sometimes.
Mr. Blum. Department of Defense, accountability?
Mr. Fine. That's the exact words I wrote down here. It
varies. Sometimes there is and sometimes there's not.
Mr. Blum. And the second part, coming from the private
sector, of that question, I always would say, in my companies,
as evidenced by what? So if there is accountability, as
evidenced by what?
Where I'm heading here is what percentage of Federal
employees are terminated every year? What percentage of
management is terminated every year?
Because I have sat here and asked witnesses about $370
million of an IT project that was scrapped after 4 years, $370
million of taxpayers' money. And I asked, did anyone lose their
job? And the answer was no.
You got to be kidding me.
So, I mean, what percent of our workforce in the Federal
Government is terminated?
Mr. Horowitz. I wouldn't know what percent of the Federal
workforce. Again, we could speak anecdotally to what we've seen
as IGs in our own agencies.
Mr. Blum. Okay, give me that answer. Is it enough?
Mr. Horowitz. People are not held accountable in a timely
fashion sufficiently, from my standpoint. And, again, it
varies. I've been here a few times for hearings about some of
the issues with DEA, other parts of the Department, giving
bonuses to people who engaged in wrongdoing. As you recall, a
couple of years ago----
Mr. Blum. Or the IRS rehiring people that on their job
thing says, ``Do not rehire.''
Mr. Horowitz. What message does that send, where you not
only not take action against people, but you give them a
reward, a bonus, an acknowledgment for the work they've done?
Mr. Blum. Only here. Only here in the Federal Government.
Ms. Lerner, Mr. Fine, anything as far as termination
percentages? If you don't know the exact number, I mean, should
it be more? How do you hold people accountable?
Mr. Fine. I don't know the exact number.
In the Department of Defense what often happens, though, is
if you're not promoted, you're out. And so sometimes this does
have consequences, bad evaluation reports, and they do have to
leave.
But it does vary. It depends on the circumstances. So I
think you can't just have one general comment about that.
Mr. Blum. Because I only have 2 minutes left, let's look at
the positive side of this. And I often talk about incentives.
And there's incentives in the private sector to save money, for
example, in a corporation.
Are there incentives in the Federal Government to save
taxpayer money? Are there incentives to report--what's the
incentive to report fraud? What's the incentive to report
abuse, waste, fraud, and abuse? What are the incentives,
though?
I think they're upside down in the Federal Government
compared to the private sector. Maybe we need more incentives.
Maybe there need to be monetary incentives for people to save
the taxpayers' money. I'd like to have your thoughts on that.
Mr. Fine. Here's one incentive that is different in the
Federal Government that I'd ask you to consider. If an agency
does its work and doesn't spend all its money, then the next
year the money gets taken away and their budget is cut and
they're not praised for performing their mission effectively
with a lower budget. It is, oh, you really didn't need the
money.
And so there's an incentive to spend it all at the end of
the year. That's a disincentive. That's a perverse incentive,
in my view.
And that's an issue I think is important, that does differ
a little bit from the private sector where, if you do the job
without spending all the money, there's more praise than in the
Federal Government.
Mr. Blum. Can you imagine if our Federal employees got a
small percentage as a bonus of the money they saved the
American taxpayer? Can you imagine unleashing that across our
Federal agencies, how much waste we could reduce? Does that
have merit? Does that idea have merit in the Federal
Government, in your opinion? Anyone.
Mr. Horowitz. Look, I think one of the challenges we face
is an inability to reward our strongest performers, other than
we, obviously, have honor awards. We give other recognition
out. We are able to give some recognition each year in terms of
bonuses.
But our bonus pools, just as an example, are about 1.5
percent or less of salaries, and compared to from my time in
the law firm world, that's a pretty small comparable number in
terms of bonus.
Mr. Blum. My time is up. But I think we need to do a better
job of holding people accountable and/or terminating them. And
we also need to do a better job of rewarding performers with
incentives.
My time is up. But thank you so much for what the IG
community does.
I yield back.
Mr. Palmer. I thank the gentleman for that excellent line
of questions.
I thank the witnesses for appearing before us today. I
think this has been a constructive hearing. I think I can speak
for my colleagues that this is an area and these are issues
that you will have bipartisan support in trying to address.
It's a very important effort that needs to be undertaken.
The hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks for any
member to submit an opening statement or for questions for the
record.
If there's no further business, without objection, the
committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:09 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]