[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                    THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE'S 
                              2023 HIGH RISK LIST

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             APRIL 26, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-24

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
  
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  


                       Available on: govinfo.gov,
                         oversight.house.gov or
                             docs.house.gov
                             
                               __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
52-119 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                             
                             
               COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                    JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman

Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking 
Mike Turner, Ohio                        Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina            Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Gary Palmer, Alabama                 Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Pete Sessions, Texas                 Ro Khanna, California
Andy Biggs, Arizona                  Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Nancy Mace, South Carolina           Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Jake LaTurner, Kansas                Katie Porter, California
Pat Fallon, Texas                    Cori Bush, Missouri
Byron Donalds, Florida               Shontel Brown, Ohio
Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota        Jimmy Gomez, California
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
William Timmons, South Carolina      Robert Garcia, California
Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Maxwell Frost, Florida
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Becca Balint, Vermont
Lisa McClain, Michigan               Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Greg Casar, Texas
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Dan Goldman, New York
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina        Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Nick Langworthy, New York
Eric Burlison, Missouri

                       Mark Marin, Staff Director
       Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
                 Alex Rankin, Professional Staff Member
                Sarah Feeney, Professional Staff Member
                Kim Waskowsky, Professional Staff Member
                        Ryan Giachetti, Counsel
      Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk

                      Contact Number: 202-225-5074

                  Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director
                      Contact Number: 202-225-5051
                                 ------                                
                         
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              

                                                                   Page

Hearing held on April 26, 2023...................................     1

                               Witnesses

                              ----------                              

The Honorable Gene L Dodaro, Comptroller General, Government 
  Accountability Office (accompanied by expert witnesses)
Oral Statement...................................................     5

Written opening statements of the Members and the statement for 
  the witness are available on the U.S. House of Representatives 
  Document Repository at: docs.house.gov.

                           Index of Documents

                              ----------                              

  * Statement for the Record; submitted by Rep. Connolly.

  * Report, GAO, ``Tax Compliance: Trends of IRS Audit Rates and 
    Results for Individual Taxpayers by Income''; submitted by 
    Rep. Ocasio-Cortez.

  * Questions for the Record: to Hon. Dodaro; submitted by Rep. 
    Comer.

  * Questions for the Record: to Hon. Dodaro; submitted by Rep. 
    Gosar.

  * Questions for the Record: to Hon. Dodaro; submitted by Rep. 
    Fallon.

  * Questions for the Record: to Hon. Dodaro; submitted by Rep. 
    Perry.

Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.

 
       THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE'S 2023 HIGH RISK LIST

                              ----------                              


                       Wednesday, April 26, 2023

                       House of Representatives,

               Committee on Oversight and Accountability,

                                                   Washington, D.C.

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in 
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James Comer 
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Comer, Gosar, Foxx, Grothman, 
Palmer, Sessions, Biggs, Mace, Fallon, Donalds, Armstrong, 
Timmons, Burchett, Greene, McClain, Boebert, Fry, Luna, 
Langworthy, Burlison, Raskin, Norton, Krishnamoorthi, Khanna, 
Ocasio-Cortez, Porter, Bush, Brown, Stansbury, Garcia, Frost, 
Balint, Lee, Casar, Crockett, Goldman, and Moskowitz.
    Chairman Comer. The Committee on Oversight and 
Accountability will come to order.
    I want to welcome everyone here this morning.
    Without objection, the Chair may call a recess at any time.
    I recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening 
statement.
    Today's hearing is an opportunity for this Committee to 
leverage an important tool in combating waste, fraud, abuse, 
and mismanagement while safeguarding taxpayer dollars. That 
tool is the Government Accountability Office's 2023 High-Risk 
List. The 37 areas contained on this list represent programs 
within the Federal Government where there is a high risk for 
fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement. The list measures 
progress and deficiencies so that Congress can take action to 
conduct meaningful oversight and make those programs more 
efficient.
    Federal Government programs created and funded by Congress 
must fulfill their intended purpose and meet mission objectives 
while being careful stewards of taxpayer dollars. Yet too 
often, massive Federal programs struggle to meet their 
objectives and become vulnerable to fraud and abuse. The High-
Risk List is a critical tool for evaluating whether the 
programs created and funded by Congress are working as designed 
for the American people.
    The Government Accountability Office, or GAO, publishes 
this report at the start of each Congress. GAO's High-Risk 
Report provides status updates on how programs are performing 
and recommendations on ways they could improve. The 37 areas on 
the list all present either a financial risk of loss of at 
least $1 billion taxpayer dollars--that is a billion with a 
``B''--or a risk involving public health or safety, delivery of 
essential services to America's national security concerns, 
economic growth, privacy, or the rights of citizens. Important 
things are at stake here.
    Despite GAO's best efforts to highlight problems and 
propose solutions, waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal 
Government is ever present. GAO has supplied this report to 
Congress for more than 30 years. Unfortunately, some programs 
have appeared on this list since the beginning. Fortunately, 
this Committee has returned its attention and resources to 
focus on its core missions: to ensure government is working for 
the American people in an efficient manner, to ensure agencies 
safeguard taxpayer funds from fraudsters and ineligible 
participants, and to hold leaders accountable when they fail to 
perform.
    This Committee's very first hearing of the 118th Congress, 
which included testimony from Comptroller General Dodaro, 
focused on the rampant waste, fraud, and abuse in COVID relief 
programs, leading to billions in waste and improper payments, 
with tens of billions of funds going to transnational criminal 
organizations instead of their intended recipients. Today, our 
Committee will also examine the roughly $250 billion lost to 
waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement annually outside of 
COVID relief programs. This includes improper payments in the 
Medicaid and National Flood Insurance Program, waste due to 
outdated cybersecurity measures and a lack of preparation for 
future disasters, mismanagement of Department of Defense's 
finances and in the Federal prison system. All of these 
programs have been highlighted on the High-Risk List.
    GAO's work makes clear we need to have more oversight, 
tracking, and data collection to determine how taxpayer dollars 
are being spent. GAO estimates that just since last Congress' 
report, there has already been about $100 billion in Federal 
savings because of improvements to areas included on the 
previous High-Risk List. And why is that? Because effective 
oversight works. It works to expose and prevent waste, fraud, 
and abuse, it works to safeguard taxpayer dollars, and it works 
for the American people.
    We made a commitment in the 118th Congress to restore 
accountability not only with this Committee, but the entire 
House of Representatives, and that is what we are here for 
today. I will look forward to hearing from Comptroller General 
Dodaro on the work GAO is doing and how this Committee can 
seize opportunities to prevent waste, fraud, abuse, and 
mismanagement in the Federal Government. And with that, I yield 
to the Ranking Member Raskin for his opening statement.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 
thank you for calling this very important hearing with the GAO 
on its recently released 2023 High-Risk List. For more than 30 
years, GAO has released this list at the beginning of each 
Congress. The report identifies key areas where we need to 
ensure that the Federal Government works effectively for the 
American people and not effectively against us. So, the report 
has been North Star for government efficiency, illuminating a 
path forward for Congress and the executive branch to better 
serve the needs and the priorities of American people. I want 
to thank Comptroller General Gene Dodaro for testifying before 
the Committee today and for his extraordinary 50 years of 
exemplary service of the people at GAO. That is a half century 
committed to the American people.
    I want to echo the Chairman in saying that GAO's 
independent, nonpartisan work is critical to the mission of 
efficient government, serving the public, and rooting out waste 
of taxpayer money, financial fraud, and self-dealing abuses of 
power. GAO plays a pivotal role in this process. The List 
identifies the areas of Federal operations most in need of 
transformation and improvement. Every two years, GAO rates 
progress or backsliding from the last report and makes specific 
recommendations for executive branch agencies and Congress 
where we can make progress. The recommendations save American 
taxpayers billions of dollars, improve service to the public, 
and strengthen government performance.
    Since 2006, the financial benefit of addressing these high-
risk areas has totaled a jaw-dropping $675 billion. Let me 
repeat that. Addressing the high-risk areas has provided 
taxpayers $675 billion in financial benefits. If Ben Franklin 
was right that a penny saved is a penny earned, that is $675 
billion earned to the American people, an amount 100 times 
more--I observed this morning--more than 100 times more than 
Fox is going to have to pay Dominion for what just happened 
there. So, investing in our Federal operations in oversight, in 
leadership, in practical solutions, and in resources yields 
extraordinary concrete benefits to the American people, 
including better customer service, a more efficient government 
in these billions dollars.
    [Chart]
    Mr. Raskin. The 2023 list highlights 37 areas across the 
Federal Government that are at greatest risk today of waste, 
fraud, and mismanagement, and that need broad structural 
reform. When we looked at the 2021 High-Risk List, 16 high-risk 
areas saw improvements and two were removed from the High-Risk 
List entirely. According to GAO, this is the most progress made 
by Congress in the government since GAO started issuing the 
ratings eight years ago. Progress can be seen in directly 
improved services to the public and in the agencies' enhanced 
ability to achieve their missions. This is tangible evidence of 
the Biden-Harris Administration's and the Democratic Majority's 
commitment to work for the American people and deliver 
meaningful results over the last Congress.
    While we are encouraged by the progress outlined in this 
year's report, there is much more work to be done, of course. 
Since 2021, one high-risk area regressed and three new problem 
areas were added. This is a reminder that we have to do more to 
hold the agencies accountable. We hope the majority and our 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle will work together to 
implement lasting solutions. This means we must ensure 
continuing key investments in our operations and implementation 
of policy changes. This public philosophy must take precedence 
over the suddenly fashionable drive to dismember our country's 
critical programs, including the social safety net, healthcare, 
science, education, climate, energy, labor, research, and 
oversight itself, as outlined in the short-sighted pennywise 
and pound foolish debt ceiling proposal.
    The so-called Limit, Save, Grow Act, better known as the 
Default on Our Debt Act, would make destabilizing and 
indiscriminate across-the-board board cuts of an estimated 22 
percent to most agency budgets, plunging the government into 
uncertainty and triage mode without the resources to continue 
making improvements in the high-risk areas. These slash-and-
burn cuts proposed by House Republicans threaten to reverse 
dramatic progress made in the high-risk areas and make many of 
our problems worse. They would undermine the crucial progress 
we made toward addressing the skills gap in the work force, 
defund our work to protect the Nation from devastating 
cyberattacks, pit safety and efficiency against each other in 
our transportation systems, slow down Social Security checks, 
and cause significant reductions in the number of people served 
by affordable housing programs.
    And this is the tip of the iceberg. These cuts would even 
eliminate millions of dollars in funding for oversight of 
pandemic aid and for the oversight work that the Comptroller 
General is here to tell us about today, oversight work that we 
all claim to value so much. Members in this hearing room cannot 
say that they want the Federal Government to best serve the 
American people and then walk over to the Capitol to vote for a 
bill that will totally frustrate this goal. One agency official 
stated the cuts would ``cause significant damage to national 
security, economic competitiveness, American jobs, disaster 
preparedness, and the natural environment.''
    Instead of implementing widespread cuts that would halt 
most of the gains made on high-risk areas between 2021 and 
2023, executive branch agencies and Congress need to believe in 
the value that comes from a well-functioning Federal 
Government, a government that serves everyone. Executive branch 
agencies and Congress must commit to addressing hundreds of 
open GAO recommendations to bring about the lasting corrective 
solutions we need to the remaining 37 high-risk areas. 
Persistent and prudent congressional oversight and thoughtful 
legislative solutions are essential to achieve greater 
progress. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you on 
making that happen, and I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The Ranking Member yields back. I am 
pleased to welcome back to the Committee today's witness, 
Comptroller General Gene Dodaro, who brings more than 49 years 
of experience at the U.S. Government Accountability Office and 
has served as head of the Agency since 2010. As Comptroller 
General, Mr. Dodaro helps oversee the development and issuance 
of hundreds of reports and testimonies each year to Congress. 
These products have led to hearings and legislation, billions 
of dollars in taxpayer savings, and improvements to a wide 
range of government programs and services.
    He has testified before Congress dozens of times to provide 
nonpartisan insights into some of our most pressing Federal 
oversight issues. His leadership with GAO has led to billions 
in taxpayer savings and crucial evaluations of whether 
government programs and services are meeting congressional 
intent. Thank you for joining us today, and I look forward to 
our discussion this morning.
    Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), Mr. Dodaro, will you and 
your staff please stand and raise your right hand?
    Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you 
are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    Chairman Comer. Let the record show that the witnesses all 
answered in the affirmative.
    We appreciate you all being here and look forward to your 
testimony. I recognize Mr. Dodaro to please begin his five-
minute opening statement.

                      STATEMENT OF GENE L. DODARO

                          COMPTROLLER GENERAL

                    GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

    Mr. Dodaro. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 
Raskin, Members of the Committee. I am very pleased to be here 
today to talk about our latest high-risk update. The story of 
this update is progress, but many pressing serious 
consequential problems still need to be addressed.
    On the progress front, and I would commend the Congress for 
a number of things that they did to contribute to this 
progress. First was to provide funding to the Pension Benefit 
Guaranty Corporation, which is coming off the list. Congress 
also provided funding for surface transportation, dealt with 
some fiscal relief to the Postal Service over this past year, 
passed a number of provisions to build better climate 
resilience up front, and this dealt with many of the issues, 
and it contributed greatly to the progress as well as efforts 
by the executive branch.
    Now, there is progress in 16 areas, two of which we are 
going to take off the list. One is the Pension Benefit Guaranty 
Corporation. When we were here last time, the Multi-employer 
Program was due to be insolvent in 2026, and due to the action 
that the Congress has taken now and some improvements that have 
helped in the Single-Employer Program, the PBGC now rates the 
risk of insolvency very low for the next 15 years, so we are 
going to take that off the list. Now, just because it is off 
the list doesn't mean it is out of sight. We are going to 
continue to monitor it because it doesn't solve the long-term 
problems in that program.
    We are also taking the 2020 Census off the list because of 
improvements made. This was the first census with an internet 
response. They were able to contain the cost growth in annual 
censuses from the pattern that had emerged earlier. They 
delivered it during a pandemic. There are still a lot of issues 
in terms of the quality of the count that need to be worked on 
going forward. Again, we will keep an eye on this area as 
planning for the 2030 Census ramps up going forward.
    Now, there are a number of areas still on the list that I 
think are very significant that I want to point out to you. No. 
1 is cybersecurity, and I first added that to the High-Risk 
List across government in 1997. I still don't think the Federal 
Government is operating at a pace commensurate with the 
evolving grave threat in the cybersecurity area, not only to 
protect its own assets but critical infrastructure protection 
throughout the United States. The Administration has just put 
out a national strategy that we have been calling for, but it 
does not yet have a detailed implementation plan with 
milestones, resources, clear roles and responsibilities, so we 
are going to need to be continue to focus on this area. We have 
850 open recommendations yet in the cybersecurity area that we 
have made, and so that area is very important, I believe, for 
Congress to continue to focus on.
    The second is drug misuse. We added this area a while back, 
you know, very concerned in the last 12-month period that the 
CDC has been measuring, there have been over 107,000 overdose 
deaths. This is the most in the history of the United States. 
It has been over 100,000 now for the past two or three years. 
The trend is not good. We have called for a national strategy 
with coordination not only among Federal agencies, but between 
Federal, state, and local governments, the healthcare sector, 
the law enforcement sector. Just this month, earlier, the 
Office of National Drug Control Policy put out an emerging 
threat alert because of the combination of fentanyl with 
xylazine, which is a horse tranquilizer, is becoming very 
problematic in this area and leading to additional 
complications. So, they have to put out a report now within 90 
days on how they are going to deal with this next evolving 
issue in this area.
    Last, I will point out the area of oversight of medical 
products and safety. You know, most of our products now come 
from foreign sources. We have encouraged FDA to have more 
oversight over that area, and I think we still are at risk of 
drug shortages. And the medical supply chain issue needs to be 
dealt with much more effectively than it has been dealt with 
before, and we have some suggestions on how that could be done.
    And so, I am happy to talk about any of these high-risk 
areas in the question-and-answer section. I appreciate the 
opportunity to be here today to discuss these very important 
issues with all of you and hopefully help set the oversight 
table going forward.
    Chairman Comer. Thank you very much. We look forward to a 
very substantive question and answer session, and I will begin.
    Mr. Comptroller General, what is the total amount of 
improper payments that GAO estimates were made last year across 
the Federal Government?
    Mr. Dodaro. Last year, across Federal Government, the 
cumulative total of the estimates made by the agencies was $247 
billion.
    Chairman Comer. Hmm.
    Mr. Dodaro. Mr. Chairman, if I might add, that estimate is 
not complete. There are a number of programs where estimates 
were not made, like the Pandemic Unemployment Insurance 
Program. Since 2003, these estimates have totaled $2.3 
trillion. This is a trend that was a problem before the 
pandemic.
    Chairman Comer. Yes.
    Mr. Dodaro. It got worse during the pandemic.
    Chairman Comer. Two-point-three trillion. So, since 2000, 
it would be roughly $2-and-a-half trillion?
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
    Chairman Comer. Two-and-a-half trillion dollars.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
    Chairman Comer. What are the worst programs for improper 
payments over that time?
    Mr. Dodaro. Over that time, yes, the Medicaid Program has 
the highest total for the last couple years: $98 billion in 
2021, $80 billion in 2022. Medicare Program is about $47, $49 
billion over the last two years. The Unemployment Insurance 
Program, it is $78 billion in 2021, about $19 billion in 2022.
    Chairman Comer. Geez.
    Mr. Dodaro. The Earned Income Tax Credit----
    Chairman Comer. Mm-hmm.
    Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. Has been about $18 billion a year. 
And then in 2022, which is the first year the Emergency Loan 
Programs----
    Chairman Comer. Oh.
    Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. Of SBA were a $36 billion 
estimate. We encouraged them to make that estimate. They didn't 
make it in 2021, but they made it in 2022.
    Chairman Comer. That is sickening. Last Congress, we heard 
from you about the need for more oversight over pandemic relief 
funds. As you testified at the 2021 high-risk hearing, ``When 
you are spending close to a trillion dollars, you also need 
good accountability and transparency,'' and guess what Congress 
did with that important advice that you gave this Committee? It 
rushed out another $1.9 trillion in alleged pandemic relief, 
but Congress didn't stop there. Congress also spent another $2 
trillion of taxpayer dollars in Green New Deal spending in the 
infrastructure package, CHIPS and Science Act, and our favorite 
misnomer, the Inflation Reduction Act, which I am not going to 
get into that. As with any massive spending bill, oversight is 
critical to ensure that funds are being used toward their 
intended purpose.
    What has GAO learned about the Federal Government's ability 
to conduct internal oversight since your last high-risk update, 
and is the Federal Government truly equipped to oversee the 
disbursement of trillions of dollars under such a short 
timeframe?
    Mr. Dodaro. There are additional areas that I have 
recommended both to the Congress and the executive branch that 
need to be dealt with. First of all, the agencies need to 
implement better fraud reduction measures. That is the only 
real solution to this problem. Really, it is difficult to catch 
all the people that have committed the fraud afterwards and 
then even more difficult to collect the money. I worked with 
the Congress back in 2016. We passed this Fraud Reduction Act, 
and the agencies were slow to implement it, and so they weren't 
very prepared for additional funding.
    Chairman Comer. Yes.
    Mr. Dodaro. You need better internal controls, better 
management, more aggressive oversight. And I have about a dozen 
legislative proposals that----
    Chairman Comer. Right.
    Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. I have to help deal with this 
issue going forward.
    Chairman Comer. I look forward to receiving that, so thank 
you for your insight. As I mentioned earlier in my opening 
statement, many of the issues we face today began long before 
the pandemic. The 2023 High-Risk Report served, once again, as 
an alarming reminder of the extent of the improper payment 
issues facing Medicare and Medicaid. Last year, Medicare 
improperly paid roughly $47 billion and Medicaid improperly 
paid nearly $81 billion. Why do these programs have such 
massive issues with improper payments?
    Mr. Dodaro. Well, there are a lot of factors that 
contribute to it. In Medicare, what needs to be done is there 
needs to be more timely measures of the contract audits for 
Medicare Advantage, which is about half of the spending in 
Medicare now.
    Chairman Comer. Mm-hmm.
    Mr. Dodaro. CMS still hasn't released the audits from the 
2011 to 2015 area, so we are way behind in auditing the managed 
care plans.
    Chairman Comer. That is unacceptable, by the way, but yes.
    Mr. Dodaro. I agree.
    Chairman Comer. Mm-hmm.
    Mr. Dodaro. There also needs to be legislation to allow for 
recovery auditors, which have proven through a pilot to do some 
pre-audits ahead of time. I have suggested more pre-
authorizations, which have been studied and don't hold up 
benefits but provide more program integrity. In Medicaid, I 
don't believe the estimates, as bad as they, are complete. I 
don't think we have a good estimate yet of the managed care 
portion of the Medicaid Program.
    Chairman Comer. Mm-hmm.
    Mr. Dodaro. There is a big problem with provider screening 
and beneficiary eligibility determinations. This was paused 
during the pandemic, so when once that resumes, which starts 
this month, I expect those improper payment estimates to 
increase. But that needs to be dealt with, and I think the 
state auditors need to be involved more in providing oversight 
over that program, which is administered at the state level.
    Chairman Comer. Well, thank you. We look forward to your 
legislative advice and look forward to this hearing. With that, 
I yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Raskin.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Yes, I get complaints 
all the time from constituents about the Medicare Advantage 
plans and what is taking place there, so that might be worthy 
of a hearing of our own, Mr. Chairman, and the fraud that is 
taking place there. Mr. Dodaro, one of the criteria that you 
consider before you remove an area from the High-Risk List is 
agency capacity, specifically whether or not the agency has the 
people and the resources needed to sufficiently address and 
correct the risk. Why is agency capacity such a critical 
factor?
    Mr. Dodaro. Well, first of all, 22 of the high-risk areas 
of the 37 are on the list because of critical skill gaps, 
either not having enough people or the right kind of people to 
implement those programs effectively. So, you need the right 
people.
    Mr. Raskin. You are talking about people on the staff of 
the agency.
    Mr. Dodaro. Absolutely.
    Mr. Raskin. Under the American Rescue Plan and the other 
coronavirus relief auths, GAO got $107 million to bolster 
oversight of the funds and programs authorized by these 
packages, some of the stuff you were just talking about with 
the Chairman. My understanding is that the GOP's Default on Our 
Debt Act, however, would claw back a lot of that oversight 
funding, money that had been provided before to the GAO. How 
much money would be taken back?
    Mr. Dodaro. I would have to provide a detailed answer for 
the record.
    Mr. Dodaro. I think we have perhaps around $20 million of 
that left of the $107, you know----
    Mr. Raskin. Right, but what had been reported to me was $29 
million, but I wanted to check.
    Mr. Dodaro. Well, that is about right.
    Mr. Raskin. OK.
    Mr. Dodaro. That is right.
    Mr. Raskin. Now, that is money that you intended to use on 
essential oversight of COVID-19 relief, including examining the 
contents and management of the Strategic National Stockpile, 
evaluating agency IT preparedness and response during COVID-19, 
assessing airline service disruptions and their causes, and 
investigating, significantly, worker health and safety 
conditions in the meat and poultry processing industry. This 
funding will help us understand what happened during COVID and 
how to better prepare for future emergencies. On top of that, 
these proposed dramatic across-the-board budget cuts would 
undermine GAO's ability to oversee the 37 high-risk areas that 
we are here to talk about today.
    So, last month you testified before the Committee on 
Appropriations and stated that, ``Congress is basically out-
resourced against the executive branch, and unless you have 
strong oversight and a strong GAO, it is hard to provide 
effective oversight.'' At that same hearing, you described the 
severe challenges that you experienced after the last drastic 
budget cuts took place under the 2011 Budget Control Act. So, 
how would these new budget cuts affect GAO's ability to conduct 
oversight that we are all counting on?
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes. Well, potentially the cuts collectively 
that have been discussed would have a devastating effect on our 
ability to support the Congress. Under some of the proposals 
that have been put forward, we would either have to lay off 
about 570 people, or we would have to not replace people who 
left due to attrition, and furlough GAO people. We would have 
to shut GAO down for about a month and a half and for providing 
services. So, you know, it would definitely have an impact on 
us and our ability to serve the Congress.
    Mr. Raskin. I mean, is that cutting off our nose to spite 
our face?
    Mr. Dodaro. Well, we provided $145 back for every dollar 
invested in us over the last years--five--and so, we provide a 
very good return on investment. And to get the returns, you got 
to continue to make investments. It would be like pulling your 
money out of a CD and still expecting interest.
    Mr. Raskin. Yes. So, I just want to get our colleagues to 
focus on this point. Like, there is the level of rhetoric which 
a lot of politics in Washington takes place, and then there is 
the level of real investment in work to make things happen. And 
this reckless Default on Our Debt Act would gut funding not 
just for veterans and housing and nutrition and climate work 
and so on, but for important oversight work which saves 
billions of dollars to our people and making sure that the 
government is working for people. And that is just 
unacceptable, and it is not going to be productive. So, if our 
colleagues really want to make government more effective and 
more efficient, if they really want to improve the programs and 
the services that we provide to our constituents, let's not 
undermine key oversight entities, like the GAO that provide 
accountability and transparency to Congress and to the American 
people. That really is cutting off our nose to spite our face.
    Thank you Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Gosar from Arizona 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Gosar. Comptroller General, it is good seeing you 
again, absolutely. U.S. involvement in Ukraine has been an epic 
disaster, resulting in hundreds of thousands of military and 
civilian casualties. Each day without peace is another day that 
jeopardizes the fragile security the world has enjoyed for 
decades, free from the devastation of nuclear weapons, and our 
blank check for this war is coming at a cost of our own 
military readiness.
    At our current pace, it will take five years to restock our 
Javelin missiles, 13 for Stinger missiles. Every one month, six 
years' worth of our 155-millimeter artillery rounds are 
expended or disappear. The horrible decision to give American 
taxpayer dollars to a corrupt regime is not the only reason why 
the U.S. military readiness is suffering. The recent GAO report 
has found four critical areas where our DOD is at risk of 
losing over $1 billion due to mismanagement, waste, and fraud.
    Mr. Dodaro, let me quote a line from your report: ``The 
Department of Defense needs to improve oversight of its weapons 
systems and to make better-informed investment decisions to 
ensure the timely delivery of critical capabilities to the 
warfighter.'' Mr. Dodaro, given the fact that the U.S. 
munitions stockpiles have been significantly depleted, how has 
the decision to meddle in this foreign war on the other side of 
the globe affected the military readiness of the U.S.?
    Mr. Dodaro. One of the things that we have been asked to do 
is provide oversight by the Congress on what is happening to 
the funding that we provided. And one of the things we are 
going to look at is that very issue, particularly in terms of 
replenishing the stockpile. I will ask Mr. DiNapoli, who is our 
expert in that area, to elaborate a bit, Congressman. It is a 
good question.
    Mr. DiNapoli. Many thanks for the question. It is good. As 
Gene mentioned, we are kicking off a series of reviews to take 
a look at what type of weapons and assistance has been provided 
to Ukraine. As of last month, $39 billion, you know, where 75 
different types of goods and services have been provided to the 
Ukrainian Armed Forces. As part of that, we are going to look 
at the replenishment of those, how the decisions were made what 
to replenish, how to replenish it, what is the cost of that 
replenishment, and the impact on sustainment and readiness.
    Mr. Dodaro. And also, Congressman--excuse me--we also have 
work ongoing looking at the readiness issue. We have been 
focused on that a number of years now.
    Mr. Gosar. Got you. So now, in your discussions with the 
DOD, have you noticed a special push to restock ammunition and 
weapons?
    Mr. DiNapoli. Yes. In our early observations, in our 
discussions, they are definitely focusing on making sure that 
the supplies of critical things needed by our armed forces are 
available when needed.
    Mr. Gosar. From your vantage point, are they at acceptable 
rates?
    Mr. DiNapoli. So, we are continuing that analysis. I can't 
give you an answer right now, but we hope to have that report 
out to you by the end of the year.
    Mr. Gosar. Love to have that. Now, there have been over 
107,000 drug overdose deaths in Fiscal Year 2022. Much of this 
death is due to policies that perpetrate open borders. Has GAO 
issued recommendations to the Department of Homeland Security 
on steps that the Agency could take to deter illegal border 
crossing and to more easily and effectively return illegal 
aliens to their country of origin?
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes, we have. I am going to ask Charles Johnson 
to come to the table, our expert in that area, or Rebecca. 
Rebecca Gambler. I am sorry.
    Ms. Gambler. Good morning. Thank you for the question, 
Congressman. Yes, GAO has made a number of recommendations to 
DHS over many years related to its efforts to secure the 
border. Those recommendations include things related to better 
oversight and monitoring of border security efforts, better 
performance measures so that we can assess what we are getting 
out of investments made in border security. And we are 
continuing to follow up on those recommendations over time.
    Mr. Gosar. So, can you commit to a report by GAO on policy 
recommendations Homeland Security should take to stem the tide 
of illegal immigration?
    Ms. Gambler. We would be happy to work with your office on 
specific areas of interest that you are interested in GAO 
taking a look at and reporting on.
    Mr. Gosar. Got you. Now my last question. Many prisoners 
are being held, allegedly committed crimes on January 6 of 
2021. They are being held in deplorable conditions in two D.C. 
jails. There are reports that the prisoners are prevented from 
seeking counsel, had their freedom of religion violated, been 
denied medical care, refused access to exculpatory evidence, 
and been forbidden basic hygiene products to keep themselves 
groomed and washed. Are you aware of these violations of 
prisoners' rights?
    Mr. Dodaro. I am going to ask Charles Johnson. He is our 
expert in this area of the Bureau of Prisons. Go ahead, 
Charles.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you. Congressman, we have not 
specifically looked at that particular issue. We have been 
doing some studies looking at the Federal management of the 
prison system, which, you know, was included in the High-Risk 
report this year as a new addition. We are aware of some 
mistreatment of some of the incarcerated individuals in certain 
facilities. The particular one in the District, we have not 
looked at, but we would be happy to take a further look at 
that.
    Mr. Gosar. Would you commit to a report to Congress on that 
very subject?
    Mr. Johnson. We would definitely look at it and reach out 
to your staff to have a further conversation on that issue.
    Mr. Gosar. Thank you very much. Good seeing you again.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes, good seeing you.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Norton from 
Washington, DC, for five minutes.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the 117th Congress, 
Democrats led the way with historic legislation to rebuild and 
modernize our Nation's crumbling infrastructure. Congress 
passed the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to 
rebuild roads and bridges in communities around the country, 
improve climate resilience, cleanup pollution, and a lot more. 
During the first year of implementation, the Biden-Harris 
Administration is already delivering results. Over $185 billion 
in funding has been committed to more than 6,900 projects 
across the country.
    So, Mr. Dodaro, can you give a couple of examples of how 
the bipartisan Infrastructure and Investment Jobs Act 
contributed to significant progress across several high-risk 
areas?
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes, absolutely, and I have called up David 
Trimble, our infrastructure expert. But first, I would say, No. 
1, surface transportation and providing stable funding over the 
long term has been on the High-Risk List since 2007, and so the 
Infrastructure Act provided enough money to provide stable 
funding at least up until 2028. After that, there is going to 
be a funding gap again, which is why we didn't take it off the 
list. Also, the Inflation Reduction Act did provide a number of 
programs and grants to build climate resilience in up front. 
And so, those are two ways that they make contributions to 
those areas. I would ask Mr. Trimble if he has any additional 
examples.
    Mr. Trimble. I think those are the two examples I would 
cite as well, but we are happy to meet with your staff to give 
you other examples we have seen in our audits. We have got a 
number of reviews ongoing, tracking the funding across a whole 
host of areas, so would be happy to meet and go over those more 
detail if that would be useful.
    Ms. Norton. I would appreciate that. Mr. Dodaro, what 
concrete benefits did this progress deliver for the American 
people?
    Mr. Dodaro. Well, I think, you know, the infrastructure, by 
our accounts and by many experts in that area, was desperately 
in need of repair, you know, particularly for surface 
transportation, and bridges, and other things. So, I think you 
know these projects take a long time to get developed, and 
there needs to be, you know, more work done in order for 
everybody to realize fully the benefits that are in place, but 
the funding needed to get out there and get started in those 
areas. I think climate resilience will yield a number of 
benefits both to individuals as well as the Federal Government. 
Also, the expansion of broadband capabilities throughout the 
country, particularly in rural areas, will help people realize 
the benefits of connectivity in those areas.
    And so, you know, we have pointed out, though, that we need 
to look at the workforce to make sure there is an adequate 
workforce to deliver these broadband capabilities throughout 
the country. So, we looked in the telecommunications area, and, 
as David mentioned, we have about 30 or 40 different 
requirements for studies on the Infrastructure Act, so we will 
be continuing to put those out. Also, we have already issued 
one report, for example, on crash dummies and saying that, you 
know, the dummies, while they represent, you know, men in 
particular, they don't really represent women or children. And 
so, there is, you know, more study needed, and changes need to 
be made so that the full range of occupants, of course, can be 
made safe.
    Ms. Norton. For the high-risk area of funding the Nation's 
surface transportation system, GAO did not provide a rating for 
executive branch agencies' progress because ``Addressing the 
identified issues will primarily involve congressional action. 
So, Mr. Dodaro, can you explain what funding the Nation's 
surface transportation system is about and why we should take 
heed that this area is on the High-Risk List?
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes. Well, the national gas tax hasn't been 
raised since 1993, so the model that was set up by the Congress 
is to have occupants and users of the roads and highways pay 
for the funding repairs. And that model, with the fact that the 
gas tax hasn't been raised, more people, fuel efficient 
vehicles, now electronic vehicles, that model is not going to 
be sufficient, has not been sufficient, in the future. Congress 
has supplemented the amount of money going into the Highway 
Trust Fund by making general appropriations available, and now 
the Infrastructure Act covers that for at least the next five 
years, but the long-term financing really is not there.
    Now, we are looking at some of the efforts to look at the 
mileage driven and to perhaps have a different model of people 
paying a certain amount of money for the miles that they drive 
every year. There are some pilots going on throughout the 
states. We are not sure whether it is going to be scalable yet. 
That is one of our recommendations to the Department of 
Transportation.
    Ms. Norton. Sir, I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Dr. Foxx from North 
Carolina for five minutes.
    Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Dodaro, 
for being here. This year, the unemployment insurance, UI 
system, was added to the High-Risk List. In the report, you 
mentioned that fraud risks to the UI Program need to be 
addressed. As I understand it, the current statute of 
limitations for criminal and civil penalties for COVID, UI 
fraud, and overpayment is only five years. Is that correct?
    Mr. Dodaro. That is correct.
    Ms. Foxx. OK. Legislation, such as the Protecting Taxpayers 
and Victims of Unemployment Fraud Act, would extend the statute 
of limitations for criminal charges and civil actions for 
prosecuting fraud to 10 years. What would the impact of that 
change be, and how much more could we expect the government to 
be able to recover as a result of this change?
    Mr. Dodaro. Well, I think that that is a good change. 
Congress has already extended the statute of limitations for 
the SBA emergency loan programs from 5 to 10, or maybe 10 
years, and I think it makes sense to do it for an unemployment 
insurance area. You know, we estimated at the low end of the 
fraud and unemployment insurance, it was $60 billion in fraud. 
We are working on a high-end estimate now which we will have 
later this summer, so there is a lot of money yet that hasn't 
been recovered. Now, how much can be recovered? Quite frankly, 
it is going to be modest, but I think there is also a benefit 
from a deterrence effect about----
    Ms. Foxx. Sure.
    Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. Punishing people who have 
committed the fraud----
    Ms. Foxx. Yes.
    Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. As well as trying to get back as 
much money as possible.
    Ms. Foxx. Absolutely. As you know, the United States Postal 
Service has been on the GAO High-Risk List since 2009. However, 
since the last High-Risk List was published in 2021, this 
Committee came together to create the Postal Service Reform 
Act, which was signed into law. This law greatly reduced the 
Postal Service's unfunded liabilities for retiree health 
benefits. Along with this ``relief,'' the Postal Service is 
charged with implementing the Postmaster General's 10-year 
plan, which we believe will lead the Postal Service toward 
self-sufficiency. Do you have any recommendations for Congress 
to help ensure the Postal Service achieves self-sufficiency?
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes. Well, first of all, Congress did provide 
substantive relief to the Postal Service, but it didn't change 
the long-term business model, and the Postal Service is 
continuing to lose money, even with these relief efforts. So, 
the 10-year plan being executed by the Postal Service will be 
helpful, but, ultimately, I think the Congress is going to have 
to decide what level of service that it wants the American 
people to have and how to provide a stable funding arrangement, 
and whether or not they want the Postal Service to be self-
supporting or not.
    Ms. Foxx. Let me ask you a follow-up----
    Mr. Dodaro. Sure.
    Ms. Foxx [continuing]. Before you continue that.
    Mr. Dodaro. Right.
    Ms. Foxx. The High-Risk List mentions that USPS should 
continue to take actions under its own authority to enhance its 
financial viability while still meeting its mission to provide 
universal postal service. What actions under its own authority 
can USPS take to enhance its financial viability?
    Mr. Dodaro. I will ask Mr. Trimble, our expert, to give you 
an answer there.
    Ms. Foxx. Thank you.
    Mr. Trimble. Yes. Currently, we have an ongoing review of 
the USPS' new 10-year strategic plan and the number of projects 
they have in there to address their costs, and also service and 
reorganization efforts they have under way to address their 
cost structures. So, I think, really, it is going to be to 
execute against that plan, and that is something we will be 
monitoring in our ongoing review.
    Ms. Foxx. Great. Mr. Dodaro, again, one of the key points 
made in the High-Risk List is at the Office of Management and 
Budget. OMB is critical to addressing high-risk areas because 
it can lead and support agencies. How can Congress help OMB 
conduct more meaningful oversight to help improve high-risk 
programs, and along with that, I will note that there is no 
Inspector General there. How would having an Inspector General 
help this situation?
    Mr. Dodaro. Well, first, the first thing Congress could do 
is hopefully work with the Administration and get a confirmed 
Controller in that position. There hasn't been a confirmed 
Controller in that position for at least seven years now, and 
that is a problem in terms of us working with them to not only 
deal with high-risk areas but also improper payments and also 
all financial management issues. So, I think there needs to be 
additional leadership responsibilities there.
    I have been very pleased with the cooperation from the 
Deputy for Management, Jason Miller. We have had tripartite 
meetings between GAO, OMB, and agencies on the list. OMB is 
always looking for resources just like everybody else, so 
Congress should look carefully at those issues. Inspector 
Generals are an important part of oversight over the Federal 
Government, and I would, you know, think that there is some 
merit to considering that, although OMB is in the Executive 
Office of the President. So, we would have to look at it in a 
broader aspect than just OMB because OMB is a very small 
entity.
    Ms. Foxx. Sure. Well, I have one more question, but I will 
submit it, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Dodaro.
    Mr. Dodaro. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Ocasio-Cortez from 
New York for five minutes.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to 
yield 30 seconds to the Ranking Member Raskin.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Congress 
has committed $24 billion in security assistance to Ukraine in 
their war of self-defense against the brutal invasion by 
Russia, and to ensure the proper use of that funding, Congress 
and the Administration established robust oversight structures 
to detect fraud and abuse. And that included additional funding 
for the IGs of DOD, the State Department, and the United States 
Agency for International Development.
    And recent testimony from Administration officials confirm 
that these robust oversight structures are working. On February 
28, the House Armed Services Committee, during which DOD's 
undersecretary of defense for policy testified the Agency has 
provided Ukrainians with supplies to track the systems the U.S. 
has provided, including scanners and software, and that they 
have not seen any evidence of diversion. So, I just want to say 
that you have helped us get ready for that. I yield back.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank 
you to the Ranking Member. Now, I want to dive into a little 
bit of what we are looking at today. This week Republicans 
introduced their legislation to bring the U.S. Government into 
default. That is what is happening, and that would introduce 
de-stabling and a profoundly unprecedented process that would 
initiate across-the-board cuts of an estimated 22 percent to 
most agency budgets, including cuts to lifesaving medical care, 
Social Security, student debt, SNAP benefits. And in all of 
that, my colleagues seem to forget another way to solve our 
impending fiscal crisis.
    This isn't just about continued cuts to the poor and to the 
working class in our central services, but we can raise 
revenue. In fact, when tax cuts in 2017 were passed by the 
other side of the aisle, we see wonderful tax cuts for yacht 
owners and private jets. But in order to balance our budget, 
now we are talking about cuts to SNAP, to food out of babies' 
mouths instead of actually re-examining the inequities within 
our tax system. Let us look into the decreasing IRS' revenue 
that has contributed to a loss in revenue from taxing the 
wealthiest Americans.
    Mr. Dodaro, how much have appropriations for IRS 
enforcement activities decreased since 2010?
    Mr. Dodaro. I am going to ask Jay McTigue, our expert in 
IRS, to respond.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you.
    Mr. McTigue. Thank you, Congresswoman. The appropriations 
for IRS have declined considerably since 2010, roughly 20 
percent when adjusted for inflation, and roughly the same 
amount when looking at enforcement in particular.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And we have seen, according to your May 
2022 report, Mr. Dodaro, GAO, you reported a decrease in audit 
rates of individual tax returns, correct?
    Mr. Dodaro. That is correct.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And in that same report, you state that 
the tax community has also raised concerns about whether the 
IRS is selecting taxpayers for audit in an equitable manner. 
Can you explain the concern with respect to the equity of 
audits and, particularly, any drops in audit rates for incomes 
making over $500,000 a year?
    Mr. Dodaro. I will ask Mr. McTigue to respond.
    Mr. McTigue. Again, thank you, Congresswoman. In the report 
that you reference, we did point out that audit rates have 
declined by about a third since 2010 across the board, but they 
have declined more dramatically for higher-income individuals, 
and the reason behind that has really been a resource and a 
capacity issue. Auditing high-income, high-wealth individuals, 
partnerships, corporations require a lot of expertise, both 
human capital as well as information technology and analytics, 
whereas auditing lower-income individuals is much more 
straightforward. The IRS has a lot of information from third 
parties on income, such as wages----
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Yes.
    Mr. McTigue [continuing]. And less information on other 
types of income. So, there is a wide disparity there.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. I appreciate that, and to 
your note, auditing the rich is an enormously complex process 
that takes a lot of manpower, and the cuts to IRS enforcement 
are strategic, and they have resulted in a loss of revenue. Is 
that correct?
    Mr. McTigue. IRS has been unable over the past decade to 
backfill, you know, very highly skilled individuals that have 
retired.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. I apologize. I just have to 
reclaim because I don't have time, but what we see here, and I 
would like unanimous consent to submit the report from the 
GAO----
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez [continuing]. That there was an 87-
percent decline in audits for taxpayers making between $500,000 
and $5 million. And according to the GAO, we have seen that new 
funding for the IRS that we recently put in the Inflation 
Reduction Act has increased those revenues over 10 years.
    So, instead of looking at climate and instead of looking at 
cuts to healthcare, we should examine why our colleagues and 
the Republican Party is so invested in protecting the 
wealthiest people in this society and would rather attack 
healthcare and services for our veterans than repealing tax 
cuts for yacht owners and private jets. And with that, I yield 
my time.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Grothman from 
Wisconsin for five minutes.
    Mr. Grothman. Yes. I would like to focus a little bit on 
the Department of Defense, arguably the most important 
department because our freedom depends upon them doing a good, 
efficient job. First of all, the Department of Defense 
financial management and contractor management have been on the 
GAO's High-Risk List since the early 90's. Why is that?
    Mr. Dodaro. The financial management part, and I will ask 
Mr. DiNapoli to talk about contract management, but on a 
financial management, they have been unable to pass the test of 
an independent audit. They are the only major Federal agencies 
that have been unable to pass the test of an audit. Their 
financial systems and controls are not sufficient. There have 
been hundreds of identified weaknesses by people who are doing 
the audits.
    Now, for many years, the Department didn't try to do a 
financial audit, but in the last five years they have, and they 
are making some good progress in that area. They are finding 
good benefits from the financial audits. They are finding 
helicopters they didn't know they had on the books. They are 
finding lots of supplies. They are saving some money not 
reordering things that they already have. So, there are some 
benefits to it, but the main reason is they have been able to 
pass a test of an independent audit, financial audit.
    Mr. Grothman. Why compared to other agencies is the 
Department of Defense so much worse? Is it arrogance? Is it 
ignorance? What would you attribute it to?
    Mr. Dodaro. Well, a part of it is scale. For a number of 
years, it was lack of effort, to be honest with you. I mean, 
the requirement has been in place since 1996. For about a 
decade or so, they really just certified they were unauditable 
and didn't do it. More recently, there has been commitment in 
the last two administrations, and I have been very pleased 
about it, and they are starting to take it seriously. They 
recognize they need it in order to manage more efficiently and 
effectively. But it is big agencies, and there is----
    Mr. Grothman. OK.
    Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. Not a lot of standardization 
across the Department. So, there are a lot of decentralized 
efforts, and, therefore, the systems are unable to exchange 
information properly.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. Thanks. In November 2022, Defense failed 
its fifth consecutive audit. It was unable to account for 61 
percent of its $3.5 trillion in assets. What are the reasons 
why the DOD cannot produce a clean audit?
    Mr. Dodaro. A couple reasons. One, their financial systems 
are not reliable in a number of cases. Second, they do not have 
good internal controls over their property, over their 
inventory systems, and that is a problem. They also do not have 
the full type of skills in their work force that they need in 
those areas. And so, it is a myriad of issues.
    Mr. Grothman. Could you elaborate on they don't have the 
skills? How is this possible they don't have the skills?
    Mr. Dodaro. Well, there are not enough people. I mean, for 
over 200 years, the Federal Government operated without any 
financial statements or independent financial audits. We 
started in the 90's, so this wasn't a big priority in those 
areas. And then for a number of years, the Department didn't 
think they needed to do this, and so they didn't build the 
capacity that they need in those areas. Most of the expertise 
in financial management of Federal Government has been in the 
budget area, not in preparing financial statements and auditing 
where they have the systems people necessary to produce those 
statements. So, they are trying and are making improvements, 
but I still think they need additional skills to be able to do 
this.
    Mr. Grothman. OK, and we will jump ahead here. What is the 
dollar figure for waste the GAO has identified at the Pentagon, 
and this number will include the GAO alone and not include the 
Department of Defense Inspector General's numbers.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes. Yes. We are working on a figure now for 
government-wide waste. So far, the only figure we have come up 
with has been for the Unemployment Insurance Program, which is 
over $60 billion at the low end of the range.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. Department of Defense last estimated that 
in 2014, contractors were in possession of $220 billion in 
government-furnished property, but GAO says that number is 
significantly understated. Why does GAO believe that?
    Mr. Dodaro. I will ask Mr. DiNapoli to respond.
    Mr. DiNapoli. Thank you for the question. It is a lot about 
financial, similar to what Gene mentioned with regard to 
financial management, also occur in the property management 
system. So, having the proper records, having the information 
technology systems to govern that process, and then having the 
folks to do the proper oversight of those, all combine to 
having information about the amount of government property in 
contractors' hands by being excessively low.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. I will give you a little different 
question. They always say generals are fighting the last war.
    Mr. DiNapoli. Mm-hmm.
    Mr. Grothman. And I look at stuff like aircraft carriers, 
which when they have war games, get sunk right away. Do you 
guys have any comments on the Department of Defense--or maybe 
even I shouldn't say Department of Defense--our Appropriations 
Committee and Armed Service funding weaponry that may not be up 
to snuff or wouldn't last very long in a 21st century war?
    Mr. DiNapoli. So, thank you for that question, and that is 
another high-risk area of our weapons systems work, which has 
also been on the High-Risk List since 1990. And what we have 
continually found through the past 30 years is the Department 
of Defense generally buys weapons systems in a manner that 
results in cost overruns and schedule delays, and often doesn't 
provide the warfighters what they need when they need it.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you very much. I think our Department 
of Defense and, quite frankly, some people in this building are 
a little bit embarrassing as far as protecting our country, but 
thank you for letting me go a little over.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Ms. Stansbury from New 
Mexico for five minutes.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 
welcome Mr. Dodaro. It is wonderful to have you here today, and 
thank you to all the staff who are joining us.
    You know, Mr. Chairman, I just want to take a moment to say 
thank you for having this hearing. This is exactly the kind of 
hearing that this Committee should be having is actual 
oversight and the fiscal responsibilities of the Federal 
Government. And I am particularly grateful to have all of you 
here and to have this discussion. As a former Senate Committee 
employee and a former examiner at OMB, I am very familiar with 
your work and have actually worked with a number of you over 
the years, so it is great to have you here today.
    I want to start out by saying as the Representative for New 
Mexico's 1st Congressional District, many of the items that are 
on the High-Risk List for this year are items that, of course, 
New Mexicans experience every single day. Of the programs and 
items that are listed under high risk, issues around tribal 
communities and their access to healthcare, funding for the 
Bureau of Indian Education, issues around access to 
disabilities programs through Medicaid and through the VA 
system, and, of course, course many of the issues around 
military spending and the other issues that have been discussed 
this morning. So, I want to dive in on some of these issues 
here.
    But I do want to take a moment to amplify on some of the 
comments that were made earlier, and that it is particularly 
peculiar to be having this hearing this week as we learned just 
this morning, in the wee hours of the night last night the GOP 
and the Rules Committee dropped their version of the debt 
ceiling negotiation, which is really a ransom note for many of 
the programs that we are talking about that are covered under 
this report. In fact, in the name of balancing the debt 
ceiling, the GOP is proposing to cut for 10 years Federal 
programs across the board.
    And in the GAO's High-Risk Report, it is acknowledged over 
and over again across the hundreds of pages of this report that 
part of why we made progress on the High-Risk List is because 
we have been making investments, and particularly, 
congressional investments, in these programs. And, in 
particular, I want to highlight those investments in climate 
change since one of the proposals in the GOP's proposal this 
week is to gut the Inflation Reduction Act as well as other 
programs.
    You know, in a 2019 report that the GAO published, it was 
estimated that by 2040, that climate would cost the United 
States $315 billion a year, and the GAO said in this report 
that for every single dollar that we spent on climate change as 
the Federal Government, it would save the Federal Government 
$11. That is an 11-to-1 investment. So, when we hear arguments 
like we have this morning, that investments in climate action 
are a waste of taxpayer dollars, they are literally saving 
taxpayer dollars by ensuring that we are mitigating financial 
and fiscal risk for the Federal Government down the road.
    And, in fact, the report that you have issued actually 
states that. In fact, I want to take a direct quote from the 
report. It says that, ``congressional action has helped to 
improve this high-risk area,'' and then goes on to talk about 
the ways in which the Infrastructure Bill and presumably the 
Inflation Reduction Act are actually going to help mitigate 
fiscal risk to the government. So, I really wanted to amplify 
that this ransom note that the GOP has issued this week on 
gutting these vital social programs, climate programs, are 
really going to undermine the fiscal responsibility of the 
Federal Government.
    But I do want to allow the opportunity for you to share 
some of the findings of the report, especially around climate 
change. I know there were five key areas that were in need of 
improvement, particularly around government-wide planning and 
technical assistance to our communities, is something that I 
work on every day. I have a number of bills that I am working 
on. And so, Mr. Dodaro, could you and the staff please expand 
on some of the key things that we can do to address our fiscal 
responsibilities around climate change?
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes. I am going to ask Mr. Gaffigan to do 
these. He is our expert in the area, but we have got some good 
ideas.
    Ms. Stansbury. Great.
    Mr. Gaffigan. Yes. I mean, if you look at our high-risk 
designation on climate, it is about the fiscal exposures, so 
you are spot on in terms of highlighting that. And the Federal 
Government can provide a lot of incentives to build resilience 
in and save those dollars that you are talking about. It can 
also be an integrator for all the stakeholders who are involved 
in that and also provide key information. Those are three sort 
of key areas of resilience that we can build in. But I think 
the fiscal exposure is a huge issue, and it is why we put it on 
the High-Risk List in 2013.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes, I think a couple specifics. One would be 
to give better climate information to state and local officials 
so that they can make better planning decisions, also to work 
with them to build the better building codes in. You know, the 
Federal Government does not control building codes, and so it 
is very important that the Federal Government try to provide 
information to get those building codes up to speed. And also, 
the Federal Government needs to set priorities. There is a lot 
to do here, and we need priorities, you know. That would help 
us to make the most optimal investments.
    Ms. Stansbury. Absolutely. Well, thank you, and we really 
appreciate your work on this issue. And as I said, this is a 
significant investment in the future of this country and 
mitigating financial risk to our country's fiscal health but 
also to ensuring that our communities have a livable planet, 
and so we appreciate your work highlighting that. And with 
that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Palmer from 
Alabama for five minutes.
    Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dodaro, good to 
see you again. You and I have done a lot of work on some key 
issues, particularly in the high-risk area, and I just want to 
know, it has been very frustrating the lack of response in some 
cases. And I just want to know if there are some common themes 
or patterns that you have noticed across high-risk areas when 
compiling the List in recent years.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes. One thing is the programs that rely upon 
state and local administrations are among the most difficult to 
deal with this. This will be Medicaid, Unemployment Insurance 
Program, because we allow the states to design their own 
programs within certain parameters, so it is very difficult. 
And a lot of Federal agencies have a, you know, a little bit of 
a softer posture in terms of oversight when there are a lot of 
responsibilities delegated to state and local government, but 
you really need Federal leadership in a more aggressive manner. 
So, that is No. 1.
    No. 2 is I think there needs to be more resources brought 
to bear and more disciplined management of Federal programs and 
activities on spending in normal programs, but on emergencies, 
which we have had and will continue to have, and that is the 
basis for the 10 legislative suggestions I put before the 
Congress.
    Mr. Palmer. Well, in regard to the emergency, it raises the 
question about the government's response to the COVID-19 
pandemic. Has that worsened our ability to manage vulnerable 
funds? And you mentioned one of them, the unemployment 
insurance fraud that took place on a massive scale.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes. The pandemic exposed fundamental 
management weaknesses that the Federal Government has in the 
payment process in normal times.
    Mr. Palmer. Mm-hmm.
    Mr. Dodaro. One is the emphasis has been on pay and chase 
in the fraud area rather than preventing fraud in the first 
place. I have tried to change that working with the Congress 
and the agencies. We are nowhere near where we need to be in 
preventing fraud in the first place.
    Mr. Palmer. Well, that is some of the stuff that you and I 
have worked on over the years is how do we incentivize Federal 
agencies to prevent the improper payments that I think you are 
really talking about right now, the pay and chase. And I think 
one of the that GAO pointed out was that so much of that is 
just failure to verify eligibility on things----
    Mr. Dodaro. Right.
    Mr. Palmer [continuing]. You know, poor paperwork, you 
know, just administrative errors, but also antiquated data 
systems.
    Mr. Dodaro. Right.
    Mr. Palmer. And I am still interested in pursuing the way 
to incentivize agencies rather than punish agencies that don't 
pursue this. But what is the GAO's current estimate of improper 
payments?
    Mr. Dodaro. Well, the government-wide estimates, based on 
what the agencies have done for the last fiscal year, was $247 
billion. The previous year was $280 billion, but as I mentioned 
to the Chairman, those estimates aren't complete.
    Mr. Palmer. Yes.
    Mr. Dodaro. So, I think the number is much higher.
    Mr. Palmer. So, OK, you estimate it is much higher. Let us 
just say it is between $250 and $300 billion per year. Just at 
a static level, we are talking, over a 10-year period, $2-and-
a-half to $3 trillion. And what people need to understand about 
this $2-and-a-half to $3 trillion over 10 years that we are 
having to borrow and pay interest on. And when we are trying to 
deal with the debt limit and trying to get our fiscal house in 
order, recognizing the enormous impact it is going to have on 
our capital markets, that is a pretty significant number. That 
is a pretty big hill that we need to climb.
    And I would like for the Committee to continue to work with 
the GAO to come up with a way to incentivize Federal agencies 
to address this issue. I think one place that we could start, 
Mr. Chairman, is on updating the antiquated data systems 
because part of the problem, I think, Mr. Dodaro, you and I ran 
into was the lack of ability for interface between data systems 
between state and Federal Government. So, I think we have got 
some real opportunities here.
    I have some other questions I may submit in writing 
relative to some of the things that my Democrat colleagues have 
said that I want to evaluate a little bit deeper. But I do 
think that we don't pay enough attention to how much money is 
going out of the Treasury in improper payments, and we are 
doing pay and chase rather than prevention. And with that, Mr. 
Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Ms. Balint 
from Vermont for five minutes.
    Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for being 
here, Mr. Dodaro. I appreciate your time.
    The Postal Service is a lifeline for rural communities like 
mine in Vermont. My neighbors in Vermont rely on the Postal 
Service for essentials like medication and for many folks who 
run small businesses, you know, out of their homes. And the 
continued viability of the Postal Service, especially in rural 
parts of this country, is one of my top priorities. Now, thanks 
to leadership on this Committee, including our Chairman, Mr. 
Comer, and former Chair, Carolyn Maloney, the Postal Service 
Reform Act of 2022 was actually a really great bipartisan 
success story of the last Congress, and I want to dive in a 
little bit more on the Postal Service. Mr. Dodaro, how long has 
the Postal Service been on the High-Risk List?
    Mr. Dodaro. The most recent, I think, was 2009 when we 
added it. Actually, if you go back in time, we added it a long 
time ago. I will get you the specific date, but then we took 
them off after some congressional action, but then they 
deteriorated further. I remember because I actually was called 
by the Postmaster General at the time, and I was Acting 
Comptroller General at that time, and he actually asked us to 
consider putting them back on List.
    Ms. Balint. Yes.
    Mr. Dodaro. And we did. We made our own independent 
judgment.
    Ms. Balint. And, Mr. Dodaro, how did the Postal Service 
Reform Act in 2022 contribute to the significant progress in 
the high-risk area----
    Mr. Dodaro. Well----
    Ms. Balint [continuing]. So, we can understand that a 
little bit better.
    Mr. Dodaro. Well, it eliminated the requirement for pre-
funding healthcare benefits, and it forgave the amount of money 
that they owed to that fund in that area. It also shifted some 
of the responsibilities to the Medicare Program. It was mostly 
in the healthcare area, so, but there are a lot of things that, 
down the road, it didn't deal with that are going to need to be 
dealt with. For example, the pre-healthcare benefits issued 
around the 2030 time-frames, that fund is going to run out of 
money because there is no pre-funding into it. So, at that 
point, the Postal Service is trying to estimate what it would 
cost to pay out of their operating revenue, which it would be 
about $5 billion a year. I mean, they are already losing 
money----
    Ms. Balint. Yes.
    Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. So, they are not going to be able 
to deal with that. I mean, the first-class mail has been 
declining. It is not expected to turn around. Packages, the 
competition there is keen. Coming out of the pandemic, the 
package revenue is going down. Now, the only revenue increase 
is due to the increases in the price of postage, so they have 
problems. They are still in debt in a number of areas. So, the 
basic business model isn't sound going forward in the future. 
Congress gave it some life----
    Ms. Balint. Yes.
    Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. For a period of time, but the 
underlying problem is still there and needs to be dealt with. I 
will ask Mr. Trimble if he has any additional comments.
    Mr. Trimble. No, I think that that covers the main points. 
I think just in terms of longer-term challenges that they face, 
currently their long-term liabilities in debt is over $144 
billion. And they are projected to lose in Fiscal Year 2023 
about $4-and-a-half half billion. And so, when the Health 
Benefit Fund runs out, if you are already running a deficit of 
$4-and-a-half billion and you have to add another $5 billion on 
top of that, you can see the challenges that they are currently 
facing.
    Ms. Balint. Well, I appreciate that. One of the things that 
I always say about Vermont is that we run on duct-tape, twine, 
and hundreds of hours of volunteer time, you know, from 
Vermonters across the state, and we are cheap by nature. We are 
thrifty, and I just want to convey that there are lots of rural 
communities just like the one that I live in Vermont that 
depend on the Postal Service for their very survival. And so, I 
certainly understand the concerns about how the business model 
is not working, and we made progress. I think, you know, by my 
count, more than a billion dollars in financial benefits came 
to taxpayers since 2006 because of progress in the high-risk 
areas.
    And I appreciate that as a thrifty Vermonter, but I just 
want to plant a flag in the ground and say we cannot let the 
Postal Service die on the vine. Rural America is depending on 
us----
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
    Ms. Balint [continuing]. To figure this out.
    Mr. Dodaro. I understand that. I understand that. You know, 
my motto at GAO is elegant but cheap.
    Ms. Balint. I like that.
    Mr. Dodaro. Any Vermonters who want to come to work at GAO, 
it is a good place to practice their thriftiness. But also, the 
fundamental issue here, you know, if you look back in history, 
Postal Service was a government entity----
    Ms. Balint. Yes.
    Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. In the beginning, and then 
somebody said, oh wow, we can do better having a private sector 
model in this area, and it worked well until it didn't.
    Ms. Balint. Right.
    Mr. Dodaro. And so, I think Congress is going to have to 
come to grips with what model that we want to have if we want 
to guarantee level of service to the American people and who is 
going to pay for it.
    Ms. Balint. Yes.
    Mr. Dodaro. And that is the decision down the road that is 
inevitable in this case, and what we are saying is the sooner 
Congress deals with that issue, the better.
    Ms. Balint. Agreed. Last comment. Just, you know, we did 
great work in a bipartisan manner on this issue in the past. I 
want to continue to work on this. It is really not an 
overstatement to say that rural America depends on the Postal 
Service. It is a critical, critical infrastructure, and we got 
to come together. We got to continue to come together in a 
bipartisan manner on this issue. Thank you.
    Mr. Dodaro. I agree.
    Chairman Comer. The gentlelady's time has expired. Before I 
yield to Mr. Sessions, I would like to point out I spoke with 
Postmaster General DeJoy last night, and we hope to bring him 
in front of at least a Subcommittee hearing within the next 
month or so, maybe two months, whatever the calendar will 
permit. So, I think that is a very good point that that you all 
discussed, and it is something that this Committee has 
legislative jurisdiction on and we are going to have to take 
very seriously. We passed bipartisan legislation, but there are 
still things, I think, that need to be done, so I appreciate 
that.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Sessions from Texas for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. By the 
way, I am probably one of a few Members that sat on the old 
Postal Subcommittee when we saw this happening, but because we 
were not bipartisan, the answer did not happen. Mr. Dodaro, 
welcome back. It is good to see you again, Gene, and thank you 
for your service to this Nation as well as your colleagues.
    During both the Committee hearing at which you testified in 
February and subsequent hearing in the Government Operations 
Subcommittee, which I chaired, we heard that self-certification 
was a leading cause of fraud in the Unemployment Insurance 
Program during the COVID pandemic. Thus, it would make sense 
not to rely on self-certification in the future, and yet the 
Biden Administration is proposing to allow applicants for 
student loan forgiveness to self-certify for this benefit. 
Look, I get it. The Supreme Court may decide the Biden 
Administration does not have the authority to forgive student 
loans. However, it concerns me that we may be poised for 
another big giveaway because we are relying on self-
certification. Would the gentleman please address this issue?
    Mr. Dodaro. I, too, was concerned, so I have commissioned a 
GAO study to look at what the proposed operating procedures 
would be if they are given the green light by the Supreme Court 
to go through with an income-driven program, and so we will 
have a report out on that soon. So, I share your concern on 
that, particularly given what happened in both unemployment 
insurance and the Paycheck Protection Program, and EIDL, 
Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program.
    Plus we have seen before on the income-driven repayment 
plans at the Education Department where they didn't verify the 
incomes, that a lot of people who reported zero income really 
didn't have zero income. And so, we made a number of 
recommendations there that they have better procedures to 
verify the income in the Department in the process of 
implementing those recommendations. So, you are right to be 
concerned. I was. We are looking at it, and hopefully we will 
have some recommendations, if they go forward with that 
program, that can provide better safeguards.
    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Dodaro, thank you very much. In fact, the 
Subcommittee and this Committee would welcome that. As you may 
recall from the Subcommittee hearing, it was virtually a 
unanimous bipartisan viewpoint that what happened in this 
process of the D18 group and the things that occurred were not 
in the best interest of anyone, except people who fraudulently 
received that money. So, I want you to know that we will work 
and I will work with our young Chairman and our young Ranking 
Member, as well as Mr. Mfume and myself, on putting together a 
letter that we would like to make sure that is accompanying 
your feedback.
    I think it is important that internally, your team make 
sure that they understand that your report is coming, that we 
look at it the same way, that we try and authorize this in such 
a way to where we are all together, including the 
Administration, not just Congress, so thank you very much.
    Sir, has the GAO looked at the Department of Education's 
self-certification, the one we were just talking about, and 
have they come up with any realistic viewpoint about where they 
might also, unto them self, recognize this did not work the 
right way?
    Mr. Dodaro. You mean from the Education Department 
officials?
    Mr. Sessions. Right.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
    Mr. Sessions. Have they indicated, whoops, didn't quite 
work the way we wanted, or are they still out there following 
this, look, we are going to continue this process?
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes. I don't specifically know the answer to 
that question. I will talk to the team and get a response back 
to you. I do know that there was some balking at cooperation 
with us in the first place, and, you know, because they were 
concerned that this might provide a roadmap for people to 
commit fraud, and I was saying that is not my goal. My goal is 
to help you prevent fraud in the first place. So, what their 
exact posture is right now at the working level, I don't know, 
but I will get you an answer.
    Mr. Sessions. Thank you.
    Mr. Sessions. I think that insight helps the six of us or 
the four of us up here as we attempt to provide our written 
guidance. I want to thank you for your service. Mr. Chairman, I 
yield back my time.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
recognizes Ms. Lee from Pennsylvania for five minutes.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Dodaro, 
for joining us today in this important hearing.
    Waste, fraud, and abuse in our system, you know, obviously 
must be taken seriously. The American people work too hard for 
their paychecks. They pay their fair share in taxes, or at 
least 99 percent pays their fair share in taxes, and we should 
be working to ensure that tax money is used to actually benefit 
them. Yet Republicans on this Committee will decry the need for 
oversight on our programs and in the same breath support 
Speaker McCarthy's debt ceiling legislation that is on the 
floor this week. Rather than help further the goals GAO lays 
out in the High-Risk List, this bill seeks to impose drastic 
across-the-board cuts to critical government programs and 
significantly disrupt agency work that addresses the identified 
problems.
    Mr. Dodaro, in GAO's 2023 High-Risk List, you outline the 
financial benefits that making progress on high-risk areas can 
yield. Since 2006, how much in financial benefits have actions 
on high-risk areas yielded for taxpayers?
    Mr. Dodaro. Six hundred and seventy five billion dollars.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you. I want to emphasize what the 
comptroller general just stated. Addressing high-risk areas has 
provided taxpayers $675 billion in financial benefits. Mr. 
Dodaro, what factors do you include when you calculate 
financial benefits?
    Mr. Dodaro. We include savings, you know, cost savings, 
better use of the resources. We also account for revenue 
collections that may have come in as a result of our 
recommendations, and it has included revenue enhancements as 
well.
    Ms. Lee. So, the financial benefits tracked by GAO are more 
than just savings. They could mean reduced government 
expenditures, increased revenues so that limited government 
funds can be reallocated to higher-priority areas. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Dodaro. That is correct.
    Ms. Lee. What are one or two examples of recommendations 
from this year's High-Risk List that could produce financial 
benefits and improve services for taxpayers if implemented 
correctly?
    Mr. Dodaro. There are a number. We have had a number, for 
example, in the Medicare area, we think that if you equalized 
payments by place of service. Right now, if you go to a medical 
appointment at a doctor affiliated with a hospital as opposed 
to a doctor who is operating their own practice in a private 
building, the government will pay more for the same level of 
service to the doctor at the hospital physician. And we think 
there are tens of billions of dollars that could be saved there 
as well. I think, you know, there is a number of savings we 
had, if the Congress would act, to give the Energy Department 
more authority to look at how we dispose of nuclear waste at 
the Hanford site, that there is a cheaper way to do it that 
would save tens of billions of dollars, if not more, in 
disposing of that low level activity waste at the Hanford site. 
This waste that has been accumulated since World War II in a 
buildup of our nuclear weapons systems. So, those are two big 
examples of where there are big dollars.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you. Just in closing, an ineffective 
government causes more than just a headache for citizens. It 
can mean people have to wait longer for tax refunds that they 
desperately need, or that it takes longer to travel somewhere 
because of our crumbling roads and our bridges, something 
Pittsburghers know all too well. The answer is clear: we can't 
drop ball when it comes to oversight of our programs. And with 
that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair 
recognizes Ms. Mace from South Carolina for five minutes.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we are here today to 
talk about government accountability, oversight, transparency. 
We have heard about cybersecurity issues and fraudulent 
payments on Medicare, Medicaid, et cetera. And then our friends 
across the aisle want to start banging Republicans over the 
head over absolute nonsense and accuse us of wanting to 
literally take food out of babies' mouths, I think is what I 
heard earlier today. If I recall, it was under the current 
Administration, last year, when there was a massive baby 
formula shortage literally taking food out of the mouths of 
babies during that shortage. And if I recall during the baby 
formula shortage, that we even had under the Biden 
Administration, Border Patrol agents that were literally 
holding baby formula imports hostage where I had to call the 
Border Patrol and get baby formula released from the Border 
Patrol so that babies could have the formula that they needed. 
So, to hijack this hearing over those issues is utter nonsense.
    We also heard others across the aisle talking about, you 
know, how Republicans want tax breaks for the wealthy. Well, 
you know, one of the greatest tax breaks for the wealthy was 
under the IRA, the Inflation Reduction Act, where there were 
$250 billion dollars of tax breaks for the wealthiest one 
percent. That is $26,000 in SALT, tax cuts for millionaires, an 
almost $13,000 government subsidy the for couples who are 
making half a million dollars a year to buy their luxury 
electric vehicles, taxpayer-funded subsidies for the wealthy 
for home buying, childcare, pre-K, Obamacare, paid leave, and 
more. So, I really don't want to hear about the hypocrisy of 
the left on this issue at all.
    The IRA mentions taxes, fees, and penalties 637 times. It 
was the largest expansion of Federal Government in 50 years. 
There are over 150 new government programs. And today the 
debate rages on about the debt ceiling, but Americans wouldn't 
recognize it. Americans are living paycheck to paycheck right 
now. They can't afford a platinum credit card with no limits, 
and yet that is what the Federal Government is doing today.
    The debate is not about, you know, about not raising the 
debt ceiling. The debate is about how much to raise the debt 
ceiling by. The debate is not about how soon to balance the 
budget. The debate is not about that at all. It is not about 
fixing Washington's out-of-control spending, which, by the way, 
is bipartisan because under President Trump, he raised the debt 
by $8 trillion, under President Biden over $4 trillion: $12 
trillion added to the debt over the last six years. And we have 
to deal with nonsense in this Committee when we are trying to 
talk about ways that we can reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in 
the American government system.
    American families who run a business and run their family 
budgets, they understand something that the Congress does not. 
They cannot run on a deficit. They have to balance their 
checkbooks every single week, and I am not going to give my 
teenage kids a platinum credit card with no limits whatsoever. 
And to see this debate politicized rather than having both 
sides come together on both sides of the aisle to say what are 
we going to do to fix the debt and the spending crisis that 
both sides have created today. And it is absolute crickets from 
our friends across the aisle on the left.
    And so, now that I have gotten totally off on the other 
side because the importance of this hearing is important, I do 
want to get to you, Mr. Dodaro, on some of this. You mentioned 
cybersecurity as being an issue, and I would like to hear some 
of your thoughts on this issue. You know, one of the things 
that we brought up on this Committee is the aging workforce in 
the Federal workforce and also the workforce that isn't showing 
up to work actually. But in the private sector, they don't have 
this issue where you have four times the number of Federal 
workforce employees in IT that are over the age of 60 that will 
be going into retirement soon versus those that are under the 
age of 30. I mean, how big of an issue is this going to be in 
the next couple of years?
    Mr. Dodaro. I think it is a very important issue, and point 
in fact, strategic human capital management is on the High-Risk 
List across the Federal Government. I am very concerned about 
the Federal workforce. Less than seven percent are under 30. At 
GAO, I might add, it is over 10, but, you know, because I have 
been focused on this as well.
    Ms. Mace. Mm-hmm.
    Mr. Dodaro. But this is a real problem for the Federal 
Government. There are 22 areas of the 37 on the High-Risk List 
because of critical skill gaps and shortages: government wide 
in the cybersecurity area, human capital management, 
acquisition management. And there are individual agency skill 
gaps in a lot of critical agencies across the government. So, 
this is a real problem that the government has, and I am 
concerned about it.
    Ms. Mace. And the last thing I will add--I only have 10 
seconds left--I was learning COBOL in the late 90's, and I was 
a programmer during Y2K, back then in the late 90's. Those were 
legacy systems.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
    Ms. Mace. And the number of systems that we have on COBOL 
in the advent of technology, even AI, and accessing our 
vulnerabilities and keeping data safe and secure is something 
else that we need to explore. I know your office is on top of 
it, so we really appreciate the reports you have been putting 
out and bringing cybersecurity to the forefront of this 
conversation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair 
recognizes Mr. Casar from Texas for five minutes.
    Mr. Casar. Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I think it is 
entirely appropriate that the Democratic minority on this 
Committee be talking about the potential impending crash of the 
American economy and the global economy if the American 
Government, for the first time ever, doesn't pay its bills. I 
think if anything should be on the High-Risk List, that 
probably No. 1 would be if this Congress, led by the Republican 
majority, forces default for the first time ever against the 
American people by this Congress not paying our bills.
    And so, if we want to have conversation here about making 
sure we don't have tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans or 
the biggest corporations, I think that would have enormous 
support here from the Democratic minority. I think it would be 
great for us to talk about repealing the last of the Trump tax 
scam, which we know benefited the top one percent of one 
percent. Our colleague here, Congressman Jimmy Gomez, recently 
introduced the 99.5 Percent Act, which would close loopholes on 
the estate tax and end benefits for those billionaires that 
continue to avoid paying their fair share every single year.
    That is, of course, not in Mr. Dodaro's report because that 
isn't part of your gig, but since it was brought up, I think 
really important for us to say here that that is an extremely 
high risk to the American economy and to the Federal Government 
if, for the first time ever, the Republican majority refuses to 
pay America's bills, basically holding things like SNAP 
benefits for ransom over it, which would take food out of 
children's mouths and seniors' mouths, and holding things like 
veterans' healthcare hostage.
    Just to get back to my line of questioning here for you, 
Mr. Dodaro, your report rightly highlights the fact that the 
climate crisis is having a devastating impact on our 
communities. In Central Texas, 100-year floods now we really 
call every-couple-a-year floods. We have had three of those in 
the last 10 years. So, your report says that FEMA really needs 
to update its work in order to address things like wildfires 
and floods. Tell us, would FEMA be able to achieve some of your 
recommendations and do the work that you all are tasking it to 
do if its budget were cut by, say, 22 percent? How would that 
impact FEMA's ability and other agencies' ability to achieve 
your recommendations to deal with climate?
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes. It would definitely complicate their 
efforts. By how much, I don't know. It depends on whether or 
not they have carryover money left or multi-year funding that 
is available. But the FEMA workforce has been a particular 
problem over the years, and we have written a lot about the 
current gap. They would have difficulty, you know, staffing if 
we had, you know, multiple disasters, but they have special 
resources they could call on.
    But the biggest issue, though, there on the High-Risk List 
is flood insurance, and given what you said, I am going to ask 
Ms. Orice Williams Brown to talk about what we think needs to 
be done in the flood insurance area. Orice?
    Ms. Williams Brown. In the National Flood Insurance 
Program, this is a program that has been on the list for many 
years basically following Katrina. It is a Federal program, and 
basically, the Federal Government stepped in to this space 
because there was a lack of a private market because, no 
surprise, you are quite familiar, flooding can be 
unpredictable, but flooding is also the great equalizer. And 
the challenge with the program is balancing affordability with 
sustainability of the program.
    And FEMA has been unable to charge actuarially sound rates. 
They have taken some steps recently to improve the rate-setting 
process and that increases premiums, but it also makes sure 
that the premiums reflect the risk of flooding, and this is an 
area that FEMA can only do so much. It does also require 
Federal intervention in terms of addressing a number of issues 
related to the program.
    Mr. Casar. With the goal being you don't want your flood 
insurance to be unaffordable, nor do you want the program to be 
insolvent.
    Ms. Williams Brown. Exactly.
    Mr. Casar. And I would assume that a 22-percent cut to 
something like FEMA would make that even more challenging.
    Ms. Williams Brown. It would make administering the program 
challenging.
    Mr. Casar. And so, again, I think it is entirely 
appropriate for the Democrats in the hearing here today to be 
raising that massive cuts to programs like FEMA will make 
addressing flood insurance harder. It will make it harder to 
make sure your flood insurance isn't unaffordable, harder to 
make sure the Flood Insurance Program isn't insolvent, harder 
for us to deal with crop insurance as we see our crops suffer 
from the climate crisis, along with consistent attacks on basic 
programs like SNAP, which most folks know as food stamps. We 
want to make sure that we have teachers in our schools. We want 
to make sure that folks are able to put food on the table, and 
we want to make sure that folks are able to be more and more 
resilient from all of these disasters. We have gone through 
floods and freezes, gone through the entire electric grid in 
Texas shutting down, and we need to be expanding these 
programs, not curtailing them.
    Thank you, Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Biggs for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Dodaro. 
Your report suggests that as of December 2021, DOD expected to 
spend more than $1.9 trillion to acquire weapons systems. Over 
what time period is this spending expected?
    Mr. Dodaro. I am going to want to ask Mr. DiNapoli, our 
expert in that area, to respond. Tim?
    Mr. DiNapoli. Thank you for that question. It is a 
difficult one to answer because most of those weapons systems 
equates to a life-cycle cost, so that can stretch out for 10, 
20, 30, 40 years. So, it is a long period of time.
    Mr. Biggs. So, as you look at it, have you made any 
modification vis-a-vis the use of weapons from our stockpile in 
the Ukrainian crisis?
    Mr. DiNapoli. So, as we mentioned before, that we do have a 
body of work ongoing taking a look at not only what has been 
provided to the Ukrainian Armed Forces but also what we are 
doing to replenish the stocks that we have taken them from.
    Mr. Biggs. So, tell us what the result of your re-analysis 
or modification would be.
    Mr. DiNapoli. It is still ongoing, so we can't actually 
give you the final results, but we are looking at, you know, 
how they determine which stocks would be provided from where, 
whether we will replenish them with new stocks or just going to 
let them draw down, how we are going to buy those new socks and 
when are they going to be available back to the armed forces.
    Mr. Biggs. Have you made any recommendations?
    Mr. DiNapoli. Not as of yet in that particular area.
    Mr. Biggs. So, on DOD financial management, you indicated 
that DOD has longstanding issues, including ineffective 
processes, systems, and controls, incomplete corrective 
actions, and the need for more effective monitoring and 
reporting. And I think you testified to Mr. Grothman regarding 
their failure of an audit in 2022. DOD financial management has 
been flagged as high risk since 1995.
    Your report states that financial management issues extend 
beyond reporting as, ``Longstanding control deficiencies 
adversely affect the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of 
its operations.'' You state that 67 recommendations remain open 
within DOD financial management and that implementation of 
previous recommendations has resulted in a savings of nearly $4 
billion in taxpayer dollars. Can you provide an estimate of the 
cost to taxpayers for the unimplemented recommendations?
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes. We can look at that issue and give you an 
estimate. Yes, we have done that across GAO, so I would be 
happy to provide that to the Committee.
    Mr. Biggs. Yes. I would love to see that because, I mean, 
they implemented a few of them and saved $4 billion. I would 
like to know the cost of failure to implement 60-some-odd.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes. Will do.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you. On business system modernization, 
your report states that DOD spends billions each year to 
acquire and modernize business systems. However, significant 
challenges impede DOD's efforts to improve their systems 
environment. And you highlight three critical challenges: 
improving business systems acquisition, improving business 
systems investment management, and leveraging DOD's federated 
business enterprise architecture. Can you provide an estimate 
of the cost to taxpayers for unimplemented recommendations 
within DOD's business system modernization efforts?
    Mr. Dodaro. We will have to provide that for the record.
    Mr. Biggs. OK. I look forward to seeing that.
    Mr. Biggs. You also state that weaknesses in management of 
contracts, finances, supply chain support, acquisition and 
weapon systems acquisition adversely affect DOD's efficiency, 
effectiveness and render its operations vulnerable to waste, 
fraud, and abuse, which, in turn, affects the readiness and 
capabilities of U.S. military forces. Can you discuss the final 
impact in more depth? What is the effect of waste within the 
Department of Defense on military readiness, and then I would 
ask if you are familiar with a study that was released where 
they estimated $125 billion a year was being wasted in DOD. 
That is not an official GAO----
    Mr. Dodaro. Right.
    Mr. Biggs. That is a journalist's estimate. So, I am 
curious if you are familiar with that as well.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes. We took a look at the study you are 
referring to. We will provide some information for the record 
on that. It has been a while, but I remember what you are 
referring to, and I will take a look at it and give you an 
answer for the record.
    Mr. Biggs. Yes. I would really appreciate that because I 
don't know whether they are accurate or not with $125 billion a 
year, but if they are, and I think it was a 2015 study.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
    Mr. Biggs. So, that is eight years, and we have had 
inflation since then. I would imagine that the waste, fraud, 
corruption, duplication, whatever you want to call it, has 
probably increased. I would really like to know where GAO, 
where you stand on that, what you are finding, and I would look 
forward to getting that. When might I expect that?
    Mr. Dodaro. We should be able to provide something to you 
within the next month.
    Mr. Biggs. OK. Thirty days?
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes. Yes, a month. I will go with 30 rather 
than 31.
    Mr. Biggs. I was hoping you were going to say 30 minutes, 
but I guess I will take 30 days.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
    Mr. Biggs. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Timmons. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Crockett from 
Texas for five minutes.
    Ms. Crockett. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Too often when I sit in 
this room listening to my colleagues on the right, I ask myself 
why are we having this hearing, but today is a little 
different, or is it? I applaud my Republican colleagues for 
conducting this hearing because GAO reports highlight the 
reasons why we cannot and should not pass the GOP's budget bill 
this week. You see, my colleagues on the right want their cake 
and they want to eat it, too. I call it hypocrisy and hype. 
They want to use this Committee as an arm of the RNC for 2024, 
but they don't want to provide the American people with actual 
substantive solutions. They want to point out issues in the 
Federal Government, but they don't want to give the resources 
to fix the problems of the American people.
    So, let us take a look at one issue that I know my 
constituents care about: taxes and getting their tax refunds. I 
am not even going to say tax returns. They want their refunds. 
Like my constituents in Texas 30, last week, I had to file my 
tax returns with the IRS, and like them, I want to make sure 
that I get my money. But according to the GAO report that is 
the focus of today's hearing, the IRS ``needs to increase its 
capacity to implement new initiatives, improve ongoing 
enforcement in taxpayer service programs, and combat identity 
theft and refund fraud.'' I have no doubt Federal employees at 
the IRS work hard to ensure Americans tax refunds go into the 
right hands. How do I know this? Because my mom is one of those 
Federal employees that works for the IRS, and, honestly, she is 
the hardest-working woman that I know.
    But even with this, the GAO High-Risk Report that one of my 
colleagues wanted to have a hearing on today cites that the 
primary reason for declines in audit rates and roughly $50 
million to $250 million in payments by the government to 
fraudulent tax returns is because of reduced staffing due to 
decreased funding, because last time I checked, ain't nobody 
trying to work for free. So, how would my Republican colleagues 
plan to fix this?
    Well, just this past January, they voted to defund the IRS 
even more, slashing $80 billion under the Inflation Reduction 
Act, passed by Democrats last Congress, and now Republicans are 
using the GOP budget bill to cut this $80 billion to the IRS. 
On top of how ridiculous this solution is, I am not even 
surprised that the CBO projected that in cutting this funding, 
the Republican budget bill would add $114 billion to the 
national deficit. Simply put, if Republicans really cared about 
fiscal responsibility and protecting American taxpayer dollars, 
they would put their money where their mouth is, but as we 
know, their budget bill represents their priorities, and it is 
clear that their priorities are to protect wealthy tax cheats 
instead of throwing the Federal hammer down on them.
    At the end of the day, I am here to do a job, and that is 
to protect my constituents. So, I would like to close out by 
asking our witnesses the following questions. Mr. Dodaro, what 
steps must Congress take to combat identity theft and fraud 
through the IRS and improve Agency efficiencies so that people 
can get their refunds?
    Mr. Dodaro. We have a number of recommendations for the 
Congress in that area. You know, one would be to require 
additional electronic filing, you know, rather than have the 
paper returns, you know, keyed in. That is an inefficient 
process and introduces errors into the process. I will ask Mr. 
McTigue to elaborate a little bit further, but one additional 
thing is to give IRS the authority to set requirements for paid 
tax preparers. Many of the unenrolled paid tax preparers 
actually have greater error rates than people preparing their 
own taxes.
    Ms. Crockett. Mm-hmm.
    Mr. Dodaro. So, I think it would be provided better 
oversight over that area, and to also require more third-party 
information reporting so IRS could match against the records. 
That would provide more accurate and timely responses. Jay, 
would you have any additions?
    Mr. McTigue. Those are the key ones. I guess the one 
additional comment I would make, Congress could provide IRS 
with greater authority to correct simple math errors where 
taxpayers have inadvertently made errors, information differs 
from what IRS or the government has in its data bases. And that 
would not only help in terms of IRS' administration, but it 
also would reduce the burden on taxpayers to address those 
errors through correspondence and back and forth with the IRS. 
Obviously taxpayers need to have protections and the ability to 
interact with IRS, too.
    Ms. Crockett. I understand. Thank you so much, and you 
would agree that IRS needs resources to be able to carry out 
these plans, correct?
    Mr. McTigue. I am sorry. What was the question?
    Ms. Crockett. I was just saying you would agree with me 
that the IRS does need resources in order to effectuate these 
plans, correct?
    Mr. McTigue. GAO has long pointed out that, you know, IRS 
does receive considerable resources, and, you know, it is 
imperative that they use the resources that they have most 
efficiently and effectively, but that can only go so far, 
particularly with the growth in the economy----
    Mr. Timmons. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Mr. McTigue [continuing]. And the, you know, growth in the 
number of taxpayers.
    Ms. Crockett. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Timmons. Thank you. I now recognize myself for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Dodaro, great to see you. Thank you for coming before 
us to discuss a matter of the utmost importance. I commend you 
and your staff on the work that was put into this year's High-
Risk Report. Many of the wasteful government programs that you 
identified here today have been discussed and rightfully 
criticized. Discussions are good and can be effective. However, 
discussions require follow-through to be effective. 
Unfortunately, Congress and the executive branch have been 
missing the bar when it comes to follow-through for decades.
    As you know, my colleague, Rep. Kilmer, and I worked on 
legislation contained in last year's NDAA that requires GAO to 
provide succinct priority recommendation reports to 
congressional committees. These reports would be organized by 
topic and contain the amount of time a priority recommendation 
has been open for and a cost savings estimate, among other 
things. So, my first question is, how many total priority 
recommendations produced by the GAO remain outstanding? What 
recommendations have been outstanding the longest, and how long 
is that?
    Mr. Dodaro. There are hundreds of open priority 
recommendations. I would have to go back and look at the 
winner, if you will, of who has been open the longest. There 
are a number to go back a number of years.
    Mr. Timmons. Is it----
    Mr. Dodaro. It is years. It is years.
    Mr. Timmons. Ten years or less?
    Mr. Dodaro. Well, I don't know, and I am not going to 
guess.
    Mr. Timmons. Sure.
    Mr. Dodaro. We don't guess at GAO. We will give you the 
facts.
    Mr. Timmons. I will give you another one. What 
recommendation that hasn't been addressed concerns you the 
most?
    Mr. Dodaro. There are a number that could save a lot of 
money. The one I mentioned earlier in the Medicare area where 
we are paying people differently based on place of service for 
the same service. That doesn't seem to be a good practice on 
the part of the Federal Government. Second would be the one I 
just mentioned on IRS, which is to give IRS to set requirements 
for paid tax preparers. I think that would generate additional 
revenue for the Federal Government without any additional 
costs, and it would be a more fair and equitable tax system. 
The one on Hanford is important, too, because that has low-
level radioactive waste disposal. That has tens of billions of 
dollars in potential benefits.
    Mr. Timmons. I know you don't like guessing, but what if we 
implemented all of the recommendations you have made? How much 
do you think that would save the Federal Government?
    Mr. Dodaro. Between $30 billion and $100 billion.
    Mr. Timmons. So, we should implement these recommendations.
    Mr. Dodaro. I don't have to guess on that. Yes.
    Mr. Timmons. OK. How much of this falls on congressional 
inaction compared to the executive branch agencies?
    Mr. Dodaro. It falls, you know, about equally, you know. 
There are a number of open recommendations for the Congress as 
well as the agencies. Most of the big-dollar savings, though, 
require congressional action.
    Mr. Timmons. So, in regards to the initial report from the 
legislation that was signed into law last year, the NDAA, how 
far along is it, and when do you think Congress should expect 
to receive it?
    Mr. Dodaro. You will have it in June.
    Mr. Timmons. In June.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
    Mr. Timmons. OK. Well, thank you. I want to transition to 
PPP fraud. Obviously tens of billions, possibly $100 billion 
was stolen through the PPP Loan Program. And I actually 
introduced the PPP Shell Company Discovery Act, which basically 
forces communication between SBA, IRS, and DOJ, and I think 
that is just one step in reclaiming fraudulent payments. I 
guess my question is, is the SBA fit to mitigate fraud in 
future emergency situations? Did we learn anything?
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes, so we learned quite a bit. SBA is trying 
to put in place a better fraud management framework that meets 
GAO best practices. We have had several conversations with the 
current administrator. They have finally designated an entity, 
but it is not fully staffed yet. They still have to do some 
more work, but, yes, I think we have learned some things. We 
are trying to put in place better practices over there, and I 
am encouraged, but we are not where we need to be yet fully.
    Mr. Timmons. In retrospect, do you think that the CARES Act 
should have given SBA access to some documents, from a limited 
nature, from the IRS to prevent what was hundreds of billions 
of dollars of fraud? Would that have fixed it?
    Mr. Dodaro. That would have made a big start on it. For 
example, they were prohibited by Congress from using tax 
transcripts in the Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program where 
they use them for the normal program, and that put them at a 
big disadvantage. Even though Congress corrected that later, it 
still took them months to be able to get that back as a 
control.
    Mr. Timmons. Sure. Thank you. I yield, and with that, the 
Chair now recognizes Mr. Frost of Florida for five minutes.
    Mr. Frost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My colleagues called 
this hearing to look at GAO's High-Risk List, a place where no 
government agency should be. And I commend the Biden 
Administration for making historic improvements over the past 
two years to get agencies off of this list and welcome the 
opportunity to help address some others. I also understand the 
concern of my Republican colleagues. You know, three new areas 
were added to the High-Risk List and one in particular, the 
Federal prison system.
    And, you know, I am kind glad of this new interest I am 
seeing from Republicans on this Committee that are showing 
interest in how incarcerated people are being treated, even if 
it seems that started just about two years ago on January 6. 
Some of us fight against mass incarceration, unjust prison 
conditions, and a lack of re-entry resources on behalf of our 
loved ones, friends, and constituents behind Bars. It seems 
like Republicans are looking to do it only for 
insurrectionists, but regardless of how you got here, welcome 
to the fight.
    Mr. Dodaro, I am curious. In the High-Risk List, the GAO 
notes that the Bureau of Prisons hasn't evaluated programs for 
incarcerated folks in decades. According to the GAO, the Bureau 
of Prisons has longstanding challenges, including several 
leadership changes, unsound storage of financial resources, and 
poor planning and evaluation of programs to help incarcerated 
people successfully return to society in their community. What 
changed in your assessment of their failures that elevated the 
Bureau of Prisons to high risk?
    Mr. Dodaro. Well, one was the fact that this has been 
occurring over a period of time. I was very concerned about 
that. We also looked at the implementation of the First Step 
Act and waited actually until their original implementation of 
that act. You know, you mentioned leadership changes. They have 
had six Directors in six different years, the staffing 
problems, extensive use of overtime led to safety concerns both 
for the inmates and the staff. And I will ask Charles Johnson, 
our expert, to elaborate a little bit more.
    Mr. Johnson. Yes, thank you, Comptroller General, and, 
Congressman, as the Comptroller General mentioned, there have 
been longstanding staffing challenges. One of the 
recommendations we made was that the BOP needed to collect 
better data and be able to monitor and come up with a real way 
by which they are able to calculate their staffing needs. 
Currently, we are finding that they have been authorized about 
$40,000 personnel, and they are roughly at about 35,000. So, 
they have a 15-percent gap in their staffing levels, which does 
impact the safety and security not only of the individuals 
incarcerated but their personnel as well. There is a massive 
use of overtime. Overtime has increased about 100 percent, and 
we felt like they needed to also assess their use of overtime 
and the impact that overtime has on their operations as well--
--
    Mr. Frost. Got you. Thank you.
    Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Among a lot of factors as well.
    Mr. Frost. Thank you. And I understand that before 
assigning a high-risk designation, GAO assesses the 
effectiveness of an agency's planned or ongoing corrective 
actions. Mr. Dodaro, since the Bureau of Prisons was elevated 
to the High-Risk List, has there been any signals of positive 
change or compliance with legal requirements?
    Mr. Dodaro. I was very encouraged. I met with the new 
Director of the Bureau of Prisons. We talked about this. I was 
impressed with her commitment to addressing these issues. They 
are working on some detailed plans to address this area. We are 
going work with them and agreed on a set of specific metrics 
that we are going to follow to determine when we take them off 
the High-Risk List because it not only takes leadership 
commitment. It takes capacity, an action plan, and actual 
monitoring and demonstrating some results. So, I think we are 
going to lay a good framework in place.
    Mr. Frost. OK.
    Mr. Dodaro. Once we have those metrics, I will share them 
with the Congress, of course.
    Mr. Frost. Thank you.
    Mr. Frost. You know, in Florida, we have the third-largest 
prisoned and incarcerated population in the Nation. The 
Republican legislature in Florida is intent on creating new 
criminal penalties for reading the wrong books, treating the 
wrong patients, what they call the wrong patients, and who 
knows what other infringements on our freedom will come from 
the state of Florida. Floridians have a large stake in 
rehabilitation programs simply because we have such a large, 
incarcerated population. What are some actionable steps that 
the Bureau of Prisons can implement that can contribute to them 
getting off of the next high-risk list?
    Mr. Dodaro. They can develop a better staffing model. They 
can make sure that they have a program evaluation plan for 
evaluating these programs to help prevent recidivism. You know, 
their latest estimate shows that about 45 percent of the 
population, within three years after release, ends back in 
prison. And so, there are a lot of those areas that they can do 
as well as specifying a little bit more about what would 
qualify for some of the benefits for early release right now 
that is allowed under the First Step Act.
    Mr. Frost. Thank you. You know, the effective planning and 
ongoing evaluation of these programs is essential to lower risk 
of recidivism and ensure formerly incarcerated folks can be 
integrated back into our communities. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Burlison. [Presiding.] The Chair recognizes Mr. Fallon 
from Texas for five minutes.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dodaro, what do 
you think the estimated total fraud is for the PPP Program?
    Mr. Dodaro. On the PPP Program, we don't have a fraud 
estimate, but there was $36 billion estimated for improper 
payments. We are looking at, you know, making that. The only 
one we have a fraud estimate now for is, at the low end, was 
unemployment insurance, which we estimate it was over $60 
billion.
    Mr. Fallon. And what can we do in the future to prevent the 
PPP, you know, fraud or mis-payments and also on the 
unemployment?
    Mr. Dodaro. First is not allow total self-certification. 
That invites fraud. Second was to make sure the agencies 
implement GAO's framework for preventing fraud in the first 
place. Second is to require internal control plans that have 
special procedures for emergency loan programs. We are about 
ready to issue report on a framework for that going forward, 
but I think it would be good if Congress required that 
framework in law. And also, any new program over a $100 
million, in my opinion, should be automatically deemed 
susceptible to improper payments so that there is an estimate 
made earlier in the process.
    Under the current rules, it could be two or three years 
before they make an estimate of improper payments. This would 
happen with PPP. I mean, the first time they did it is 2022, 
you know. They should have begun doing it a lot earlier, but we 
recommended they do it, but they weren't able to do it or 
didn't do it.
    Mr. Fallon. We don't hear a lot in this building ``common 
sense,'' ``good sense,'' so thank you for that. The Department 
of Defense spends millions of dollars each year to acquire and 
modernize business systems, including ones that address key, 
you know, areas such as, like, personnel, financial management, 
healthcare, and logistics, et cetera. And in my opinion, every 
time it seems like the good idea fairy visits the Pentagon, a 
new colonel gets his wings. I mean, it is massively 
bureaucratic over there, and I sit on the HAS Committee. There 
is so much duplicative effort over there, and it comes as no 
surprise to me that we struggle to bridge kind of the valley of 
death in a system designed like that. Through your work at the 
GAO, how do you think that DOD can best streamline business 
functions at the Pentagon?
    Mr. Dodaro. Implement leading practices. We do a lot of 
studies. I will ask Tim DiNapoli to come to the table to 
explain about how we have used leading practices to improve 
their weapon systems portfolio.
    Mr. Fallon. Mm-hmm.
    Mr. DiNapoli. So, through the years, as I mentioned before, 
DOD has been unable to deliver weapons systems on a timely 
basis and cost increases. So, what we did for last 20 years, 
have gone out to the private sector to look at a variety of 
companies and see how they develop and produce their systems.
    Mr. Fallon. Mm-hmm.
    Mr. DiNapoli. And the companies that we identified cut 
across industries, so it is not one particular segment. We try 
to look for the best companies in particular areas, and what we 
have been able to do is to distill those practices that are 
common to leading companies. We have made a series of 
recommendations through the years for the Department to 
incorporate those, and for the most part, in the early years, 
the Department has been able to do that in their policies. They 
don't follow them on a consistent basis, which means that from 
a practice perspective, they are not following what the 
policies are.
    We are currently updating that work to identify new 
practices based on new technologies and new information, and we 
have identified three or four key things that the Department 
could do in terms of trying to develop weapons systems and 
field them more quickly. The Department has not yet implemented 
those in their policies. We find it mixed in terms of whether 
or not individual programs are implementing them in their 
practices. So, I think there is a ways to go yet in terms of 
how weapons systems can be acquired, but that same principle 
can apply to almost any business modernization system as well.
    Mr. Fallon. Oh yes, and that is the thing. I think it is 
obvious you can learn a lot from the private sector. Do you 
think that they are looking enough to the private sector for 
that help and really just to follow that example? You don't 
always have to reinvent the wheel.
    Mr. DiNapoli. You know, it is always a challenge, right, 
because folks within the Department have a legacy system, and 
they are trying to maintain those.
    Mr. Fallon. Yes.
    Mr. DiNapoli. And so, trying to develop new systems 
requires both a maintaining of the existing, make sure they 
have those capabilities, and then figuring out a way to 
implement those new processes in an efficient and effective 
way. There are sometimes challenges on both sides.
    Mr. Fallon. In an efficient and effective way. That is what 
we are after.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes. One of the things that I think is 
important is that we have been trying to impress upon the 
Department the importance of maturing technology before you put 
it into production. Oftentimes they rush ahead. Now, I know 
that there are, you know, pressures to meet, you know, near-
peer competition and other things that force them to do that, 
but that leads to costly reinvestments down the road where they 
have to correct things.
    I mean, the Joint Strike Fighter is a good example of that 
and, you know, we are looking at the Columbia Class submarine 
development that has got some scheduling issues and others. But 
that is an important part as you sit on your assignments on the 
defense committees to check on is the maturity of the 
technology before they hit the production button.
    Mr. Fallon. Mm-hmm. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. 
Chair.
    Mr. Burlison. The Chair recognizes Mrs. Bush from the great 
state of Missouri for five minutes.
    Ms. Bush. Yes, great state of Missouri. All right. St. 
Louis and I are here today for a timely and important hearing. 
Mr. Dodaro, it is a pleasure to see you again, and hello to all 
the GAO staff.
    Last Congress, we discussed the Federal Government's 
obligation to clean up areas where Federal activities, 
including nuclear weapons production, have contaminated the 
environment. The Department of Energy knew that Coldwater Creek 
in North St. Louis County was dangerously contaminated in the 
1960's, yet it has taken over 60 years to address this crisis. 
The Federal Government now faces $626 billion in liabilities 
for these cleanup responsibilities.
    For decades, radioactive materials from the first atomic 
bomb were allowed to seep deadly contamination into Coldwater 
Creek in my district. Toxic chemicals, like radium and uranium, 
continue to threaten the safety and well-being of my 
constituents and my loved ones in St. Louis. As a result, tens 
of thousands of people in my community have confirmed or 
suspected exposure to radioactive waste. That means lung 
cancer, bone cancer, leukemia, breast cancer, skin cancer, and 
that is just to name a few of the tragic impacts.
    Far beyond the monetary cost, I know the human toll that 
this high-risk area takes because I have lived it and my 
constituents continue to live it every single day. We are not 
talking about a distant problem. I am in this room. I lived by 
the creek for a number of years. Even when I moved a few 
minutes away, the fully finished basement of my new townhouse 
would flood with potentially radioactive water. My son's room 
was in that basement. Our children are not safe living near the 
graveyard of an atomic bomb factory.
    Mr. Dodaro, what progress has been made on the Coldwater 
Creek issues, which remains on the High-Risk List since 2021?
    Mr. Dodaro. I will ask Mr. Gaffigan, our expert, to 
respond, please.
    Ms. Bush. Sure.
    Mr. Gaffigan. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman----
    Ms. Bush. Mm-hmm.
    Mr. Gaffigan [continuing]. And we discussed this two years 
ago.
    Ms. Bush. We did, mmh-mmh.
    Mr. Gaffigan. We did, and at your request, we have been 
looking at this issue. Coldwater Creek is one of 20 FUSRAP 
sites, which were the commercial side of the Manhattan Project 
that have left a legacy of waste, not only in your state but 
seven other states, so we are currently undergoing a review of 
the Corps. The Army Corps is charged with the cleanup of these 
20 sites, and we are looking at Coldwater Creek and all the 
sites in all these communities, and assessing where they are 
and assessing the environmental liabilities, where are the 
risks. Are they following leading practices for doing the 
cleanup, and what is the engagement with the community, the 
communication and sharing with the folks at what is going on? 
So, we are looking at all those issues.
    And we visited Coldwater Creek in November 2022, talked to 
the residents there and the cleanup officials, and we expect to 
report to you in August 2023 on the status of that project as 
well as the others.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you. Thank you for all of that info. All 
right. As we know, some progress has been made. Much more still 
needs to be done just across the board. Last October, high 
levels of radioactive exposure were detected in samples taken 
from the library, from the kitchen, classrooms, fields, and 
playground of Jana Elementary School in my district. The school 
has since been permanently shut down. Mr. Dodaro, what more can 
the Federal Government do to tackle this serious issue, or it 
can go to, yes.
    Mr. Gaffigan. Yes. Sure, and that's one of the things we 
are looking at. I know there have been several studies done 
just to that elementary school and what is going on.
    Ms. Bush. OK.
    Mr. Gaffigan. And I think that will be encompassed in our 
report as well because there is contamination from that site.
    Ms. Bush. OK. Thank you. Yesterday I introduced the 
bipartisan, bicameral Justice for Jana Elementary Act to ensure 
that potentially radiation-exposed schools in my district are 
lifted up and not left behind. It will require the Federal 
Government to clean up Jana Elementary and test other 
properties in the school district for contamination. You know, 
when we think about this issue, while Republicans are working 
to cut funding that will undermine the Federal Government's 
ability to meet its obligations to clean contaminated areas and 
assist suffering communities like ours, Democrats, we are 
working to make sure the Federal Government does more and 
invests more robust funding to support our communities.
    Congress and the Federal Government must meet their 
hazardous waste cleanup obligations to our communities, yet 
Republicans and their Default on America Act would deprive the 
government of resources to tackle these hazards and put the 
health and education of yet another generation of children at 
risk. I want to thank Mr. Dodaro and the GAO for being here 
today and answering our questions. I yield back.
    Mr. Dodaro. Thank you.
    Mr. Burlison. The Chair recognizes myself for five minutes. 
Thank you, Mr. Dodaro.
    There have been several programs that have been mentioned 
today and in your testimony that have been included in the 
High-Risk List since the 90's. So, the ones that I recall is 
Medicare, the fact there are improper payments, cybersecurity, 
which is a high risk, strategic human capital management. Any 
others?
    Mr. Dodaro. The ones from 1990, the original charter list, 
if you will, was a DOD weapon systems, the Tax Administration, 
Department of Energy, contracting system, NASA's acquisition 
system, and Medicare.
    Mr. Burlison. OK. And so, have any of these agencies fallen 
off the list? Which ones have fallen off?
    Mr. Dodaro. Well, these are the ones that are currently on 
the list.
    Mr. Burlison. That have been there since the 90's.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes. There was 14 on the original 1990. I am 
talking about just the original 1990 list. There were 14. Six 
are left, so eight have come off the list over time.
    Mr. Burlison. OK.
    Mr. Dodaro. And in total, there have been about 27 seven 
areas we have designated over time that have come off the list. 
There is a complete list in the report on when they came off 
the list.
    Mr. Burlison. So, are there any factors that are in common 
with these six that are remaining on the list? Any structural 
issues with those?
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes, there are some inherent risk, you know, 
associated with those issues. You know, weapons systems are a 
one-of-a-kind kinds of things that are developed. Medicare is a 
large and growing program with, you know, thousands if not 
millions of transactions every year, you know, with those 
programs, but they are all unique. There really is not one 
single thing, but I would also, you know, point out that in 
those six areas, even though they are still on the list, there 
has been a lot of progress made, and some of the financial 
benefits. We mentioned the $675 billion that has been saved 
since 2006. A significant part of them have come from those six 
programs.
    Mr. Burlison. That is promising to hear because, you know, 
seeing that they have been on this since the 90's is 
discouraging. So, but do you have any issues with agencies 
ignoring the fact that they are on the list? Is there any 
punishment or anything that happens when an agency is 
identified and placed on the High-Risk?
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes. The only statutory requirement is that if 
GAO puts something on the High-Risk List, that OMB needs to do 
a portfolio review of that issue. And so, we have been having 
regular meetings with OMB, the agencies on the High-Risk List, 
and GAO. I personally participate in those meetings, but, I 
mean, other than that, there is no ``penalty.'' Nobody ignores 
us. We won't let them. And so, you know, we are working with 
them, and I would like to see, you know, the continued 
leadership commitment. One of the things we take very seriously 
is since these are longstanding problems, is to provide 
transition between administrations of having each successive 
administration commit to that issue, and I have had good 
success there.
    Mr. Burlison. But you could implement one measure that 
would save the United States, you know, enormous amount of 
money and eliminate a lot of opportunity for fraud, of all the 
things, what would you say?
    Mr. Dodaro. Equalizing the payment process by place of 
payment for Medicare. Medicare. I mean, I mentioned this 
earlier. I mean, if you go into a doctor's office at a hospital 
or you go into a doctor's office in a private building----
    Mr. Burlison. Mm-hmm.
    Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. The government pays you more for 
the same treatment----
    Mr. Burlison. Yes.
    Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. In a hospital, tens of billions of 
dollars there, and it will reduce the amount of potential fraud 
in Medicare, and there is----
    Mr. Burlison. Yes. I know of patients, family members even 
that are on Medicare and were getting treatment in an 
outpatient setting, and they were moved. The hospital made the 
decision to end that service so they could move them into the 
hospital so they could charge more.
    Mr. Dodaro. It is----
    Mr. Burlison. And that happens all the time.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes, well, and it is costly. It is costly, and 
you don't get any better treatment. I mean, you get the same 
treatment.
    Mr. Burlison. Same service.
    Mr. Dodaro. So, I have been trying to get Congress to act 
on this for many years. I have several of my gray hair have 
come from this particular recommendation, and there are many 
others that we have.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you. My time has expired.
    Mr. Dodaro. Sure.
    Mr. Burlison. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Goldman from New 
York.
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dodaro, I want to 
focus a little bit on security clearances today. The 
government-wide personnel security clearance process was added 
to the High-Risk List five years ago. Is that right?
    Mr. Dodaro. That is correct.
    Mr. Goldman. All right. I see you have a colleague joining 
you. Happy for her to answer any of these questions. That year, 
the Federal Government announced the Trusted Workforce 2.0, 
which was an ambitious personnel vetting reform plan that 
intended to streamline and expedite the three personnel vetting 
processes under a single policy framework, focusing on 
suitability as well as fitness and a couple of other issues 
that I will get to.
    In the most recent High-Risk Report, the GAO says that 
considerable progress has been made in implementing this 
reform, but there is no rating for this area since the last 
report. It also identifies several problems, including examples 
of partially met initiatives relating to capacity, which is a 
schedule to manage oversight of security clearances, an action 
plan, monitoring, and demonstrated progress that. The changes 
have not fully been implemented since the GAO recommended them 
five years ago, and this is of particular importance in recent 
months.
    As you no doubt know, between January and April of this 
year, dozens of classified U.S. intelligence documents surfaced 
on public websites. And it was determined that a leaker, who 
was a 21-year-old IT employee of the Air National Guard, who 
had the highest level of security clearance, was ultimately 
charged criminally with unauthorized retention and transmission 
of national defense information and removal of classified 
documents. Now, this individual, Jack Teixeira, regularly 
posted racist and anti-government content online on the gaming 
app, Discord, on a group called Thug Shaker Central, and he was 
openly anti-Federal Government and criticized U.S. support for 
Ukraine.
    Now, this episode reveals severe blind spots in our 
security clearance process, especially as it relates to White 
nationalism and anti-government ideology. And, Mr. Dodaro, what 
actions has the GAO taken or plans to take to address this gap 
in vetting White nationalist and anti-government sentiments in 
the security clearance process?
    Mr. Dodaro. I am going to ask Ms. Berrick, who is our 
expert in the area, to respond.
    Ms. Berrick. Yes, thank you for the question. There are a 
number of areas that we are reviewing with respect both to the 
security clearance process and also the Insider Threat Program 
that exists within the Department. Related to the security 
clearance process itself, we are looking at continuous vetting 
for individuals that have received a clearance. Right now, the 
executive branch does not have a way to assess performance of 
how that is working. We are also looking at the capacity of the 
Department to develop a new management information system to 
track clearances and be able to grant reciprocity. We are also 
looking at controls related to protecting national security 
systems.
    With respect to the Insider Threat Program, we have looked 
at DOD programs and have found that in some cases, they were 
not meeting minimum Federal standards to protect national 
security systems, so we made a number of recommendations----
    Mr. Goldman. OK.
    Ms. Berrick [continuing]. For them to strengthen that.
    Mr. Goldman. Good. Right.
    Ms. Berrick. Given the recent incident, we are going to be 
doing a follow-on review looking at their Insider Threat 
Program.
    Mr. Goldman. All right. I am happy to hear that. I think 
all or nearly all of my colleagues would emphasize and agree 
that this is a serious national security issue, but I am 
concerned that at least one colleague of mine does not seem to 
recognize that this is a concern. Here is a tweet from a Member 
of this Committee which says that, ``Jack Teixeira is White, 
male, Christian, and anti-war. That makes him an enemy to the 
Biden regime. He told the truth about troops being on the 
ground. Ask yourself who is the real enemy: a young low-level 
National Guardsmen or the Administration that is waging war in 
Ukraine.'' Mr. Dodaro, without putting you on the spot, who is 
the real enemy to our national security, President Biden or 
Jack Teixeira who disclosed top-secret and unauthorized 
information?
    Mr. Dodaro. Anyone who violates their oath to protect the 
Constitution would fall into that category.
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Burlison. The Chair now recognizes Mrs. McClain.
    Mrs. McClain: Thank you. Thank you for being here. The past 
two years, HHS under the Biden Administration, I think, has 
fallen short in many areas. The GAO has concluded that HHS has 
failed to establish clear roles and responsibilities, provide 
clear and consistent communication, especially around COVID-19, 
as it pertains to transparency, accountability, really to 
ensure the public's trust, and has really failed to understand 
key partners' capabilities and their limitations.
    Specifically, as the Chair of the Subcommittee in Oversight 
on Healthcare and Financial Services, I found the FDA to be 
gravely flawed in responding to the baby formula crisis, and we 
had a whole hearing on that. And we can say that, you know, it 
is Abbott's issue and it is the FDA's issue, but last I 
checked, we have all of these government agencies, and it is 
their job to oversee to make sure instances like this doesn't 
happen. So, my question is, has the GAO identified other areas 
where the FDA has been deficient, right? We can't fix a problem 
until we can first admit we may have one.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes. I mean, there are two areas on the High-
Risk List that involve FDA, three including the new one that we 
just added, but one is oversight of medical products and 
safety, including pharmaceuticals, also a range of drugs, as 
well as medical devices, and we made a lot of recommendations 
there. The other is food safety.
    Mrs. McClain: Yes.
    Mr. Dodaro. We have had food safety on the High-Risk List 
for a number of years, and FDA is one of the key players there 
as well.
    Mrs. McClain: So, I am curious because in my hearing I 
asked a couple questions, but I am curious to know if you know 
how many of those regulators are actually back to work and not 
teleworking?
    Mr. Dodaro. Offhand, I don't know. I don't know if any of 
my colleagues know. Apparently not, but we are looking at the 
use of telework across Federal Government, so I will check with 
that team--they are not here today--and see if we have an 
answer there we can provide you.
    Mrs. McClain: I mean, I would think as a regulator, it is 
kind of difficult to regulate a facility sitting on your couch, 
but yes.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
    Mrs. McClain: I think as much as we would like to stay at 
home, we actually have to begin to hold the government to the 
same standards that we hold private industry to, and that is 
outcomes and outcome-based. What changes have been made around 
food security and food safety?
    Mr. Dodaro. Not enough in our view. I mean, we have been 
calling for a governmentwide food security safety plan for a 
number of years with clear performance measures and guidelines. 
That hasn't been forthcoming.
    Mrs. McClain: Well, so I just want to make sure I 
understand.
    Mr. Dodaro. Right.
    Mrs. McClain: So, we have a government agency that is their 
job to oversee food safety, right? They hold----
    Mr. Dodaro. Well----
    Mrs. McClain: Right? They hold----
    Mr. Dodaro. Well, actually, there are 15 Federal agencies, 
30 different laws that require them to have food safety. You 
have USDA involved. You have CDC. You have other----
    Mrs. McClain: Sure, so 15 agencies.
    Mr. Dodaro. Right. Right.
    Mrs. McClain: Yes. Thank you for that clarification.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
    Mrs. McClain: So, we have 15 agencies upon agency upon 
agency----
    Mr. Dodaro. Right.
    Mrs. McClain:--to do a job. From what I heard you say, we 
have given them recommendations or we have asked for some sort 
of accountability, some sort of measurements, and they just 
haven't had the opportunity to do it.
    Mr. Dodaro. No. No. No, no.
    Mrs. McClain: I wonder what they are doing.
    Mr. Dodaro. Well----
    Mrs. McClain: Clearly not their job----
    Mr. Dodaro. Well, they are doing a lot of things.
    Mrs. McClain:--that they are paid to do.
    Mr. Dodaro. And they are doing a lot of things, and I will 
ask Mr. Gaffigan to respond on food safety. But the issue is--
--
    Mrs. McClain: But hang on one second.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
    Mrs. McClain: Let me, and I don't mean to interrupt you.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
    Mrs. McClain: But we have asked them for outcomes on the 
job that they were signed up and paid to do, and we have not 
received that from them.
    Mr. Dodaro. There is no governmentwide plan yet. We have 
asked Congress to require a governmentwide plan to create, 
recreate an interagency working group to work together. We have 
even recommended in the past there be a single food safety 
program and that Congress, you know, move in that direction. 
So, the agencies haven't done it, and Congress hasn't required 
them to do it. Mark, do you want to add anything there?
    Mr. Gaffigan. Yes. It has been frustrating since 2007 all 
those options we have laid out, both for the executive branch 
and for Congress. And to come back to your example of infant 
formula, in the response, they said, well, let us develop 
immediate national strategy.
    Mrs. McClain: Let us hire more people to do a study.
    Mr. Gaffigan. Well, let us develop an immediate national 
strategy. That is not the way to do a national strategy, right, 
an immediate national strategy. So, they are planning to try to 
formalize that, but for each thing that comes up, these 
agencies, working with all the regulations, try to address them 
piecemeal, and we think a national strategy would be a much 
more effective way to do that.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes, like, for example, on the infant food 
safety for infant formula. If I might----
    Mr. Burlison. Briefly.
    Mr. Dodaro. This is a very important point. On that area, 
that market for infant formula is a very fragile----
    Mrs. McClain: Yes.
    Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. Concentrated market that is 
insulated from domestic and foreign production. And also, a big 
factor is the WIC Program, and there is a single-payer approach 
on the WIC Program. So, even though you have FDA there, the 
actions taken by HHS on how we hire companies to provide 
services through the states on the WIC Program has a big impact 
on the infant formula market. So, you need a whole-of-
government approach to deal with these issues.
    Mrs. McClain: We will talk more.
    Mr. Dodaro. I appreciate the indulgence of the Chair. I am 
sorry.
    Mr. Burlison. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Porter from 
California.
    Ms. Porter. Thank you very much, and they say 
bipartisanship is dead. And yet I am the Ranking Member of the 
Oversight Subcommittee on Health Care and Financial Services, 
and Representative McClain is the Chairwoman of that Committee, 
and I want to echo a lot of what she just asked you about. She 
is absolutely right that we need to be outcome-based, that we 
had a terrific hearing on this and yet did not get, I don't 
think, a fully satisfactory plan.
    I think what you have added, very helpfully, Mr. Dodaro, is 
a sense that it is not just the FDA that we have bad 
interagency, you know, sometimes bad interagency communication, 
certainly a much better opportunity for interagency 
cooperation. So, I am interested in the whole-of-government 
approach. I think I would be happy to talk with my colleague on 
the other side of the aisle about whether or not that is 
something we should have a hearing about because I think what 
we took away, both of us, Republican and Democrat, from the FDA 
hearing is that what we saw with the infant formula crisis 
could very well occur again because we have not fully adapted 
and changed. Would you agree with that?
    Mr. Dodaro. Absolutely. That is why they are on the High-
Risk List, so I am very concerned about it. You know, FDA has 
got challenges on both their fronts, on the food safety front 
and on a medical product safety, particularly since a lot of 
that is foreign production now in those areas. So, both of 
their responsibilities have grown, and I think it is a need to 
take a re-examination of their capabilities. You know, we have 
raised the need for a workforce plan for FDA and others, and I 
am really concerned about this because part of this is, and I 
have spent most of my career trying to get the government to 
adapt to changing circumstances in their environment, and this 
has outstripped the capacity, I believe, of FDA to deal with 
these issues on a satisfactory basis.
    Ms. Porter. Yes. Amen, and I will just say that I think a 
big focus of my time in Congress has been trying to get the 
government to adapt to changes in circumstances. So, I take it 
that you think that the FDA's announcement to create a human 
foods program is only a partial solution here to the larger 
problem of interagency coordination that is needed.
    Mr. Dodaro. Absolutely.
    Ms. Porter. So, I mean, I think while that plan would 
reduce fragmentation and improve coordination, it is simply 
isn't going to get us to the whole-of-government, which is 
where we need to be.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes, absolutely. It doesn't get to the root 
cause of the problems.
    Ms. Porter. Now, as you know, doing the work and being 
outcome-based, as Representative McClain says, takes resources. 
The President's Fiscal Year 2024 budget requests an increase of 
$521 million for the FDA, about 10 percent more than last year. 
I want to make sure those tax dollars are used wisely and 
effectively in programs that work, but it is hard to square the 
FDA improving when, in fact, House Republican leadership is 
asking us to vote for a bill that would slash the FDA's budget 
by 22 percent or more. You just said that they have more work 
to do. Is giving them less resources going to help them?
    Mr. Dodaro. It definitely is going to be a complicating 
factor to ensure that you have those issues. Well, we haven't 
specifically looked at squarely the issue that you are talking 
about, but it is an issue that has to be carefully considered 
because it could have serious consequences.
    Ms. Porter. Yes. I want to turn to talk about the Federal 
role in housing. Homeownership is incredibly important to 
American families, to their way of life, to their security, to 
their well-being, for their ability to have economic stability, 
and it is out of reach for too many, homeownership. Since 2013, 
so for a decade, GAO has designated the Federal role in housing 
finance as a high-risk area, and in 2019, Treasury and HUD did 
work to lessen some of the risk by issuing housing finance 
reform plans. They had 81 administrative recommendations to the 
agencies. How many of these 81 administrative recommendations 
have been implemented?
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes. I am not sure offhand, but I would ask 
Orice Williams Brown, our expert, to help respond.
    Ms. Williams Brown. Yes, thank you. I actually don't have 
the list. We are happy to do some digging and provide a 
response.
    Ms. Porter. I mean, I hope you do do the digging because we 
actually tried to identify some of this information, and we 
were having trouble keeping track of whether or not Treasury 
and HUD, they seem to have stopped systematically tracking 
their implementation. And we can't tell if these are finished 
recommendations or unfinished recommendations, and we can't 
assess the risk that we still face in housing finance if they 
don't do that. So, I would like you to both track them and put 
it on your websites so we can see who is making progress on 
these 81 recommendations and who is not.
    I also want to just point out briefly, Mr. Chair, if I 
could, that you also made 35 recommendations to Congress on 
reducing risk in housing finance, and Congress has enacted 
zero. And so, this is, again, like with the FDA, a problem of 
both agencies and Congress having opportunities, and we can't 
just keep passing the buck back and forth between each other. 
We have to act in concert to deliver. So, thank you very much 
for your indulgence, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Burlison. The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Boebert from 
Colorado.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 
Comptroller Dodaro for joining us today.
    It is this Committee's responsibility to investigate and 
root out causes of waste, fraud, and abuse, and mismanagement. 
Noticeably, this year's report indicated the Department of 
Health and Human Services' leadership and coordination of 
public health emergencies, even though COVID is over. And the 
unemployment insurance system, it was added to the High-Risk 
List after the Biden Administration has continued to fumble the 
ball when it comes to responsibly managing taxpayer dollars 
regarding COVID management. Comptroller Dodaro, for some 
background information, what are some of the ways that certain 
agencies and programs are added to the High-Risk List?
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes. We have a number of factors. One, you 
know, we do ongoing work at GAO all the time across all areas 
of the Federal Government, so we look at our institutional 
knowledge of these issues. We consult each Inspector General 
list, what they believe the top management issues are in each 
of their individual agencies across government. So, we consult 
that. We consider the amount of money that is involved--it has 
to be at least a billion dollars--and we look at a lot of 
qualitative factors as well, the impact on public safety, for 
example, and other matters.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you. The High-Risk List this year 
included one very notable addition: the Department of Health 
and Human Services' leadership and coordination of public 
health emergencies. Can you elaborate on their failures of this 
program?
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes. Yes. I will ask Jess Farb, who is our 
expert in healthcare.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you. Hi.
    Ms. Farb. Thank you for the question.
    Mr. Biggs. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Farb. So, we looked at HHS's response to public health 
emergencies over decades, so not just the most recent emergency 
that we are all familiar with, but response to Zika, response 
to natural disasters, responses to Ebola. And so, looking at 
that, we found that HHS did not have a number of things in 
place that would have helped with this response, including 
understanding roles and responsibilities, the capacity of their 
partners, communicating clearly with the public, being 
transparent about actions that need to be taken. So, there were 
a number of things that we observed over time across multiple 
public health emergencies that allowed us to sort of come to 
the conclusion that they needed to be added to the list.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes, and I want to keep it visible to the 
American public and to the Congress because I don't think we 
are anywhere near as prepared for the next emergency as we need 
to be.
    Mrs. Boebert. So, have these leadership failures at HHS 
contributed to other--it sounds like it does--other health 
emergencies, like the baby formula shortage, the crisis at the 
border, and several other natural disasters that took place 
just last year?
    Ms. Farb. HHS is a very complex department, as we all know, 
and having multiple components that both need to act 
independently but also work together, and we were talking about 
this earlier how agencies need to coordinate, not only across 
the government but also even within the Department. And this is 
a case with HHS that they need to do more coordination within 
the Department to respond.
    Mrs. Boebert. The report found that the GAO has 
consistently found deficiencies in HHS' ability to lead the 
country's preparedness, as mentioned, and response for more 
than 10 years, which is quite literally their job to do. 
According to a report published in January of last year, you 
identified 246 total recommendations for improving Federal 
operations at HHS alone. How many of your recommendations has 
the Biden Administration implemented?
    Ms. Farb. I believe we will have to get back to you with an 
answer on that for the record. I don't know off the top of my 
head how many they have implemented, but they have implemented 
some recommendations. How many of that that total number, I 
can't give you the number today.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes, and I would say, you know, HHS is one of 
the agencies that has a relatively lower percentage of 
implementing our recommendations than is the norm across 
Federal Government. So, we are trying to work to increase that, 
and whatever help we can get from the Congress, we would 
appreciate.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you. I look forward to assisting in 
that and hearing that we have bipartisan support in getting 
Congress to act to assist you in that. I think we should put 
that as one of our priorities here. Another notable addition to 
this list is the unemployment insurance system. In your report, 
you indicated this addition is largely due to large amounts of 
fraud and improper payments, which have come at a huge cost to 
taxpayers, of course. Did the rate of these errors in 
unemployment insurance systems increase throughout the 53-week 
extension from this Administration?
    Mr. Dodaro. It has been going on during the entire 
pandemic, yes. Tom, would you like to add?
    Mr. Costa. Yes, the improper payment rate went up. It is 
now at 22 percent, but that doesn't include the Pandemic 
Unemployment Assistance Program where we expect that the 
improper payment rate is higher than that.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you. My time has expired, and I yield. 
Thank you for your answers.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Brown 
from Ohio.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 
Dodaro, for joining us today. I appreciate us holding this 
important hearing to review the Government Accountability 
Office's Biannual High-Risk List. The High-Risk List is an 
important tool for the government to responsibly manage 
trillions of dollars of spending. And if we are honest, when 
the Biden Administration came into office, there were certainly 
opportunities for improved oversight of past Federal spending.
    With the Trump Administration's $2 trillion tax giveaway to 
the wealthy and giant corporations, Republicans' actions had a 
detrimental impact on the Federal deficit. In fact, President 
Biden inherited a historically high deficit. As always, 
Democrats came in and started righting the ship. For example, 
take the investment in our tax enforcement made possible by the 
Inflation Reduction Act. That provision alone means billions of 
dollars back in the pockets of American people by having the 
wealthy begin to pay their fair share. Unfortunately, my 
friends on the other side of the aisle are proposing 
legislation to directly undo all of that good work. Their 
Default on America Act is part of the backward, catastrophic 
Republican plan.
    According to Moody's Analytics, the Republican budget would 
``meaningfully increase the likelihood of a recession and 
result in 780,000 fewer jobs by the end of 2024.'' My 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are willing to put 
our country on the brink of recession to make sure that the top 
one percent can get away with contributing half or a third of 
what a schoolteacher or firefighter pays in taxes. Does that 
make sense to anyone here?
    The Republicans' proposal slashes non-defense discretionary 
funding by 22 percent. That would mean cuts of more than 20 
percent from everything, like veterans medical care to rail 
safety inspections and more. The Default on America act would 
also threaten the strength of our Federal workforce and ability 
of Federal agencies to fill those workforce vacancies. So, Mr. 
Dodaro, how would the inability to fill critical workforce 
positions at Federal agencies contribute to an increase in 
high-risk programs?
    Mr. Dodaro. Well, 22 of the 37 areas on the High-Risk 
List--22 of the 37--are on there in part because they already 
have critical skill gaps and shortages. So, the extent to which 
those continue or are exacerbated would, you know, prevent them 
from solving fully and gaining the capacity that they need to 
be able to address those issues.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you for that. Now, for the record, how 
much in savings is returned to the economy for every dollar 
spent at the GAO?
    Mr. Dodaro. In the last five years, it has averaged $145.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you. Frankly, I find it alarming that 
workforce and skills gaps, which would be significantly 
worsened by the default on our debt plan, could have such a 
harmful impact on the high-risk programs that the Biden 
Administration is working diligently to address. According to 
the top experts, the Republicans' plan to hold the full faith 
and credit of the United States hostage in order to force huge, 
unnecessary, and arbitrary cuts would potentially put the 
country on the brink of a recession, cost millions of jobs, and 
hurt us all. Meanwhile, House Democrats favor protecting public 
safety and improving public health, lowering costs for families 
and students, and supporting seniors and veterans. And with 
that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Burlison. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Fry from South 
Carolina.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing 
today, and thank you, Mr. Dodaro, for being here.
    The American people deserve to know where their money is 
being spent. I have talked with a lot of my constituents since 
being in Congress, and I know that they are hurting 
financially. We see that in an inflation and in other things. 
They have to decide right now between gas in the tank or 
groceries in the fridge. They have to say ``no'' to a lot of 
things right now. That is why it is so hard to look at this 
High-Risk List. It makes me disappointed. It makes me 
frustrated, and I know that these big agencies and programs are 
prone to risk. They need to be good stewards of the taxpayer 
dollars. If the American people have to cut back on spending, 
why not the U.S. Government, too? Why not reform the way that 
we operate our agencies to account for the American taxpayer?
    I represent the 7th District in South Carolina, home to 
South Carolina's finest beaches and golf courses. It is a 
premiere retirement destination. That being said, I also 
represent a lot of people who are on Medicare. In fact, my 
district has the highest population of Medicare beneficiaries 
in the state with over 201,000 people enrolled. Mr. Dodaro, I 
want to talk about Medicare today, which, again, makes the 
GAO's High-Risk List for, what, the 3d decade I think at this 
point in a row?
    The improper payments going out under Medicare total nearly 
$81 billion. That is roughly 15 percent of the total costs of 
Medicare. I bet Americans would love to have a little piece of 
that back. So, I get it, Medicare is a giant program with 
things going on. They slip through the cracks. In Fiscal Year 
2022, $47 billion of Medicare funds were improperly paid out. 
Mr. Dodaro, where is that money going?
    Mr. Dodaro. I will ask Ms. Farb, our healthcare expert, to 
respond.
    Ms. Farb. So, a large portion of the improper payment rate 
that is calculated by the Agency is driven by lack of 
documentation. So, it is hard to know if the payment was made 
improperly, meaning it should be returned so there is a 
monetary loss, or if it was just a lack of documentation, for 
example, a clinician didn't provide the information needed to 
approve the claim. So, one of the things we have recommended in 
the past is that CMS take a look at the documentation 
requirements for clinicians and try to balance the idea of not 
over burdening clinicians but also making sure the 
documentation, you know, requirements are easy to meet.
    Mr. Fry. How much do you think is being distributed to 
fraudsters who are intentionally trying to rip off the Federal 
Government?
    Ms. Farb. I don't have an estimate of the exact amount of 
fraud, but we can get back to you on that----
    Mr. Fry. Yes, please.
    Ms. Farb [continuing]. For the record.
    Mr. Dodaro. There are definitely cases that have been 
brought, and, in fact, most recently within the last year, I 
think one of the biggest fraud in the Medicare Program has been 
done by the Department of Justice under the task force. 
Clearly, there are big cases of fraud involving a number of 
people.
    Mr. Fry. Right. Thank you. Would you say that most of the 
money is because of improper payments from clerical errors or 
otherwise? Is that where most of the losses----
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes, it can be. It can be going to ineligible 
people. It could be going to an eligible providers. It could 
be, you know, the wrong amount. Most of this is overpayments. 
Some of it is under payments, but it is a very small percentage 
going to under payments. But the frustrating part, as Ms. Farb 
mentioned, is that in a lot of cases, there is just no 
documentation to tell, and you know if you were audited by the 
IRS, they would want to have your documentation, but a lot of 
the people in the Federal agencies say, well, it is just a 
documentation problem.
    I say we should have the same requirement when we are 
spending money to make sure you can adequately explain to us 
why you are spending that money as if you are getting audited 
by the IRS. So, that is a problem, too.
    Mr. Fry. How do you think that we can prevent this? I mean, 
what are some steps these agencies can take regarding Medicare 
to make measurable progress here?
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes. Well, they will need to do more audits of 
Medicare Advantage providers. They are way behind in those 
audits, and they still haven't released the audits from 2011 to 
2015. Jess, you want to add----
    Ms. Farb. Well, also, they should allow the recovery audit 
contractors to conduct prepayment reviews. They get a 
percentage of post-payment reviews with this pay-and-chase 
model we were talking about earlier, but if they were allowed 
to do prepayment reviews and more of that, then that would 
help. And Congress has to give them some of that authority.
    Mr. Fry. Yes. What changes in strategies that have been 
implemented in other agencies or programs to remove that agency 
from the High-Risk List would be useful to the Medicare Program 
if they were to apply?
    Mr. Dodaro. Well, one would be to continue to have an 
action plan to deal with these issues with goals and measures. 
Like, they don't really have a goal right now, that I am aware 
of anyway, where they would reduce the improper payment to a 
certain level. And one of the problems that we have is that you 
need to have a goal to know whether you are making progress or 
not. Now, they have been bringing down the improper payment 
rate, even those are big numbers yet, in the Medicare program. 
The Medicaid Program is going the other way, and that is, to 
me, a bigger problem in Medicaid than there is a Medicare right 
now.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Burlison. The Chair recognizes Mr. Moskowitz from 
Florida.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dodaro, good to 
see you again. I want to turn your attention to a high-risk 
area that is not necessarily on your list, but it is an issue 
that the GAO has published a number of reports about, and that 
is the risk of defaulting on our national debt. Mr. Dodaro, 
what would happen if the United States defaulted on our 
national debt?
    Mr. Dodaro. I think it would have relatively catastrophic 
effects, you know. One of the reasons that, you know, the 
Federal Government, where the dollar is the, you know, the 
reserve standard is because we have most of most liquid 
markets, Treasury markets in the world, and that provides a lot 
of safe, reliable investments on the part of a number of 
people. That is why a lot of reserve banks in other countries 
purchase Treasuries. And I think, you know, we are borrowing 
such large amounts of money at a high pace, that if we 
defaulted on our debt, I think we would have a very difficult 
time convincing other people to borrow. So, I mean, if you lend 
money to somebody and they didn't pay you back in time, would 
you give them more money? And we are pretty dependent on 
having----
    Mr. Moskowitz. Do you want me to answer that?
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Dodaro. That is fine, but I have been trying for at 
least six years now, maybe longer, to try to get the way we set 
the debt ceiling changed. I think the way we have it now, you 
know, we are only one of two countries in the world that do 
this. The other one is Denmark, and they set their debt limit 
so high they will probably never get there, so this is a 
problem. Right now, what we have seen around these dead-impasse 
periods is that people stop purchasing Treasuries that might 
mature around a date that there may be a potential default on 
this. So, it distorts the Treasury markets. It causes----
    Mr. Moskowitz. Right. Even----
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Even before a default.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. Well, and also you 
see, the interconnected nature of our markets now. Let us take, 
for example, just Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, two 
relatively small banks in the scheme of things, but even there 
can have potential systemic repercussions. So, I think a 
default would have enormous repercussions here and would affect 
not only our economy but have ripple effects throughout the 
world.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Yes, and since 1960, the debt ceiling has 
been raised 78 times: 49 times under Republican Presidents, 29 
times under Democratic Presidents, 18 under Ronald Reagan, 8 
times under Bill Clinton, 7 times under George W. Bush, 5 times 
under Barack Obama, 4 times under Donald Trump. And, you know, 
this debt ceiling brinksmanship that we go into, I mean, I want 
to talk about how damaging, you know, you think that is as 
well, just this continued conversation that we always have to 
have because the debt ceiling is used as leverage for other 
issues.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes. Well, it hasn't yet ever changed the 
trajectory of the long-term path of the Federal Government, 
which I have reported is on an unsustainable fiscal path, but 
it does raise the interest rates that people want to have to 
borrow us money. So, in addition to distorting the liquidity, 
affecting the liquidity in the Treasury markets and people 
avoiding purchasing Treasuries, it costs us more money in the 
short run to borrow additional money. So, it is really not, you 
know, an effective way.
    Like, for example, we have recommended that the debt 
ceiling be raised at the time Congress makes the appropriation 
decisions, you know, so it is done as a unified basis, or that 
Treasury have the ability to raise the debt ceiling whenever it 
is needed based upon the laws that Congress has already passed. 
All it does now is allow Treasury to borrow the money that 
Congress has already authorized and the President has signed 
into law.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Right, and, you know, we hear from our 
colleagues about the economy, and the fall of the dollar, and 
the fact that the dollar is the currency for the world, and the 
rise of China, and we have a China Select Committee. I mean, 
nothing, in my opinion, could be more fuel for the rise of 
China and the fall of the United States in the eyes of the 
world than defaulting on our debt. Do you agree with that?
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes, I do. It will have economic but 
reputational consequences that will be felt for years if we 
ever defaulted, and I hope we never do.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Burlison. The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Luna from 
Florida.
    Mrs. Luna. For those of you tuning in, each Congress the 
Government Accountability Office provides a list of programs 
and operations that are susceptible to fraud, waste, and abuse, 
management or needs improvement. As of 2023 in April, there 
were 37 areas on the High-Risk List, one of which was improving 
Federal oversight on food safety, which is an area that still 
needs major improvement after being added to the list back in 
2007.
    In the United States, the safety and quality of food is 
overseen by around 30 Federal laws and are administrated by 15 
Federal agencies. One major area of concern in food safety is 
the use of food dyes, which have been linked to hyperactivity, 
behavioral issues in children, including an increased risk of 
certain cancers, and other health problems. This is because the 
food dyes that they are using are derived from petroleum and 
often contain chemicals that are toxic to the body. Other 
countries like the United Kingdom have taken these safety and 
quality of food so seriously, that they have banned dies like 
Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6 food colorings because of safety 
concerns.
    Another area of concern for food safety is the importation 
process for foods, which are regulated by several agencies, 
including the FDA and the USDA. I recently was able to visit a 
port where I witnessed the importation process firsthand and 
realized that in the instance of seafoods, they are not always 
tested when they arrive at our ports, which is a huge problem 
because studies have shown that China's seafood farms, which 
produce about 80 percent the world's mariculture, are 
responsible for dumping large amounts of antibiotics into the 
ocean, giving dyes to fish, like Red 40, that are known to 
cause cancer as well as whatever other nasty things they decide 
to feed them.
    Mr. Dodaro, why is improving the oversight on food safety 
on the GAO's risk list?
    Mr. Dodaro. We have a lot of concerns about the level, you 
know. The last estimates in terms of, like, there are about 
125,000 people a year to get ill from food safety. There are a 
number of hospitalizations and there about 3,000 deaths that 
occur based on the latest estimate, so I am very concerned 
about it from a public health and safety standpoint. The system 
is fragmented, and I will ask Mr. Gaffigan, our expert, to 
explain some additional reasons.
    Mrs. Luna. If, I guess, I could then ask him----
    Mr. Dodaro. Sure.
    Mrs. Luna [continuing]. Why has the Federal agency that is 
tasked with improving the oversight of food safety not 
developed a national plan or strategy to address this problem?
    Mr. Gaffigan. I wish I had a good answer to that. We have 
recommended that they do so in various ways. There was a food 
safety working group back in 2009, shortly after we had put 
this on the list, that stopped meeting in 2011. That was one 
mechanism. We have talked about them then establishing, you 
know, again, a national strategy or a Blue Ribbon Commission to 
study this. We have done a national academies panel. Everybody 
agrees there needs to be some kind of national strategy that 
brings all these entities together.
    Mrs. Luna. Do you know why they stopped meeting back in 
2011, was it?
    Mr. Gaffigan. Just, again, I think the problem is no one is 
in charge, right? When you have 15 agencies in charge, no one's 
in charge, and I think also from Congress, you know, we have 
suggested that they could take action to designate, you know, a 
lead agency. And so, it has just been kind of go along, and as 
things come up, like we talked about infant formula, OK, well, 
let us develop an immediate national strategy. Yes, we recently 
did work on cell culture food, how they are going to address 
that. And, again, it is the same issue. How are you guys 
working together?
    Mrs. Luna. Mm-hmm.
    Mr. Gaffigan. OK. You need to do better at collaboration. 
We made a bunch of recommendations in that lane. So, as each 
thing comes up, and you mentioned additives. OK. Now, we need a 
national strategy on additives?
    Mrs. Luna. Well, for these instances, it caused cancer.
    Mr. Gaffigan. Right. Right.
    Mrs. Luna. So, I guess would anyone here feed your family 
something that is known to cause cancer? Certainly not, right? 
Yes.
    Mr. Gaffigan. So, that is why it is on the list.
    Mrs. Luna. Exactly. OK. So, does GAO in general, Mr. 
Dodaro, look at other countries in regards to their food 
standards and make recommendations on how we should implement 
that here in the United States?
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes. Mark, have we ever looked at that?
    Mrs. Luna. Like U.K., Asia, anywhere.
    Mr. Gaffigan. Yes. You know, that has come up at times. We 
haven't done any recent work on that. You know, we are aware of 
what is going on in other countries and sometimes talk about 
that. There hasn't been an interest in that, and I will 
mention, and this is the same issue on chemicals which are on 
our High-Risk List----
    Mrs. Luna. Mm-hmm.
    Mr. Gaffigan [continuing]. What they do to address 
chemicals and chemical assessments. The EU does things, because 
chemicals don't know any borders, additives, sorts of things, 
so I think there is some potential there. We haven't done any 
recent work, or we haven't been asked to, but we are open to 
having those discussions.
    Mrs. Luna. I think, you know, obviously the bigger issue is 
the American public needs to be able to trust the food that is 
available for purchase at grocery stores, you know, 
understanding that there should be a strict safety and quality 
standard that is met before it is available to the public, but 
unfortunately, that seems to not be the case, especially in 
these instances. And I am just going to close with this. I hear 
a lot of people talking about SNAP and EBT, but the more 
processed foods there are, the more crap--excuse my language--
is in them. And unfortunately, this is basically government-
subsidized poison that we are giving to many people that can't 
afford food and actually leads to long-term health impacts. So, 
thank you, Chairman. I yield my time.
    Mr. Burlison. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Burchett from 
Tennessee.
    Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Dodaro. Did I 
get that name right? What is it? How do you say it?
    Mr. Dodaro. ``DO-dar-oh.''
    Mr. Burchett. Dodaro. I am sorry. I am sorry.
    Mr. Dodaro. That is fine. I answer to just about anything.
    Mr. Burchett. Well, it is ``BUR-chet'' unless I win the 
Heisman, and then it becomes ``bur-CHET'' because Tony Dorsett 
was Tony ``DOR-set'' when he played for Pittsburgh.
    Mr. Dodaro. Right.
    Mr. Burchett. And then he wins a Heisman and became Tony 
``dor-SET.''
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Burchett. So, I have not won the Heisman yet, contrary 
to all the rumors that have been floating around. Thank you, 
brother, for being here, and I know you all got up this morning 
and thought, wow, I am going to go before Congress, this is 
going to be awesome, and I can tell you are really just 
enjoying it. Mr. Chairman, we didn't bring out a food plate or 
anything.
    Anyway, let me ask you. How long has the Department of 
Defense financial management been on the Government 
Accountability Office's High-Risk List?
    Mr. Dodaro. Since 1995.
    Mr. Burchett. All right. And what issue does DOD's 
financial management face?
    Mr. Dodaro. Well, they face a lot of inadequate financial 
management systems that they have. They don't have adequate 
controls in all cases, and they need to continue to work to 
make sure they have got the proper workforce to be able to make 
progress in this area.
    Mr. Burchett. It seems like the Pentagon lost about a 
billion dollars, it seems, in their last audit. I am not sure 
if ``lost'' is the correct word, but you don't have to 
acknowledge that. I was just throwing that one out for free, 
but I am not bitter about it or anything. How many 
recommendations has your office made regarding this risk area?
    Mr. Dodaro. The DOD financial management risk? I can get 
you the number.
    Mr. Burchett. That is OK. I got it. It is $150. I am 
supposed to ask you that and then, you know----
    Mr. Dodaro. I am supposed to say $150.
    Mr. Burchett. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Sorry.
    Mr. Dodaro. All right, $150.
    Mr. Burchett. Sorry my people didn't get your notes early 
enough. I apologize, yes.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Burchett. How many of these recommendations remain 
open? Do you have----
    Mr. Dodaro. I will get you the number. I don't know, but 
most of them.
    Mr. Burchett. My office found 67.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
    Mr. Burchett. I don't know. There might be more, I don't 
know, but if there were more, I would like to know.
    Mr. Burchett. What criteria does DOD's financial management 
need to meet in order to remove from the High-Risk List?
    Mr. Dodaro. They have to get an unqualified or unmodified 
audit opinion, a clean audit opinion for at least two years.
    Mr. Burchett. Two years?
    Mr. Dodaro. At least two years in a row.
    Mr. Burchett. When was the last time they did that? I am 
just trying to figure out----
    Mr. Dodaro. Never.
    Mr. Burchett. Never?
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Burchett. Well, that is an honest answer. Let me switch 
gears a little bit, sir. Are you aware that the DOD is, well, 
yes, you are aware they have five consecutive audits? Does that 
sound accurate?
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes. Yes, that is what they have tried. They 
were supposed to have been doing this since 1996, but in many 
years they didn't even try.
    Mr. Burchett. How long have you been on the job with this 
bunch?
    Mr. Dodaro. In June, I will have been at GAO 50 years.
    Mr. Burchett. Whew. All right. I am just 58, so I was eight 
years old when you started up here. How does that make you 
feel?
    Mr. Dodaro. Fine.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Burchett. Good. That is a good answer. Good answer. Not 
in my questions either. I have had so much caffeine today, I am 
just letting you have it. OK. In 2022, the DOD could only 
account for 39 percent of its $3.5 trillion in assets and $3.7 
trillion in liabilities. Are you aware of that?
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
    Mr. Burchett. OK. In your opinion, do you think that is 
fiscally responsible? Am I asking you a question you can't 
answer, or is that just one of those you just have to kind of 
smirk and turn your head?
    Mr. Dodaro. No, no, it is not fiscally responsible.
    Mr. Burchett. Another honest answer, sir. You have no place 
in Washington.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Burchett. Are you aware they make up--DOD, that is--
they make up roughly 50 percent of their discretionary 
spending?
    Mr. Dodaro. That is correct.
    Mr. Burchett. Is that normal? Is that it is just----
    Mr. Dodaro. No, historically, that is the number, you know, 
but what has happened is that, you know, about two-thirds of 
the Federal budget hours are mandatory spending areas, so the 
size of the discretionary budget has been shrinking----
    Mr. Burchett. Sure.
    Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. Over time. So, DOD proportionally 
has a high share of it.
    Mr. Burchett. Why do you think we should give such a 
fiscally irresponsible department half of our discretionary 
budget?
    Mr. Dodaro. Well, I mean, those are policy decisions by the 
Congress that are made, and clearly, I mean, they have an 
essential critical mission to fulfill. We have a lot of, you 
know, adversaries and we need do it. I mean, we need to provide 
it, but whether or not Congress should allow them to have less 
oversight on this matter, I would say that they shouldn't.
    Mr. Burchett. OK.
    Mr. Dodaro. And we should have more oversight.
    Mr. Burchett. All right. Well, that is the end of my 
questioning. I want to say thank you. You have given me very 
honest answers, and I appreciate that. I have been up here for 
five years. Some of these old timers, you know, I have seen 
them come and go, you know, ``back when Teddy Roosevelt did 
it,'' but I want to thank you. You have been very honest and 
forthcoming, and that speaks well for you and those folks that 
work with you all. Thank you very much, sir, ma'am.
    Chairman Comer. [Presiding.] The Chair recognizes Mr. 
Langworthy from New York for five minutes.
    Mr. Langworthy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 
first of all, I would like to thank you, Mr. Dodaro, for being 
here today and being so forthright with our panel. The High-
Risk List is a valuable tool for the Committee on Oversight and 
Accountability, and I am very happy to have the opportunity to 
hear from you here today.
    I want to start today by looking at cybersecurity. GAO 
listed cybersecurity as an area needing significant attention. 
Can you explain why this is?
    Mr. Dodaro. There is enormous risk to our country, both in 
terms of sensitive information being able to be accessed, 
denial of service attacks, shutting down of our critical 
infrastructure in a number of areas, so this is enormous. As 
all organizations, public and private sector, have been more 
dependent on the internet and more on computerized systems, 
both industrial systems as well as information technology and 
other operational systems, our exposure is enormous. And it is 
something that hasn't been adequately addressed.
    I mean, I first raised this issue in 1997, critical 
infrastructure protection, 2003. And so, the government is 
still not operating at a pace commensurate with a serious 
evolving threat. Now we have articulated at least four areas 
and 10 things that need to be done, and Mr. Marinos, who is our 
expert, can elaborate on that, Congressman.
    Mr. Langworthy. Very good.
    Mr. Marinos. Yes. Congressman Langworthy, I think, 
ultimately, the critical path is clearly there. We have been 
calling for decades for a comprehensive strategy to be 
established. We have seen the last five administrations, 
including this one, put forward a national strategy. The rubber 
is going to meet the road with implementation because, 
ultimately, the threats are going to be pervasive. They are 
going to be ever-evolving, and if we are not able to determine 
whether or not we are doing an effective job at protecting our 
Nation against them, we are always going to be behind.
    Mr. Langworthy. It seems like something that an endless 
supply of resources can go toward, you know, without 
necessarily achieving what we need to do. Since 2010, GAO has 
made 4,000 recommendations, and approximately 670 of those been 
made in just the last two years alone. Is there a reason why 
less than one-quarter of the recommendations have been 
satisfied?
    Mr. Dodaro. This area hasn't been given enough priority, in 
my opinion, by the top leadership at the departments and 
agencies all along, and those recommendations we make are very 
specific. They should be able to be implemented in a much more 
rapid fashion, particularly since the evolving threat is 
happening at a more rapid pace. So, we are falling further and 
further behind, in my opinion.
    Mr. Langworthy. Do you have anything you would like to add?
    Mr. Marinos. I would wholeheartedly agree. Ultimately, it 
is about agency leadership committing resources to actually 
addressing the issues, as the Comptroller General noted. In 
fact, many of our recommendations are very technical and very 
specific in nature, so in many ways, we are providing a road 
map for the agencies to implement them. A lot of times they are 
challenged by legacy systems that need to be updated in order 
to actually improve security, but at the end of the day, if 
agency leadership commits resources to it, they can do a better 
job than they have so far.
    Mr. Langworthy. So, most of the GAO's criteria, they are 
all rated as partially met, the same rating that they had had 
in the last Congress. How does GAO measure progress for each 
criterion?
    Mr. Marinos. It can be very complex, in part, because, as 
the Comptroller General noted, this is a very expansive area. 
So, if we are looking, for example, at whether the 
Administration has implemented a comprehensive strategy, there 
are going to be certain metrics that we would like to see 
specificity and who is responsible for each of the actions that 
have been identified as a priority. Ultimately, one expectation 
we should have as a Nation that we will see, you know, those 
goals met. But if you are looking at, for example, specific 
agency information security issues, then those measurements are 
going to come ultimately at seeing improvements in key areas 
that Federal legislation calls for, not only the agencies, but 
the Inspector Generals to assess on an annual basis. So, those 
would be things like addressing weaknesses in a comprehensive 
and a quick manner and being able to see that they are able to 
continuously monitor the protections that they have put in 
place.
    Mr. Langworthy. Very good. I think we know the risk to 
national cybersecurity if these criteria don't improve, but 
what recommendations in closing would you have for us as 
Members of Congress in relation to protecting our digital 
privacy and hardening our systems?
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes. Actually, one is to hold oversight 
hearings on the implementation plan when it is developed and 
get our critique of the implementation plan, and then have 
steady progress reports on that plan and whether it is being 
executed on time. We have also recommended that Congress update 
the privacy laws. You know, the original Privacy Act was passed 
in 1974. There have been some modest changes, but it is 
completely out of date in terms of protecting the privacy of 
American citizens.
    Mr. Langworthy. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
recognizes Mr. Armstrong from North Dakota for five minutes.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, if there is 
ever a more somber and sober example of bureaucratic inertia 
and inefficiencies lasting for more than one administration, I 
think this hearing is always a really good example. And, you 
know, we continue to speak about funding and resources, and 
funding and resources, but also at the same time over the last 
half a century, Congress has abdicated its responsibility and 
allowed many of these agencies to continue to expand their 
scope while they often suffer on providing the basic needs and 
basic services in which they were originally designed to do.
    And I wish some of my colleagues, particularly Mr. Frost 
from Florida, was here, because with all due respect, Mr. 
Dodaro, and you have a great report on Bureau of Prisons, we 
think they could use a little motivation. And we have dropped a 
bicameral, bipartisan bill on Bureau of Prison oversight 
reform, and if we get a little chance, we will get back to 
that. But I would like to start with something that is 
important to my state and my jurisdiction.
    The Bureau of Indian Education was added to the GAO High-
Risk List in 2017, but I think we all recognize that problems 
persisted for decades before that, and BIE is still on your 
High-Risk List. I believe that one of the reasons for this is 
that BIE bureaucracy does not have the necessary flexibility to 
adapt and meet the needs of various tribal communities where 
students attend either tribally controlled or Bureau-operated 
schools. The needs of tribal communities vary from tribe to 
tribe, and the most important partners in education are 
parents, teachers, administrators, and tribal governments. The 
foundation of this relationship is the engagement between the 
BIE and individual constituencies for each school system.
    Given the unique needs of tribal education, has GAO 
evaluated BIE's community engagement methodology?
    Mr. Dodaro. We definitely have pointed out that there needs 
to be more engagement between the Federal agencies and the 
community. This is something that is very important. You know, 
I have created a special tribal council of representatives to 
give me advice and our people at GAO about how to get better 
engagement, and we have seen this from time to time when we 
look at different programs that involve tribes and their 
representatives, and there needs to be more engagement. They 
want to have more engagement and they have different needs, and 
so I think it is very important that the Federal agencies have 
more aggressive community engagement.
    Mr. Armstrong. Yes. I mean, even in a state like North 
Dakota, just the varying different communities even within one 
state are so varyingly different from one another. I mean, at 
least there, they suffer from the dual impact of rural and a 
lot of traditional headwinds that they have been looking at 
essentially since they formed.
    So, in 2022, the GAO testified before Congress that the 
Federal Government works with the tribes toward the goal of 
ensuring that Interior-funded schools are of the highest 
quality and provide for the basic elementary and secondary 
educational needs of their student population, including 
meeting their unique educational and cultural needs. Yet the 
graduation rate in BIE schools is 53 percent, and the national 
average graduation rate of all Native Americans is 69 percent.
    I am concerned that the systemic issues at the BIE, 
including lack of sufficient community engagement and an overly 
bureaucratic operating structure, contribute to lower 
graduation rates and student successes. If the graduation rate 
at BIE schools is only 53 percent, do you think the BIE is 
meeting the goal of ensuring schools are of the highest quality 
in providing an education?
    Mr. Dodaro. No. No, not at all, and that is why they are on 
the list. You know, they have staffing shortages over there, 
about 27 understaffed. They really haven't focused on 
technology needs of the schools, and in today's environment, if 
you don't do that, you are really disadvantaging the students.
    Mr. Armstrong. Well, and they are suffering 30 years of 
very much understanding the difference between appropriated and 
authorized. I mean, the deferred maintenance lists in tribal 
education systems are fantastic.
    Mr. Dodaro. Right.
    Mr. Armstrong. It is hard and they know it, and if they 
didn't know it before COVID, they knew it just like everybody 
did after COVID. Having reliable access to the internet and 
technology is absolutely essential for 21st century education.
    Mr. Dodaro. Right.
    Mr. Armstrong. The flip side to that is, it is a little 
hard to do that when you have kids wearing parkas and hats 
because you haven't had windows replaced, even though they have 
been authorized to be replaced for the last 30 years or so.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes. Yes, the condition of the schools was the 
other reason we put them on the list and to have better 
construction assistance.
    Mr. Dodaro. Well, I appreciate GAO's dedication and being 
able to shine a light on this issue. It is just something we 
have to get on, and this is not one of those that we should 
wait three or four more administrations before we deal with it. 
So, I appreciate it very much, and with that, I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Garcia from 
California for five minutes.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, of 
course, to Mr. Dodaro and want to just thank you for all the 
work that you do and your team does.
    We know that in the last two years since President Biden 
took office, we have seen an incredible amount of progress, and 
a lot of us are really grateful for the work that has happened 
throughout the Administration and throughout all levels of 
government. We have demonstrated that our government can work 
better efficiently and still get a lot of progress for the 
American people. And the Administration has clearly provided 
stable leadership, in much a contrast of the Trump 
Administration and their years of chaos across our government.
    Now, Brookings reports that top-level turnout is down from 
92 percent during the Trump Administration down to 44 percent 
now, which is the lowest in recent history, and those results, 
I think, are pretty clear across the government. Now, Mr. 
Dodaro, since the last 2021 report, of the 34 high-risk areas 
that the GAO identified, that have been identified, how many of 
those have seen improvements of those 34?
    Mr. Dodaro. Sixteen.
    Mr. Garcia. And that is essentially half of those areas, so 
those improvements in the last two years have happened under 
President Biden. And how much financial benefit total has that 
brought through those improvements?
    Mr. Dodaro. Well, we have categorized at least and 
recognized $100 billion of financial savings to the government. 
But I want to add, though, that I think, you know, while the 
Administration has done a very good job, a lot of progress is 
due to Congress, too, acting on a number of pieces of 
legislation. So, I want to make sure Congress gets its credit. 
Sometimes it gets its blame. In this case, it deserves some 
credit along with the Administration. I am very pleased with 
their engagement.
    Mr. Garcia. So, approximately $100 billion in financial 
benefit, improvements to 16 of 34 high-risk areas, obviously 
support for the work that Congress is doing as well, all seems 
to be very good news and a good direction. Now, Mr. Dodaro, 
since the GAO began publishing the high-risk ratings, has any 
congressional term yielded more progress than the last Congress 
in the 117th?
    Mr. Dodaro. No.
    Mr. Garcia. So, I wasn't a member of 117th. I wish I was 
looking at those numbers, but I do want to congratulate the 
work in the last two years for the incredible savings and 
really reforms that have made our government work better for 
the American people, and so I want to note that. Now, despite 
this historic progress that we are seeing and the benefits to 
everyday Americans, our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, unfortunately, want to propose just damaging spending 
cuts that would damage a lot of this progress. I want to 
highlight a couple more of those pieces.
    In 2021, of course, Congress passed the Infrastructure and 
Jobs Act. That provided $541 billion for surface transportation 
and transferred about $270 billion to the Highway Trust Fund 
for those of us that are in districts that work a lot with 
ports and the supply chain, which this is really critical for. 
Now, did the GAO report identify what would have happened to 
the solvency of the Highway Fund without this funding?
    Mr. Dodaro. Well, it would have been insolvent.
    Mr. Garcia. So, our Highway Trust Fund would have gone 
insolvent had not been for the action that happened through the 
Congress and the President of this last Congress. I just want 
to make sure that that is very clear.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes. No, that is clear, and in the preceding 
Congresses. I mean, the Highway Trust Fund has not had enough 
money automatically generated through revenues for a number of 
years, and Congress has been augmenting that----
    Mr. Garcia. I completely agree.
    Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. With general appropriations.
    Mr. Garcia. Completely agree with you. Completely agree 
with you there. And on climate resiliency, another area, 
President Biden and more than 20 agencies have taken steps to 
improve resiliency, improve sustainability. Did the GAO 
identify what happens to the government's fiscal exposure if we 
don't address climate change?
    Mr. Dodaro. The fiscal exposure will continue to grow. I 
mean, that is why we have it on the High-Risk List. It is very 
important to build resiliency up in front, but also, in 2018, 
Congress passed legislation to allow some of the recovery money 
to also go toward building back better than what you did before 
rather than just replacing what was there.
    Mr. Garcia. Absolutely. And to be clear, investments in 
climate change lower the government's fiscal exposure, and that 
is something that has been pretty clear in what you are saying. 
Investments in climate change are actually good for the 
government, good for efficiency, and obviously important for us 
to save our planet and our country, so thank you for 
reinforcing that. And, of course, despite of all this 
incredible progress the last Congress made, the President made, 
Republicans are still trying to propose cuts across our 
government, which is really unacceptable. They are gutting 
investments in climate. They are gutting investments in all the 
great work that happened the in the Infrastructure and Jobs 
Act. And so, thank you for pointing out the actual progress 
that has been made through President Biden in the 117th 
Congress when Democrats controlled the House.
    With that, I just want to thank you again for your service 
and to the service of your team, and I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. That concludes 
our questioning phase. In closing, Mr. Dodaro, I want to thank 
you and your staff for being here today for this important 
testimony. And I now yield to Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez for 
her closing statement.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you Mr. Chair, and I would like to 
thank Mr. Dodaro again for his insightful testimony today along 
with plenty of the GAO staff who have come up to help as well.
    You know, we are very proud of much of the work and much of 
the progress that has happened over the last two years to help 
achieve the most progress in the high-risk areas since the GAO 
started its ratings about eight years ago. We clearly have a 
lot of work to do, but the momentum is on our side. This 
progress means better results for the American people, 
including easier access to hard-earned benefits, a more 
effective government, and billions of dollars in savings that 
can be used to help Americans elsewhere.
    As we have heard today, it is absolutely imperative that we 
maintain this momentum and do more to improve Federal 
Government operations, not less. And let me be clear: the 
Republicans' Default on America Act, which they are working to 
pass imminently, would do less for the American people, a lot 
less. The disastrous cuts would force Federal agencies to shift 
their focus away from addressing high-risk areas as they 
struggle to triage the effects of depleted workforces and 
decimated resources.
    Mr. Dodaro also clearly explained today that debt limit 
brinkmanship and the prospect of a default clearly present 
grave dangers to the American people as well. Republicans 
should not be holding the full faith and credit of the U.S. 
Government hostage to force these dangerous cuts. Working to 
reduce risk to the American people should be a bipartisan 
priority, and risking default will make the risks we have 
discussed today even worse. Republicans should stop pushing 
through this short-sighted, pennywise and pound foolish debt 
bill, and the American people can all improve and deserve a 
better outcome. With that being said, I think that there were 
multiple areas identified today where there is bipartisan 
collaboration, from Medicare to Postal Services, and I look 
forward to working with the Chair and colleagues on those areas 
of common interest. And I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. Thank you, Mr. 
Dodaro. Thank you again for being here today and for sharing 
these incredibly valuable insights with the Committee. I would 
also like to extend our gratitude to the GAO staff for their 
work on all of these issues and for answering our many 
questions on ways to improve the functionality of the Federal 
Government.
    As we have heard here this morning, the 2023 High-Risk List 
is a valuable tool for Congress to help identify areas that 
need the most oversight, and we know that effective oversight 
works. When Congress and, more specifically, this Committee 
holds agencies accountable for their ability to provide 
taxpayer-funded services, we see more efficient management of 
Federal resources, and Congress can make more informed 
decisions about what programs really work. In the past 17 years 
alone, we know that this report has helped save approximately 
$675 billion in Federal resources, and there is still more work 
to be done.
    I believe we have found several areas of bipartisan 
interest at this hearing, just as Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said, 
including better oversight of our Postal System, baby formula 
shortages, and food safety. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues across the aisle to continue to oversee all the 
Federal programs mentioned here today and ensure that they are 
performing to the standards that taxpayers expect to see from 
their government. Thank you again for your testimony here 
today.
    And without objection, all Members will have five 
legislative days within which to submit materials and to submit 
additional written questions for the witnesses, which will be 
forwarded to the witnesses for their response.
    Chairman Comer. If there is no further business, without 
objection, this Committee stands adjourned. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 1:25 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]