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


               FOLLOW THE MONEY: OVERSIGHT OF PRESIDENT BIDEN'S 
                              MASSIVE SPENDING SPREE

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND 
                              INVESTIGATIONS

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             MARCH 29, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-19
                           
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                           


     Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
                   govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                        energycommerce.house.gov
                        
                                ________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
54-641 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     
                       
                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                   CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
                                  Chair
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                  Ranking Member
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              ANNA G. ESHOO, California
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   DORIS O. MATSUI, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               KATHY CASTOR, Florida
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina       JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
TIM WALBERG, Michigan                PAUL TONKO, New York
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia    YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina          TONY CARDENAS, California
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama              RAUL RUIZ, California
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida                SCOTT H. PETERS, California
JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah                 DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
DEBBBIE LESKO, Arizona               MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
GREG PENCE, Indiana                  ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
DAN CRENSHAW, Texas                  ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania             NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota, Vice  LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
    Chair                            DARREN SOTO, Florida
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               KIM SCHRIER, Washington
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio                 LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
RUSS FULCHER, Idaho                  LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas
DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee
MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa
KAT CAMMACK, Florida
JAY OBERNOLTE, California
                                 ------                                

                           Professional Staff

                      NATE HODSON, Staff Director
                   SARAH BURKE, Deputy Staff Director
               TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Minority Staff Director
              Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

                      H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
                                 Chairman
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            KATHY CASTOR, Florida
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky                Ranking Member
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina          DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama              JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona, Vice Chair    PAUL TONKO, New York
DAN CRENSHAW, Texas                  RAUL RUIZ, California
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota        SCOTT H. PETERS, California
KAT CAMMACK, Florida                 FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex 
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington       officio)
    (ex officio)
                             
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hon. H. Morgan Griffith, a Representative in Congress from the 
  Commonwealth of Virginia, opening statement....................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     4
Hon. Kathy Castor, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Florida, opening statement.....................................     9
    Prepared statement...........................................    11
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from 
  the State of Washington, opening statement.....................    13
    Prepared statement...........................................    15
Hon. Diana DeGette, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Colorado, opening statement.................................    19
    Prepared statement...........................................    21

                               Witnesses

Sean W. O'Donnell, Inspector General, Environmental Protection 
  Agency.........................................................    23
    Prepared statement...........................................    26
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   120
Peggy E. Gustafson, Inspector General, Department of Commerce....    36
    Prepared statement...........................................    38
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   123
Teri L. Donaldson, Inspector General, Department of Energy.......    49
    Prepared statement...........................................    51
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   124
Mark Gaffigan, Managing Director, Natural Resources and 
  Environment, Government Accountability Office..................    78
    Prepared statement...........................................    80
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   126

 
FOLLOW THE MONEY: OVERSIGHT OF PRESIDENT BIDEN'S MASSIVE SPENDING SPREE

                              ----------                              


                       WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2023

                  House of Representatives,
      Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in 
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, 
Hon. H. Morgan Griffith (chairman of the subcommittee) 
presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Griffith, Burgess, 
Guthrie, Duncan, Lesko, Cammack, Rodgers (ex officio), Castor 
(subcommittee ranking member), DeGette, Schakowsky, Tonko, 
Ruiz, and Peters.
    Staff present: Kate Arey, Digital Director; Sean Brebbia, 
Chief Counsel, Oversight and Investigations; Deep Buddharaju, 
Senior Counsel, Oversight and Investigations; Lauren Eriksen, 
Clerk, Oversight and Investigations; Christen Harsha, Senior 
Counsel, Oversight and Investigations; Nate Hodson, Staff 
Director; Peter Kielty, General Counsel; Emily King, Member 
Services Director; Chris Krepich, Press Secretary; Kaitlyn 
Peterson, Clerk, Energy and Environment; Gavin Proffitt, 
Professional Staff Member, Oversight and Investigations; Alan 
Slobodin, Chief Investigative Counsel, Oversight and 
Investigations; John Strom, Counsel, Oversight and 
Investigations; Michael Taggart, Policy Director; Hannah Anton, 
Minority Staff Assistant; Austin Flack, Minority Junior 
Professional Staff Member; Liz Johns, Minority GAO Detailee; 
Will McAuliffe, Minority Chief Counsel, Oversight and 
Investigations; Christina Parisi, Minority Professional Staff 
Member; Harry Samuels, Minority Oversight Counsel; and Caroline 
Wood, Minority Research Analyst.
    Mr. Griffith. Welcome to the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations. We will now come to order.
    The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an opening 
statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, A REPRESENTATIVE 
         IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

    Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to today's hearing of 
the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. We are here 
today to discuss a very serious problem, one that the Biden 
administration and the previously Democratic-controlled 
Congress have avoided talking about for the last 2 years.
    Earlier this year, the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, 
predicted a Federal budget deficit of 1.4 trillion for 2023. 
Unfortunately, now--CBO now projects a cumulative deficit of 
3.1 trillion over the next 10 years. That is right, folks, that 
is 3.1 trillion, with a T, of real American taxpayer dollars.
    Of course, numerous factors impact the Federal budget 
outlook, but one thing is certain. Over the past 2 years, your 
Federal Government has been spending taxpayers' dollars like it 
was Monopoly money. Last Congress the Democratic majority ran 
through several massive spending bills, such as the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the Creating Helpful 
Incentives to Produce Semiconductors and Science Act, and the 
so-called Inflation Reduction Act. While couched as a measure--
as measures to upgrade American infrastructure or boost 
international competitiveness, in reality these packages threw 
money at Democratic priorities and handed Federal agencies 
unprecedented amounts of funding to disperse to pet projects.
    While this is all extremely disturbing, this unrestrained 
spending must end. My majority colleagues on this committee and 
I sent letters to several Federal agencies requesting a full 
accounting of their use of these taxpayer funds, only one of 
the first steps in our oversight efforts for this Congress.
    The laws I previously mentioned authorized dozens of new 
programs and entrusted Federal agencies to spend unprecedented 
sums of real American taxpayer money. For example, according to 
the Department of Energy's Office of the Inspector General, 
after managing a fiscal year 2020 budget of 45.3 billion, the 
Department of Energy would now administer over 100 billion of 
appropriated real taxpayers' money and $336 billion in loan 
authorities over the coming years from the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act and the IRA alone.
    Exponential funding increases, expansion of previously 
troubled programs, and an explosion----
    Automated voice. Say that again.
    Mr. Griffith. Oh, my phone wants to talk to me.
    Automated voice. Sorry, I'm having trouble hearing you.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Griffith. Is that your phone? They are listening. Stay 
tuned for another hearing.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Griffith. For example--and 336 billion in loan 
authorities over the coming years from the Inflation Investment 
and Jobs Act and the IRA alone.
    Exponential funding increases, expansion of previously 
troubled programs, and an explosion of new ones certainly sound 
like a recipe for disaster. However, my Republican colleagues 
and I understand our constituents back home have sent us to 
Washington to protect their hard-earned American taxpayer 
dollars, and we intend to do just that.
    Today we will hear from the heads of the agencies 
responsible for fighting fraud, waste, and abuse in Federal 
programs. Our witnesses will help guide committee oversight 
efforts by highlighting important risk factors for 
mismanagement of Federal funds and sharing lessons learned from 
their previous work.
    They will also share with us their upcoming plans for 
monitoring this massive spending tsunami.
    First we welcome Inspector General Sean O'Donnell from the 
Environmental Protection Agency's Office of the Inspector 
General.
    Your office has noted that the EPA received ``the largest 
infrastructure appropriation in its history.'' So we are eager 
to hear more about challenges that accompany this rapid funding 
infusion.
    We are also joined by Inspector General Peggy Gustafson 
from the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector 
General. Last year the CHIPS Act appropriated 50 billion for 
the Department of Commerce to spend on semiconductor programs. 
Additionally, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 
charged the National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration with distributing $48 billion in broadband 
funding.
    We look forward to your insights on these programs and your 
plans for conducting oversight during the 118th Congress.
    We also appreciate the opportunity to hear from the 
Department of Energy's inspector general, Teri Donaldson. Over 
the past 2 years the Department of Energy received billions of 
dollars across numerous offices to advance the Biden 
administration's clean-energy agenda. The Department of Energy 
has boasted that it will stand up 60--60--new programs under 
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act alone.
    We understand this presents an enormous challenge for your 
offices, and we are eager to hear your plans for protecting the 
real American taxpayer money from fraud, waste, and abuse in 
the various Federal programs.
    Finally, we welcome Mr. Mark Gaffigan from the Government 
Accountability Office. GAO has provided countless 
recommendations to Congress and Federal agencies to improve the 
efficacy of Federal programs. This experience will be extremely 
helpful in guiding our discussions today.
    Again, this hearing is only one step of many to hold this 
administration accountable for its spending practices. I also 
hope this hearing will inform us in our efforts to collaborate 
with other inspectors general, and these productive 
conversations with our witnesses and their offices will 
continue.
    We all have a daunting task ahead protecting real American 
taxpayer dollars, not Monopoly money.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Griffith follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
    Mr. Griffith. I yield back. I now recognize the gentlewoman 
from Florida, Ms. Castor, for her 5-minute opening statement.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KATHY CASTOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

    Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 
our witnesses for being here.
    I want to start by expressing my appreciation for the 
inspectors general, the GAO, all that you do to ensure that our 
agencies are implementing Federal laws effectively and that 
they are allocating Federal funds responsibly. The IG and GAO 
responsibilities are essential, and they help inform our 
oversight work here in the Congress.
    We are here today to review the implementation of three 
historic laws championed by congressional Democrats and 
President Biden: the Inflation Reduction Act; the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law, otherwise known as the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act; and the CHIPS and Science Act. These 
laws make vital investments in improving the lives of our 
neighbors, bringing good-paying jobs to our communities, 
putting money back into people's pockets, and ensuring that we 
live up to our moral obligation to provide clean air and clean 
water and a healthy planet for our children to inherit.
    Back home in Tampa and Saint Pete, my neighbors and small 
businesses are already benefiting from the critical new 
investments to provide safer streets, clean up polluted 
Superfund sites, reconnect communities, spur needed housing, 
and train workers to take advantage of all of the new 
opportunities. And this is just the start.
    As a longtime member of this committee and the former Chair 
of the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, I am 
particularly proud of our work to address the escalating risks 
and costs driven by the climate crisis. We did a lot of great 
work to unleash American clean energy that is cheaper to reduce 
pollution and to ensure that it is American companies and 
American workers that are leading the way. These landmark 
achievements will make tangible progress on some of our 
greatest challenges. We should all be rooting for their success 
and the agency experts administering them.
    I regret that is not the tone from the majority. They have 
described these important programs as a frivolous spending 
spree, to which I remind everyone that the Inflation Reduction 
Act was paid for and actually will decrease the deficit by 
approximately $300 billion. Rather than helping our neighbors 
and all Americans benefit, some on the other side of the aisle 
seem to be hoping for the first minor misstep in order to 
declare these initiatives a failure.
    I understand that most of our Republican House colleagues 
voted against these landmark laws. By and large, they voted 
against capping the cost of insulin for Medicare beneficiaries; 
they voted against repairing crumbling roads and bridges and 
expanding broadband access to rural communities; they voted 
against initiatives that will make the U.S. more competitive 
and less dependent on Chinese and other foreign manufacturers; 
and Republicans voted against the oversight mechanisms that are 
built into these new laws, including additional funding for 
relevant offices of inspectors general.
    In fact, House Republicans are dedicating Congress' time 
this week to pass a bill that outright repeals major provisions 
of the Inflation Reduction Act, provisions that save our 
neighbors back home money at a time that they really need it. 
The ``Polluters Over People Act'' would roll back key clean 
energy investments and pave the way for polluters to rake in 
profits at the expense of the health of the American people.
    Nevertheless, I hope we can have a productive discussion 
today. Oversight is very important to the success of these 
vital initiatives, and attention to the planning stages will 
ensure that these landmark laws deliver as we intended. So I 
look forward to hearing from today's witnesses and the work 
ahead.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Castor follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
    Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
    Mr. Griffith. I thank Ranking Member Castor for her opening 
statement and now recognize the Chair of the full committee, 
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A 
    REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Chair Griffith. With every passing 
day, daily life gets more and more expensive for my 
constituents in eastern Washington. They join people and 
families across the country who are paying skyrocketing prices 
to put gas in the tank, stock their shelves with food, house 
their families, and pay their energy bills.
    Inflation is spiraling out of control, thanks to the 
President Biden's massive spending spree. It began with the 
American Rescue Plan and continued to escalate with the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Creating Helpful 
Incentives for Semiconductors, or CHIPS, and Science Act, and 
then the so-called Inflation Reduction Act. Most recently, the 
administration has doubled down on its reckless spending with 
its latest 6.8 trillion--yes, record-breaking 6.8 trillion--
budget proposed for fiscal year 2024.
    We have heard a lot about the so-called historic 
investments and the rush-to-green agenda that the 
administration plans to advance with hard-earned taxpayer 
dollars. We have had many questions surrounding this massive 
spending spree that is making life unaffordable in America.
    For example, how will agencies stand up dozens of new 
programs in a short period of time?
    Do program offices, especially brand-new ones, possess the 
necessary expertise and oversight mechanisms to make 
responsible investments in new projects?
    How can American tax dollars--taxpayers learn more about 
how Federal agencies are really spending their hard-earned tax 
money?
    How are conflicts of interest and political favoritism 
influencing agency funding decisions?
    How will agencies address longstanding problems with 
programs that will now have more funding to hand out?
    And how much of this money is being given to companies to 
build their products in China?
    My colleagues and I on the committee are pushing for 
answers to these questions. My constituents sent me to Congress 
to ask hard questions and to protect their hard-earned tax 
dollars. They are frustrated when looking at the Federal 
Government printing more and more money, doling out huge awards 
and incentives to preferred industries and favored political 
causes. All the while, they struggle to make ends meet every 
day.
    However, I want to remind everyone at home and our Federal 
agencies that my Republican colleagues and I are watching. We 
are ready to hold these agencies accountable, and their 
leadership, for their spending decisions. As Chair Griffith 
noted, our subcommittee Chairs and I have already requested a 
full amount of--account of the spending from our Federal 
agencies and are going to continue to push for transparency.
    Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office 
are integral parts of the Federal oversight community, and we 
appreciate all who are here today as witnesses to join us. We 
look forward to your testimony regarding the most serious 
challenges facing Federal agencies, programs most vulnerable to 
waste, fraud, and abuse, and lessons learned from previous 
failures that Congress and agencies can apply to future 
mismanagement of taxpayer dollars.
    We also appreciate this opportunity to learn more about 
your upcoming work, and difficulties you must confront in 
conducting oversight of these ballooning agency budgets. We 
plan to use the information we gather today to prioritize our 
oversight efforts, pinpoint Federal programs that demand more 
scrutiny, and identify how to stop wasteful spending.
    We have a lot of hard work ahead of us, given this 
unprecedented spending boost to many of the agencies under this 
committee's jurisdiction. However, we are not going to shy away 
from the challenge, and I do hope that we will do this together 
with my colleagues across the aisle, Republicans and Democrats 
joining together for responsible stewardship of Federal funds.
    As a--we are all duly elected Members, representatives of 
the people serving in the People's House. It is our Article I 
responsibility to conduct oversight so that the agencies within 
the Federal Government are responsive to those we serve. We 
cannot let the American people become irrelevant to a growing 
bureaucracy that recklessly prints and spends records amounts 
of money. Federal agencies must implement the law as it is 
written by Congress, the elected representatives of the people.
    Again, Members on both sides of the aisle share a 
responsibility to monitor these activities, and I look forward 
to our discussion today.
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
    Mrs. Rodgers. And again, thank you to the witnesses for 
being here.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Madam Chair, for yielding back. I 
now recognize Ms. DeGette, the congresswoman from Colorado, for 
5 minutes for her opening statement.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANA DeGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

    Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I am subbing 
in today for the full committee ranking member, who is on the 
floor on H.R. 1, and I am glad that we have the opportunity to 
talk about these landmark bills that passed last Congress and 
the important work that the agencies are doing to implement 
them.
    In some of your testimony, Mr. Chairman, and some of the 
comments leading up to today's hearing, the word 
``unprecedented'' was used to describe the scale of the 
programs and funding created through all these three programs. 
And I agree, these are unprecedented investments. And like Ms. 
Castor, I am glad for that. These huge investments are 
necessary to take on the unprecedented challenges that our 
country faces, from climate change to healthcare costs to 
competition in global markets.
    Now, I know that the Democratic Members and the Biden 
administration want to see these programs succeed because they 
are for the American people. And I also know that the agencies 
that are in charge of administering these programs take their 
obligations very seriously here. So far from a spending spree, 
these programs are generational investments: the opportunity to 
address deep inequities and the threats of unchecked climate 
change. The agencies know that they are not only the first line 
of attack against these issues, but also the first line of 
defense against waste, fraud, and abuse.
    So I don't want us to forget or to minimize the fact that 
there are people working hard at our Federal agencies to ensure 
that every--every--dollar from the legislation that we will 
discuss today is well spent.
    And the written testimony from all of the inspectors 
general here today focused very, very heavily on the risks of 
the program, and with good reason. These witnesses are 
appropriately focused on understanding the uphill climb that 
our Federal agencies face in implementing these important 
programs.
    But I also want to make sure that what doesn't get lost in 
today's discussion is the risk of inaction. We cannot allow the 
risk of imperfection in these programs to paralyze them as 
bridges crumble, as manufacturing lines stall for want of 
microchips, as the climate becomes increasingly hostile for our 
children and our grandchildren. We have to face those risks, 
and we have to do what can be done to mitigate them so that the 
programs developed and funded by the IRA, the IIJA, and the 
CHIPS and Science Act become true American success stories. We 
need to continue to work on this. And so I would argue the cost 
of obstructing the implementation of these laws is truly one 
that we cannot afford.
    Now, I know that the IGs and GAO have important roles in 
ensuring it is done correctly, and I look forward to hearing 
how we can work together to minimize risks while maximimzing 
the rewards that these programs will bring to all Americans. 
And I will say, Mr. Chairman, I have been on this subcommittee 
my entire tenure in Congress, which is over 26 years, and this 
subcommittee has a storied history of having bipartisan 
oversight and investigation.
    And I will assure you, Mr. Chairman, the minority intends 
to make sure that there is no waste, fraud, or abuse in these 
programs because every dollar that we spend that is--that was 
appropriated in these three bills needs to go for the purpose 
for which it was designed. And that is where all of our 
wonderful witnesses and their agencies come in. It is why I am 
very pleased that we had additional funding in these bills for 
oversight and for regulatory reform, because we need to make 
sure this money is well spent in the purpose that it is 
intended. And I think we can all get behind that in this 
committee.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. DeGette follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
    Ms. DeGette. And with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Griffith. I thank the gentlelady. We now conclude with 
Member opening statements.
    The Chair would like to remind Members that, pursuant to 
committee rules, all Members' opening statements will be made 
part of the record.
    We want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today 
and taking the time to testify before this subcommittee. Each 
witness will have the opportunity to give an opening 
statement--most of you have done this before, and we appreciate 
you doing it again--followed by a round of questions from the 
various Members.
    Our witnesses today are the Honorable Sean O'Donnell, 
inspector general for the Environmental Protection Agency; 
Honorable Peggy Gustafson, inspector general for the Department 
of Commerce; the Honorable Teri Donaldson, inspector for the 
Department of Energy; and Mark Gaffigan, managing director of 
the Government Accountability Office.
    We appreciate you being here today, and I look forward to 
hearing from you on this important--on these important issues, 
and we will now swear you in.
    As you know, the testimony that you are about to give is 
subject to title 18, section 1001, of the United States Code. 
When holding an investigative hearing, this committee has the 
practice of taking testimony under oath. Do any of you have an 
objection to taking testimony under oath?
    And let the record reflect that no one objected.
    Hearing no objections, we will proceed.
    The Chair advises you that, under the rules of the House 
and the rules of the committee, you are entitled to be advised 
by legal counsel. Do you desire to be advised by counsel today 
during your testimony?
    And let the record reflect that all members responded that 
they did not desire to have legal counsel present with them at 
this time.
    Seeing none, if you will please rise and raise your right 
hand, and I will swear you in.
    [Witnesses sworn.]
    Mr. Griffith. With that, I will now recognize Sean 
O'Donnell for 5 minutes to give an opening statement.

      STATEMENTS OF SEAN W. O'DONNELL, INSPECTOR GENERAL, 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; PEGGY E. GUSTAFSON, INSPECTOR 
 GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; TERI L. DONALDSON, INSPECTOR 
  GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; AND MARK GAFFIGAN, MANAGING 
    DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT 
                     ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

                 STATEMENT OF SEAN W. O'DONNELL

    Mr. O'Donnell. Good afternoon, Chairman Griffith, Ranking 
Member Castor, and members of the subcommittee. And good 
afternoon, Chairwoman Rodgers. I was supposed to be in 
Washington State visiting family this week, but I would not 
miss the opportunity to testify at this committee. But I should 
and I will be in Seattle in time to see the Mariners' opening 
day.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. O'Donnell. I am Sean O'Donnell, the inspector general 
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Thank you for 
inviting me to testify about the importance of oversight of the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation 
Reduction Act.
    The IIJA'S $60 billion represents the largest investment in 
the EPA's history, funding water infrastructure projects, 
electric school busses, and cleanup projects as well as 
expanding the EPA workforce. This money is generally 
distributed through familiar mechanisms like the State 
revolving funds or existing grant programs. However, we have 
serious capacity and capability concerns.
    One State recently shared with us its apprehension of 
receiving more SRF money now than in every previous year 
combined. This is because the SRFs are getting $40 billion from 
the IIJA and at least $6.5 billion from the American Rescue 
Plan Act. We have seen this before: the equation of an 
unprepared agency dispensing an unprecedented amount of money 
times a large number of struggling recipients equals a high 
risk of fraud, waste, and abuse.
    I'm grateful that Congress recognized the need for 
independent IIJA oversight and provided the OIG with funds for 
that purpose. Since enactment, we have leveraged every aspect 
of my office to identify high-risk programs and potential fraud 
vulnerabilities. We are using complex data analytics to 
identify where these funds are being spent and where potential 
fraud might happen.
    Because transparency is important to us, we've actually 
made a version of our data analytics available on our website 
for the public to view. Our oversight efforts have already 
produced results.
    Early on we released a series of lesson-learned reports 
which draw on our previous work, such as our American Recovery 
and Reinvestment Act work to identify historical pitfalls that 
could endanger IIJA projects.
    Just last week we released a report on outstanding 
recommendations related to internal controls necessary to 
effectively administer these IIJA programs, and this morning we 
issued our inaugural oversight progress report.
    We are now starting or are preparing to start at least a 
dozen audits and evaluations, covering everything from 
institutional controls at IIJA-funded cleanup projects to SRF 
capacity and management issues.
    We are also meeting with the EPA regularly to discuss its 
plans for creating and implementing new or expanded programs.
    More recently we have focused on having grant provisions 
and policies related to fraud reporting, whistleblower 
protection, and OIG access put into place before the 
disbursement of funds. I expect we'll issue a report on this 
shortly.
    Finally, we are conducting targeted outreach to our 
stakeholders. Our investigators and auditors have held 168 
joint IIJA fraud briefings, reaching more than 3,700 EPA staff, 
potential recipients, and other governmental officials. And we 
are working with other law enforcement and OIGs, including 
those here today, to share best practices for fraud prevention 
and investigation.
    The Inflation Reduction Act provides the EPA with another 
$41.5 billion for climate change, air quality, and 
environmental justice. In our estimation, this act carries even 
greater risks than the IIJA.
    As an example, the EPA formed the Office of Environmental 
Justice and External Civil Rights from a variety of programs 
already existing in the Agency, and those programs had a 
combined budget of $12 million. The new office will now manage 
a grant portfolio of $3 billion, all of which must be 
distributed by 2026. We are concerned that the pace of IRA 
spending, when conducted by new programs and received by new 
recipients, significantly increases fraud vulnerabilities.
    These issues make clear that there is a significant need 
for strong, independent oversight. Unfortunately, the IRA did 
not provide funds for EPA oversight. When combined with a dozen 
years of stagnant or declining appropriations and increasing 
demands for our work, we simply lack the capacity to conduct 
proper oversight of this $41.5 billion of EPA spending.
    But I can tell you this: We are prepared today to start 
working. Just like with the IIJA, we have a plan, and we are 
ready to execute. We have already shown that, with a modicum of 
funds, less than half a penny for every EPA dollar spent, we 
will show a return on your investment. The EPA supports the 
need for this kind of independent oversight, as does Congress, 
as is shown with the IIJA.
    I want to thank you for this--I want to thank you for the 
support that you have provided to the EPA OIG, and I look 
forward to answering your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. O'Donnell follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
    Mr. Griffith. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize Ms. 
Gustafson for her 5-minute opening statement.

                STATEMENT OF PEGGY E. GUSTAFSON

    Ms. Gustafson. Thank you, Chairman Griffith, Ranking Member 
Castor, Chairwoman Rodgers, and members of the subcommittee, 
thank you very much for the invitation to appear today. I 
appreciate the opportunity to discuss the Office of Inspector 
General's strong oversight of Department of Commerce programs 
and initiatives.
    Today I'll share lessons we've learned about the oversight 
of emerging programs. I'll also provide an overview of Commerce 
OIG's independent oversight of several high-profile areas, 
including the CHIPS and Science Act, the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act, or IIJA, pandemic relief funds, and 
cybersecurity.
    The diverse mission and reach of the Department of Commerce 
often put Commerce OIG at the forefront of developing plans and 
tactics for effective oversight of emerging programs. I'd like 
to take a few minutes to highlight some of what we've learned 
over the past few years.
    OIG's audit work continues to identify vulnerabilities in 
how the Department manages contracts and grants. We've 
identified challenges related to maintaining the acquisitions 
and grants workforce, improving processes to award and monitor 
contracts and grants, and mitigating the increased risk of 
fraud, waste, and abuse that additional funding brings. Our 
prior work in this area provides a foundation for understanding 
the challenges the Department will face in administering the 
CHIPS Act and IIJA.
    Likewise, my office's work in auditing and evaluating the 
First Responders Network Authority, or FirstNet, is instructive 
for understanding the risks associated with reliance on a 
contractor, and the need for the Government to recruit staff 
with the technical skills related to these programs. We have 
issued numerous reports that demonstrate the Department's need 
to maintain continuous, stringent oversight and independence to 
ensure the objectives of the program are--programs are 
achieved. Our findings and recommendations serve as lessons for 
the administration of future programs of a complex and 
technical nature, such as the CHIPS Act programs.
    The CHIPS and Science Act affirms the need for increased 
domestic production of semiconductors, and is a top oversight 
priority for my office. The Act provided Commerce OIG with $25 
million over 5 years to conduct oversight. We're grateful for 
the funding, and we are hiring additional audit and 
investigative staff to provide rigorous oversight of CHIPS 
Act's programs and expenditures.
    Similarly, IIJA introduced new funding and challenges for 
the Department. Again, our office received $18 million for 
oversight of IIJA broadband programs, and we've issued the 
first in a series of semiannual reports summarizing broadband 
program status. The first of our IIJA-related audits is also 
underway. This is an audit of the Tribal broadband connectivity 
program to determine whether NTIA properly dispersed program 
funds and whether the funds are being used as intended.
    We also continue to provide oversight of the Department's--
Department of Commerce's pandemic relief funds, which have 
increased the Department's exposure to potential fraud. One of 
our top investigative priorities is to pursue fraud associated 
with the pandemic relief programs. And right now, about 15 
percent of our open investigations are pandemic-related.
    Another area the office remains focused on is the 
Department's continuing efforts to improve its cybersecurity 
posture. The risks associated with cybersecurity weaknesses can 
have wide-ranging impacts. A May 2021 Executive order directed 
the Government to move toward zero-trust cybersecurity 
principles. This presents a challenge, because the Department 
must make this move while simultaneously addressing 
longstanding cybersecurity weaknesses.
    Before closing, I'd like to say just a few words about 
the--our staff at the Department of Commerce OIG. We are 
confident in our ability to succeed in these critical oversight 
missions you have entrusted to us. In recent years we've 
brought about a massive transformation, improving our audit 
processes, our HR functions, our information systems, and we've 
rebuilt our Office of Investigations. With these improvements, 
our recruiting is the best it's ever been. We attract highly 
skilled and experienced candidates, we hire them quickly, and 
we retain them. I'm proud of the work that this office does and 
the progress we've made.
    I'm extremely grateful for Congress' continued support of 
offices of inspector general, and I look forward to the work 
ahead of us as we provide independent oversight to help the 
Department meet its mission and support Congress in its 
legislative oversight roles.
    Again, thank you very much for the invitation. I'm looking 
forward to taking your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Gustafson follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
    Mr. Griffith. Thank you. I now recognize Ms. Donaldson for 
her 5-minute opening statement.

                 STATEMENT OF TERI L. DONALDSON

    Ms. Donaldson. Thank you, good afternoon. Chairman 
Griffith, Ranking Member Castor, and members of the 
subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today on the 
oversight risks associated with the Department of Energy's 
implementation of recent legislation.
    There are actually four pieces of recent legislation that 
have recently expanded the Department's mission and budget 
exponentially. So I'll speak briefly about all four of those. 
The first is, of course, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act, which appropriated $62 billion to the Department of 
Energy; the Inflation Reduction Act, another $35 billion; the 
CHIPS Act, another $30.5 billion in authorizations; and the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, moving $1 billion to 
the Puerto Rico Energy Resilience Fund.
    To put these numbers in perspective, the Department of 
Energy's fiscal year 2022 budget was $44.3 billion. So from 
approximately 44 billion, with the passage of these four acts 
there is now $478 billion within the purview of the Department 
of Energy.
    And the Department is moving swiftly to make these funds 
available. The Department has already made nearly $45 billion 
available through funding opportunity announcements and has 
awarded or selected to negotiate another $13 billion. For 
fiscal year 2024, the Department is currently estimating a 
consolidated obligation under the new legislation to be 
approximately $30.4 billion.
    In the interest of time, I will discuss, since I have 5 
minutes, five causes of risks, more general causes of risks, 
and many of the same causes that--if you look back over the 
last 10 years and multiple Federal programs, you'll see these 
same characteristics. They repeat themselves, unfortunately, 
over time.
    Number one, implementing new programs. The Chair mentioned 
the programs under IIJA. The grand total of new programs, when 
you roll in the IRA for the Department of Energy, is 71 brand-
new programs.
    Number two, fast-moving money. We've talked about that one 
already.
    Number three, a large amount of money going to States, 
local governments, and Tribes.
    Number four, a lack of adequate funding for the 
Department's oversight efforts.
    And number five, a lack of adequate funding for my office.
    Back to number one. We discussed the new programs, there 
are 71 of them. New programs raise immediate concerns, such as 
acquiring and training expert staff and developing and, most 
importantly, testing your internal controls.
    I'm going to skip fast money, since we've covered that.
    Item three, when money moves in large quantities to States, 
local governments, and Tribes. It is not yet clear whether 
these entities are equipped with sufficient staffing, are 
adequately trained, or have adequate control systems in place 
to protect these funds. Many of these entities suffered 
substantial fraud losses of the pandemic-related funds due to 
inadequate local oversight budgets.
    Next, the Department of Energy's oversight funding. Only a 
small amount of funding was included for administrative costs 
in the IIJA, arguably more flexibility in IRA. And the concern 
here is that administrative cost is a very large category that 
typically includes the bulk of the funds being used to move the 
money out. Oversight is a small amount of administrative costs. 
So if you start with a low number for administrative costs, 
what the number is for oversight will be substantially less 
than that.
    I turn now to item five, which is the lack of funding for 
my office, the Office of the Inspector General. Prior to the 
passing of the four pieces of legislation, my office was 
already significantly underfunded. To further exacerbate the 
historic underfunding issue, my office received only $62 
million under IIJA and only $20 million under IRA to oversee 
those programs for up to 10 years to come. We received nothing 
in the other two pieces of legislation.
    As a result, my office faces an immediate funding shortfall 
of over $300 million as even a first installment for my office 
to conduct appropriate oversight. So without additional 
funding, we will be stretched so thin that critical preexisting 
areas will not receive appropriate OIG oversight. These areas 
include research security, grant fraud, environmental cleanup, 
and nuclear stockpile stewardship, to name just a few.
    I have been working with both Congress and OMB to correct 
my office's funding shortfall. The President's fiscal year 2024 
budget includes $165.2 million for my office, which, if 
enacted, would leave a shortfall of $16.8 million in my base 
budget, but over $300 million in the budget that I would need 
to begin robust oversight efforts in connection with the new 
bills.
    The President has also issued a statement proposing an 
additional $150 in funding to assist underresourced inspectors 
general but has not yet announced the amount of this funding 
that might be allocated to my office if the funds are 
authorized by Congress.
    I greatly appreciate these efforts to begin to address this 
problem, but more needs to be done.
    I turn now to the topic of the oversight efforts my office 
has already undertaken with respect to the recent legislation. 
We started by providing pertinent historic reports to the 
Department summarizing our own previous work in a series of 
four capstone reports. We have also initiated hundreds and 
hundreds of fraud awareness briefings. We meet regularly with 
the Department, two to three times a month, and the 
implementation team in order to resolve as many issues as we 
can in advance.
    Thank you very much. I look forward to taking your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Donaldson follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
    Mr. Griffith. Thank you. I now turn to Mr. Gaffigan for his 
5-minute opening statement.

                   STATEMENT OF MARK GAFFIGAN

    Mr. Gaffigan. Thank you, Chairman Griffith, Ranking Member 
Castor, members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the 
opportunity to be here to discuss oversight of these three acts 
and GAO's views on that subject.
    First off, these three acts combined provide over $1.7 
trillion in taxes and tax incentives and spending, and that's a 
significant amount. It includes important issues for Commerce, 
DOE, and EPA to address: broadband, energy, water 
infrastructure. Collectively between those three agencies is 
$300 billion. To put some of that in perspective, collectively 
the annual budget for all three of those agencies is $150 
billion. So this does present huge challenges for the agencies 
to effectively implement these programs, for Congress to 
conduct its oversight, and for the oversight community to 
assist in that.
    I want to talk about three things that GAO will try to do 
in helping with this oversight: first, talk about our overall 
oversight and these--for these three acts; second, talk about 
lessons we've learned from the Recovery Act and grants 
management in the past; and thirdly, talk about particular--
these three agencies that are relevant to the funding that 
they're receiving under those three acts.
    First, in terms of GAO oversight, for IRA we have eight 
ongoing and 24 planned jobs looking at things like energy and 
Justice40. For IIJA we have 17 ongoing and 36 planned jobs 
looking at things including broadband, energy, and the 
environment. And under the CHIPS Act, we have a annual mandate 
to report every 2 years on the semiconductor work, and we'll 
continue to follow up on our recent work outlining the Federal 
role in that area.
    Secondly, what broad lessons have we learned in the past 
looking at this type of funding? And I want to talk about three 
common themes that we'll try to bring to this oversight.
    One is the sort of striking the balance between streamlined 
systems to provide the grant funding as well as at the same 
time having internal controls. And the danger here is either 
we're too involved or we're not involved enough, and finding 
that sweet spot is really important into getting these programs 
implemented in an effective way. And it requires looking at the 
characteristics of these programs in terms of how long the 
funding is. Is it a new program? Is it an existing program? So 
the answer is not always the same, but that's a challenge that 
we've found in past work and we expect to find going forward.
    Secondly, a common theme is transparency and accessible 
data to assess where the money's going, to track the money and 
follow the money. That's been a problem in the past. We've had 
recommendations and matters to the Congress, for example, on 
USspending.gov. Still a lot of work to do in that area.
    Third, the third theme here is the need for collaboration 
and consultation. There are so many entities involved in 
addressing these problems at the Federal, State, local, and 
Tribal level and outside of government from the recipients and 
stakeholders. And so that consultation and that collaboration 
is really key to avoiding duplication, overlap, and 
fragmentation to make sure, again, that these funds are spent 
effectively.
    Lastly, I'll talk about the three agencies and work that we 
have ongoing. In the past, that's led to 29 recommendations 
that are still open that we think are relevant to the funding 
for these programs going forward.
    For example, at Commerce we recently did two reports on 
broadband. One identified over 100 programs in the Federal 
Government, 15 different agencies, all addressing broadband and 
the need for a national strategy to bring those agencies 
together to work effectively and collaborate on those programs.
    Secondly, at Commerce itself, looking at the NTIA, which is 
charged with implementing the broadband program, we identified 
a lack of performance measures as well as an entity to take the 
lead on fraud risk assessment and to actually do that 
assessment. That's going to be key for that agency in carrying 
out its broadband program.
    At DOE we've done some work on cost controls, so that'll be 
really important to the clean-energy programs to ensure that we 
have an off ramp when things aren't going well, and avoid 
spending money when it shouldn't be spent.
    And lastly, at EPA we have a history of doing grants work 
there. Typically, almost half their budget is through grants. 
They have a lot of experience in doing that. But we've made 
recommendations in the past about increasing their expertise 
and the workforce capacity. And with this huge increase, we 
want to relook at those and make sure that the recommendations 
we made in the past are still going strong.
    So that sums up our statement, and I look forward to 
working with you and our colleagues in the oversight community 
to exercise oversight over these important programs.
    Thank you very much.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Gaffigan follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
    Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Gaffigan.
    Thank you all for your testimony. We will now move into the 
question-and-answer portion of the hearing. I will begin the 
questioning by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
    So, Mr. Gaffigan, I didn't hear you say you needed more 
staff to handle all this money. Some of the others said that. 
Is that something that you also would need, as a result of 
these three and four large new spending items?
    Mr. Gaffigan. That would be very helpful. We did receive 
$25 million under the IIJA, and 5 million under IRA--or one or 
the other. That will help some. But we need auditors.
    So when I started here in 1987, we had 5,100 FTEs. It went 
all the way down to 3,000. Congress has been very supportive in 
getting us back. We hope to get to 3,500 FTEs this year. But we 
really need analysts to cover the things, because since 1987 
the work has not gotten easier and the programs have not gotten 
smaller.
    Mr. Griffith. Thank you, I appreciate that.
    Ms. Donaldson, you indicated that you had a $300 million 
shortfall. And the way I heard that--and you correct me if I am 
wrong--what I heard was that that is 300 million even if we 
adopted the President's budget with an extra 165 for your 
agency and 150 million spread across all the IG agencies. Did I 
understand that correctly?
    Ms. Donaldson. [Inaudible.]
    Mr. Griffith. Mic. Sorry, yes.
    Ms. Donaldson. Yes, we would back out of that number 
whatever amount of the 150 million might become available to my 
shop. That number, though, of 300 million does not include the 
loan portfolio, which is a huge portfolio, which is why I 
characterize it as the first installment----
    Mr. Griffith. Right.
    Ms. Donaldson [continuing]. Of what we will really need in 
the end.
    Mr. Griffith. And going forward, you are--what you are 
saying is you think that Congress should put ample amounts for 
the inspector general's offices into any significant spending 
increase. Is that correct?
    Ms. Donaldson. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Griffith. All right. Now, you brought up the loan 
program. And I have been keeping an eye on the DOE's loan 
program for years. With all this new money, has your office had 
any discussions with DOE leadership about--since this report 
and all has come out--regarding the major risk areas that your 
office has identified?
    Ms. Donaldson. We have. We meet two or three times a month, 
and the loan program office has actually made two presentations 
to the Office of General Counsel staff. We're not allowed to 
consult or advise. That would impinge upon our independence. 
But we do ask a lot of questions. So--and they've already been 
in the queue twice with us.
    Mr. Griffith. Well, I hope, as you are asking those 
questions, you will ask if they have safeguards to make sure 
that we don't end up with another Solyndra problem. Because in 
that case they didn't follow the off ramp that Mr. Gaffigan--
there was one built into the code, and DOE didn't follow the 
off ramp. And as a result, it cost the taxpayers additional 
money.
    I understand there is always a risk when you do a new 
program, but in this case, as you will recall, they defaulted 
in December of 2010 and didn't bankrupt until after we had 
given them some--I want to say 110 million or more, it might 
have been 125, but somewhere in that neighborhood--million more 
money.
    So are you not advising but asking them if they are 
prepared to make sure that, if they get something bad, that 
they cut their losses as quickly as possible?
    Ms. Donaldson. Yes, that issue has come up, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Griffith. I am glad it has. I am particularly concerned 
about your office's finding in the special report that actions 
by the loan program office officials potentially violated 
standards of ethical conduct and could call into question the 
office's integrity.
    Do you know about what I am talking about? This is the--
yes, this is a question I have got here that deals with--what 
we asked for was Secretary Granholm seeking more information 
about what DOE has done to address its loan program risk 
factors, as identified in the June 2022 DOE Office of Inspector 
General Special Report. That is the report I am referring to.
    Ms. Donaldson. That's correct, Mr. Chairman. That report 
was a capstone report. So we pulled from previous work, some of 
which was even accomplished during the Solyndra era. That 
report was not a comment on the current loan program office. 
They are staffing up, working very hard, hiring outside 
consultants. They are rebuilding that office.
    Mr. Griffith. So they are dealing with what you all 
identified previously as some potential ethical problems.
    Ms. Donaldson. Correct, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Griffith. All right. I appreciate this. And I assume 
you are going to continue to monitor all of this.
    Ms. Donaldson. Yes.
    Mr. Griffith. As you move forward.
    Ms. Donaldson. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Griffith. All right. I appreciate that, too.
    Data collection monitoring, project to collect and analyze 
oversight information from five DOE programs. I am pleased to 
see that you all are doing that, including that loan program, 
because I have been very concerned about that.
    Ms. Donaldson. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Griffith. OK. I do appreciate your time here this 
morning, or this afternoon, and I will now yield back and 
recognize Ranking Member Castor for her 5 minutes of questions.
    Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
all again for being here. It is vitally important that we 
ensure that these very significant investments actually deliver 
for the American people, and you all are key to doing that. 
That is why we included in these new laws funding increases for 
the IGs, criteria to maintain program integrity, and GAO 
studies to inform policy.
    I heard a couple of different scenarios from you. Ms. 
Gustafson said you are confident in your abilities now, your 
recruiting is the best it has been, but Ms. Donaldson kind of 
painted a different picture. I hear you loud and clear.
    Mr. O'Donnell, how about your shop?
    Mr. O'Donnell. Thank you for asking. We were fortunate to 
receive support----
    Ms. DeGette. You need to turn on the mic.
    Voice. Mic, please.
    Mr. O'Donnell. Thank you. We were fortunate enough to 
receive support under the IIJA. And as I said, we moved out 
immediately. We've hired auditors, evaluators--our evaluators 
tend to be technical--and investigators.
    But we have been suffering for more than a decade under 
flat or declining budgets. And if I can put it into real terms, 
terms that I think are a little stark, is 12 years ago we were 
funded for 365 full-time equivalents, and now we're down to 
270. This is our base budget.
    What I've talked about today is getting funds for coverage 
of the IRA. And I think that the proposal that we've talked 
about is a modicum of support, taking part of what was given--
less than half a penny--to the agency to help fund us to ramp 
up oversight. And I know the agency has supported us in this 
proposal as well.
    Ms. Castor. So that is--we hear a similar song from the EPA 
Administrator, Michael Regan, about hiring at the Environmental 
Protection Agency.
    So let the call go out to talented young people across this 
country right now. Your country needs you to help tackle these 
problems, tackle the climate crisis, unleash American clean 
energy, rebuild our roads and bridges, our water systems. So I 
hope--I say this because there are young people in the audience 
today, and I hope they will help spread the word. There are 
enormous opportunities to serve your country in this way.
    Mr. O'Donnell, you highlighted right off the bat you were 
concerned about the Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund, very 
significant investments in cleaning up waterways and water 
systems across the country. Coming from the State of Florida, 
you know, we--the list is so long of projects that we need to 
protect, to protect water everywhere, to update wastewater 
systems and water systems. So it concerns me that you are 
highlighting that right off the bat as an area of concern.
    I am concerned that the State of Florida doesn't have the 
cops on the beat at the State level. Meanwhile, our local 
communities are ready, willing, and able with their engineering 
partners to get to work on this.
    What else do we need to know about the Clean Water 
Revolving Loan Fund, and the--your interactions with the 
Agency, and what else you are going to be doing there?
    Mr. O'Donnell. Thank you for asking, and we share your 
concern.
    For the first time in 15 years, we're starting to review 
the financial statements of the State revolving funds to ensure 
that they are healthy.
    We're also looking at how they're handling things like 
single audits of their recipients and their subrecipients. And 
I have actually made a concerted effort to go out to the 
different States to meet with the Administrators of the SRFs, 
to hear from them----
    Ms. Castor. Have you been to Florida?
    Mr. O'Donnell. I have. I went to Florida in December. 
Unfortunately, we were not able to--we tried--we were not able 
to meet. But it is----
    Ms. Castor. That is concerning.
    Mr. O'Donnell [continuing]. My plan to go to Florida, to go 
before it gets too hot, and to meet there and have that same 
conversation. And that conversation is exactly along the lines 
of what you said, which is we want the States to know that we 
are their partners in helping to make sure that these funds are 
executed appropriately, and with our partners in fighting 
fraud. We have trained investigators who are ready, willing, 
and able to look at water infrastructure and crimes that are 
committed in the construction or the operation of the water 
infrastructure.
    Ms. Castor. Yes, our economy is based on clean water and 
clean beaches. So I will be very interested in following up 
with you on that.
    So over at the Department of Energy, are there any--what is 
piquing your interest right off the bat what do you want to 
highlight as a concern?
    I hear what you say on the oversight of the loan program, 
but what else?
    Ms. Donaldson. I would say it's the combination of so many 
new programs and the fast money. Some of the risks that I 
talked about actually all exist cumulatively. So that gives me 
great concern.
    I would like to see the Department move forward with a more 
robust use of data analytics. I think that would be a 
tremendous tool for them. They are working on that now.
    But there are so many new things happening over there, it 
would be hard to really rank them at this moment in terms of--
--
    Ms. Castor. OK.
    Ms. Donaldson [continuing]. Program-specific risks.
    Ms. Castor. Are you able to have--well, I see I am over my 
time.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back.
    Mr. Griffith. The gentlelady yields back. I now recognize 
the Chair of the full committee, Mrs. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, 
for her 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate you 
all being here.
    I wanted to start with one program, one of many, but the 
EPA's Clean Bus Program. I recently visited some propane 
suppliers in Spokane who were quite concerned about the way 
that this program is being implemented. It is a program--at 
least as it was described to me, 50 percent was to go for 
electrification of school busses, 50 percent for propane--or 
alternative.
    And the way it is being implemented, 100 percent is being 
reimbursed if it is an electric school bus, costing $370,000 
each, versus the alternatives that--EPA has decided to 
reimburse a third of that cost if it is an alternative. So for 
propane, a bus would cost 107,000, EPA will reimburse a third 
of that. If it is an electric costing 370,000, it will pay the 
whole thing.
    I just wanted to ask about this program in particular, if 
you would elaborate on just the implementation, if they plan to 
modify the program, given the supply limitations. And according 
to the 2022 rebate, winners have already been announced. What 
challenges does EPA and EPA OIG face in monitoring these funds 
after winners have been announced?
    Mr. O'Donnell. Thank you for the question, and we share 
your concern with respect to the Clean School Bus.
    We announced a project recently--an audit of how the Agency 
is handling supply-chain issues and decision-making issues with 
respect to the clean school busses. Early indications are that 
the capacity of the United States to produce enough clean 
school busses or electric school busses along the lines of what 
the Agency envisions is not possible, that these funds would 
not be executed in time to actually meet the goals of the 
program.
    We have concerns that go beyond this too. It is one thing 
to give a school district an electric bus. It is another thing 
then for them to recharge that electric bus. And at this point, 
we're concerned that there isn't the infrastructure for them to 
recharge these electric busses----
    Mrs. Rodgers. OK. So what would happen to the--excuse me, 
what will happen to the money if they can't spend it?
    Mr. O'Donnell. This is--this touches on a continuing 
recommendation that we make with the Agency, which is 
monitoring funds that are obligated but not spent, and having 
the Agency appropriately de-obligate those funds.
    Mrs. Rodgers. OK.
    Mr. O'Donnell. My--I cannot remember, and I will get back--
--
    Mrs. Rodgers. I will follow up later. OK, thank you.
    Ms. Donaldson, Department of Energy, we had sent--Chairs 
Griffith, Duncan, and I had sent a letter to DOE asking for 
some accounting of some funds and major spending laws, some of 
which we have discussed today. And I was disappointed with the 
response. I probably shouldn't be surprised, but it was 
incomplete. We got it last night.
    But it is a pattern over the last 2 years. The Department 
has not been cooperating with us. For me, it is unacceptable. 
And one of the things they pointed to was USAspending.gov, that 
that is where I should go to get the spending, I guess, of the 
Department of Energy.
    You mentioned data analytics that they are developing. 
Would you speak to the timeline of these data analytics, and--
--
    Ms. Donaldson. They have not described a timeline. I think 
they are--and I don't mean to speak for them, that would be 
another witness to answer this question--I don't know that they 
have sufficient funding or staff dedicated to this mission yet. 
I think they recognize the power of the tool, but they are in 
early days in terms of designing an effective data analytics 
program.
    Mrs. Rodgers. OK, thank you. Well, and I was in Congress 
when the Recovery Act was passed, the ARRA, and I remember they 
set up this whole website, and they had congressional districts 
that didn't exist that were getting funded, you know, and we 
are talking I don't know how many times the money now, seven, 
eight times the money.
    To Mr. Gaffigan, I wanted to ask about data analytics and 
just how we--how are we doing, as far as internal controls, to 
be able to have any kind of tracking of this--these dollars?
    Mr. Gaffigan. Yes, and I mentioned, as one of the themes of 
that past work, because I also helped audit the ARRA funds, and 
there was great hope for the setting up of these data sources 
and a way to analyze it, but it's fallen short. And just the 
quality of the data, as you alluded to, has not been well done.
    And we've had some recommendations to OMB and Treasury to 
try to work on that, and also matters to Congress to try and 
improve that situation.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Well, would you speak to what you believe can 
be done, either at an agency level or a Federal Governmentwide, 
to increase some kind of accountability?
    Mr. Gaffigan. Well, we talked about clarifying OMB and 
Treasury's responsibilities. We have also recently testified in 
10 different matters for Congress to try and improve Federal 
spending information, and included having the IGs do some of 
the checking of these reports.
    Mrs. Rodgers. OK. I have a lot more questions, but my time 
is expired.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Griffith. I thank the gentlelady. I now recognize the 
former Chair of this subcommittee, Diana DeGette, for her 5 
minutes of questions.
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    First of all, I was pleased to see that, as part of these 
bills, there was an increase in funding for inspector generals' 
offices, for the most part, and to do this work, because I 
think it is important work.
    Ms. Donaldson, I was dismayed to hear that you did not 
receive the funding that you need to do your job. And I was 
pleased to hear that at least some of that funding is included 
in President Biden's budget this year.
    So I am sure all of my Republican colleagues will be 
supporting these provisions of the President's budget because 
they are so concerned about oversight, and I will make sure 
that I remind them of that when we do the appropriations bills, 
because you do have to--you can't just wave a magic wand and do 
oversight. So I appreciate that.
    So the--so I--right before I came over today I was 
speaking--I am a member of a group called the House Democracy 
Partnership. And we work a lot with legislators around the 
world. And I speak to them quite frequently about the 
importance of oversight over government spending. So I said I 
was coming over an oversight hearing.
    And they said, ``Oh, what is the topic of the hearing?'' 
And I had to really think, because the topic of the hearing is 
``Follow the Money: Oversight of President Biden's Massive 
Spending Spree.'' And it is a little embarrassing for someone 
like me, who is trying to tell colleagues around the world that 
we need to have robust oversight, that the U.S. Congress is 
actually having an oversight hearing that is so vague that you 
can't possibly see what we are going to do, especially since it 
is--we are bringing in inspectors general from three important 
agencies, and especially since the programs are only now just 
being implemented.
    So the first thing I want to say is kudos to the three of 
you for thinking ahead about the protocols we are going to put 
in place to make sure that these funds are spent wisely in the 
way they were intended.
    Secondly, thank you for giving detailed written statement, 
even though this was a very vague topic of this hearing.
    And thirdly, thank you for your very persuasive, albeit 
limited, verbal testimony today about your intentions.
    I just want to ask each one of you one question. And in the 
John Dingell tradition, it can be answered with a yes or no. 
And the question is, does your agency intend to oversee the 
implementation of the provisions of this legislation that you 
oversee with full and robust efforts?
    Yes or no, Mr. O'Donnell.
    Mr. O'Donnell. Do you mean my office or the EPA?
    Ms. DeGette. EPA and your office.
    Mr. O'Donnell. My office, yes.
    Ms. DeGette. Ms. Gustafson?
    Ms. Gustafson. Commerce OIG, yes.
    Ms. DeGette. Ms. Donaldson?
    Ms. Donaldson. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. DeGette. So good news. They are all going to do their 
best to oversee it.
    I would suggest, Madam Chair, that we actually have 
hearings directed at specific programs. I think that will be a 
much better use of this committee's time.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Mrs. Lesko [presiding]. And the Chair calls on Mr. Burgess 
for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Burgess. I thank the Chair.
    Look, I don't mean it to be like this, but I am--it is 
going to sound like I am overly critical, and you all are not 
the problem. But oh, my God. You have described an absolutely 
staggering, astonishing volume of dollars which the country 
didn't have, and had to borrow from China to pay for these 
things. And now you need more money to make sure that the 
people in the agencies don't rob the taxpayer of further 
dollars.
    I mean, you can't make this stuff up. It is like a Franz 
Kafka novel.
    So being a student of Willie Sutton--you remember the guy 
that robbed the banks, and they asked him why he robbed the 
banks, he said, ``That's where the money is''--you guys have 
the money. I mean, I didn't really do a running tally of the 
amounts, but I--would you all agree that that is a staggering 
amount of money that is aggregated in what we are talking about 
today?
    I mean, I can't remember ever having had a hearing about 
that number of dollars. And yet you are telling us, to a 
person, you can't manage to make sure that these funds are 
properly expended unless you get more money.
    And, you know, I am sorry for people watching this, if 
anyone is--I hope they are, they probably aren't--but for 
anyone watching this, they are not going to understand. You 
could not run a business that way. You could not just go into 
debt indefinitely. Your share value would be zero by the end of 
the day, and you would be as broke as cryptocurrency.
    So again, this is going to sound critical. I don't mean for 
it to, but am I correct in the statement that this staggering 
amount of money that we are talking about today is likely money 
that had to be borrowed from somewhere?
    Mr. O'Donnell, I will start with you.
    Mr. O'Donnell. I am not--that is my--not my expertise.
    But I wanted to just make one point here. With respect to 
the funding for my agency and for the others is--independent 
audit, whether it's a corporation or the government, is an 
essential function that--sort of three lines of defense in 
making sure that money is spent well and in compliance. And 
what we're saying here today is not to give us new money, but 
to actually use the money that's already been given to pay for 
that independent audit, so we can make sure that third line of 
defense is there.
    Mr. Burgess. Sure. That was part of the CFO Act from the 
1990s, the George Herbert Walker Bush administration, when they 
were trying to get control over this.
    But unfortunately, every dollar that we are talking about 
is going to be borrowed. And what has happened to the interest 
rate in the 2\1/2\ years of the Biden administration? It has 
gone through the roof. So, you know, again, I apologize if I 
sound--and I am not frustrated with you, but having spent part 
of the morning in a budget hearing and seeing all the charts 
and graphs that literally go off the top, I don't see how it is 
sustainable, what the Democrats have put us into.
    Mr. O'Donnell, let me just ask you too, because I think I 
saw your written statement, the comment that these funds will 
remain available until expended. Is that correct?
    Mr. O'Donnell. For the IIJA, that is. For most of those, 
that's true. Though I believe, if you look at them in terms of 
the State revolving funds, those funds will revolve back, and 
so they will in some sense perpetuate.
    Mr. Burgess. Yes, perpetuate. Thank you. That is the word I 
was looking for and I couldn't find.
    So all of the dollars that you are talking about also are 
compounded by the fact that interest will have to be paid on 
those dollars. And again, as we heard this morning in another 
budget hearing, we are very quickly on the road where we are 
going to be spending more money, mandatory spending, on the 
interest payments that we spend on defense of the United 
States, which, again, is an untenable situation in a very 
dangerous world.
    Mr. Gaffigan, let me just ask you this, because my office 
is on the west side of this building, and I look out over the 
expanse of the Hubert Humphrey building. And for the last 3 
years, I swear, there has not been a soul in that building. Is 
it expensive to maintain a Federal building that is not 
occupied?
    Mr. Gaffigan. There's a lot of work on sort of 
reappropriating and trying to minimize footprints. And I know, 
with the pandemic, that's created a whole new set of questions 
for agencies, in terms of whether they need to reduce their 
footprint.
    Mr. Burgess. I would say it has been pretty effectively 
reduced for the last 3 years. There is a little daycare center 
that I can see from my window, and there hasn't been a child 
playing in the daycare center since March of 2020. It is an 
expensive proposition, and it is one that, really, at some 
point we are going to have to get our hands around.
    Ms. Donaldson, this committee came to fame with the 
investigations over the Solyndra funding, which you--with which 
you are very familiar. What do you think about the DOE loan 
authority? Is that going to be--continue to be a risky program, 
where there is continued risk for dollars going where they 
weren't supposed to?
    Ms. Donaldson. I think they are staffing up and working 
very hard right now, and the future will tell.
    I actually wasn't the inspector general during Solyndra, 
so----
    Mr. Burgess. Sure.
    Ms. Donaldson [continuing]. I've reviewed the reports, and 
you know a lot more about Solyndra than I do, I would hazard a 
guess.
    Mr. Burgess. Yes, Mr. Griffith rose to fame on those 
investigations.
    Look, these are serious problems. And I don't mean to make 
light of them. I do appreciate your efforts, because I think 
they are extremely important. It is just extremely frustrating 
to me that we have--someone talked about the next generation of 
Americans. We have burdened them with an untenable amount of 
debt. And unfortunately, they are the ones who are going to 
have to pay it.
    Thank you, I will yield back.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you. The Chair calls on Ms. Schakowsky 
for 5 minutes of questioning.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you so much.
    For decades, companies have outsourced the manufacturing 
of--oh, sorry. I will start over. I have got time.
    So for decades, companies have outsourced the manufacturing 
of advanced semiconductors, and these chips are needed to 
produce what we need to manufacture here in the United States, 
which is, of course, our big goal right now, to make sure that 
we have this supply chain.
    The CHIPS and Science Act will--what is this? Oh, OK. 
Anyway, the CHIPS and Science Act is exactly what I think that 
we need.
    And in fact, in the--in my State of Illinois just 
yesterday, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker announced a new 
initiative of--called Innovate Illinois. And the--this public-
private partnership will bring together stakeholders and the 
State legislature and in business, and maximize the impact of 
Federal funding that is coming.
    And so I wanted to ask Ms. Gustafson--no, is that right? 
Did I say it right? Good. OK. I know that, as the CHIPS Act is 
being implemented, that you--your office is going to play a 
vital role in making sure that we oversee how it is--how it 
evolves. And so my question to you is, how are you preparing 
the Commerce Office of Inspector General and all the staff to 
be able to perform the oversight that we need, the efficiency 
that we need, and make sure that it really works?
    Ms. Gustafson. Thank you for that question. As I mentioned 
in my opening statement, my office is extraordinarily very 
grateful that we did receive dedicated funding for oversight of 
the CHIPS and Science Act. We received $25 million over 5 
years.
    So what we are able to do and what we are in the midst of 
doing is hiring new folks with technical expertise, because I 
think that one of the biggest challenges for something like the 
CHIPS Act is that it's an extremely technical activity, you 
know, building semiconductor chips, that maybe the Government--
most parts of the Government don't have the technical expertise 
in.
    So one of the things that we have undertaken that we have 
emphasized as well to the Department is that it's important 
that the Department understand as these--as the bids start 
coming in--or not the bids, apologies--as the requests for the 
funding start coming in, it's really important that the 
Department of Commerce and the Office of Inspector General have 
the technical expertise to oversee these programs. So we are 
staffing up in that arena.
    We are also--CHIPS, of course, is very new. The notice of 
funding opportunity was just released at the end of last month. 
The applications are not yet in. It's expected to be an 
iterative process. But just like Ms. Donaldson had mentioned, 
we are in constant communication with the Department, hearing 
what they are doing, being kept abreast of their activities, 
and emphasizing to them their important role in overseeing this 
program and how--there's a lot of us out there looking for 
oversight staff right now, including the departments, and so--
--
    Ms. Schakowsky. Well, I am sure. Let me just ask you this: 
What are some of the best practices that the Department of 
Commerce could do to make sure that they communicate with 
prospective grant recipients and do it in the best way?
    Ms. Gustafson. So I think the key on that one is--exactly 
to your point--is communication, is outreach, because it is a 
brand-new--CHIPS is brand new. So I think the best practices 
are practices that, you know, can be taken from things, 
frankly, like IRA or the pandemic relief, where there was 
communication being undertaken by the Department stakeholders 
about what the program is, what the requirements are.
    I can't sit here and tell you how well they're doing, 
because we haven't done a review of it. But I think there are a 
lot of lessons to be learned in the Government. CHIPS is kind 
of the newest act of all the ones that we're talking about, so 
I think it's important that the Department be learning from 
what has already been undertaken in the last several years----
    Ms. Schakowsky. OK, thank you so--let me just say that, 
unfortunately, most of my--our Republican colleagues voted 
against the CHIPS and Science Act. I hope that we are going to 
be able to work together to make sure that this program is done 
well, and that it actually does improve commerce and 
competitiveness in the United States.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Griffith [presiding]. I thank gentlelady for yielding 
back. I now recognize the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr.----
    Mr. Guthrie. Thank you.
    Mr. Griffith [continuing]. Guthrie, for his----
    Mr. Guthrie. Thank you Mr. Chair. I appreciate the 
recognition, and I want to--this first is for Ms. Gustafson.
    Your written testimony notes that the CHIPS Act and--CHIPS 
and Science Act provides the Department of Commerce with up to 
39 billion in direct funding for semiconductor activities, 11 
billion for semiconductor research and development, and up to 
75 billion in direct loans and loan guarantees.
    Your testimony also states that the Department's strategic 
goals for implementation of this act include investment in U.S. 
production of strategically important semiconductor chips.
    Like many of my colleagues, I am concerned that this 
taxpayer funding could wind up funding production of 
semiconductors in China or enriching our global adversaries, or 
also joint ventures with China here in the United States. Based 
on your experience, what challenges does the Department--my 
question--based on your experience, what challenges does the 
Department of Commerce face in administering this funding to 
retain its benefits domestically?
    And what role, if any, will your office have in making sure 
these funds don't get to China, either production in China or 
joint ventures here with China?
    Ms. Gustafson. Thank you. Thank you for your question.
    I think that the key--the biggest challenge and the biggest 
piece of advice I would give the Department of Commerce as it 
relates to this is that they--it's one thing to have a program 
that makes it very clear that there are restrictions on what 
the recipients of this program, the business that they can be 
involved in.
    And to your point, the key is going to be enforcement and 
whether the Department is taking that role seriously. And to 
that end, I would note that the statute takes great pains--and 
I don't mean that in a painful way, I mean has made it very 
clear--that there are guardrails in place to protect against 
some of that.
    What is going to be incumbent and I think that what is 
crucial but is too early to tell is whether that oversight at 
the Department level happens and whether the actions that are 
allowed to--that are provided to the Secretary of Commerce for 
taking action in those instances, whether those happen.
    And I would note--I'm sure you're aware of this--that we 
would be looking at this anyway. But certainly, the statutory 
mandate for the Department, for the Department of Commerce 
inspector general, very specifically says that Congress wants 
to know about that and within a certain amount of time. So we 
are certainly absolutely going to do that. So----
    Mr. Guthrie. OK, thank you. I appreciate that.
    So, Ms. Donaldson, according to the Department of Energy's 
website, the new Grid Deployment Office will be responsible for 
implementing many of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 
and Inflation Reduction Act grid resilience and reliability 
programs. Do you have any concerns about how this new office 
will handle programs addressing such an important issue and 
involving so much money so soon after its creation?
    And have you been part of any conversations with the 
Department of Energy leadership regarding how this office will 
coordinate with and avoid duplication with other offices with 
such--a mission such as Office of Electricity, Office of 
Cybersecurity, and so forth?
    Ms. Donaldson. Yes, and we have had a conversation covering 
aspects of the Grid Deployment Office. It's, again, been one of 
those subjects that we've teed up during our meetings every 2 
to 3 weeks. We don't have a lot of information in yet about the 
Grid Deployment Office. We have an outstanding monitoring 
project, data acquisition. So that information is now coming 
in. So it would be too early for me to have much of an opinion 
on how it is going over there.
    Mr. Guthrie. Thank you.
    And Mr. Gaffigan, has the Government Accountability Office 
reviewed or otherwise been involved in the Department of 
Energy's reorganizations?
    And what general concerns or pitfalls should Congress be 
aware of accompanying agency reorganizations?
    Mr. Gaffigan. We haven't had any recent work on DOE 
reorganizations. Probably the last questions we got were when 
NSA broke off from Defense programs. But that's been a while 
ago.
    But we--there are some lessons learned in terms of 
reorganizations that we've developed some criteria around which 
would apply to any agency reorganization, if we're asked to do 
so.
    Mr. Guthrie. OK, thank you. And back to Ms. Gustafson--I am 
sorry, I apologize.
    Is there--you said guardrails on making sure the investment 
doesn't go to China, because the idea is that we are going to 
bring this technology here and not in China. But is there any 
guardrails in preventing joint ventures--from American 
companies to do joint ventures on domestic soil with China, so 
China has our technology?
    Ms. Gustafson. I would have to get back to you on whether 
the statute gets to that. Honestly, I don't know. But I'm happy 
to get that answer back to you, sorry.
    Mr. Guthrie. OK, that would be helpful.
    Ms. Gustafson. Yes.
    Mr. Guthrie. Thank you.
    I will yield back.
    Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize 
Mr. Tonko for his 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is clear our country is 
on the--is called upon to meet the challenges of an innovation 
economy, to win a global race in that innovation economy. And I 
hope we all respond by embracing a spirit of can-do. That is 
including adequate resources and staffing levels at key 
agencies to make this happen. Failure is not an option here.
    So let me just go into the water infrastructure area. It is 
unacceptable that so many Americans lack access to safe 
drinking water. The water system is plagued by frequent main 
breaks, massive leaks of treated water, PFAS contaminations, 
and an estimated 10 million lead pipes in service, which are 
overwhelmingly found in low-income communities and communities 
of color.
    As past Chair and now ranking member of the Environment 
Subcommittee, ensuring that all Americans have easy access to 
safe drinking water has been a long-time priority. As a result 
of decades of inaction to replace aging lead pipes, millions of 
American families and children have been exposed to lead-
contaminated water. We have even reduced staffing at some of 
these agencies to a really dangerous level.
    With passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, 
the Federal Government is finally investing in our water 
systems and lead service line replacement, which will have an 
enormous impact on families' health and well-being. 
Specifically, the IIJA provides 43 billion in State revolving 
funds to improve the water infrastructure grants in communities 
across our country. These investments in clean water are 
essential, and we need to make certain they are implemented 
effectively.
    So I know what the EPA agrees--that the EPA agrees with 
that, and they are working hard to ensure that every dollar 
counts and to get the staffing where it should be. IGs can play 
a significant role in protecting important government programs 
like the State revolving funds.
    So, Mr. O'Donnell, in your testimony you mentioned that 
your office has reviewed EPA's prior responses to water 
emergencies, and that you are focused on oversight of the State 
revolving funds. Based on your office's ongoing work in this 
area, how should the EPA make certain that the State revolving 
funds are reaching the areas of highest need while hopefully 
preventing future water emergencies?
    Mr. O'Donnell. Thank you. One of the first projects that we 
announced, the first office we announced, is looking at how the 
Agency is identifying those communities in need for lead 
service line replacement, because it was our sense from 
previous water emergencies that the Agency does not have a 
great sense of where those lead service lines are and where 
those things--where those lines need to be replaced.
    And I agree with you on the need for the robust oversight 
of the water system. We have ongoing right now three reviews 
that touch on the failures of the water system. We have two 
projects involving Jackson, Mississippi. In fact, I just met 
with Representative Thompson this morning to discuss our 
oversight of the Jackson water crisis. We have one in Red Hill, 
with the Honolulu water system, and one in Saint Charles, 
Missouri, for their water system.
    We intend to fully become more robust partners in 
oversighting the State revolving funds so they do exactly sort 
of what you want them to do.
    Mr. Tonko. Well, it has been a long overdue.
    So Mr. Gaffigan, in your written testimony you highlighted 
some past recommendations that GAO has made to EPA to improve 
its monitoring of grants and ability to track the financial 
sustainability of the SRF. As you noted, EPA has implemented 
many of these GAO recommendations. How would those improvements 
help EPA better manage the clean water and drinking water State 
revolving funds?
    Mr. Gaffigan. I think it'll help them very much. I think 
they've been pretty responsive to our recommendations in the 
past. They have, for example, I think, one sort of outstanding 
recommendation around financial indicators, but it allows them 
to have a better sense of the sustainability of these funds by 
implementing these recs.
    And I'll also mention that we have some ongoing work 
looking at the formula for some of these funds, which hasn't 
been looked at in a long time.
    Mr. Tonko. And what else does EPA need to do to ensure that 
this increased investment has the greatest impact on the 
communities that need it the most?
    Mr. Gaffigan. I think their commitment to their workforce, 
in terms of having good workforce to handle this huge increase, 
will really lead to some benefits, and also being able to 
weigh--because now they have the option to address both lead 
and drinking water and the PFAS. They were specifically called 
out in the legislation. So I think that will help them with 
their criteria, in terms of determining where the biggest needs 
are.
    Mr. Tonko. OK. Well, we will all be watching and doing what 
we can to ensure that our agencies have the support and 
guidance they need to effectively carry out their missions.
    Americans deserve the benefits that these programs have to 
offer, and we in Congress will move to make certain they 
succeed. We cannot fail in this innovation race. I want to see 
a good, robust, can-do attitude and spirit. Make it happen. 
Let's work together, and let's get it done.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognizes 
the gentlelady from Arizona, Mrs. Lesko, for her 5 minutes of 
questioning, and recognize the vice chairman of this sub.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want 
to applaud all of you for your hard work and for your offices' 
hard work. Very vital.
    Ms. Donaldson, your March 13th, 2023, report stated that 
the DOE Office of Science failed to adequately audit at least 
$56 million in grants. You wrote that the DOE Office of Grants 
and Cooperative Agreements within the Office of Science told 
your office that, because of contract specialists' high 
workloads, they focus on issuing awards and do not have 
adequate resources to verify where the grantee is compliant 
with audit requirements.
    I understand that to mean that the DOE focuses on getting 
money out the door and not on whether recipients are complying 
with oversight requirements. Ms. Donaldson, is that a fair 
interpretation?
    Ms. Donaldson. Well, I'll say this about the volume of 
anything that gets audited, be it grants, cooperative 
agreements----
    Voice. Can you pull your mic closer?
    Ms. Donaldson. Oh, I sure can. Thank you. Yes, my comment 
about what volume of dollars get audited is there is no Federal 
agency that's ever at 100 percent. So what--and it wouldn't be 
efficient to be at 100 percent.
    So what that report was about is looking at whether or not, 
in a particular area, the percentage was high enough, you know, 
to be protecting the resource. And in the opinion of my audit 
team, it was not.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you. Ms. Donaldson, how can the DOE 
adequately audit billions of dollars of new money if they 
weren't able to adequately audit millions?
    Ms. Donaldson. I think there's the two big problems that I 
alluded to earlier. There has to be an adequate reservation of 
oversight dollars--because the Department of Energy also 
conducts audits, I don't conduct 100 percent of the audits. So 
they are the front line of defense. So they need adequate 
resources.
    And then, of course, the Office of the Inspector General 
needs adequate resources. And you will never achieve 100 
percent, but you want to achieve in any particular program a 
high enough number to where you have some confidence that those 
funds are safe.
    Mrs. Lesko. Ms. Donaldson, thank you. Do you have an 
estimate on how much taxpayer money may be lost to fraud, 
waste, and abuse because of the agency's lack of proper 
oversight?
    Ms. Donaldson. That's an interesting question. I think that 
might require a bit of a crystal ball.
    I will comment on the general topic of oversight dollars 
and recovery money. So I always say that oversight dollars 
usually make money, don't lose money. So, for example, the work 
of the offices of inspectors general, much of what we do can't 
be monetized. We put people in jail. There's deterrence. We 
correct standards. A lot of what we do, you can't put a number 
on.
    When we do put a number on things that we can put a number 
on, most offices of inspector general recover more money than 
we cost. So we are not a cost center, we're the opposite of 
that. So oversight dollars well spent can reduce that level of 
fraud, waste, and abuse. So I think it's very important to 
think of oversight dollars in that way: not money wasted, money 
recovered.
    Mrs. Lesko. Understood. Last question: If a longstanding 
program office such as the Office of Science cannot manage the 
oversight of its financial assistance awards and absorb new 
funding, how can taxpayers trust new offices to administer 
their grants appropriately?
    Ms. Donaldson. That's another tough one. I think you have 
to look at those same issues. There has to be the resources, 
that level of audit, inspector general audits coming behind it. 
All of those things have to happen so that you have some 
assurance that those funds are going where Congress intended 
them to go.
    Mrs. Lesko. Well, let's hope that we get proper oversight 
and that we give the oversight offices enough money to do their 
jobs, because I am very concerned that, if we can't do proper 
oversight on millions of dollars, how are we going to do it on 
billions of dollars of all these new programs?
    And with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Griffith. I thank the gentlelady. I now recognize the 
gentleman from California, Dr. Ruiz, for his 5 minutes.
    Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, Chair Griffith.
    Our Nation faces numerous challenges, whether it be climate 
change, the ongoing drought in the West, or our Nation's 
crumbling infrastructure. In the last 2 years Congress faced 
these challenges head-on with bold investments like the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, the CHIPS and Science Act, and 
the Inflation Reduction Act. I supported these bills because my 
district has suffered from underinvestment for years and I am 
focused on bringing Federal resources to promote equity and 
help those in most need.
    Today I want to focus on one particular way that we 
delivered for the American people last Congress, and that is 
through broadband. There are tremendous disparities across the 
country when it comes to broadband access. In my district 
alone, in Imperial County, one of the most impoverished, 
underresourced counties in the State of California, 15 percent 
of households go without broadband internet subscription. 
According to the FCC, about 21 percent of people living on 
Tribal lands and 17 percent of people living in rural areas 
lack access to broadband.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill provided $65 billion to 
ensure that every American has high-speed internet; $48 billion 
of this funding is dedicated to closing the digital divide by 
bringing affordable and reliable high-speed internet to 
underserved communities. This includes the Tribal Broadband 
Connectivity Program, which received $2 billion in additional 
funding. From the 23 projects funded in 2022 from this program, 
more than 40,000 Native American households will be connected 
to the internet and over 1,000 new jobs will be created in 15 
States.
    Ms. Gustafson, as you shared in your written testimony, 
your office is creating specialized broadband audit teams. You 
have also begun an audit of the Tribal Broadband Connectivity 
Program and have started issuing semiannual reports summarizing 
the status of Bipartisan Infrastructure Law programs. Will your 
office's oversight activities evaluate whether these funds 
under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law are distributed 
equitably and are reaching historically underserved 
communities?
    Ms. Gustafson. Thank you for your question. Our oversight 
is going to be directed in several ways--in several areas, as 
you can imagine.
    One of the first concerns since--there have been, and it's 
been mentioned previously, there have been broadband programs 
before, obviously, in the Federal Government, including at 
Commerce, when under the Recovery Act there was the BTOP 
program. So we are going to be focused, first off, on making 
sure that the program is doing what is intended, to your point.
    So is it going to--because if the main point is to serve 
the underserved communities, which it is, we have concerns 
about duplication of effort where it's already been done. So 
that's one of the first things that, you know, we're looking 
at, making sure that this is truly not going to places where 
there is already broadband and whether it's achieving--and 
whether it's achieving its purpose, and----
    Mr. Ruiz. In order so that you can get your focus on areas 
that don't have broadband.
    Ms. Gustafson. Right. To your point, many of these programs 
are very specifically designed for that, so that our oversight 
will be directed to----
    Mr. Ruiz. Mr. Gaffigan, you mentioned in your testimony 
that the GAO issued a report in January with recommendations to 
improve program performance measurement and that the National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration concurred 
with those recommendations. How might adoption of these 
recommendations enhance the impact of NTIA's expansion of 
broadband access to Tribal lands and other communities that 
lack access to high-speed internet?
    Mr. Gaffigan. I think it'll help in two ways. One, it'll 
sort of ensure that the fraud risk framework is established, 
and so that the monies go to where they need to go. And also, 
it'll talk about if they implement our recommendations around 
performance measures so we can see we're getting value for 
money here.
    And I'll also mention, in terms of disadvantaged 
communities, we also have ongoing work that will crosscut with 
this on Justice40 initiatives, where 40 percent of benefits 
should go to disadvantaged communities. And we're looking at 
that right now.
    Mr. Ruiz. Thank you. You know, having access to high-speed 
broadband is now becoming a common good, because our society is 
tied into the ability to access high-speed broadband. We can't 
ask our children to do homework on the internet when our 
children don't have access to the internet, and we can't ask 
people to go online to receive essential information, to 
receive essential services, when they don't have access to the 
internet. It will only exacerbate the disparities that we see 
in healthcare, in education, in employment, in business 
development, and we need to end that once and for all.
    And so I strongly believe that, with proper oversight, 
these programs can help bridge the digital divide and give 
everyone in our country a real chance to share in our country's 
prosperity. I believe it's a common good. We should start 
having conversations about it, as utility companies are a 
common good. And I'm glad that Congress passed these crucial 
measures and bills to--revisit them now to see the good work 
they are already doing for the American people.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Griffith. I thank the gentleman for yielding back and 
now recognize Mr. Duncan for his 5 minutes.
    Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, you know, this has been in the news, so it is no 
surprise to anyone, but Congress and the administration are in 
the process of negotiating raising the Nation's debt ceiling. 
And what that means is the Nation has maxed out its credit 
card, and we have got to go back to the banks and ask them to 
increase the credit limit.
    Most banks would ask us to come up with some sort of 
business plan or model of reforms to show we are going to 
actually rein in our spending, get a hold of our spending 
addiction, and show them a plan of repaying the debt. That is 
what banks do for private businesses that ask for a credit line 
increase for their business, or us as individuals as we go and 
get home equity lines and other things. So the Nation is $31 
trillion-plus in debt. That meter is running every day.
    So, General Donaldson, according to the Department of 
Energy, the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act authorizes it to 
administer $8.8 billion in rebates for home energy efficiency 
and electrification projects. The Department's home efficiency 
rebate program will award grants to State energy offices to 
provide rebates for energy-saving retrofits and housing 
structures.
    Additionally, the Department plans to issue grants to 
States and Tribal entities for home electrification and 
appliance rebates program.
    In your experience, what concerns should Congress be aware 
of regarding the rebate programs, generally?
    Ms. Donaldson. In general----
    Mr. Duncan. And you can aim that microphone a little 
closer, if that works.
    Ms. Donaldson. In general, rebate programs are, in fact, 
risky. There's a tremendous volume of recipients. It can be 
difficult to have them properly identified. They could be 
people who are already deceased. Yes, rebate programs are 
difficult. Grant programs raise some of those same issues.
    So it's really important, I think, that you combine two 
things--well-thought-out internal controls and the use of data 
analytics--because the volume of rebates moving through some of 
these programs is going to be staggering.
    So collect quality data on the front end, scrub it, look at 
it, check for red flags, you know, take a more modern approach 
on things such as rebates, and you'll be able to safeguard a 
higher volume of those funds.
    Mr. Duncan. So these grants are given to the State energy 
offices. And what sort of oversight is there from the Federal 
level of those programs? Because it seems to me like we're just 
giving the money to States, allowing them to run the programs, 
and there's not a lot of Federal oversight.
    Ms. Donaldson. There is some concern. I cochair the group 
of inspectors general managing IIJA funds. One of our subgroups 
is State, local, Tribal inspectors general. My shop also staffs 
that group. So we've had a lot of conversations with them, and 
there is a lot of concern that it is not clear what amount of 
funds they can use for oversight. They are understaffed.
    You know, many of the same things we've been talking about 
here today can be even worse at a State, local, or Tribal 
level. So when the Federal Government--before the Federal 
Government transfers large amounts of money in bulk, it has to 
ensure that the State, local government, or Tribe is ready to 
receive it and can administer it appropriately, or the losses 
will only continue to domino outward.
    Mr. Duncan. Right. When I hear ``understaffing,'' I think 
that the Federal Government created a problem of understaffing, 
because you gave them all this money and required them to do 
certain things. And States want to give out the money, I get 
that, but we created the problem by our funding, and now there 
is going to have to be increases at the State level or even the 
Federal level to increase the amount of personnel, which means 
government just continues to grow and the dominoes keep 
falling.
    This would apply to the Weatherization Assistance Program. 
That program received $3.5 billion from the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act, according to the White House. Do the 
concerns you highlighted in this special report in your 
testimony still persist regarding this program?
    Ms. Donaldson. That's another program where they are 
staffing up. They have the benefit of our prior 
recommendations, because that was a preexisting program at the 
Department. So the future will tell----
    Mr. Duncan. Yes.
    Ms. Donaldson [continuing]. You know, whether or not those 
funds land where Congress intended.
    Mr. Duncan. Yes, so we are just--through the infrastructure 
bill, through the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act, we are just 
growing government and requiring more staffing as government 
grows, to administer programs where the money is given to the 
State with very little accountability, very little oversight of 
the State that the programs are--actually work to do the things 
that the misnamed bills hope to do. So thanks for your clarity 
on that.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance.
    Mr. Griffith. I thank the gentleman for yielding back and 
now recognize the gentlelady from Florida, Mrs. Cammack, for 
her 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mrs. Cammack. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess we all 
got the memo on the blue blazers and black shirts today. Mr. 
Chairman, where did you go wrong?
    Mr. Griffith. I am a little off today.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Griffith. And some would say today is not an exception.
    Mrs. Cammack. Well, I appreciate the chairman for hosting 
this very, very important oversight hearing. And thank you to 
the witnesses for being here.
    I am going to start with you, Inspector General Gustafson. 
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act established the 
Broadband Equity Access and Deployment program under which the 
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 
NTIA, will distribute 42.45 billion in broadband infrastructure 
funding to States and certain territories.
    This program is structured as one big block grant to 
States, and then the States are responsible for awarding the 
funds to the entity that will be deploying the broadband in 
different parts of the State. Given that the NTIA does not have 
direct control over awarding funds to each grantee, what 
oversight challenges does that present for the agency and your 
office, particularly as we are trying to handle overbuilding in 
certain areas?
    Wow, this is a big one.
    Ms. Gustafson. Right.
    Mrs. Cammack. Take it away.
    Ms. Gustafson. So there is no question that the--you know, 
we believe that--Commerce and Commerce OIG, you know, that our 
responsibility does not, to your point, end at the block grant 
level.
    I mean, we are keenly aware that, after the grants are 
going to be sent to the States based on the FCC maps, that is--
the funds are still supposed to be used--you know, they don't 
lose their intended purpose. You know, they're still--they're 
supposed to be used for that.
    And it is a--I will say it is a tremendous challenge in 
that all of a sudden you aren't talking about the conversations 
that we can have with NTIA, you're talking about innumerable 
State and local entities for a staff of, you know, two teams, 
you know--and even our total staff is under 200. So there are 
absolute challenges.
    What we have communicated to the Department is that we want 
them, you know--we want to be part of the outreach that is 
happening as the program is being rolled out. I mean, we want 
the State auditors and the local entities to know that the OIG 
is here, that Commerce is here, that there are still--you know, 
that the--that we are keenly interested in overseeing and being 
told--and hearing about issues that are coming up, because, to 
your point, the issues on the block grant don't happen at that 
level. They happen two, three, four steps down.
    And so we will do our level best, you know, to get that 
word out, but it's going to be a challenge because we are all 
of a sudden talking about hundreds, you know, hundreds of 
projects, probably thousands of projects.
    Mrs. Cammack. I understand this is a gargantuan one, but, I 
mean, $42 billion. We are going to have to do better than our 
level best, for sure. And I recognize that we are dealing with 
State--all the different States.
    And this actually follows right into my second question, 
where NTIA was recently directed by Congress to establish six 
new broadband programs over the last 3 years. Some of these 
programs have similar goals, but they have different statutory 
requirements, different funding levels, different timelines, et 
cetera.
    So have you guys had any discussions with NTIA before they 
established the programs to discuss how integrity was going to 
be accounted for, and also to reduce the likelihood of fraud in 
these programs?
    Ms. Gustafson. We have had conversations with NTIA. We have 
made it clear that, while we cannot give our stamp of approval 
on what they're doing, we stand ready to talk about lessons 
learned and things that we would like to see as the oversight 
entity, you know, things that we would like to see in the 
Notices of Funding Opportunities that will allow the 
transparency needed to follow the money. So I think that, you 
know, those conversations have occurred.
    To your point, NTIA has not been in the business of 
broadband grants for a while. So they're having to kind of 
almost start over because BTOP was under--it was many, many 
years ago. So there are grantmaking entities within the 
Department of Commerce. NOAA makes a lot of grants, NIST makes 
a lot of grants. So we've also emphasized the importance of it 
not being just an NTIA job, that there be conversations and 
working together with the other grantmaking entities within 
Department of Commerce to make sure that those controls are 
being placed in. So the conversations are happening.
    But our work, of course, will really begin in earnest when 
the money----
    Mrs. Cammack. Can you proactively and are you proactively 
reaching out to States as we are dealing with these block 
grants to talk about what requirements are going to be 
happening or coming out? That way they can be compliant on the 
front end, rather than catching up on the back end.
    Ms. Gustafson. We are absolutely being proactive. I know 
other IGs are involved in IIJA as well, and often it's a joint 
effort. We're appearing together sometimes at State and local 
auditors' conferences, at those--at meetings.
    So we are--and for my office--and it's often a 
representative not just from audit but from the investigative 
side, from the Office of Investigations, to talk about what the 
fraud indicators are, what the people should be looking for 
that might indicate that there's a problem. So we--the--we are 
having those discussions right now.
    And the nice thing about the IIJA Working Group is 
sometimes it's Department of Transportation who is out there. 
But, you know, I know that he--Mr. Soskin is actually talking 
about the programs in general so that, again, that level of 
awareness is happening. Because, to your point, a lot of people 
don't know what an OIG is, you know, unless you're here. So it 
really is important to get that word out. And I say that as 
somebody who worked in a State auditor's office for 8 years, 
and we knew that GAO existed but didn't really know about OIG. 
So it's important to have those proactive conversations.
    Mrs. Cammack. Well, excellent. I know my time is expired. 
I'm way over. But I appreciate it. Thank you so much, Mr. 
Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Griffith. I thank the gentlelady. And seeing that there 
are no further Members wishing to ask questions today, I would 
like to thank all of our witnesses again for being here today. 
You have been very informative and energetic.
    Anything?
    Ms. Castor. Thank you all very much.
    Mr. Griffith. And in pursuit of the--in pursuance of the 
committee rules, I remind Members they have 10 business days to 
submit additional questions for the record, and I would ask the 
witnesses to submit their response within 10 business days upon 
receipt of the questions.
    Without objection, the committee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:46 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	

                                 [all]