[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
INSPECTORS GENERAL ON INTEGRITY
AND EFFICIENCY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
AND THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND ACCOUNTABILITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 23, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-124
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
56-566 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman
Jim Jordan, Ohio Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking
Mike Turner, Ohio Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Michael Cloud, Texas Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Gary Palmer, Alabama Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Ro Khanna, California
Pete Sessions, Texas Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Andy Biggs, Arizona Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Katie Porter, California
Jake LaTurner, Kansas Cori Bush, Missouri
Pat Fallon, Texas Shontel Brown, Ohio
Byron Donalds, Florida Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Robert Garcia, California
William Timmons, South Carolina Maxwell Frost, Florida
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Greg Casar, Texas
Lisa McClain, Michigan Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Dan Goldman, New York
Russell Fry, South Carolina Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Nick Langworthy, New York Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Eric Burlison, Missouri
Mike Waltz, Florida
------
Mark Marin, Staff Director
Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
Bill Womack, Senior Advisor
James Rust, Chief Oversight Counsel
Daniel Ashworth, Deputy Chief Counsel for Oversight
Lisa Piraneo, Senior Professional Staff Member
Jennifer Kamara, Government Accountability Office Detailee
Ellie McGowan, Staff Assistant and Administrative Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5074
Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
Subcommittee on Government Operations and the Federal Workforce
Pete Sessions, Texas, Chairman
Gary Palmer, Alabama Kweisi Mfume, Maryland Ranking
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Minority Member
Andy Biggs, Arizona Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Byron Donalds, Florida Columbia
William Timmons, South Carolina Maxwell Frost, Florida
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Greg Casar, Texas
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Russell Fry, South Carolina Robert Garcia, California
Eric Burlison, Missouri Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Vacancy Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 23, 2024.................................... 1
Witness
----------
Mark Greenblatt, Chair, CIGIE, Inspector General, Department of
the Interior
Oral Statement................................................... 6
Written opening statements and the statement for the witness are
available on the U.S. House of Representatives Document
Repository at: docs.house.gov.
Index of Documents
----------
* Statement for the Record, Rep. Connolly; submitted by Rep.
Connolly.
* Article, New York Times, ``Trump Moves to Replace Watchdog
Identifying Medical Shortages''; submitted by Rep. Connolly.
* Article, Washington Post, ``Trump Replaces HHS Watchdog Who
Found Severe Shortages at Hospitals Combatting Covid'';
submitted by Rep. Connolly.
* Letter, June 8, 2020, from Mr. Dodaro to Congress; submitted
by Rep. Lee.
* Letter, March 26, 2020, from Rep. Maloney to Mr. Cuffari;
submitted by Rep. Mfume.
* Letter, May 10, 2022, from Rep. Maloney to Mr. Cuffari;
submitted by Rep. Mfume.
* Letter, August 1, 2022, from Rep. Maloney to Mr. Cuffari;
submitted by Rep. Mfume.
* Letter, August 16, 2022, from Rep. Maloney to Mr. Cuffari;
submitted by Rep. Mfume.
* Letter, September 15, 2020, from Rep. Maloney to Mr. Cuffari;
submitted by Rep. Mfume.
* Letter, July 26, 2022, from Rep. Maloney to Inspectors
General; submitted by Rep. Mfume.
* Letter, January 25, 2024; from Rep. Raskin to Mr. Cuffari;
submitted by Rep. Mfume.
* Letter, July 27, 2023, from Rep. Raskin to Mr. Cuffari;
submitted by Rep. Mfume.
* Letter, June 5, 2024, from Chairman Comer to President Biden;
submitted by Rep. Sessions.
* Questions for the Record: to Mr. Greenblatt; submitted by
Rep. Higgins.
* Questions for the Record: to Mr. Greenblatt; submitted by
Rep. Biggs.
* Questions for the Record: to Mr. Greenblatt; submitted by
Rep. Hageman.
Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.
OVERSIGHT OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
INSPECTORS GENERAL ON INTEGRITY
AND EFFICIENCY
----------
Tuesday, July 23, 2024
House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Accountability
Subcommittee on Government Operations and the Federal
Workforce
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:51 p.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Pete Sessions
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Sessions, Comer, Palmer, Biggs,
Burchett, Mfume, Norton, Frost, Connolly, Lee, and Tlaib.
Also present: Representatives Grothman, Loudermilk, and
Hageman.
Mr. Sessions. Good afternoon. This was supposed to have
started before now, and, Mark, we appreciate you sticking
around.
I would like to welcome today's witness, Mr. Mark
Greenblatt, to the Subcommittee. Today, we are beginning an
opportunity to hold an oversight of the Council of the
Inspector Generals on Integrity and Efficiency, and today's
hearing is a bipartisan hearing that will take place where we
are looking forward to not only working with our witness today,
but also examining the role that Congress has provided for
CIGIE to exist.
So, without objection, as I move forward, we want to waive
on Congresswoman Harriet Hageman, Glenn Grothman, Barry
Loudermilk, and Chip Roy, and all of these will be waived on
the Committee for the purpose of questioning witnesses today.
Does the gentleman have anybody that you would like to add to
that list?
Mr. Mfume. I do not have anybody, and I do not have any
objection.
Mr. Sessions. Thank you very much. In addition to his
duties as Inspector General for the Department of Interior, Mr.
Glenn Greenblatt serves as the current chairman of the Council
of the Inspector Generals on Integrity and Efficiency. This is
known as CIGIE. CIGIE's mission is to address integrity,
economic, and effectiveness issues that transcend individual
government agencies, help increase professionalism and
efficiency and effectiveness by personnel by developing
policies, standards, and approaches as they appear to aid in
the establishment of a well-trained and highly skilled
workforce in the Offices of Inspector General across the
government. Today's hearing will provide members with an
opportunity to examine CIGIE's legislative priorities, receive
an update on the day-to-day operations and better understand
its internal processes.
However, I need to also admit, as Mr. Greenblatt and I met
yesterday, the elephant in the room seems to be the expectation
of an upcoming Integrity Committee report on the investigation
of the current Inspector General of the Department of Homeland
Security. So, Mr. Greenblatt and I did speak yesterday, and we
discussed how he is not able to address this issue or really
questions regarding the substance of this report until it has
been released to the public. We believe that that is a minimum
of 1 month from now. That process that is being worked through
is an open process, so to speak, in that it is allowing
feedback to be given to members of that Committee, who will
then make recommendations.
Nonetheless, it is a good opportunity, Mr. Greenblatt, to
have you before us to explain why Members should have
confidence in the Integrity Committee's work, but that comes
from knowing more about how we see it and you see it, and
coming to what I think is a closer recognition of the intent of
Congress, not only at the time Congress gave this authority and
responsibility, but its ongoing responsibility of our
oversight.
Aside from the pending investigation that is before this
CIGIE group, there have been instances in which IC reports
preceded the removal of Inspector Generals. These include
things that have done before, and so we are going to make sure
that we have a clearer understanding about that process. As I
said to Mr. Greenblatt yesterday, I think it is important that
we understand that for people to want to have this job, to
serve as Inspector Generals, and to get the kind of people that
you believe, and I believe and any administration would believe
that they would want highly qualified and people who would work
within a structure that is well understood.
That there are three Inspector Generals gone in a 6-month
period of time does not lend itself to the stability that I
believe is effectiveness for not just Congress, but also for
people who serve in that position. Add to it the most recent
semiannual report from the IC, which states that it has
received 1,755 incoming communications resulting in 75 cases
for IC's formal disposition. And that is that six
investigations are pending completion, which means that it is a
lot of work. It is a big bucket, and it is upon each of you to
deal with that. So, we want to know what is going on in the IG
community. We want to hear from you. We had a very cordial
conversation yesterday. However, we understand that
whistleblower complaints are part of the frustrations that not
only take place within the agencies at the IG, but the IGs have
to deal with that in their own work performance.
Perhaps more importantly is how can we have the confidence
that the work of the Inspector Generals will not be negatively
impacted if they assume that their own staff is using this same
process to hinder the people that are expected to perform. So,
we want to know a little bit more about the recourse that an
inspector general might have if they believe that this process
is happening to them. Either way, we believe it is something
that is being dealt with that we think is problematic. We think
it is problematic for the Inspector Generals, we think it is
problematic for CIGIE, and that means that people come to
Members of Congress and want to receive some bit of information
back to make sure we are aware of the reality that exists in
the community.
As a member of this Oversight Committee, I assure you that
Mr. Greenblatt--and I told him this--that we would be open to
hearing. We would be open to hearing on a bipartisan basis. We
would be interested in delving further and really begin what I
think is a discussion about each other, hearing from each other
about the substance of your performance, the substance of our
expectation, but the substance of fixing the problems. We
believe we ought to go from fight to fix, and if we are a part
of that problem, we need to face up to that, and we are going
to agree to do that. So, the things which we have talked about
at the table can all be said here, every single bit of it.
There was no conversation yesterday that would not be pertinent
today, except the belief that you have agreed to come back and
us begin that discussion mid-September as necessary.
So, now I want to recognize the distinguished gentleman
from Maryland, the Ranking Member, Mr. Mfume.
Mr. Mfume. Mr. Chairman, thank you again for your important
leadership on this as in a bipartisan way we continue to do
hearing after hearing in search of facts. Mr. Greenblatt, my
welcome to you.
An important role of this Subcommittee is to see the
effective, efficient, and fair functioning of the executive
branch. The 74 inspector generals across the Federal Government
are central, obviously, to that effort, which is why we have
called this hearing today, both the Chairman and myself. And
Inspector Generals operated, as you know, for 2 centuries in
our military before Congress extended the concept to civilian
agencies with the Inspector General Act of 1978. This act
initially established 12 inspector generals across various
departments and offices. And in their creation, the Congress at
the time was careful to emphasize the apolitical and
nonpartisan nature of Inspectors General. On a bipartisan
basis, Congress designed these positions to focus on
eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse, to encourage efficient
agency operations, and to tackle wrongdoing without regard to
partisanship or politics for that matter. In 2008, in an effort
to ensure robust oversight of Inspectors General, Congress
passed the Inspector General Reform Act with near unanimous
bipartisan support. That bill established the Council of the
Inspector Generals on Integrity and Efficiency, commonly known
as CIGIE.
The Council of the Inspector Generals on Integrity and
Efficiency, as the name implies, is made up of 74 Inspector
Generals, including those appointed by the President with the
advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. Those appointed are the
agency heads and one other IG, the Special Inspector General
for Afghanistan Reconstruction, appointed by the President
alone. CIGIE was formed, I think it is fair to say, with a
laudable goal of professionalizing the IG community so they
could better address governmentwide integrity, economy, and
effectiveness issues. They do so, as we know, by training
staff, by proposing legislation, and by recommending new
Inspector Generals for vacant positions as they occur. Perhaps,
most importantly, CIGIE holds Inspector Generals themselves
accountable through the Integrity Committee.
As a part of CIGIE's various duties as a watchdog
organization, one of which is to ensure regular reports to the
Congress as well as to issue reports on the result of their
investigations into allegations of IG misconduct.
Unfortunately, Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle,
and myself included, have oftentimes found ourselves vexed by
CIGIE's lack of expediency in completing and disclosing the
results of their Integrity Committee investigations.
For example, since early 2022, Members of Congress have
raised to CIGIE several concerns regarding the ethics,
credibility, and the political independence of the Department
of Homeland Security Inspector General, Joseph V. Cuffari,
originally nominated by former President Trump in 2019.
Alarmingly, these concerns included a failure to report rampant
sexual misconduct and harassment charges at DHS and a failure
to investigate and disclose missing Secret Service texts
relating to the events of January 26, 2021. Three years into
his tenure, a majority of the lawyers in the DHS Office of the
Inspector General had left. Many of whom cited dysfunction and
abuses of power stemming from Mr. Cuffari's leadership as a
catalyst, they said, for their departure.
Most concerning, though, is Mr. Cuffari's failure to comply
with the House Oversight Committee's longstanding investigation
into his misconduct, citing a myriad of spurious claims in
response to numerous oversight letters. Over the course of his
tenure, at least eight investigative letters had been sent to
IG Cuffari over his inadequate performance and his
unwillingness to cooperate with congressional investigations.
Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to submit several of
those letters sent between 2020 and 2024, as well as two of Mr.
Cuffari's responses sent on February 1 and August 31 of 2023
into the record.
Mr. Sessions. Without objection, those will be included.
Mr. Mfume. Despite these mounting issues, we still lack a
clear understanding of the status of the results of CIGIE's
investigation into IG Cuffari even after a years-long process
and, I might add, a highly suspect $1 million-plus settlement
between Mr. Cuffari and one of his employees. And so, I guess
my point here is that if CIGIE is to be an effective watchdog,
it must be transparent to Congress and to its members on both
sides of the political aisle. I do want to applaud the steps
CIGIE has taken recently to implement a new transparency
policy, but I would hasten to say that much more is needed and
would be openly embraced by this Committee and, indeed, the
larger Committee of Oversight.
And while the Council must be improved, that does not mean
it is replaceable, and it certainly does not mean it is
expendable. Along with its oversight function, CIGIE plays a
valuable role in training staff, proposing congressional
measures to improve government efficiency, and offering itself
as a forum for learning best practices. The Council, as we know
it, cannot and must not be recreated under the auspices of
another agency, and I think, sir, you would agree with that.
The Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency
has achieved important results. For example, after the CARES
Act vested CIGIE with oversight responsibilities of pandemic
spending, it stood up the Pandemic Response Accountability
Committee, also known as PRAC. That Committee coordinates the
efforts of 20 inspector generals to promote transparency and
conduct data-driven oversight of the $5 trillion that the
Congress invested in the Nation to address the COVID-19
pandemic response.
But ultimately, CIGIE cannot carry out its work and its
mission if it does not remain absolutely independent,
especially independent from political pressure. If oversight of
the Inspectors General moved under the purview of any other
department, in my opinion, or to any of the agencies headed by
political appointees, the independence of IGs could be
permanently undermined. We have already seen Presidential
administrations in years gone by fire inspectors general that
release reports or engage in audits or carry out investigations
that they themselves might find politically inconvenient.
Thereby, undermining the independence of IGs would empower
future Presidents to aim to thwart oversight and abuse of their
powers to do so as well.
And so, the Chairman used the term ``conversation.'' I
would borrow that and say today's conversation really gives us
an opportunity to learn more about how we can improve the
Council, to look at where it may have erred in the past, to
hear ideas about how to reform it into an even stronger
organization, but it is also an opportunity to appreciate the
ability of independent oversight to make our Nation better.
Respect for rule of law and a culture of accountability are
the bread and butter of the Subcommittee and I would dare say
of the entire Congress. So, like the Chairman, I look forward
to doing our part in this hearing. I thank you again for being
here, and we are all working to preserve the values and the
expectations that I spoke about earlier. Mr. Chairman, again,
thank you for agreeing to do this and for allowing me the
opportunity as the Ranking Member to participate, and I would
yield back my time, sir.
Mr. Sessions. The gentleman yields back his time. Thank you
very much. I want to make sure Mr. Greenblatt understands what
I think I have expressed, but that our Ranking Member has so
adequately done so in his own representation, and that is, we
come to the table today with the Chairman, Mr. Comer, the
Ranking Member, Mr. Raskin, Mr. Mfume, and I, and we see a
responsibility that we have also, and, first of all, that we
try and see things with an understanding that I do not try and
decide what their answer will be and they do not decide my
answer, but some commonsense that is involved is apparent that
it can make us better. We think you will do the same as IGs,
and that is really the flavor that we want to talk about as
decision-making roles and how we can work together.
So, today we are joined by another orange tie that appeared
today, the gentleman from Virginia. Gerry, you look good. I
like that tie.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you very much, but it is always a risk,
Mr. Chairman, for an Irish Catholic to wear orange.
Mr. Sessions. Well, then you are on your own. My wife would
probably warn me that, too.
Today, we are joined by Inspector General Mark Greenblatt,
who currently serves as Chair of the Council of the Inspector
Generals on Integrity and Efficiency, known as CIGIE. Mr.
Greenblatt also serves as the Inspector General of the
Department of Interior. Mr. Greenblatt has been in Federal
Oversight Committee since 2003 as part of the legislative and
executive branches. Before coming to DOI, Department of
Interior Inspector General, he served as the Executive Director
of CIGIE, an organization that has been formed by Congress. He
previously held leadership roles at the U.S. Department of
Commerce Office of Inspector General, the U.S. Senate Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations. Mr. Greenblatt also served as
Investigative Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice OIG.
And over the course of his Federal career, he served and
received numerous awards, including the CIGIE Award for
Excellence, the U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal and
Bronze Medals, and the U.S. Department of Justice, OIG
Distinguished Service Award. We are delighted that you are here
today, sir, and I think that this will probably match exactly
with why you thought you were here to help us work together.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), the witness will please
stand and raise your right hand for the oath to the witness. I
would ask do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony
you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Greenblatt. I do.
Mr. Sessions. Let the record reflect that the gentleman,
Mr. Greenblatt, has answered in the affirmative. The gentleman
may take his seat. We are delighted that you are here. We
apologize once again for our delay.
And let me remind the witness that we have read your
written statement, and it appears in the record. I told you
yesterday that I do not necessarily want to hold you to the 5-
minute rule, nor our Members. I think we are here for a bigger
purpose, and that purpose is to get the things out, the
questions answered, and the responses that would be necessary
for us to move forward. So, you have been doing this before.
You know our red light, green light, yellow light process.
And I would now recognize the distinguished gentleman, Mr.
Greenblatt, for his opening statement. The gentleman is
recognized.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARK LEE GREENBLATT
INSPECTOR GENERAL
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Greenblatt. Chairman Sessions, Ranking Member Mfume,
and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to
testify here today on behalf of the Council of Inspectors
General, which, as you said, we lovingly call CIGIE. CIGIE has
a great story to tell, and I am honored to share that story on
behalf of the 14,000 hardworking public servants at the 73
Federal Offices of Inspector General who make up the IG
community.
It is worth emphasizing that the IG community and this
Committee share a common mission. We are all responsible for
overseeing the Federal Government to make sure it delivers for
the American people. IGs are like taxpayers' representatives
inside Federal agencies, tasked with protecting taxpayer
dollars and ensuring that agency officials are living up to
their responsibilities. Like Congress, OIGs promote economy,
efficiency, and effectiveness in government operations. We do
this by detecting and preventing fraud, waste, abuse, and
mismanagement through thousands of audits, inspections,
evaluations, and investigations every year.
You can see the IG community's effectiveness in our
results. Over the last 10 years, OIG audits and inspections
have recommended more effective uses for or questioned the
spending of more than $550 billion in Federal funds. OIG
investigators have recovered $143 billion from fraudsters who
are stealing our tax dollars. OIG investigations have led to
more than 53,000 successful criminal prosecutions and more than
15,000 civil actions. OIG oversight has led to the suspension
and debarment of just shy of 50,000 parties, which prevents
them from doing business with the Federal Government and
therefore prevents future losses of government dollars. OIG
reports have led agencies to take more than 43,000 personnel
actions against Federal employees, including terminations and
suspensions. And over the last decade, the OIG community has
identified potential savings across the Federal Government
totaling $693 billion. In short, I think Congress should be
proud that its investments in Inspectors General has paid off.
Now, while these numbers are certainly impressive, they do
not tell the entire story. Our oversight has impact far beyond
these big dollar figures. Behind these statistics are real
stories, real lives, real improvements for the American people.
Now, let me give you just a few examples.
The Veterans Affairs OIG, their work has led to significant
improvements in the prevention of veteran suicides. HHS OIG has
conducted sweeping oversight of nursing homes across America
that uncovered terrible conditions for some of our elderly
Americans and is protecting many others from similar abuses.
The transportation OIG has played a critical role in
investigating criminal conduct that contributed to the crashes
of two 737 MAX jets and in auditing FAA's oversight of the
safety of passenger aircraft and Boeing's processes for its
aircraft certification. HUD OIG has uncovered awful sexual
exploitation in our public housing system, which led to holding
accountable a number of landlords who are sexual predators. In
my own office at the Department of the Interior, we have
initiated a series of inspections and evaluations specifically
targeting waste, fraud, and abuse in Native-American schools,
all designed to help the most vulnerable people in our
portfolio, Native American children.
Now, these are just a handful of examples of the hard-
hitting oversight occurring throughout the IG community.
Indeed, from cybersecurity to cyber stalking, from depleted
uranium to disaster preparedness, from Ukraine to Afghanistan,
IG oversight continues to make an important difference in every
aspect of American life.
Now, in closing, I would like to thank the Committee for
your longstanding bipartisan support for IGs and the oversight
work that we do. All 14,000 of us in the OIG community have
chosen to serve the public and make our government work better,
but we also look for ways to make our own operations work
better, so we welcome today's conversation with all of you. All
of you are primary stakeholders for us. We want to know your
vision for the future of oversight. We want to know your
oversight priorities. We want to know your concerns and how we
can work together going forward. And this is the main purpose
of my testimony today. We want you to be confident that CIGIE
and the OIG community are diligently pursuing the mission that
we share with all of you, to protect taxpayer dollars and
ensure that the Federal Government is delivering for the
American people. We want you to see the enormous value that we
provide in our fair, objective, and independent oversight.
As I said at the outset, CIGIE has a great story to tell,
and I hope we can work together with all of you to continue
that great story for years to come. Thank you.
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Greenblatt, thank you very much for your
opening statement. I would first go to the distinguished
gentleman from Alabama, the Chairman of the Republican Policy
Committee. The distinguished gentleman, Mr. Palmer, is
recognized.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. PACE is designed to
look backward to chase money that has already been paid. What I
would like to know, General Greenblatt, is during the pandemic
there was a massive amount of fraudulent spending, widely
referred to as the greatest theft of taxpayer money in history.
So, has the PACE data center been effective in recovering any
of that?
Mr. Greenblatt. Yes, sir. I think many of those
investigations related to the pandemic are certainly ongoing
right now and are already delivering returns. The key, though,
is what you said at the outset, the initial part of your
question there, which is the prevention piece, and that is
where we really are pushing for a data hub inside CIGIE that
will allow us to be affirmatively preventing some of those bad
dollars from going out the door.
Mr. Palmer. Actually, my follow-up was, is this forward
looking? I have spent a ton of time working with the GAO on
improper payments and things like that, and I think we are far
better off if we are in a preventive mode than we are in trying
to recover what has gone out. We have done all these audits on
Federal agencies. We have identified a number of problems. I
get the GAO reports, and it tells me what percent of the
recommendation has been implemented, and sometimes it is none
of them. Have you experienced the same issues with audits done
by the Inspector Generals that never really get acted on, the
recommendations never get implemented?
Mr. Greenblatt. I think some agencies are better than
others. I think some of the relationships between the IGs are
better than others, and so I think it is a bit of a hodgepodge.
Some of them are pretty good about implementing, but some of
them are absolutely terrible about it. And so, I think the key
is two things. One is transparency. And so, what we are doing
at CIGIE is trying to make our open recommendations even more
prominent on oversight.gov, which is our primary outward facing
website, so that you all can see them. And then the other part
of that, part two of that, is, frankly, pressure from Congress.
If you all see open recommendations that we have identified as
significant, come talk to us and we can share with you what are
the hot button items that we think the agency should be
implementing. And then I think you are going to see product
move, if you will.
Mr. Palmer. That is part of the challenge for us is that
previous Congress has passed legislation to deal with improper
payments, the Improper Payments Reduction Act, and then there
was a second version of that, but there was never any
enforcement in it. A number of us including the Comptroller
General and I have talked about this, is, how do you
incentivize agencies to actually implement the changes that
need to be made. And I would really be interested, and I think
the Committee would be very interested in hearing from CIGIE
about this on how we can actually get some enforcement, for
lack of a better word, but incentives, whatever it takes to
reduce these improper payments and prevent them in the future.
Would you be able to provide some recommendations?
Mr. Greenblatt. Absolutely, sir, and the impact of
congressional attention cannot be overstated. So, if I can just
share a quick story for you, in my office at the Department of
the Interior, we had an audit that revealed that one of the
components within Interior was not checking some of their
contractors against the suspension and debarment list, right,
which is where folks have identified problematic contractors
and basically saying do not give contracts or grants to these
folks. They were not comparing those contractors against those
lists.
We made recommendations, and they said that some of those
recommendations would take 2 years to implement. We engaged
with Congress. Congress notified that they were going to have a
hearing on that topic, and within 2 weeks, they implemented
those very recommendations. So, it went from 2 years to 2 weeks
just on the letter from Congress. There is a synergy here
between our recommendations and congressional oversight that go
well together and would address the very issues that you are
talking about, sir.
Mr. Palmer. Have you looked at the Treasury's Do Not Pay
system and determined how effective that is in preventing
payments?
Mr. Greenblatt. That would be the Treasury OIG that would
do that, so I have not done that, and, frankly, I would have to
defer to them. I would have to ask them, frankly.
Mr. Plamer. But this pay system, would you be able to
integrate that with other data bases like the Do Not Pay
system?
Mr. Greenblatt. That would be the goal, I think, is that we
would be able to match up these datasets and identify
problematic recipients. For example, the PACE, which you
identified, the Pandemic Analytics Center of Excellence, if
they had been in existence in 2020 and they had matched up the
data that we have now, they could have identified more than
70,000 bad Social Security numbers. So, this is PPP loans going
out the door with bad Social Security numbers or questionable
Social Security numbers that amounted to more than $5 billion
that we could have flagged for the SBA and said, wait, pump the
brakes on those payments. Let us do another review of those.
Mr. Palmer. That raises one of the concerns that I think we
have on the Committee is the amount of access that the
Inspector Generals have to these other data bases, the
interoperability of our systems to catch things like that. And
I am hoping that is where you are heading with this, is that we
have that interoperability, that we have the ability for the
inspector generals to have access to other existing data bases
like the Do Not Pay system, some of these other things so that
we avoid making these payments.
Mr. Greenblatt. Yes, sir, that is exactly the vision. You
know, just like we showed you in that demonstration, you know,
a few days ago, we would love to bring all that together and
make that very easily accessible to the IGs so that they could
harvest that data and use it not just in the pay and chase,
which you referenced a moment ago, but in the affirmative
prevention of bad dollars going out the door. So, we are in the
prevention business, and so that is very much what we are
interested in.
Mr. Palmer. Well, I am running over. The last thing that I
would ask you is that I think all of us on the Committee would
be interested in any statutory authority changes that you think
are necessary for that, and if you have got some ideas on that,
we would like to hear them. And on that, Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
Mr. Sessions. The gentleman yields back his time. Thank you
very much. We now go to the Ranking Member, Mr. Mfume. The
gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Mfume. Mr. Greenblatt, I think of you as the sheriff in
many respects. It is an unenviable position, but the bottom
line, as most sheriffs will tell you, is to do the right thing
day in and day out, which is why I talked about why the
importance of this Council means so much to the accountability
that the American people expect for this Congress and, indeed,
this Subcommittee to oversee.
Some of that accountability wore on me in the wrong way
with a previous Inspector General who was let go not too long
ago. I am talking about Ms. Ennis at the Social Security
Administration. The Social Security Administration sits right
in the middle of my district, and I oftentimes hear quite a bit
from employees there about current and lingering problems, and
I cannot begin to tell you how many complaints I got during her
tenure about how people alleged she was treating them. And, you
know, there was a Washington Post story that ran on May 31
detailing, in many respects, her tenure there, and they titled
it, ``Embattled Social Security Watchdog to Resign After
Tumultuous Tenure.''
I want to commend CIGIE for doing the background work on
that. I know that in Ms. Ennis' case, there was a previous, I
guess I could use the term, reprimand from CIGIE. But as the
Council went more and more into the investigation, there were
Members of this body on both sides of the aisle who felt
strongly that this was a case that warranted some sort of
greater scrutiny. She had faced increasing performance problems
in recent years, as you know. The number of completed audits
dwindled. Dozens of senior auditors, investigators, and other
staff quit or retired, many in frustration, in which they
described to the Washington Post and other news sources as her
mercurial leadership and lack of focus on the office's mission.
So, I raise that not to be critical of CIGIE, but just the
opposite, to say it is important for those kinds of
interventions.
I began my remarks by saying that I thought that there
could be more deliberate speed in some of this, and I guess
some of that gets back to your ability to do what you have to
do and whether or not you have got enough funding to do that.
So, I want to talk, if you would tell me a bit about your ideas
of funding mechanisms that would increase your capacity and the
ability of CIGIE to take on issues like this and investigations
like this and to conclude them much more rapidly.
Mr. Greenblatt. Well, one of the things, one of the
problems, that we run into with respect to the Integrity
Committee is that it has no investigative staff. It has just a
handful of lawyers and staff that help process complaints and
sort of run the program, but they are not investigators. The
Integrity Committee has to go out and find OIGs who are not
conflicted out to then go lead the investigations. So, I think
having an appropriation specifically for investigators for the
Integrity Committee, you know, a cadre of investigators that
would sit inside CIGIE that could do those investigations, it
would streamline everything markedly. So, I would say, you
know, in terms of funding the budget, a dedicated appropriation
for investigators in the Integrity Committee would undoubtedly
help and move things along faster. So, that is one thing.
The other thing that I think is sort of an emerging idea
for us is to tap into expiring unobligated funds. So, what
happens is IGs, like my office, we always have to save a little
bit just in case there are contracts that go over even after
they are expired. This is all standard stuff in the Federal
Government, and those are basically rounding errors, right?
Those are very small amounts of money relative to our global
budgets. When they are expired, if those could be routed to
CIGIE, we could solve all of these problems quite quickly.
And so that is one thing I would strongly encourage
Congress to consider, is the ability of shifting those expired,
unobligated balances for OIGs to CIGIE would give us the
ability to remedy a lot of those problems, sir.
Mr. Mfume. Yes. I was hoping you would mention that. I
mean, getting an appropriation is a direct way, and as you
might imagine, it is not the easiest thing in the world
sometimes. However, in the case where they have already been
appropriated funds, and every Member of this Committee and this
Congress knows what it is like, you have got to round out at
the end of each year how much money is allocated to you. In our
case, if we ended a year with, let us just for a number say
$50,000, that money directly goes back to the Treasury.
So, I hear you loud and clear on this. It is a way of
funding the expansion and the ability to investigate without
appropriating new and additional funds. And I want to commit
myself to being supportive of that, and I will seek to have a
conversation with the Chair as well. I mean, I just think it is
a way that we are not appropriating new dollars, but we are
taking what we have already appropriated and still spending
them, even if we are not spending them in the same fiscal year.
I have got a few other questions, but for the sake of some
of my colleagues who are here and have not been heard with an
opening statement or with questions, I am going to yield back
my time, Mr. Chairman. I would like to explore that, though, at
some point with you in a bipartisan way to see if it is
something we might be able to put forward.
Mr. Sessions. I am very open to that. The distinguished
gentleman yields back his time, and I would yield to the
distinguished gentleman from Arizona, the gentleman, Mr. Biggs.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Inspector General Greenblatt, for being here. The Inspector
General Act authorizes CIGIE's Integrity Committee to
investigate allegations of wrongdoing on the part of an IG or
senior official within the office. How does the Integrity
Committee define ``wrongdoing?''
Mr. Greenblatt. There are three main buckets that the
Integrity Committee uses, and it is significant misconduct,
like gross mismanagement. There is conduct unbecoming of an
official in that position. I am sorry, I am butchering the
language, but that is generally the nature of the allegations.
It has got to be significant, if you will.
Mr. Biggs. So, that is interesting to me because the IG Act
does not define ``wrongdoing'' in the relevant statute. Mr.
Greenblatt, I know you are an attorney. I am an attorney. The
definitions you used have what I would call massive holes and
subjective interpretation to them. So, when you say,
``significant misconduct,'' what does ``significant'' mean?
What does ``misconduct'' mean? It becomes tautological. And
when you say, ``conduct unbecoming,'' what does that mean? All
of those things are incredibly subjective, and that is part of
the problem with the IG Act in and of itself, and maybe that is
something Congress should look at a little more thoroughly.
The IG Act provides that the Integrity Committee must adopt
policies and procedures necessary to ensure fairness and
consistency in determining whether to initiate an
investigation, conducting an investigation, and reporting on
the results of an investigation. What standard does the IC use
to evaluate complaints it receives?
Mr. Greenblatt. It looks at, you know, whether it fits in
one of those three buckets. You know, they get thousands and
thousands of complaints. Many of them----
Mr. Biggs. I know you get a lot of complaints. I am
looking, what is the standard that you use? You know, you said
we are going to look at those three buckets. Is the standard
written down anywhere? You guys have that written down?
Mr. Greenblatt. They have extensive policies and procedures
and----
Mr. Biggs. Is it written down somewhere?
Mr. Greenblatt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Biggs. OK. And is it statutory?
Mr. Greenblatt. No, sir. It is implementing the statute.
Mr. Biggs. And if you are going back to the three buckets,
again, when you come back to subjectiveness, you are coming
back to some kind of, you know, boy, that sure looks
significant to me. What do you think? No, I do not think that
looks significant. It is almost like the distinction that the
former Secret Service director was trying to make yesterday
between ``threat'' and ``suspicious.''
I mean, that is really part of the problem here. Without a
clear written standard to evaluate complaints, how then is the
IC living up to the statutory mandate that its procedures
ensure fairness and consistency? Keeping in mind that you and I
as attorneys and particularly in investigations, and I look to
criminal law on this. Everybody wants to know where the bright
lines are, and I am just having trouble seeing where the bright
lines are here.
Mr. Greenblatt. Frequently, sir, there are not bright
lines, but I would say that there are not bright lines in what
we do every day as IGs. We have to make hard calls. We have to
implement laws that are not expressly defining each and every
specific element of every potential violation. We have to
implement----
Mr. Biggs. Right. So, what you are suggesting in that is
that Congress has failed to actually--and I do not disagree
with this, by the way--Congress has failed to give very
specific language. We put too many vague notions. We leave
things to the agencies' and departments' policies to determine
how they are going to implement, et cetera, and the reality is
a lot of that ends up being subjective. According to a
longstanding Supreme Court precedent, a prosecutor must
disclose to a criminal defendant any evidence in the
prosecutor's possession that would tend to exculpate the
defendant. Is the IG or other covered person who is under
investigation by the Integrity Committee entitled to
exculpatory evidence in the Integrity Committee's possession?
Mr. Greenblatt. I do not know the answer to that. I would
say this is not a criminal proceeding. This is, you know, just
like an IG investigation where we try to get all the----
Mr. Biggs. I know it is not a criminal proceeding, but you
are required to ensure fairness and consistency.
Mr. Greenblatt. Absolutely, and I----
Mr. Biggs. And if you had exculpatory evidence and you
chose to withhold it, would that be ensuring fairness?
Mr. Greenblatt. I would not support that in any way, shape,
or form, and I can guarantee you the community does not do it
and the IC does not do it either.
Mr. Biggs. But there is nothing there that requires them to
provide exculpatory evidence, and when you are determining
whether there was significant misconduct, you are making
decisions on that. I would suggest perhaps we have some work we
need to do to clean up statutes so that would be clear that
exculpatory evidence would be provided. How many employees are
typically dedicated to an investigation related to an Inspector
General or a covered employee?
Mr. Greenblatt. By the Integrity Committee, I actually have
no idea. I would imagine they are sizable teams depending on
the size of the investigation. So, a larger investigation would
need an investigating team from the assisting IG to be----
Mr. Biggs. And here we go again. I do not mean to nitpick
at you. I am just trying to understand how this has gone
because I have been looking at this now for a couple years and
I find it intriguing. So, you just said, well, you know, if you
got a larger investigation. Again, that is going to be
subjective, right? I mean, it is. It just is. You guys are,
golly, you know, oh, this is, and every time we lift up a
stone, we see something else. Maybe that is something else. Are
these senior employees that you use here? I mean, you say you
do not have enough investigators. That is what you said
earlier.
Mr. Greenblatt. Yes. So, I would imagine there are line-
level investigators all the way up through attorneys, through
senior folks who are overseeing them, ultimately to the IG who
is assisting the investigation of the Integrity Committee.
Mr. Biggs. Well, according to OpenPayrolls, in 2023, the
average salary for all CIGIE employees--and that, of course, is
going to include front office staff--was just under $110,000,
which is $52.70 an hour for a 40-hour work week, and that seems
to be in line with GS-13, 14, 15, maybe, something like that,
maybe a little behind 15.
Mr. Greenblatt. But those are folks that are not doing the
investigation. If that is CIGIE employees. Those are
affirmatively not doing the investigation. So, it is going to
be folks who are----
Mr. Biggs. So, their salaries are going to be higher,
right?
Mr. Greenblatt. It could be. It depends.
Mr. Biggs. You do not know? I mean----
Mr. Greenblatt. I do not know. But the agents that carry
badges and guns who do many of these investigations get extra
pay because of LEAP, law enforcement pay, availability pay,
which is extra, but I do not know if they are----
Mr. Biggs. So, I am going to leave it because the Ranking
Member has made some allegations about a specific IG which I
found were untoward, and I have deliberately tried not to weigh
in on that, although I am sure getting ready to weigh in on it
if he wants to continue there, but I will say this. CIGIE's
current funding is a percentage of each IG's appropriation. Is
that not true?
Mr. Greenblatt. For the most part, yes.
Mr. Biggs. Can you take a vote then to increase that
percentage at any time?
Mr. Greenblatt. Yes, but I would face a mutiny by the CIGIE
members.
Mr. Biggs. So----
Mr. Greenblatt. I committed when I first ran for chair to
not increase that number absent some special circumstance.
Mr. Biggs. You have indicated that you do not have enough
investigators. That seems like a special circumstance. I yield
back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mfume. Would the gentleman just yield for a second,
please, before yielding back so that the record is straight? I
was not spewing my allegations against an IG. I was reading
from a documented Washington Post story and reflecting on
comments that have come into my congressional office from
people who felt like they were not treated correctly by that
person.
Mr. Biggs. I am talking about someone different. I will
reclaim so I can respond.
Mr. Mfume. Sure. It is your time.
Mr. Biggs. I was not referring to your 5-minute comments
when you were talking about the Social Security Administration.
I was talking about the DHS IG, which----
Mr. Mfume. Mr. Cuffari.
Mr. Biggs. Yes, yes, and if we are going to go there, then
we can have that debate, but I am not sure that this is the
forum that the Chairman wants to----
Mr. Mfume. Yes. I am not trying to get a debate. I just
thought I would raise an issue that has been clearly in the
press and elsewhere, and it ended when I finished my comments.
Mr. Greenblatt did not respond to it because I do not think
there was a response that he can offer.
Mr. Sessions. Let us see if I can help out in this
circumstance. The factors that surround this----
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, I think your mic needs to be
on.
Mr. Sessions. My mic is on. I probably need to get a little
bit closer, and I appreciate my orange tie friend helping me.
The issue that is being discussed now, in fact, as I referred
to it earlier, is an issue that is ongoing, and the request for
Mr. Greenblatt to be here is about the larger issue about its
authority, its responsibility, how it operates, and how it does
things. In fact, as I stated earlier, subject to further
information that would be available, Mr. Greenblatt agreed to
come to my office in the middle of September and affirmed to me
that there would be no action taken by this organization until
that time that he and I spoke.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I may respond
briefly.
Mr. Sessions. I would like to clear up anything that we
have got here because----
Mr. Biggs. So----
Mr. Sessions [continuing]. I do not tend to pit anybody
against anybody else in this. We are not trying to dance around
it. We are trying to say that is not the purpose of today's
hearing, but we I will ask the gentleman in just a moment,
please.
Mr. Biggs. When the Ranking Member said there is a concern
of failure to report rampant sex harassment, well, there is a
mountain of information which indicates that those allegations
occurred prior to his coming on board, and----
Mr. Sessions. Fair enough.
Mr. Biggs. Right, and so we can respond. I am trying to
respect the Chairman's prerogative here, but----
Mr. Mfume. Would the gentleman allow for the words prior to
his coming on board to be inserted there?
Mr. Biggs. Yes. I mean, that is fine.
Mr. Mfume. Yes.
Mr. Biggs. I am just trying to say, look, if we are really
trying not to get into that issue today--I did not bring it up
and I purposely did not bring it up, and I asked questions what
I thought were process questions, and yet the opening statement
of the Ranking Member actually brought this forward.
Mr. Sessions. And I respect your viewpoint. Does the
gentleman wish to make that statement that there was this
statement made and should be clarified a bit, and did you just
do that?
Mr. Mfume. Well, I thought I just did.
Mr. Sessions. OK. That is fine.
Mr. Mfume. This has become an issue that has taken on its
own life. That is why I said Mr. Greenblatt did not respond, I
did not pursue, and if those comments or accusations came
before the gentleman in question became an IG, I am fine with
that. The record should reflect that----
Mr. Sessions. Then we will----
Mr. Mfume [continuing]. The timeline.
Mr. Sessions [continuing]. Try and leave it there.
Mr. Mfume. Yes.
Mr. Sessions. And then we will get into it as we decide in
another hearing.
Mr. Mfume. Absolutely.
Mr. Sessions. I respect that. The gentleman from Virginia,
did you wish to offer----
Mr. Connolly. I just wanted a question to you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Sessions. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. Did I understand you to say you have an
understanding with Mr. Greenblatt wearing his hat as Chairman
of CIGIE to withhold action on----
Mr. Sessions. None whatsoever.
Mr. Connolly. OK. I just----
Mr. Sessions. I will offer a clarification.
Mr. Connolly. Yes. Thank you.
Mr. Session. And I said this to Mr. Mfume that I told him
that is not what this hearing is about today, but I did say it
is on our minds. And by being on our minds, Mr. Greenblatt
said, look, there is a process that is going on, including
allowing feedback that will take place on or about August 2,
and that is when people would be responding back, and that
would need to be filtered and discussed by any number of
members that might be in a decision-making mode. And he did not
believe that would take place for some period of time, and I
said might that period of time be after the middle of
September. He said quite likely.
Mr. Connolly. OK.
Mr. Sessions. And I will agree to come and sit down with
you as I know more. And I told Mr. Mfume, as we were sitting
here today, part of the discussion we had, I would include him
in. Is that correct?
Mr. Mfume. That is correct.
Mr. Connolly. And Mr. Chairman, just to make----
Mr. Sessions. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you for your clarification. I saw Mr.
Greenblatt wag his head. If it is all right, I want to just
make sure, Mr. Greenblatt, that is your understanding as well?
Mr. Sessions. The gentleman----
Mr. Connolly. Of course.
Mr. Sessions [continuing]. Will be recognized in a minute.
Mr. Connolly. Well, I----
Mr. Sessions. The gentleman will be recognized in a minute.
Mr. Greenblatt, I told you, as you willingly engaged properly
in this debate, did I overemphasize or correctly state what you
and I agreed to?
Mr. Greenblatt. Yes, sir. That latter formulation was
correct. That is all my expectation. I should just be very
clear I am not on the Integrity Committee. I do not vote. I am
not in the briefings. I am not in the meetings.
Mr. Sessions. But you are aware of the process.
Mr. Greenblatt. But I can be aware of the process. And my
sense is that it would take some time to review the responses,
if any. You know, to review them, it takes time. I am just
talking about my own experience as IG. It takes time to
incorporate, to ingest what the subjects are saying, review it,
give it a fair read, especially in something that is a large
endeavor. It can take some time. So, my expectation to you,
which you correctly identified----
Mr. Sessions. That is correct.
Mr. Greenblatt [continuing]. Is that I just do not think it
would be for a little while.
Mr. Sessions. And with that understanding, he agreed to
come back----
Mr. Greenblatt. Correct.
Mr. Sessions [continuing]. In the middle of September,
whether or not they had gotten close or not.
Mr. Greenblatt. Correct. And this is----
Mr. Sessions. So, we are not tying each other down, but I
did include Mr. Mfume in that discussion. You are entitled to
do that.
Mr. Greenblatt. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Sessions. Thank you very much. The gentleman has
yielded his time. The gentlewoman, Ms. Norton, is recognized.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A major component of
the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency's
mission is to ``increase the professionalism and effectiveness
of personnel by developing policy standards and approaches to
aid in the establishment of a well-trained and highly skilled
workforce in the offices of the Inspector General.'' CIGIE's
success is essential because agencies and their stakeholders
rely on the inspector general community to improve agency
operations and root out waste and fraud. Mr. Greenblatt, I know
you have mentioned this in your testimony, but can you tell me
once again how many students CIGIE's Training Institute
enrolled in Fiscal Year 2023?
Mr. Greenblatt. It was more than 12,000 students in the OIG
community, and that includes auditors, investigators,
inspectors, evaluators, attorneys, and including also senior
leadership, so it is a wide variety of different training
offerings that we provide.
Ms. Norton. Well, Mr. Greenblatt, how many students has
CIGIE enrolled in Fiscal Year 2024 programming so far?
Mr. Greenblatt. I do not know the number off the top of my
head, but it is easily on track to match the 12,000 from last
year. You know, we are packing the house in terms of our
offerings. They are very, very popular, and our biggest problem
is actually trying to accommodate more.
Ms. Norton. I appreciate that answer. When the number
becomes clear, I wish you would report that to the Chairman.
Mr. Greenblatt. Certainly.
Ms. Norton. Our Republican Senate colleague, Chuck
Grassley, very recently reminded us, ``OIGs are the independent
watchdogs protecting Americans' taxpayer dollars and fighting
waste, fraud, and abuse in the executive branch. Their
efficiency depends on their objectivity.'' Amongst CIGIE's
essential roles is development of quality standards for the
fundamental skills of the Inspector General community. For
example, quality standards for investigations, for digital
forensics, and for inspectors' inspections and evaluations. So,
Mr. Greenblatt, why are these quality standards critical to
maintaining a professionalized and competent inspector general
community?
Mr. Greenblatt. That gets to the core of what we do and how
we add value as an organization. So, these are the standards
that all of our member IGs have to live up to, so we have audit
standards. As you mentioned, we have inspections and evaluation
standards. We have investigation standards, and we have peer
reviews where we look at each other's work. And it is like a
root canal. It is going to the dentist. It is not a fun or
pleasant experience.
And we look to make sure that the other folks, that the
other organization is actually living up to the standards that
we have laid out. We look at their cases. We look at their
audits. We look at their investigations, their inspections and
evaluations in detail and say are you living up to every single
principle in the quality standards for each of those
disciplines? And that is a great service that we provide, these
peer reviews, because they can give you all assurance that the
work is high quality, that it is nonpartisan, that it is
independent, that it is fair, that it is objective. All of
those things are critical parts of what we do. That they are
thorough, exhaustive, and factual in nature. So, that is a
critical component of our portfolio.
Ms. Norton. Well, Mr. Greenblatt, how does CIGIE develop
these quality standards to ensure the community will adopt and
follow them?
Mr. Greenblatt. So, periodically, the respective
Committees, so, for example, the Investigations Committee or
the Audit Committee, will look at their existing quality
standards and update them to see whatever current practices are
at play. For Audits, it is a little bit different because it
follows what is called the Yellow Book, which is promulgated by
GAO. So, GAO issues the Yellow Book, and then we update our
standards to match or exceed that. The Blue Book, which is what
we do for inspections and evaluations, is determined by the
Inspections and Evaluations Committee, and it is a huge, long
process involving dozens of people throughout the IG community.
And then we vote on it as a community, and then we also use
that as the standard to review each other's work. So, this is a
big, heavy process, if you will, that includes a lot of voices
and it is quite robust actually.
I am happy to share those quality standards on all of those
disciplines for you because, yes, I think you will be quite
comfortable that they are exhaustive and give you confidence in
what we are doing.
Ms. Norton. Well, I appreciate you sharing those standards,
and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sessions. The gentlewoman yields back her time. The
distinguished gentleman from Kentucky, the young Chairman of
the Committee, is recognized.
Chairman Comer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
convening this very important hearing. If Congress were to move
the PACE into CIGIE, what other agencies would CIGIE work with
to utilize these capabilities to prevent improper payments, not
just pay and chase? For instance, how would you coordinate with
the financial integrity systems at the U.S. Treasury such as Do
Not Pay?
Mr. Greenblatt. We have already met with the Assistant
Secretary there specifically to discuss that very potential. I
think it should be inside CIGIE. Currently, the PRAC is inside
CIGIE, so it is sort of technically inside CIGIE now. The
expansion, we believe, should be inside CIGIE as well, but we
would work with anyone and everyone on that.
Chairman Comer. OK. One of the most significant concerns
with any governmentwide data analytics platform is security
data, which any expansion of the PACE would create. CIGIE has
never overseen the protection of data on that scale. Why should
Congress trust CIGIE is the best positioned to protect the
data?
Mr. Greenblatt. Well, we are doing it now with the PACE,
frankly, and I think we have the capability to do it on a
grander scale. These are systems that many IGs already have
access to individually. So, what this would do is, I think,
make it more efficient by making it in one central spot that
the other IGs can go to.
Chairman Comer. Let us shift gears now. What do process
protections exist for a subject of an IC investigation?
Mr. Greenblatt. Many. In fact, I think it has got far more
than the vast majority of investigations----
Chairman Comer. So, is there any recourse in the courts for
an individual who believes their due process rights have been
violated by the IC?
Mr. Greenblatt. I do not know the answer to that question.
I would leave that to the courts.
Chairman Comer. Well, we need the answer to that question,
if you can.
Mr. Greenblatt. Yes, sir.
Chairman Comer. Each month the Committee receives a
notification of every investigation that has gone beyond the
30-day and 150-day period. Most recently, this includes six
investigations which have surpassed the 150-day period, four of
which are from 2022 or earlier. Is it acceptable to have
investigations open for 2, 3, or even 4 years?
Mr. Greenblatt. No, sir. That is a massive problem for us,
but I would say that it takes two to tango on an investigation.
It could be slow investigators, but it also could be subjects
that refuse to turn over materials----
Chairman Comer. I completely understand and agree with
that, right.
Mr. Greenblatt. Yes. Right. I mean, Congress knows both
parties and both directions for years has dealt with these very
similar types of issues, so it takes two to tango. And so, I
would say the Integrity Committee over the years has had some
large investigations that take a long time. And a consistent
theme through many of them is OIGs that are not cooperating
with the investigation. And frankly, if agency heads did the
same thing as some of these IGs, and we have reported that to
Congress, you all, I hope, on a bipartisan basis would be
howling mad.
Chairman Comer. Well, do not get me started on that. We
have requested a lot of your information. I am sure it has
already been discussed. Especially when you talk about CIGAR
and that, there are lots of IGs that are not getting
information from this Administration. This Administration is
doing everything it can to prevent certain IGs from doing their
job. But what I am asking about, if an IG is engaged in
wrongdoing, then CIGIE and the IC need to provide it to
Congress in an expedited way. We should not have IGs who have
engaged in wrongdoing still in office. But if an IG has not
engaged in wrongdoing, CIGIE and the IC need to close those
investigations now. We should not have an opaque investigation
tainting an IG office's work product for 4 years. Would you not
agree?
Mr. Greenblatt. I would absolutely agree with you, sir. And
I would note that, Mr. Connolly, I think under your leadership
recently in the last Congress, we pushed through what is called
a 7-day letter. Congress pushed through what is called a 7-day
letter, which gives the Integrity Committee the ability to act
faster in those very situations, sir.
Chairman Comer. So, what are you doing to ensure the IC
gets these investigations done in a timely manner?
Mr. Greenblatt. Again, I think we need mechanisms to ensure
that IGs are cooperating with IC investigations. They would
move much, much faster. That is a consistent theme with the
slower investigations. And it is----
Chairman Comer. And I will conclude with this. My time has
expired, but we need more cooperation from you all. We need
more communication because, you know, we depend on the IGs. To
have successful oversight, we have to have a great working
relationship and trust and confidence in the IGs. And when
there is a breakdown of communication with the IGs or when
there is a suspicion of wrongdoing or mistrust with the IGs or
with the CIGIE, I mean, that is a problem for oversight. So,
Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for this hearing, and I yield
back.
Mr. Sessions. I am going to come to you, sir.
Mr. Greenblatt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sessions. The distinguished gentleman yields back his
time. The distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly,
is recognized.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am so glad you are
having this hearing. CIGIE has been a very great focus of mine
when I chaired this Subcommittee, and I am so glad you are
having this hearing. Mr. Comer, I agree with everything he just
said at the end, everything. For us to do our job and for the
public to have confidence, two things. IGs have to be purer
than driven snow, and that ought to be bipartisan. When we find
wrongdoing, it ought to be investigated by CIGIE, and it ought
to be acted upon expeditiously so that we can restore
credibility and integrity. But the second is, you have got to
have independence. There cannot be retribution because you are
doing your job. I am not aware of a single IG being removed out
of retribution by the Biden Administration. Are you, Mr.
Greenblatt?
Mr. Greenblatt. No, sir.
Mr. Connolly. So, with respect to that, did you know an IG
with the Intelligence Committee named Michael Atkinson?
Mr. Greenblatt. I do know Mr.----
Mr. Connolly. And what happened to Mr. Atkinson?
Mr. Greenblatt. He was removed from----
Mr. Connolly. Why was he removed?
Mr. Greenblatt. You will have to refer to the President's--
--
Mr. Connolly. He was removed because he actually alerted
Congress to the whistleblower report about the infamous phone
call between President Trump and President Zelensky. Are you
familiar with an IG at Health and Human Services named Christi
Grimm?
Mr. Greenblatt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Connolly. And what happened to her?
Mr. Greenblatt. She is the IG at HHS right now.
Mr. Connolly. But she was also replaced, was she not, as
the Acting IG because she released a report that there were
severe shortages at hospitals combating coronavirus?
Mr. Greenblatt. No, she was Acting and then later confirmed
under President Biden.
Mr. Connolly. Yes. But she was not confirmed under
President Trump.
Mr. Greenblatt. President Trump had not nominated her at
that point. She was an Acting----
Mr. Connolly. She was replaced as Acting. He found a
different IG.
Mr. Greenblatt. I do not believe that was the case. I do
think he was asked a question about that report in a press
conference and made some comments perhaps about her.
Mr. Connolly. What about Steve Linick? Did you know Steve
Linick?
Mr. Greenblatt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Connolly. And who was he?
Mr. Greenblatt. He was the IG at the State Department.
Mr. Connolly. At the State Department. And what happened to
him?
Mr. Greenblatt. He was removed from office, sir.
Mr. Connolly. He was removed. Why was he removed?
Mr. Greenblatt. Again, you will have to refer to the
President for that.
Mr. Connolly. He was removed because he was investigating
Secretary of State Pompeo and investigating accusations, not
proved, about the misuse of government resources. So, when we
talk about removing IGs, maybe there is a reason to do it, but
there ought to be a really good one, and it cannot be because
you are doing your job. If we do that in any administration, we
compromise the integrity of the IG.
Now, part two, integrity of IGs, and you were talking with
the Chairman a little while ago about a two-way street and we
do not always get cooperation, and I think I want to expand on
that. Did you know Laura Wertheimer?
Mr. Greenblatt. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. And she was the IG at FHFA. Is that correct?
Mr. Greenblatt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Connolly. And she was being investigated. Is that
correct?
Mr. Greenblatt. Correct.
Mr. Connolly. And there were charges that she had fostered
``a culture of witness intimidation through a pattern of staff
abuse and the fear of retaliation.'' Is that correct?
Mr. Greenblatt. I do not know the exact quote, but, yes,
that is the essence of it.
Mr. Connolly. Trust me here. I do not make up quotes. All
right. And what did she do in terms of cooperation with an
investigation into her management practices?
Mr. Greenblatt. I believe that is laid out in the report,
but my understanding is that was as bad a cooperation as you
could possibly imagine.
Mr. Connolly. Did she not, in fact, actively say she would
not cooperate because she did not recognize the authority of
the Integrity Committee?
Mr. Greenblatt. I do not know about the exact quote again,
but that does sound----
Mr. Connolly. Right.
Mr. Greenblatt [continuing]. Very close to what was the
essence of it.
Mr. Connolly. So, I was involved with another colleague on
this Committee a number of years ago actually filing a
complaint against an IG. We had a whistleblower who talked
about workplace abuse, not showing up for work, nepotism and
favoritism, retaliation, drinking, and collusion with a
particular group of people up here to actually define the scope
of an investigation that had a profound impact in terms of news
and lying about it where you are sitting.
Now, let us assume someone is innocent until proven guilty,
but I was personally involved in that complaint, and we filed
it with CIGIE. There were two of us, two Members of this
Committee, and we never heard from CIGIE until, I do not know,
months later. And all we got was like a two-word report, we
have looked at it and there is nothing there. Thank you very
much. Have a good holiday. And that had a profound impact on
our confidence, frankly in CIGIE's ability to examine serious
allegations about an IG.
And again, assuming everyone is innocent, but there has to
be a transparent process, and I would say the same if my
friends on the other side of the aisle. If somebody known as a
Democrat, who nonetheless engaged in that kind of behavior, I
would want to get at the bottom of it either to clear that
person's name so that he or she could get on with their job or
to take action so that we can restore credibility to that
office.
You know, given our own, some of us, negative experience
with CIGIE's transparency and process or lack thereof, and I
take note of the lack of resources. I think you should have
resources. But help us feel more confident that as we move
forward CIGIE has the ability and will and determination to
self-police because if you cannot self-police, sooner or later
we are going to do it for you. We are going to pass legislation
that will take it out of your hands. And there have been enough
incidents of IGs with questionable behavior, and that has been
charitable in some cases that it is troubling, and it can be
troubling on both sides of the aisle, as I said. So, have at
it.
Mr. Greenblatt. Well, sir, I appreciate your interest. I
appreciate your support. I find, you know, that your discomfort
with the process to be heartbreaking. As I said in my opening
statement, we want all of you to be very confident in what we
are doing, both as IGs, but also in the Integrity Committee and
everything else we are doing at CIGIE. Let me assure you. I
appointed or was involved in the appointment of all four IGs on
the Integrity Committee. These are some of the hardest-working,
fairest, most sober-minded IGs in the business. These are
serious people. They deliberate on these allegations and on
these matters for hours. This is all done as a collateral duty.
They have a job as an IG, and they spend extraordinary amounts
of time specifically designed to getting the answer right, and
I have great confidence in them. If I were under investigation,
those are the four IGs I would want running it. So, I hope I
can give you some confidence that these are some of the very,
very best we have got.
I would invite you. I actually want to. We are in the
process of setting up like a meet-and-greet for all of you and
your staff to interact with these folks. We cannot talk about
cases, but they can talk to you and you can get a sense of who
they are. They can be three-dimensional human beings. These are
four of the best that we have got, and I would love for you to
meet them. The best advertising we have for the Integrity
Committee is the Integrity Committee. So, I would love for you
to meet them, lay eyes on them, talk with them. If we can make
that happen, I think that would dispel a lot of the concern
because I think you will see they are good people who just want
to get the right answer.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the Chair again for holding this
hearing and look forward to working with him. I do think there
is bipartisan ground to be had here, at least in focusing on
process and structure that can help us ensure good outcomes. I
thank the Chair.
Mr. Sessions. Thank you very much. The distinguished
gentleman yields back his time. The gentlewoman from Wyoming,
Ms. Hageman, is recognized.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Greenblatt, as
allegations of politicization of CIGIE continue, I am concerned
about whether appropriate standards of due process are in place
to ensure that IGs and employees of IG offices are not unfairly
targeted for just doing their jobs. CIGIE's Integrity
Committee, or IC, investigates wrongdoing by IGs or their
staff. Is that correct?
Mr. Greenblatt. Yes.
Ms. Hageman. And is it Kimberly A. Howell who is currently
the Chair of the IC?
Mr. Greenblatt. Correct.
Ms. Hageman. And Kimberly Howell is not an employee of the
Federal Government, is she?
Mr. Greenblatt. She is an IG of what is called the
Designated Federal Entity.
Ms. Hageman. I get that. She is not an employee of the
Federal Government, is she?
Mr. Greenblatt. I do not believe so.
Ms. Hageman. OK. Can the President or anyone in the
executive branch fire Ms. Howell or any head of the IC?
Mr. Greenblatt. The President could remove the head of the
CPB, where she is the Inspector General.
Ms. Hageman. OK. But the President does not interact with
or fire the head of the IC, correct? And you have already
testified that you do not have any oversight and you do not
oversee Ms. Howell. Is that not also correct?
Mr. Greenblatt. I can remove them from the Integrity
Committee.
Ms. Hageman. OK. Well, just over a month ago, the IC
delivered a report to the President and Congress with findings
of abusive authority regarding the Social Security
Administration's inspector general, and Ms. Howell sent and
signed this report to its recipients. Were you aware of that?
Ms. Greenblatt. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Hageman. An IC report delivered to the President, or an
agency head then can recommend or result in disciplinary action
against an IG or a person working inside an IG office, leading
all the way up to termination. Is that correct?
Ms. Greenblatt. It can recommend that, yes.
Ms. Hageman. OK. And does that not mean that the leadership
of CIGIE could use the IC to undo the Presidential appointment
and Senate confirmation of executive officials by individuals
that were never nominated and which are actually not even
Federal employees?
Ms. Greenblatt. No, I do not agree with that statement at
all.
Ms. Hageman. OK. When the IC asks an IG or an employee of
an IG office to respond to an allegation to avoid a full
investigation, the respondent must fully refute the allegation
such that no reasonable person would conclude that further
development would demonstrate that the respondent committed the
misconduct. In other words, when they come under investigation,
they are the ones that carry the burden of proof with a very
high standard for exoneration. Why is this different than
American civil and criminal proceedings, where the burden of
proof is on the accusing party rather than on the accused?
Mr. Greenblatt. No, that is not a fair representation of
what happens in an investigation.
Ms. Hageman. Then explain it to me.
Mr. Greenblatt. So, when a complaint comes in and the
Integrity Committee determines that it is opening a case, it
generally refers the complaint to the subject or subjects,
plural, and says here are the allegations.
Ms. Hageman. Refute them?
Mr. Greenblatt. You have an opportunity to refute them.
Ms. Hageman. And the burden of proof is that they have to
prove that the allegation is such that no reasonable person
would conclude that further development would demonstrate that
the respondent committed the misconduct. Is that not the
standard?
Mr. Greenblatt. I believe that sounds accurate.
Ms. Hageman. OK.
Mr. Greenblatt. But the whole point is that the Integrity
Committee would not have to do that step at all. That is a
courtesy. That is an extra step with due process.
Ms. Hageman. I would tend to disagree with that
representation, but----
Mr. Greenblatt. Well, you can disagree, but that is an
extra step that they add to help the subjects. So, it is not--
--
Ms. Hageman. Placing the burden of proof on them.
Mr. Greenblatt. It is being perverted. This is like looking
through a funhouse mirror. This is not an accurate portrayal of
what is actually happening in the process. This is an
opportunity for the subject, and the Integrity Committee over
and over again takes those responses and actually kills
complaints----
Ms. Hageman. So, in other words, what you are saying----
Mr. Greenblatt. Let me finish my answer. Kills complaints
and does not get to investigations.
Ms. Hageman. Excuse me? Excuse me?
Mr. Greenblatt. I am trying to finish my answer.
Ms. Hageman. I am going to reclaim my time and ask the
questions.
Mr. Sessions. Our witness needs to understand that the
gentlewoman controls the time, and I do recognize that you
would like the opportunity to respond accordingly. I am sure
that the gentlewoman would give you that opportunity. She
controls the time. And I would remind the witness, we
appreciate him being here, but this is a hearing that the
members that are waived on will control their own time, sir.
Does the gentleman understand that?
Mr. Greenblatt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sessions. Thank you very much. The gentlewoman is
recognized.
Ms. Hageman. Let us move on to a different subject here
then. When the IC pursues an investigation against an IG or an
employee of the IG office, it does so against them in their
personal capacity, is that correct, even though the allegations
relate to official acts?
Mr. Greenblatt. It is investigating the individual as
opposed to the organization.
Ms. Hageman. So, it is against them in their personal
capacity, correct?
Mr. Greenblatt. It is not investigating them in their
personal capacity like if it were, say, a driving incident. It
is related to their work.
Ms. Hageman. Well, let me ask it this way. Are they able to
access agency documentation that may support their claim of
innocence?
Mr. Greenblatt. I would imagine so.
Ms. Hageman. Do you know one way or the other?
Mr. Greenblatt. No, but I would imagine they can get
materials in their work environment.
Ms. Hageman. In its policies and procedures, the IC states
that it may ``consider wrongdoing alleged to have occurred
while an individual served as a covered person, even if that
individual is no longer a covered person or in government
service when the IC receives the allegation.'' Is the authority
to investigate Federal employees who are no longer in IG
service or retired persons derived from statute, or is that an
internal rule?
Mr. Greenblatt. I do not know the answer to that.
Ms. Hageman. OK. If current IGs and IG employees find it
difficult to meet the IC standard, how could it be even
remotely possible for a former employee to resolve allegations
against them, especially if they are not able to access
documents from the agency?
Mr. Greenblatt. As part of the investigation, I would
imagine that the Integrity Committee would go to the agency,
the OIG in question, to get relevant materials.
Ms. Hageman. But the individual would not have access to
that information?
Mr. Greenblatt. I do not know the answer to that.
Ms. Hageman. OK.
Mr. Greenblatt. I would say that IGs regularly go after
investigations involving former employees because otherwise you
set up a situation where folks will just resign and escape
accountability, which is an outcome that none of us would want.
Ms. Hageman. I think what we have uncovered is that there
are very serious due process problems and constitutional and
statutory problems associated with the IC's and the way that
CIGIE is set up and operated. That is the purpose of this
hearing, is to get to the bottom of that. That is why I waived
on to this Committee because I have very serious concerns about
the due process rights and the process that is being followed.
So, we will follow up with this potentially with additional
questions, but we will also continue to work with this
Committee to make sure that we can protect the due process
rights and the rights of the people being investigated. Thank
you, and with that, I yield back.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent
request.
Mr. Sessions. If the gentleman would wait just one moment,
please.
Mr. Connolly. Yes.
Mr. Sessions. As I told you, I will entertain that. I want
to thank the gentlewoman for taking time. This is the correct
hearing. You have done the right thing. And I would also say
that Mr. Greenblatt has available to him other members of his
staff that are listening to this, and we would expect to get
each of your questions answered. I believe you have done the
right thing, and I want to thank the gentlewoman for being
here.
If I could move to the distinguished gentleman from
Virginia for the purpose of making a----
Mr. Connolly. I thank the Chair. I would like to insert in
the record an article from the Washington Post dated May 2,
2020, confirming what I said to Mr. Greenblatt that Ms. Christi
Grimm was indeed replaced by President Trump, and according to
the article, because she found ``severe shortages in hospitals
combating coronavirus.''
Mr. Sessions. Without objection, we will include----
Mr. Connolly. I thank the Chair.
Mr. Sessions. Yes, sir. We will now move to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Pennsylvania. Ms. Lee is
recognized.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In 2020, President Trump's
last year in office, he removed or replaced five Inspectors
General in what appeared to be retaliation for investigating
the misconduct of his own administration, and in June 2020, the
Government Accountability Office issued a report addressing the
impact of political retaliation on IGs. That report said,
``Ensuring the independence of IGs is critical to OIG's
credibility and effectiveness.''
I ask the Chair for unanimous consent to enter the GAO
report titled, ``Inspectors General, Independence Principles
and Considerations for Reform.''
Mr. Sessions. Without objection.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. Mr. Greenblatt, if there is the
appearance of political interference with an Inspector
General's office, how might that affect the mission and
effectiveness of that office?
Mr. Greenblatt. Certainly, independence is core to what we
do. It is a central principle for all of us. We need to be
independent from the agencies, and we report directly to our
agency head, but also Congress as well on a bipartisan basis,
and that independence is absolutely critical for everything we
do.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. President Trump also left gaping holes
in the IG community for years at a time. While vacancies have
been a problem in previous administrations, they were
particularly damaging under Trump. During his tenure, five IG
positions were made vacant for the entirety of his presidency.
In contrast, President Biden and the Senate have confirmed 15
IG nominees. Inspector Generals speak truth to power and they
rebuild trust in our government. Without qualified people to
fill these essential oversight roles, we cannot hold government
leaders accountable. With that great responsibility comes a
requirement that the IGs themselves remain above reproach.
CIGIE's Integrity Committee serves as the watchdog of our
Federal watchdogs. CIGIE conducts nonpartisan investigations
into allegations of legal and ethical wrongdoing by Federal IGs
and high-ranking OIG officials. They make recommendations for
disciplinary action, up to recommending an IG's removal if
their investigations confirm allegations of misconduct. The
decision to remove an IG must be made outside of the political
arena and not by a President who fears that an IG's findings
will embarrass them or their political appointees. And we need
these determinations in a timely manner.
The Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector
General's Chief Counsel admitted in a June 24, 2024 court
filing that the Integrity Committee recommended disciplinary
action against him. Yet nearly a month later and a years-long
investigation, the Integrity Committee has still not released a
report to Congress. Mr. Greenblatt, can you give us an update
on when that report will be released?
Mr. Greenblatt. Well, as I said earlier, I am not on the
Integrity Committee. I do not participate in their
deliberations or vote. I do not go to their meetings, so I do
not know when that will be. I know it is a priority for the
Integrity Committee. This is something everyone wants to move
forward with, but it takes time. It is very large and
multifaceted, and these things just take a long time. Well,
these are very weighty issues, and I know the Integrity
Committee is doing its best to move things forward in a
deliberate fashion.
Ms. Lee. And I apologize if I am asking you a question that
is outside of your purview and fear of doing that, but what are
you all doing to improve the speed of how quickly a report will
be released, if you can answer that?
Mr. Greenblatt. So, we have already convened a working
group to look at timeliness issues with respect to the
Integrity Committee. That is something that is underway. We
have asked them to move forward in an expeditious manner to try
to develop some ideas on how we can move the Integrity
Committee investigations forward faster. A major component of
that is IG cooperation, and so that is perhaps the biggest
problem with slower investigations, is IG cooperation. So, that
is the hardest-to crack, is that issue.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. CIGIE's Integrity Committee serves an
important purpose in holding our government accountable, but it
must improve the timeliness of its investigations or bad actors
will be able to act with impunity. I ask you, Mr. Greenblatt,
to release or, of course, help to release the critical reports
so leaders and policymakers know whether they can trust the
people who hold these essential positions. I thank you for your
time and the Committee's, and I yield back.
Mr. Sessions. Thank you very much. The gentlewoman yields
back. At this time, the distinguished gentleman from Georgia is
recognized.
Mr. Loudermilk. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr.
Mfume, for agreeing to waive me on to today's hearing. Thank
you, Mr. Greenblatt, for being here.
I serve as the Chairman of the Committee on House
Administration Subcommittee on Oversight. And as you may be
aware, I am leading an in-depth investigation to the security
failures of the Capitol on January 6, and I am keenly
interested in discussing opportunities for improved
coordination between CIGIE and Congress. I think you mentioned
that earlier. As you can imagine, this investigation has caused
me to work or try to work with several Inspector Generals in
different agencies, and as you know, that CIGIE was established
as an independent entity to address integrity and effectiveness
issues. Unfortunately, I have heard from numerous stakeholders
who say that CIGIE is anything but that. I have also
significant concerns with CIGIE's Integrity Committee's lack of
transparency and accountability, but I will submit those
questions for the record instead of trying to deal with all
those right now, but I would appreciate prompt answers on
those.
Mr. Loudermilk. Let me get on to the issues that I think
are most prevalent right now. Following the events on January
6, the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector
General opened three different investigations; one regarding
DHS intelligence failures, a second focusing on the Secret
Service, and a third regarding DHS law enforcement response.
Four years later--we are coming up on 4 years--only one of
those reports have been published, and that is the one on DHS
intelligence failures. On January 6, 2021, Vice President-elect
Kamala Harris drove within feet of an explosive device that the
Secret Service had missed in a security sweep twice, and this
was over at the DCCC. So, we are very interested in the report,
the IG report on Secret Service, that there was some level of
failure in Secret Service that day, which was important to our
investigation.
Now, thank goodness it did not go off. The bomb did not go
off. But then we have this incident on July 13, this year, of
the attempted assassination of President Trump that reminds us
that if we have issues or incompetence within an organization,
it is imperative that we look into it and correct it, or it may
happen again. So, I am not suggesting that there is a
connection, but this goes all the way back, January 6, that
there were some issues with the Secret Service.
Now, my Subcommittee became aware that the reason we have
not gotten the report on Secret Service, or the other report,
is that Secretary Mayorkas is himself delaying these reports
that directly relate to our ongoing investigation. In addition,
my Subcommittee has discovered numerous significant issues in a
DOD IG report that focused on the delayed deployment of the
D.C. National Guard to the Capitol on January 6. One of the
issues that we found out is that there were some inaccuracies
in the report. And my Subcommittee staff reached out to CIGIE
with concerns about the IG report and the DOD IG report, and my
staff simply asked CIGIE for a briefing on the historical
context of an IG report being retracted or revised.
We wanted a briefing from your organization on can an IG
retract or revise a report. However, CIGIE forwarded that email
over to the very entity, the DOD IG. I found that to be
inappropriate, and, in fact, the DOD IG said that was
inappropriate. We are asking CIGIE to help us with something,
but CIGIE then forwards our request to the very entity that we
are looking into. I have some issues with that. So, question.
How can CIGIE be an independent entity entrusted with
addressing integrity issues in the offices of inspector general
if they are differential to the OIG that they are tasked with
overseeing?
Mr. Greenblatt. Sir, I find that unfortunate if there was
miscommunication. I take responsibility for that. I do not
remember the specific incident, but I take responsibility for
it. CIGIE is under my leadership. We at CIGIE, the Council, we
do not want to step on the toes of the individual IGs and their
relationship with Congress. So, sometimes we get incoming from
Congress about specific members, and it would be inappropriate
for us to weigh in. So, sometimes we do defer to the individual
IGs. In this case, we perhaps should have come to you first----
Mr. Loudermilk. Well, I think so, instead of letting the IG
know that we are looking into them. So, since we are running
late, let me move on to a couple of other questions. I think it
will be easier for you to answer. If an IG releases a report
and later is determined that there are significant factual
errors, what should be done and should that report be retracted
or corrected?
Mr. Greenblatt. I have seen that in the past, sir, and we
try to get it right. You know, we try to get the right answer,
and if we get it wrong, I think it would be wholly appropriate
to take down whatever is wrong and replace it with something
that is factually accurate. We do not want incorrect
information.
Mr. Loudermilk. And let me just lay out a hypothetical. If
somebody testified and gave you wrong information that turned
out later that they were not giving you the right information,
so according to the Inspector General Act, are Inspector
Generals entitled to any and all information from the agency
they oversee?
Mr. Greenblatt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Loudermilk. OK. Thank you. Is there a law that
prohibits an inspector general from sharing a completed report
with Congress if that report has already been shared with the
agency for technical input? Is there a law that prohibits an IG
from sharing a report with Congress once it has already been
shared for technical input with the agency?
Mr. Greenblatt. So, the process, just in general terms, so
we split up audits, inspections, and evaluations, on the one
hand, and investigations, on the other hand, so let us put
investigations to the side. But audits, inspections, and
evaluation, typically speaking, the process is that it goes to
the agency for their comment and draft.
Mr. Loudermilk. Right.
Mr. Greenblatt. They respond. Then we incorporate those
comments and deal with those comments in some way, and then
when it goes to final, we give it to the agency, but we also
give it to Congress and put it online. So, I would say at the
final stage, then certainly, that is a matter of standard
practice, but in the draft stage, no, I do not think that is
standard because we want to get the comments back from the
department.
Mr. Loudermilk. Right. So, if the comments have come back
and, I mean, we are talking about reports that have been going
on for 4 years.
Mr. Greenblatt. No, I understand, so----
Mr. Loudermilk. I think you have answered that
appropriately. Is it appropriate for an agency Secretary to
threaten to withhold information from an IG if they provide a
report to Congress without the Secretary's approval?
Mr. Greenblatt. Oh, I do not think that is appropriate.
Mr. Loudermilk. Would you say that it is illegal?
Mr. Greenblatt. I do not know the answer to that, and I
hesitate to get into a situation that I do not know.
Mr. Loudermilk. OK. Well, thank you. This is something that
we are dealing with, is a Secretary telling the IG if they
release a report to Congress, they will not have access to any
future information. I have a big problem with that.
Mr. Greenblatt. I cannot speak to a specific situation, but
in hypothetical situations I would not support that.
Mr. Loudermilk. OK. Because that is exactly what we are
getting from the DHS IG, is that they cannot release this
report because Secretary Mayorkas is refusing to give him
access to future information. So, Mr. Chairman, I have got some
other questions that I can submit for the record. I just heard
the bell, so I think they are calling votes, and with that, I
will yield back.
Mr. Sessions. In fact, the gentleman is correct, and I
would respect and appreciate that and would welcome those to be
given. And the distinguished gentleman would also take those
on, and so we will at the end of the hearing notify members
that within 5 days we would expect to hear back from that.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Bell, would you like to be recognized?
Mr. Frost, would you like to be recognized? Oh, Ms. Tlaib, and
I apologize.
Ms. Tlaib. That is OK, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sessions. The gentlewoman is recognized.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Greenblatt, thank
you so much for being here. I want to ask you about PACE. What
does it stand for? Pandemic Analytics Center of Excellence?
Mr. Greenblatt. Yes.
Ms. Tlaib. What is it?
Mr. Greenblatt. It is a data analytics center that we have
for on the pandemic side, so this deals with PPP loans and----
Ms. Tlaib. So, you see that fraud?
Mr. Greenblatt. I am sorry?
Ms. Tlaib. To look at fraud?
Mr. Greenblatt. Correct.
Ms. Tlaib. OK.
Mr. Greenblatt. Correct.
Ms. Tlaib. In over 4 years with the $40 million investment
from Congress, the PACE provided investigative support for more
than 40 Federal law enforcement and OIG partners, of course, on
more than, what, 875 pandemic-related investigations?
Mr. Greenblatt. Yes, it is a huge number. Yes.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes, 19,000 subjects. Estimated fraud loss of,
what, $2.1 billion? Is that correct?
Mr. Greenblatt. Yes. Yes.
Ms. Tlaib. So, Mr. Greenblatt, why is PACE only for
pandemic related?
Mr. Greenblatt. That is the $64,000 question. We would love
to expand that and implement that governmentwide at CIGIE. And
then we cannot only look at money that has gone out the door,
but we can look at it on a preventative basis and give
information to the agencies in advance before----
Ms. Tlaib. So, applying PACE to all the various Federal
programs across the board would result in the same kind of
findings of fraud and be able to try to save money for the
American people?
Mr. Greenblatt. Yes, and more than that, I think it would
be preventative. The numbers you were sharing before were
solely after the money has gone out the door.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes.
Mr. Greenblatt. We would like to establish such a data hub
to prevent those bad dollars going out the door.
Ms. Tlaib. So, how does PACE, though--how does it share
data and information with agencies and states and local
government in ways that protect sensitive information like
folks' Social Security Numbers and personal ID information?
Mr. Greenblatt. Yes, we are very conscious of PII----
Ms. Tlaib. Yes.
Mr. Greenblatt [continuing]. You know, Social Security
numbers and things along those lines. So, for example, if the
PACE had been in existence in 2020----
Ms. Tlaib. Yes.
Mr. Greenblatt [continuing]. It could have taken the Social
Security Numbers that the Small Business Administration was
going to give loans to, PPP loans back in 2020. And running
those numbers, it found 70,000 Social Security Numbers that
were questionable, and it could have sent those to the Small
Business Administration in a secure fashion to identify more
than $5.4 billion----
Ms. Tlaib. Is that because of identity theft?
Mr. Greenblatt. It could have been identity theft. It is
possible, yes. It could be dead people. It could be identity
theft. It could be a whole wide variety of different issues,
but yes, identity theft would be----
Ms. Tlaib. I know our Ranking Member on this Committee has
a bill to basically--is it not like expiring or something? Is
that correct?
Mr. Greenblatt. That is right. The PACE is----
Ms. Tlaib. The PACE program, yes.
Mr. Greenblatt. The Pandemic Response Accountability
Committee, the PRAC, which houses the PACE, is supposed to
expire at the end of Fiscal Year 2025, which means the PACE
would evaporate. And so, we are trying to extend it and keep
the PACE----
Ms. Tlaib. Mr. Greenblatt, give me an example of what PACE
found if I was to go back to my district and say, hey, guess
what? PACE is great, we should continue it, look what it found.
Mr. Greenblatt. Oh, it is looking at everything from
unemployment insurance to, like I said, the PPP loans. It is
looking at Federal employees who are getting PPP loans, even
though they were gainfully employed with the Federal
Government.
Ms. Tlaib. How about Members of Congress?
Mr. Greenblatt. I do not know the answer to that.
Ms. Tlaib. No, some of them did get it.
Mr. Greenblatt. Yes, I do not know the answer to that,
actually.
Ms. Tlaib. But PACE would look at that, right?
Mr. Greenblatt. Theoretically it could.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes.
Mr. Greenblatt. I do not know if they have. That is a good
question.
Ms. Tlaib. You probably should.
Mr. Greenblatt. Yes.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes.
Mr. Greenblatt. Possibly. I am going to demur on that at
this----
Ms. Tlaib. No, I mean fraud is rampant. It is not just, you
know, obviously in the public sector, but even in the private
sector. And just to do data analytics like this and to use the
technology we have now to kind of have a better oversight, I
mean, like I say, it already saves billions.
Mr. Greenblatt. Absolutely. One of the things we found we
did at the Department of the Interior, we looked at the Federal
employees who are also getting--I am talking about at the
department----
Ms. Tlaib. Yes.
Mr. Greenblatt [continuing]. Who are also getting PPP
loans, you know, presumably inappropriately.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes.
Mr. Greenblatt. And we found that the vast majority of them
were identity theft.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes.
Mr. Greenblatt. They were not actually the employees----
Ms. Tlaib. That is what we found in unemployment in
Michigan----
Mr. Greenblatt. Right.
Ms. Tlaib [continuing]. A lot of identity theft.
Mr. Greenblatt. The potential for fraud in those programs
is enormous.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes.
Mr. Greenblatt. And what we could do with a data center
would be, I think, comparably enormous to prevent that fraud,
and with a very small investment of cash, relatively speaking.
We are talking about pennies. And if we talk about the expired
funds, which I raised at the very beginning, unobligated
expired funds, you know, we could fund this very quickly. I
think this is a game changer, an absolute game changer for the
oversight community.
Ms. Tlaib. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Greenblatt. I
yield, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Sessions. The gentlewoman yields back her time. I am
giving myself unanimous consent, but would ask unanimous
consent to enter into the record a letter to President Biden
signed by Chairman Comer asking for President Biden to fill
vacant IG positions. This letter describes how positions such
as the Treasury have been vacant for over a thousand days under
the Biden Administration.
So, without objection, we will enter that into the record.
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Frost, you are recognized.
Mr. Frost. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. CIGIE and the
Integrity Committee are essential to Federal Government
operations and trust in our institutions. Without their work,
Inspector General misconduct could go unaddressed. Inspectors
General are experts and professionals at uncovering misconduct,
fraud, waste, and abuse. Mr. Greenblatt, how does the Integrity
Committee help ensure that Inspectors General are both
transparent and accountable?
Mr. Greenblatt. So, it is the investigatory body that
Congress has created to, you know, like I said, investigate
allegations of misconduct by IGs and senior folks and a handful
of other folks in government like the special counsel. One of
the things I would like to say, we had allegations about due
process and transparency. The Integrity Committee has a number
of mechanisms that ensure fairness, that ensure, you know, a
fair process and far more transparency than any other
investigatory body I can think of. And they have regular
updates to Congress, and we have, you know, extensive reporting
requirements that are far beyond anything we do in our actual
day-to-day jobs as IGs. And so, I think Congress should be very
confident that the Integrity Committee is acting in good faith.
There are a number of very long investigations that have
bedeviled the Integrity Committee. I will not shy away from
that. I see you shaking your head. We do not disagree on that.
That is a significant issue. How we address that issue, we have
some ideas, but it is robust and it is designed to get to a
fair answer. It is not a hammer looking for nails. Quite the
opposite. It is trying to operate in a fair environment. The
processes and procedures, I think, are remarkably fair. And I
am concerned that some of the perceptions about the process are
simply not accurate and do not fairly reflect the process. And
I am happy to sit with any member at any time and discuss those
issues, as we did, Mr. Chairman, yesterday.
Mr. Frost. Yes. Thank you. I appreciate it. In recent
years, we have seen the type of IG misconduct that clearly
demonstrates the need for the Integrity Committee. In June
2021, for example, the Federal Housing and Finance Agency IG,
Laura Wertheimer, resigned after the Integrity Committee found
that she fostered ``a culture of witness intimidation through a
pattern of staff abuse and fear of retaliation.'' In mid-2022,
following an investigation by CIGIE, the Inspector General for
the Securities and Exchange Commission, Carl Hoecker, resigned
following reports that he refused to act on credible
allegations of sexual harassment. Mr. Greenblatt, as an
Inspector General yourself, can you briefly describe the kinds
of recoveries and enforcement action supported by IG
investigations and give us a general idea of the dollar amounts
that you have had to deal with?
Mr. Greenblatt. In the IG community writ large?
Mr. Frost. Yes.
Mr. Greenblatt. We have had remarkable success. As I
mentioned earlier, we had $693 billion in either question costs
or recoveries from OIG oversight efforts over the past 10
years. I think last year alone we had $93 billion. That is just
1 year. If you add up all of the IG budgets and, you know, roll
them up and compare that with the $93 billion, you know, it is
something like a $26 to $1. So, for every dollar appropriated
to an OIG, we are turning back $26 in potential savings. So,
this is serious return on investment. And that does not include
the variety of investigations and audits and inspections that
do not include monetary returns, like I said, the work on
preventing veteran suicides, the work on protecting the elderly
in nursing homes, protecting tenants in public housing from
sexual predators. You know, those do not have a dollar figure
associated with them. So, just looking at the financial return
on investment, it is $26 to $1, but that omits an enormous
amount of what we do on a day-to-day basis.
Mr. Frost. Thank you so much. I appreciate you being here.
I think the clock was frozen for a little bit, so I had some
extra time. I will just put that in the bank for next time.
Mr. Sessions. I was thinking that same thing. I did not get
a chance to ask questions either. Thank you very much.
Mr. Frost. Of course. I yield back.
Mr. Sessions. Look, we are on closing time. We all know
that. I want to thank you for taking time. You have done well
enough to be invited back. In closing, I want to thank you for
your forthrightness. I also want you to know that Mr. Mfume
would like to have the mic to express himself. The gentleman is
recognized.
Mr. Mfume. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to
echo your comments. Mr. Greenblatt, thank you for being
forthright. As you heard, there is some interest here in
pursuing this notion of expired funds to be able to properly
fund the operation that you have, and I think that there were a
number of members here that raised some fine points. So, just
when we thought this was going to be a very nice and calm
hearing, it goes to show you that people feel strongly about
this, and I hope that, if the Chairman is willing, maybe we can
have you back again. I do not want to think that this is the
end of it.
Mr. Sessions. The gentleman would be correct. We try and
work together and see the same thing, but I think a number of
members, as I told you yesterday, have expressed ideas.
OK. With that, without objection, all members have 5
legislative days within to submit materials and additional
written questions for the witness, which will be forwarded to
the witnesses from the Subcommittee.
Mr. Sessions. If there is any further business? I see none.
Without objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank you
very much.
[Whereupon, at 4:43 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]