[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 132 (Monday, September 28, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11042-S11043]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. HARKIN:
  S. 2521. A bill to amend the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. 
App.) to provide that Offices of Inspector General shall be treated as 
independent agencies in the preparation of the United States Budget, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


                    inspector general act amendments

 Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I introduce a bill to establish a 
more independent budget process for the Inspector Generals of each 
federal Department.
  Under our current budget process, each federal Department Secretary 
has the power to determine the budget of its Inspector General or IG. 
While our Department Secretaries generally do a fine job of overseeing 
their respective Departments and agencies, I feel that it is a conflict 
of interest for the head of an executive agency to also determine the 
funding levels for an office whose main function is investigating that 
agency. In the interest of proper checks and balances, I would hope 
that we could establish true independence for the IGs budgets.
  The IGs are our government watchdogs. Yet, too often, their budgets 
have been cut back. The United States government is wrestling with 
streamlining its programs and revamping how it does business. But it 
has been the IG offices which have largely identified the waste, fraud, 
and abuse in the federal government and allow this body to make 
significant budget cuts in an effective manner. We need stronger 
watchdogs, not weaker.
  The offices of Inspectors General has served this country well in 
making sure that the taxpayers' dollars are not misspent. This spring, 
for example, the Department of Defense's IG, Eleanor Hill, testified 
before the House Oversight Subcommittee. She described over $15 billion 
in fiscal year 1996 funds that were put to better use as a result of IG 
efforts. Hill pointed out that, ``At the Department of Defense, since 
FY 1989, IG audit reports have identified almost $16 billion in agreed 
upon savings. During the same period, monetary recoveries through 
investigations by the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the 
criminal investigative arm

[[Page S11043]]

of my office, have totaled over $4.5 billion. Historically, our 
criminal investigators alone have returned at least $15 in recoveries 
and fines for every dollar spent on their operations.''
  In her testimony, DOD Inspector General Eleanor Hill concludes with 
what she feels are the greatest concerns for the future of the Office 
of Inspector General. She points out examples of crimes on the 
Internet, the overload of paperwork and false claims. But the biggest 
problem, according to Ms. Hill, ``has been the continuing difficulties 
we face in coping with programmed downsizing.'' As we attempt to cut 
wasteful spending and streamline offices, it is the office of 
Inspectors General which must not be put on the chopping block.
  Unfortunately, the support for the IGs has been often reduced more 
than for other parts of the government. For example, the Department of 
Energy faced an 11% cut for FY 1996, but a 21% cut in its IG budget. It 
is my fear that as we continue to cut budgets, the IGs will be first on 
the chopping blocks at a time when we need them even more to identify 
wasteful and outdated programs.
  It should be obvious, Mr. President, that those who could be 
investigated by the Inspectors General should not be given the 
responsibility of developing and approving IG budgets. The Securities 
and Exchange Commission's budget is not decided by Wall Street firms; 
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's budget is not decided by the 
nation's nuclear power companies. Congress must ensure that no 
department secretary can take vengeance upon an aggressive IG office.
  My bill aims to ensure an effective and independent federal Inspector 
General system and allow each IG, in consultation with its parent 
Department, to decide the budget of the IG's office. This bill would 
provide greater autonomy for the office and prevent strong criticism of 
a Department, or the singling out of wasteful programs, from affecting 
watchdog funding.
  We have seen repeatedly how a valuable resource like the Inspector 
General's office has been able to bring this body's attention, and the 
American public's attention, to some of the wasteful spending of the 
federal government. I urge my colleagues to support this important 
legislation.
                                 ______