Congressional Hearings
GAO'S 2019 HIGH RISK REPORT
Congressional Hearings
SuDoc ClassNumber: Y 4.G 74/7
Congress: House of Representatives
CHRG-116hhrg36061
| AUTHORITYID | CHAMBER | TYPE | COMMITTEENAME |
|---|---|---|---|
| hsgo00 | H | S | Committee on Oversight and Reform |
[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
GAO's 2019 High Risk Report
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 6, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-06
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: http://www.govinfo.gov
http://www.oversight.house.govor
http://www.docs.house.gov
___________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
36-061 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Chairman
Carolyn B. Maloney, New York Jim Jordan, Ohio, Ranking Minority
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Member
Columbia Justin Amash, Michigan
Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri Paul A. Gosar, Arizona
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Jim Cooper, Tennessee Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Mark Meadows, North Carolina
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Jamie Raskin, Maryland Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Harley Rouda, California James Comer, Kentucky
Katie Hill, California Michael Cloud, Texas
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Bob Gibbs, Ohio
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Peter Welch, Vermont Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Jackie Speier, California Chip Roy, Texas
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois Carol D. Miller, West Virginia
Mark DeSaulnier, California Mark E. Green, Tennessee
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota
Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands W. Gregory Steube, Florida
Ro Khanna, California
Jimmy Gomez, California
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
David Rapallo, Staff Director
Susanne Sachsman Grooms, Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Elisa LaNier, Chief Clerk and Director of Operations
Russell Anello, Chief Oversight Counsel
Marc Broady, Counsel/Policy Advisor
Laura Rush, Deputy Chief Clerk/Security Manager
Christopher Hixon, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 6, 2019.................................... 5
Witness
Gene L. Dodaro, Comptroller General of the United States,
Government Accountability Office
Oral Statement............................................... 9
Index of Documents
Page
Written Statement of Gene L. Dodaro.......................... 60
Letter from Thomas H. Armstrong, General Counsel, GAO to
White House Counsel, submitted by Chairman Cummings........ 130
GAO'S 2019 HIGH RISK REPORT
----------
Wednesday, March 6, 2019
House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Reform
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:39 p.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Elijah Cummings
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Cummings, Maloney, Norton, Clay,
Lynch, Cooper, Connolly, Krishnamoorthi, Raskin, Rouda, Hill,
Wasserman Schultz, Kelly, DeSaulnier, Plaskett, Gomez, Ocasio-
Cortez, Pressley, Tlaib, Jordan, Amash, Meadows, Hice,
Grothman, Comer, Cloud, Gibbs, Higgins, Norman, Miller, Green,
Armstrong, and Steube.
Chairman Cummings. The committee will come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the committee at any time.
The full committee hearing is convening to review the GAO
2019 high risk report.
I now recognize myself for five minutes.
Good afternoon. Today, the committee is pleased to welcome
Gene Dodaro, the Comptroller General of the United States and
head of the Government Accountability Office.
Mr. Dodaro is here to discuss GAO's high risk report. GAO
issues this report at the beginning of each Congress to
highlight programs that are most vulnerable to waste, fraud,
abuse, and mismanagement. The high risk report also recommends
solutions to save taxpayer funds, improve public services, and
hold our government accountable.
Over the past 13 years, improvement to high risk programs
have saved us nearly $350 billion, or about $27 billion a year.
Improving high risk programs can have a very real effect on
Americans' lives. If implemented correctly, this year's
recommendations would improve healthcare for veterans, protect
Americans from toxic chemicals, make our food safer, and help
stem the deadly tide of opioid addiction, which we will be
addressing tomorrow.
And, Mr. Dodaro, I want to thank you from the bottom of my
heart, and I want to thank all the people that are here with
you and those that in your office for all the hard work that
you do in a very nonpartisan way and the professionalism that
you all bring to the job. We know that when you issue a report,
you dot your i's, you cross your t's, and you give us
information that is indeed usable. And so, on behalf of a
grateful Congress, I thank you.
Today, we will discuss many issues, and I'd like to
highlight a few. And I want you to listen up, because this is
important information.
First, inaction on climate change. Perhaps the most
concerning issue in this year's report relates to climate
change. According to this report, the Trump administration, and
I quote--I didn't say this; GAO said this--``has not made
measurable progress since 2017 to reduce its fiscal exposure to
climate change and, in some cases, has revoked prior policies
designed to do so,'' end of quote.
Instead of confronting this existential threat with science
and ingenuity, the President is denying the threat and the
problem exists and it continues. He revoked President Obama's
Climate Action Plan and is now creating a new White House panel
to counter the idea that burning fossil fuels is harming the
planet.
Inadequate strategy for cybersecurity. Today's report also
warns that the Trump administration lacks a comprehensive
strategy to address cybersecurity threats across Federal
Government.
Inexplicably, the President eliminated the Cybersecurity
Coordinator position at the White House last year--these are
the facts--leaving our Federal Government without any White
House leader devoted to protecting us with regard to
cybersecurity.
The GAO report calls on Federal agencies to take, quote,
``urgent actions,'' end of quote, to address this threat, which
could affect our Nation's most closely held secrets, our energy
grid, our banks, our communications systems, and nearly every
aspect of Americans' lives.
Today's report also warns that the Trump administration,
quote, ``has not established measures to ensure the quality of
background investigations and adjudications,'' end of quote,
for security clearances and faces--listen to this one--and
faces a current backlog of 565,000 security clearance
applications. Let that sink in.
Instead of fixing these problems, the President,
unfortunately, has undermined the security clearance process.
According to recent reports, he ignored the concerns of his own
White House advisors, career national security officials, to
give his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, a security clearance.
Today's report also highlights the risks facing the
upcoming census, which is of special interest to our committee.
The report highlights the rising costs, hundreds of unresolved
security weaknesses, a scaled-back testing under the Trump
administration that, quote, ``increases the risk that
innovations in IT systems will not function as intended during
the 2020 census,'' end of quote. I didn't say that; GAO said
it.
Today's report also highlights the epidemic of drug
addiction in this country, which is one of this committee's
highest priorities.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, 70,000--70,000 people--the number of people that
will fit into Ravens stadium in my district--70,000 Americans,
died from drug overdoses in 2017. About 191 people die every
day in this country.
Yet the President had no--no--national drug control
strategy or White House Drug Czar for the past two years. The
GAO has identified this as a, quote, ``emerging issue requiring
close attention,'' end of quote.
We're holding a hearing on this topic tomorrow with the
Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy and
experts from GAO.
Today's report provides a roadmap for improving our Federal
Government, but GAO's recommendations can be turned into
effective reforms only with the cooperation and leadership from
the President and executive branch agencies. Unfortunately,
President Trump and the White House have refused to even
cooperate with GAO--refusing to cooperate with them--so they
can get--I want you to talk about that, because that's
important.
If we can't get information, we can't do our job. If we
can't get information, we can't hold the executive branch
accountable, which we have sworn to do and which is mandated
under the Constitution of the United States of America.
Last year, GAO sent an extraordinary letter to the White
House Counsel expressing concern that White House officials
quote--listen to this--``would not respond to inquiries or
otherwise engage with GAO staff during the course of our
reviews.'' Wow. The letter noted, and I quote, ``This approach
represents a clear departure from past practice,'' end of
quote.
Nevertheless, the obstruction has continued. Last month,
GAO issued a report finding the President spent $13.6 million
of taxpayer money on trips to Mar-a-Lago. The White House
refused--refused--to provide any information to assist with
GAO's review.
The GAO is part of the legislative branch, and the White
House refusing to cooperate with GAO's request is an insult to
this Congress. We will be following up directly with the White
House, of course.
I look forward to hearing today from Mr. Dodaro on each of
these issues and many others. I also look forward to continuing
to work closely with GAO and our colleagues to hold our Federal
Government accountable to the American people.
And, with that, I yield to the distinguished ranking member
of our committee, Mr. Jordan of Ohio.
[Prepared Statement of Chairman Cummings is available on:
follows: https://oversight.house.gov/legislation/hearings/gaos-
2019-high-risk-report]
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
this hearing.
Mr. Dodaro, good to see you again. You've been here
numerous times over the years, and we appreciate your work and
you taking the time to brief us today.
The purpose of today's hearing is to examine government
programs that the Government Accountability Office has
determined as, quote, ``high risk''--that is, programs that are
faulty and risk substantial loss of taxpayer money.
``Substantial'' means at risk of losing at least a minimum
of $1 billion. That certainly is a lot of money, but it is
still an out-of-date figure. There are so many big government
programs that now meet this threshold that GAO cannot solely
rely on that criteria.
This topic is at the core of this committee's mission. It
is oversight of Federal dollars and the examination of
mismanagement by the government.
As you have said before, Mr. Chairman, this committee
should focus on the issues that affect the American people
every single day, not those that only serve to fill campaign
war chests. What we have gathered here today to discuss is just
that--examples of waste, fraud, and abuse that affect everyday
Americans.
The list should be our marching orders. Thirty-five
examples of government inefficiency. Unfortunately, many of
these are not new to us. Five who have been included on the
list since its conception in 1990. There are some agencies that
just--they got on and they have never got off.
Overall, only 26 programs have ever been removed.
Congressional oversight is the central theme to success, and
congressional oversight has led to over $350 billion being
saved over the last decade.
It's not as if it is extremely difficult for a program to
be removed from the list. GAO clearly outlines what needs to be
done to achieve their objective. And this hearing should help
us better understand these recommendations to ensure programs
are removed.
With hundreds of recommendations still open, it is clear
that the convoluted and extensive bureaucracy accepts the
status quo. Agencies and Congress must do better, and there is
much to be done.
Progress has been palpable since the new administration
took office, especially at the Department of Defense. Two DOD
programs were removed, including one, supply chain management,
that had been on the list since 1990. So there's one who made
it. Been there forever in our Defense Department and now no
longer on the high risk list.
Supply chain management is simply knowing how much stuff to
buy and where it is. This has been an issue for 30 years.
Removing this is an impressive step for this administration and
will lead to a safer, more secure, and more efficient military.
In the past two years, another three DOD programs have
improved, and I am encouraged by these improvements, but I'm
also aware that this is just the beginning. Federal agencies
continue to mismanage and waste money of hardworking Americans
that we all get the privilege of representing.
Finally, I look forward to our discussion today and
continued progress, but I'd also point out that I think this is
exactly what this committee is supposed to do. Even though
we've taken ``government'' out of the name of the committee, we
are supposed to provide oversight of government agencies. This
goes to the heart and the soul and the core of what the
Oversight--Government Oversight Committee is supposed to be
doing.
So, Mr. Chairman, again, I thank you for having us here
today, and, Mr. Dodaro, for your testimony.
And, with that, I yield back.
[Prepared Statement of Mr. Jordan is available on: https://
oversight.house.gov/legislation/hearings/gaos-2019-high-risk-
report ]
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
Now I want to welcome the Honorable Gene Dodaro, and I want
to thank him again for participating in today's hearing.
Comptroller General Dodaro, if you and your staff would
please rise, I will begin by swearing you in.
Do you 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?
Thank you very much. You may be seated.
Let the record show that the witnesses answered in the
affirmative.
I want to thank you very much. The microphones are
sensitive, so please speak directly into them. Without
objection, your written statement will be made part of the
record.
With that, Comptroller General Dodaro, you are now
recognized to give an oral presentation of your testimony.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GENE L. DODARO, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF
THE UNITED STATES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Dodaro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good
afternoon to you, Ranking Member Congressman Jordan, members of
the committee. It's a pleasure to be here to discuss the latest
update to GAO's High Risk List.
This high risk program continues to be a valuable
congressional tool for oversight and produces tangible benefits
for the American people, as both, Mr. Chairman, you and Ranking
Member Jordan outlined in your opening statements.
I'm pleased to report that, of the 35 areas, 7 have made
progress since our last update in 2017. Four of the seven,
Congressman Jordan, were DOD areas. I'm pleased with the
management team over there. They're doing a good job addressing
some of these issues.
Two have progressed far enough for us to take them off the
list. DOD supply chain management. As a result of improvements,
there are millions of dollars being saved now in inventory
management, asset visibility, material distribution. And it's
improved DOD's ability to carry out its mission, because it
needs to have the supplies at the right time at the right place
to do a good job.
The other area is mitigating gaps in weather satellites. We
were very concerned about this years ago because it would
diminish the ability to get long-term and short-term weather
forecasts, which are so necessary to protect life and property.
As a result of being on the High Risk List and actions
taken by the Congress, NOAA has launched a new satellite, and
it's already operational, and it's producing better weather
information than what we've had before. And DOD, which operates
the other polar orbiting satellite, is scheduled to release a
new satellite within the next couple years. So this is back on
track.
Now, unfortunately, many of the areas on that 35 list
haven't really changed that much since our last update in 2017.
There have been some improvements but not enough to change the
rating against our five criteria for coming off the list, which
are leadership commitment, the ability to have the capacity,
the resources, and the people, have an action plan with
milestones and measures to do a monitoring effort, and actually
demonstrate some progress in that area.
Three areas have regressed, which we're concerned about.
One is NASA's acquisitions. Second is EPA's assessments of
toxic chemicals. And the third is limiting the Federal
Government's fiscal exposure by better managing climate-change
risk.
Now, we have added two areas in the update. One is
governmentwide personnel security clearances, as has been
mentioned. We added that in January 2018, and at that time the
backlog was 700,000. So the backlog has been lowered to 565,000
now, so we're making some progress in that regard.
Second, what we're adding today is the acquisition programs
at the Veterans Administration, their outdated policies and
practices. They haven't been able to save a lot of money. It's
one of the largest procurement budgets in the government. Many
purchases are being made under emergency situations when they
should be able to more routinely identify what kind of medical
supplies and services that they need for the hospital. So
that's an important area.
There are a number of areas that I want to single out for
this committee that I think are very important.
One is the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. The
multi-employer portion of that pension system is likely to be
insolvent by 2025. That means about 11 million Americans will
only be able to likely receive $2,000 a year for a pension.
This is not adequate, so that's a big problem.
Second is the Federal role in housing finance. Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac are still under Federal conservatorship from
the global financial crisis. Ginnie Mae's portfolio now is over
$2 trillion. The FHA portfolio is $1.2 trillion. A lot of
lending now is made by non-banks, which are not very well
regulated, and all the risk has moved to the Federal
Government. Seventy-one percent of the loans now for individual
mortgages are supported by the Federal Government either
directly or indirectly.
Cybersecurity needs to be addressed. We did a special
update last year, and we testified before two subcommittees of
this committee on the urgent actions that are needed to be
required in that area.
Veterans' healthcare remains a problematic area, as well as
a lot of improper payments across Medicare, Medicaid; the
earned income tax credit; and, of course, the tax gap, which is
very significant.
So I thank you for the opportunity to be here, Mr.
Chairman, and I look forward to answering all your questions.
[For Prepared Statement of Mr. Dodaro, see Appendix:]
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
I will now yield to Mr. Rouda for five minutes.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you.
Mr. Dodaro, I wanted to ask you about one of those most
important issues addressed in the GAO's high risk report,
climate change.
Over the past two years, the U.S. Global Change Research
Program released its ``Fourth National Climate Assessment,''
which is the Federal Government's definitive statement on
climate science. Volume I of the assessment confirmed that
climate change is real, it is happening now, and humans are the
primary cause.
Volume II looked at the serious impacts of climate change
and projected that rising temperatures, flooding, and extreme
weather caused by climate change will result in economic losses
of, quote, ``hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of this
century,'' unquote.
Mr. Dodaro, do you agree that climate change is occurring?
Mr. Dodaro. Our work relies on the Global Climate Change
Research Program and the National Academy studies that have
occurred that have concluded that climate change is having a
significant effect on the economy and on environmental issues.
And based on the result of that, that's one of the reasons we
added it to the High Risk List.
But our focus is on limiting the Federal Government's
fiscal exposure to climate change. You know, since 2005, the
Federal Government's had to outlay close to half a trillion
dollars to recover from disasters. We believe there needs to be
more focus on adaptation and resilience-building in the first
place to mitigate these substantial disasters.
Mr. Rouda. So talk about that in twofold: one, the cost of
doing nothing, if you can talk a little bit about that----
Mr. Dodaro. Sure.
Mr. Rouda [continuing]. and the cost of actually doing
something. Because my sense is it costs a lot less to do
something versus doing nothing.
Mr. Dodaro. The cost of inaction is sort of incalculable,
but it's very high. Let me put it that way.
The National Institute of Building Sciences has estimated
that, for every dollar spent on hazard mitigation and
resilience-building, it will save $6 down the road. It also
estimates every dollar spent to institute new international
building code requirements could save $11 down the road. So,
clearly, there's a lot of evidence to say that if you provide
more money up front.
We've seen that very recently in the hurricanes that
happened in 2017, and you see the difference between what
happened to Florida compared to Puerto Rico. Florida was well-
prepared. They had built a lot of resilience efforts in over
the years. Puerto Rico really had not done that. And the
devastation was, you know, almost complete in Puerto Rico,
where Florida was able to recover, you know, with difficulty,
obviously, but it makes a real difference.
With disasters predicted to be more frequent and more
severe, the Federal Government needs to do this. That's why we
put this on in 2013.
Mr. Rouda. Okay.
The Department of Defense has identified climate change as
one of the top threats. And I'd like to ask you, how is climate
change impacting our national security?
Mr. Dodaro. Well, it's twofold.
One is that it is affecting DOD's own operations, both
domestically and internationally. You know, a lot of their
facilities are in coastal areas, and with rising sea levels, it
poses difficulties. They've already had some experiences. The
Hurricane Florence in 2018 caused over $3 billion of damage to
Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. Hurricane Michael caused the
Air Force base down there over $3 billion in damage. So it's
affecting DOD right now.
The other aspect, though, from the national security
standpoint is how it might be changing global migration
patterns and how droughts and other things might be
destabilizing factors as it relates to the social and economic
and political status of countries----
Mr. Rouda. Right.
Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. which could then create some
national security concerns.
Mr. Rouda. Yes, there are some suggestions that if we do
not combat climate change, at the current rate, that there will
be 200 million climate-change refugees by the year 2050, the
largest mass migration of human beings since World War II.
Let me ask you also about--as you know, we are the only
country now not part of the Paris climate accord. And President
Trump is apparently trying to set up a new White House panel,
led by a climate denier, to counter the clear findings of the
National Climate Assessment and National Threat Assessment.
Do you think that the White House panel that denies climate
change will help the Federal Government better manage climate-
change risk?
Mr. Dodaro. Well, you know, we do our work based on facts.
And this group hasn't met yet, and I don't know really much
about it, so I, you know, reserve judgment until they produce
something. The President certainly has a right to get advise
from whoever he chooses. But there's a lot of studies already
done by the Federal Government and the National Academy of
Sciences. And so, you know--but I'll reserve judgment until
they produce something.
Chairman Cummings. The gentleman's time has----
Mr. Rouda. Okay. For the sake of America and the rest of
the country, thank you.
Chairman Cummings. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Hice.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before I get to my questions, I'd like to just take a
moment, Mr. Chairman, to personally say thank you. I think we
had a pretty contentious hearing last week, and I just want to
say thank you for your leadership and how you led this
committee with fairness and reasonableness.
Particularly as it related to Mr. Meadows, I just
appreciate the way you handled that and really set a standard
for this committee to deal with issues and not personalities.
And I just felt it appropriate to publicly say thank you for
your leadership in that regard.
Mr. Dodaro, thank you again for your leadership as well.
It's always good to see you. Appreciate all that you do for the
American people.
As you well know and mentioned a while ago, this committee
has been active in the past dealing with cyber issues and the
OPM and Equifax and all these types of issues that we've had.
In July of last year, we had a hearing with you about an
interim high risk update on Federal cybersecurity, and we
discussed in the nature of the cyber threat and the role of the
U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Teams.
Just curious how that is going, if we're seeing
improvements.
Mr. Dodaro. Yes, I'd like to bring up Nick Marinos, who's
our cybersecurity expert in that area.
You know, still, there's a lot of room for improvement in
this area. I'm very concerned about it. The actions might have
been being taken, but they're not being addressed with the
sense of urgency I believe is needed.
But Nick can give you details, Congressman.
Mr. Hice. Okay.
Nick?
Mr. Marinos. Mr. Congressman, I think we would say that,
you know, as mentioned in our update last year, one of the four
challenges that we highlighted was the important role and
responsibility that Department of Homeland Security has for
organizing Federal Government efforts to protect their systems
from cybersecurity threats.
We have seen some progress, for example, in addressing many
of the recommendations that we've made. We've made nearly 3,000
recommendations over the last 10 years related to cybersecurity
issues. We've seen that number come from 1,000 down to 700. But
that still represents a very substantial amount of work that
has to be done.
Mr. Hice. So what is the holdup? Who's best to answer that?
I mean, what's going on? Seven hundred, like you said, is still
a lot. What's the issue?
Mr. Dodaro. I just don't think there's enough management
attention at the top levels of the departments and agencies of
the Federal Government and across Federal Government to deal
with this.
There are a lot of plans that are put in place--and I want
to commend the administration; they've added some national
strategies--but there's no detailed implementation plans of
what kind of milestones, when are we going to have these fixes,
how can we tell if we're making progress, what are the
resources needed in order to address these issues.
You know, I put cybersecurity on the governmentwide High
Risk List, first time we ever said anything governmentwide, in
1997. I mean, I've been on this quest for a long time.
We've expanded it to critical infrastructure protection, as
the chairman mentioned, electricity grid, the markets. I mean,
we have a big issue. Congress also needs to pass comprehensive
privacy legislation, which we've recommended as well.
But in the Federal departments and agencies, year after
year after year, there are the same material weaknesses in
their information technology systems. Now, a lot of this is--a
millstone around their neck--a lot of legacy systems. Of the
$90 billion every year spent on IT, 75 percent of it goes to
support legacy systems. I mean, some of these systems have been
around since the 1960's and 1970's, and so they inherently have
vulnerabilities that address them. So we have to replace the
legacy systems.
This committee's had some leadership in that area and the
modernization fund. Now they have working capital funds with
the intention of replacing legacy systems. And this committee's
been focused on trying to make sure chief information officers
have the proper authorities.
Mr. Hice. I share your concern. We have Fort Gordon, the
Cyber Command headquarters, in our district, and this has
become a huge issue to me as well.
Regarding, something a little different, the IRS dealing
with so much sensitive taxpayer information, what's the latest
on that front?
Mr. Dodaro. Do you know?
Mr. Marinos. With respect to the taxpayer information?
Mr. Hice. And the cybersecurity issue, the threat that's
there.
Mr. Marinos. With respect to IRS's own systems, we continue
to see deficiencies as we do our annual evaluation of their
financial statement activities.
And we recognize that taxpayer information represents a
very important element in performing IRS's mission. It's
personal information about every individual, and so it
represents a significant risk. And so it does require IRS to be
very careful with the actions it takes with respect to that
data.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
And, Mr. Hice, I thank you for your kind words. I really
mean that.
Mr. Dodaro, I'm going to ask you a few questions.
GAO is an extension of Congress. You are Congress's
investigative arm. Is that right?
Mr. Dodaro. That's correct.
Chairman Cummings. And we rely on you to do thorough and
detailed reports and investigations like the one we are
discussing today.
But your work and, by extension, our work is frustrated
when you did not get the cooperation you need. So I want to ask
you about multiple refusals by the Trump White House to respond
to GAO's legitimate requests.
I have a letter here that was sent from the General Counsel
at GAO, Thomas Armstrong, to the White House Counsel, Don
McGahn. This letter was sent on May 9, 2018. It says this, and
I quote:
``I write to express concern about the policy of certain
White House officers regarding communication with the
Government Accountability Office. Specifically, I understand
that attorneys from your office and the National Security
Council will not respond to inquiries or otherwise engage with
the GAO staff during the course of our reviews. This approach
represents a clear departure from past practice,'' end of
quote.
Mr. Dodaro, I've been on this committee for 23 years now,
and I've never seen a letter like this. Why did you--why did
the GAO send this letter?
Mr. Dodaro. Well, you know, typically, our work involves
examining government programs and agencies, and, generally, we
get good cooperation in conducting about 800 audits a year for
the Congress.
Historically, you know, from time to time, we have to
contact the White House in a few instances. And, generally,
over the years, historically, while we didn't always get
cooperation from the White House staff, we at least were able
to have good communications with them.
In this case, you know, they were clear from the beginning
they weren't even going to talk to us about these issues. And
so we were very concerned that we were not at least having
lines of communication where we could try to work out some
accommodations.
Now, since we sent the letter, we've continued to have
conversations with them, and we made some headway in dealing
with the National Security Council. We actually have a meeting
next week to talk to them about a current review. We're looking
at the International Atomic Energy Administration. And a couple
other instances, National Security Council has, you know,
agreed to give us some information.
But the White House Counsel's Office has not. We'll
continue to talk with them on an as-needed basis going forward
and enlist the support of Congress.
Chairman Cummings. Let me switch to another example. Last
month, you issued a report that I requested with Representative
Speier. You reported that President Trump spent $13.6 million
of taxpayer money in just his first four trips to Mar-a-Lago.
However, in that same report, GAO also said this, and I
quote: ``We contacted White House Counsel's Office in April
2017 and January 2018 to solicit information from the Executive
Office of the President related to coordinating travel for the
President and any costs associated with White House staff
traveling with the President. As of January 2019, the White
House had not responded to our request for information.''
Is that what your report said?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
Chairman Cummings. You also issued another report I
requested on security protocols at Mar-a-Lago. Your report
said: GAO contacted the White House Counsel's Office in May
2017 and January 2018, but--and I quote--as of January 2019,
the White House Counsel's Office had not responded to our
request for information.
So GAO tried to reach the White House for almost two years
about these reports and received no response?
Mr. Dodaro. That's correct.
What I also, though, did with the--I asked the teams to
make sure we sent the draft reports over there, you know, once
we complete our work at the agencies. And we got a lot of the
information we needed from the agencies.
There are two parts of this. One, you know, the White House
is not taking advantage of the opportunity to give us their
perspective on these issues and any relevant information.
But even though they didn't give us the information, I made
sure they had an opportunity to comment on the draft reports,
thereby giving them a last chance to give us additional
information if they, you know, felt compelled to do it. And
they received the drafts. They took custody of the drafts, but
they didn't provide any comments on the draft reports. But I
didn't want them surprised.
You know, we're going to follow our procedures and be fair
and nonpartisan in our approach, but we did not receive any
information.
Chairman Cummings. Did that surprise you?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. Although, in all fairness, I mean, we've
had problems in prior administrations when it comes to the
White House. I mean, there's just a unique set of situations
there.
But what surprised us this time was, you know, not even
want to have discussions. You know, in the past, we've at least
had discussions. Sometimes they've been contentious
discussions. But, you know, we usually are able to work through
things. But, in some cases, you know, the White House didn't do
it.
I mean, our most famous instance is when we actually sued
Vice President Cheney to get information years ago. Now, we
didn't prevail on that, but, you know, these things occur. But
at least in that case, they were talking to us. You know, in
this case, there hasn't been any, you know, meaningful
contributions.
Although, I am, as I said earlier, you know, pleased that
we've, at least with the National Security Council--because
they have responsibilities now for coordinating cybersecurity.
So if we can't get information from them about how they've
taken over the responsibilities from the Cybersecurity
Coordinator position that was eliminated, we're not going to be
able to inform the Congress on how this administration is--
clarify its roles and responsibilities in cybersecurity. I will
be very concerned about that.
Chairman Cummings. Okay.
Since President Trump took office, about how many times has
GAO requested information from the White House Counsel's
Office?
Mr. Dodaro. Five. Five times. Five different audit
engagements.
Chairman Cummings. And as of today, has GAO received
information from the White House Counsel's Office in response
to any of those requests?
Mr. Dodaro. No.
Chairman Cummings. Very well.
My time is up. I yield now to the ranking member.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Dodaro, have previous Presidents traveled as well?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. Yes, many times, back to their hometown or
wherever.
I mean, the chairman talked about--I think the figure you
gave was $13 million that President Trump has spent traveling
to Mar-a-Lago. Do you have any idea how much President Obama
spent traveling to Hawaii?
Mr. Dodaro. We have those figures that I could provide----
Mr. Jordan. How about President Bush when he went back to
Texas?
Mr. Dodaro. I'm not sure we did Bush. I know we did
Clinton's travel.
Mr. Jordan. Clinton when he went to Martha's Vineyard?
Mr. Dodaro. Pardon me?
Mr. Jordan. Clinton when he traveled to Martha's Vineyard?
You probably got President Clinton when he traveled there?
Mr. Dodaro. We had a request to look at--he had a trip to
Africa, you know, years ago. So it's different kinds of trips.
But I'd be happy to provide all those to the committee.
Mr. Jordan. I just--the perception is that this is the only
time it's happened, that someone traveled to their home or
vacation spot. Previous Presidents have done this time and time
again.
Mr. Dodaro. That's correct. And we've done studies on most
of the Presidents.
Mr. Jordan. Can you define ``high risk'' for me? When you
say ``high risk,'' define what that is.
Mr. Dodaro. We have published criteria we put out in 2000
which is----
Mr. Jordan. Give me the shorthand version.
Mr. Dodaro. But it's basically--I mean, you mentioned one
of the elements we consider is more than a billion dollars at
risk.
Mr. Jordan. Right.
Mr. Dodaro. But we also consider whether or not there's
public safety, security issues, national security issues,
homeland security issues, the potential impact on the economy.
And so there's a lot of qualitative factors that we consider as
well.
We also consider whether the area's already receiving
attention or not, and we try to focus our list----
Mr. Jordan. On improvement. Yes.
Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. on improvement----
Mr. Jordan. Sure.
Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. but focus attention on areas that
are not getting a lot of attention.
Mr. Jordan. Not getting a lot of attention, still faulty,
haven't improved. Tell me those--I think you said there were
five or six that have been on the list since 1990.
Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. So since you've started this thing, some people
started there and they have never got off.
Mr. Dodaro. That's correct.
Mr. Jordan. And who are those agencies?
Mr. Dodaro. The ones I can recall off the top of my head--
and I'll get the complete list--is the Medicare program; tax
administration issues have been an issue, both from an initial
standpoint of the tax gap as well as now we added identity
theft concerns; DOD weapons systems are on the list; and the
other two are DOE, Department of Energy, contract management--
--
Mr. Jordan. Yep.
Mr. Dodaro [continuing].--and NASA----
Mr. Jordan. Okay.
Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. acquisition management.
Mr. Jordan. Those are the five I had. But the first two are
the ones that I think jump out to me. Because you got the IRS,
which just about every single American has to interface with,
you know, particularly this time of year for most families, and
then you got Medicare, which is pretty darn important as well.
And they have been on the list forever.
And we got some folks in the Congress who want a big
expansion of Medicare. In fact, they call it Medicare for All.
And yet there's all kinds of improper payments and all kinds of
problems, and that's been the case since 1990, right?
Mr. Dodaro. There's been issues, yes. That's why they're on
the list. Exactly right.
Mr. Jordan. And what about the IRS?
Mr. Dodaro. Well, the IRS----
Mr. Jordan. This is largely the tax gap, right? People who
owe taxes who aren't paying them, and----
Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
Mr. Jordan [continuing]. money due to the United States
Treasury.
Mr. Dodaro. Absolutely. The current estimate of the gap
between taxes owed and taxes paid is about net tax gap of $406
billion. That's an annual figure. So I've been very concerned
about that. We think IRS----
Mr. Jordan. What's the improper payment level--I'll come
back to the IRS in a minute--the improper payment level on
Medicare?
Mr. Dodaro. It's $48 billion. $48 billion for this last
fiscal year.
Mr. Jordan. You're talking half a trillion dollars, right?
Mr. Dodaro. Well, when you add----
Mr. Jordan. When you add those two together.
Mr. Dodaro. When you add all the--governmentwide, it's
over----
Mr. Jordan. I'm just talking about these top two programs.
Mr. Dodaro. The top two programs are Medicare and Medicaid.
Mr. Jordan. I'm talking about the IRS and Medicare, two
that have been on the list since 1990. The tax gap at the IRS,
and the Medicare faulty payments, those two total up to half a
trillion dollars.
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. No, you're right. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. That's significant.
Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. All right.
Mr. Dodaro. It's material.
Mr. Jordan. I have to run to the floor and give my speech,
but I wanted to just get that in.
If I could, Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back, and Mr. Comer is
going to sit in for us. Thank you.
Chairman Cummings. All right. Fine.
Before I leave--I've got to go to the floor, too, to speak
on H.R. 1. Mr. Dodaro, I will be back. And I'm going to ask Ms.
Hill, our vice chair, to take over from here. All right?
Mr. Dodaro. Okay.
Chairman Cummings. But, again, I say to you, thank you very
much. And hopefully you'll get the kind of cooperation that you
need to do your job. We don't want to be paying people who
can't get the information they need to carry out their job.
That's all they're trying to do.
With that, we will now go to Ms. Kelly for five minutes.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And welcome.
I'm concerned that the VA is failing to make progress on
reforms that are desperately needed to better serve our
veterans.
Today's report finds that these problems start at the top.
Your report cites, and I quote, ``Leadership instability at the
VA as a major risk factor. As of last July, the positions of
Secretary, Under Secretary for Health, Chief Financial Officer,
Chief Information Officer, and the Deputy Under Secretary for
Health for Community Care were all vacant.''
Mr. Dodaro or whoever you designate, how has unstable
leadership impacted the VA's ability to serve veterans?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. I've been joined by Ms. Nikki Clowers,
who's our healthcare expert. But I'll take a first shot at
that.
You know, since we put the VA on the High Risk List, I've
met with three different Secretaries: Secretary McDonald,
Shulkin, and now Secretary Wilkie. So you've had--and we put
them on the healthcare in 2015. So that shows you, at the very
top of the Department, how much turnover there's been there.
And you mention problems throughout the Department.
As a result of that, we really--the VA, to this day, does
not yet have a good plan for addressing the fundamental causes
of why we put them on the High Risk List. They're working on
it. They have a modernization approach. I've met with Secretary
Wilkie. He's brought us his top people in and told them to work
with our people, which I've said we will provide them as much
help as we can to do that.
But it's prevented them from dealing with some very serious
underlying management challenges of accountability, oversight,
updated policies and procedures, good training programs. They
don't have good resource allocation issues in a lot of cases.
So it's been a significant problem.
Nikki, do you want to----
Ms. Clowers. I would just add to what you were saying,
Representative Kelly, the vacancies still remain a problem.
There's about 12 senior leadership positions that remain vacant
as of February.
And when you have those vacancies and not clear policies or
clearly defined roles and responsibilities for those in acting
positions, it can cause confusion or for activities not to move
forward. And we've seen that in some of our work, such as
suicide prevention outreach, where, when there were vacancies
in those leadership positions, efforts stalled.
Ms. Kelly. So there's been a confirmed Secretary for the
last few months, but you're still citing leadership problems.
What do you think that's about? It's just not enough time to
get things in order, or----
Mr. Dodaro. Well, I would say, first of all, VA has some of
the most serious management challenges in the Federal
Government. You know, we look across the entire Federal
Government. And so the Secretary, no matter who it is, how
well-intentioned that person will be, it's going to take time
to address these issues. So I think you have to give the
current Secretary some time.
I've met with him. Our people are working with him. I'm
hopeful. I'm hopeful, in this case, we'll see progress. But
it'll be some time before they can right the ship there.
Ms. Kelly. One thing I'm particularly concerned about is
IT, because I was the ranking member, with Chairman Hurd, last
year on the IT Subcommittee. And your report says the
Department has had four different CIOs in the last two years.
According to the report, the frequent turnover in this position
raises concern about VA's ability to address the Department's
IT challenges.
What should the VA to do to fix this persistent leadership
problem?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. Well, they have a--I believe they have a
confirmed CIO now in place, recently. So that's a good step.
But they need to fix a lot of their fundamental IT problems
over there.
They've got a huge contract in place now to produce
electronic healthcare records that can be comparable with DOD.
You know, we've been tracking this whole electronic healthcare
record situation for 20 years over there. And VA and DOD still
don't have either good systems themselves or the ability to
share records between the two agencies. So if somebody leaves
Active Duty service, their record doesn't go immediately to VA;
you have to sort of start over. And this is a huge problem.
This is expected to take many years, to get these systems
in place. So they're going to need stable leadership over
there, better disciplined management practices and IT best
practices. That's why I've offered to have our experts explain
to them what kind of best practices that we've seen that they
should put in place over there. So I'm hopeful they'll be able
to do it.
But they have one of the largest IT budgets in the
government. They've got about a $4 billion budget, as you know,
in information technology. So they need to have the right kind
of work force over there and the right kind of systems and
processes in place.
Ms. Kelly. I was going to ask you, are you looking----
Ms. Hill.[Presiding.] The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Ms. Kelly [continuing]. at the issue, and you apparently
are.
Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
Ms. Kelly. So thank you.
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. We'd be happy to give you more details.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
Ms. Hill. I'd like to recognize the gentleman from
Kentucky, Mr. Comer.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Dodaro, I want to focus my questions on oversight of
food safety.
As more and more food is imported from abroad, do you
anticipate more strain on Customs and Border Protection as it
enforces regulations on goods flowing into the country?
Because, you know, when we talk about national security,
obviously, there are many of us in Congress, apparently not a
majority, that are serious about border security. But one of
the aspects of border security and national security that we
fail to hear a lot about is our food supply. There's no greater
issue to our national security than the need to have a safe,
abundant supply of food.
So I guess, what do you see in the future with respect to
strain on border security?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. Well, food safety's been on our list for a
long time.
Mr. Comer. Uh-huh.
Mr. Dodaro. Our system that we have now is very fragmented.
There are about 30 different laws, 15 different Federal
departments and agencies that have responsibility for food
safety, FDA and USDA being the 2 most important areas over
time. And there is no comprehensive governmentwide plan.
Imports have grown dramatically over time, particularly in
seafood areas, but about 60 percent of fruits and vegetables
right now are imported as well. And that's only on a trend to
continue in the future.
And I think, you know, the impact as it relates to the
Customs and Border Patrol is they're a part of the system, but,
actually, I think, from their standpoint, the other big issue
that's on our High Risk List is medical products and food
safety. You know, 80 percent of the ingredients for
prescription drugs come from foreign sources, 40 percent of
finished drugs. And that's where we're having a lot of problem
with the fentanyl and other areas.
So both food safety, as you're appropriately pointing out,
but also other safeties of prescription drugs, medical devices,
and others.
So, you know, we're in a global marketplace now, and our
systems were set up for domestic production, domestic
oversight. So we've been working with the Congress for a number
of years to now get the agencies more focused on other country
systems as a means of trying to make sure that there's at least
first line of defense there, and then we can also, you know, do
our part to handle these areas.
I'm, you know, very disappointed in the progress that we've
made in the food safety area. You continue to see, you know,
thousands of people who have foodborne illnesses every year.
Mr. Comer. Right.
Mr. Dodaro. Many people die in the year.
And, recently, there was the big recall of blood pressure
medicine because of problems in production in China and India.
You know, most of our prescription drugs come from those two
countries.
Mr. Comer. I believe President Trump has proposed
consolidating all the food-safety efforts under one agency.
Would that correct the problem with waste of duplicate
programs? Or would that--how would that affect----
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. Well, we've called for such comprehensive
reform in the past. And, actually, you know, based on my
discussions with OMB, they were informed by our work in this
area.
Now, obviously, a lot depends on exactly how that's done,
how it's implemented, and a number of areas. But there needs to
be, at a minimum, a governmentwide comprehensive plan----
Mr. Comer. Right.
Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. you know? And, right now, the FDA
and Agriculture and these other agencies share a little bit of
information, but it's on a situation-specific issue.
Mr. Comer. You're exactly right. That's been my experience.
The FDA and the USDA, they communicate a little bit but not a
lot.
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. And they have very different approaches--
--
Mr. Comer. Absolutely.
Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. that they take to food safety.
And so, you know, our goal--we've been pushing for a
reorganization for a while, but, at a minimum, we need a
governmentwide plan. There used to be a food safety council,
but that hasn't met for a number of years as well. So that's a
problem.
And Mr. Gaffigan here, Mark Gaffigan, is our expert in this
area. Let me just ask if he wants to add anything.
Mr. Gaffigan. I would just say it's going to get more
complicated. I was just at the ag forum last week, and they
talked about our population getting close to 9 billion people
by 2050 and the need to come up with a food--FDA and USDA are
the two main agencies. They talked about having, currently, 17
different MOUs just to try to coordinate on.
And one of the reasons it's going to become more and more
complicated is the use of technologies. We're going to start
seeing genetically engineered beef, talking about those things.
And there's a lot of regulatory uncertainty about that.
And it's a global market. Other countries are doing
different things. And we sort of need to get our act together,
try and make sure there's some regulatory certainty so we can
meet that need for safe, reliable food.
Mr. Comer. Thank you.
Thank you.
Ms. Hill. Thank you.
I'd like to recognize Mr. Raskin from Maryland.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Dodaro, welcome.
You run the supreme audit agency for the U.S. Government,
which is a $4 trillion enterprise, one of the most complex
institutional entities on Earth.
Your high risk designation program identifies government
programs that have unique vulnerabilities to waste, fraud,
abuse, and mismanagement. And in 2018 you added the personnel
security clearance process to your High Risk List.
The GAO's report states, and I quote, ``A high-quality
personnel security clearance process minimizes the risks of
unauthorized disclosures of classified information and helps
ensure that information about individuals with criminal
histories or other questionable behavior is identified and
assessed.''
Now, I just want to you ask a few obvious questions first.
Do you think that a high-quality security clearance process
should identify concerns about a candidate's suitability before
they receive classified information?
Mr. Dodaro. Absolutely.
Mr. Raskin. Do you think a high-quality security clearance
process should assess whether an applicant is susceptible to
inappropriate influence or blackmail from a foreign government
or another third party?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
Mr. Raskin. Why is it important that investigators and
adjudicators assess these concerns before a security clearance
is granted to an applicant?
Mr. Dodaro. Well, it's very important because, once a
security clearance is granted, it's not updated until several
years later. So you're entrusting that person to protect the
information at the appropriate level, whether it's Secret, Top
Secret. There can be compartmentalized secret information----
Mr. Raskin. And kind of things could happen if a security
clearance is granted to someone who really shouldn't have it?
Mr. Dodaro. Well, you've seen episodes of that with, you
know, Edward Snowden and other people. I mean, a lot of the
secrets can be, you know, unveiled to the public.
There's also possibilities of putting people at risk at the
intelligence communities and law enforcement agencies. I mean,
there's a lot of potential problems that could occur. That's
why we put it on the list, because there's such a backlog.
You know, it used to be--I mean, after September 11, 2001,
more things became classified. And, most recently, more things
are becoming more classified. So the government really didn't
adapt to having a better infrastructure to do security
clearances.
I might note also, I've been joined by Cathleen Berrick,
who's our expert in this area, so she'll help me answer some
questions.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. You can choose who answers----
Mr. Dodaro. Okay.
Mr. Raskin [continuing]. as you wish.
But last week, on February 28th, The New York Times
reported that President Trump ordered John Kelly to grant Jared
Kushner a security clearance. But based on the FBI's background
investigation, career officials at the White House reportedly
recommended against granting Mr. Kushner a security clearance.
And the CIA reportedly expressed concerns about granting Mr.
Kushner access to the Nation's most sensitive information.
Do you know whether these reports are accurate?
Mr. Dodaro. No. No. We've not looked--we typically do not
look at individuals and the clearance decisions. We look at how
the process works.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. And we cannot gauge the veracity of these
claims either, because President Trump and the White House are
withholding this information from our committee.
When the GAO investigates whether a process or program is
functioning properly, is it important for agencies and
officials in the executive branch to cooperate with your
investigation?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
Mr. Raskin. Do you agree it's important for Congress to
review how the White House conducts its security clearance
process today in order to ensure that the system is functioning
properly?
Mr. Dodaro. I think it's definitely within the Congress's
oversight purview to do so.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. Well, I am with you, because I'm very
concerned that your finding that our governmentwide security
clearance process poses a high risk is one that is going
completely ignored by the executive branch of government. In
fact, they're compounding the risk by overriding the procedures
that are supposed to be in place.
I'm very troubled that the White House and other parts of
the administration have failed to provide us information about
the process, as required by a statute that was signed into law
by President Trump himself. The committee must continue to
pursue information about the clearance process at the White
House and elsewhere in this administration.
I think James Madison said it best long ago, which is that
knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean
to be their own Governors must arm themselves with the power
that knowledge gives. We need that knowledge in order to do the
people's business.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Hill.[Presiding.] Perfect timing. I recognize the
gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Norman.
Mr. Norman. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Dodaro, in the past decade, Congress has imposed many
complex regulations on financial institutions with little
regard as to whether this is sensible, particularly for the
smaller community banks and the credit unions. In February 2018
GAO reported that new financial regulations imposed costly
compliance burdens on smaller, community banks and credit
unions. What steps should the financial regulators need to take
in order to sufficiently address these challenges, particularly
with the cost of the regulations that ultimately the customers
and consumers are going to pay for?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. Yes, we've done work looking at the
compliance burden, particularly for community and small banks.
I've been joined by Mr. Lawrence Evans, who heads our financial
markets and community investment work. He can give you details.
Mr. Evans. Yes, thank you for that question. One of the
most important things regulators can do is rigorous cost-
benefit analysis, including retrospective reviews, and we've
leveled a number of recommendations militated toward ensuring
that we're quantifying where possible and we're doing
everything in our power to ensure that we can right-size
regulations, where appropriate, without losing effectiveness.
Mr. Norman. Give me some examples, like--pick Dodd-Frank,
some of the regulations that they had back when the TARP fiasco
was going on.
Mr. Evans. That's right. So, you know, some of these
regulations are subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
which requires a cost-benefit analysis before they promulgate
the rules. Also, there are--there's the agripper process which
requires a retrospective review. So this will allow you to
right-size regulations appropriately if it's done well.
Mr. Norman. And how were these presented to the banks? In
other words, what form did that take to say that they could
save X dollars if they did this?
Mr. Evans. So I think that's a more complicated question.
Typically, when this analysis is done, there is a notice of
proposed rulemaking or some type of vehicle for banks to
discuss issues that they have, and then that is considered as
they attempt to finalize the rules.
Mr. Dodaro. One of the things, Congressman, we were
required to look at all the rulemaking under Dodd-Frank. And so
one of the things that we identified was that a lot of the
financial regulators are not required to follow OMB guidance on
cost-benefit analysis, No. 1, and so we suggested they have a
more rigorous cost-analysis benefit that would follow the best
practices in that area.
Second, they were--there wasn't as much coordination among
the financial regulators as there needed to be, in order to
address this issue. So those were two things up front before
the original regulations will be put in place.
Now, what we find is, after the regulations are put in
place, they were slow to look at it, how is it actually
working. Because you can do a cost-benefit analysis up front,
but you make assumptions and you have certain things. But it's
different from what might play out in reality once the
regulation is in place.
Mr. Norman. Yes.
Mr. Dodaro. So both things are important.
Mr. Norman. CRA is a good example. A lot of banks--
Community Reinvestment Act--where the banks wanted to invest,
wanted to help the communities, but they had no guidance.
Mr. Dodaro. Right.
Mr. Norman. And they didn't want the hammer that was
brought down. The other thing was the cost of compliance
where--where banks, they couldn't afford to buy another bank in
a smaller community because it was going to mean a whole new
team of regulators to interpret the regulations that were put
on them. So I would just ask you, as you move forward, to work
toward that end, giving the banks definite things to work--work
toward concrete measures so that it's not out in the--in the
hinder land, so they don't know how to enforce it.
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. No, it's a point well taken, Congressman.
Mr. Norman. Thank y'all for coming. I yield back.
Ms. Hill. Thank you. I would like to recognize Ms.
Wasserman Schultz from Florida.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Dodaro,
good to see you. Glad to be able to have an opportunity to have
some dialog with you. It was a privilege to do that when I
oversaw your budget as the ledge branch chair.
I want to continue with Congressman Raskin's line of
questioning, because in your report, you indicated a
governmentwide security clearance backlog of 565,000
investigations. And your report also identifies lack of quality
measures as a risk facing the governmentwide personnel security
clearance process. What quality assessment standards currently
exist for background investigations?
Mr. Dodaro. Ms. Berrick will answer that question.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
Ms. Berrick. Yes, thank you for the question. We've been
reporting for the last 20 years on the need to improve the
quality of background investigations supporting security
clearances. And most recently in 2010, we recommended that the
executive branch develop measures to assess the quality of how
agencies are doing in terms of performing investigations and
documenting them.
In the years since, the executive branch has taken two
important steps to get there, but they haven't yet reached that
goal. They developed, as you mentioned, these quality standards
for assessments. These are really kind of guideposts that tell
agencies, here's the sorts of things you should be looking at
when determining whether or not an investigation is complete.
And then they also developed a reporting tool for agencies
to report that information to the--through the Performance
Accountability Council.
What's missing, though, are those metrics to really assess
how well our agency's doing in terms of meeting goals and
developing high quality investigations. And we continue to urge
the executive branch to develop those.
Mr. Dodaro. Yes, I think the issue, we pointed out, is, you
have good standards, but you don't know whether they're being
followed or not. And so unless you measure how well they're
being followed, you really don't know.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. And that sort of begs the
continued question that has arisen. If there are standards that
have been established and strengthened on your
recommendations--the recent media reports that indicated that
members of the Trump administration, including Jared Kushner,
and Ivanka Trump, were able to obtain security clearances
against the recommendations of White House staff, presumably
using those standards, that's troubling because obviously the
White House is supposed to set an example for the rest of
government to follow. And your report outlines ways in which
the administration is already failing to ensure that there is
background-clearance quality.
Mr. Dodaro, could you--could you share with us how granting
a security clearance to an official where there were credible
concerns about their ties to foreign nationals--you indicated
that that would be a concern in answering Mr. Raskin's
question--how would that impact our national security
potentially?
Mr. Dodaro. Well, I think, I mean the whole point of the
background investigations is to ensure that the wrong
information doesn't fall in the wrong hands. And so it's very
important. It can compromise national security in a lot of
different ways by, you know, making sure that people, you know,
people can understand the government's, you know, processes and
controls and informations that would--that would enable them to
get, you know, a potential advantage of dealing with our--you
know, whether it's an adversary of the United States or even an
ally of the United States.
So this is very important that only the right people in the
government have access to the highest, sensitive--most
sensitive information.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So, in your opinion, could the
President's overruling White House security clearance
personnel's recommendations, impact the quality and integrity
of a national security background check?
Mr. Dodaro. I don't have enough facts about that situation.
We haven't looked at it to--to opine on that issue.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. The fact that bypassing--let
me just ask you another question.
So would it be appropriate for an individual to bypass the
recommendation against a security clearance, from security
clearance personnel?
Mr. Dodaro. It depends on the facts and circumstances
associated with the decision. There's a--there's a--part of the
process is called the adjudication process. And it's up to the
person who's responsible for the adjudication to take the
results of the background investigation and make a decision
whether to grant the clearance or not. In some cases, they may
or may not agree with the investigation that's in place. So
it's a very facts and circumstances decision.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And that's why this committee, under
Chairman Cummings, is trying to get information from the White
House, which they have not yet sent, because we do need to get
to the bottom of how those security clearances were granted,
because as you said, there is a potential risk to our national
security. Isn't that right?
Mr. Dodaro. I think it's well within Congress' right to ask
questions and get the facts associated with the situation.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Ms. Hill. Thank you. Mr. Gibbs from Ohio?
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you.
Mr. Dodaro, just to followup on the security clearance,
ultimately, the President of the United States, doesn't he have
final authority to grant or deny a security clearance for a
White House employee?
Mr. Dodaro. I'm not sure we--and we haven't looked at the
legal authority of the President in this regard.
Mr. Gibbs. Because--because my understanding, former
President Clinton created a process issuing security clearances
for White House employees by executive order. So maybe there's
been a sort of precedent set there, I don't know.
Mr. Dodaro. Yes, we've never looked at the security
clearance process in the White House, either under past
administrations or the current one.
Mr. Gibbs. Okay. I did have quite a few questions about
food safety but my colleague from Kentucky did an excellent
job. And I was really impressed with your knowledge on
answering those questions.
Looking through your report here, about the U.S. Postal
Service, you talk about their 3 to $5 billion loss every year,
and we all know that first-class postage is dropping because
stuff's done by e-mail and everything. But the third class or
the bulk stuff has been growing because of all the shipments
from the internet. But then also we are about the benefits to
retirees. What do you see as their biggest challenge or their
biggest adding to their deficit?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. Their biggest problem is, the business
model is really broken. And the first-class mail has always
been their most profitable line of business, and that has
declined. It went down further during the Great Recession that
we had in 2009, or whatever, and really hasn't come back yet or
not. And they haven't been able to control their costs.
So they have a structural problem with their labor costs
and other costs and not enough revenue to cover it, and as a
result, they haven't been able to make payments into the
retirement healthcare program.
Now, for the first time, they're starting to draw down on
the fund that they paid, so eventually when that money gets
drawed down for retirees' healthcare benefits and the
benefits--healthcare benefits of their current work force,
there's going to be a real issue at that point.
But right now, you don't have a sustainable business model
with appropriate revenues and expenditures. I mean, they were
intended to be a government corporation, to be run like a
private business, but that model is--is not what's happened.
Mr. Gibbs. Yes. Okay. I just wanted to get the
clarification on that, because I hear from some of my
constituents in that--in that area, that they're blaming it
more on the healthcare retirement benefits is really their
problem.
Mr. Dodaro. That's--that's a symptom of the problem, and
their liabilities are almost twice their revenues, their
unfunded liabilities. That's included or whatever, but that's
not--you know, that's part of the solution.
Mr. Gibbs. Okay.
Mr. Dodaro. And we've suggested you could smooth out those
payments over time a little bit better, but that alone is not
going to fix their issues.
Mr. Gibbs. Okay. In previous years, the GAO has reported
that the PBGC has not properly managed its investments. Has the
agency corrected its policies and fully benefited from the
growth in the stock market in the recent years?
Mr. Dodaro. Mr. Charlie, come on. I'm going to bring up our
expert on PBGC. I'm very concerned about the multi-employer
pension----
Mr. Gibbs. So am I.
Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. as I mentioned in my opening
statement, I mean, that's projected to be insolvent by 2025,
and if that happens, they--PBGC estimates they will only be
able to pay benefits to--there's about 11 million people
covered by that benefit of $2,000 a year. I mean, that's not
adequate pension by any stretch of the imagination. Charlie can
talk about their investment policies, Congressman.
Microphone.
Mr. Jeszeck. Congressman, there are two big programs in
PBGC, that's the single-employer program and the multiemployer
program. They have different structures. The single-employer
program actually collects assets when a company goes bankrupt,
and the pension goes to PBGC, so they have those assets. The
single-employer program is actually doing much better. It's
actually, I believe, in surplus as of 2018. So they have been
able to take advantage of the stock market as well as other
things to get to that situation.
The real problem, as the Controller General mentioned, is
the multiemployer plan program. And now the multiemployer
program is a different structure. They don't collect assets
from--from pension plans. The triggering event that the
multiemployer program pays--becomes operative on, is when the
plan becomes insolvent. So there aren't any assets there to--at
least for PBGC to gain market return----
Mr. Gibbs. Just quickly, do you have any recommendations to
GAO about how to maybe resolve some of this issue or----
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. We--yes, we have a number of results.
There needs to be a new premium structure that's risk-based
over there. The PBGC Board should be expanded because right now
it's just the heads of three or four different departments and
agencies, and it should be some outside people involved,
experts in that area as well over time, and the Congress really
needs to address the multiemployer pension program. I've sent
special letters up. Congress took action in 2014, but it didn't
completely solve the problem.
Ms. Hill. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Dodaro. And I can submit for the record all our
detailed recommendations.
Mr. Gibbs. My time has expired. Okay, thank you.
Ms. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Dodaro.
I recognize the gentle lady from New York, Ms. Ocasio-
Cortez.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you.
I want to ask about one of the most important issues
addressed in GAO's high risk report, and that is climate
change. Over the last two years, the Trump administration
released the fourth National Climate Assessment, which is the
Federal Government's definitive statement on climate science,
and Volume 1 of the assessment confirmed that climate change is
real, it is happening now, and that humans are the cause.
Volume 2 of the assessment looked at serious--looked at the
serious impacts of climate change and projected that rising
temperatures, flooding, and extreme weather caused by climate
change, will result in economic losses of, quote, hundreds of
billions of dollars by the end of the century.
In fact, according to The New York Times these prospects
include major hits to GDP, up to 10 percent, drought and
reduced crop yields and other issues, destruction of
infrastructure due to rising sea levels, rebuilding power grids
wiped out by storms. We've seen this even on a small level in
Puerto Rico. [TheNew York Times article is available on:
docs.house.gov or https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/12/nyregion/
bronx-heroin-fentanyl-opioid-overdoses.html]
As some of these costs, especially with reducing farm meals
represent permanent losses to the economy, to the United States
economy. Mr. Dodaro, do you agree that climate change is
occurring?
Mr. Dodaro. Our work relies on the global, climate-change
assessments that are done as well as numerous studies by the
National Academy of Sciences, which have concluded climate
change is producing economic and environmental risks to the
government and increasing the Federal Government's fiscal
exposure.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So you believe climate change is real?
Mr. Dodaro. Well, that's one of the reasons we added it to
the High Risk List in 2013. Now, our focus on the High Risk
List is on limiting the Federal Government's fiscal exposure
and----
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Got it. Do you agree that the United
States could face huge costs as a result if we fail to act
right now?
Mr. Dodaro. Definitely.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Okay.
Mr. Dodaro. Yes, the----
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Sorry, because I have limited time.
Mr. Dodaro. All right. Go ahead.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. President Trump's own Director of
National Intelligence, Dan Coats, provided a National Threat
Assessment to Congress in January that identified climate
change as a threat to our national security as well. Global,
environmental, and ecological degradation, as well as climate
change, are likely to fuel competition for resources, economic
distress and social discontent through 2019, this year, and
beyond.
How is climate change currently impacting our national
security?
Mr. Dodaro. Well, there--there are direct impacts on the
Defense Department right now. You saw last year with the storms
in North Carolina and in Florida, Tyndall Air Force Base, Camp
Lejeune, both had damages over $3 billion and need to be
repaired. There's other infrastructure, particularly along
coastal areas where sea-level rise is changing. And the impacts
on the Defense Department also extend to their international
installations around the world, so it's both domestically and
internationally.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So we're seeing already, as you
mentioned, already existing costs in the billions of dollars
due to the Department of Defense, because of climate change and
the impacts of climate change. But rather than trying to slow
down climate or mitigating its impact, it seems as though the
administration right now is ignoring its own scientists,
national security professionals, and economists who warn that
the continued increased flooding, extreme weather, and
temperature increases will be extremely costly for the Federal
Government.
Mr. Dodaro, what steps would the GAO recommend that the
White House take to show leadership in addressing these issues
and saving our next generation?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes, our recommendations extend in several
different areas. One is, they have a comprehensive national
strategy. The Federal Government needs to provide leadership in
this area. Many of the vulnerabilities are decisions that are
made at the state and local level--building codes and other
issues.
We've also recommended that the Federal Government find out
ways to provide better climate science information to state and
local officials, so they can be on an actionable basis. The
Federal agencies need to prepare--Federal Government's one of
the largest property holders in the United States. The flood
insurance program is not on a fiscally sound basis. It's not
actuarially sound. It's also on our High Risk List. Crop
insurance. So we made a number of recommendations in that area
and give you a complete list for the record.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And I would just like to submit that it
truly does not seem as though the track record is showing up
that there's any desire in the executive branch to address
climate change, and we have to reiterate that Congress--and we
have to use our--our powers here so that Congress and this
committee, particularly with oversight, take action to address
this clear and present danger to the United States. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. And along those lines, we do give credit
to the Congress for passing the National Disaster Recovery--
Reform Act--excuse me--Reform Act in 2018, which allows funding
now to be set aside for resilience building and mitigation, and
to give state and local governments funding for Building Code
reforms. So that was a good step Congress has taken.
Ms. Hill. Thank you so much.
Mr. Dodaro. More needs to be done, though.
Ms. Hill. We agree. Thank you.
I recognize Mr. Grothman from Wisconsin.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. I have a little bit of the statement on
the--on the concerns about climate change and that sort of
thing. I realize you don't have a choice, apparently, to bring
things in or investigate things or make statement on things
when individual Congressmen ask you to do things, but without
going into a depth, if you Google it, the science or the
opinions on climate change vary a great deal.
You know, sometimes you talk about saving money, which is
good. You know, we don't want waste in Medicaid or Medicare or
anywhere else. But as far as doing wide-reaching things,
because of climate change, which may or may not be true,
depending upon what you Google, I think has the potential to
kind of discredit your agency in the eyes of some. You know
what I'm saying?
I mean, I always kind of think at GAO fighting waste or
fraud or something that we're all on the side of the
recommendations, and when you begin to make recommendations
based on what some people think about climate change, and other
people don't think about climate change, I think it kind of
hurts your agency a little. Although you might not have a
choice in it.
Now I'll go on. I want to talk about the tax laws a little
bit. You have made recommendations, I guess 103
recommendations, to the IRS since February 2017. And most of
those recommendations remain open. Could you give me some
summary of the recommendations you have or major
recommendations that you believe nothing has been adapted on?
Mr. Dodaro. We have recommendations in the IRS, both for
the IRS itself, as well as for the Congress, in those areas.
But I would say, with regard to your statement, Congressman,
we're focused on limiting the Federal Government's fiscal
exposure. Since 2005, the Federal Government has spent nearly
half a trillion dollars to respond to major disasters. We're
not suggesting that there be steps made in dealing with, you
know, greenhouse gas emissions and all those things. Our focus
is on fiscal exposure to Federal Government, which we think is
our responsibility at GAO, and we've got a good basis for doing
that.
So I'll let Chris talk about the IRS.
Mr. Mihm. Yes, sir. Congressman, as the Controller General
mentioned in his earlier testimony, is that when you have a
$400 billion annual tax gap, we've been focusing, as well as
IRS, on how do you reduce that tax gap. How do you make sure
that we can--because all you would need is----
Mr. Grothman. Define the tax gap.
Mr. Mihm. All right. Tax gap is the difference between what
IRS actually collects and what is legally owed. And so this
is--Congress has already established through law what should be
paid, and this is actually what comes in. And this is a net,
this $400 billion. So this is after enforcement actions may
have taken place. So this is--this is a big deal. Not only is
it foregone revenue, but it also, if you're a business and
you're fairly and accurately paying your taxes, it puts you at
a competitive disadvantage if your competitor is not paying,
you know, his or her taxes.
So we've been focusing on the opportunities to reduce the
tax gap. The point here is that you would only need 5, 10, 15
percent reductions and you're, in effect, funding another
Cabinet department. So you could really make a big difference
there.
The strategy that IRS needs to put in place is three-fold.
One is that they need better enforcement and that is, it needs
to be better targeted. They need to know return on investment
of their various strategies that they have in place. We've had
recommendations in place that they need to do a better job on
that.
Second is that they need to have much better customer
service, is that most people want to pay their taxes and they
want to pay it accurately. A lot of times when they don't, it's
because they have made an honest mistake, and that they--if the
IRS makes sure that they have good customer service, they can
help on that on that. Their telephone service has improved
markedly in recent years because Congress gave them more--more
financial resources to do that, and because IRS is putting in a
better service strategy as we've been recommending.
And then the third thing that needs to be dealt with is
obviously the complexity of the Tax Code. It can be very
difficult for people to understand what they need to do.
Mr. Grothman. Do you think part of the problem is when we
put dollar-for-dollar credits in there, it encourages people to
do wrong things? I mean, you put a--you put a wrong number on
your tax return, if a marginal rate is 27 percent, you know,
maybe it affects you, you know, 27 cents on the dollar. But
when you have credits in there, I think it encourages people to
intentionally do things wrong. Do you think that's accurate?
Mr. Mihm. Well, we haven't actually looked at it from that
angle, sir, and it's an intriguing way to kind of think about
the issue. But there are two aspects of what you're raising I
think that are important. One is that for many of the errors
that may be made by people, the actual dollar amount may be
relatively small for those individual areas. Obviously,
cumulatively, it can be huge, which--but the individual errors
if they're small--yes, sir?
Mr. Grothman. I just want to get one more question here on
Medicaid before--before things end. I was recently down at the
border, and the customs people were concerned, of all the
Medicaid cards they saw people coming back across the border
down south to Mexico had. In other words, people who are here
illegally with Medicaid cards. Is that something you've
addressed, the degree to which we are giving Medicaid benefits
to people who are not citizens?
Ms. Hill. Mr. Dodaro, the time is expired, but you may
answer the question.
Mr. Dodaro. We have not focused, per se, on that issue. One
of the things, though, that we've suggested, that CMS has not--
the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Studies, has not looked at
beneficiary eligibility determination since 2014, when the
Affordable Care Act went in place. They're going to start now
in 2019, but for these several years, nobody's been looking at
the eligibility determinations for individual beneficiaries.
And that needs to be looked at.
Mr. Grothman. Good. Customs thinks it's a problem, so
thanks.
Ms. Hill. Thank you. I just have to say that as a
Californian coming off of the most deadly fire season in our
state's history, that science is science, and I think that
that's something that we should continue to respect in this
chamber.
With that, I'd like to recognize Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for
holding this hearing.
Mr. Dodaro, welcome back. You're a frequent flyer to this
committee, and I just want to say, I hold you and your staff in
the highest regard in terms of the work that you do on our
behalf. I do--I want to followup on Ms. Wasserman Schultz'
questions and other Members' questions about security
clearance.
So we've been worried about this for some time, as you
know. It's been a frequent topic of discussion at this
committee. I know going back to the Navy Yard shootings where
we had an individual who should not have had a security
clearance was able to perpetrate those crimes. I do want to
drill down a bit on Mr. Kushner, though. And, you know, I know
you look at the system and not individuals, but we have an
individual here who, he had dozens and dozens of contacts with
foreign governments and foreign officials, and yet, when he had
to fill out his--his disclosure to get his clearance, he
forgot, and he forgot about meetings that he had just had weeks
and months before he applied for his clearance.
So he had dozens of--dozens of meetings with foreign
officials, Russians in particular. He--you know, he--I think
he--frankly, you don't have dozens and dozens of meetings and
then just forget about it. I think he actually misled people in
getting his security clearance.
And then on top of that, his own refusal to disclose, the
White House also engaged in reinforcing or abetting him in his
cover-up. The White House transition team, basically Hope Hicks
at the time, said, no, it never happened, there was no
communications between Mr. Kushner or any campaign and a
foreign entity during the campaign. That was on November 11th.
Again on January 13, White House Press Secretary Sean
Spicer, he gave a timeline of meetings between General Flynn at
the time, who was the National Security Advisor, and Ambassador
Kislyak from Russia, but he never mentioned that Mr. Kushner
was in the meeting. So they gave--gave a very selective
disclosure there. Again, on January 23d, 2017, again, Mr.
Spicer disclosed phone calls with Mr. Flynn and the Russians
but left out Mr. Kushner and did not disclose that Mr. Kushner
was at the meeting at the Trump Tower.
So--and it goes on and on and on. There's February 14th,
February 16th, February 20th, where the White House says there
was no contact at all. And yet later on there was pressure put
on Chief of Staff John Kelly to basically give him--give him
the security clearance.
Here's where it gets really interesting. Now we have
multiple whistleblowers who have come forward to the committee
and indicated to us that Mr. Kushner is leading an effort to
transfer nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia. And the details of
this--I'll just give it to you really quickly.
Brookfield Business Partners buys Westinghouse Electric for
$4.6 billion. And they're trying to get the contracts in Saudi
Arabia to build these nuclear plants, you know, if they get the
approval from the--from the government.
What they're trying to do as well, they just bought a
share--a partnership share in 666 Fifth Avenue, which is owned
by Mr. Kushner's family, and it's in dire financial shape. So
the same company that's looking for the technology transfer,
for the Saudis, is invested in Mr. Kushner's family's building
at of 666 Fifth Avenue. So if you're ever looking for a smoking
gun on something--and your people are really, really smart. I
mean all of them. But it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure
this out, that there's a problem.
And it just goes back to the decision that was made to give
this individual a security clearance, and the total disregard
for national security, and for the interest of this country,
being exercised by this individual and this White House. So I
hope you look into it. We're going to look into it, that's for
sure.
It is a disgrace that this is happening and that we are
allowing an individual with these obvious conflicts to continue
to--to be involved as a special envoy when his own personal
interests are obviously overriding the----
Ms. Hill. The gentleman's time----
Mr. Lynch [continuing]. the national security interests of
this country.
Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Hill. Thank you.
Mr. Higgins?
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Dodaro, thank you for your service to your country,
sir. You have struck me as such a candid and intelligent man,
and your staff must be brilliant. One of the most difficult
jobs that perhaps exists in this Federal Government is to try
and keep this thing under control, regarding spending. So thank
you for your very sincere effort.
I have important questions regarding significant services
to many, many millions of Americans--Medicaid and Medicare--but
before I get there, let me ask you, you refer to process and
studying the process in the interest of fiscal stability and
efficiencies for the Federal Government. That's your job. The
process and differences between White House clearance processes
and Federal agencies clearance--security clearance process,
there's a difference, is there not?
Mr. Dodaro. Quite frankly, Congressman, I don't know.
Because I--we never looked at the White House security
clearance process.
Mr. Higgins. Are you--are you familiar with the fact that
the White House conducts a suitability review, and then they
can receive a favorable or unfavorable adjudication through
another series, if it's different for a Federal agency?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes, I just don't have that information.
Mr. Higgins. Let me just share that according to my
understanding, the President has the ultimate authority to
grant or deny security clearance. Are you aware that Members of
Congress have access to highly confidential data and security
clearances?
Mr. Dodaro. I would assume so, but I never looked at that
part.
Mr. Higgins. We do. Don't quote me on this, but according
to my memory, somewhere--somewhere north of 40 Congressmen,
either prior to office or while in office, have been convicted
of felonies. So let us move on, please, to the people's
business.
It--according to your--to your knowledge--sir, I'm moving
if you need the appropriate staff member to----
Mr. Dodaro. Right.
Mr. Higgins [continuing]. to Medicaid here. I'm very
concerned about it. Last year the Federal portion of Medicaid
spending totaled nearly $400 billion. Additionally, 9.8 percent
of Federal program spending and the $36.2 billion was
attributed to improper payments.
Now, one of our major missions here is to control waste,
fraud, and abuse, mismanagement of moneys, and you and your
staff are brilliant and dedicated to this effort. As the
Medicaid program continues to expand and grow, I'm increasingly
concerned about the program's integrity. In fact, auditors in
my home state of Louisiana have recently identified as much as
$85 million in improper payments. What's the status of CMS's
initiative to reduce improper payments based on your
recommendations?
Mr. Dodaro. They're starting to take some action. They have
a strategy that they put in place, but quite frankly, a lot
more needs to be done. The $36.7 billion that you mentioned in
improper payments is only one component of the components of
improper payments at Medicaid.
The other component, Congressman, is the managed-care
portion, which is about half of the Medicaid spending. Nobody's
auditing that area as well, and we've recommended they do that.
I've talked to Daryl Purpera, your state auditor in
Louisiana, and work with the State Auditors Association to try
to get state auditors more involved, and the Federal Government
should support them.
The other component, the third component, is beneficiary
eligibility determinations. That has not been done by CMS and
the administration since 2014 when the Affordable Care Act put
in place.
Mr. Higgins. Federal legislation fix that?
Mr. Dodaro. Pardon me?
Mr. Higgins. In your opinion, could Federal legislation----
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. I think there ought to be Federal
legislation to give the state auditors a role.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you. I have limited time. I'd like to
move on to Medicare. Both of these programs, it's crucial for
so many millions of Americans that these programs have long-
term sustainability, and this is my concern. Medicare is a
critical lifeline for almost 58 million elderly and disabled
beneficiaries and makes up to 17 percent of total Federal
spending. It's been a high risk program since 1990. In my
remaining 41 seconds please advise America what can we do, as
Members of Congress, to comply with your recommendation, sir,
and save these vital and important programs?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes, first of all, Medicare is on an
unsustainable, long-term fiscal path. By 2026, the trust fund
for the hospital insurance portion will only have 91 cents to
pay on the dollar. We have a number of recommendations where
payments could be equalized between outpatient and the doctor's
office service, and outpatient at a integrated, consolidated
facility at a hospital. Right now they're paid on different
rates, even though you get the same service. There are certain
cancer hospitals that have been grandfathered in to get higher
payments. In other areas, we have a long list of
recommendations we think could help, but this needs
congressional attention.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, sir, for your answer.
Mr. Chairman, thank you, I yield.
Ms. Hill. Thank you so much.
Ms. Pressley?
Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And thank you,
Mr. Dodaro, I appreciate the GAO's comprehensive data
collection and your insights today on the various high risk
areas within the Federal Government. In April 2020, the census
will move to a digital platform to provide online access for
more than 100 million housing units across the country.
Although an online system will undoubtedly improve the
efficiency and accuracy with which the Federal Government can
collect much needed personal information, it also presents
substantial challenges for many congressional districts like
the one that I represent, the Massachusetts Seventh. It is one
of the most unequal in the country, and I maintain that is
because it is underresourced, and that is under because of
undercounting, and the digital divide is still very real.
Based on the latest census estimates 63 percent of Mass 7
residents live in hard-to-count neighborhoods, a figure that is
nearly on par with the 71 percent of people in hard-to-reach
communities nationwide.
Mr. Dodaro, would you agree that the intended goal of the
census is to maintain a fair and accurate count of every person
living in the U.S.?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
Ms. Pressley. What factors, aside from limited to no
internet access, might make communities susceptible to
undercounting, given the methodological changes in the upcoming
census?
Mr. Dodaro. The response rate to the mail survey continues
to be a problematic area. The response rate has gone from 78
percent in the 1970 census, to 63 percent in the 2010 census,
and census is currently estimating that the response rate will
drop even further to 60 percent. So one of the things that's
very important is the get-out efforts by the partnership
efforts in the local communities to get people to fill out the
form. They will have options to do it in a digital way, but
they will have paper options as well.
And so the main thing that can be done is a grassroots
effort that census is trying to work with, with state and local
officials, to get people to fill out the form. And that's a
big--that's a big effort.
Chris Mihm is our expert in this area. I'll ask if he has
other suggestions.
Ms. Pressley. And could you also just give your opinion as
to whether or not this undercounting also contributes--not only
does it contribute to the underresourcing and the allocation of
Federal funds, but does it affect redistricting and
representation as well?
Mr. Dodaro. It could, yes.
Chris?
Ms. Pressley. Okay. And what steps can we take to mitigate
undercounting? I'm sorry.
Mr. Dodaro. Go ahead.
Ms. Pressley. Let me let you go. Go on, Chris.
We have two minutes and 26 seconds, let's get it, let's go.
I'm trying to be effective and efficient here. I'm sorry, Okay,
let's go.
Mr. Mihm. Ma'am, I'm not here to interrupt a Member.
Ms. Pressley. Okay. I'm a fourth Italian, we do that, come
on.
Mr. Mihm. The key thing that Census Bureau needs to do on
the precise issues that you're talking about, is work with
local communities, work with community organizations in those
communities to build confidence in the integrity and the
accuracy of the census. They hire partnership specialists that
come from the communities, that are sensitive to the types of
issues that could result in an undercount. Even when they're
doing the homeless count, they would look to get advocates for
the homeless population----
Ms. Pressley. Okay.
Mr. Mihm [continuing]. that would know where----
Ms. Pressley. Last question. Giving growing anti-immigrant
sentiment and xenophobia, Wilbur Ross proposed that we add an
immigration-status question. This will be the first time in 60
years that that question has been on the census, and how do you
see that having--contributing to undercounting given the fear
that so many immigrants are living under?
Mr. Mihm. We have haven't looked precisely at that
question, ma'am, and that is the question of the citizenship
question. What I can say is that what we have seen in past
censuses, and what concerns us about this, is, any late changes
to census design always induce uncertainty and, therefore,
risk.
The census has to have hundreds of different operations
come together perfectly at a precise point in time once every
decade. Any uncertainty on that is not a good place to be.
Ms. Pressley. Great segue. So do you feel that you're well
positioned and prepared to administer the census from an
operations standpoint and from a staffing standpoint?
Mr. Dodaro. I'll let Chris elaborate, but there is risk at
this point. The next six months is critical. There are hundreds
of security weaknesses, and there are IT systems that haven't
been fully tested. The census has had to scale back on its test
and only really done one test in Providence County, Rhode
Island, when they had multiple sites.
So there hasn't been enough testing, they're trying new
procedures, and the combination of all these things leads to a
risk, which is why we put it on the High Risk List. So there
needs to be a lot more----
Ms. Pressley. Thank you.
Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. done.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you. And I have 10 seconds left, and
I'm just--just curious. Again, my district is one of the most
unequal in the country. It certainly has been impacted by mass
incarceration. One in four in our households has an
incarcerated loved one. Do you support incarcerated individuals
being included according to their home address, not where
they're incarcerated?
Mr. Mihm. That's not something--I know what that issue is.
We haven't actually looked at that from a policy standpoint
because it is a policy call. But we know it is an issue of some
controversy within the Census Bureau, but we haven't looked at
that directly, ma'am.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you.
Ms. Hill. Thank you both.
Mrs. Miller?
Ms. Pressley. I yield.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you, Mr. Dodaro, for being here today and sharing
your report with us. You know better than most the importance
of ensuring our government is running efficiently and that we
need to be good stewards of our taxpayer dollars.
One of my goals in Congress is to make sure that government
is accountable to the people it serves, and your report helps
us show where we can improve.
In your report, under ``retained areas,'' you highlighted
the cost of funding our Nation's infrastructure. As you are
aware, our Nation's infrastructure is in need of repair and
improvement. Worn down, broken roads and bridges pose a safety
risk for travelers across the United States. My own district
experienced this in 1967 when the Silver Bridge across the Ohio
River collapsed, killing 46 people.
Improving our infrastructure ensures that we can connect
our rural and urban areas and continue to get our goods and
services across the United States. It also means economic
development for the communities in our country.
However, to ensure we repair and maintain our Nation's
infrastructure requires a significant investment. Given the
cost of repairs and improvements to our infrastructure, can you
elaborate more on your findings?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. The Highway Trust Fund, for example, on
surface transportation, has not been able to pay the annual
amounts necessary to maintain Federal investment and highway
repairs, for example, since 2008, there's not enough money
being generated through the tax on gas, to be able to do that.
So Congress has had to appropriate additional money.
There's enough money been appropriated to provide funding
to 2020, 2021. After that, there's a big gap. If you want to
maintain spending right now, it's about 45, $50 billion a year,
you'd have to have $158 billion to cover the 2022 to 2029
period. So the whole concept, initially, of our transportation
system, particularly the highway portion, was, it was supposed
to be funded by users, and be self-sufficient over time. That's
no longer the case. And so the Congress needs to deal with the
financing aspect of it.
Ms. Susan Fleming has joined me.
There's also a standpoint of making sure that the
investments by state and local levels produce better results
with the number of discretionary grants and other money that's
there, and she can talk to you about reforms that are under way
there.
Mrs. Miller. Okay. We need to fund our vital
infrastructure, but according to the DOT, only 15 percent of
the roads in California are in good condition, and they have
the second highest gas tax in the country.
Furthermore, about 20 percent, or $8 billion of all
Federal, gas-tax revenue doesn't even go to the roads. Before
we even go to the taxpayers and ask them to give their
government more hard-earned tax dollars, we have to be sure
every dollar is being used efficiently and effectively as
possible. Are there other efficiencies and revenues that you
think that we could use to fund infrastructure other than gas
taxes?
Mr. Dodaro. Well, there's other--if recommendations that we
have to make more efficient use of the money that's there,
particularly the discretionary programs given the state and
local levels, Susan can elaborate.
Ms. Fleming. You know, I think it is a policy call for
Congress about whether or not you want to increase revenues
through additional gas tax or other sources. What we
recommended is to spend the money wisely and efficiently, and
we've applauded the fact that the last two surface
reauthorization bills have required that the Department of
Transportation move toward a performance-based framework. So
basically ensuring that we are getting the best value for the
dollars that are being spent. We're in the early stages of that
framework. DOT has put out rulemaking, and now the states are
in the process to establish targets and to evaluate
performance. So we're optimistic that we're heading in the
right direction.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you very much.
Also, I'd like to shift our focus to the Veterans Health
Administration. As you are aware, in 2014, a scandal broke at
the Phoenix VA where it was found out veterans were dying while
they were waiting for care. We also found the VA was covering
up its extended wait times. This is unacceptable, and has since
shed light on other problems that are facing the Veteran Health
Administration.
I'm very lucky, in my district, we have a great veterans
hospital, the Hershel ``Woody'' Williams VA Medical Center.
However, I want to make sure all veterans across the United
States receive good access to the care they have earned and
deserved. What immediate changes need to be made at the
Veterans Health Administration?
Mr. Dodaro. Ms. Nikki Clowers is our expert in that area.
I'll have her respond.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you.
Ms. Clowers. Representative, one of the things that we've
recommended for them to do is to look at their access standards
that they have for the veterans and make sure that the access
standards they have in place represents the full lifecycle from
when the veteran approaches the medical center for appointment,
to when they're actually seen, to determine how long that is
taking, and then make adjustments based on that, to ensure that
they're getting timely access to the care that they need.
Mrs. Miller. Okay, thank you very much.
Ms. Hill. I want to thank the gentlelady for her remarks on
this issue. It's so important, and I couldn't agree more.
Mr. Green?
Mr. Green. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Ranking Member.
Mr. Dodaro, thank you for being here today, and every
single member of the GAO that's here today, we owe you a big
round of applause. Thank you for your hard work. Digging into
this kind of stuff, it's tough to do. It's hard work. Steady
pencil, some might say ``bean counting,'' but some people would
get offended by that, so I won't say ``bean counting.'' But
you're in there digging out the details, and we have to have
it.
You know, the Army just recently went through its first
audit--its first. I think it's older than the Nation, actually,
the United States Army, and it's just gone through its first
audit. We need you, we're glad for you, we appreciate you.
I served as the CEO of a healthcare company. We had about a
thousand employees when I left the company. And digging in,
doing the Six Sigma the lean analysis to find where we could
make operations better was, you know, bread and butter of our
company. And so I'm especially interested in asking today about
the VA.
I'm also a VA patient and a veteran. And as a physician and
CEO of a healthcare company, watching just the tragedy of the
things that are happening at the VA, breaks my heart. And so my
first question is really just, as I understand it, you guys
have made over the years, the two years that they have been on
this list, 30 different recommendations for the VA to make
changes. And I just wondered, what's their responsiveness to
you in those--on those 30 recommendations?
Mr. Dodaro. They're working on the individual areas. Ms.
Nikki Clowers can give you the details. But the responsiveness
has been slow, and I'm concerned about it. As I mentioned
earlier, I have met with three VA Secretaries--Secretary
McDonald, Secretary Shulkin, Secretary Wilkie. I'm encouraged
by Secretary Wilkie's commitment to work with us in order to
address, not only our recommendations, but the underlying root
causes of why they're on the High Risk List, and to develop a
comprehensive plan for improvement.
You know, so--and we keep finding the same problems over
and over. You know, the VA's on our High Risk List for three
components--healthcare, disability-claims processing, and now
acquisitions and procurement of medical supplies and products
that could be more efficient as well.
They have a huge budget. It's not been for a lack of
resources that they haven't addressed these problems, in my
opinion. But Nikki can tell you. We meet with them monthly to
go over the recommendations, but they need a better plan. They
need stable leadership. They have some of the most entrenched
management problems that I've seen across government, and I've
been around for a long time.
Mr. Green. That's sad to hear, because they have been here
since, I think, 1930. You'd think they'd get some of those
business processes worked out.
Are they allowed to do cooperative purchasing agreements,
like other hospitals in the country are, to band together with
other hospital organizations and purchase in bulk?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
Mr. Green. They are allowed to do that?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
Mr. Green. Okay. And they're just not, or----
Mr. Dodaro. Come on, Michele. She is our expert in
acquisitions at the VA.
Mr. Green. Awesome.
Mr. Dodaro. This is Michele Mackin.
Mr. Green. This is in my strength zone, so----
Mr. Dodaro. Okay.
Mr. Green [continuing]. I'll go in the weeds for a second.
Ms. Mackin. Strategic sourcing, I think, is what you're
talking about----
Mr. Green. Exactly.
Ms. Mackin [continuing]. and we've actually recommended
that the individual medical centers do that in order to
leverage their enormous buying power. I think part of it is a
very decentralized organization, and each local medical center
wants to buy what they want to buy for the clinicians at that
medical center. So they have been a little slower to implement
that for medical supplies, but for other types of supplies,
like some IT goods and services, VA has done strategic sourcing
and saved quite a bit of money.
Mr. Green. Okay. Well, what drives that decisionmaking in
the hospital world outside the VA is the hiring of physicians,
right? So if you're going to purchase a specific spine screw in
order to get that surgeon to come work at your hospital, that
shouldn't be a problem with the VA, I wouldn't think, but----
Mr. Dodaro. Well, what we find, Congressman, when they try
to launch a purchasing program for medical supplies, surgical
supplies, they didn't involve the clinicians as much as they
should have, in deciding what to--what to purchase. And as a
result, you know, 20 percent of their purchasing items are
still done on an emergency basis because they don't have the
competitive process in place to buy in bulk, leverage their
purchasing power. So they're revamping this again, and we'll
see if they come up with a better approach.
Mr. Green. Unfortunately, I think I'm out of time. I've got
about 57 other questions, but----
Ms. Hill. Thank you.
Mr. Green [continuing]. I yield. Thank you for being here.
Ms. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Green.
Mr. Dodaro. We're happy to followup with you later, to talk
about these things.
Ms. Hill. Thank you. And you might have noticed that was
not actually a mistake. It was really because I wanted to make
Mr. Gomez, my colleague from California, wait. But you may now
speak.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you. Madam Chair, I always appreciate the
extra five minutes I'll get at the end of this presentation.
But before I go on, you know, one of my colleagues was
questioning your credibility if you bring up climate change, or
you consider climate change in developing the risk assessment.
I just did a quick Google search, and I looked up the
Department of Defense 2014 Climate Change Adaptation Road Map,
and it says, quote, ``among the future trends that will impact
our national security is climate change.'' So, if the
Department of Defense is looking at climate change, I think
you're in good company, and I think your credibility is well
intact.
But I want to turn to the census. It's an important issue
that's coming up, and you mentioned previously that the
Department only conducted a full, operational test in just one
city--Providence, Rhode Island--as you mentioned. And you also
mentioned some concerns about the--about IT It says, the report
states, I quote, not fully testing innovations in IT systems as
designed increases the risk that innovations in IT systems will
not function as intended during the 2020 census. What are the
risks the census could face from a lack of adequate testing?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. There are many.
Go ahead, Chris.
Mr. Mihm. Sir, just to clarify your question, are you
interested in IT testing or testing overall?
Mr. Gomez. Testing overall.
Mr. Mihm. Okay, testing--testing overall is me.
What the--the big risk there is, as we were discussing with
the Congresswoman, is that this is a once-a-decade operation,
and there are innumerable number of procedures that have to
come together, and if you mess it up, you don't have an
opportunity to step back and say, Okay, we'll do it again in
another six months or so. So the testing needs to be done to
make sure, not just an individual programs work, but they also
all work together under census-like conditions.
That's the importance of doing it in different locations
around the country, with different populations, with different
census-taking strategies, to make sure that it will work when
you actually go live, because there is not a do-over.
Mr. Dodaro. But it could affect the quality and increase
the cost.
Mr. Mihm. Absolutely.
Mr. Gomez. What are the risks of not having tested in the
rural areas, remote communities, and other types? Same thing,
you might not have it just function correctly?
Mr. Dodaro. That's correct. And it's difficult to count in
rural areas to begin with.
Mr. Mihm. It's a separate set of challenges. There, sir, is
that, you know, the key to the census is counting not just each
individual but counting them at their usual residence. And so
you need to make sure that you actually locate them where they
are living, and in some of the most rural parts of the country,
the different address conventions, you know, P.O. Boxes as
opposed to actually street numbers.
The second thing there is that they're going to be--for--
the census takers will be using hand-held computers and that if
you have internet connectivity problems in some of the more
rural areas, that can compromise both the quality and the cost
of the census, as the Controller General mentioned.
Mr. Gomez. And just also, you had just mentioned that
cutting the test to save money would actually end up costing
the U.S. Government more in the long run. Is that correct?
Mr. Dodaro. It potentially can. Because, I mean, we're very
diverse country----
Mr. Gomez. Yes.
Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. as you know, and just testing in
one location doesn't really give you a full range of tests.
Chris mentioned the internet connectivity. It's--it's variable
across the country, particularly in certain areas, and so
that's going to be a problem. So we're very concerned that the
testing hasn't been as robust as you would want to have,
particularly when you're introducing new concepts into the
census.
Mr. Gomez. Do you have a rough estimate of how much it
would cost if things are delayed or we don't hit our----
Mr. Dodaro. Well, the current estimate is $15.6 billion,
and there's some contingencies in there. I'm not sure, you
know, there will be another estimate coming out from the Bureau
soon. We've looked at the estimate, the original estimate, that
was made several years ago, we found, was not comprehensive or
reliable enough. The current one is pretty good.
Mr. Gomez. And so, given the reductions in testing, is
there a risk that the census will not be ready to run an
accurate and secure 2020 census?
Mr. Dodaro. There's risk at this point. The next six months
are critical. I can't give you a final determination, but
there's certainly enough risk to be concerned.
Mr. Gomez. Are we further behind today from the 2020--in
preparation compared to the 2010 census?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes, I'd like to tell you that the censuses in
the past have run like clock work, but they haven't. There's
been problems with almost every one.
Mr. Gomez. But there----
Mr. Dodaro. I've been involved since the 1990 census.
Mr. Gomez. And I noticed that you put it on the 2009 High
Risk----
Mr. Dodaro. The only reason it comes off is because it
actually gets conducted. And, you know, so--you know, I can't
tell you. But I do think, given the new innovations that they
want to put in place, that I do think they're behind where I'd
like to see them be in terms of testing.
Mr. Gomez. So for my next five minutes--I'm kidding, Madam
Chair.
Ms. Hill. Thank you.
Ms. Hill. Thank you.
Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam chairman.
And, Mr. Dodaro, welcome back. I think this is one of the
most important hearings our committee has every year, and
hopefully we can try to double down on working with you to
implement the recommendations contained in your annual report.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez was talking a little bit earlier about
climate change, and good for you in making it one of your high
risk categories. I think the science is quite clear. I heard a
colleague earlier indicate that it was questionable. Maybe for
him but not for the rest of the world. There is a very strong
consensus in the scientific community that it is real.
And as you point out, if you want to argue about the
theology of climate science, go ahead, but real communities in
real America and, for that matter, around the world are looking
at real costs and trying to figure out resilience and retrofit
to protect themselves from the clear consequences of rising sea
levels, changing temperatures, crop changes, and even what
constitutes temperate zones for growing food.
And so I absolutely salute GAO for doing that. It is not a
new item for you, but it is imperative that you be immune from
any political pressure in calling it like you see it.
Another subject that you and I have talked about, this
committee has worked with you very closely on, is, of course,
IT, information technology and the vulnerability of the Federal
Government and, you know, legacy systems, encryption, how we
procure and manage our IT assets.
And I was looking at your report this year, Mr. Dodaro, and
just looking at the cyber part of the IT subject, you have 700
GAO recommendations to agencies addressing cybersecurity risks
that have not yet been implemented. Is that accurate?
Mr. Dodaro. That is accurate.
Mr. Connolly. And of those, 35 are priority recommendations
that you say should receive particular attention from heads of
key departments. And of those 35, 26 have not been implemented.
Is that correct?
Mr. Dodaro. That is correct.
Mr. Connolly. So why haven't they been implemented, from
your point of view? What is going on that we are not making the
kind of progress we should be?
Mr. Dodaro. I am concerned that it is not a priority for
the heads of the departments and the agencies, that there is
not a full understanding of the extent of the vulnerabilities
there, and that they are not held properly accountable for
those areas.
Even where Congress has expressed concerns, in the OPM
situation, for example, they still haven't responded to all of
our recommendations in the area.
Mr. Connolly. Even after the breach----
Mr. Dodaro. Even after the breach, yes.
Mr. Connolly [continuing]. that compromised 24 million
Americans' data. Yes.
Mr. Dodaro. Right. Right.
And so I think Congress should provide more rigorous
oversight and talk to the top leadership of the agencies in
order to deal with this issue. Because year after year, we keep
finding the same problems, as well as the inspector generals.
Now, some of it is part of the not replacing the legacy
systems. But, again, there needs to be some urgency there as
well.
So, I mean, Nick Marinos, our expert, might have other
reasons, but, from my standpoint, if you don't have the
leadership and the top direction, you are not going to solve
this problem, because there are many other competing problems.
Mr. Marinos. Yes, two quick things, Congressman, that I
think you are very familiar with.
One, leadership gets very interested in cybersecurity after
the incident, unfortunately----
Mr. Connolly. Although, not in the case of OPM.
Mr. Marinos. Well, and then what I would also say, too, is
that we also see the average tenure of CIOs generally be around
the two-year point too. So I think that is another challenge
too. You may have committed leadership for a certain period of
time, but generally they don't stick around too long.
Mr. Connolly. So, as you know, we work with GAO on the
quarterly scorecard for compliance with FITARA, which is sort
of the framework legislation governing a lot of this. Let's
make sure that we are--we need your help and input in making
sure that we are adequately addressing the cyber part of it.
And we will be glad to talk to you further about how we do
that.
Mr. Dodaro. Yes, we would be happy to do that. You meant
the Connolly Issa bill, didn't you?
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Dodaro. You are always welcome
in this committee.
Thank you, Madam chair.
Ms. Hill. Thank you.
Mr. Cloud?
Mr. Cloud. Thanks for being here. I really appreciate it,
really appreciate this topic. This seems to me like this is
exactly what this committee should be about. And so I
appreciate you and your team being here.
And I appreciate you preparing a report on waste, fraud,
abuse, and mismanagement in government. It is essential, with
us having a $22 trillion debt and continuing deficit spending,
that we begin to figure out where the problems are. And you
seem to outline a lot of them for us.
I appreciate seeing that some items have come off the list
and others have improved. I think that is the goal. It is kind
of like the endangered species list; the goal is to
rehabilitate and get them off the list eventually. And, in a
sense, that is what has happened in some areas.
But there are some areas that have been there since the
1990's when we first started doing this: the DOD weapons
systems acquisitions, NASA acquisition management, DOE's
contract management for national nuclear security
administration, and Office of Environmental Management--there
is a mouthful for you--enforcement of tax laws.
Can you explain some of the challenges and why we are not
seeing any movement on these?
Mr. Dodaro. For a number of years, you know, we have looked
at--let's take the DOD weapons systems. First thing was to get
better management practices in place. You know, we looked at
how the private sector develops technologies. And what we found
was that DOD, in many cases, was not identifying the
requirements up front and stabilizing the requirements, not
maturing the technologies before they go into production.
So, right now, DOD has, based on our recommendations and
congressional actions, particularly the Acquisition Reform Act
of 2009, imposed in their requirements best practices. But they
are not being followed in all cases.
Now, when they are being followed, and based on our
recommendations, in the weapons systems area, DOD saved $36
billion. But, in most cases, they are not following the best
practices and implementing them properly, as well, over time.
And, as a result, you get a fact where there are cost overruns,
there are schedule delays, and, ultimately, less functionality
gets delivered to the warfighters in the end. So there is an
ultimate price to be paid in this area.
So part of it is not going through a disciplined process on
a consistent basis.
Mr. Cloud. Right.
Mr. Dodaro. The same thing's true in the Department of
Energy. For example, 90 percent of the Department of Energy's
budget goes to contractors. In a lot of cases, I think the
contractors have had the upper hand on DOE, and there hasn't
been enough independent cost estimates that have been done over
time. When these projects change at DOE, they can change by a
decade in terms of schedule delays and the costs can increase
by multiple billions of dollars.
And so we have gotten them to implement now better cost
accounting practices, and, actually, we showed an improvement
in the DOE contracting area.
NASA had been making better progress, but they have
regressed. We downgraded them in their leadership commitment. I
have met with the NASA Administrator. The new human space
flight programs, Congress isn't getting the full cost
information. It is not transparent over time, what needs to be
done. Their portfolio of programs is having more cost overruns
and schedule delays. The James Webb Telescope, for example----
Mr. Cloud. Right.
Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. is years behind, multibillion
dollars over budget. And so they have put together a new action
plan now, but it needs to be implemented over time.
Medicare continues to be problematic, with $48 billion in
improper payments last year. They are getting better attention
to this area. They have increased their staff, focused on it.
But it continues to be very problematic. We have made
recommendations that they seek legislative authority to do more
prepayment audits. Because unless you can stop these improper
payments up front, it is too hard to recover the money
afterwards.
And so we have made a lot of recommendations, but these are
big problems. And we have seen incremental improvements, but
more needs to be done.
Mr. Cloud. Yes. If I may, I only have 30 seconds left,
which is kind of indicative of today's discussion, that we have
34 major programs that you have identified as high risk and
just a couple hours to cover them all.
Do you think it would be helpful--if I could ask a couple
questions to get them in, do you think it would be helpful for
this committee to take each one up in a committee hearing?
Mr. Dodaro. Absolutely.
Mr. Cloud [continuing]. oversight to it, that would be
essential?
Mr. Dodaro. Absolutely. And where we have seen progress,
congressional hand has been at play.
Mr. Cloud. Right.
Mr. Dodaro. So it is instrumental to making these--I am
happy to come back, and our team, talk about each of these
areas individually.
Mr. Cloud. And then one of the criteria that is on this
list is that it has to be in danger of losing a billion
dollars, because I guess anything less than that just doesn't
count as government waste anymore. But is that a helpful
metric? Or what metric should we be looking at?
Mr. Dodaro. Well----
Ms. Hill. The gentleman's time has expired, but you can
answer the question.
Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. that is the one quantifiable
measure we use, but we have many qualitative measures: the
impact on the economy, on public safety and health, the impact
on national security and other factors. And so many of the
areas are on there not solely because of the dollar exposures
but because of their importance to the American people.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you. I wish we had more time, but I
appreciate you being here, you and your team.
Thanks.
Ms. Hill. Thank you both.
I recognize myself for five minutes.
My questions are a followup around the VA issues. It is a
huge issue in my district; it is personal for me.
I am concerned that the VA is failing to make progress on
long-overdue reforms that are necessary to provide the best
possible healthcare to more than 9 million veterans. The
administration has said that veterans health is a priority, but
this report suggests that actions haven't exactly matched up
with that.
The report finds that many of the VA problems stem from a
lack of clearly established goals. Your report says, quote,
``Though the Department took steps to establish offices, work
groups, and initiatives to address its high risk designation,
many of these efforts are either in the initial stages of
development or resources have not been allocated.''
And this is a yes-or-no question. Mr. Dodaro, is the VA
moving fast enough to address its high risk designation?
Mr. Dodaro. I don't believe so.
Ms. Hill. Okay. Why do you believe that resources are not
being allocated more quickly?
Mr. Dodaro. Well, they basically have difficulties with
their resource allocation process, which was one of the reasons
we put them on the High Risk List.
Ms. Clowers, who is our expert in this area, can elaborate.
Ms. Hill. Just briefly.
Ms. Clowers. Certainly.
As the Comptroller said, they, in terms of capacity--this
is the area that you mentioned--there are a number of
activities that are ongoing, but they really just started in
the last six months, and we need to watch them mature to make
sure they have the right resources, both people and attention,
on these issues.
Ms. Hill. Okay. Great.
And is this something that you believe our committee needs
to be involved in, in addition to----
Mr. Dodaro. Absolutely.
Ms. Hill. Okay.
So, given the lack of an adequate action plan, in your
report, it states that the VA's action plan did not include all
goals and substantive actions taken.
What are the risks of a subpar action plan?
Mr. Dodaro. The risks are the problems will continue, which
is what we have seen. Our reports and the report of the
inspector general from VA continue to find the same type of
problems regardless of what we look at.
Ms. Hill. Great.
The GAO also reported that the VA's Veterans Health
administration lacked sufficient data to monitor whether
veterans are getting timely access to the Veterans Choice
Program. Today's report states that the veterans who are
referred to the Veterans Choice Program, quote, ``could
potentially wait for care up to 70 calendar days if the maximum
amount of time allowed by VA processes is used.''
Mr. Dodaro, is it true that wait times this long exceed the
maximum limits under the law?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. The maximum limits under the law are 30
days.
Ms. Hill. And what do you believe needs to be done around
this?
Mr. Dodaro. Well, we have made some recommendations. They
need to clarify their wait-time rules; they need to train their
people properly; and they need to followup and monitor
effectively to make sure that is being adhered to.
They also need to change their processes. One of the things
they did with the Choice Act is they involved an intermediary
between VA and the eventual providers, which just built in an
additional layer of bureaucracy and delay.
Ms. Hill. Thank you.
The VA estimates that every day 20 veterans die by suicide.
Some veterans have committed suicide at the very VA hospitals
where they have come to receive care.
Each of these deaths is a tragedy, and last year the VA
declared that suicide prevention is its highest clinical
priority. Just yesterday, President Trump announced a new task
force to provide recommendations for this ongoing tragedy.
But the high risk report makes it clear that this is an
additional problem. Do you agree?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. We issued a report; Nikki can talk about
it. But, you know, they are trying to right the ship now in
that area and make it a priority, but there was funds that were
unspent for a period of time back, and--but it needs continued
attention.
Ms. Hill. That is what I want to highlight, is that the
social media and the media outreach campaign around veteran
suicide prevention had a massive decline, including the VHA's
contractor for social media content around this issue dropped
from 339 pieces in 2016 to just 47 pieces in 2018, a decline of
more than 85 percent. And as many of my colleagues know, 339
pieces of social media is not a lot, in general.
And, additionally, the GAO found that the VA expected to
spend just $1.5 million out of $6.2 million obligated for
suicide prevention in Fiscal Year 2018. As of September 2018,
GAO found that the VA had only spent $57,000 of the obligated
$1.5 million in outreach, making it unlikely that they spent
much more.
So today's report concludes that the VA's failure to do
more aggressive outreach is, quote, ``inconsistent with VHA's
efforts to reduce veteran suicides,'' which is the VA's highest
clinical priority. Is that correct?
Ms. Clowers. It is.
Ms. Hill. And what additional steps should the VA take to
improve outreach to veterans and do a better job of preventing
suicides?
Ms. Clowers. One of our recommendations was for them to
clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the leadership
office there. One of the contributing factors that we saw in
the decline of the effort was a gap in leadership. So the
position for that office remained open for a number of months,
and then they had an acting person in charge. And what VA told
us was they didn't feel like they had the authority to move
forward until you saw these efforts decline.
The other recommendation that we made is for them to
establish performance targets for their efforts. They do
collect a number of metrics on their outreach efforts, but they
lack the targets to know whether it is good or bad. So the
contractor will tell them there are 20,000 hits on a website,
but you don't know if that is what they wanted to achieve.
Ms. Hill. I know I am over. Is there a timeline for these
improvements? Because veterans are dying at a rate of 20
veterans per day from suicide.
Ms. Clowers. VA told us they agreed with the
recommendations and would implement them in 2019.
Ms. Hill. Thank you so much.
Recognizing Mr. Armstrong.
Mr. Armstrong. Thank you.
So I am looking at the report, and I want to talk about the
$23 million that could be economically captured from flared
gas. And this isn't about environmental--there are lots of
reasons we don't want to flare natural gas.
Mr. Dodaro. Right.
Mr. Armstrong. But I think we can assume that this is gas
associated with oil wells, because nobody's drilling a gas well
to flare the gas.
So one of my questions--and this is one of the things
either--I have had this conversation; we have dealt with it a
lot in North Dakota.
So, today, oil is trading at $56 a barrel. Gas is at $2.88,
but just for simplicity, we are going to use $3 in MCF. And so
a typical well in the Bakken is 500/500--500 barrels of oil,
500 MCF. And typical Federal lease is 20-percent royalty. Is
that about right?
Mr. Gaffigan. It depends, but, yes, that is in the
neighborhood.
Mr. Armstrong. So, in order to capture that--if a well
produces 500 barrels a day, 500 MCF a day, the royalty on the
oil would be $5,600 a day, the royalty on the gas would be $300
a day. So, in a month, it'd be $168,000 in oil royalties,
$9,000 in gas. In a year, it would be just around $2 million in
oil royalties versus $109,000 in royalties on gas.
And the reason the gas is flared is because the Federal
Government doesn't build the infrastructure to get the gas, so
natural companies don't go to get it. But if you are losing 20
percent, whoever's drilling the oil well is losing 80 percent.
And so they are making an economic decision to do that.
So if you shut down that oil well for a day because you
have to, because the only way to capture the gas is to get a
pipe in the ground, get a processing plant midstream or
upstream, so you lose that 500 barrels of oil a day, and you
turn the well back on the next day, you don't get the oil back
then. You only get 500--if you shut the well down on Monday,
you lose 500 barrels. But when you turn it back on on Tuesday,
you only get 500 barrels of oil again on Tuesday, right? I
mean, you don't produce twice as much on Tuesday.
And the reason I ask that is, just purely from a revenue
collection standpoint, you don't get the money back on the
royalty for oil and gas until end of life of the oil well. So
if you have to shut that oil well down for a month to capture
the gas royalties, you lose all of the oil royalties at the
same time.
I mean, am I correct?
Mr. Gaffigan. So I think you are as good a bean counter as
we are, in following all that.
But the point we are making in our report is the methane
rule, the methane emissions rule, which BLM worked on for a
number of years. And the point of that was to look where it
economically made sense and you could bring in the technology
to reduce the amount of emissions that were vented. So, for
example, if you had leaks in the system, you would use the
infrared technology to try to identify that.
So I think that is what the methane rule was about and we
talk about in our high risk report. And that rule was developed
and finalized in November, I believe, and then later revoked by
an Executive order. And we felt that was a step back, because
it didn't--and was replaced by another rule which didn't allow
for that calculation. In other words, it just assumed that it
was too costly to do it, whereas the rule prior had folks take
a look at whether it was costly and made sense to do it. That
was the issue around the methane rule.
Mr. Armstrong. But you are not putting the technology in. I
mean, the premise is still the same. Every dollar you lose in
gas at $3 in MCF on an associated oil well, there is a $56-a-
barrel----
Mr. Gaffigan. Oh, absolutely. And we know in the Bakken
that oil is the name of the game. The infrastructure is not
there. In North Dakota, you know, there was a lot of initial
boon from the fracking there in the shale, in that play. And
the concern, even in North Dakota, was to, you know, figure out
what they could do with the gas.
And, again, this is a rule that applies across the country.
And where applicable, the idea was: See if it makes economic
sense and we have the technology to try to reduce the amount of
emissions. So it wasn't just in North Dakota; it was across the
Nation.
Mr. Armstrong. No, I mean, I understand that. But I think
we are still talking about associated--I mean, regardless of
whether it is here or the Eagle Ford or----
Mr. Gaffigan. Sure.
Mr. Armstrong [continuing]. the Powder River, it doesn't
matter where, I mean, when you are talking about gas in this
context, you are talking about associated gas.
And when you say ``we'' have the technology, who do you
mean has the technology? I mean, it is not the Federal
Government.
Mr. Gaffigan. No. It is the producer of the oil. It is the
producer of the oil and natural gas. Sure.
Mr. Armstrong. And the same--just one more, and then----
Mr. DeSaulnier.[Presiding.] Please, go ahead.
Mr. Armstrong. The same premise would, I mean, apply to
that as well. I mean, if you are losing 20 percent, they are
losing 80 percent.
Mr. Gaffigan. Yes. And I don't think--again, I don't think
the rule necessarily referred to the actual production. If
there is no market for the natural gas, you are allowed to
flare it, right? The associated gas.
Mr. Armstrong. There are a lot of reasons not to flare gas,
and----
Mr. Gaffigan. Right.
Mr. Armstrong [continuing]. and there are a lot of reasons
not to flare gas.
Mr. Gaffigan. Right.
Mr. Armstrong. I mean, when you are dealing with associated
gas in an oil well, I don't think the economics is one of them.
Mr. Gaffigan. Yes.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Mr. Armstrong, I can tell your passion for
this issue. It is understandable. But your time is up. We are
going to recognize Ms. Norton.
Mr. Gaffigan. Well, we would be happy to meet with you
further to discuss it.
Mr. DeSaulnier. I am sure he'll take you up on that.
Mr. Gaffigan. All right. I will bring my calculator.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Ms. Norton?
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Dodaro, it looks as though the census is off to a very
tough start. Major litigation involving citizenship status,
that could affect the census, I believe going to the Supreme
Court. And all at a time when, for the first time, we will be
taking the census online. That really would seem to me to
essentially take you to redesigning how you do the census, but
let me see if that is the case.
Any idea of what percentage, what proportion of Americans
will be going online to fill out their census form?
Mr. Mihm. Ma'am, I will have to get you that information.
We will get it to you right after the----
Ms. Norton. I wish you would. Because when you consider
that most people are used to the paper census and you are
having to prepare for online, I am beginning to wonder about
this census in many ways.
Mr. Mihm. Yes, Ms. Norton, if people don't respond on the
census, then they will get a paper form after that. And so they
will have the two options. But we will get you the answer to
the question you are asking.
Ms. Norton. Yes, but I am worried about those who do
respond. And I am worried about your testing and the delays,
the compressed time there was for testing. Why was the time
compressed for testing?
Mr. Mihm. Initially, they argued that they had some budget
issues. Now, the budget issues have largely been resolved for
2018 and 2019. In fact, they have gotten even more than what
they were looking for. But there were some budget constraints
in the early years.
Ms. Norton. Do you have enough funds to do the census
right, Mr. Dodaro?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. The Bureau believes that the funding that
they have for this year is adequate.
Ms. Norton. I am interested in whether the delays we have
experienced will turn up or lead to problems in the census
going forward. The end-to-end test, as it is called, in 2018,
did it meet its key milestones?
Mr. Mihm. It met the key milestones, but it was reduced,
ma'am, as you mentioned in, you know, the premise to your
question.
The biggest challenge that they face going forward is that
they have all these various operations that have to come
together at precisely the right moment for a once-a-decade
operation. And so, just like you are talking about with the
internet option, any time you are introducing new ideas and new
ways, even when they make sense, you know, such as like an
internet option, it does entail a degree of risk.
And so that is why, throughout the decade, you want to have
a very robust testing process to make sure that you are testing
the census under different conditions, different places around
the country, different population groups, because you want to
make sure that your testing captures the diversity of the
Nation.
Ms. Norton. Well, did you test it online? Did you test it
with respect to paper ballots? Because it looks like there are
going to be two censuses.
Mr. Mihm. Well, the way it will work, ma'am, is that, at
least under the current design, there will be the--similar to
the last census, there will be a postcard that will go out
ahead of time reminding--in that case, it was just alerting
people, in the 2010 census, alerting you, be on the lookout for
your form. This time, it will tell you you have the option to
answer online.
For those that do not answer online after a period of time,
I mean, just a matter of a couple of weeks or so, then they
will be getting the paper. And then after that is when the
census-takers will come if you have not done either online or
the paper.
The big challenge there is just because of all the concerns
about even a reduced response rate overall, that it is going to
require more hiring, more followup of the census-takers, a
population that may not be, just because of survey fatigue and
other reasons, may not be as willing to or able to respond to
the census. So that is----
Ms. Norton. Oh, surely.
Mr. Mihm [continuing]. going to put an extra burden on what
they call their nonresponse followup operation.
Ms. Norton. Surely. It is hard enough getting people to
respond once. When they may have to respond twice, I must say I
am concerned.
Mr. Mihm. Well, the challenge there, ma'am, is exactly what
you are saying, is that the Census Bureau is going to have in
place--and they have been working very hard on this--what they
call the de-duplication. In the risk that one of us would
respond on the internet and then try and respond on the paper,
the Census Bureau has to have in place procedures and automated
processes to make sure that they can de-duplicate. And they
have been working very hard on that.
Mr. Dodaro. Right.
My team also tells me, Representative Norton, that the
Census Bureau estimates 45 percent of the households will
respond online.
Ms. Norton. That is huge.
Mr. Dodaro. If that happens, that is one way to reduce the
cost, because you won't have to send people door-to-door to do
that. So we will have to see what the actual experience is, but
that is the current estimate.
Ms. Norton. Your report says, and here I am quoting, that
the 2020 census lacks a risk assessment and certain best
scheduling practices.
Now, given how you have testified about what I will call
the dual census, is there time to get to best practices to be
assured that this dual way of doing the census will, in fact,
work?
Mr. DeSaulnier. Ms. Norton, your time has expired.
But the gentleman, please, go ahead and answer.
Mr. Dodaro. The next six months are critical,
Representative Norton, and that will tell you whether they are
going to have adequate testing in time or not. We are
concerned, but the next six months will tell the tale.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, if I could say, I do think, if
the next six months is when we are going to learn something,
that we need perhaps in the next three months another hearing.
Mr. DeSaulnier. I agree.
I am going to recognize myself for five minutes and agree
with my friend from Virginia. Mr. Dodaro, this is one of my
favorite hearings. To your staff, I know you don't get
acknowledged, in my view, nearly enough for the work you do.
But I just want to go on the record and acknowledge that, in
spite of your shameless comment to Mr. Connolly.
So the Center for Disease Control has done a study on so-
called diseases of despair. They are a very large problem in
this country. And in relation to that--and we are going to have
a hearing tomorrow that you will not be at, but Ms. McNeil will
be here--why--in reading why you put our efforts in to prevent
drug abuse, why did you put that in the emerging category?
And I would like to say, too, in our discussions with you
and the Governors Association, opioids, in the bills that we
got passed in a bipartisan level, I was able to put three or
four amendments in there with Republican colleagues about
metrics and performance standards. We are spending $30 billion
a year on this. It costs--just the opioid crisis costs us $500
billion.
The fact that this is emerging at the same time that we are
in a bipartisan effort trying to assert ourselves in this
raises large concerns for me. Could you respond to that,
please?
Mr. Dodaro. Sure. Well, you know, one of the factors that
we consider is public safety. And this is an area that is very
concerning. It was mentioned earlier that there are 70,000
deaths from drug overdoses every year. That is 119 people a
day. And the situation is getting worse, rather than better,
despite all the efforts.
For the last two years, for 2017 and 2018, there was no
national strategy. There was no official in charge of the
Office of Drug Control Policy. So I became very concerned. And
I have held forums on this issue where we brought a lot of
experts together from the provider community, from the
treatment community, from law enforcement, and we talked about
the challenges associated with this.
So I think the challenges are huge. We are doing more work
in this area. So we put it sort of in a category of, you know,
we are considering putting this on the High Risk List and that
we are watching it very closely.
And if we think that the--like, the national strategy, for
example, our preliminary observations are it doesn't cover all
the things you would want to have in a national strategy, you
know. And our witness will talk about that tomorrow at your
hearing. But we have already found some deficiencies in that
national strategy that we think need attention.
So this is a very worrisome area to people. You know, as a
parent and now a grandparent, I have worried about this with my
own children going forward. And so I think it is deserving of
special attention if it warrants it.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Well, we will go into this more tomorrow.
But in relation to previous administrations, going back through
multiple presidencies, Republican and Democrats, we have put a
lot of effort nationally, at the state level, at the local
level into this.
The report that we will talk about tomorrow is 23 pages, I
think. There is only a page that refers to metrics and
performance standards. I thought it was fairly appalling,
having been involved in this field for some time.
So it seems to be more than emerging. This is a real--it
was a crisis before. We have recognized this as a crisis since
President Reagan was Governor--was President. Sorry.
Californian. Freudian slip.
What can we do in more than a hearing tomorrow? We have
plenty of performance metrics now. The public health system
does, CDC does, but they are daunting, to make sure that we are
on top of this.
And, again, in context of a bipartisan effort, particularly
on the opioid side, to intervene and support public health
officials, it strikes me that two years and a lack of
specificity on performance standards and metrics in reference
to those that have been built on by previous administrations is
rather appalling and would make me think it should be high
risk.
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. Well, again, we made this determination,
you know, a couple months ago, before we saw the national
strategy and had a chance to evaluate it.
So the one thing I will tell you is that we don't normally
have to wait a full two years for the next update to put
something on the High Risk List. I put on a number of issues
out of cycle to the High Risk List in this area.
We have 30 open recommendations that need to be addressed
in this area. And once we have some work underway not only in
the national strategy but a number of other areas, as soon as
we finish this body of work this year, I will make a
determination of whether to officially add it or not.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Well, I look forward to having further
conversations outside the committee on this. Some of those
performance standards asked you and the National Academy of
Sciences to help with best practices in this regard, to make
sure that the efforts we have made actually show real results
as soon as possible. Because the urgency of almost 200 people a
day losing their lives speaks for itself.
Mr. Dodaro. I couldn't agree with you more, Congressman.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you. Thanks again.
I now want to recognize Ms. Tlaib.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you, chairman.
Thank you. Eighteen years. That is amazing. I have only
been here two months, and I just want to commend you for
sticking around for 18 years to run the GAO. I really commend
you.
Mr. Dodaro. Well, actually, this is my 46th year at GAO.
Ms. Tlaib. Oh, it is--they put 18 years.
Mr. Dodaro. No, I know I look younger, but I----
Ms. Tlaib. That is amazing. Forty-six.
Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
Ms. Tlaib. Congratulations. And I have only heard
incredible things about you, your integrity. And I appreciate
that service.
So I am really concerned about the Environmental Protection
Agency, the EPA, that it is not meeting its obligation.
I think, for me, you know, I come from Michigan. And from
the lack of response with the Flint tragedy that continues
impacting so many children and families to this day, to the
fact that I have some of the most polluted ZIP Codes in the
state of Michigan from, you know, bringing in, piping in the
tar sands from Canada, and they produce the petroleum coke, and
the coke/carbon company dumped it on the riverfront, and, as a
former state legislator, trying to contact the EPA for some
sort of response.
And so, when I read part of your report, you identified and
used the word, I think--you identified the EPA's process for
assessing and controlling toxic chemicals as a high risk area
and that you--I think in there is quoted saying ``regressed,''
that the EPA's efforts have regressed over the past two years.
And you should know, this morning, we just had a hearing on
PFAS and the fact that, even then, everybody recognized it is
dangerous, it is an impact on public health, we need to do
something about it, but, again, there seems to be a lack of
action on the EPA.
So I am wondering, you know, what is the IRIS program? What
are some of the things that you are mentioning here? And if you
can provide some sort of feedback to me, as a legislator, what
I need to be doing from my end to hold the administration
accountable.
Mr. Dodaro. Sure. I will start, and Mr. Gaffigan is our
expert in this area. He can add.
First, the IRIS program is the program the EPA uses to
assess the hazard assessment of the chemicals and actually
produces a toxicity estimate, a number. And that is then used
not only by EPA programs in regional offices to then assess
whether or not to regulate it and how to regulate it, if they
do, it is used by state and local officials and others. So it
is really intended to be the starting process for assessing a
chemical's capabilities.
Now, one of the changes that we had recommended in the past
that Congress has finally improved, in the Toxic Substances
Control Act, to now require EPA, under the new requirements,
has to approve a chemical in advance. Previous to that, they
had to prove it was problematic. And so the burden has shifted.
So the EPA needs to implement the TSCA requirements too, the
new amendments to the law.
But the IRIS program also is a starting point for that
area, and we have a number of recommendations underway. They
have improved the process, but right now they haven't been
transparent in how many assessments they are going to do and
what has happened to assessments that were already through many
parts of the process. In some cases, they have been assessing
the process since the 1990's.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes.
Mr. Dodaro. And so it is not transparent enough, and it is
not clear how they are going to apply the resources necessary
to do this.
You know, we labeled them as regressed for two reasons.
One, the leadership of EPA hasn't been as outspoken about this
as a priority than the previous administration was. And,
second, they proposed budget cuts for the IRIS program. Now,
Congress didn't go along with the budget cuts and kept the
resources at the 2017 levels. But it is not clear how those
resources are going to be used and how the assessments will be
prioritized going forward.
Ms. Tlaib. So, you know, is this about the lack of
capacity? Or is it, you know--when you say ``since the
1990's,'' I have heard even other horror things of not being
able to get something that is toxic on the toxic list for the
EPA. Is it--you know, because I think it goes beyond the
capacity. It is also the will or some political courage. Can
you talk a little bit about that?
Mr. Dodaro. Sure.
Mr. Gaffigan. Sure. I think as the Comptroller General
said, we felt they regressed in the leadership part of things.
And so we felt all along that there needed to be some
congressional action to help improve the authorities that EPA
had to do this, and so the 2016 act did provide them that.
And so we have been doing a series of work following how
they are doing in the implementation. And we just released a
report on Monday that really sort of highlights the importance
of staying on top of the leadership and ensuring transparency
throughout the process.
Very simply, to take the IRIS program, in May 2018, they
had 20 chemicals on a list ready to go. They had talked. They
checked in with the program offices. They all said they had
their--this is what they still wanted. They had the resources
to do it.
They were told in June to hold up, by leadership. They were
told not to work on any of the assessments.
In August, they sent out a survey to the offices again
asking, these 20, do you still want them? Survey results said,
yes, we do.
The then-leadership later asked, well, prioritize within
these and limit, you know, to three or four. But they provided
no criteria for the program offices to decide, well, how do we
prioritize?
The next thing they know, there is a list published in
December, has 11 chemicals on it. Four chemicals which were on
that list of 20, which were ready for peer review at stage
four, disappeared. There was no explanation as to what
happened.
And so that speaks to the lack of transparency. And that
really comes from leadership. I think they have an opportunity
to make decisions, but they need to be transparent about it.
Otherwise, it raises the questions of, why did this happen?
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you, Mr. Chairman
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you.
That is our last member who would like to speak. I want to
thank you again for your fine work and all your staff's work.
We really appreciate it. And we appreciate you for the
testimony today.
Without objection, all members will have five legislative
days within which to submit additional written questions for
the witnesses to the chair, which will be forwarded to the
witnesses for their responses.
I ask our witnesses to please respond as promptly as you
are able.
Mr. DeSaulnier. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:19 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]
| MEMBERNAME | BIOGUIDEID | GPOID | CHAMBER | PARTY | ROLE | STATE | CONGRESS | AUTHORITYID |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clay, Wm. Lacy | C001049 | 8009 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | MO | 116 | 1654 |
| Lynch, Stephen F. | L000562 | 7974 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | MA | 116 | 1686 |
| Wasserman Schultz, Debbie | W000797 | 7892 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | FL | 116 | 1777 |
| Foxx, Virginia | F000450 | 8028 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | NC | 116 | 1791 |
| Sarbanes, John P. | S001168 | 7978 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | MD | 116 | 1854 |
| Jordan, Jim | J000289 | 8094 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | OH | 116 | 1868 |
| Welch, Peter | W000800 | 8204 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | VT | 116 | 1879 |
| Speier, Jackie | S001175 | 7817 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | CA | 116 | 1890 |
| Connolly, Gerald E. | C001078 | 8202 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | VA | 116 | 1959 |
| Gosar, Paul A. | G000565 | 7798 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | AZ | 116 | 1992 |
| Amash, Justin | A000367 | 7988 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | MI | 116 | 2029 |
| Gibbs, Bob | G000563 | 8108 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | OH | 116 | 2049 |
| Massie, Thomas | M001184 | 8371 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | KY | 116 | 2094 |
| Meadows, Mark | M001187 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | NC | 116 | 2142 | |
| Kelly, Robin L. | K000385 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | IL | 116 | 2190 | |
| DeSaulnier, Mark | D000623 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | CA | 116 | 2227 | |
| Hice, Jody B. | H001071 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | GA | 116 | 2237 | |
| Lawrence, Brenda L. | L000581 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | MI | 116 | 2252 | |
| Grothman, Glenn | G000576 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | WI | 116 | 2276 | |
| Comer, James | C001108 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | KY | 116 | 2297 | |
| Khanna, Ro | K000389 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | CA | 116 | 2308 | |
| Cooper, Jim | C000754 | 8152 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | TN | 116 | 231 |
| Krishnamoorthi, Raja | K000391 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | IL | 116 | 2325 | |
| Higgins, Clay | H001077 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | LA | 116 | 2329 | |
| Raskin, Jamie | R000606 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | MD | 116 | 2332 | |
| Norman, Ralph | N000190 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | SC | 116 | 2361 | |
| Gomez, Jimmy | G000585 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | CA | 116 | 2362 | |
| Cloud, Michael | C001115 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | TX | 116 | 2369 | |
| Hill, Katie | H001087 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | CA | 116 | 2379 | |
| Rouda, Harley | R000616 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | CA | 116 | 2382 | |
| Pressley, Ayanna | P000617 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | MA | 116 | 2405 | |
| Tlaib, Rashida | T000481 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | MI | 116 | 2410 | |
| Armstrong, Kelly | A000377 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | ND | 116 | 2417 | |
| Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandria | O000172 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | NY | 116 | 2427 | |
| Green, Mark E. | G000590 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | TN | 116 | 2442 | |
| Roy, Chip | R000614 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | TX | 116 | 2449 | |
| Miller, Carol D. | M001205 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | WV | 116 | 2460 | |
| Cummings, Elijah E. | C000984 | 7982 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | MD | 116 | 256 |
| Maloney, Carolyn B. | M000087 | 8075 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | NY | 116 | 729 |
Disclaimer:
Please refer to the About page for more information.