U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

93–835 PDF 2015

TRANSFORMING FEDERAL SPENDING: IMPLEMENTING THE DIGITAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND 

TRANSPARENCY ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

DECEMBER 3, 2014 

Serial No. 113–161 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://www.house.gov/reform 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOC HASTINGS, Washington 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

TONY CARDENAS, California 

STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

LAWRENCE J. BRADY, Staff Director 

JOHN D. CUADERES, Deputy Staff Director 

STEPHEN CASTOR, General Counsel 

LINDA A. GOOD, Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on December 3, 2014 ........................................................................ 1 

WITNESSES 

The Hon.Mark Warner, a U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 6 

The Hon. Rob Portman, a U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 9 

The Hon. Gene L. Dodaro, Comptroller General of the U.S., U.S. Government 

Accontability Office 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 13 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 15 

The Hon. David Mader, Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management, 

White House Office of Management and Budget 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 44 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 46 

Mr. David Lebryk, Fiscal Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 52 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 55 

APPENDIX 

Dec. 2, 2014 letter from AICPA, submitted by Mr. Issa ....................................... 84 

Letter from Ann Ebberts, Chief Executive Officer, AGA to Mr. Issa and 

Mr. Cummings ...................................................................................................... 88 

(1) 

TRANSFORMING FEDERAL SPENDING: IMPLEMENTING THE DIGITAL ACCOUNTABILITY 

AND TRANSPARENCY ACT 

Wednesday, December 3, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, WASHINGTON, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:36 a.m., in room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Darrell E. Issa (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Issa, Jordan, Chaffetz, Walberg, 

Lankford, Amash, Meehan, DesJarlais, Gowdy, Farenthold, 

Woodall, Massie, Meadows, DeSantis, Cummings, Maloney, Norton, 

Tierney, Lynch, Connolly, Speier, Kelly, Davis and Grisham. 

Staff present: Ali Ahmad, Professional Staff Member; Will L. 

Boyington, Deputy Press Secretary; Molly Boyl, Deputy General 

Counsel and Parliamentarian; Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director; 

Adam P. Fromm, Director of Member Services and Committee Operations; Linda Good, Chief Clerk; Mark D. Marin, Deputy Staff 

Director for Oversight; Katy Rother, Counsel; Laura L. Rush, Deputy Chief Counsel; Jessica Seale, Digital Director; Andrew Shult, 

Deputy Digital Director; Katy Summerlin, Press Assistant; Sarah 

Vance, Assistant Clerk; Peter Warren, Legislative Policy Director; 

Rebecca Watkins, Communications Director; Meghan Berroya, Minority Chief Investigative Counsel; Krista Boyd, Minority Deputy 

Director of Legislation/Counsel; Aryele Bradford, Minority Press 

Secretary; Kelly Chryst, Minority Counsel; Jennifer Hoffman, Minority Communication Director; Elisa LaNier, Minority Director of 

Operations; Juan McCullum, Minority Clerk; and Dave Rapallo, 

Minority Staff Director. 

Chairman ISSA. The committee will come to order. 

The Oversight Committee exists to secure two fundamental principles. First, Americans have a right to know that the money 

Washington takes from them is well spent, and second, Americans 

deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them. Our 

duty on the Government Reform Committee is to protect these 

rights. Our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable 

to taxpayers because taxpayers have a right to know what they get 

from their government. 

It is our job to work tirelessly in partnership with citizen watchdogs, the general accountability office, the inspector generals, and 

others to help bring genuine reform to the Federal bureaucracy. 

This is our mission, this is our passion, and this is why today we 

are celebrating that over the past 4 years, on a bipartisan basis, 
2 

the committee’s majority and minority have taken up and moved 

several bills designed to reform government. 

Without a doubt, one of the most important transparency reform 

initiatives done by this committee has been the DATA Act. The 

DATA Act is the first shot in what should be a technological revolution that will transform how we govern. Shortly before we sent 

the DATA Act to the President for his signature in May, the GAO 

comptroller general Gene Dodaro came before this committee and 

testified that the status of Federal program data is abysmal. Agencies have no standardized performance metrics for programs. Agencies cannot tell us how many programs they even have. 

But most importantly, agencies do not and usually cannot tell us 

or know themselves how much taxpayer money has been spent or 

given to a particular program. Spending information that has been 

provided has been historically incomplete, out of date, and most 

often inaccurate. We in the transparency world recognize that you 

have a right to know, that the American people have a right to 

know, that your leaders in Congress have a right to know, but 

what we are talking about with the DATA Act is management 

within the executive branch has the greatest single need to know, 

and if they can’t tell us, that means they can’t be told for their 

management purposes. 

Today we are joined by the comptroller general who again will 

discuss his initial work on DATA Act implementation and update 

us on the status of problems DATA is designed to address. The 

American people deserve to know if Federal taxpayers are being 

wasted, or being wisely spent, but the performance information collected today is almost useless because we cannot determine the 

amount of resources a program actually consumes. 

There is an expression that is not used in government but it is 

used in business, and Senator Warner, who joins us today, very 

well knows this. You must be able to count if you are able to manage. The absence of the ability to count performance is the absence 

of ability to receive performance. This is true in a sales force. This 

is true in every single individual that works for a company. People 

want to be evaluated not based on somebody’s opinion but based 

on facts. Performance data is essential in good management both 

in the private sector and in government. 

To better oversee the Federal Government, Congress and the 

President have appointees that must be able to better leverage 

technology, particularly appointees of a president who come in and 

stay for 2 to 4, maybe up to 8 years, come in from the outside world 

where they are used to knowing and getting worthwhile data. They 

are usually shocked that they ask career professionals for answers 

and the career professionals give them answers based on years of 

experience but not based on quantitative and measurable data. The 

DATA Act is possibly going to change that if it is properly implemented. 

By compelling agencies to report their financial information in 

standard formats, the policymakers in Congress and in the executive branch will have the information necessary to truly make informed decisions. More importantly, we can give the American people better information to evaluate the Government’s performance 

for them. 
3 

The bill directs the Department of Treasury and the White 

House office of management and budgets to establish these data 

standards and otherwise implement the law. Today we are joined 

by senior officials from both agencies charged with the implementation of the DATA Act. Under the Act, Treasury Department is authorized to establish a cutting edge data analysis center modeled 

on the successful recovery operation center better known as the 

ROC. The DATA Act calls on Treasury to build on innovative technology and ideas, the ROC that were used in the ROC, and extend 

its applications to spending across the Federal Government. 

The DATA Act specifically provides for the transfer of technology 

currently in place at the ROC. If Treasury acts to establish the new 

data analysis center, it will be a vital tool of law enforcement agency and the inspector generals in their investigations. The center 

will also help agencies protect against improper payments. 

Today we will hear from Treasury Department officials about the 

progress in establishing the center. We also expect to hear from 

OMB about progress made toward establishing a pilot program to 

develop consolidated reporting for receipts and Federal funds. 

Hundreds of billions of Federal taxpayer dollars are spent by 

State, local, and tribal governments, universities, and private institutions every year. Today these entities may well and often do 

waste millions of taxpayer dollars complying with duplicate and 

complicated reporting requirements. In a modern era, there is no 

reason for an entity to fill in mindless forms with the same information time and time again. 

At the end of the 2-year pilot under which some recipients report 

to a single entity in a standardized manner, the director of OMB 

will issue guidance to all Federal agencies on how to streamline 

and consolidate reporting requirements. When fully implemented, 

consolidated financial reporting by agencies and other recipients 

will give unprecedented insight into Federal spending. 

The American people will finally be able to track how we spend 

their dollars. By simply opening up the information, journalists, 

academics, and citizen watchdogs will be able to create tools that 

help the American people understand where their taxpayer dollars 

are going. 

But we also know the transparency is not the only benefit of an 

open Federal DATA Act. Private sector businesses will have the opportunity to utilize data to create products and services to deliver 

real value to the American people. Our efforts have not been—have 

been not only bipartisan but bicameral. Our partners in the Senate, Senator Mark Warner of Virginia and Senator Rob Portman of 

Ohio who are with us today have shown amazing leadership, and 

in fact, the bill signed by the President was authored by Senator 

Warner. 

They join us here today for a few remarks, and I am pleased to 

welcome them, and at this time I am pleased to recognize my ranking member with just one caveat. I want to take a moment to look 

at Gerry Connolly and say something. 

Gerry, you have often been the bane of my existence, but when 

it comes to your leadership in this and your tenacity, I want to personally thank you because, in fact, Mr. Cummings is a fine ranking 

member, but you are, in fact, an advocate for technology and im-
4 

provement in the government sector and for that you deserve a 

special shout out, so thank you, and I recognize the ranking member. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 

would echo your words about Congressman Connolly. As a matter 

of fact, he and I, talking about his efforts just yesterday and I said 

almost the identical words. I could have swore you overheard me. 

Chairman ISSA. I could—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. No, no, not that part. But it is—I want to begin 

by recognizing, Mr. Chairman, that it was your vision and bipartisan approach that paved the way to the successful enactment of 

the DATA Act, and I really do mean that. 

And I have often said in these hearings that this is our watch. 

It is not about this moment but it is about generations yet unborn, 

and we ought to be able to track dollars that hardworking taxpayers pay. They give their blood, their sweat, and their tears, they 

look at their returns on April 15th, and they say, well, where does 

the money go? They look at their paychecks every 2 weeks, every 

month, and they say where does the money go? 

I think this legislation goes a long ways toward helping them understand where the money goes. They simply want it to be spent 

in an effective and efficient manner, and hopefully this will cause 

those who are spending it to do just that. 

From the very beginning, Mr. Chairman, you worked closely with 

me and my staff as well as the administration and the Senate to 

craft a bipartisan bill that would provide the American people with 

information about how their money is being spent. 

Senator Warner and Senator Portman, we thank you for all of 

your efforts and what you have done. You have been a part of the 

watch, and we congratulate you. 

Your leadership and commitment got this landmark legislation 

over the finish line, and you should be commended for that leadership. Now the ball has been handed off to President Obama and 

his administration, and they have to run with it. I look forward to 

hearing from our witnesses, from the Office of Management and 

Budget and the Treasury Department about the administration’s 

efforts to implement the DATA Act. 

President Obama has shown his support for open data. He issued 

an executive order on May 9th, 2013, that requires all newly generated government data to be available in open machine readable 

format. President Obama also joined seven other countries in 

launching the Open Government Partnership of the United Nations 

in 2011. That partnership has now grown to 65 countries that 

pledge to create action plans to make government information open 

and accountable. 

The DATA Act builds on this ongoing work. This new law requires agencies to report detailed information about how they are 

spending money. Agencies are required by 2017 to begin reporting 

information using common data standards developed by OMB and 

the Treasury. OMB and the Treasury are then required to report 

the information agencies provide in a searchable and downloadable 

format. Once implemented, these requirements will improve oversight and accountability. 
5 

Congress and the public will have an unprecedented amount of 

transparency into agency spending. Agencies will also be able to 

better use their own data to identify trends and make smarter 

funding decisions. 

Comptroller General Gene Dodaro said in testimony before this 

committee early this year that the DATA Act was one of the single 

biggest things Congress could do to address wasteful spending. I 

agree with this assessment, and I congratulate all of our stakeholders for working together to get this legislation passed. 

Our work did not end with the enactment of the DATA Act, however. It is critical for Congress to stay engaged with regular bipartisan oversight just like this hearing. Congress also must ensure 

that agencies have the resources they need to carry out the requirements of the DATA Act. 

As many of you know, I frequently say that we need to make the 

Government work more effectively and efficiently, and I have often 

looked at the way Government is run sometimes and said we are 

better than this. And so the DATA Act is law now, and so it has 

been implemented, and now we have to make sure that we move 

forward with it and so that it can be as effective and efficient as 

we intended it to be. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. 

Chairman ISSA. Members will have 7 days to submit opening 

Statements for the record. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, can I ask unanimous consent to 

speak out of order for 1 minute? 

Chairman ISSA. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I wanted to take an opportunity here, one of our 

last hearings in this 113th Congress/Senate. On behalf of members 

on both sides of the aisle, I want to thank you for your service and 

your tenacity, your love and passion for this committee and your 

love and passion for this country. 

You have tackled some very difficult issues. You have plowed 

ground that hasn’t been plowed before, and there are members 

here again on both sides of the aisle that are very grateful for your 

service and your commitment and your love of what we do, and it 

is contagious, and I personally came here as a young, fresh, eagereyed person, and you opened up the opportunities and gave a lot 

of leash to a lot of us to do things that we didn’t think we would 

be allowed to do, and in other committees they aren’t allowed to 

do. But you have made us proud in every respect. 

We want to thank you for your leadership in every way, shape, 

and form. You have carried a fairly big gavel here, and we have 

a token of our appreciation. A little indulgence here. I would like 

to present that on behalf of the members here on the committee 

and thank you again for all that you have done. 

Chairman ISSA. Elijah, I needed this sooner. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, surprise. 

Chairman ISSA. Senators, you have got to behave. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, may I be recognized for 1 minute 

out of order? 

Chairman ISSA. With the indulgence of our Senate visitors, so ordered 
6 

Mrs. MALONEY. Surprise. 

Let me tell you, I have never enjoyed—I enjoyed fighting with 

you more than anyone, and believe me, this is a compliment. You 

don’t need that big thing. I mean, you are not a pushover. You 

stand up for what you believe in, and very briefly, this bill is incredibly important. It is deep and strong. Implemented properly, it 

will make a more trust in government from the American taxpayer, 

and it is a significant tribute to you and Mr. Cummings working 

together to make government work better for people, so I join my 

words in congratulating you. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

And Senators, I apologize for not giving you a Fox moment. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman from Virginia. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank you, and I hope my colleagues from the 

Senate will indulge. I want to congratulate you as well, and I can 

only thank God you did not have that gavel when you began your 

chairmanship, but it is fitting that you get it at the end of your 

tenure. And I just want to congratulate you today on the news that 

the FITARA legislation, the Federal IT Acquisition Reform Act is 

in fact headed for passage both in the Senate and in the House, 

and I say congratulations to you. It was an honor collaborating 

with you on such an important topic, and it is a great way to cap 

your career as chairman of this committee. Congratulations. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

All other accolades can wait until the Senators have gone to get 

to their vote because I do know you have a vote in just a few minutes. 

We will now recognize the senior Senator from Virginia, Senator 

Warner and the junior Senator from Ohio, Senator Portman, and 

if senior goes first—Mark, you haven’t taken yourself out of running for president either. 

Senator WARNER. I don’t feel that senior. I don’t feel that, you 

know—— 

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman is recognized. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK WARNER, A UNITED STATES 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA 

Senator WARNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Cummings, and let me—my friend Gerry Connolly took the 

words out of my mouth already. Having watched some of your proceedings, if you had had that big gavel throughout your own whole 

tenure, you might have seen some different results, so let me add 

my congratulations to you as well. 

It is great to be here with my friend Rob Portman, and echoing 

what you have both said on the DATA Act, it is remarkable when 

we do something significant in a bipartisan way that could have as 

much effect, as Mr. Cummings has said, on future generations, yet 

how little attention it gets when we actually do our job, and particularly on a subject like this. And I think it is appropriate at 

times that we all lifely argue about how big or small the Federal 

Government should be, but I think we all share a common belief 
7 

that whatever size the Government should be, the dollars that we 

spend, we need to make sure are spent wisely. 

And one of the things I want to again commend you and the 

ranking member on, as a former Governor, I often thought the difference between a Governor and a legislator was a legislator 

thought the job was over once the bill was passed. When in actuality, it is really the implementation is where the rubber hits the 

road. And hearing what both you of you have said, and I know my 

friend Senator Portman shares this as well, we are going to keep 

common cause to make sure that the implementation of the DATA 

bill actually takes place in a timely and effective and efficient manner. 

And as you know, as we went into some of the last hours of trying to get this bill signed off on, and I don’t think this was as much 

to the administration itself, but certain particular agencies, you 

know, resisted the timeline that we were putting forward. And 

again, I think it was a tribute to you and Ranking Member 

Cummings and those of us in the Senate as well to make sure that 

we keep this administration and future administrations’ feet to the 

fire. 

The DATA Act really does have—I am going to echo what you 

have said, and I will try to do it fairly quickly—you know, obviously has tremendous promise to hold government more accountable and to provide actual critical useable information to policymakers as we try to make more informed budget decisions, because 

for the foreseeable future, we are going to be in tight fiscal times, 

and as well, to look at how we reform part of the structures of the 

Federal Government. 

You know, as has been said already, the most critical component 

of the DATA Act is the development of consistent governmentwide 

financial data standards. One of our first conversations as we kind 

of dug into this, one of the most remarkable things I found early 

on in this is the Department of Defense alone has 200 different financial reporting systems just within that one department. As 

somebody who has spent longer in the private sector than the public sector, you know, that is just unacceptable and totally unaccountable. 

An important part of trying to get consistent standards and a 

subject of much debate is how we define program across the Federal Government. You have already indicated, and I know we are— 

you are going to hear from Mr. Dodaro later, a recent GAO review 

of the first attempt to create an accurate inventory of all Federal 

programs, an inventory required by earlier legislation that we all 

worked on, GPRA, again a piece of legislation that most Americans 

have never heard of but is a good step along this direction. The 

first attempt to try to define the program was really not all that 

promising. 

Specifically, GAO found that agencies were allowed to select from 

one of several approaches when defining programs which led to an 

inconsistent categorizations. GAO also found a lack of coordination 

amongst agencies resulting in different definitions for programs 

with a similar focus. Again, that would never stand in any Fortune 

100 company into the 21st Century. 
8 

I hope we can all learn from this first attempt to define program 

and will adapt an approach with data that will be more useful to 

policymakers and support greater transparency. Obviously one of 

the things as well is to make sure that we have these new financial 

standards across all of government. 

For example, right now I know many universities in Virginia and 

many universities in each of our respective States file similar financial reports multiple times to multiple agencies. If all this reporting redundancy were streamlined, we could actually direct 

more resources to the actual programs rather than to the administrative overhead. I hope the administration will come back to us 

with some helpful recommendations to streamline and improve the 

reporting processes for those who receive Federal funds. 

And last, I would like to mention the need to make 

USASpending.gov website more user friendly. Now, we have moved 

this over, and we have had a lot of discussions in the development 

of the DATA Act about where this ought to reside. We came to the 

conclusion at the end of some debate that this ought to be at the 

Department of Treasury. We have got to make sure the Department of Treasury really does this and implements this program in 

a way that is consistent with the goals that all of us laid out in 

the DATA Act. Make this information more user friendly to the 

public. 

One of the analogies I tried to use as I tried to explain this to 

my press corps was, you know, you ought to be able to Google your 

tax dollar all the way down to the programmatic level. We have got 

to stay on this, and I want add one to last comment as well. 

As Chairman Cummings mentioned, we have got to make sure 

that these agencies have the resources to actually implement. 

Sometimes, again, as a business guy, you have got to invest before—to actually save money in the long run, and trying to make 

sure the agencies have the resources to do these reviews, set up 

these systems in a way that makes sense will obviously solve us— 

save us resources in the long run and again make our jobs as policymakers in making these budget decisions, I think, more accurate 

and appropriate. 

One last final comment before I turn it over to Senator Portman. 

We continue to make small progress in incremental ways in this 

area. I want to again thank you and my friend Gerry Connolly, all 

of us worked together on another piece of legislation that is in this 

same area of government oversight that the President signed into 

law just last week. The Government Reports Elimination Act. It is 

amazing. This one is actually a little more tangible. It identified 

and eliminated 50 reports that government agencies produce that 

are never looked at, never reviewed. We should have been able to 

do, you know, 5 or 10 times that amount. 

We have gotten new legislation, Senator Ayotte and I, that is 

going to come back again. We will work with this committee to 

keep plugging away on that, but we need to make sure in every avenue that we show that we are spending the taxpayer dollars wisely. 

This is something that crosses party lines, idealogical lines, and 

I want to thank you and the ranking member again for working 
9 

with Senator Portman and I to get this very, very important piece 

of legislation through. 

Look forward to working with you on implementing it. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

Chairman ISSA. Senator Portman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROB PORTMAN, A UNITED STATES 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Chairman Issa. 

It is great to be back here in the committee room. I started off 

here in my congressional career. I was I think the most junior 

member of the lower body in the minority. In fact, I was at the 

kiddie table down here, and you know, this is a great committee, 

and one of the reasons it is a great committee, it has the potential 

to help us to be able to allow people who represent taxpayers to 

understand government better, and this legislation is a classic example of it. 

You know, you both talked about it. Senator Warner talked 

about it, but it does allow the people we represent to track where 

those hard earned dollars go and how they are being spent, and 

there is a lot of work to be done in implementation, and we are 

going to talk about it for a second this morning. 

I hope that you, the chairman, will continue to be very involved 

with this with us because this is something you had a passion for 

and helped to launch. You and Ranking Member Cummings had a 

little Kumbaya moment this morning that is reflective of the way 

you handled this all the way through, and it is good government 

it is good stuff. 

It does give Americans this unprecedented view into the Government if we implement it properly. A lot of it comes from something 

pretty technical which is transforming this spending data that is 

now owned by the Government into something that is accessible 

and that would be standardized machine readable data. It is not 

easy to do, and that is why I think the implementation is so important. I think it will result in not just more accountable government 

and not just better managed government but also a lighter touch, 

you know, more efficient and lighter government. 

The implementation of this requires some sustained focus by the 

executive branch but also by Congress. That is why this hearing is 

to important, and I know you are going to have some testimony 

later about how things are going. The first step—and I am not 

going to repeat what Senator Warner said, which is good about reporting processes, USASpending.gov, making it more user friendly, 

the need for investment up front, but there are some things I think 

that we ought to focus on this morning with our witnesses, and I 

look forward to getting a report as to how they answer all these 

questions. 

We know that some of these benefits that can be generated by 

uniform comparable data and detailed financial information is 

going to be only aspirational until we can actually see this implemented in a proper way. The standardization, we were told, had to 

be completed within a year of its enactment. That is under the 

DATA Act. It became law on May 9th, 2014, as you-all remember, 
10 

so that means we are halfway through this period of standardization implementation. 

How is it going? I didn’t think it was going very well at first, to 

be honest with you, and some of us talked about this. All four of 

us have talked about it. I think it is going a little better now. 

Shortly after President Obama signed it into law, you require OMB 

issued a Statement saying, ‘‘Implementing the Act’s requirements 

will be based on current funding and timeframes that permits.’’ Not 

very encouraging, and I don’t think that sent the right message at 

all. 

We did have Shaun Donovan, now OMB’s director, before our 

committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and 

we asked him about this during his hearing, and the response we 

got back was that he indeed was going to prioritize this if he became OMB director. That was more encouraging, and I think we 

have seen some improvement. 

I know, for example, the Treasury and OMB have been holding 

meetings with Federal and nonFederal stakeholders now. They solicited and received public comments on this standardization issue. 

The meetings have generated a lot of information that I know will 

help inform the scope and format of the data standards to be adopted. 

I understand Treasury and OMB also believe they are on pace 

to meet the deadline, which will be May of next year for publication 

of these data standards. If that deadline slips, it is a real problem 

because if that one slips, then other implementation deadlines will 

also slip, and I think all bets are off as to when we will fully realize 

the full promise of the DATA Act. 

So I hope those questions will be answered today as to whether 

they really are on track. It is—again, it is not easy, and it requires 

a lot of focus. As chairman and ranking member knows, when I 

was at OMB and had the opportunity to implement FFATA, which 

was far from perfect, and we will talk about that in a second, that 

is one reason we needed this legislation. It took a sustained effort 

and a concentrated effort; otherwise, it just won’t happen. 

So let’s not use this May deadline to avoid the hard work required to craft standards that aren’t just applicable across the full 

breadth of the Government but also they are comprehensive. On 

that front, if there is a comprehensive, the signs are a little bit 

lessen encouraging. In May, OMB published a comptroller alert 

that informed Federal stakeholders that the DATA Act requires the 

establishment of governmentwide data standards for information 

posted to USASpending.gov. In its testimony today, OMB refers to 

USASpending.gov data standards I saw. 

That is not quite right. The law actually requires that the standards include, ‘‘common data elements for financial and payment information required to be reported by Federal agencies and entities 

receiving Federal funds.’’ That is what the legislation says. That is, 

the DATA Act requires the creation of data standards not only for 

those data elements that must be published on USASpending.gov 

but also for all data that agencies include in their required financial reports and that all recipients of funds must include in their 

required reports to agencies, so it is broader than that. 
11 

Despite OMB’s continued reference to USASpending.gov data 

standards, I remain hopeful that OMB and Treasury will develop 

these comprehensive data standards and infrastructure that can 

handle the whole landscape of Federal spending information, and 

that is required by the Act that we have put forward. 

In addition to it being comprehensive data standard, it must also 

be flexible, or we can maybe talk more about that later. We know 

we got to get on to the witnesses, but that is another part of this, 

I think, ought to be asked about today, and of course, data standards are just the beginning of the implementation process. One of 

the steps is to ensure that the processes and procedures are in 

place to ensure that agencies actually use these standards to consistently, accurately, and timely report spending data, and the 

Treasury and OMB use that information to publish timely and accurate data on USASpending.gov. 

We know that neither of these processes happens automatically. 

For example, thanks to the excellent work by GAO this year, we 

now know that Federal agencies failed to report nearly $619 billion 

in Federal spending to USASpending.gov during Fiscal Year 2012, 

the most recent year for which we have this information. GAO also 

found major deficiencies in the quality of the data the agencies did 

report, so the DATA Act, properly implemented, should address 

some of the root causes of these failures. 

One of the causes was that FFATA, again, which I was able to 

implement while I was at OMB, did not establish governmentwide 

comprehensive flexible data standards. A fully and effective implemented DATA Act will address that issue. Another cause of these 

failures is that FFATA did not establish a mechanism for effective 

oversight. And again, I think Chairman Issa, you, Mr. Cummings, 

and Senator Warner and others wanted to be sure that we had a 

better mechanism to ensure this is going to be subject to proper 

oversight not just here in Congress but also agency inspector generals and GAO would carry out their statutorily required oversight 

functions. 

I understand GAO is already working with agency inspectors 

general to develop some of these standards so that there is auto 

oversight protocols to monitor compliance with the DATA Act. I 

look forward to seeing the results of those efforts. That might be 

something that will come up today as well. 

Finally, I would just want to say that this is a great example of 

what we can do when we put our minds to something that helps 

our taxpayers that we represent. It was both branches, so bicameral. It was developed up here on the Hill but also working the 

executive branch. It was bipartisan. I would say even nonpartisan, 

and it is a very difficult political environment to legislate, let’s face 

it, but this is a place where Chairman Issa, you, Ranking Member 

Cummings, Senator Warner, Senator Coburn, Senator Carper, and 

others decided here is the problem, let’s attack it, and it is this 

opaque, murky information that is out there about government 

spending. Members of the Congress from both parties engaged each 

other, engaged the executive branch, we hammered out the details 

of the solution, and by the way, as objections emerged, we worked 

together to try to address them without wavering in our commitment to address the problem. 
12 

Now, this model may not be able to be applied to every issue but 

there is certainly a lot where we have this common objective, and 

then it is just a question of putting together the right legislation 

to be able to address it, and I am hopeful we can use this as a 

model for doing other things into the future. 

And again, I want to thank Senator Warner for his leadership in 

the Senate, Senators Carper, Coburn, you, Mr. Chairman, ranking 

member, it wouldn’t have happened without all of your involvement, and I look forward to continue to work with you on ensuring 

that it is implemented properly. 

Chairman ISSA. I want to thank both of you for coming to this 

side, but more importantly, for being an active part of making this 

happen. This wouldn’t have happened in a divided Capitol if it 

wasn’t for the fact that it crossed party lines, so that has been extremely helpful. 

Chairman ISSA. I have lost Mr. Connolly, but Senator Warner, I 

am sure you will tell him that I actually was given this at the beginning of my tenure, and I chose to never use it because I always 

felt that I was already too loud on the hammer with the small one. 

Senator WARNER. I imagine there were some witnesses who are 

grateful for that. 

Senator PORTMAN. So, double-fisted now. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank you both. 

I would only close by saying in the next Congress, I hope we cannot only continue on the DATA Act but recognize that this committee’s jurisdiction and your counterpart on the Senate side, we oversee the National Archives, and the quality of the data that goes in 

there sadly is going to, for a long time to come, be mostly paper 

or digital equivalence of papers. 

Lots of PDF, lots of things that cost a large amount of money to 

convert, and even then, are never as good as if they were put in 

in a machine searchable format, so I believe that financial is important for current, but for our progeny, I think we have to also invest 

in leaving a legacy of deep information that future generations can 

easily search. 

So hopefully we will use this as a base and continue across the 

spectrum. 

I thank you. We will take a very short recess. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman ISSA. The committee will come back to order. 

We now welcome our second panel, the Honorable Gene Dodaro 

is Comptroller General of the United States, and we welcome you 

back. The Honorable David Mader is Comptroller of the Office of 

Federal Financial Management in the White House Office of Management and Budget, and Mr. David Lebryk is Fiscal Assistant 

Secretary of the U.S. Department of Treasury which has been so 

much talked about as the responsible—primary responsible party 

for the DATA Act. 

Pursuant to the committee’s rules, would you please rise to take 

the oath, and raise your right hand. Just follow Gene. He knows 

this one. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you are about to 

give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? 
13 

Thank you very much. Please be seated, and let the record reflect 

at that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

The light will indicate your 5 minutes. Please try to stay as close 

as you can to it. Your entire opening Statements will—or Statements will be placed in the record along with any other extraneous 

material you may choose to provide. 

Mr. DODARO. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GENE L. DODARO 

Mr. DODARO. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Cummings, members of the committee. I am very pleased to be 

here today to talk about the implementation of the DATA Act. 

I would like to start by commending you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. 

Cummings, and others, Mr. Connolly and the whole committee, for 

your vision and persistence in bringing the DATA Act to fruition 

and for holding this very important hearing on early implementation phases. 

As I have testified before this committee before, I think effective 

implementation of the DATA Act can have profound implications 

for increasing the transparency of government spending for the 

public, facilitate better management by agency managers by giving 

them more accurate and timely information to manage by and 

thereby promoting efficiency and effectiveness of government, and 

also to help facilitate efforts to reduce and hopefully eliminate 

fraud, waste, and abuse in the Federal Government and identifying 

the overlapping and duplicative programs that can be identified 

and remedied. 

Now, effective implementation, in my opinion and experience, 

will not happen without strong leadership by OMB, Treasury and 

attention by the agencies, and I think our recent report on 

USASpending.gov really illustrates the challenge here. Five years 

after implementation in 2012 data on USASpending.gov, we went 

in and took a look to see about the completeness and accuracy of 

the information, and we found 324 programs were not recorded in 

the data base. 

Senator Portman mentioned a number omitted which is $619 billion of spending was not included. We also checked the 21 data elements that were supposed to be included in the DATA Act and 

trace them back to their agency records and only found 2 to 7 percent of the information tracked back successfully for all the data 

elements. 

So we really have to do better with the DATA Act implementation. OMB and Treasury have agreed to implement the recommendations. I’ve talked to Dave Mader and Dave Lebryk about 

it, so I’m very pleased about that, but I would say that sustained 

congressional oversight is also very warranted in this area. 

For our part at the GAO, I am giving this a high priority. Our 

work, the legislation calls for our first report to be in 2017, but you 

can look for a report from us next year. We are going to track every 

stage of the implementation over the period of time, not just look 

at the after the fact reports by the IGs. I want to make sure the 

data standards are complete and consistent, the agencies are 

poised to implement it successfully, that consultation agreements 
14 

have worked successfully, and that we are off to a good start in implementing this. 

Also, I plan to give a—continue to give a high priority to making 

sure we have complete and accurate reports on the Government’s 

financial condition. In my Statement today, I’ve included the results of our last audit of the Government’s financial Statements in 

which we were unable to render an opinion because of serious control weaknesses. 

I mention the three major impediments to getting an opinion on 

the Statement which is serious financial management problems at 

the Department of Defense and problems at the Treasury Department, eliminating intergovernmental transactions and compiling 

Statements, and it includes our opinion on the Government’s financial condition, which I believe continues to be on a long-term 

unsustainable fiscal path. 

I’d be happy to answer questions about the DATA Act implementation and our work on the financial Statements at the appropriate 

time, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you again for inviting us to participate in this hearing. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

[Prepared Statement of Mr. Dodaro follows:] 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Mader. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID MADER 

Mr. MADER. Thank you, Chairman Issa and Ranking Member 

Cummings, and members of the committee for the opportunity to 

testify on administration’s progress in implementing the DATA Act, 

which as we noted, was signed into law May 9th of this year. 

This is my first opportunity to appear before the full committee 

since being confirmed as the OMB comptroller on July 17th of this 

year. 

While I appear here today in my official capacity as OMB comptroller and the OMB official responsible, along with my colleagues 

from Treasury to implement the DATA Act, I’m also here as a taxpayer who has always been very interested in how our Government 

spends our tax dollars every year. 

Since the DATA Act’s enactment several months ago, we have 

charted a very aggressive path toward implementation building off 

past experiences and successes to transform the way the Government does business. 

A one-stop shop for the display of all data presents the opportunity not only to have an open public facing dialog on how Federal 

dollars are spent but also serves as a tool for better oversight, management decisionmaking, and innovation both inside and outside 

our Government. 

Transparency is not the end goal but rather the means to the 

end. What we all seek is a better government that works for all of 

us. 

The DATA Act envisions a new and enhanced USASpending.gov 

website that will become the authoritative source for basic information of how agencies budget, obligate, and outlay their funds, and 

how those dollars are ultimately disseminated through Federal contracts, grants, and other forms of expenditures. But accomplishing 

this within the aggressive timeframes of the Act will be no small 

feat and one that will take several years and additional resources 

as envisioned by the Act and as scored by CBO. 

Since the DATA Act’s passage in May, OMB and Treasury and 

the entire Federal community have come together to design what 

is a governmentwide effort. Over the past few months, we have executed several key activities. 

First, we have established a governmentwide governance structure to guide the effort and assign responsibility for various action 

items and tasks. This includes an executive steering committee as 

well as an interagency advisory committee and the designation in 

each department and agency of senior accountable officials who will 

be responsible for the implementation of their act within their respective organization. 

This concept worked well for the Recovery Act implementation, 

and we want to build on past experiences and successes. No time 

and no need to reinvent the wheel. 

Second, we have developed an evolving implementation plan that 

assigns responsibility and accountability and establishes action 

items and timelines that address each of the major deliverables of 

the Act. Attached to my written testimony, there is a very concise 

graphic that depicts the government structure, the assignment of 
45 

roles and responsibility, and the structure for the implementation 

and continuous engagement of stakeholders both inside and outside 

of government. 

As we move forward in these first initial months of implementation, we have a clear path forward, accountable executives assigned, and with the Congress’ support, appropriate funding, and 

our mutual interest in improving spending transparency and improving how we manage the Government’s resources and how the 

public is aware of those decisions, we will all be successful. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

[Prepared Statement of Mr. Mader follows:] 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Lebryk. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID LEBRYK 

Mr. LEBRYK. Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Cummings, and 

members of the committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you, and thank you for your leadership. I 

know I have 5 minutes, and I can talk a long time about the DATA 

Act because—— 

Chairman ISSA. The earlier folks each left an extra minute, so 

without objection, you can have up to 7, no problem. 

Mr. LEBRYK. Thank you. 

What I thought I would do is I would spend a few seconds talking about the importance of data, how we’ve approached this initiative, and then finally what Treasury is doing with respect to implementation. 

There is enormous power in data, and open data allows us to 

make better decisions and allows us to run government in a more 

efficient and effective fashion. It leads to a more informed citizenry, 

it leads to better innovation, and it leads ultimately to better government. 

We have seen the power of data, and as was mentioned by Senator Warner in his remarks, in the best run public and private sector organizations, the strategic CFO function owns the data and 

links that data to everyday operating activity. And one of the reasons why I think we’ve been fairly successful in our efforts to reach 

out to the Federal community is because the Federal CFO community understands that the DATA Act will significantly improve 

their ability to fulfill their responsibilities as a CFO. 

And so while we are talking about a fairly innovative approach 

as we go about this project, and I think that is one of the things 

we need to talk about with the agencies is about how we’re actually 

implementing, the underlying principle is very well understood 

within the Federal Government and the need to do these things. 

There was a discussion earlier about multiple systems and different agencies, and one of the real difficulties we have right now 

is there are too many systems in government, and data is siloed 

in different areas, and it’s very difficult to actually find that data 

and use it, and so we spend too much time on data calls, we spend 

too much time trying to find information, and then in actually trying to make sure it reconciles and is useful, and the DATA Act has 

enormous potential to actually get at that issue within government. 

We also know that better data leads to better decisions, and the 

CFO function can actually have a much more strategic role within 

the Federal Government. We also know that better data can lead 

to innovation both within government and outside of government. 

When you look at examples like the GPS that people use on a daily 

basis, you look at the National Weather Service, those are examples of open data that the Government provides to the private sector and uses that information to improve the lives of Americans in 

a number of ways. 

And so when we’re looking at our information that we have, I 

would say we’re similarly trying to look at how we can use finan-
53 

cial data to better inform citizens and allow them to understand 

government better but also to potentially drive innovation. 

With respect to how we approach the initiative is we had a number of principles that we looked at. Something like this, a major 

initiative needs leadership, and the DATA Act clearly puts forward 

that Treasury and OMB need to work together to provide that leadership. Dave and I are accountable for this, and we know that. 

There needs to be a vision and a direction, clarity of purpose. 

There needs to be a roadmap with milestones and roles and responsibilities that have been identified. That’s why I—very rarely is 

this chart very far away from me which sort of says this is what 

the governance structure is going to be with respect to implementation and how we’re going to implement the Act with respect to roles 

and responsibilities. 

We also need to make sure that we’re doing consultation and collaboration, and so some of the underlying principles are we need 

to build on existing efforts within government. We need to make 

sure that we’re collaborating. We need to make sure that we’re 

leveraging industry standards and practices so that we’re not reinventing the wheel in many cases. 

We have also identified this effort as data centric, and therefore, 

not an initiative which is going to be building large new systems. 

I think some of the things that we have learned in Treasury over 

time is that when we put new standards in place, it oftentimes is 

very difficult to make the changes to the underlying systems and 

expensive to make those changes. So in this particular case, we’ve 

talked about a data-centric approach, that is, the ability to try to 

access the data in the agencies, not changing the underlying systems but tagging the data and mapping the data so we can actually 

extract it in a variety systems and use it more effectively. 

We also very much want to make sure it’s agency-centric. In the 

past, the initiatives have been information comes to Treasury and 

the agencies don’t own it. So in this effort, we’re really talking 

about how to make sure that the agencies themselves own the data 

and therefore are the ones who are going to make the best use of 

it and have the best interest in ensuring the underlying quality of 

the data as we are going through the implementation process. 

Finally, I want to talk a little bit about what Treasury is doing 

with respect to the implementation. We established a program 

management office headed by a senior executive, and that program 

management office is helping drive the vision as well as making 

sure Treasury is fulfilling its responsibilities under the Act. 

Treasury has responsibilities under the legislation to do a blueprint and a roadmap, and that is, to look through where data exists 

across agencies and in systems and saying how can we tag that 

data across those different systems. We have to do data exchange 

standards, and that is, what format is the data going to be used 

so it’s machine readable and useable outside of the Treasury. And 

we also have the responsibility for doing data analytics, of building 

the data analytics function. 

We also are very much keenly involved in the outreach and making sure that we’re collaborating and reaching out to the industry 

and government to make sure that we’re understanding what the 

best practices are, and advocacy groups so that we’re very much 
54 

trying to make sure that this is implemented in a very smart and 

effective way. 

That concludes—actually I think I have gotten pretty close—my 

remarks, but I once again say we really do view this as an opportunity. It’s something that I know when we look at it within Treasury, we know it can have an opportunity to really make a difference in government, and so we talk about better data, better decisions, better government, and the Act, I think, is going to be very 

helpful in advancing those objectives. 

Thank you. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

[Prepared Statement of Mr. Lebryk follows:] 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 

Chairman ISSA. I’m going to not throw a curve, but I’m going to 

talk about something that’s not explicit in the Act that’s extremely 

important. 

Mr. Dodaro, you, of course, know about the RAT Board and what 

they do, but maybe for both of you, we could have an open dialog 

about what under the Recovery Act, what’s called the RAT, years 

ago, almost every member of this committee was encouraged and 

went over and they—they saw during the spending of that nearly 

$800 billion under the Recovery Act, they saw that center find 

areas of waste or fraud that previously were not found in realtime. 

Good example would be a number of individuals, criminal individuals who pretended to be doctors from the midwest, set up a facility in California in a matter of minutes on what was in, fact, a 

pilot. They were—and they had jurisdiction only because of a few 

dollars being spent in that area. They were able to determine that 

this was an anomaly. They were able to then take open source material and actually look at Google Earth and look at the building 

that made no sense at all. Mr. Mader, you’re obviously familiar 

with it. Made no sense at all and to say, wait a second here, there’s 

something wrong there. 

Then they used a high-tech instrument called a telephone, and 

they called the doctor’s offices and were immediately told of course 

the doctors are not practicing in California. They are Kansans, 

they’re Missourians, and so on. That technology was startlingly improving our ability to go after waste, fraud, and abuse. It is not explicit, but it is an area of concern both that the GAO have access 

to that capability, that all of the inspector generals have access to 

that capability, particularly because IGs, as you-all know, generally 

see a stovepipe of their area of jurisdiction while the data base that 

you will be producing would allow, with the right safeguards, them 

to look across platforms to be able to find out, for example, that an 

individual had been debarred, somewhere else, et cetera. 

What will you be doing to preserve and hopefully keep operational either the RAT Board or a next generation equivalent? Mr. 

Mader. 

Mr. MADER. Mr. Chairman, I was nodding my head because I 

also, in the short time that I was back in Government, had an opportunity to go over and spend time with the team over there 

and—— 

Chairman ISSA. And we might mention Earl Devaney—Devaney’s 

pride and joy was exactly that example because it was so much 

faster than the normal 90 days after we get defrauded, we find out 

where they used to be before they leave. 

Mr. MADER. Right. And then in my—actually in my private sector life for the last 10, 11 years I actually had done a lot of work 

in the area of how do you sort of unleash the power of these silo 

data bases, and I really want to defer to my colleague Dave Lebryk 

but want to sort of set the stage because Treasury, as you know, 

has had now for a number of years an operation called ‘‘Do Not Pay 

Business Center,’’ and we’ve seen, even though it’s, you know, only 

developed in the last several years, some real benefits across government in identifying those—the kinds of situations that you have 

commented on. 
61 

And I think that with the DATA Act and the ability to break 

down these silos and to make this data available not just to the 

public but to internal government oversight organizations, we 

should see more and more of the examples that you articulated because it’s not about—the technology is important but it’s about the 

data, and we have this data that’s been locked in these silos. 

And Treasury has done some very significant things in a short 

matter of 2 years in, you know, in sort of opening up our eyes for 

the entire government saying, look, you know, if I can start running payments past disparate data bases that I didn’t necessarily 

have access to, I can do exactly what you said, Mr. Chairman, I can 

start stopping the payments before they’re made because I think 

we—we all know that paying Chase is not the future, but I think 

the DATA Act combined with Treasury’s capabilities is going to 

allow us to stop it before it goes out the door. 

Thank you. 

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Lebryk, not only would I like you to comment on that, but I’d also hope you could include what your plans 

are to make sure that in the President’s budget there are sufficient 

funds for that portion of the operation. Please. 

Mr. LEBRYK. You’ll be pleased to know that we’ve been working 

closely with the Recovery board on this issue, and in fact, we’ve 

hired several of their personnel who actually ran the RAT, is now 

running—is a senior person in our Do Not Pay effort. 

Chairman ISSA. Good. 

Mr. LEBRYK. And, we’ve been really trying to leverage that expertise and that knowledge. As Dave mentioned, we have a number 

of data bases which we’re actually matching against right now as 

well. We’re building that functionality. We’re really trying to leverage what was learned at the Recovery board and implementing 

that and putting that in the Do Not Pay effort as we’re going along. 

As—right now, I think that, you know, one of the real big things 

we’re going to have is how do you then sort of build that analytical 

function. And so one of the things that we’ve been doing is we have 

a lot of information on payments, and so what we’re doing for really the first time is looking at payment history files and saying, 

look, if there’s payments that are being made to the same address 

from different agencies, if there are payments that are being made 

to foreign countries, if there’s unusual things that are occurring in 

the payment, how do we actually sort of cue that information up 

and then refer to the IG or investigate further about whether those 

are proper payments? 

And over the coming—that’s one of the real high priorities we 

have within the bureau in the coming year to really build that 

functionality and make it more systematic. With respect to additional data bases, we’re in the process of bringing more searchable 

data bases in like the Death Master File. Right now we only have 

access to the public Death Master File. We very much would like 

to have access to the private death master file, which is more expansive. 

We have the excluded parties list that we’re matching against 

right now. CAIVRS, which is for debtors, we’re building that into 

the functionality, making sure we’re not paying prisoners. That 

functionality is coming in the coming year as well. 
62 

So we’re really trying to make sure that we do exactly what you 

point out is making sure government is not making payments to 

people it shouldn’t be making payments to. 

Chairman ISSA. And just a quick one, and I’ll give additional 

time to the ranking member; but the criminal portion, is there a 

fast track anticipated so that in addition to stopping the payment, 

that you have a very accurate link to see that there is a criminal 

investigation when appropriate? 

Mr. LEBRYK. I’m not sure how much linkage we have on criminal 

investigations right now. If they’re on excluded parties list, it 

would show up in that data base as going through. With respect 

to prisoners, sometimes that’s a problem. We do have access to—— 

Chairman ISSA. You can only lock them up so many times. 

Mr. LEBRYK. Right. Right. So we are putting that data base in 

place as something we can match against. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you very much. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Dodaro, as I listened to you, I think the thing that you said 

that should concern all of is the issue of whether information going 

into this system is complete. Because without good information, I 

mean, we might as well go home. 

So do you think that the—first of all, it’s the agency’s responsibility to get this information in. Do you think there’s enough of a 

hammer, enough tools to push the agencies to get the information 

that we need? Because, you know, a lot of times I look at government, and I get a little frustrated because people say when the rubber meets the road, everything’s going to be fine. And then when 

it comes time for the rubber to meet the road, there is no road. And 

we saw that in Katrina and I could go on and on. But I’m trying 

to figure out, I don’t want us to be sitting here thinking that we’re 

doing something that we’re not. And certainly without information, 

without accurate and complete information, I’m trying to figure 

out, you know, well, what’s the point? Please. 

Mr. DODARO. Yes, no and that’s exactly right. I mean, I have 

been concerned. We have issued two reports since 

USASpending.gov initially was put into place and practice on reporting on expenditures from Fiscal Year 2007. 

In 2008, we found data problems and when went in in 2012 and 

found completeness and accuracy problems as well. Now, the DATA 

Act helps address this by having regular reviews by the Inspectors 

General to provide an additional oversight tool on a regular basis 

that I believe will help, but right now, you know, there are no sanctions or anything in there. 

But I think it’s something I’m going to pay a lot of attention to, 

and the GAO will, because, you know, to get the full benefits of 

this, you have to make it accessible and transparent, but it has to 

be right. The data has to be accurate, and it has to be complete. 

And without that, you really are limited in your ability to use this 

powerful tool that we’re providing to people so—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well let me ask you this. Do you like what you 

see with regard to OMB and Treasury and their efforts to implement? 
63 

Mr. DODARO. I think they’re off to a good start in terms of getting organized, getting the governance structure in place. They’ve 

outreached, and they’ve got stakeholder involvement, which we believe is important. I think the pilot is important to reduce recipient 

burden in reporting and to consolidate some of the requirements. 

That’s a very good start. 

So I think they’re off to a good start, but, you know, the experience that we have seen at the GAO is the agency implementation 

part of this is where the weak link is, where it breaks down—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. You’ve said in your written testimony that the 

DATA Act will increase oversight in detecting and preventing 

fraud. Is that right? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. One challenge agencies face in reducing fraud is 

a lack of transparency between contractors and subsidiaries and 

their subsidiaries. 

Agencies currently contracted through a unique identifying number called a DUNS number. This number is assigned through an 

exclusive contract with a company called Dun & Bradstreet. Is that 

right? 

Mr. DODARO. That’s correct. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Many companies have multiple subsidiaries with 

different DUNS numbers, so a company that commits fraud can 

sometimes get around past performance reviews that should disqualify it from doing business with the Government. It appears 

that one government contractor, USIS, tried to do just that. The 

Department of Justice alleged in a recent false claims act suit that 

top USIS officials engaged in a massive $1 billion scheme to defraud the Federal Government in the company’s contracts to conduct background checks. Yet despite these grave allegations, the 

Department of Homeland Security awarded USIS a new contract 

this summer. 

Mr. Dodaro, does this raise any concerns for you? 

Mr. DODARO. Well, we issued a report a couple years ago on the 

Government’s use of the DUNS numbers raising some concerns 

about the Government being so dependent on a sole proprietary set 

of information, and the costs were going up because of that, and 

there were limitations that were put on the Government by the 

contractor, and so we encouraged GSA to take another look at this 

issue. 

Now they have, and they have put in place a replacement system 

off of a system that was in place at the Department of Defense 

called the CAGE system. It’s in the Federal acquisition regulations 

now, and it will set up a government-owned identifier, but it will, 

to your point, also provide linkages to the next tier up of a company and the top tier of the company if they’re affiliated companies. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So, is that in effect now? 

Mr. DODARO. I believe, yes, yes it’s in effect now, but it will be 

transitioned over time. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. OK. Well, on October 20, GAO upheld a bid protest by one of USIS’ competitors. In it’s decision GAO concluded 

that DHS, ‘‘failed to obtain and consider the specific allegations of 

fraud alleged by the Department of Justice.’’ 
64 

GAO also found that DHS, ‘‘failed to consider the close relationship between the awardee and its parent company.’’ Now the system you just talked about, this new system, would it detect that? 

Mr. DODARO. It’s supposed to, going forward. Right. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Can you get me some additional information on 

that, because I’d like to have that? 

Mr. DODARO. Sure. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. One problem here was that the DUNS—the 

USIS subsidiary bidding for the DHS contract had a different 

DUNS number than the subsidiary accused of fraud against the 

United States taxpayers. Do you believe it is possible to link the 

DUNS numbers of subsidiaries to make it easier for contracting officers to check this information before awarding new contracts to 

companies that defraud taxpayers? 

Mr. DODARO. I’ll have to get back to you on the specifics as it relates to the DUNS numbers specifically, but the effort that the 

Government puts in place ultimately, whether it uses that system 

or another system, should be able to do what you’re talking about 

and should be able to do it on a consistent basis. 

Mr. DODARO. But, again, what we have learned from our experience, it’s the same thing on excluded parties list about whether it 

should be checked before making awards that’s been in place for 

years. Oftentimes the agencies don’t execute properly against the 

requirement. So you need both. You need the capability, and you 

need the management discipline to execute properly. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Last question, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Does everyone on the panel agree that we should consider ways 

to ensure that the Government has access to the data it needs to 

identify links between companies and their subsidiaries? Mr. 

Mader. 

Mr. MADER. Absolutely. Actually I agree with what Mr. Dodaro 

said. I mean, it’s not a technical issue per se. Really, and it goes 

back to one of the fundamentals of the DATA Act, is how are we 

going to define identifier, you know, both the parent as well as the 

children of those companies; so yes we can deal with that during 

implementation as well. 

Mr. LEBRYK. I agree. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Dodaro, because you’re answering the ranking member’s question, I want to expand it just a small amount. 

Under the CAGE system, one of the complaints that DOD contractors have had for years is they can be locked out of new contracts 

because of a merger or a divestiture because that’s a fairly cumbersome system. 

So as you’re answering his question for how we stop fraud like 

the USIS complaint that he had, but also how would we streamline 

that to make sure that, which often happens, somebody acquires 

somebody or a unit is spun off or sold to another account, and literally DOD finds themselves unable to issue a new contract until 

somehow they can reconcile the unique identity of something that 

has become no longer part of a parent. 

So I think Mr. Cummings’ point is extremely good, that it’s the 

combination of, if you will, a DUNS which is quickly assigned, 

versus the CAGE system which can be very cumbersome, when 
65 

even, you know, Rockwells and Lockheeds, very large companies 

sometimes sell a unit to each other and find themselves in a real 

conundrum. 

So if you would answer it fully, I think it would help us understand the implementation of the DATA Act? 

Mr. DODARO. We will definitely do that. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

Mr. LANKFORD. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you, and let me join others in the accolades for getting a chance to serve with this chairman, and I very 

much appreciate the time to be able to serve with him and the way 

that he’s handled things here. 

Mr. Comptroller, I want to make a couple comments on some 

comments that you have in your written Statements as well as you 

have made some of your oral Statements as well. From your written Statement to us it said that the DATA Act was enacted to help 

address these challenges. Among other things DATA Act requires, 

No. 1, the establishment of governmentwide data standards by May 

2015. How’s it going on that? Do we have a firm deadline on that 

to have those data standards in place? What’s the progress report? 

Mr. DODARO. Well, I think that the Treasury and OMB and the 

agencies are off to a good start. They’ve got task forces set up by 

HHS to look at the award data and DOD to look at the contract 

data and come up with some common data elements. So they’re 

laying the initial framework. They have a long way to go though 

before they’re going to have the standards in place. We will be evaluating their progress and commenting on those standards that they 

will be issued in May. 

So we’re tracking them very closely, but I’m encouraged that at 

least they’re getting organized across the Government to address 

these issues and to use some things that are already in place which 

will help expedite implementation. 

Mr. LANKFORD. All right. 

Mr. Mader, is that an achievable goal, to be able to get there by 

May of next year? 

Mr. MADER. Congressman, that’s our goal. As Mr. Dodaro mention, when we look at some of these aggressive dates, we put in 

place not just the governance and the planning process, but we actually put together a working team between HHS and DOD to actually start working on what we believe are the critical ones. 

Mr. LANKFORD. So what are the major threats to not achieving 

that goal? Is it a hardware or software issue? Is it agency communication? Is it training? What’s the major threat to not achieving 

that goal? 

Mr. MADER. For this particular goal, it’s really—we have the 

right resources, and it’s just keeping the focus; and the folks that 

we have identified from both of those departments are advocates of 

what we’re trying to accomplish. So, you know, my expectation is 

we’ll make good progress. 

Mr. LANKFORD. So help me understand here. It’s a matter of just 

management, of getting everybody flying in formation to use a better term. You have the software you need. You have the hardware 

you need. You have the plan in place. It’s just a matter of getting 

every agency to actually implement it? 
66 

Mr. MADER. Well I think, Congressman, what we’re talking about 

is coming up with uniform definitions that can be used across government. So we’re really not in the technology and moving data 

around. We’re just getting a clear definition of a core group of 

terms so that whether you’re dealing with an acquisition or you’re 

dealing with a grant, let’s use, you know, place of business means 

the same regardless of a government contract or a grant to a university. And so that is really just intellectual work that needs to 

be done over the next several months. 

Mr. LANKFORD. While we’re on that conversation, let’s talk a little bit about the definition of the word program, which has been 

a much-discussed definition of what does that mean? I know there 

are some GAO reports on that, and OMB has basically said let the 

agencies determine on that, but there has to be some sort of uniform system of how do we actually define the word program from 

place to place so that we know that we get accurate information. 

So, how is that coming, and what is the progress on trying to get 

the word program defined? 

Mr. MADER. Actually within the statute there’s a statutory definition of program activity, and it basically ties back to both accounting and financial management and the budget, so we’re basically using that as sort of the framework and the bedrock and looking at, you know, here’s what the statute says the definition of program activity is. And now the trick is going to be, how do we ensure that it is interpreted correctly and consistently across the 

breadth of the Government? 

Mr. LANKFORD. So that should be completed by May 15 as well, 

trying to get that definition across the agencies so they have a consistent understanding of that word? 

Mr. MADER. I think, Congressman, it will easy to convey the definition. The challenge is going to come in the actual implementation 

over time. 

Mr. LANKFORD. I understand. That’s become the question. Is that 

a May 15 or do you think that’s a couple years from now before 

everyone actually falls into line with a clear understanding and implementation of that? 

Mr. MADER. I think it’s a very iterative concept that not only the 

program activity but a lot of the other definitions, it’s a matter of 

educating people, recognizing that, you know, in May we’re not actually going to start moving data around, but we need a foundation 

of an understanding across government and across the different 

communities that this word means the same regardless of whether 

you’re in DOD or DHS or HHS so that we have that consistency. 

It’s about education, sir. 

Mr. LANKFORD. OK, good. Let me ask one more brief question. 

Mr. Chairman, do I have 1 minute to ask one more additional 

question? Thank you for your generosity on that. 

Mr. Dodaro, you have a Statement in your written testimony 

that says while—let me just read it. In June 2014 we reported that 

while agencies generally reported contract information as required, 

many assistance programs, grants, or loans were not reported. 

What did you find from that? 

Mr. DODARO. We basically found there were 324 programs that were not reported, totaling about $619 billion of assistance. Now 
67 

when we brought it to the attention of some of the agencies, they 

have reported some of the information subsequently, but other programs have not, including many programs at the VA have not yet. 

So we’re continuing to followup on that. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Obviously in many agencies there are more 

grants than there are contracts that are going out now, so that’s 

pretty important that we get the grant/loan part of this as well consistent within obviously the DATA Act making that same request 

as well to be able to coincide with that. 

Is that progress ongoing that you think that that’s going to also 

make deadlines and targets at this point to be able get grant/loan 

information as well as contract information? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. You have many more agencies involved, as you 

point out, in a grant area so that you need to bring them into line 

in terms of compliance, so there’s more people to monitor in that 

activity. HHS is a big player obviously, but many agencies do that. 

Where in the contract areas it’s largely a few agencies let most of 

the contracts. 

So it will be a greater challenge for OMB and Treasury to exercise oversight over the agencies, and hopefully the IG reviews will 

demonstrate that as well. So I’m hopeful there will be better 

progress, but it has to be a priority for the agencies, and hopefully 

the Administration will make it one. 

One of the reasons I want to be so active in this is that the initial implementation of this legislation, we have talked about the 

May dates, but there’s dates for 2017 and 2018 for the agencies to 

actually implement these things. 

The initial implementation of this legislation will span two administrations, so there needs to be continuity among the administrations to make sure that this operates effectively, and that’s one 

of the things GAO can do is try to urge the administration to maintain continuity. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence in 

that. 

Chairman ISSA. You are most welcome. 

Ms. NORTON. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You used your small 

gavel to clamp down on the acclamations to you. I can understand 

that, so I’m going to have to use my own time. 

But it’s worth it because mine is the only jurisdiction which has 

to come before this committee; and Mr. Chairman, I cannot thank 

you enough for the way in which you have upheld the principle of 

Democratic local government. And that is something to say when 

you consider this committee because this is a very contentious committee with differences on national issues. 

This chairman never let those differences, never required or 

thought that I should change my view on those national issues in 

order to get the assistance of the chairman on matters affecting the 

District of Columbia. Helped us keep the place open. He was helpful in matters coming through this committee when they came 

through this committee. Sometimes I had to ask can we jump onto 

your markup. He was always willing to do that and to help us in 

the Senate as well, but particularly for respecting what I think is 
68 

a bipartisan principle that local government is for local government. 

You have been invaluable as chairman of this committee to the 

District of Columbia, and I thank you for it. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you, gentlelady. 

Ms. NORTON. I just have a question to make sure that there is 

not, for a bill that I don’t think will cost that much to implement, 

an elephant in the room if you will forgive me. It will save so much 

money in the long run perhaps even the short run. Senator Warner 

said something as a business person to invest, of course, you have 

to invest in order to save money. 

Congress doesn’t operate that way. It operates on annual appropriation. It’s supposed to save year by year. And so it ends up 

spending much more money than it should. So this matter is not 

for the administration alone, and I don’t think it should be, and 

you keep saying, you know, deadlines can be met. You don’t see 

any threats, you said to the last member, to its implementation. 

But I do note in your testimony, Mr. Lebryk, you were candid in 

saying that the DATA Act did not provide any additional resources 

to the agencies, and you and I both know those agencies are under 

severe restraints. 

Even before a sequester, they were under, had faced huge cuts. 

We are only talking about $300 million over 4 years, 2014 to 2018. 

And the estimate was only $2 or $3 million per agency. Of course 

that could mean staff. That could mean whether you’re moving or 

not. And I wonder, have you done any internal estimates to identify the cost of implementing the DATA Act for agencies? Because 

this gets to be particularized when we talk about the other priorities they face. 

Mr. LEBRYK. Ms. Norton, as I mentioned in I think both my written as well as my oral comments, the CBO when the bill was moving toward passage and an eventual signature, had initially scored 

it at the $300 million figure that you noted, but that was, you 

know, back 7 months ago, and it was based on what they knew at 

the time, and it was primarily focused on Treasury effort; but I 

think as all of the witnesses have talked about, including the two 

Senators, that this is a pretty extensive effort to go into hundreds 

of stovepiped data systems. 

First of all, identify what those data elements are, get agreement 

on standardization and then be able to—and Treasury is looking at 

some innovative techniques on how to do this—pull that data together so that we can display it in an intelligible way on this new 

Website. So the short answer is we’re working on our own estimates now of what the level of effort would be. 

Ms. NORTON. You don’t think that $300 million estimate is correct at this time? It’s what—— 

Mr. LEBRYK. I think it’s a good down payment. 

Ms. NORTON. It’s going to cost more than that? 

Mr. LEBRYK. It’s hard to tell right now. We’re actually now out 

asking agencies to start looking at their current environment. And 

Mr. Dodaro mentioned the number of different, let’s say in DOD 

systems, you know, what is it going to cost to identify the data elements across—— 
69 

Ms. NORTON. Are those funds going to have to come from whatever funds they already have? 

Mr. LEBRYK. Well, you know, unfortunately there was no funding 

in 2014, and we actually started our work in 2014—— 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Lebryk, you mentioned this in your own testimony. And, again, I don’t know how we can just skip over that. 

There’s no funds in the bill. There’s no funds in this appropriation. 

This is a task that the agencies have never done before. 

How do you expect an agency, particularly a complicated agency, 

to go at doing what it’s never done before with no new funds? And 

what should happen now to make sure that there are resources allocated to save the extraordinary amount of funds that you know 

will be saved in the long run? What steps should be taken now? 

Because they’re going to throw up their hands and they’re going to 

say, look, this is complicated. We don’t have the money. We don’t 

have the staff. 

Mr. LEBRYK. The first step is to come up with an estimate based 

on what we see now as not only the specifics with regard to the 

deliverables and the timelines but also our sort of basic understanding of what the level of effort is—— 

Ms. NORTON. Wouldn’t it be honest in the next budget when the 

agency goes to the OMB to ask for whatever funds it would take 

to begin implementation of this so that we’re not stalled by agencies having to look to whether or not it has funds? I can tell you 

this right now, if it does not have the funds, there is very little incentive for an agency to dip into its already cut budget and begin 

anew on a brand new, unprecedented project? 

Mr. LEBRYK. My indication, Ms. Norton, is that we actually can’t 

wait until next year; that it’s going to be a this-year problem. 

Ms. NORTON. From the President’s budget, the agencies can ask 

for—— 

Mr. LEBRYK. Well, for the current Fiscal Year we’re in, you know, 

we’re doing, as I mentioned on data definitions, we’re doing sort of 

the intellectual work, but we’re going to quickly move in the 

springtime into more detailed work across the breadth of the agencies, and therein lies, to your point, the challenge that there is a 

sort of unfunded mandate—— 

Ms. NORTON. Is the President’s budget being made now for, what 

is it, 2016? Is it being—— 

Mr. LEBRYK. For 2016 it’s under consideration. 

Ms. NORTON. Are you working with the agencies to make sure 

they ask for the funds, a small amount of money, at least based 

on these, at certainly a startup? 

Mr. LEBRYK. That’s why we have gone out and asked them for 

what is your initial estimate to get started. 

Ms. NORTON. That’s very reassuring. 

Chairman ISSA. Would the gentlelady yield? 

Ms. NORTON. Yes, sir. 

Chairman ISSA. And this may be part of your question, but if we 

could perhaps expand it. There are billions of dollars worth of 

money that is spent, $82 billion, developing systems, IT, et cetera, 

much of which, some of which is for accounting and reporting. 

So I think the gentlelady’s question is a very good one. I would 

hope that we could expand it to sure we look at how much was al-
70 

ready there to do financial accounting and reporting so that we understand that the $300 million that this started off with, and it 

kept shrinking by the way because systems that were already ordered to be done were being rolled out, so things that they said 

would have to be done to comply with it, that number kept going 

down. 

So as long as we understand the scope of how many millions or 

billions of dollars are already being spent, then I think we get a 

good idea of whether there is an incremental cost or in the 10-year 

window an incremental savings; and hopefully it’s both, an incremental cost that’s reported and we fund and incremental savings 

that in the 10-year window allows us to be neutral or even a savings. If that’s your question? 

Ms. NORTON. It is, and that’s the way to look at it, it seems to 

me, over a 10-year period. But that may require some up front investment, and I do agree with the chairman. Some of these funds 

might be used to begin this project. We wouldn’t want any data to 

be lost in the transition however. 

Chairman ISSA. We now go to the gentlelady from New York, Ms. 

Maloney, if you’re prepared. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you for this really important hearing. 

I thank the Ranking Member for working on this and you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

And I’d like to ask Mr. Lebryk, during an interview about the 

DATA Act in October, you said, ‘‘agencies need to own the data and 

use the data,’’ and if agencies have a sense of ownership of the data 

they report, do you believe that they will increase the accuracy and 

utility of it? Why is that so important that you were mentioning 

that? 

Mr. LEBRYK. So I think this is really one of the critical 

underpinnings about successful implementation of the act. If we 

ensure that the agencies own this data and use it, they will make 

the changes that they need to make. If it is a compliance effort in 

which we’re simply doing this for the sake of actually checking a 

box, it won’t be successful. If it is a Treasury-centric view, it won’t 

be successful. If it is a Treasury-OMB-centric view, it won’t be successful. It really has to be owned by the CFO and by the agency. 

Because that’s where the real decisions where the data has value. 

If you’re a CFO and you’re looking to do a data call, which we 

ask them to do all the time, and it’s very expensive and very difficult to do that, and they have difficult times doing that, if we can 

give the business proposition, the value proposition of saying if you 

have better access to that data, you can do that much more efficiently. You can use that information to make better decisions. You 

can inform the public better about the value you’re providing with 

your services. And that’s why I think we have been really very 

keen on engaging the agencies so when we have this implementation structure you see all of the interagency councils that are part 

of the advisory group that’s there. 

And we’re asking those members not only to represent their communities but also use their expertise as senior leaders within their 

organization to bring that wisdom to bear about how to best implement the act. 
71 

And so when we had this discussion about data-centric and agency-centric, it resonates with them a lot. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Now as I understand by 2017, you’re going to 

have data elements standards have to be published. Right? And 

this is going to be agency-wide throughout government, but they’re 

not required internally to use these standards? Why not, why 

wouldn’t we require them to use it? Will every agency, and where 

will these standards come from? Will Treasury be the final person 

that puts out these standards? 

Mr. LEBRYK. So OMB is responsible for the data standard-setting 

process, so maybe I should make sure they speak. But I will say 

a couple thing on that. One is we are leveraging, as was referenced 

earlier, both the procurement community and the grants community have been doing some preliminary work on this issue about 

those data standards. 

We recently put out on something called GitHub into the public 

demain so that the public can see what those standards are, and 

we put out roughly I think 50 or 60 of those in the public domain 

for them to take a look at. And that’s an open forum for people to 

comment on. 

We’re also then going back into the communities and making 

sure that we get feedback about whether we have the right data 

standards and whether they’re usable and the like. 

Mrs. MALONEY. But why in the world would we not require the 

agencies to use the same standards that we’re trying to make agencies—I guess, that’s one question, but also you had another important point in one of your comments. You said that if we had these 

standards, then agencies and workers and everyone would be able 

to use analytics more and this would overall help government. And 

how would shifting the focus to using analytics help agencies in 

saving taxpayers’ dollars? 

Mr. MADER. Let me start, and maybe Dave wants to add, but 

with regard to the use of the standards, they are not optional. 

These are going to be mandatory standards that will be used across 

government. Because I think, as Mr. Dodaro testified, the problem 

is that the way we have these diverse systems now, people chose 

to interpret and define some of these standards their own particular way, whether they were in the acquisition community or the 

grants community. 

And what we’re doing now as part of this standardization under 

the DATA Act is we will have uniform definitions that will be used 

across government consistently, because that’s the only way we’re 

going to be able to pull the data out of these disparate data bases 

and bring them together, so it’s not optional. It’s going to be mandatory. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Well, this is—this is really major. I think this is 

a major improvement in Government, and I applaud everyone 

who’s working on it, but would you comment a little further, Mr. 

Lebryk, on how analytics are going to help us manage us better, 

being able to use this? 

Mr. LEBRYK. So this really gets to kind of the power of data. 

Right now when we’re doing things like benchmarking across government, you know, what is the Government paying for a cell 
72 

phone plan in one agency versus another, what’s it paying for pencils, what’s the things it’s doing. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Yes, this is great. 

Mr. LEBRYK. What’s also really important, which is if the public 

and industry sees that information when they bid on government 

work, it will drive the costs down. 

So there’s a real powerful value there for both us internally understanding what our costs are in benchmarking, but also in terms 

of letting the industry know about what’s going on so when they 

bid for government work, it drives those costs down. Significant 

savings can be—can be found in that. 

Mrs. MALONEY. But could you give an example of an agency 

that’s working to use funding data to drive decisionmaking and to 

better ways for our government, a specific example? 

Mr. LEBRYK. Well, I think if I were to sort of use an example of 

it cuts across both external and internal, I would use something 

like the—like NOAA, which is putting information out there right 

now. And there was an article in the Wall Street Journal several 

months back about how on the Weather Channel right now, someone is using that information to decide what ads are run in different markets, so that you actually then have the ability to target 

what you’re doing based on something like the weather, and that 

actually improves things significantly. 

So I think that as it relates to external uses of data, there are 

a number of examples. Internally we have been going through an 

example about, you know, what are we paying for human resources 

within government; and looking across agencies? And while the 

data isn’t real good yet, it is making us ask lots of questions. A 

high number may not necessarily be bad if you’re saying you’re investing in your work force. 

So if you’re spending a lot on human capital, it may be the exact 

right thing you should be doing, because you’re giving the training 

and the expertise to have a more qualified work force. On the other 

hand, if you’re paying a lot for transactions, you may be saying, 

why are we spending so much money on transactions and not 

enough on sort of real added value things? 

So the initiative at OMB as we lead right now in benchmarking 

is actually trying to derive that thinking governmentwide about 

how analytics can really help improve government. 

Mrs. MALONEY. This is a really important improvement, and I 

congratulate all of you. 

And my time has expired. Thank you. 

Chairman ISSA. As we go to the gentleman from Massachusetts, 

if I could have just 10 seconds. 

Mr. Lebryk, you said something very important and I don’t want 

it to fail to be understood. If we can make the true purchase price 

not by which vendor we bought it, but the true purchase price, we 

do create an amount that we want to pay the same or less than 

in the future, and that’s almost always opaque to the competing 

market and even to the public, so I appreciate the fact that you see 

that as a benefit. 

Mr. LYNCH. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
73 

Mr. Chairman, just in regards to your service here on the committee, I know that Teddy Roosevelt had a great quote. He said, 

‘‘far and away, the best prize that life offers us is the ability to 

work hard at work that is worth doing.’’ And I know we have had— 

we’ve had differences of opinion and conclusion over the years that 

you’ve served this committee, and that’s understandable, given the 

variety of issues that we’ve had come up here. 

But I have to say that you have—in your time, you have taken 

this work seriously, you have worked hard at it, and, you know, 

that’s to your credit. You have taken your work seriously. You 

worked hard at it. We always didn’t arrive at the same conclusion, 

but I still have enormous respect for the way you approached your 

work, the professional manner in which you conducted yourself and 

led this committee, sometimes us coming along unwillingly, sometimes otherwise, but I think you did good work on behalf of the taxpayer and the American citizens, and I congratulate you on your 

service. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank you. And I leave postal reform in your 

good hands. 

Mr. LYNCH. Yes. Don’t you threaten me. 

And also your staff. Your staff has done a wonderful job as well, 

and I know you’ve had an assortment of staffers over the years, but 

a very, very—very strong staff and a pleasure to work with them. 

I want to go back to the Ranking Member’s comments. And 

thank you each for your willingness to work with the committee 

and thank you for your service to our country. 

I want to go back to what the Ranking Member was talking 

about, about the DUNS numbers, and I think he hit on something 

that really needs—we need to drill down on that a little bit. 

You know, it’s stunning, Mr. Dodaro, that we had over 300 programs that didn’t report on USA.gov totaling $619 billion. That’s 

amazing that these companies and programs did not report their 

spending to the American people, and that troubles me greatly. 

I was wondering, are there some repeat offenders in that group? 

Is that spread across government? I know that DOD is responsible 

for about 50 percent of our discretionary budget, but are there 

some groups that are more frequent offenders of the non-reporting? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. Of the $619 billion that was not reported, a 

large share of it came in healthcare spending, actually, in the 

Medicare program, which was supposed to report aggregate 

amounts spent by counties across the country. 

And in other areas, the Veterans Administration was not reporting a lot of its spending as well in healthcare area and other areas, 

and then the rest of it was really spread around to a wide variety 

of agencies. 

You know, hopefully we’ve asked OMB to clarify the guidance, 

and I know they’re in the process of doing that, which will help ensure we don’t have recurring repeats of this in the future, but 

that’s what we found for that year. 

Mr. LYNCH. OK. Mr. Mader, I know we had a—that you had a 

joint town hall meeting with OMB and Treasury regarding the 

DATA Act, and I know there were a lot of these, you know, open 

government groups that were there. They talked about the DUNS 
74 

number issue. And so the DUNS number is a unique identifier for 

any entity that does business with the government. Right? 

Mr. MADER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LYNCH. OK. So—and the Government pays Dun & Bradstreet for the ability to use data associated with the DUNS number. Is that correct? 

Mr. MADER. That’s correct. 

Mr. LYNCH. And according to my records, the current contract 

with Dun & Bradstreet is for 8 years and at a cost of $154 million. 

Is that about right? 

Mr. MADER. Mr. Congressman, that particular area is not within 

my portfolio. 

Mr. LYNCH. OK. 

Mr. MADER. It’s actually being handled by another one of my colleagues at OMB. 

Mr. LYNCH. OK. Mr. Dodaro, in 2012 GAO issued a report finding, they quote—this is a quote: ‘‘A monopoly for Dun & Bradstreet 

has been created as a result of a specific reference in regulations 

governing contracting.’’ Is that correct? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. 

Mr. LYNCH. Yes. So—so right now, basically what we’re doing is 

we pay—we pay Dun & Bradstreet for our own information. Is that 

right? 

Mr. DODARO. Well, we pay for the use of their number, which 

we’re tied to. 

Mr. LYNCH. Yes. 

Mr. DODARO. And that was the concern we raised, is that it made 

the Government so dependent on it, and you really had disadvantages, because the cost kept increasing. The figures you cited were 

right, they were out of our report on the costs, but it’s increased 

considerably over time. And also the company in this case can put 

limitations on the Government’s use of the numbers, and actually 

that concerns us as well. 

Mr. LYNCH. Yes. That’s my—that’s the point I’m getting to. I 

know that in a recent example, the RAT Board that the chairman 

referenced, decided to terminate its contract with Dun & Bradstreet because it would have cost taxpayers between $900,000 and 

$1.4 million for just 1 year of data, of our own data, getting back 

from Dun & Bradstreet, and the Recovery Board was paying for the 

right to display on its Website existing data about spending under 

the Recovery Act. 

And, again, you anticipated my question. Would it concern you 

if the Government’s use of data to identify waste, fraud and abuse 

is limited by Dun & Bradstreet? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. The Government—our basic point here was 

the Government needs options. And—— 

Mr. LYNCH. Right. 

Mr. DODARO. And it has the ability to create this themselves or 

at least have options so you’re not dependent just on one source. 

Mr. LYNCH. Right. So, so my question for Mr. Mader and Mr. 

Lebryk, can we get away from that? Are we working on that, to get 

away from this limitation that Dun & Bradstreet has for us to use 

information that’s helping us, you know, to hopefully run the Government in a more efficient manner? 
75 

Mr. MADER. Congressman, I know that this other office within 

OMB, the Office of Procurement Policy, is working that issue with 

the General Services Administration, and I think they’ve had some 

correspondence with the committee on that recently. 

Mr. LYNCH. Yes. That would be a terrible bottleneck, you know, 

if we had this—you know, this limitation at the whim of Dun & 

Bradstreet that they would be able to withhold information or limit 

information, its availability, to those who would need to use it because of this contract. It just seems extortive in a sense, so—in an 

8-year contract, so that’s not wise. 

I think we need to rethink what we’re doing there. We can’t— 

you’re creating a bottleneck in the system by allowing it to control 

all that data. So it’s useless if we can’t access it. I’m just raising 

that concern now, because I don’t—you know, we’ve got some 

change going on here, some transition, and I don’t want that feature in the new iteration of this Website. 

Thank you. 

I yield back Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank you. 

I thank you for pointing out that we should always have competition and not have a sole source, particularly for something that is 

so key to the tracking of metadata. 

And with that, we go to my partner in crime on this piece of legislation, Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you to the panel for being here today; very thoughtful 

conversation. 

Mr. Dodaro, GAO identified a lack of information about investments as a major challenge in eliminating wasteful spending. Correct? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And in the 2014 report on duplicative and wasteful spending, you identified IT investments, which concerned both 

the chairman and myself particularly, at the Department of Defense and found 31 potentially duplicative investments accounting 

for at least $1.2 billion in costs at DOD between 2007 and 2012. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Is there something about the Pentagon that 

seems particularly problematic when it comes to transparency, accountability, waste, fraud and abuse, efficiency, and even some 

sense of, we need to get in line like everybody else? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. Well, as you know, with this committee’s sponsorship over years, we keep a list of areas that are at risk, highest 

risk across the Government, of fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. And of the 30 areas that we currently have on the 

list, at least six or seven are DOD business systems, contract management, financial management, IT management over at the department. That’s a large, decentralized operation, many systems, 

prone to reinventing things within each service. 

So it’s been an area, given our statutory requirement to look at 

overlap and duplication and fragmentations for our government, 

has been one of our, you know, key areas that we’ve been looking 

at. So they are prone to have these type of problems. 
76 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Mader, is there—you talked, and it was very 

welcome to me, that the DATA Act might help serve to break down 

stovepipes, because stovepipes often—they might start out with 

good reason, but they often lead to inefficiency and lack of ability 

to sort of collaborate and cooperate and learn from others. 

Can we take that same principle and help rein in the Pentagon 

in terms of its practices, which seem, frankly, at variance with the 

rest of the Government? 

Mr. MADER. I think some of the principles that were going to 

apply governmentwide for the DATA Act should certainly—would 

be applicable to DOD. And I think, as Mr. Dodaro Stated, you 

know, that is a very large, complex, worldwide organization. And, 

you know, stovepipes grow up in any organization all the time. I 

think if some of the very creative and, I think, leading edge concepts that Treasury is exploring on how we’re going to extract data 

from these various stovepipes, that concept could easily be applied 

as well—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well—— 

Mr. MADER [continuing]. To DOD. 

Mr. CONNOLLY [continuing]. I thought I heard you say earlier 

that this was not going to be something that was voluntary; this 

was going to be mandatory compliance with the DATA Act. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. MADER. Oh, data standards for sure, yes, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yes. And that applies to the Pentagon? 

Mr. MADER. Absolutely. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. OK. Well, that’s reassuring. 

Mr. Lebryk, you talked about the potentiality with the DATA Act 

of actually saving money, because with that transparency, with 

people actually seeing what it costs, that idea spreads and we kind 

of drive ourselves down to, oh, I can get it for that instead of that. 

Do you want to elaborate a little bit more on that, because that’s 

also a great potential and a very welcome message here on the Hill 

and I think to taxpayers? 

Mr. LEBRYK. Sure, I think there’s a couple of—and I would even 

add to it, which is one of the visions for the Administration is to 

move to fewer core financial systems in a shared services model. 

So we at the Bureau of Treasury run something called ARC. It’s 

a franchise fund, and we provide accounting services to different 

agencies. 

When we recently upgraded the core financial system for 40 of 

our customers, we did that for $300,000 per customer, and that is 

a remarkable number relative to what many agencies are doing 

with respect to either upgrading systems. And that the power of 

that is that we have the expertise with that financial system. We 

understand the vendor. We understand the underlying accounting 

system, and that when we then roll it out, we’re doing it in an expert way; and one of the things the government doesn’t do very 

well across government is manage projects. 

And so if you have an entity that’s very good at managing 

projects and managing implementation, for those 40 customers 

they’re not really worried about that. And importantly, the CFO of 

those agencies and the CFO when I was the Bureau head spent 

very little of her time on systems issues. Now I’ve talked to some 
77 

CFOs who spend 25 to 50 percent of their time on systems issues, 

not on being a CFO. 

And so when you move toward this vision the Administration has 

of moving to fewer core financial systems and having the ability to 

get the data more easily, there are significant opportunities for savings across government and improving the way government operates. 

So I think it’s not just some of the things I talked about, 

benchmarking and the ability to have fewer people doing data calls 

because you can do it more easily, but it’s also about the infrastructure of government being more efficient. And as I said, we have 

seen within my own portfolio significant savings and opportunities 

by moving to this kind of model. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yes, certainly the chairman and I have tried to 

address some of that in IT investments and procurement because 

we have found incredible inefficiencies, and we’re hopeful that the 

legislation where Congress I hope is about to approve will help 

streamline that process and make it more efficient, and I know we 

can count on Mr. Dodaro to monitor the implementation of that 

and to give new power to CIOs to make more efficient decisions 

and to try to de-bureaucratize some of the decisionmaking, so I 

hope that happens in the IT sector. 

But I would just end by commending all three of you to the notion that we can’t continue to let the Pentagon insist it is unique; 

everything there is sui generis, and it should not be subject to 

these bothersome meddlesome procedures and accounting processes 

and the like. You know, the accounting of a dollar is the accounting 

of a dollar, whether it’s for defense or whether it’s for some other 

commodity or service. 

And the Pentagon can benefit from the efficiencies we’re talking 

about here with the DATA Act and other measures and, in fact, 

needs to. In a time of tight resources, it’s incumbent upon agencies 

like the Pentagon to identify the efficiencies we’re talking about, 

the savings we’re talking about, to stretch the dollars they do get 

appropriated. 

And so I hope your work will extend to the Pentagon because I 

think they can really benefit from it, and that’s where the dollars 

are. You know, if we exempt them or give them a pass, then a lot 

of our good work is not as widespread as it could be and will not 

have the maximum benefit that was intended I think here and by 

you alls good efforts. So I commend that thought to you. 

Thank you so much for being here today. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Georgia. 

Mr. WOODALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just wanted to say thank you to Gene here at the last hearing 

of the year at his topic. It always makes me feel better about where 

we’re headed and where we might be able to find some common 

ground to making a difference. I was with some of my freshman 

colleagues were here getting involved, and they were asking why 

can’t we just implement the GAO duplication report? Why can’t we 

just start there? Isn’t that going to be the common ground that 

brings folks together? I just want you to know how much your work 
78 

means to us, not just us who are here, but those new folks who will 

be coming in, in January. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to yield the balance of my time 

to you. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank you. 

Mr. Dodaro, I want to echo Mr. Woodall’s comments. I don’t 

think I heard you remind us that for every dollar we invest in 

GAO, we get about a $100 return. 

Mr. DODARO. That’s correct, Mr. Chairman. Last year. Implementation of our recommendations resulted in over $54 billion in financial benefits to the Government, and that’s been fairly consistent 

over the years; so I appreciate the recognition, Congressman 

Woodall. 

Chairman ISSA. How large is your budget? 

Mr. DODARO. Our budget is for this past year about $500 million. 

Chairman ISSA. So a 10 percent increase, $50 million, would give 

us about a $500 billion return. Right? 

Mr. DODARO. We would sure strive to make that happen. 

Chairman ISSA. OK. I just want to figure out how we can shave 

5 billion from the budget. It sounds like it’s a simple $50 million 

ledge branch appropriations. I want to close—— 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, could I just—— 

Chairman ISSA. Gentlelady. 

Ms. NORTON. This has been such a good and hopeful and encouraging hearing. I just want to caution us all to keep the usual skepticism of this committee, remember what a trial it was to get the 

Affordable Health Care Act across the country on-line because nobody had ever done it before? The Federal Government did it quite 

badly at first but ended it much better. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank God FITARA is being signed by the President as we speak practically. It’s going to take care of that. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, but think about this, now we’re asking every 

agency in the Federal Government to go on the same line. If ever 

we should have a note of caution, even skepticism, as the note we 

sound as we close this hearing, surely seeing what it took to get 

one agency to go on-line and then in the States just one agency to 

go on-line should caution us to do this very slowly with pilots in 

the agency first. 

Because we’re asking the entire Federal Government to do what 

we have already seen even one agency, a very large agency among 

those that have to do this, found it very difficult to do and to get 

it all lined up so that it all works smoothly. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentlelady. 

To that point, Mr. Dodaro, is the DATA Act truly new, or are we 

simply saying this time we really mean it? And I say that because 

for decades haven’t we told agencies they are to find interoperable 

systems. They are to make their reporting consistent with best 

practices. They are to provide—eliminate redundancy; and, in fact, 

they are to replace outdated programs, some of them running on 

Cobol and older systems. 

So in a sense, isn’t the DATA Act simply a road map to a transition that has been ordered by people who predate my 14 years in 

Congress? 
79 

Mr. DODARO. Yes, definitely. And I think, and I’ve said this here 

and in the Senate testifying on this, without the proper legislative 

underpinning and consistent oversight, this won’t happen; and I 

agree with the skepticism Ms. Norton is saying, and, but you’re 

right in the sense that this provides the really, the absolute requirements in law that people have to follow, and there have been 

many attempts in the past to try to achieve some of these aspirations. 

There’s unique aspects of the DATA Act in terms of machine 

readable data and other things that are very important. So I don’t 

want to say everything in there has been tried before. There are 

new features, but many of the fundamentals of it, of accurate reporting, complete reporting and standardized reporting, have been 

tried before with not very good effect. 

So I’m hopeful this time we’ll get it right; and with the legislation I commend this committee again, I think there’s higher prospects that we’ll get it right this time in the Government. 

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Mader, I saw your head shaking once again, 

and I appreciate when it does that. 

You’ve been in and out of government, and you’ve seen it and you 

are at the epicenter. OMB has been constantly saying to these 

agencies, you’ve got to give us stuff we can use. You’ve got to be 

accountable. 

Is this, in fact, saying here is the beginning, if you will, of a road 

map, and I know you’re going to continue designing the details of 

that road map, a road map of how you will achieve minimum 

standards, not best practices, but minimum standards that will 

allow you to manage the Federal Government better? 

Mr. MADER. I think, Mr. Chairman, one of the things I’ve learned 

in the private sector, and you mentioned it in your opening Statement, is what as a private sector company what’s expected, and 

you made a comment that I agree with—— 

Chairman ISSA. If you can’t measure it, it doesn’t get done. 

Mr. MADER. If you can’t measure it, it doesn’t get done. 

And I think this time with the legislation, with the oversight 

both GAO, the IGs, and the Congress, and I think the commitment 

of both the Treasury and the OMB, we can be successful over time. 

As Ms. Norton said, this—you know, I don’t think we should minimize the level of effort that it’s going to take to cross the complexity of this government to get people to agree on standards and 

then actually define the data against those standards and bring it 

all together. 

I think as we have all testified, this is good for the executive 

branch; it’s good for the legislative branch, and it’s certainly good 

for the American public. It’s just going to take us time and, you 

know, keep focused, and my commitment to the committee and to 

you is in, you know, in the two-plus years that I’m going to be here, 

this is one of my primary areas of focus. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

Mr. LEBRYK. Mr. LEBRYK. And I would agree with that. 

This is really very much of a high priority for me as well. I think 

the reference that you made to pilots is really important in that we 

do have agencies that are at different phases along the way, and 
80 

for us to show success and show the value is going to lead others 

to want to get on board more quickly. 

I am very much of an eternal optimist around this. And I think 

that it’s important for the leadership of a program like this to be 

very optimistic and sort of be out there and saying we need to be 

doing these things. But I’m also a realist and been in government 

long enough to know that this is tough stuff, and to have people 

think about something differently and approach it differently in 

part because technology has helped us here, there’s a different way 

that we apply technology than we have in the past, but that’s not 

something that every agency sees immediately and embraces immediately. So we’re going to have to show successes. We’re going 

to have to show people it can work; it does work. And I think that 

is going to lead to others saying, yes, this is something we very 

much want to embrace. 

Again, I think the good news is really we have not seen anyone, 

as Dave and I have gone out and spoke to them, who don’t understand the importance of this, that don’t understand the potential 

value. They do see difficulties about how they’re going to get from 

point A to point B, given the complexities of their systems, given 

funding issues that may be out there, that some are more reticent 

on this than others. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you, and I’m going to recognize the ranking member for close. 

But I’ll just say something from my private sector time. When 

you’ve got something that’s hard to do, and as you say you need 

buy in, it has to belong to them, you also need a carrot. So I would 

hope that as you’re developing the standards, and particularly I 

think OMB has this responsibility, you would embrace two things 

that I know you dealt with in the private sector. 

First of all, if somebody doesn’t say here’s best practices, then 

people will look at this as what is the minimum to get by; and, 

Gene, I know you will be saying you didn’t hit the minimum to 

most of the people who thought they hit the minimum, because if 

you shoot for the minimum, you’ll come up short. If you shoot for 

the stars, you’ll usually at least pass the minimum. 

And, second, nowhere in this legislation does it actually call for, 

if you will, an award. But I would strongly suggest that as we implement this, as people are asked to deliver you rich metadata-usable information, not just machine readable, but rich in how far it 

drills down, that in addition to the best practices you may develop, 

that some form of an award would, in fact, allow people just to 

compete annually for how do we give the American people and our 

IGs and the GAO and our own management team richer and richer 

and more easily readable material. 

And I say that because I think there’s two parts to it. There is 

the Federal work force that so much wants to be seen as doing 

something that’s worth being rewarded and awarded. But I also 

think there are a number of well-known contractors who work sideby-side who very much think that those awards are how they go 

in and sell their software, and so I can see various names—and I 

won’t mention any of them here but we all know them. They’re almost all large—they would be certainly active in wanting to make 

sure that their clients within government are the ones that win 
81 

that award, and I think that gets a buy-in at a level of the Federal 

work force and the contract community that I’m hoping with your 

leadership, that two-plus years you have left or perhaps more, 

you’ll be able to implement, and so I’d just ask you to consider that. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to—I thank all of you for being here today. Your testimony has been very helpful. 

You know, I—listening to all of it, and I go back to something 

that I talked to my staff about constantly, and that is, being effective and efficient. Two simple words, effective and efficient. The 

idea that we could not be counting and then having that information put out there, to me, is like basketball. I mean, this is basic 

stuff. You’ve got to be able to pass and dribble to play ball, and 

this, to me, is basic, and I know it’s—I know it’s difficult. I know 

it may be complicated, but I think if the American people knew the 

position that we’ve been in and the way we’ve been doing things, 

they’d be very upset because they don’t handle their budgets like 

that. 

Because they know if they handled their budgets and if they had 

such little information, it would be impossible to take care of their 

households. So I think we’ve come a long way, but the implementation is so important. And going back to the concerns of Ms. Norton. 

You know, funding is significant, and I realize that there is going 

to be some issues there, and we’re not—we can’t kid ourselves 

about that. 

But I also want us to be frank with what we can get done and 

in the time that we can do it. I think the American people get frustrated sometimes when I set—like the example that I gave a little 

earlier when I was talking about Katrina, I think about that all the 

time because I—because I realize that we constantly say things are 

going to work, and then when they don’t work, then the American 

people say, oh, God, my tax dollars are spent and they’re not being 

spent properly. 

So I think it’s so important that we make it work and make it 

work well. But Mr. Dodaro, I go back to what I asked you before, 

you know, this whole thing of information. I’m telling you, I don’t— 

the idea that the agencies are not providing the kind of information 

that needs to be provided in the way it needs provided, in the time 

it needs to be provided, to me, to me that undercuts all of this, and 

it goes back to what I said about effectiveness and efficiencies. 

So I think we—we now have a framework. I’m an optimist, too, 

I really am, but at the same time, I think we have to make sure 

that we put every single thing in this process, use every tool that 

we have to make it work and look for the gaps. And that’s the biggest gap, that information piece. That’s what this is all about, and 

if we don’t, then I think it goes against our effectiveness and efficiency. 

So again, I want to thank you all very much. I want to go back 

to the usage example. I want—Mr. Dodaro, I am looking forward 

to getting that information because I think it’s important that we— 

you know, we have contractors who are doing it right, and I agree 

with the chairman. I mean, there needs to be a balanced approach, 

but I want to make sure that—that—that we have—that the infor-
82 

mation so that we will know of those agencies, I mean those companies that may be not always acting at the best—highest level of 

integrity when dealing with the U.S. Government, that’s important. 

And so we—I think we have to make sure that we—I don’t know 

what this tool is. I want to see it, and I’m curious as to whether 

it addresses all of the issues with regard to subsidiaries, but I 

think it’s so very, very important, and so I don’t know how soon 

you’re going to get me that information. How soon do you think you 

can get that to us? 

Mr. DODARO. I’ll have it by next week. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I can’t hear you, sir. 

Mr. DODARO. I’m sorry. You’ll have it by next week. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Oh, very well, very well. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

I want to thank all of you for your valuable insight. I will additionally thank all of you, particularly OMB and Treasury, for your 

promises. We don’t often get answers that we think we can make 

a goal, we believe we can do this, and particularly, Mr. Lebryk, 

your insight into the need for buy-in by the actual agencies. I think 

that was valuable to all the members here. 

And although I will—I will not be here in the next Congress, I’ll 

be literally next door. I do look forward to following the hearings 

as I’m sure all of you will be back. Thank you, and we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 
(83) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 

Æ