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

94–275 PDF 2016

S. Hrg. 114–414 

IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY, EFFECTIVENESS, AND 

INDEPENDENCE OF INSPECTORS GENERAL 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 24, 2015 

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

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

KEITH B. ASHDOWN, Staff Director 

PATRICK J. BAILEY, Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs 

GABRIELLE D’ADAMO SINGER, Deputy Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs 

GABRIELLE A. BATKIN. Minority Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

TROY H. CRIBB, Minority Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs 

JONATHAN M. KRADEN, Minority Senior Counsel 

PETER P. TYLER, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

LAUREN M. CORCORAN, Hearing Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 1 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 2 

Senator Baldwin ............................................................................................... 17 

Senator Peters .................................................................................................. 19 

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 22 

Senator Booker ................................................................................................. 25 

Senator Ayotte .................................................................................................. 28 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 39 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 41 

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015 

Hon. Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice ....... 4 

Hon. Steve A. Linick, Inspector General, U.S. Department of State .................. 6 

Hon. John Roth, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ... 8 

Hon. Patrick P. O’Carroll, Jr., Inspector General, U.S. Social Security Administration ................................................................................................................. 10 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Horowitz, Hon. Michael E.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42 

Linick, Hon. Steve A.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50 

O’Carroll, Hon. Patrick P., Jr.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 76 

Roth, Hon. John: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 59 

APPENDIX 

FBI Statistics submitted by Senator Booker ......................................................... 82 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record: 

Hon. Horowitz ................................................................................................... 85 

(1) 

IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY, 

EFFECTIVENESS, AND INDEPENDENCE OF 

INSPECTORS GENERAL 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015 

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Johnson, Ayotte, Carper, McCaskill, Baldwin, 

Booker, and Peters. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON 

Chairman JOHNSON. This hearing will come to order. 

Senator Carper, Inspectors General (IGs), we certainly want to 

welcome you and thank you for your thoughtful testimony that was 

delivered well in advance of this hearing, which was very helpful. 

In preparing for this hearing, it was interesting, because working 

with Senator Carper, we have issued a mission statement for this 

Committee. It is simple: to enhance the economic and national security of America. But, within that, we have also listed a lot of priorities in terms of what this Committee is about. Our third priority 

under the Governmental Affairs section of this Committee was to 

identify, reduce, eliminate duplication, waste, fraud, and abuse 

within government, and, obviously, when you take a look at the 

IGs’ authorization language, that is really what you are about. 

Two weeks ago, we held a hearing with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and at that hearing, I said, particularly for 

this Committee, that agency is one of our favorite agencies, not to 

slight you gentlemen, because within the agencies, through the departments, certainly the Offices of Inspector General (OIG) are just 

crucial for our mission and for really accomplishing something we 

all agree on. I do not care whether you are Republican or Democrat, whether you are a big government person or somebody who 

is a little bit more toward limited government, what government 

we have we all want it to be as efficient and as effective as possible, and that is certainly the role that you play within your departments and your agencies. 

In the GAO hearing, just in 2 years, the recommendations that 

GAO had made resulted in about $40 billion worth of savings, and 

in the course of the hearing, as we were hearing additional rec-
2 

1The prepared statement of Senator Carper appears in the Appendix on page 41. 

ommendations, just a back-of-the-envelope calculation showed 

there were about $100 billion worth of potential savings there. 

And, looking through your testimony, it is looking also like, with 

your efforts, we are saving hundreds of millions, if not billions, of 

dollars, as well. So, this is, I think, from my standpoint, an important hearing. 

We certainly want to make sure that the Offices of Inspector 

General remain independent, that you have full access to the information that is required, and we are committed to helping any way 

we can legislatively. I know Senator McCaskill and Senator Grassley have been working on an Inspector General reform bill. I want 

to be fully supportive of that. I think we are looking at, hopefully, 

introducing that later this week with an awful lot of input from 

this hearing. So, this is very timely. We are going to want to use 

your testimony and your advice in terms of how we can craft that. 

I am hoping that Senator Carper will be a willing partner in that, 

as well. 

Chairman JOHNSON. And, speaking of Senator Carper, I would 

like to turn it over for your opening comments. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks 

for pulling this together, and our thanks to each of you for joining 

us. 

It is especially nice to see John Roth. How many days have you 

held your post now? Are you up to a year yet? 

Mr. ROTH. Not quite a year yet, Senator. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. All right. I look forward to catching up with you 

and seeing how it is going. But, thank you all for being here. 

I said to Michael, if he keeps showing up as often as he does, we 

are going to have to put him on the payroll, because he is one of 

our more faithful witnesses and valued, as well, as you all are. 

The Chairman has mentioned our interest in working with GAO. 

I have a statement I want to enter for the record.1 I will just say 

this. The Chairman has heard me say this to him. Senator Baldwin 

has heard me say this. And, I do not know if our colleague from 

Michigan has heard me say this, but when Dr. Coburn and I for 

years led the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, we 

learned how to leverage the effectiveness of a small Subcommittee 

by working with the full Committee. 

And, then we learned how to leverage our effectiveness further 

by working with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and 

by working with GAO. And, then we figured out, maybe we should 

work with the IGs, and we learned how to do that. And, then we 

learned how to work with nonprofit organizations that have a real 

interest in more efficient operation of our government. And, by 

doing all of that, we were able to accomplish a good deal, sometimes just by writing a letter, sometimes just by announcing a 

hearing, sometimes by just making a phone call, threatening to 

make a phone call, introducing a bill. You name it, we can get 

things done. 
3 

1The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 39. 

But, we see you very much as our partners in this and part of 

a, really, a good team. The key here is for all of us to be pulling 

in the same direction, and part of the purpose of this hearing is to 

find out how we are doing in that regard and are there some things 

that we need to do legislatively, or maybe with a phone call or a 

letter, that would enable you and the people that work with you 

and your respective teams across the Federal Government, would 

enable you to be more effective in your work and more satisfied in 

your work. 

But, the people of America are counting on us, and as the Chairman says, there are a lot of things people do not agree much on, 

but this is one they do. And, I from time to time talk to folks who 

say to me, ‘‘I do not mind paying taxes. I just do not want you to 

waste my money.’’ Or, ‘‘I would be willing to pay more taxes. I do 

not want you to waste my money.’’ Nobody wants us to waste their 

money. And, part and parcel of what you help us do is to reduce 

that as best we can. And, we can always do better, but today’s 

hearing will enable us, hopefully, to do better. 

Thank you all. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

I also have a formal statement. We will enter both of those in 

the record.1 Without objection, so ordered. 

It is the tradition of this Committee to swear in witnesses, so if 

you would all rise and raise your right hand. 

Do you swear the testimony you will give before this Committee 

will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 

help you, God? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I do. 

Mr. LINICK. I do. 

Mr. ROTH. I do. 

Mr. O’CARROLL. I do. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. 

I will introduce you right before you testify, so we will start out 

with Michael Horowitz. He is the Inspector General for the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Chairs the Council of the Inspectors 

General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE)—one of my favorite 

acronyms, by the way. Prior to joining the Inspector General Office, 

Mr. Horowitz had a decorated career as a Federal Prosecutor in the 

Criminal Division of the Department of Justice and in private practice at Cadwalader, Wickersham and Taft. 

Mr. Horowitz, we look forward to your testimony. 
4 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Horowitz appears in the Appendix on page 42. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL E. HOROWITZ,1

INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Carper, and 

Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify 

today, and thank you for the Committee’s bipartisan support for Inspectors General. 

Effective and independent oversight has never been more important, but to conduct that oversight, an IG must have timely and 

complete access to agency records. This is an issue of utmost importance, as evidenced by the letter signed by 47 Inspectors General in August 2014 strongly endorsing this principle. 

The IG Act could not be clearer. Inspectors General are entitled 

to complete, timely, and unfiltered access to all documents and 

records within the agencies’ possession. Delaying or denying access 

imperils an IG’s independence, impedes our ability to provide effective and independent oversight, and erodes the morale of the dedicated professionals that make up our staffs. 

My office knows these problems all too well. In particular, the 

Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) continues to take the position it first raised in 2010, that the IG Act does not entitle my office to access to certain records in the FBI’s possession, such as 

Grand Jury, Title III electronic surveillance, and Fair Credit Reporting Act information. 

In May 2014, the Department’s leadership asked the Office of 

Legal Counsel (OLC) to issue an opinion addressing the FBI’s legal 

objections. However, 9 months later, we are still waiting for that 

opinion. I cannot emphasize enough how important it is that OLC 

issue its opinion promptly, because the existing process at the Department undermines our independence and essentially assumes 

the correctness of the FBI’s position. The status quo cannot continue. 

We appreciate the strong support from Congress in trying to address these issues. In December 2014, a provision was included in 

the Appropriations Act, Section 218, which prohibits the Justice 

Department from using appropriated funds to deny my office timely 

access to records unless in accordance with an expressed limitation 

in the IG Act. While the law only recently went into effect, it is 

clear it has had a positive effect with some components. 

However, the FBI maintains its contrary legal position to this 

day. As a result, it is continuing its costly, wasteful, and time consuming process of reviewing documents responsive to our requests 

to determine whether it can produce them to us. As we are directed 

to do by Section 218, we have now recently reported in three instances, including whistleblower cases, where the FBI’s process has 

been inconsistent with the provision of Section 218. 

It is long past time to resolve this legal dispute. The FBI’s position contradicts the clear intent of the IG Act, Congress’s intent 

when it created our office, the FBI’s and the Department’s practice 

prior to 2010, where it frequently provided the very same categories of information it is now claiming it cannot provide us with, 

and two legal decisions by Federal District Judges finding that, in 

fact, we, the OIG, are entitled to access Grand Jury information. 
5 

We remain hopeful that OLC will conclude that the IG Act entitles my office to access all records in the Department’s possession. 

However, should the OLC decide otherwise, I would be pleased to 

work with the Committee to develop an appropriate legislative 

remedy. 

Let me briefly mention a few areas where the ability of Inspectors General to conduct strong and effective oversight could be enhanced. 

One such area is the capacity of Inspectors General to obtain testimony from former agency employees, contractors, and grant recipients. While the IG Act empowers us to subpoena records from 

individuals, we cannot require them to testify, even if they have 

critical evidence. While I believe any such authority should include 

protections to ensure it is used appropriately and only when necessary and does not inadvertently impair Justice Department prosecutions, I am confident such protections can be developed while 

also empowering Inspectors General to carry out their responsibilities. 

Another area where strong and effective Inspectors General oversight could be enhanced is by enabling us to more efficiently obtain 

and match readily available information that we already have access to in furtherance of our efforts to combat waste, fraud, and 

abuse. My colleague, Inspector General O’Carroll, will address this 

issue further when he discusses the need to address the Computer 

Matching Act limitations that we face. 

We also need to address concerns that have been raised relating 

to the work of CIGIE’s Integrity Committee, including with respect 

to the timeliness of its work and the transparency of its efforts. Inspectors General must maintain the highest levels of accountability 

and integrity, and as Chair of the Council of Inspectors General, 

I will make it a top priority to improve the procedures of the Integrity Committee. 

Finally, I would like to note that there are currently many vacancies in the Inspector General community. As this Committee 

has recognized previously, Acting Inspectors General and career 

staff carry on the work of the offices during a vacancy and they do 

it with the utmost of professionalism. However, a sustained absence of confirmed leadership is not healthy for any office. On behalf of the Inspector General community, I would encourage swift 

action with respect to selecting and confirming candidates for current and future vacant Inspector General positions. 

In conclusion, I look forward to working with this Committee to 

ensure that Inspectors General continue to be empowered to provide the kind of independent and objective oversight for which they 

have become known and for which the taxpayers deserve. 

I would be pleased to answer any questions the Committee may 

have. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Horowitz. 

Our next witness is Steve Linick. He has been the Inspector General for the Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of 

Governors (BBG) since September 2013. I would note that was a 

position that was held vacant for quite some time, correct? Prior to 

his appointment, he served as the first Inspector General of the 

Federal Housing Finance Agency. Mr. Linick. 
6 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Linick appears in the Appendix on page 50. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE STEVE A. LINICK,1

INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. LINICK. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member 

Carper, Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to 

testify today regarding the work of OIG at the Department of State 

and the Broadcasting Board of Governors. 

I have had the privilege to lead the OIG and its talented staff 

for the past 17 months. This OIG differs from others in a number 

of respects. 

First, OIG’s focus is on U.S. Government operations worldwide, 

involving more than 72,000 employees in 280 overseas missions. 

This is in addition to OIG’s oversight of the Department’s and 

BBG’s domestic operations. 

Second, OIG has historically and as required by law served as 

the Department of State’s inspection arm. We have highly experienced inspectors who inspect domestic and overseas units around 

the world. The reports of these inspections, which focus on issues 

ranging from security to leadership, are highly valued within the 

Department and the larger foreign affairs community. Since the beginning of my tenure, we have redoubled our efforts to focus on improving security for our people and facilities, improving oversight 

of contracts and grants, and enhancing information technology security. Let me elaborate a bit on each. 

First, protecting the people who work in the Department is our 

top priority. OIG has inspected physical security at overseas posts 

for years. However, since the September 2012 attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, OIG has stepped up its oversight efforts related to security. There is no doubt the Department 

has made progress in improving overseas security. Nonetheless, 

challenges still remain. Through our inspections and audit work, 

we continue to find notable security deficiencies. For example, our 

audit of the Local Guard Program found that firms providing security services were not fully vetting local guards they hired to protect our embassies, placing at risk our posts and personnel. Also related to security, OIG is currently involved in reviewing the Department’s reported compliance with recommendations made by the 

Accountability Review Board (ARB) convened in the aftermath of 

the 2012 attacks in Benghazi. 

Second, OIG has enhanced its efforts to oversee the Department’s 

management of contracts and grants, which totaled approximately 

$10 billion in 2014. Contract and grant management deficiencies, 

including lack of training, weak oversight, and inadequate monitoring, have come to light repeatedly in our audits, inspections, and 

investigations over the years. They were highlighted in two recent 

Management Alerts that I provided to senior management officials. 

Last, we continue to be very concerned about the Department’s 

management of information technology (IT) security. OIG assessments of the Department’s efforts to secure its IT infrastructure 

have found significant recurring weaknesses, including inadequate 

controls around who may access and manipulate systems. 

Vulnerabilities in the Department’s systems also affect OIG’s systems, which is part of the same network. As we noted in a Novem-
7 

ber 2013 Management Alert, there are thousands of administrators 

who have access to the Department’s databases. That access runs 

freely to OIG’s IT infrastructure and creates risks to our operations. 

Since joining OIG, I have adopted certain practices to enhance 

the effectiveness and efficiency of OIG’s independent oversight of 

the Department and the BBG. Let me take this opportunity to 

briefly mention some of them. 

As IGs, we work together with our Departments, contributing to 

their success by assisting them in becoming more efficient, effective, and economical. To be successful at this job, it is important 

to have effective and cooperative working relationships with Department principals, as well as open lines of communication. To 

this end, I meet regularly with Deputy Secretary Heather 

Higginbottom, about once a week, and periodically with Secretary 

John Kerry to discuss OIG’s work as well as the most critical 

issues facing the Department. I also meet with Under Secretaries 

and Assistant Secretaries. 

In addition to meeting regularly with Department principals, I 

adopted the practice of issuing Management Alerts and Management Assistance Reports. They supplement and enhance the impact of our audits, inspections, evaluations, and investigations by 

alerting senior officials in the Department to significant issues that 

require immediate corrective action. Often, these issues are systemic or cross-cutting. To date, senior management has engaged 

with us on the issues we have highlighted and have begun to take 

steps to respond to our concerns. 

We have also created a new office in OIG, the Office of Evaluations and Special Projects (ESP). This office publishes evaluations 

and special projects, including some of our Management Alerts, 

while complementing the work of OIG’s other offices. For example, 

we are currently undertaking a joint review with the Department 

of Justice OIG of a number of shooting incidents in Honduras in 

2012 involving the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and Department of State personnel and resources. An attorney in this new 

OIG office is leading our office’s efforts to enhance whistleblower 

protections. 

Before I was Inspector General, I spent many years as a Federal 

Prosecutor. One of my areas of focus was procurement fraud. 

Through that work, I came to appreciate the value of criminal and 

civil remedies, including suspension and debarment, to combat 

such fraud. Since arriving at OIG, we have enhanced our efforts in 

both our Office of Audits and Investigations to identify and refer 

appropriate cases to the Department for suspension and debarment. 

Drawing on my experience as a prosecutor, I have also initiated 

a program to place one or more qualified OIG employees as Special 

Assistant United States Attorneys in appropriate positions in the 

Department of Justice. We have found that having knowledgeable 

employees in such positions leads to quicker and more effective investigation and prosecution of fraud cases. 

Finally, I would like to close by talking about the impact of our 

work. In my written testimony, I quantified some of the financial 

metrics demonstrating OIG’s positive return on investment to 
8 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Roth appears in the Appendix on page 59. 

American taxpayers. But, financial statistics do not adequately reflect some of our most significant impacts: The safety and security 

of people and the integrity of the Department’s operations and reputation. Those are key motivators for our employees, many of 

whom are on the road for long periods of time or who serve for extended periods at dangerous locations. I am honored to serve alongside and lead them. 

In conclusion, Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Carper, and 

Members of the Committee, thank you again for the opportunity to 

testify today. I take seriously my statutory requirement to keep the 

Congress fully and currently informed and I look forward to your 

questions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Linick. 

Our next witness is Mr. John Roth. He has served since last 

March as the Inspector General for the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS). In addition to previous work for the Food and 

Drug Administration (FDA), Mr. Roth had a 25-year career as a 

Federal Prosecutor, including Chief of Staff to the Deputy Attorney 

General. Mr. Roth. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOHN ROTH,1 INSPECTOR 

GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. ROTH. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Carper, and 

Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me here today 

to testify. 

For an IG, independence is the coin of the realm. The GAO’s yellow book describes it as the State of mind that allows an individual 

to act with integrity and exercise objectivity and professional skepticism. Professional skepticism is an attitude that includes a questioning mind and a critical assessment of evidence, and in a nutshell, that is my job. I am a professional skeptic. I act as an agent 

of positive change within the Department by having the freedom to 

be independent and objective. I am here to ask the difficult questions, to challenge the Department I work for to be better, to be 

more efficient, to ensure rigor in Departmental operations, and to 

look for and eliminate waste. 

I am independent of the Department while, at the same time, 

part of it. The Inspector General Act gives me significant authority 

and substantial protection from undue influence. My salary is fixed 

by statute and I can be removed only by the President. I have, with 

very few narrow exceptions, the authority to conduct any investigation or any audit and write any report concerning Department operations that, in my judgment, is necessary or desirable. The law 

gives me the absolute right to protect the identity of whistleblowers, upon whom I depend to expose waste, fraud, and abuse. 

I have control over my own personnel and operations and employ 

my own counsel. 

Yet, for all the substantial power and protection the Congress 

has given me, it still requires the men and the women within my 

office to have the dedication and the courage to ensure compliance 

with the Act, and it requires the Secretary to understand the very 

valuable role that the Inspector General plays. 
9 

In addition to independence, transparency is critical to my work. 

The Act contemplates that my reports, to the greatest possible extent, are available to the public. Openness and transparency are 

critical to good government. The Department sometimes raises objection to certain information in our reports, marking parts of our 

reports as ‘‘For Official Use Only,’’ or ‘‘Law Enforcement Sensitive.’’ 

These designations are not recognized in the law, and in my experience, they risk being used to attempt to avoid revealing information that is embarrassing to the agency involved. 

That being said, we, of course, need to ensure that information 

that could cause harm to DHS is not revealed. In those situations, 

I use my discretion to redact information from public reports. To 

assist me in exercising that discretion, I require requests to come 

from the component or agency head, coupled with an articulation 

of the actual specific harm that would result from such a disclosure. Too often, the fear of harm is highly speculative and fails to 

balance the need for transparency against the risks of disclosure. 

Recently, we have had issues with the Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) designating material as ‘‘Sensitive Security 

Information (SSI), within a report concerning the IT operations at 

JFK Airport in New York. The designation of SSI is in the absolute 

and unreviewable discretion of the Administrator of TSA and improper disclosure of it by me would carry significant administrative 

and civil penalties. What was especially troubling about our episode, in my view, was the length of time it took—almost 6 

months—to get resolution of this issue, and the fact that my security experts who wrote the report were confident that the information that they wanted to publish did not harm IT security, and that 

similar information had been published only months earlier in previous audit reports without objection. 

The SSI designation is a useful tool to protect sensitive information in a manner that gives TSA flexibility. However, I am worried 

that SSI can be misused, as I believe it was in this circumstance, 

to prevent embarrassment. We intend to conduct a formal review 

of TSA’s stewardship of the SSI program and report those results 

to the Secretary and the Committees with jurisdiction over it. 

A brief word about resources for the OIG. The budget for our office is relatively tiny. We represent just 0.23 percent of the DHS 

budget, yet we have an outsized impact on the operation of the Department. For every dollar that is given to the OIG, we return 

more than $7 in savings, as reflected by our statutory performance 

measures. This number, in fact, vastly understates our performance, because much of our best work—audit and inspections report 

that shed light on problematic programs, for example—do not carry 

with it a cost savings, yet the value to the American taxpayer is 

incalculable. 

Unfortunately, our budget has actually shrunk since fiscal year 

(FY) 2012. As a result, our onboard strength has decreased by 

about 15 percent. We have been forced to cut training to less than 

a third of what we have deemed to be appropriate, reducing our 

ability to do our job and decreasing morale. And yet, at the same 

time, DHS’s authorized workforce has grown by about 5,000, representing a 2.3 percent increase. So, the Department continues to 

grow, but the Inspector General’s Office, the one entity that is 
10 

1The prepared statement of Mr. O’Carroll appears in the Appendix on page 76. 

charged with saving money and creating efficiency, shrinks. This, 

I believe, represents a false economy. 

Finally, I should discuss briefly the shutdown of DHS, which will 

occur this Friday unless Congress acts. For my office, this means 

the oversight function will come to an end. We will stop work on 

all our audits and reviews except for a few auditors who are working on FEMA’s use of the Disaster Relief Fund, and our special 

agents in the field who are engaged in criminal investigations. 

Those who stay will be required to work, but be in unpaid status. 

In that regard, they are like the majority of Homeland Security 

employees. We will ask them to protect our borders, patrol our 

seas, ensure the security of the airplanes we fly on, protect the 

President, keep us safe from those who have sworn to do us harm, 

but we will ask them to do so without an assurance of when their 

next paycheck will come. Additionally, during this time, as it has 

been since October, the Department will be deprived of the budget 

stability necessary for coherent management of DHS programs and 

operations. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared statement. I, of 

course, welcome any questions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Roth. 

Our next witness is Patrick O’Carroll, Jr. He has been the Inspector General for the Social Security Administration (SSA) since 

2004 and served a number of years prior to that in the office. Mr. 

O’Carroll has also 26 years of service for the United States Secret 

Service. Mr. O’Carroll. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE PATRICK P. O’CARROLL, 

JR.,1 INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. O’CARROLL. Good morning, Chairman Johnson, Ranking 

Member Carper, and Members of the Committee. I want to welcome the new Members of the 114th Congress and the new Members of this Committee. Thank you for the invitation to participate 

in this discussion. 

In 2010, my office identified a thousand people who were on Social Security Disability while also collecting Federal Workers’ Compensation, but without reporting that to the Social Security Administration. We determined that the Social Security Administration 

overpaid these people over $40 million. Unfortunately, we did not 

have a computer matching agreement with the Department of 

Labor (DOL), so SSA could not recover those funds and we could 

not pursue criminal cases. 

Today, I would like to highlight three tools that would strengthen our ability to detect fraud, waste, and abuse, report operational 

weaknesses or vulnerabilities, and invest in program integrity initiatives. 

First, my office has shown that data matching can be extremely 

effective in identifying Social Security improper payments. For example, our auditors matched Homeland Security travel data 

against SSA records. We identified thousands of Supplemental Security Income recipients who were outside of the United States for 
11 

more than 30 days, making them ineligible to receive these payments. Based on the match, we estimated that 35,000 people improperly collected $150 million. 

We notified SSA and made policy recommendations, but we could 

not take action on specific individuals because we did not have a 

computer matching agreement. The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act (CMPPA) requires us to secure a matching 

agreement through SSA’s Data Integrity Board. Unfortunately, the 

process is difficult and can take a year or more. Thus, we undertook this Homeland Security match for statistical purposes only, 

which is allowed under the CMPPA without an agreement. But, 

similar to the Workers’ Compensation match I mentioned earlier, 

we could not forward any names to SSA nor could we explore any 

criminal prosecutions. 

We also have delayed a promising investigative project with the 

Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General. With a 

data match, we could identify licensed commercial drivers who concealed work activity so that they could collect disability payments. 

GAO examined this issue in 2008 and referred critical findings to 

us, but we have not been able to undertake this type of work without a matching agreement. 

The CMPPA requirement compromises our independence and 

delays time sensitive audit and investigative efforts. An exemption 

to the law to permit matches related to audits and investigations 

designed to identify fraud and waste would greatly benefit the IG 

community and all taxpayers. A matching agreement exemption 

would allow other potential projects, including matching Social Security data against State marriage records, Workers’ Compensation 

data, and vehicle registration databases. These and other data can 

help our office and SSA identify fraud and prevent improper payments. 

The Health and Human Services (HHS) and its OIG are already 

exempt from data matches designed to identify fraud, waste, and 

abuse. It makes sense to extend this exemption to all OIG data 

matches for the same purpose. 

Additionally, an exemption to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA) for general audits or investigations would benefit the IG 

community. Because we oversee a benefit program, our audits require us to survey beneficiaries and other members of the public. 

Often, we want to collect identical information from many individuals. OMB has indicated that these audits are subject to approval 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act. However, this process can 

take several months, which hinders our ability to complete audits 

on critical issues and provide timely responses to our stakeholders. 

A PRA exemption for general audits would improve our ability to 

be responsive to you and allow us to identify more improper payments and fraud. 

For example, we would like to interview representative payees 

serving vulnerable beneficiaries who have been overpaid many 

times. We want to determine if payees are aware of and understand SSA’s reporting requirements. With PRA exemption, we 

could complete this audit without delay, to determine if SSA needs 

more outreach to the representative payees, and make payees more 

accountable for the funds that they oversee. 
12 

In my role at Social Security, I have long been an active member 

of CIGIE. My colleagues here today, and all CIGIE members, work 

to address common challenges and share oversight best practices. 

As this Committee knows, my office has taken a lead role for 

CIGIE in measuring agency compliance with recent legislation and 

mandates to reduce Federal improper payments. 

To strengthen our ability to identify and prevent improper payments, we support the establishment of a self-supporting fund for 

integrity activities. We have proposed to make available to SSA 

and our office a portion of the actual collected overpayments. These 

funds would be used only for integrity activities that would provide 

a significant return on investment. 

An integrity fund could prove effective for deceased payee fraud 

investigations, a significant workload for our special agents. Last 

year, we investigated over 600 people who misused the Social Security benefits of someone who was deceased. Criminal convictions of 

about 150 people generated $35 million in recoveries and restitution. If we had an integrity fund, we could reinvest a portion of 

those funds for other integrity work. 

In conclusion, skillful, independent, and timely oversight is paramount to the integrity and efficiency of all Federal agencies. My office has a 20-year distinguished history of conducting effective audits and leading high-impact investigations. However, we still face 

obstacles in our efforts to promote the integrity and efficiency of 

SSA’s programs and operations. In sum, three specific tools can 

help us do our work better and faster: a CMPPA exemption, a PRA 

exemption, and an integrity fund. We appreciate this forum for our 

discussion and we look forward to working with you as you consider our proposals. 

Thank you again for the invitation to testify today and I will be 

happy to answer any of your questions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. O’Carroll. 

I think as we all just witnessed here, we have four Inspectors 

General, great integrity, and I just really appreciate your thoughtful testimony. 

Senator McCaskill, I did mention before you got here in my opening comments the work you have been doing with Senator Grassley 

on a bill to certainly codify some of the requests they had, and if 

you want to do it right now, that is fine, or before your question. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I can do it before my questions, but thank 

you for asking that. 

Chairman JOHNSON. No, I appreciate your efforts on that. 

There are a number of suggestions that have been made here, 

some recommendations of things that we need to, I think, legislatively provide so you can do your job. I do want to go first to Mr. 

Horowitz and probably Mr. Roth about Acting IGs. I know in terms 

of the Veterans Administration (VA), we have had an Acting IG. 

We have had some real problems in the VA. Senator Baldwin and 

I have certainly witnessed what is happening in Wisconsin. I am 

concerned about that. Senator McCaskill and I were involved in, I 

guess, investigations regarding the Acting IG in the Department of 

Homeland Security, and we saw the problem there. 

The question I have for you, Mr. Horowitz, what is the problem 

in appointing permanent IGs? In terms of the VA, it was well 
13 

known, I think it was back in November 2013, that the permanent 

IG was going to retire as of December. That position has been vacant now for basically 14 months. What is the hang-up in terms of 

identifying? Is it just lack of available individuals? Is it lack of 

will? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. That is an excellent question and I think one of 

the issues is simply making these positions priorities in terms of 

the nominating process, the vetting process, and then the confirmation process. 

Speaking—I think you have three, actually, of us are in agencies 

that have had this issue arise. My own agency, Glenn Fine, my 

predecessor, announced in 2010 that he was going to be leaving in 

January 2011. I was nominated in July 2011 and confirmed in 

March 2012. So, even with sufficient notice, the process took a 

lengthy period of time. 

There are plenty of available candidates who are interested in 

becoming IGs. I know from 6 weeks now on the job as Chair of the 

Council of IGs, we send resumes to the Presidential Personnel Office of interested candidates that we have looked at and vetted, and 

there has to be a commitment to move these nominations promptly. 

Chairman JOHNSON. How many vacancies are there, and how 

many people have been nominated for those positions? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. If I recall correctly, both Presidentially confirmed 

positions and designated Federal entity positions, I believe the 

number is 11 vacancies, and there is one nominee for those 11 slots 

pending. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So, I think that is a problem. If there are 

plenty of people that are available for the position, we need to get 

those nominated, and certainly, I think, this Committee will be 

dedicated to move those through the confirmation process as quickly as possible. 

Mr. Roth, you obviously got into a Department in the Office of 

Inspector General where there were some real morale problems 

and we had an Acting Inspector General. Senator McCaskill and I, 

in our investigation of that position, certainly saw the corrosive 

and the improper result of having an Acting Inspector General that 

might be vying for the permanent Inspector General. Can you 

speak a little bit to what you found when you entered your office. 

Mr. ROTH. Well, certainly, unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, 

you are in as good a position as anyone to understand the effect 

on the morale of the individuals there, both because of the threat 

to the independence of the IG as well as the appearance of the 

threat to the independence of the IG. And, it really does not matter 

if you are independent or not independent. Once you have lost that 

perception of independence, you are pretty much done, because the 

only difference between, as I like to tell Secretary Johnson, the 

only difference between me and the rest of the 225,000 people in 

the Department of Homeland Security is that I am, in fact, independent and am perceived to be that way. That is the value that 

we add, and once you lose that, you can never be effective again. 

Chairman JOHNSON. In your testimony, you used, I think, an important word. You said ‘‘courage.’’ Can you describe an instance of 

courage that was required by an Inspector General? 
14 

Mr. ROTH. I think this happens all the time, and I think you see 

that, for example, with Mr. Horowitz’s situation with the FBI, 

where this is a situation in which two very powerful forces are at 

loggerheads. And, the fact that you have a confirmed Inspector 

General who has all the protections of the IG Act—that our salary 

is fixed, we do not get a bonus, they cannot fire us, we can do any 

audit that we choose to do that we believe is incredibly important 

to be able to really speak truth to power. And, that is, in fact, part 

of our job. 

Chairman JOHNSON. What type of pressure do you come under, 

do Inspectors General come under, that require courage to push 

back on? 

Mr. ROTH. Well, you have to admit, we are not very popular 

sometimes, because no one likes to be audited, right. We are in the 

bad news business. Oftentimes, we go in and we expose programs 

that have significant waste or significant problems to it, and we do 

so with a certain rigor based on the training that our auditors receive to be able to do it in a regimented sort of logical way. And, 

that is very unpleasant for the people being audited, and, of course, 

there is going to be push-back with regard to that and it is very 

important to be able to simply hold your guns with regard to that. 

I will say that I am fairly fortunate, because the Secretary in my 

Department understands the value of the IG and is a fairly sophisticated individual when it comes to my role versus his role. So, I 

am fortunate there, but I think other people may have some horror 

stories. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. I will get to the other two. I 

want to go back to Mr. Horowitz because Mr. Roth just used a word 

I was going to use, ‘‘push-back.’’ In the case of the FBI denying you 

access to information, is there legitimate push-back from them? Is 

there a legitimate reason for their classification? And, I will be asking across the board, whether it is matching or some of these other 

areas that you need help on. What are the legitimate reasons why 

there are so many Department personnel that do push back? Specifically talk about the FBI. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. In the access area, we got access to information 

up to 2010 in all of these categories. No law changed in 2010. No 

policy changed. The IG Act stayed the same, the Grand Jury statutes. Everything stayed the same. It was simply a decision by the 

General Counsel’s Office in 2010 that they viewed now the law differently, and as a result, they were not going to give us that information. 

In the national security letter reviews that we did, we have done 

a lot of national security reviews of the FBI’s use of the authorities 

Congress has given to them. In the middle of our third review of 

the national security letter matter, which we released last year, information we got at the start of the review, prior to 2010, was no 

longer given to us after the change in legal position, credit information. It made no sense. And, it is, frankly, from my standpoint, inexplicable, other than a new lawyer making a new decision about 

a law that had not changed. And, it should not be allowed to stand. 

There is nothing more I can do at this point, frankly, other than 

having testified about seven times now and sending the letters pursuant to the Appropriation Act to the appropriators and to you and 
15 

the other Committees that oversee us and try and get some action. 

Our power comes from speaking out publicly and hoping that there 

is followup and action as a result. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Well, hopefully, the seventh time is a 

charm. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Yes. [Laughter.] 

Chairman JOHNSON. With that, Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, our thanks to each of you for your testimony and for your 

responses to our questions. 

I want to first take up the issue of those agencies for whom no 

permanent or Senate confirmed IG is in place. A year or two ago, 

Dr. Coburn and I, along with a number of people on this Committee, sent a letter to the President, and we said this is a problem 

and it needs your attention. And, I think we got some response, 

and there were a number of IGs that were nominated subsequent 

to that. 

But, I believe there are at least two off of that list that we wrote 

to the President about some time ago that are still situations 

where the IG is there in an acting position. Do you know if that 

is correct? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I believe that is correct. There are—in each of— 

in several of the open positions, vacant positions, several IGs who 

have spent many months as acting, done a very strong job, but are 

sitting there in acting positions for over a year. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman and colleagues, we may want to 

do again what we did a year or so ago and keep raising this as an 

issue, try to establish a sense of urgency, and I would hope that 

the other colleagues on our Committee would like to join us in 

doing that. 

Mr. Roth, Chairman Johnson, and Senator Sasse, who is a new 

Member of our Committee, were down on the Mexican border in 

South Texas a couple of weeks ago, and one of the things we heard 

in terms of strengthening the border, from a number of folks who 

said the real key to border security is technology and finding and 

deploying force multipliers to help make the men and women on 

the ground, the Border Patrol and others, more effective in their 

work. 

One of the force multipliers that we witnessed personally, up 

close and personal, were drones, and we talked a lot with the folks 

there about that technology and its effectiveness and how cost effective it is. I am not going to get into this today in a public setting, but we very much need to somehow reconcile the findings of 

your office with the needs and the perceived needs, strongly held 

views, if you will, of the Department of Homeland Security. 

I hope this year we are going to take up again Homeland Security legislation, immigration reform, I hope, border security legislation, and there is going to be a strong interest in deploying more 

assets in terms of drones. We have to make sure that the money 

that we are spending, the taxpayer money that we are spending, 

is cost effective. So, we need for you to work with us. We need for 

you to work with the agency to try to resolve this issue so that we 

make informed decisions going forward. We will just leave it at 

that for right now. 
16 

Mr. O’Carroll, I once asked a member of my staff—he was talking to me about a Death Master File (DMF), and I said, what is 

the Death Master File, and he said it is a file you do not want your 

name to be on, because—— [Laughter.] 

Because if it is, you are dead. And, I said, well, you are probably 

right. I am not ready for that yet. But, I understand that, as you 

know, and you spoke to it in your testimony, a lot of people whose 

names are on that file who still receive benefits from a variety of 

Federal agencies, and I am led to believe it has something to do 

with our reluctance at the Social Security Administration to more 

broadly share that information to other agencies who have a legitimate need for that in terms of program integrity. 

I think you touched on this in your testimony. Come back and 

help me. Drill down on this with us, if you will, because we actually passed legislation out of this Committee last year as part of 

our improper payments legislation. We ran into a brick wall over 

in the House of Representatives, in the Subcommittee of Ways and 

Means, and I just want to get to the bottom of this and see if we 

cannot avoid that brick wall and if we cannot actually get this done 

this year. I think we are leaving a lot of money—tens of millions, 

maybe hundreds of millions of dollars—on the table, and it is not 

just unfortunate, it is tragic. Please. 

Mr. O’CARROLL. Well, Senator Carper, about 2.5 million people 

die every year, and that information is shared with SSA by the 

States, and that is usually done electronically. Sometimes, it is 

very good. Sometimes, it is not as good. And, as you were saying, 

you do not want to be on that list for a couple reasons. One is you 

do not want to be on the list because you are dead. But, you also 

do not want to be on the list and be alive but everyone thinks you 

are dead, because you will not be able to get credit. 

So, anyway, we have done a lot of work on that. We have worked 

with SSA. We have kept your Committee and the Committees on 

the House side informed on this. And, I guess an easy example of 

where there is an issue on it is that every year, with the amount 

of information coming into SSA, if a person is not on benefits, oftentimes, that record may not be corrected by SSA. 

So, as an example, on an audit that we just did, we found about 

6.5 million people that are on SSA’s records that are over 112 years 

of age. 

Senator CARPER. How many? 

Mr. O’CARROLL. Six-point-five million people are on SSA’s records 

as alive when they are over 112 years of age. 

Senator CARPER. That is remarkable. 

Mr. O’CARROLL. I was going to say, usually a handful of people 

are in that age group as it is. 

So, anyway, that is a major issue. So, when the Death Master 

File is released, that information on it is going to be showing that 

a person who is deceased is alive. Then, fraud or other misuse can 

happen with that information. So, that is one issue on it. 

The other issue is that that information is only shared right now, 

or the death information that SSA has is shared with about eight 

benefit-paying agencies. So, if you are not a benefit-paying agency, 

you are not getting all that death information. So, it is turned over 

from SSA first to the benefit-paying agencies and then the Depart-
17 

ment of Commerce, and the Department of Commerce then sells a 

public version to the financial industry. And, when it hits the financial industry, that is where the problems are with the accuracy. 

So, if it is showing you as dead when you are alive, or alive when 

you are dead, you are going to have those type of credit issues. 

Recent legislation mandates a delay in sending out the information, so that if it is incorrect and you are alive and you are reflected as deceased, there will be 3 years to fix it before it goes out. 

Now, as it goes out immediately, you are going to be spending a 

large amount of your time trying to go to all the credit industries 

and explain to them that you are alive when, because of a glitch 

you are on the Death Master File. 

So, anyway, we have done a lot of work on the Death Master 

File. We have made a lot of recommendations. We are trying to get 

SSA to share more with the Federal agencies through the ‘‘Do Not 

Pay’’ initiative so that they will have the most up-to-date information. And, we have also asked SSA to extend resources to fixing the 

records of those six million people that are over 112 years of age, 

but SSA is saying that they are unable to do it because they are 

using their resources just to take care of people that are on benefits 

and that it would be a bridge too far for them to go back and make 

those corrections at this time. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Well, we look forward to continuing 

to work with you on this. Thank you all very much. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

The order of questioning will be Senator Baldwin, Senator Peters, Senator McCaskill, and then Senator Booker. Senator Baldwin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BALDWIN 

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you, and I want to thank you, Mr. 

Chairman and Ranking Member Carper, for holding this very valuable hearing. 

And, I want to thank the witnesses for being here today and 

sharing your insights and your time. Inspectors General are clearly 

essential to the proper functioning of government, and you and 

your staffs are internal auditors. You are the stewards of taxpayer 

dollars, the agents of quality control, and the enemies of waste, 

fraud, and abuse. But, to achieve your goals, Inspectors General 

must be properly resourced as well as provided with unfettered access to both required information and agency officials. Inspectors 

General must also be empowered to followup on findings and recommendations of their audits and investigations. And, without an 

ability to compel the agency in question to take remedial action, an 

IG’s impact is severely limited. 

As the Chairman referenced in his opening remarks, he and I 

have seen an example of this in the case of the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General and the Tomah VA Medical Center in Tomah, Wisconsin. I recognize that there is not a 

representative here from the VA Office of Inspector General, but I 

guess I have some more general questions about best practices but, 

let me just go a little bit further. I have questions for each of the 

witnesses as to how each of your offices handle issues of followup 

and transparency. 
18 

In the case of the Tomah VA facility, the VA Office of Inspector 

General found evidence of troubling opioid prescribing practices 

and recommended certain changes at the facility and the regional 

level. However, the Secretary’s Office in Washington was unaware 

of these recommendations, and it seems that whatever reforms and 

recommendations were put in place at the local facility, Tomah, either had not been implemented, had not been implemented effectively, or were insufficient to address the issue. 

It makes no sense to me that an IG would make recommendations to solve problems at a local facility and then entrust that facility solely, or with regional oversight, to implement these changes 

without Federal oversight, without oversight from its managers 

who may be in Washington or based elsewhere. So, I have three 

questions related to this for each of you. 

If an Office of Inspector General recommends changes at a local 

Federal facility, should the Federal offices in Washington who are 

charged with overseeing those local facilities be made aware of 

these recommendations? Second, how do you ensure recommendations are implemented effectively? And, third, what role do transparency and communication play in assuring compliance? And, why 

do we not just go starting with Mr. Horowitz. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Thank you, Senator. We regularly do followup reviews. So, for example, we are in the middle of a followup on the 

Fast and Furious matter to see if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has implemented the recommendations that we made. We just issued our third report on Section 215 

of the Patriot Act and how the FBI has used those authorities. I 

mentioned the national security letters review. We did multiple 

followups of the FBI’s use of those authorities. And, in each instance, look at our prior recommendations and made new recommendations on top of the old ones. 

We regularly make known our recommendations to leadership. 

We make sure we are following up to ensure implementation. In 

some cases, obviously, we initiate additional reviews, but we do followup and, in fact, put in place a process by which we are now periodically sending our open recommendations report to the Deputy 

Attorney General and the Attorney General so they can see how 

many are open and how long they have been open and what they 

are about. And, we modeled that, frankly, after this Committee’s 

letter to us and the House Oversight and Government Reform 

Committee’s letter to us annually about open recommendations so 

that we can make those known to the Department’s leadership. 

And then, finally, in terms of transparency, we make all of our 

reports, our audits, and reviews public, subject to, obviously, classification issues. So, in some instances, we are not able to do that, 

but where the law allows us to make it public, we will make it public. 

Senator BALDWIN. Mr. Linick. 

Mr. LINICK. Thank you, Senator. You raise a good point. As IGs, 

we cannot require the agencies to comply with our recommendations. So, we can only try to persuade them to do so. We can publish those recommendations in our semi-annual reports. We can tell 

Congress and try to exert influence that way. So, this is a difficult 

area for IGs. 
19 

We, too, have a followup compliance review process. We have 

units in our office which do compliance followup reviews. The problem is, the agencies can agree all they want to implement recommendations, but the rubber meets the road when they are actually implementing them, and sometimes agreeing with implementing them is not the same as actually implementing them. 

We are currently doing a followup review with respect to our report or the Benghazi situation. We actually issued a report looking 

at the Accountability Review Board process. And, we are also looking at how the agency is complying with our recommendations, 

which we issued in September 2013. But, in addition to that, the 

Benghazi Accountability Review Board issued 29 recommendations 

which are vital to the security of our folks overseas, and the extent 

to which the Department complies with those recommendations is 

absolutely critical. So, we are doing a compliance review on the 

Benghazi ARB reports. It is someone else’s report, but we are looking to see their compliance on that. And, we do that in other cases 

where there are critical recommendations. 

The other thing I would mention is this. Another tool that we use 

to ensure compliance with recommendations is our Management 

Alerts. We have recently issued a number of Management Alerts 

where we found recommendations were not being followed, in part 

because the recommendations were narrow in the previous reports. 

So, we have issued these Management Alerts to broaden our recommendations to aim them at senior leadership, because compliance with the recommendations has to come from the top down. So, 

using Management Alerts is another way we do that. 

And, like IG Horowitz said, our reports are also public, and the 

taxpayer has a right to see what we say and how the Department 

is complying with what we say. 

Senator BALDWIN. Mr. Roth. 

Chairman JOHNSON. To be fair to other Senators, we can come 

back to that in a second round. Your time has expired, Senator 

Baldwin. I would like to go to Senator Peters next. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to each 

of the witnesses today and your testimony, which is very interesting. 

Mr. Roth, I know you mentioned that all of you are not real popular with the agencies, but I will say you are very popular with 

this Committee. We really appreciate the work that you do, the 

service you give to this country, not only saving taxpayers money, 

but also making sure that the policies that are in place, that we 

put in place and others, are actually followed. So, thank you to all 

four of you for your work and your service to this country. 

I would like to address, in fact, one of those policies that I think 

is of interest to the folks on the Committee and that deals with 

homeland security generally, but Mr. Horowitz, I would like to discuss briefly the Terrorist Watch List as well as the No Fly List. As 

you know, it can be a serious problem if an individual who should 

be on the No Fly List is not on that list for some reason. We are 

reminded in my area in Detroit, we had the so-called ‘‘Underwear 

Bomber’’ on Christmas Day back in 2009 that was known to the 
20 

U.S. Government as a potential threat, but was not on the consolidated list. 

But, it is also a problem when folks get on the No Fly List when 

they perhaps should not be on that No Fly List. I am very proud 

to represent a very large Arab American population. In fact, the 

largest Middle Eastern population outside the Middle East resides 

in Michigan, and I hear repeatedly of folks who find themselves on 

this list and they are unsure why they are on that list and it disrupts their plans dramatically. In fact, I was at an Arab American 

Chamber of Commerce meeting and heard from a number of individuals who have been disrupted and feel that they do not have an 

opportunity for due process to get off that list. 

I know your office has looked into this and you have studied that 

and audited that. If you have some recommendations for this Committee as to how we might be able to deal with this issue, because 

it certainly raises some civil liberties issues. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Senator, we have looked at the issue. In fact, to 

Senator Baldwin’s last question, we just completed our fifth review 

of the FBI’s management of the Terrorist Watch List. There are obviously multiple agencies that deal with the Watch List and getting 

people’s names on the No Fly List. We have the FBI portion of it, 

obviously. IG Roth has the TSA’s portion of it. And, the intelligence 

community has other portions of it. 

But, in our most recent audit, we found that there were still both 

issues as to the FBI’s cases and how they were getting names both 

on the list that should be on the list and getting names off the list 

that should not be on the list. And, we addressed and have in our 

most recent report the public version—there is a redacted classified 

version that the members, obviously, have full access to—that 

shows how the timing of the removals—speaking specifically on removals now—has improved, but how there are still issues about 

how promptly the FBI is addressing removing individuals from the 

Watch List. We made a recommendation to the FBI that it evaluates further its timeliness metrics and figures out how it can more 

timely remove people from the Watch List when the cases are 

closed, the reviews are closed, when they otherwise learn that 

those individuals should not be on the Watch List. 

Senator PETERS. Great. Thank you. 

And, Mr. Roth, good morning. I wanted to followup a little bit on 

this, as well. I also want to say we share the same law school, a 

graduate of Wayne State University in Detroit, both undergraduate 

and law, so it is great to have you here in this position here in 

Washington. And, so, you are certainly very familiar with the dynamics in Michigan, as well, from being there. 

Now, I have heard complaints from Customs and Border Protection, or that Customs and Border Protection agents have been consistently asking some of the Muslims in Michigan about their religious practices and affiliations as they cross the border from Detroit-Windsor, which is a very active border crossing, as you know. 

Has your office investigated some of these complaints, and can you 

talk about some of your office’s investigations into racial profiling 

at the DHS and share what you have found. 

Mr. ROTH. We have not looked at that specific issue, Senator, but 

we certainly would be pleased to do so. Part of what we do is a fair-
21 

ly fulsome civil rights—civil liberties practice that we share in conjunction with the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties within 

DHS. It is something that DHS takes very seriously. But, unfortunately, not having done work in that specific area, it is difficult for 

me to comment. 

Senator PETERS. Very good. 

Mr. Horowitz, back to you, your office has a number of oversight 

efforts that are related to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). And, specifically, if you could share any findings that might inform 

Congress’s decisions related to the exploding price tag. We are now 

spending nearly $7 billion within the Justice Department’s budget 

for the Bureau of Prisons. If you could share with this Committee 

some of your findings or suggestions for improving the Bureau of 

Prisons inmate and custody management programs, as well as 

things related to prisoner reentry, which is also a very important 

aspect if we are going to reduce cost. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Certainly, Senator. We have done a fair amount 

of work in that area. It is among our top challenges that we have 

put in our two most recent top management challenges report. As 

you note, it is about a quarter of the Justice Department’s budget. 

It is an ever-growing percentage of the budget. And, it is beginning 

to crowd out other priorities for the Department. 

We have done work to look at the Bureau of Prisons handling of 

its Compassionate Release Program, its handling of the Treaty 

Transfer Program, both of which Congress has authorized the Bureau of Prisons to use to deal with inmates who meet the qualifications in those programs. We are currently looking at the growth in 

the aging inmate population at the Bureau of Prisons, which creates significant issues, including the fact that the Bureau of Prisons is now spending $1.1 billion on inmate health care costs. That 

is about 3 percent of the Justice Department’s budget is going to 

inmate health care, and a growing number, as well. So, we are 

looking at that, as well. 

On the reentry side, we have looked consistently at halfway 

houses and the operation of halfway houses. We are looking and 

considering how to look further at reentry, whether the programs 

are, in fact, working, and what the metrics show with regard to 

their success rates. 

Senator PETERS. Do you have adequate data to perform that 

analysis, particularly when it comes to reentry programs? Are 

there data sets out there that you can access? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. That is actually one of our biggest challenges, 

Senator, that you have just touched on, which is that there is not 

reliable data that we have found that shows recidivism rates for 

some of these programs, success rates for education, training, drug 

treatment programs, and when we are doing reviews, we often 

have to do the metrics ourselves—in a very rudimentary way, but 

to try and do some metrics around that. 

Senator PETERS. Right. Something we definitely need to do, then. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. It is critical. If you are going to do performancebased reviews of government programs, you need strong metrics 

and underlying data to do that. That is one of the biggest challenges we have in the prison area. 

Senator PETERS. Great. Thank you so much. Thank you. 
22 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Peters. 

Again, I want to acknowledge the good work that Senator 

McCaskill has done on a bill that I hope we can introduce. She has 

been working with Senator Grassley. I have been very supportive. 

I hope this Committee, on a very bipartisan basis, can be supportive. It addresses almost all of the issues that you are addressing here, so I will give you an extra minute—— 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Senator. 

It is always terrific to have you here. I think all of you know the 

affection and affinity I have for your community. As a former prosecutor and a former auditor, I understand both the power you have 

and the limitations of the power that you have. That is why we 

have tried diligently in my office to not only use your work to inform what we do in the Senate, but also to try to do everything we 

can to support your community. 

I think the legislation that we have worked very hard on is getting to a point that it is really good, because I think we can address 

the data matches. I think we can address the challenges that you 

have. And, frankly, Mr. Horowitz, nobody understands better than 

a State prosecutor the frustration you have with the FBI. [Laughter.] 

This is a cultural issue within the FBI about sharing information, even with local police and local prosecutors. I think we can 

really address a lot of these issues. 

I think, also, providing an appropriation for CIGIE is important. 

I have been very frustrated with the amount of time the Integrity 

Committee has taken with some of the investigations. Particularly 

the investigation into Mr. Edwards at DHS, where we were anxious for CIGIE to complete the work as we were trying to put pressure to clean up an office that is so vitally important to our Nation. 

Also, the National Archives IG. Both of those investigations languished. 

I want to talk a little bit today—I really appreciate, Mr. Roth, 

your characterization first of the importance of independence as the 

coin of the realm, and second, the importance of transparency. Let 

me clarify the different kinds of Inspectors General we have. I do 

not think a lot of people understand that the two kinds are completely different animals. 

We have the Presidentially appointed Inspectors General that 

must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. This provides more independence in terms of appearances than the other kinds of IGs we 

have, which are the Designated Federal Entity IGs. They are not 

appointed by the President. They are not confirmed by the Senate. 

They are, in fact, appointed by their agencies. We have worked at 

reforming this because, on its face, that is a problem. Now, I do not 

think people realize that we have more of the Designated Federal 

Entities (DFEs) than we have of the Presidentially appointed IGs. 

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe we have 34 Designated 

Federal Entities and only 30 Presidentially appointed. 

So, let me ask you this question. Is there a list of the salaries 

of the Designated Federal Entity Inspectors General? 
23 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I believe, Senator, it would simply be that you 

would have to look through the public records—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. It is not there. 

Mr. HOROWITZ [continuing]. But there is no—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. It is not there. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. There is no list that I am aware of. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, would CIGIE not be in a position to 

request that information? If we are going to talk about transparency, we have been trying to get this information—— 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Right. 

Senator MCCASKILL [continuing]. And guess what? All this talk 

about transparency among the IG community, guess who does not 

want to tell us how much money they are making? The Inspectors 

General in these Designated Federal Entities. 

Now, I am a cynic, too, Mr. Roth. Based on my years of experience doing what you do, I started out a cynic. I am distrustful of 

an Inspector General community that does not want the public to 

know how much money they are making. I would like your ideas 

on how we can facilitate getting the information about the annual 

salaries of the Designated Federal Entity IG—the majority of the 

Inspectors General that are out there. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I will followup promptly on that, Senator. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Would you be surprised to find out that 

there are Inspectors General in some of these small agencies that 

are making twice as much as the four of you? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I would not be surprised. I actually know that is 

an issue in the Inspector General community. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Is that not a scandal? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I think it is a significant issue. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, why would it not be a scandal? Why 

in the world would an Inspector General at the Farm Credit Agency be making twice as much as the Inspector General at HHS? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I do not know how the pay scales have worked 

out. I do know that for the Presidentially appointed Inspectors 

General, there is also apparently a range of salaries, given some 

of the exceptions that have been put into statutes over the years. 

Senator MCCASKILL. What percentage of the IGs contract out 

their financial statement audits? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I do not know the answer to that. I can check on 

that—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. That would be something I think we need 

to find out. I am particularly interested in the Inspectors General 

that are in the Designated Federal Entities. What percentage of 

them contract out their financial statement audits? For a bunch of 

them, that is just almost all they do. If they are getting paid twice 

as much and they are contracting out the financial statement 

audit, Houston, we have a problem, do we not? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Well, I would certainly want to know what the 

facts were there, Senator. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Do you keep track of the work product of 

the Inspectors General? And, by the way, for these smaller Inspectors General, is it not true that they are not getting peer review 

on a lot of their work because they are not adhering to the Yellow 

Book? 
24 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I can followup on that, Senator, and talk with our 

Audit Committee about—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, do you not have a pilot program looking at whether or not CIGIE can, in fact, begin peer review on 

these reports that they do not adhere to the Yellow Book standards? For the record, the Yellow Book standard—you all know, that 

is, in fact, the government approved auditing standard. That is the 

bible for a government auditor. Because these are so small, a lot 

of these DFEs, they do not have the capability of actually adhering 

to Yellow Book standards. And, if you do not adhere to the Yellow 

Book standards, you cannot get peer review, is that not correct? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. We are looking at the issue, and I will followup. 

I have to say, 6 weeks into the job as CIGIE Chair, I do not know 

the answer to that off the top of my head. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. Well, I believe there was a pilot program about looking at how CIGIE could help with peer review on 

these reports. If you are not doing very many, and you are making 

twice as much as the IGs in the largest agencies—I mean, look at 

Social Security. Imagine the work you need to be doing. What do 

you make, Mr. O’Carroll? I think you make about $170,000 a year? 

Mr. O’CARROLL. That is correct, Senator. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Yes. So, I am trying to figure out what is 

rotten in Denmark here, and I think, Mr. Chairman, we need a 

whole hearing on what has happened. The other part of this that 

is incredibly troubling to me is that in an effort to do away with 

bonuses for this IG community, we inadvertently put them in a situation where their salaries are now adjusted according to the people who work at their agencies. 

So, let us say we have something like the Federal Reserve, and 

the head of the Federal Reserve, the Board gives them a bonus. 

Well, guess what happens? The IG gets a bonus, because he is 

hooked or she is hooked to the salary of the agency head that they 

are overseeing. 

So, let me see if I get this straight. You have an Inspector General who makes what the boss makes if the boss gets a bonus. Now, 

how likely is it that the Inspector General will expose that the boss 

has problems? Guess whose salary is going to be impacted? The 

salary of the Inspector General. Now, that is absolutely unconscionable within an auditing community. I would have to sit and think, 

‘‘now, if I expose the head of this agency for wrongdoing, they are 

not going to get a bonus, And if they do not get a bonus, I do not 

get a salary increase. I do not go to $320,000 a year, or $270,000 

a year.’’ 

This is a huge problem, and I would like you, as the head of 

CIGIE, to report back to this Committee and to the Chairman 

about how you would propose us dealing with what is clearly an 

ethical problem within the Inspector General community. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thanks, Senator McCaskill. All good questions. Maybe we can address that in this legislation that we are 

about ready to introduce. Senator Booker. 
25 

1The information submitted by Senator Booker appears in the Appendix on page 82. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BOOKER 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 

want to thank the gentlemen who are before me right now. I know 

the work you do is essential to the strength of our Government, 

and it truly is, in my opinion, righteous and in accordance with the 

goals of the Committee that is assembled here. 

I just want to jump right in, in the limited time that I have, and 

Mr. Horowitz, I would love to have the opportunity to talk to you, 

if you would ever one day want to come to my office, because this 

line of questioning runs very deep for me. 

So, first and foremost, I imagine all the Inspectors General oversee policy procedures, even human resource policy procedures, 

right? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Correct. 

Senator BOOKER. And, then diversity, which is a big issue for me, 

being down here for all of about 16 months, this place is not that 

diverse, and I am talking about the Senate, but I would love to 

know about employment practices, specifically within the FBI. We 

had a courageous statement by the head of the FBI talking about 

issues of race and law enforcement. But then today, and I will put 

this in the record,1 we talk about the declining rates of blacks and 

Latinos within FBI agents. That is very troubling to me when it 

comes to the investigations that they are doing and often the prosecution of the so-called war on drugs and its massive disproportionate impact on blacks and Latinos. 

So, I am wondering if your office does a lot of focus on this area 

of diversity within the ranks of FBI agents as well as the other 

agencies under your jurisdiction. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. We have not issued any reports specifically on 

the question of the diversity rates. We have done work on various 

hiring, promotion, and removal practices and allegations we have 

received about how those were undertaken and whether they were 

fairly undertaken. But, we have not done the broader question—— 

Senator BOOKER. Well, I would strongly encourage you to do 

that. Here we are in a Nation right now where you literally have 

had demonstrations coast to coast, north to south, about law enforcement practices. And, one of the things we have seen, for example, in Ferguson is that the diversity of the police force was an 

issue. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Mm-hmm. 

Senator BOOKER. And, so, if we have declining rates of minority 

officers in the FBI, that should raise a concern, at the very least, 

and especially when the head of the FBI himself is talking about 

that this is a problematic issue within race and law enforcement. 

And, along those lines, I was surprised by the Senator from 

Michigan when it comes to issues of reentry and issues of recidivism and that the data that you are trying to find really is not 

there and you are trying to piece it together in what sounds like 

a less than scientifically sound manner. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. What we have tried to do is take a representative 

sampling of the data that we can get and use that, but it is clearly 
26 

not a large-scale effort that you would want to have ready and 

available when you are looking at these things. 

Senator BOOKER. And, so, we have no objective measures within 

the Bureau of Prisons about how one warden might be doing in 

terms of recidivism rates versus another warden holding constant, 

obviously, crimes and backgrounds and the like, correct? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I am not aware of that. 

Senator BOOKER. And, so, that is particularly problematic, then, 

when it comes to the issue of private prisons. If there are no standards whatsoever for empowering people that are in prison not to 

come back to prison, there is a perverse incentive, a profit model, 

so to speak, for private prisons and private halfway houses to keep 

that, not virtuous, but vicious cycle of people coming back in, correct? Would they not have a perverse incentive not to do what is 

necessary to stop the rates of recidivism? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. There is certainly a risk, Senator, of that, and, 

of course, the flip of that is you would want to know what programs and practices are working to put best practices in place in 

contract prisons and, frankly, across all of the Federal Bureau of 

Prisons institutions. 

Senator BOOKER. Absolutely. And, are you conducting investigations of these private prisons and private halfway houses? I have 

a high suspicious of people that are in charge of imprisonment of 

folks, disproportionately minority, disproportionately poor, and that 

have some profit incentive to see more people coming into their institutions. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. And, what we are doing right now, we have two 

reviews going on in private contract prisons. One, we are looking 

at specific prisons and how they are handling safety and security 

issues. We are looking at the broader question, as well, as to how 

the Bureau of Prisons is overseeing private contract prisons. The 

problem with the question of how are they doing on recidivism 

rates is we do not have the data to be able to do that across dozens 

of institutions with our smaller audit staff. 

Senator BOOKER. So, in other words, this is an important line of 

inquiry, but you are telling me you just do not have the resources 

or staff to understand what, to me, is a fundamental aspect of our 

country, this idea of liberty and freedom, and we seriously have a 

problem within our criminal justice system. But, you are telling me 

you do not have the staff or the resources to conduct an adequate 

study. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. We would not be able to do a broad-based study 

like that, and one of the reasons why we have put it on the top 

management challenges for the Department this past year is the 

need for better performance-based metrics. This is one of the examples of that. If you are going to run government operations with 

200,000 inmates, which is what right now exists in the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 19 percent of them in private contract prisons— 

all of those, by the way, are non-U.S. nationals, that is where the 

Bureau of Prisons is housing them, in contract prisons—you would 

certainly like to have the kind of data that would allow you to look 

at who is running the best contract prisons, who is running the 

best BOP institutions. 
27 

Senator BOOKER. And, then, the last thing, and very quickly for 

me, we have a terrible problem in this country where people who— 

for example, we have the last three Presidents who have admitted 

to smoking marijuana, but the people who actually are arrested 

and incarcerated for use and sale of marijuana, even though there 

is no difference between the races, are disproportionately Latinos, 

African Americans, and poor people. Is this something that you are 

looking at, of why we have a selective use of the justice system that 

disproportionately impacts the poor and minorities? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. We have not undertaken an audit or review at 

this point of that area. I do know from my prior time on the Sentencing Commission, the Sentencing Commission has looked at 

some of those issues in some of its prior work, but it is certainly 

an area of interest to us—— 

Senator BOOKER. So, we can talk about this. 

In the last 10 seconds I have, Mr. Roth—and I am hoping we can 

followup on it—you said that the potential shutdown of the DHS, 

the words you used, it would create budget instability and make it 

difficult for coherent management. Can you elaborate on that briefly? 

Mr. ROTH. Sure. Since October, we have been on a Continuing 

Resolution (CR), which means we do not know from week to week 

what our budget situation is going to look like. So, what happens 

in a Continuing Resolution situation is you basically get an allowance that allows you to pay your light bill, pay your rent, pay the 

personnel that you have on board, and really nothing else. You are 

prohibited from engaging in any kind of long-term planning, any 

sorts of management initiatives that you believe would improve the 

Department. So, that is the case, of course, from October to this 

point. 

After Friday, of course, if there is a shutdown, then even the administrative portion of DHS will go away. Certainly, the oversight 

part of DHS will go away. And, people will engage in jobs necessary to save life and property and do nothing else. 

So, it is a significant challenge for the Department. As an oversight entity, we see what occurs during a Continuing Resolution 

and then, certainly, a shutdown, which is you cannot improve the 

Department. You cannot make the Department better because it is 

not possible to put programs in place that will do so. 

Senator BOOKER. I appreciate the indulgence of the Chairman. 

And, so, you are saying even a CR is a threat to our national security. It undermines our agency. 

Mr. ROTH. Absolutely. I believe that Secretary Johnson said it is 

like driving a car across country where you have a gallon of gas 

and you are not sure where your next gas station is going to be. 

It is simply a stop-gap measure by which you are running the Department. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Booker. 

Let me just respond a little bit. I think, as I have been trying 

to do this Committee, is concentrate on shared purposes, shared 

goals, again, that mission of enhancing the economic and national 

security of America. That is something we share. I think we all 

agree that we should absolutely fund the authorized, the legal, the 
28 

essential elements of the Department of Homeland Security. I 

think we all want to do that, if we concentrate in that area of 

agreement. There is certainly an aspect of this funding issue that 

we do not agree on. Let us set that off to the side. It is in the 

courts now. 

This could be solved tomorrow if President Obama and Secretary 

Jeh Johnson said, OK, let us let the courts decide this. Let us fund 

those essential, the legal, the constitutional, the authorized activity 

of DHS. You would not be in this bind, Mr. Roth. So, again, I hope 

that we can do that. It would have been very helpful if we would 

have at least voted to get on the bill so we could start offering 

amendments, so we could open up the process, so we could have 

the debate, the discussion, set up a process where we could find 

some measure of common ground, some kind of compromise. That 

has not happened. That is regrettable. I hope we can do that in the 

future. Senator Ayotte. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AYOTTE 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all 

of you for being here. 

Mr. Horowitz, in your testimony, you pointed out the difficulties 

caused by the failure to nominate and appoint the Inspectors General. Too often, you have many vacancies. So, when you have those 

vacancies, you cannot do the oversight that we depend on you within the agencies. 

Last Congress, I had joined with Senators Boozman and Shaheen 

to introduce a bill called the Verifying Agency Conduct and Needs 

Through Inspectors General Act, recognizing the important work 

you do. And, really, what we are trying to get at is to require the 

nomination of a person to each Inspector General position within 

210 days. Now, that is a huge length of time. I think these nominations should be made much sooner than that. But, basically, to put 

an outside window on it, to have them made within a certain time, 

and if not, the authority would be transferred to the Congress. 

So, can you explain to me what degree are Inspectors General 

Offices impacted by the long-term vacancies and how does that undermine what you are trying to do in terms of the oversight function that is so important for the Inspectors General. And, you identify a number of large agencies without permanent IGs. Is this a 

lack of where does the issue fall? Can we not find the talented and 

skilled people? Is it that people do not want to come and be Inspectors General? Or, is it the end and it just takes delays in terms of 

the Administration and nominating, so we can understand how to 

get at this. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Senator, I think there are probably several different issues that come up when you have an Acting Inspector General, particularly for a lengthy period of time. Of course, the staff 

stays, and they are very dedicated. They keep pushing ahead on 

the work and get it done. But, we are constantly facing challenges. 

We are constantly facing issues, as each one of us have testified 

today, to our independence, to our ability to get the job done. And, 

what comes with a confirmed position is the ability to stand up and 

know that you cannot be removed other than by the President. 
29 

Senator AYOTTE. It gives you the protection to speak truth to 

power, basically. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Correct. And, that is a challenge for any Acting 

Inspector General. The best of them, and I had a predecessor who 

served in that role for 15 months and she did an outstanding job. 

But, everybody in the organization was waiting to find out who is 

going to actually lead the organization. 

Senator AYOTTE. So, where are things getting held up? Can you 

help us understand? Is it that we cannot attract people to do this, 

or is this delays in Administration? Is it a delay in Congress? I just 

think it is important—or, is it a combination, and how do we cut 

through this? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I think it is a combination of issues. I have been 

Council of IGs Chair now for 6 weeks, and one of the first things 

I did was meet with the Presidential Personnel Office to talk about 

moving vacancies, and we have sent over resumes of candidates, a 

number of individuals who are interested in positions, who are very 

capable. I think the process needs to be sped up on the selection 

side, on the vetting side, and on the confirmation side. I think you 

see all three at various times. 

My predecessor, Glenn Fine, announced he was leaving in mid2010, gave 6 months’ or so, I believe, notice, and I was not not 

nominated until the end of July, July 31, I think it was, of 2011. 

Senator AYOTTE. Wow. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. And, then I waited 8 months to get confirmed. 

Senator AYOTTE. Wow. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. So, you have a buildup in each of the processes, 

and I had no opposition when I got confirmed. So, I think there are 

at each stage—having gone through the vetting process, having 

waited for the nomination, I think I can say that at each of the 

stages, there could be greater effort to move these. 

Senator AYOTTE. Excellent. Well, we have one piece of legislation, 

but this is really important, because the work you do is very important to the agencies and the oversight and we need you to be in 

there, have that confirmation so that you can feel free to speak 

without, obviously, anyone either in the agency or outside the agency trying to remove you. So, I appreciate it. 

I wanted to ask Mr. O’Carroll, your testimony on improper pay- ments, it is sobering, really, with $8 billion in 2013, including more 

than 9 percent of all Supplemental Security Income, SSI program, 

payments. Unfortunately, we know that it is not just SSI payments 

that we are dealing with improper payments. There are some other 

large programs. 

For example, I have been focusing on the risk of improper payments in the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Additional 

Child Tax Credit (ACTC). And, according to a 2014 Inspector General report, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) estimates that 

$14.5 billion, or 24 percent of EITC payments made in 2013, were 

paid in error. And for the ACTC, Additional Child Tax Credit, the 

estimates are a potential improper payment rate for 2013 between 

25 and 30 percent, which is staggering. The problem is, is that this 

is a lot of money and then it does not go to those people who perhaps deserve it and goes to people who do not, and nothing gets 

my constituents more upset than that, as you can imagine. 
30 

So, you mentioned that the Social Security Administration has 

implemented 86 percent of your recommendations. That seems 

high, frankly, compared to what we hear about other agencies, obviously, where we see that very few recommendations get implemented. So, can you describe the future impact of the high rate of 

adoption of your recommendations. What kind of feedback are you 

getting from leadership in getting them to adopt these recommendations? And, are there actions we can take to drive other 

agencies to adopt more IG recommendations, because this improper 

payment issue, I mean, this is one where we are just throwing 

money after money. It is not right. It is not fair. And, it is billions 

of dollars that could be better put to use. 

So, any thoughts you have for us on how do we get the agencies 

to adopt it? What can we do to be more effective in helping you implement these recommendations? And, how do we drive other agencies to do the same? 

Mr. O’CARROLL. I will start at the top in terms of improper payments, and you identified it well, that my office is representing the 

Council of IGs on improper payments, in general. So, we are dealing with OMB. We are dealing with Congress. And, we are identifying $106 billion worth of improper payments every year—— 

Senator AYOTTE. A hundred-and-six billion dollars? 

Mr. O’CARROLL [continuing]. Across the government—— 

Senator AYOTTE. Another reason we need to get the IG positions 

filled sooner, right? 

Mr. O’CARROLL. Yes. So, we are identifying that, and we are noticing—and this is kind of what you are saying, is that through the 

transparency of it, the accuracy is improving. So, since we have 

been reporting improper payments on it originally, it was about 

2009, it was about 94 percent payment accuracy in government, 

and that has now gone up to about 96.5 percent. And, I think a 

lot of that is because of the transparency and everybody having to 

report what your improper payments are. And, just as you mentioned, the problem agencies, HHS has a large amount of improper 

payments that are causing problems, much like IRS, and I think 

those reporting on it is focusing the attention. 

Kind of an interesting one on the Earned Income Tax Credit that 

you were talking about. We have just done audit work with Social 

Security in terms of people that are claiming earnings so that they 

can get the Earned Income Tax Credit, but that disqualifies them 

for SSI, or Supplemental Security Income. So, they disclaim the 

wages so that they can get SSI, and at the same time, they are still 

getting an Earned Income Tax Credit. So, we are working very 

closely with the IRS—— 

Senator AYOTTE. They go hand in hand. 

Mr. O’CARROLL. Yes. And, kind of an easy example on that one, 

which is very frustrating, is that the Department of Treasury sends 

the same checks to the same people. So, they will be getting a benefit check from one agency and an Earned Income Tax Credit from 

the other—— 

Senator AYOTTE. And are they talking to each other? 

Mr. O’CARROLL [continuing]. And they are not talking to each 

other. 

Senator AYOTTE. Oh, you are kidding. 
31 

Mr. O’CARROLL. So, that is why I think the identifying of improper payments is very important, to plug gaps like that in government. 

Senator AYOTTE. Well, I know my time is up, but any thoughts 

you have for us, how we can help that. When we do not have 

Treasury and HHS, or Social Security and Treasury, or any of 

these talking to each other, then that is a big problem. So, any 

thoughts you have on how we can better help you make sure that 

we are not sending these multiple checks in a situation that would 

be inconsistent under the law would be tremendously helpful. I 

really appreciate your work. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thanks, Senator Ayotte. 

Senator Baldwin, if you would like to refresh Mr. Roth’s and Mr. 

O’Carroll’s minds in terms of the three questions you would like 

them answering. 

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you. 

So, in a scenario where you have an audit or an investigation 

conducted by the OIG that recommends changes at a Federal facility, a local one, an entity or an office, in our case in Wisconsin, a 

hospital, should the Federal officials in Washington of that agency 

who are charged with overseeing local facilities be made aware of 

those recommendations? That is No. 1. 

No. 2, how does the IG’s Office ensure recommendations are 

being implemented effectively? 

And, No. 3, what role do transparency and communication play 

in ensuring compliance? 

And, before I get to Mr. Roth and Mr. O’Carroll, I wanted to go 

back to Mr. Linick on that first point, in particular, that if there 

are recommended changes in an audit or investigation, should 

those with oversight responsibilities, be informed? 

Mr. LINICK. So, the analogy in the Office of Inspector General for 

the Department of State, we do not have local offices, but we have 

embassies, approximately 280 of them all over the world, and we 

inspect them. When we do inspections or audits, we do notify the 

senior leadership of the outcome of those inspections and audits, so 

they do not just go to the embassy, but they will go to the regional 

bureau which is in charge of that particular embassy and they also 

find their way to Washington, as well. 

Senator BALDWIN. Mr. Roth. 

Mr. ROTH. Yes. Certainly, if we are looking at a local office, many 

times, our recommendations will not be addressed to the person 

running that local office, but those recommendations will be then 

addressed to, for example, the Commissioner, if it is the CBP, or 

a program manager within Customs who has the authority and the 

ability to effect change. So, in many ways, is the recommendations 

that are addressed to people other than the folks who are at that 

locale. 

Second, to ensure implementation, DHS has, I think, a very 

proactive approach to audit liaison and audit resolution that has 

dramatically changed, for example, the number of open recommendations that we have, and it is run by the Under Secretary 

of Management, but ultimately chaired by the Deputy Secretary. 

So, there is a certain high-level engagement as to what is occurring 

with these open recommendations. 
32 

And, the way we ensure compliance of open recommendations is 

that we will keep them open until we get sufficient evidence under 

our auditing standards to believe that the recommendation has 

been satisfied. Oftentimes, that is some sort of documentation or 

other kinds of assurances that they have taken our recommendation and they have implemented it in a way that makes sense to 

us. In certain cases, we will go back, as Mr. Horowitz has talked 

about, and do a compliance review to actually go back on the 

ground and figure out whether or not those recommendations have 

been complied with. 

And, then, last, we have, of course, what I call the bully pulpit, 

the transparency and the communication that I think is critically 

necessary to ensure compliance, and we have done that in a number of occasions and I think that tends to focus the mind, as well. 

Senator BALDWIN. And, Mr. O’Carroll. 

Mr. O’CARROLL. Senator, one thing that works with us in terms 

of what you are asking on the local level, if we identified something, how would it be fixed—the way we work with the Social Security Administration is that our audit liaison is centralized in 

their headquarters. So, any recommendation that we are make to 

any component of SSA rises to the management level so it is overseen by all of SSA. 

I guess another example of what we do on that is, one, we are, 

of course, publishing it. It is going on our website. It is going out 

to all of our customers whenever we issue an audit. Also, one of 

our oversight committees asked us every 6 months to provide a report on what recommendations we have made, that have not been 

adopted by the agency. So, that is good for oversight. 

Another thing that I do, is I attend once a month—we are not 

considered part of the Commissioner’s staff, so I keep my independence, but once a month, I go to the executive staff meeting, and I 

report out to all the executive staff of SSA, about audits that are 

of importance. These are the ones that we have recommendations 

on. These are the responses we are getting back from Social Security. And, usually, it will be addressed there in front of all the 

peers of each of the components. So, if one component is lagging 

that is going to be brought to the attention of all their peers. 

Another thing that we do is the trust but verify part of it. After 

we make the recommendations, we go back to see if they are enacted, and if it is problematic we will do another just to see if what 

they told us what happened when they corrected the problem, if it 

really happened. 

An easy example of that one would be SSA, with all of its records 

and information. We were talking earlier about the Death Master 

File. One set of records within SSA is keeping track of who all the 

people are, and whether they are alive or dead, and then another 

system keeps track of the payments that are going out, and sometimes the two systems are not talking to each other. So, one database says you are dead. The other one says that you are getting 

benefits. So, we have made recommendations on that. SSA 

prioritizes it, and says that they are going to fix it, and every 3 

years we go back. We do another audit and say, we have identified 

these number of people that are listed as dead on one file and alive 

on the other one and bring it to the attention of everybody. 
33 

And, it works quite well that way. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thanks, Senator Baldwin. 

Mr. Linick, has Secretary Kerry asked you to open up an investigation or inspection of the closing of the Yemen embassy? 

Mr. LINICK. He has not asked me that. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Is that something just on your own initiative, something you are going to look into? 

Mr. LINICK. Well, I cannot really talk about investigations and 

so forth. Those are typically confidential matters. But, we initiate 

our own investigations. The Secretary does not direct us to do any 

of that. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Mr. Horowitz, in terms of subpoena 

power, is it basically true that you do get push-back from the Department of Justice in terms of your ability to subpoena people that 

are no longer employees of the Federal Government? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. My understanding is last year when this issue 

came up, that the Department of Justice objected to the effort by 

Congress to give us that authority, the concern being that we somehow might interfere with Department of Justice investigations. To 

my mind, that can easily be addressed. From my former time in 

the Criminal Division at the Justice Department, we dealt with immunity issues and similar issues regularly, coordinated among 94 

U.S. Attorneys. It is very doable. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Well, let us easily address that, then. I 

mean, we would really like to, because I think that is a very appropriate power you need to access the information you need to do 

your investigations and your inspections, so let me work with the 

Committee on that. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Absolutely. 

Chairman JOHNSON. My final question, just as best practices, 

Mr. Linick, you talked about your Management Alerts. I was intrigued, reading your testimony about that. It sounded like a really 

good idea. Is that only in your Office of Inspector General, or is 

that happening throughout all the Inspectors General? I will ask 

you, and then I will ask Mr. Horowitz, as head of CIGIE. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Certainly, in my office, I have issued two memos 

during the course of audits where we have found issues that I 

thought needed immediate attention. One of them, we have issued 

involving BOP’s purchase of X-ray machines, where we found serious questions about the value of those X-ray machines. We, obviously, thought it imperative, once we found that problem, to alert 

the leadership, and so we did that. And, we do use that when we 

find it is necessary to do so. 

Chairman JOHNSON. But, again, in what way does the community, the IG community, share those best practices? I mean, is it 

through CIGIE? I mean, do you have get-togethers, conventions? I 

mean, is that a concerted effort to find out, hey, this is really working great in our office. Everybody else ought to be doing something 

similar. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. We do. We do it both through the individual committees, so, for example, in the Audit Committee, they would look 

at, in their peer reviews and other discussions, best practices on 

the audit side, similarly on the investigation side. And, then, each 
34 

year, we have a 2-day conference where we get together as a community to share practices across our community. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Does anybody else want to add to that? 

Mr. ROTH. Yes. We have done these Management Alerts, as well, 

sometimes in conjunction with a long-term audit. We do not want 

to wait until the audit is completed, because, for example, there is 

a significant management challenge that ought to be fixed immediately. So, those are public and we will put them on the website. 

For example, we were doing an audit of our—DHS’s warehouse 

programs, whether or not those ought to be consolidated, and we 

found a serious health and safety issue that Immigration and Customs Enforcement, candidly, tried to hide from us. We were able 

to find it and we were able to issue a Management Alert, and as 

a result of that, a problem that had existed for a number of years 

was fixed within weeks. 

So, it is a highly effective tool. Again, it is that disinfecting sunlight, sometimes, that makes a big difference. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. O’Carroll, it looks like you want to 

press the button there. 

Mr. O’CARROLL. Yes, Chairman. I agree with that. It usually 

takes about a year for an audit. So, early on in an audit, if we identify a systemic problem or an issue that if it was not corrected immediately would have a major effect on the program, we do those 

type of alerts. 

And, if we come up with an issue that does not even require an 

audit, but it is something that needs attention , we will do an alert. 

So, an easy example on that would be the Disability Trust Fund 

for Social Security. On that one, we have done reports on the solvency of that Trust Fund and our concerns about it and we give 

it to our stakeholders, to Congress, and show that we are not 

asleep at the switch and we realize there is a problem there that 

needs to be addressed. So, we use alerts often. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Before I turn it over to our Ranking Member, I just want to give each of you the opportunity, is there something during the questions, during this hearing, an issue raised 

that you were not able to address that you want to quickly address 

now? I will start with you, Mr. Horowitz. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I cannot think of anything, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Mr. Linick. 

Mr. LINICK. The only thing I would add to the question from Senator Baldwin about ‘‘What can Congress do to help with the recommendations being implemented,’’ through our Management 

Alerts, the three that we issued last year, the 2015 appropriations 

omnibus bill contained explanatory language requiring the Department to respond to our recommendations. That was very helpful in 

terms of enforcement. So, I just wanted to note that additional 

point for the record. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK, great. Mr. Roth. 

Mr. ROTH. I am good. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. O’Carroll. 

Mr. O’CARROLL. One thing that Senator McCaskill brought up, 

just to give a little clarity on, was the contracting out of financial 

statement audits and her concern on it. And, I have to say, in our 

case, we do contract out the financial statement audit for Social Se-
35 

curity. What we do, though, is that we work hand-in-glove with 

whoever gets the contract. 

But, one of the big issues that we are up against is that so much 

now is IT-driven in terms of the management of an agency. When 

you think of the largest social insurance program in the world and 

$2 billion a day going out, information security at SSA is so important, and we just do not have the expertise and are not able to be 

hire the best and the brightest every year to be taking a look at 

what deficits or weaknesses SSA has in their systems. So, we contract that out. Usually, whoever we are contracting with is going 

to have significant resources to be taking a look at those type of 

vulnerabilities. And, then, we work closely with them. So, there is 

an advantage to contracting for the financial statement audits. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Coming from the private sector, we all contract out our auditing, and as long as you maintain that independence—I think Senator McCaskill, her point was you have this Inspector General. They are supposed to be doing the inspecting. 

Why do we not use the resources we have? But, there are going to 

be costs somewhere, and I do not think that is per se a problem 

myself. But, it is worthy in terms of looking into. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

I am going to ask a couple of questions, but before I do, I have 

one question I am going to ask of each of you and I am going to 

ask you to be thinking about this question. It is an easy one. You 

have given us—we have asked you different ways—several of us 

have—what can we do to help you. What can we do to bolster you 

and strengthen the ability of you and your teams to do your job as 

watchdogs. 

I am just going to ask each of you to give us one idea. If we only 

did one thing that you would have us to do to help support you, 

it could be writing the letters to get more IGs out there, the Administration nominating more people, or getting these agencies 

that have five or six, have not had an IG for a while, it could be 

that. It could be something else. But, just be thinking about one, 

if you can only do one thing, do this for us. It will help us a lot. 

OK, but while you are thinking about that, I will go back to 

something, and I apologize for being out of the room. I was on a 

teleconference call with my Governor and a bunch of other people 

and sometimes my day job gets in the way from this job here, so 

thank you for letting me be away from my post for a while. 

But, as Senator McCaskill briefly mentioned, several years ago, 

the IG for the National Archives, Paul Brachfeld, was placed on administrative leave while CIGIE and the Office of Special Counsel 

investigated allegations of misconduct. It took nearly 2 years until 

these investigations were fully resolved, and during that 2 years, 

the Archives was deprived of a permanent Inspector General, as 

you will recall. Mr. Brachfeld was stuck waiting in limbo on administrative leave. 

Maybe I will direct this to you, Michael, but as the new Chair 

of the Inspector Generals Council, I just would like to hear from 

you, your analysis of what went wrong with the Archives investigation and what steps you and others are taking to ensure that such 

a situation does not happen again, certainly on your watch. 
36 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Certainly. I think there are two issues. One is to 

ensure that the investigation by the Integrity Committee happens 

within a timely manner, or happens in a timely manner. And, what 

I have been talking to the FBI, which chairs the Integrity Committee, and talking with members of the Council of IGs, is how do 

we put in place timeframes for conducting the reviews and investigations. I think that would help to better manage the process. 

I think we have to take other steps, as well, frankly. The Integrity Committee process needs some revising. It has a Chair that is 

at the FBI, managing a process with IGs, Special Counsel, Office 

of Government Ethics, trying to manage another IGs office that is 

doing the investigation, and I think there needs to be better accountability for all the participants in that process. I look forward 

to working with the Committee on the statutory issues, but also 

with the FBI and the members of the Integrity Committee, on the 

procedural issues that are involved. So, I think we can do both. 

In terms of the placing an IG on administrative leave, whether 

a Presidential or non-Presidentially appointed IG, I think the IG 

Act needs to address that issue. We are making a recommendation 

as a community of IGs that that needs to be considered. There are 

removal procedures, but there are not administrative leave procedures in the IG Act. They need to be clearly defined. There need 

to be clear bases for when that can occur, and for how long it can 

occur, and under what conditions can it occur, because that was a 

concern for many of us, that an IG could be put on administrative 

leave indefinitely, if you will. That is not good for the agency. That 

undermines the independence of Inspectors General. And, that undermines the confidence of this Committee and the public at large. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. When might we look for 

those recommendations? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I am working now with our membership and the 

FBI on proposing new procedures, which is what we can do without 

legislative change, and I have met with staffs of this Committee, 

other Committees, to talk about proposed legislation that I know 

the Congress is considering that would also address these issues. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Well, we will look forward to those recommendations. Thank you. 

Mr. Roth, as the Inspector General at DHS, you have testified 

about the impact of the Department of operating on a Continuing 

Resolution and the uncertainty of future funding. Would any of the 

other witnesses care to weigh in and to address this issue? I call 

it stop and go budgeting. It is happening, and we have done it, and 

we do it too much. We are still doing it too much. Sometimes, we 

shut down the government, as you know, which is awful, and it is 

a hugely wasteful thing. But, the others, if I could. We have heard 

from you, John, but we would like to hear from the other IGs, if 

you care to address this situation, which is, of course, again on crisis budgeting. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I will tell you, in the 21⁄2 years I have been IG, 

I have faced the budgeting process where I do not think in any 

year I have been here I have had a budget on October 1 that I can 

plan around. It has come in either 3 months or 6 months into the 

year. And, it is very difficult to plan when almost 80 percent, I believe, of our costs are personnel costs. It is all about who we can 
37 

hire and whether we can hire, and it is simply impossible to plan 

for hiring if you do not know 9 months from now whether you are 

going to continue to have the kind of budget that would allow you 

to hire people behind it. It is a very big challenge. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. Mr. Linick. 

Mr. LINICK. Yes. I would agree with IG Horowitz. In fiscal year 2013, our appropriation was reduced almost $6 million between the 

full-year CR and sequestration, and for an office like ours, which 

is trying to grow and strengthen oversight, it makes it very difficult. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. O’Carroll, last word on this question. 

Mr. O’CARROLL. Well, one, we are independent. We get a special 

appropriation apart from Social Security. They are supportive of us 

and we have been very fortunate in terms of our appropriations. 

However, over the last few years, as everyone well knows, we were 

going from Continuing Resolution to another, which kept our base 

flat, and at the same time, our costs were going up, and with cuts 

on top of that, we have had a 10-percent reduction in staff over the 

last few years. So, as all the demands are going up, our resources 

are declining. So, we do need a sustainable budget into the future 

so that we can make these important plans. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

The Chairman reminds me we have to wrap up. Can I ask each 

of you to just give us a couple of sentences on the one take-away, 

if we only have one take-away that we take away with us, what 

would that be? A to-do list for us. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. From my standpoint, Senator, it would be ensure 

that the FBI complies with the Section 218 provision that the Congress put in place in the Appropriations Act. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. Mr. Linick. 

Mr. LINICK. From my point of view, it is funding for our overseas 

contingency operation, Operation Inherent Resolve, for which we 

have joint oversight responsibilities with the United States Agency 

for International Development (USAID) OIG and Department of 

Defense (DOD) OIG. We are basically taking money out of our existing budget to fund these responsibilities. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. Mr. Roth. 

Mr. ROTH. I would say it is engaged oversight, Senator, to read 

our reports, look at our reports. If you have questions about our reports, we are available to brief you on them. But, then, hold the 

agencies accountable for what it is that you find. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks. Mr. O’Carroll. 

Mr. O’CARROLL. Senator Carper, I would say we need an integrity fund, which is what I was saying at the beginning. In terms 

of all the billions that are being recovered by SSA and by us, if we 

could be using those again to prevent fraud and identify improper 

payments, it would help. 

To give you an example, SSA doing continuing disability reviews, 

bringing a person back in to see whether or not their health has 

improved, has a 15-to-1 return on investment—— 

Senator CARPER. Oh, wow. 

Mr. O’CARROLL [continuing]. So, if that type of money is appointed to that, that will help. In my case, we have the Cooperative 

Disability Investigative Units. Those are returning 10-to-1 on 9-to- 
38 

1, to be exact. But, again, if we had sustainable money from an integrity fund, that would really help us. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thank you all. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Carper. I want to thank 

all my colleagues for their attendance, for their thoughtful questions. 

I want to thank our witnesses for your thoughtful testimony and 

your answers. 

This hearing record will remain open for 15 days, until March 

11, 5 p.m., for the submission of statements and questions for the 

record. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(39) 

A P P E N D I X 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 

Æ