U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

91–650 PDF 2014

OBSTRUCTING OVERSIGHT: CONCERNS FROM 

INSPECTORS GENERAL 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 

Serial No. 113–153 

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

( 

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

http://www.house.gov/reform 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOC HASTINGS, Washington 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

TONY CARDENAS, California 

STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

Vacancy 

LAWRENCE J. BRADY, Staff Director 

JOHN D. CUADERES, Deputy Staff Director 

STEPHEN CASTOR, General Counsel 

LINDA A. GOOD, Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on September 10, 2014 ..................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

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

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

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9 

The Hon. Arthur A. Elkins, Jr., Inspector General, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 14 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 16 

Ms. Kathy A. Buller, Inspector General, Peace Corps 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 21 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 23 

APPENDIX 

Sept. 9, 2014, letter to Chairman Issa from OMB submitted by Chairman 

Issa ........................................................................................................................ 58

Aug. 5, 2014, letter to Reps. Issa, Cummings, Carper, and Coburn from 

47 IGs, submitted by Rep. Chaffetz .................................................................... 61 

Aug. 8, 2014, letter to OMB from Reps. Carper, Coburn, Issa and Cummings, 

submitted by Rep. Walberg ................................................................................. 69 

Statement for the record from The Institute of Internal Auditors ...................... 71 

(1) 

OBSTRUCTING OVERSIGHT: CONCERNS FROM 

INSPECTORS GENERAL 

Wednesday, September 10, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., in Room 2154, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Darrell E. Issa [chairman of 

the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Issa, Mica, Turner, Duncan, Jordan, 

Chaffetz, Walberg, Lankford, Amash, Meehan, Gowdy, Woodall, 

Massie, Meadows, Bentivolio, DeSantis, Cummings, Norton, 

Connolly, Cartwright, Duckworth, Kelly, Davis, Horsford and Grisham. 

Staff Present: Melissa Beaumont, Assistant Clerk; Molly Boyl, 

Deputy General Counsel and Parliamentarian; David Brewer, Senior Counsel; Ashley Callen, Deputy Chief Counsel for Investigations; Sharon Casey, Senior Assistant Clerk; Steve Castor, General 

Counsel; John Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director; Jessica Donlon, 

Senior Counsel; Adam Fromm, Director of Member Services and 

Committee Operations; Linda Good, Chief Clerk; Ryan Hambleton, 

Senior Professional Staff Member; Mark Marin, Deputy Staff Director of Oversight; Ashok Pinto, Chief Counsel, Investigations; Andrew Rezendes, Counsel; Laura Rush, Deputy Chief Clerk; Jessica 

Seale, Digital Director; Andrew Shult, Deputy Digital Director; 

Jonathan Skladany, Deputy General Counsel; Peter Warren, Legislative Policy Director; Rebecca Watkins, Communications Director; 

Tamara Alexander, Minority Counsel; Meghan Berroya, Minority 

Deputy Chief Counsel; Krista Boyd, Minority Deputy Director of 

Legislation/Counsel; Aryele Bradford, Minority Press Secretary; 

Jennifer Hoffman, Minority Communications Director, Chris 

Knauer, Minority Senior Investigator; Juan McCullum, Minority 

Clerk; Dave Rapallo, Minority Staff Director; Ilga Semeiks, Minority GAO Detailee; and Mark Stephenson, Minority Director of Legislation. 

Chairman ISSA. The committee will come to order. 

Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of 

the committee at any time. 

The Oversight Committee’s mission statement is that we exist to 

secure two fundamental principles. First, Americans have a right 

to know that the money Washington takes from them is well spent; 

and, second, Americans deserve an efficient, effective government 

that works for them. Our duty on the Oversight and Government 

Reform Committee is to protect these rights. Our solemn responsiVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:37 Dec 11, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\91650.TXT APRIL
2 

bility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers because taxpayers have a right to know that the money Washington takes 

from them is well-spent. It’s our job to work tirelessly in partnership, citizens watchdogs and, yes, the IG watchdogs, to deliver the 

facts to the American people and bring genuine reform to the Federal bureaucracy. This is our mission statement. 

On August 5, 47 Inspectors General, two-thirds of the IG community, sent an unprecedented letter to Congress describing serious 

limitations on access to records that have recently impeded the 

work of the Inspectors General. Section 6(a)(1) of the Inspector 

General Act of 1978 requires agencies to provide, and I quote, ‘‘full 

and timely access to agency records to their respective Inspector 

General.’’ Anything less than full cooperation, of course, is unacceptable. 

These government watchdogs play a key role in improving the 

government’s efficiency, honesty, and accountability. They conduct 

oversight and investigations and audits to prevent and detect 

waste, fraud, and mismanagement within government agencies. 

Their work often protects life of Federal workers and the American 

people. They help Congress shape legislation and target our oversight and investigative activities; but let there be no doubt, they 

are executive branch employees who, in fact, were created by an 

act of Congress and signed by a president so that the tools that 

they provide are available to the President of the United States to 

run our government better. 

The IGs have proven to be one of Congress’s and the American 

people’s best investments. In the last fiscal year the IG community 

used their 2.7 billion dollar budget to identify potential cost savings 

to taxpayers totalling about 46 billion dollars. That means that for 

every dollar in the total IG budget, they identified approximately 

$17 in savings. Access is key to that kind of savings. 

But the let me make it very clear, many of the investigations, including some you will hear today, are not about money. They’re far 

more valuable. They’re about liberty. They’re about your government not trampling on your rights. So when agencies withhold information and their records from these watchdogs, it impedes their 

ability to conduct their work thoroughly, independently and most 

of all, timely. It runs up the cost to both sides of the ledger. The 

Inspectors General spend many, many, many millions of dollars 

simply trying to get access, while your government, the very same 

agency, spends millions and millions of dollars on lawyers trying 

to impede. This is one of the greatest wastes we could possibly 

have. When agencies refuse or deny IGs access to agency records, 

it undermines the intent of Congress and the IG’s ability to effectively oversee these respective agencies. 

Today, we are going to hear from three widely respected IGs who 

have faced serious challenges from their agencies to access the necessary records to what they do in their work. At the Justice Department, the Inspector General cannot gain access to grand jury 

documents or national security-related documents without approval 

and delay from the Deputy Attorney General of the Federal courts. 

Requiring such permission compromises and impedes IGs’ investigations. 

3 

At the Chemical Safety Board, they have denied the EPA Inspector General, Mr. Elkins, who is with us today, access to certain documents on the basis of attorney-client privilege, but who is the attorney and what is the privilege? Mr. Elkins is, in fact, the same 

entity that is, in fact, the client. He is, in fact, part of the defined 

client, which of course is the EPA. 

Further, several offices within the EPA itself, including the EPA 

office of Homeland Security, have interfered with the OIG’s investigations themselves. And perhaps most disturbing to me personally, and I spoke to the Vice President last night, and I believe he 

was equally disturbed, at the Peace Corps they have refused to provide the Inspector General, Ms. Buller, access to information related to sexual assaults on Peace Corps volunteers absent a memorandum of understanding. 

Let’s understand, last night we honored and celebrated the 20th 

anniversary of the enactment of violence against women, designed 

to do just the exact opposite, to ask women to come forward and 

report their assaults. If, in fact, the IG cannot oversee a possible 

pattern of failure to protect women, then are we to ask women to 

come forward with the record of their assaults. 

But in all instances, it is the committee’s position that these 

agencies should and must cooperate with the Inspectors General’s 

requests for information. During the 113th Congress, the committee has investigated several instances, including the ones facing 

these watchdogs in which agency leadership undermined the effectiveness of the Inspectors General. The committee has held several 

hearings on this issue and facing these Inspector Generals over the 

past year. The committee has also conducted a deposition of the 

Peace Corps general counsel to address the access issue at the 

Peace Corps. It has not been resolved, and quite frankly, I look forward to the departure of the general counsel as part of the problem. 

Neither this committee nor the IG committee should be wasting 

time and resources attempting to gain access to records which the 

IGs have not just a legal entitlement to, but a sworn obligation to 

under the IG Act. 

For nearly six years we have seen this administration make unprecedented efforts, it says to fight transparency and block investigations by journalists, Congress, but that’s not what we’re here 

for today. We’re not here because the press wants to snoop. We’re 

not here because Article 1, the Congress, is trying to look over the 

shoulder of the President and his administration. We’re here because the more or less 12,000 men and women who work for these 

IGs and the others not here today, part of this President’s team for 

efficiency, transparency, and, in fact, an Honorable service by all, 

has not been getting what they wanted. 

It is my intention upon the end of this hearing to write with my 

ranking member if at all possible, a letter to the President, urging 

him to use his executive order capability to resolve this question 

once and for all. Notwithstanding that, I want to thank our three 

witnesses here today, and I want to assure you of one thing, after 

you testify here today and for all 47 IGs who wrote, I will be looking, I know my ranking member will be looking, to make sure that, 

in fact, no retribution, no punishment, is allowed for your coming 

4 

forward and expressing your concerns under your responsibility of 

the IG Act. 

With that, I would ask just one thing. We do have a response 

from the executive office of the President, the Office of Management and Budget, in response to Mr. Cummings and my letter, and 

I will place it into the record at this time. Without objection, so ordered. 

Chairman ISSA. And we recognize the ranking member for his 

opening statement. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our 

witnesses for testifying here today. I also want to thank the chairman for calling this hearing. 

Let me start off by saying that what the chairman said with regard to retribution, I agree with. You have come; you do a phenomenal job, a very important job, and every member of this committee, both sides of the aisle, if we hear about any repercussions 

from you being here, we will be on it and deal with it effectively 

and efficiently. 

Rooting out waste, fraud and abuse is a central tenet, of this 

committee and we take this mission very seriously. I’m a staunch 

defender of the IGs and the authorities. 

And, for example, in 2013, I sent a bipartisan letter to the President. I was joined by Chairman Issa as well as Representative 

Chaffetz and Representative Tierney, the chairman and ranking 

member of the National security Subcommittee. In that letter we 

pressed the President to finally nominate an Inspector General at 

the State Department, a position that had remained vacant for five 

years. I have also supported legislation to help IGs do their job 

more effectively and efficiently, such as the IG Reform Act of 2008. 

Last month after receiving the letter from 47 IGs, I co-signed a 

letter with Chairman Carper and Ranking Member Coburn of the 

Homeland Security Committee and the Government Affairs Committee, as well as Chairman Issa. In that letter, we expressed our 

bipartisan concern to the Office of Management and Budget about 

access issues raised by three IGs testifying here today from the 

Peace Corps, the Department of Justice and the Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

When Congress passed the Inspector General Act in 1978, Section 6 of that legislation authorized IGs to have very broad access 

to agency records. This provision was intended to give IGs wide 

latitude to conduct their audits and investigations. But Congress 

also included certain exemptions on the legislation, some of which 

are at issue today. In addition, some contend that other Federal 

laws may conflict with this broad grant of authority, and that is 

also a concern that we will be discussing today. 

First we have the Peace Corps. In 2011 Congress passed and the 

President signed the Kate Puzey Volunteer Protection Act. This 

law requires the Peace Corps to establish a confidential system for 

volunteers to report sexual assault crimes. When the IG sought access to this data in order to prepare a report also mandated by 

Congress, the Peace Corps raised a question about providing the 

personally identifiable information of sexual assault victims, which 

was supposed to be confidential. 

5 

On May 22, the agency and the IG signed a memorandum of understanding providing the IG with access to all information except 

personally identifiable information and explicit details of the sexual 

assaults. I understand the disagreement does not address all of the 

IG’s access concerns, but I believe it is a very good start when we 

have two potentially conflicting statutes like this. 

Next the Department of Justice Inspector General has expressed 

concern that when he seeks access to sensitive law enforcement information, such as grand jury and wire tap information, he must 

go through a lengthy approval process at the highest levels of the 

department. The IG’s testimony for today says the department has 

granted access to the records in every case, but he contends that 

the lengthy delays erodes his independence. According to the Department, several other statutes restrict the release of sensitive information, such as grand jury and wire tap material. So they must 

be carefully analyzed, and we have to look at that. 

My understanding is that the Department has now asked the Office of Legal Counsel to review the issue. I applaud the IG for 

working through this process with the agency, and I look forward 

to OLC’s review. 

Finally, the Environmental Protection Agency IG has raised two 

concerns. The IG reports said that the EPA’s office of Homeland 

Security has been denying the IG access to classified threat material and failing to recognize the IG’s statutory authority over intrusions into EPA computer networks. Democratic staff has been 

working with both sides to mediate this issue, and on June 19, 

EPA Administrator McCarthy proposed a framework for better cooperation. At this point my understanding is that the IG still has 

issues with the proposal, so I hope we can spend some time today 

hearing about those concerns. 

Lastly, the dispute between the EPA IG and the Chemical Safety 

Board seems, at least to me, to be the most problematic. The IG 

has been trying to obtain documents from the CSB chairman, but 

the CSB still has not produced all of the requested documents. This 

week the IG’s office sent a letter explaining that although the CSB 

has complied substantially with the request, documents still remain outstanding. I hope we can work with you closely on a bipartisan basis to solve this issue. 

Let me close by making one observation. As we have seen, many 

of these issues involve several laws that appear to conflict, and 

some have raised the possibility of legislative fixes. I believe this 

idea should be considered very carefully. Although I will not hesitate to pursue statutory clarification if necessary, the last thing the 

IGs need is for legislation to be introduced and fail, which could 

have the unintended effect of diluting their authority. 

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your commitment 

to work with me and my staff in developing bipartisan and widely 

supported legislative reform proposals. My staff and I have devoted 

tremendous efforts to helping IGs do their work, and my goal has 

always been to try to solve the challenges constructively. 

And with that I yield back. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the ranking member. All members will 

have seven days to submit opening statements for the record. 

6 

Chairman ISSA. We now welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses. The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz is the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Justice. The Honorable Arthur A. 

Elkins, Jr., is Inspector General of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Honorable Ms. Kathy A. Buller is the Inspector General of the Peace Corps. 

Lady and gentleman, pursuant to the committee rules, would you 

please rise to take the oath, and raise your right-hand. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm, that the testimony you will 

give today, will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth? 

Please be seated. Let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

Since you’re all skilled professionals, and, Mr. Horowitz, since 

you’re less than 24 hours from a similar event, you know that we’d 

like you to keep your opening statements to 5 minutes, summarize 

any way you can, and that your entire opening statements will be 

placed in the record without objection. 

And with that, Mr. Horowitz, you’re up. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MICHAEL E. HOROWITZ 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman 

Cummings, members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me 

to testify today at this very important hearing. 

Access by Inspectors General to information and agency files goes 

to the heart of our mission to provide independent and nonpartisan 

oversight. That is why 47 Inspectors General signed a letter late 

last month to Congress expressing their concerns about this issue. 

I want to thank the members of this committee for their bipartisan 

support in response to this letter. 

The IG Act adopted by Congress in 1978 is crystal clear. Section 

6(a) of the act expressly provides that Inspectors General must be 

given complete, timely, and unfiltered access to all agency records. 

However, since 2010, the FBI and some other department components have not read Section 6(a) of the act in that manner and 

therefore have refused our requests during our reviews for relevant 

grand jury, wire tap, and credit information in its files. As a result, 

a number of our reviews have been significantly impeded. In response to these legal objections, the Attorney General of the Department—or the Department Attorney General, granted us permission to access the records by making the finding that our reviews were of assistance to them. They also have stated their intention to do so in future audits and reviews. However, there are 

several significant concerns with this process. 

First and foremost, the process is inconsistent with the clear 

mandate of Section 6(a) of the IG Act. The Attorney General should 

not have to order Department components to provide us with access to records that Congress has made clear we have a right to 

review. 

Second, requiring the Inspector General to obtain permission 

from department leadership seriously compromises our independVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:37 Dec 11, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\91650.TXT APRIL
7 

ence. The OIG should be deciding which documents it needs access 

to, not the leadership of the agency that is being overseen. 

Third, while current Department leadership has supported our 

ability to access records, agency leadership changes over time, and 

our access to records should not turn on the views of the Department’s leadership. 

Further, we understand that other Department components that 

exercise oversight over Department programs and personnel, such 

as the Department’s office of professional responsibility, continue to 

be given access to these same materials without objection. This disparate treatment is unjustifiable and results in the Department 

being less willing to provide materials to the OIG, presumably because the OIG is statutorily independent, while OPR is not. This 

disparate treatment again highlights OPR’s lack of independence 

from the Department’s leadership, which can only be addressed by 

granting the statutorily independent OIG with jurisdiction to investigate all alleged misconduct at the Department. 

Indeed, the independent, nonpartisan project on government 

oversight made the same recommendation in a report issued in 

March of this year, and bipartisan legislation introduced in the 

Senate would do just that. 

This past May, the department’s leadership asked the Office of 

Legal Counsel to issue an opinion addressing the legal objections 

raised by the FBI and other Department components. It is imperative that the OLC issue its decision promptly because the existing 

practice at the Department seriously impairs our independence 

every day we do our work. 

Moreover, in the absence of a resolution, our struggle to access 

information in a timely manner continues to seriously delay our 

work. It also has a substantial impact on the morale of the OIG’s 

auditors, analysts, agents, and lawyers, who work extraordinarily 

hard every day. Far too often they face challenges getting timely 

access to information, including even with routine requests. For example, in two ongoing audits, we had trouble getting organizational 

charts in a timely manner. We remain hopeful that OLC will issue 

an opinion promptly that concludes the OIG is entitled to independent access to the records and information pursuant to the IG 

Act. 

However, should an OLC opinion conclude otherwise and interpret the IG Act in a manner that results in limits on our ability 

to access information, we will request a prompt legislative remedy. 

For the past 25 years my office has demonstrated that effective 

and independent oversight saves taxpayers money and improves 

the Department’s operations. Actions that limit, condition, or delay 

access to information have substantial consequences for our work 

and lead to incomplete, inaccurate, or significantly delayed findings 

or recommendations. I cannot emphasize enough how critical it is 

to get these pending access issues resolved promptly. 

Hopefully, OLC will issue shortly, an opinion finding that 6(a) of 

the IG Act means what it says, namely that the OIG is entitled to 

have complete, timely, and independent access to information in 

our agency’s files. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I’d be pleased to answer 

any questions you may have. 

8 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you, and you’ll yield back the one second. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I will yield back the one second. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Horowitz follows:] 

9 


Insert offset folio 1 here 91650.001
10 


Insert offset folio 2 here 91650.002
11 


Insert offset folio 3 here 91650.003
12 


Insert offset folio 4 here 91650.004
13 


Insert offset folio 5 here 91650.005
14 

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Elkins. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ARTHUR A. ELKINS, JR. 

Mr. ELKINS. Good morning, Chairman Issa, Ranking Member 

Cummings, and members of the committee. 

I am Arthur Elkins, Inspector General for the Environmental 

Protection Agency and the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. 

I would like to take this opportunity to publicly commend the Office of Inspector General staff across the Federal Government who 

work hard each day to carry out our important mission. As the 

committee is aware, for more than a year this OIG was confronted 

with a denial of access by the CSB. The CSB’s leadership asserted 

that the denial was based on attorney-client privilege. We countered that such denial violated Section 6(a)(1) of the Inspector General Act. 

With that impairment of my office’s ability to provide oversight 

of the CSB continued, we resorted to the rarely invoked 7-day letter. This committee held a hearing on the 7-day letter and related 

issues on June 19 at which you stated the CSB to turn over the 

documents to the OIG within a week. The CSB since has produced 

several sets of documents to the OIG. We have determined that the 

CSB has substantially but not fully complied with our document request. However, the evidence we have gathered demonstrates that 

there are additional documents within the scope of our request the 

CSB officials have not provided. 

In addition to the CSB matter, the EPA office of Homeland Security continues to impede the investigations of this OIG. We provided testimony on that subject before this committee on May 7. 

While there are multiple facets to this problem, the crux is this. 

The EPA asserts a belief that there is a category of activity defined 

as, ‘‘intelligence’’ to which the OIG may have access only if the 

EPA determines the OIG access is permitted. This impairment by 

the EPA was ongoing when I arrived four years ago, and it is still 

not resolved. 

Now, I would like to discuss how well the IG Act is serving the 

taxpayers of this country in accomplishing goals that Congress set 

in passing it more than 35 years ago. On August 5, I joined with 

46 other IGs in sending a letter to this committee, as well as other 

congressional members, discussing the troubling pushback many of 

us have been experiencing from our respective agencies when we 

seek mandated access to employees and records. We asked Congress for a strong reaffirmation of the original, and we believe, still 

existing intent of the IG Act, that OIGs have unfettered access to 

all agency information to assist us in obtaining prompt and complete agency cooperation. 

Mr. Chairman, questions about whether the IG Act is accomplishing Congress’s goals and whether the act needs strengthening 

or clarification are not hypothetical to me. They are questions with 

real-world impact on my ability to carry out my mandated functions. You might think, therefore, that I would say without reservation that the IG Act requires some enhancements on access and 

agency cooperation. 

15 

However, I want all of us, IGs and Congress included, to be very 

careful about what I am saying and what I am not saying on this 

issue. The act as written is quite strong and quite clear. It provides 

access to all agency information and all agency employees. There 

are no exceptions, not for material that an agency asserts cannot 

be further released outside of the OIG once the OIG does receive 

it, and not for some piece of agency activity that might happen to 

involve classified information. 

No courts, no congressional committees, and no opinions from the 

Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel have given any 

cause for concern that the requirement for access to all information 

means anything other than all. Any attempt to clarify or strengthen that authority could only suggest that it is not already strong 

and fully encompassing. 

The IG Act hinges on the cooperation of an agency with its IG. 

If there is not prompt and complete cooperation, the work of the 

OIG is stifled. In this regard, the IG Act can be compared to a 

house of cards. If you pull out the agency cooperation card, the entire act collapses. I therefore urge this committee to look at enforcement mechanisms for the access and cooperation already required. 

The IG Act is fine as written. The agency’s ability to ignore the act 

without consequence is the problem. 

This OIG will be happy to work with your staff in concert with 

the Council of Inspector Generals on integrity and efficiency on solutions to address our access concerns. I believe that Congress can 

send a strong and needed message through legislative enhancements and other means that such impairment will not be tolerated. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement, and I will 

be pleased to answer any questions you or the committee may 

have. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. And you yield back four seconds. 

Mr. ELKINS. Yes, I will. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Elkins follows:] 

16 


Insert offset folio 6 here 91650.006
17 


Insert offset folio 7 here 91650.007
18 


Insert offset folio 8 here 91650.008
19 


Insert offset folio 9 here 91650.009
20 


Insert offset folio 10 here 91650.010
21 

Chairman ISSA. Ms. Buller. 

STATEMENT OF KATHY A. BULLER 

Ms. BULLER. Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Cummings, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to 

appear before you today and allowing me to summarize my prepared statement. 

You have asked me to testify about my office’s difficulty in obtaining access to agency documents. I testified about this issue before your committee on January 15th, and while progress has been 

made, thanks in part to your efforts, some challenges remain. 

Our access issues stem from the Peace Corps’ interpretation of 

the Kate Puzey Volunteer Protection Act of 2011 which Congress 

enacted after serious reports that the agency failed to adequately 

respond to volunteer victims of sexual assault. To enhance the 

Peace Corps’ response to sexual assaults, the Kate Puzey Act mandates the creation of a restricted reporting mechanism so that volunteers may confidentially disclose the details of their assault and 

receive the services they need without dissemination of their personally identifying information. 

Unfortunately, Peace Corps’s general counsel has written a legal 

opinion concluding the Kate Puzey Act overrides the IG Act, causing the agency to establish policies and procedures that deny OIG 

access to information. In the case of restricted reports, the agency 

argues the Kate Puzey Act prohibits the agency from disclosing to 

OIG any details of a sexual assault or the victim’s PII. However, 

the Kate Puzey Act authorizes disclosure when required by law, 

and the law mandates an extensive oversight role to my office. 

In May my office entered into a formal agreement with the agency to obtain some information from restricted reports. The agreement can be terminated by either party at any time, but we signed 

it so that we could get some information while continuing to seek 

agency or congressional action. Although the agreement improves 

our access, I am concerned about my office having to enter into an 

agreement to get information we are entitled to by law and that 

we need to do our jobs. 

I am also concerned that the agency’s legal opinion authorizing 

it to withhold information from the OIG remains in place. This 

legal opinion sets a dangerous precedent whereby an agency may 

interpret a law as overriding the IG Act, forcing its IGs to spend 

its limited resources and time wrangling with the agency to obtain 

information. 

Many have asked why we need full access to restricted reports. 

The answer is simple. Without full access, we cannot properly inform the agency or Congress whether the agency is complying with 

the Kate Puzey Act and whether the agency’s response to sexual 

assaults is getting better or worse. Furthermore, the Kate Puzey 

Act mandates that my office conduct a case review of a statistically 

significant number of cases. Without full access to information, it’s 

very difficult for us to complete this review and ensure that volunteers are receiving the services that they need. 

On August 5th, 47 IGs signed a letter to Congress expressing 

concern over our access issues, recognizing the implication of agencies refusing, restricting, or delaying IG access to agency docuVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:37 Dec 11, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\91650.TXT APRIL
22 

ments. In response to inquiries about the letter, Peace Corps told 

the Washington Post it is, ‘‘committed to working with the Inspector General to ensure rigorous oversight while protecting the confidentiality and privacy of volunteers who are sexually assaulted,’’ 

suggesting that privacy and oversight are mutually exclusive. They 

are not. 

My office is bound by the same confidentiality rules as the agency. It is trained and experienced in handling sensitive information, 

and there is no cited record of my office ever mishandling such information. The agency has also suggested that fewer volunteers 

would report sexual assaults if OIG had access to the information, 

but when pressed for a factual basis for this assertion, the agency 

had none. 

As the Daily Beast reported, ‘‘it’s hard to imagine a case where 

volunteers declined to report sexual assaults base the agency’s internal watchdog will be provided information to determine there is 

no negligence or wrongdoing.’’ The agency argues its policies and 

procedures are victim centric, but what could be more victim centric than providing independent oversight of victims’ care. 

We ask that Congress reaffirm what is said in the IG Act. The 

IG Act we also believe is very plain on its face, and the legislative 

history also strengthens that intent, but there are individuals like 

our general counsel, who have taken it upon themselves to interpret another piece of legislation to override that act. We request 

that Congress and this committee take a look at reaffirming what 

the IG Act says and make sure everybody is on the same page. 

I thank you for asking me to testify before you, and I am prepared to answer any questions. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. And you yielded back 12 seconds. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Buller follows:] 

23 


Insert offset folio 11 here 91650.011
24 


Insert offset folio 12 here 91650.012
25 


Insert offset folio 13 here 91650.013
26 


Insert offset folio 14 here 91650.014
27 


Insert offset folio 15 here 91650.015
28 


Insert offset folio 16 here 91650.016
29 


Insert offset folio 17 here 91650.017
30 

Chairman ISSA. So, I have never had a more professional panel. 

I commend you all. 

We do a lot of hearings here that are partisan. As you know, this 

isn’t one of them. So one of the challenges here is asking the first 

and most difficult question, which is from each of your experiences, 

when did this begin, and what do you think the source is? And I 

just, to the extent that you can say time and date, and if you will, 

accountable individual, who you think is the decisionmaker, or the 

impediment, I’d like that answer as succinctly as possible. Ms. 

Buller? 

Ms. BULLER. In my case I think it’s very easy to pinpoint the 

time and the person. The passage of the Kate Puzey Act and mandating the restricted reporting I think was the impetus. The person 

is the general counsel. Basically he has taken the opportunity to 

interpret the Kate Puzey Act to impede our access. 

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Elkins? 

Mr. ELKINS. In my case, you know, I have two agencies that I 

oversee, the CSB and the Environmental Protection Agency. In 

both cases I have to say that issues relative to access starts at the 

top. With a clear message from the top that access will be granted, 

it will be granted. To the extent that there is a muddled message 

or the message is not clear, you end up in situations that we have 

here today. 

On the CSB side of the House, the issues started back in 2010, 

2011. On the EPA side of the House, some of the issues that we’re 

dealing with today actually started before I even came on board. 

So this has been an ongoing sort of matter. 

But to answer your question directly, it starts at the top. Clear 

message from the top, what the expectations are, that’s the way 

the rest of the troops will march. Thank you. 

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Horowitz? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Our issues started in 2010. It has continued. It 

started in 2010 with the FBI raising objections. Other components 

have now joined in, and there’s a long list of them that have said 

me too in terms of Section 6(a) of the act doesn’t mean what it 

says. 

Chairman ISSA. So what you’re saying is, is it began with the 

FBI thinking they could beat your oversight, but like any infection, 

particularly a popular one, you’re being shut out systematically? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Correct. If there is a way to do that, that’s what 

happens. 

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Horowitz, yesterday you and I were together 

over in Judiciary, along with a number of the members, and I think 

you testified that on six occasions the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General has intervened when you’ve been denied and 

ultimately allowed you to get some of the information. Is that correct? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. That’s correct. Approximately six. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay, so in your case it’s delay and impeding 

and, in fact, some of the benefits of an expedient investigation more 

than outright denial; is that correct? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. That’s correct. It also compromises our independence. 

31 

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Elkins, in your case you continue, as I understand, in spite of the ranking member and his staff’s efforts, to 

not get information, and that is a decision being made by the agency head; is that right? 

Mr. ELKINS. Well, I can’t say emphatically that it’s coming from 

the agency head. 

Chairman ISSA. I should say the agency head has not intervened, 

and in some of these letters, ask her to do so. That’s what I was 

saying. 

Mr. ELKINS. And I think that’s a fair characterization. 

Chairman ISSA. But ultimately that’s the person who could intervene? 

Mr. ELKINS. Absolutely. Absolutely. 

Chairman ISSA. Ms. Buller, in your case you site the general 

counsel, but the general counsel is a referral point. There is an 

agency head that also has not intervened? 

Ms. BULLER. Yes. 

Chairman ISSA. And I think if I can take Mr. Elkins and Ms. 

Buller and bring your two statements together, which I think are 

important for Mr. Cummings and myself, both, Mr. Elkins you cautioned us not to attempt to clarify if you will and maybe come up 

short and diminish what already is the law, while, Ms. Buller, you 

clearly said this review, which is also going on at Justice, begs the 

whole question of is 6(a), does it notwithstanding other laws, mean 

what it says it means? 

Now, Mr. Elkins, I’m coming back to you for that reason. If either through executive action of the office of the President or 

through congressional action, if we say, because we believe that 

notwithstanding other laws, 6(a) in the IG Act means what it says 

it means, does that both meet your test of not writing new law on 

top of already good law, but at the same time clarify the question 

so that there not be endless review by agency heads, general counsels, and referrals to legal review? 

Mr. ELKINS. Yes. I think that would be quite helpful. That message clearly without any wiggle room in it, coming from the President, would help, absolutely. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you and with that, I have used 12 seconds. I yield to the ranking member. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to go back to what the chairman was just 

asking. 

So, Ms. Buller, as I have listened to you and I have read your 

testimony, and I have thought about the issue here, the personally 

identifiable information, it just seems like we should be able to 

work that out some kind of way. I mean, have you gotten any further than the memorandum of understanding? 

Ms. BULLER. We have the memorandum of understanding in 

place, and we are hopeful that we can continue to do our work with 

that memorandum of understanding, but there is, with the legal 

opinion that’s still in place, if there’s another dispute that comes 

up regarding what PII is or what explicit details of the sexual assault is, we’re going to be right back where we started, going back 

and forth with the general counsel’s office trying to figure that out. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Elkins, during your tenure as an Inspector 

General, you worked with the EPA to identify ways the agency can 

32 

improve its management. For example, your office released three 

reports in the past month that identify ways the EPA can save 

money by improving its contracting processes and oversight; is that 

right? 

Mr. ELKINS. That is correct. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Your recommendations have led to many successful reforms. For example, on July 22, 2014, your office reported 

that the EPA implemented corrective action on all of your recommendations regarding the EPA’s nationwide monitoring system 

that protects us from exposure to radiation; is that right? 

Mr. ELKINS. That’s correct, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Congress has also charged you with overseeing 

the Chemical Safety Board which I want to ask you about. You discussed in your testimony a long-term dispute with the CSB. You 

also identified before the committee in June, testified before the 

committee in June, about that issue. Your office is investigating 

the use of personal email accounts by senior CSB officials to conduct official business; is that right? 

Mr. ELKINS. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. On September 5, 2013, you sent a 7-day letter 

to the CSB seeking email records but CSB refused to provide. This 

is the only 7-day letter you have issued in your tenure as Inspector 

General; is that right? 

Mr. ELKINS. That’s correct. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. How long have you been Inspector General? 

Mr. ELKINS. Over four years now. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. After the committee’s hearing, CSB provided 

some documents, but on July 8, however, you informed the committee that CSB still had not fully complied with your request. You 

said the documents they provided were not fully responsive. The 

attachments were not provided, and some documents were redacted; is that right? 

Mr. ELKINS. That is correct. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. More recently CSB has provided additional documents, including unredacted copies, and on September 8, 2014, you 

sent a letter to the committee saying, ‘‘OIG concludes that the CSB 

has substantially complied with our document request. However, 

the evidence we have gathered demonstrates that there are additional documents within the scope of our request which CSB officials have not provided to the OIG.’’ So it sounds like CSB improved its cooperation following the committee’s hearing in June, 

but even that was like pulling teeth. Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. ELKINS. That’s a very fair statement. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, I got to tell you, I think that this is totally 

unacceptable. Can you tell us now specifically how you know the 

CSB is withholding documents? 

Mr. ELKINS. Well, I’d like to think I have got a crack team of investigators that ask good questions. And, you know, we track the 

documents. We track the questions, and it’s really just matching it 

up. We ask certain questions. We take a look to see if we have got 

a response, and if the response is not there, there’s a void. That’s 

pretty much what we have got. 

33 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Can you identify the categories of documents 

that you believe are being withheld for the record so that we can 

follow-up directly? 

Mr. ELKINS. Yeah, I can give you somewhat of a characterization. 

For instance, there was you know, of course the instance of using 

you know, email that’s not government email to conduct agency 

business. At one point in the process, it was conveyed to us that 

there was a directive to CSB staff not to do that, and then subsequent, we found emails that suggested that after that date, it was 

still going on. So in our mind, that suggests that you know, there 

is a disconnect there, so that’s one example. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Last question. In the letter you sent on Tuesday, 

you said you will be issuing a report of investigation in the near 

future. What will the scope of that report be, and when do you expect to issue it? 

Mr. ELKINS. Well, it will be a compilation of what we have determined, you know, based on the facts of the case. At this point, it 

appears to us that the CSB leadership was using means other than 

Federal communication means to conduct agency business, so that’s 

where the report is likely to head. 

In terms of when that report is going to be issued, I can’t give 

you an exact date, but I would say very shortly, maybe within the 

next 90 days or so. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, and we will follow-up. 

Chairman ISSA. Will the ranking member yield? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes. 

Chairman ISSA. To clarify, Ms. Buller, did you ever ask on this 

personally identifiable information and the details of these sexual 

assaults, did you ever ask for in camera review for your people to 

look at the documents without receiving them? 

Ms. BULLER. No. That wouldn’t have been permitted under the 

general counsel’s legal opinion. 

Chairman ISSA. The question is did you ask? 

Ms. BULLER. No. 

Chairman ISSA. Did you attempt to have something where you 

would respect the fact that you wouldn’t take possession but you 

at least would review them. 

Ms. BULLER. No, we did not. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Just one last question to follow-up. 

Chairman ISSA. Sure. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. You know, as I listen to your testimony, one of 

the key—when I think about the conflict, and you said that your 

agency has been used to handling very sensitive information and 

keeping it confidential. I’m sure you made those same arguments 

to the Peace Corps? 

Ms. BULLER. Yes. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And what was the response? I mean, because we 

have got government, public servants who want to do the right 

thing, and the last thing your agency would be doing would be 

going against yourself by revealing information identifying somebody who may have been sexually assaulted. So, I’m just wondering 

what happened there? Do you follow me? Is it that they don’t—do 

you think there’s a distrust or—— 

34 

Ms. BULLER. The way that the Kate Puzey Act is drafted, there 

are two exceptions on the disclosure. One is for one of the exceptions that is enumerated, and the other is that if a person files a 

restricted report, it won’t automatically trigger an investigative 

process. 

Our general counsel basically interpreted the receipt by my office 

of any information from a restricted report as doing that, automatically triggering an investigative process, even though we assured 

him that we are required to follow the law, that if we got any restricted reported information, we would not use it to trigger an investigation. It didn’t seem to make an impact on him, and he is the 

only person who has concluded that the two laws conflict. When 

you read the two laws, there’s a way to interpret them that they 

don’t. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Very well. Thank you very much. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

Mr. Mica. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you for holding this hearing, and I appreciate the Inspector Generals testifying. 

I guess with being the senior member of the committee and having gone through almost all, half a dozen or so chairman and hundreds of members who have been on the panel, you get a little bit 

of institutional insight. I have never seen an instance in my 21- 

plus years of 47 Inspector Generals coming together and saying 

that their oversight was being obstructed. 

Mr. Horowitz, do you know of any instance similar to this? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I don’t. 

Mr. MICA. Mr. Elkins? 

Mr. ELKINS. This is the first to my recollection. 

Mr. MICA. Ms. Buller? 

Ms. BULLER. I don’t recall any either. 

Mr. MICA. Each of the instances which you’ve come here to cite 

before us have different parameters. Some of them, there could be 

questions, and I have seen some of your recommendations for possible changes in legislation, and that would be one way to resolve 

some of the issues. 

I think, Mr. Horowitz, you have some recommendations about 

some exemptions that are currently allowed that should be excluded. I think you, Ms. Buller. Is that correct? 

[Nonverbal response.] 

Mr. MICA. Just answer yes, Ms. Buller. 

Ms. BULLER. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. Mr. Elkins, with the EPA, it appears that the actions 

taken by EPA in really ignoring you and allowing whistleblowers 

and others to be intimidated, this has undermined your position as 

Inspector General to conduct your legitimate investigative oversight responsibilities. Would that be a fair statement? 

Mr. ELKINS. Yeah, that would be a fair statement. 

Mr. MICA. Uh-huh. The other thing that would concern me is 

using some language or exceptions that are in the law and the case 

of Justice and the Peace Corps to obstruct an investigation or even 

worse, to cover up, particularly concerned about the sexual abuse 

instances. 

35 

Now, some of these cases the staff have told me it may be like 

Peace Corps worker on Peace Corps worker or some locals on Peace 

Corps volunteers; is that the case? 

Ms. BULLER. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. And again, it appears that it is sort of a blatant coverup of sexual abuse cases that some might embarrass the agency. 

I guess you expose yourself when you send people to foreign lands 

or on any mission to locals or foreign nationals taking advantage 

of American personnel. 

How prevalent is the case of problems with Peace Corps workers 

being involved in these instances? 

Ms. BULLER. Usually it’s a host country national involved in the 

assaults. From what we gathered, the information we gathered, it’s 

usually volunteer on volunteer or staff on volunteer in about 4 percent of the cases. 

Mr. MICA. In how many? 

Ms. BULLER. About 4 percent of the cases. 

Mr. MICA. Four percent. Not huge, but it’s very embarrassing, I 

would imagine, to the agency. 

And you know, again, I think we have a particular position of responsibility to deal with that kind of action, and also I think you 

should have that authority to uncover again what’s going on and 

expose it. 

A couple of questions because the Inspector Generals have been 

under attack for a number of years now. Several ways of attacking, 

one, get rid of them. We went through that in the beginning, and 

I remember Gerald Walpin, and he was removed. I think the committee let it be known that that was not going to be tolerated, although they did get away with that particular instance. 

Then not appointing Attorney Generals, I’m told there are 13 vacancies, 7 Presidentially appointed, about 15, 20 percent of the Inspector General positions are vacant; is that about right, Mr. Horowitz? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I think that’s right. 

Mr. MICA. You think. Mr. Elkins? 

Mr. ELKINS. I don’t have the statistics. 

Mr. MICA. You’re not sure. Okay. 

Ms. BULLER. It sounds right. 

Mr. MICA. Well, again these are the numbers that I have. You 

don’t appoint them. You try to get rid of them, and then you don’t 

cooperate with them and obstruct them. Those are all very serious 

problems. 

I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your bringing this matter to the attention of the committee. 

Chairman ISSA. And I thank you, Mr. Mica. 

Mr. MICA. I will have further questions later on. Thank you. 

Chairman ISSA. And the gentleman yields back. 

We now go to Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

holding this hearing. 

I find myself in firm agreement with yourself and with the ranking member, your opening statements. 

Ms. Buller, in my other committee, in the House Foreign Affairs 

Committee, we actually, Judge Poe and I had some legislation dealVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:37 Dec 11, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\91650.TXT APRIL
36 

ing with the Peace Corps and the whole issue of sexual assaults 

and how best to handle that. There were a series of investigations 

and investigative stories really that were highlighted how poorly 

historically the Peace Corps had heretofore frankly managed cases 

of sexual assault among volunteers. 

We introduced legislation to try to address that and so I’m particularly concerned to find that today on the subject at the Peace 

Corps, there isn’t full cooperation with your office. So that’s the 

context in which I look at particularly the Peace Corps issue and 

the role of the IG. 

In January you testified before this committee and raised concerns about access to Peace Corps information. Is that correct? 

Ms. BULLER. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And what was the nature of that testimony? 

Ms. BULLER. It was the same issue—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Could you speak into the microphone? Thanks so 

much. 

Ms. BULLER. It was the same issue that I am testifying about 

today. It’s the lack of access to restricted reported information. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Specifically in 2011, we passed the Kate Puzey 

Volunteer Protection Act, to which I just referred, requiring the 

Peace Corps to establish a restricted reporting system giving volunteers the option to report sexual assaults on a confidential basis. 

Under the Puzey Act, the Peace Corps IG is required to conduct 

a case review of a statistically significant of sexual assault cases 

to evaluate the effectiveness of that policy and to provide a report 

to Congress; is that true? 

Ms. BULLER. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Due to the Peace Corps’ interpretation of that 

act, the agency, however, withheld from the IG certain personal information about victims as well as sexually explicit details about 

sexual crimes; is that correct? 

Ms. BULLER. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. On May 22, you and the agency signed a memorandum of understanding. Under that agreement, the agency 

agreed to provide you with access to all information related to restricted reports other than clearly defined personally identifiable 

information, and explicit details of sexual assaults; is that correct? 

Ms. BULLER. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Since that MOU has been in effect, has your office requested any sexual assault case information under the MOU 

from the Peace Corps agency? 

Ms. BULLER. We have requested crime incident reports for a program evaluation that we were going to do. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Did you say five? 

Ms. BULLER. No. Two. Well, we had one program evaluation, and 

we requested all of the crime incident reports including restricted 

reports for that country before we went into evaluation. There were 

two reports. We did get both reports with the redactions. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. With the appropriate redactions? 

Ms. BULLER. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. From your point of view? 

Ms. BULLER. According to the MOU, yes. 

37 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Right. So since the MOU has been put into effect, 

you have had requests, and you have found full compliance on behalf of the agency? 

Ms. BULLER. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Is it your expectation that the case information 

that you did receive is useful to the work you’re undertaking? 

Ms. BULLER. It’s useful to the particular program evaluation 

we’re doing at this particular point in time. The problem that we 

have is when we are going to do our case review for the Puzeymandated work, it requires a statistic sampling to do that, and the 

Peace Corps has no case management system, so that everything 

is compiled in one place. We have records in medical. We have 

records in the victim advocate office. We have records all over the 

place, and we don’t have any way to track how a volunteer is treated after they’ve been assaulted because there’s no case management system. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Even now? 

Ms. BULLER. Even now, yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And would that case management rubric also include legal actions? So for example, if somebody’s been sexually assaulted, presumably there’s a legal case pending in the host country? 

Ms. BULLER. If there is, it should be included in the records, yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. But it’s part of the case management problem, I 

assume, that’s also somewhere else? 

Ms. BULLER. If the case was actually taken into court it would 

no longer be a restricted report, so we should have access to that 

information anyway. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And do you? 

Ms. BULLER. Yes, we do have access to non-restricted reports. 

The problem is the default position for Peace Corps is every report 

of sexual assault that’s filed is automatically restricted until a volunteer determines to make it otherwise, so the universe of restricted reports is quite large. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I just want to end by saying this is a particularly 

troubling case. Since Congress on a bipartisan basis actually addressed this topic, the Peace Corps and the incidence and management of sexual assaults on volunteers abroad, and to find three 

years after passing that act that we’re still finding problems internally with the Peace Corps that directly affect the victims because 

their cases aren’t being managed efficiently and properly and sympathetically, and the IG has not had until the MOU. 

Full cooperation from the agency is troubling indeed, and to me 

circumvents the letter as well as the spirit of the law Congress 

passed to try to address this very sensitive but real issue affecting 

our Peace Corps volunteers. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WALBERG. [Presiding.] I appreciate your comments. 

I now turn and recognize the gentleman from Utah, Mr. 

Chaffetz. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I thank the chairman. 

38 

And thank you, the three of you, for being here. You play a vital 

role in the checks and balances and just good government, and I 

thank you for your time and your dedication for you and your staff. 

I’d ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the letter 

dated August 5, 2014. This is a letter to Chairman Issa, Ranking 

Member Cummings, and Senators Carper and Coburn from the 47 

IGs. 

Mr. WALBERG. Hearing no objection, it will be entered. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I want to read just three sentences from this letter. The undersigned Federal inspectors general write regarding 

the serious limitations on access to records that have recently impeded the work of inspectors general at the Peace Corps, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Justice. 

On page 2, last paragraph, ‘‘Moreover, the issues facing the DOJ 

OIG, the EPA OIG, and the Peace Corps OIG are not unique. 

Other inspectors general have from time to time faced similar obstacles in their work, whether on a claim that some other law or 

principle trumps the clear mandate of the IG Act or by the agency’s 

imposition of unnecessarily burdensome administrative conditions 

on access.’’ 

It is extraordinary that 47 inspectors general have issued this 

letter expressing this concern. But I’d also like to ask unanimous 

consent to enter into the record a letter from the Director of the 

Office of Management and Budget dated September 9, 2014. 

Mr. WALBERG. Without objection, it will be entered. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Let me read a sentence here from that response 

from the Director of the OMB, and then I’d like each of you to 

please respond to it, because the administration doesn’t seem to 

think there’s a problem. In this letter, paragraph three, the last 

sentence says, ‘‘Overall, the numbers reported by the IGs demonstrate that Federal departments and agencies in this administration value the work of IG offices and are almost uniformly successful in getting them the information they need to perform their responsibilities.’’ 

This letter, if you were to read this letter, the Office of Management and Budget issuing a letter a full month after the 47 IGs, 

they don’t think there’s a problem. How do you respond to that sentence? We’ll start with Mr. Horowitz. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I can only speak from experience and what I’ve 

heard from other IGs, which is we have faced roadblocks in several 

of our reviews. Untimely access, where we have gotten it, it has 

taken a fair amount of time. I think the other IGs have had their 

experiences. And I know from conversations with fellow IGs, while 

they haven’t had lawyers come forward and say, we can’t legally 

give it to you, they’ve had issues with getting materials in a timely 

manner. That is a very significant issue for us. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So when it says ‘‘almost uniformly successful,’’ 

how would you characterize what you’re able to access and get 

right now, particularly from the FBI? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. It has been an extraordinarily difficult issue for 

us for now several years to get prompt, timely access to materials. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Elkins. 

Mr. ELKINS. I think there is a disconnect, and I think that statement that you just read capsulizes the disconnect. On the one 

39 

hand, I think what we have seen here is that we hear from time 

to time that, well, there is substantial cooperation with the OIG, 

I mean 80 percent, 90 percent of the time there’s no problems, you 

get what you ask for. But that assumes that the other 10 to 20 percent of the time that we’re not getting what we ask for is okay, and 

that suggests it’s a moving target, and that’s a very slippery slope. 

And that is exactly, I think, why we’re here today and talking 

about these issues, because there is this assumption that most of 

the time we cooperate, and that’s where the focus is at. But the 

real issue here is what about that 10 percent of the time that there 

is no cooperation, and that seems to just keep jumping around and 

jumping around. That’s the problem, and I think that message says 

that it’s a broad problem with OMB and a lot of agencies. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Mr. Elkins. 

Ms. Buller. 

Ms. BULLER. I agree with my esteemed colleague. From our perspective, we’ve had an agency issue opinions or issue policies and 

procedures specifically stating that we can’t have access to something, so it’s very difficult for me to understand how it’s not a problem. And I think the fact that 47 other IGs have at one time or 

another, maybe not all the time, but one time or another had problems should be an indicator that there is a problem. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Well, thank you. Again, I appreciate the great 

work that we do and look forward to hearing from you further. 

Yield back. 

Mr. WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. 

And I recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Cartwright. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

the inspectors general appearing here today. 

As this committee has previously highlighted, the offices of inspectors general are essential to the efficiency of our Federal Government. They help hold agencies accountable, identifying misconduct in programs and by personnel. They can highlight the holy 

trinity of waste, fraud, and abuse, guaranteeing that the American 

taxpayers get the most bang for their buck. 

The position of IG is a difficult position to hold, and IGs are 

tasked with investigating alleged abuses among those with whom 

they work. Now, of course, however, a balance has to be struck between confidentiality and privacy rights of victims, as well as whistleblowers, and the needs of the inspectors general. 

Ms. Buller, I listened to your testimony closely and also your 

questioning by Representative Connolly. As you noted in your written testimony, the OIG recently reached this memorandum of understanding with the Peace Corps on how best to comply with the 

Kate Puzey Peace Corps Volunteer Protection Act. Obviously, many 

victims of sexual abuse and assault choose to report that conduct 

anonymously out of fear of retribution and for their safety in general. 

And there’s an irony, isn’t there, in that the Kate Puzey Act was 

intended to provide tighter oversight to make sure a complainant’s 

anonymity is protected. In fact, Kate Puzey herself was murdered 

by her attacker when the Peace Corps mishandled her complaint 

and her identity got out, and I think Mr. Connolly has made that 

40 

point. But there’s this irony that the Kate Puzey Act was intended 

to tighten oversight of the confidentiality and at the same time now 

we hear that the Peace Corps is saying that because of the need 

for confidentiality they don’t want to cooperate as much with the 

OIG. And I see that. 

And I think probably a good thing to do this morning, Ms. Buller, 

would be for you to elaborate. You touched on it briefly in your testimony about how professional your staff is and how careful you 

are with anonymity. Will you elaborate further and tell us more 

about systems and procedures in place to protect anonymity? 

Ms. BULLER. Sure. All of my staff is required, as is Peace Corps 

staff, to comply with all of the laws that protect personal identifying information, such as the Privacy Act, HIPAA, things of that 

nature. We are all required by law to comply with those, the same 

way that Peace Corps staff is. 

Furthermore, my investigators are trained investigators. We 

must comply with all of the guidelines from the Attorney General. 

We have full law enforcement authority. We participate like any 

other law enforcement organization. And my evaluators, when they 

go out to a post, they go to the volunteer site and sit and interview 

individual volunteers, and they tell them that they will not use 

their name because they’re trying to find out how well Peace Corps 

is actually supporting those volunteers. 

So they do not use their names. They aggregate information and 

bring it back so that we can issue a report to the agency to tell 

them that you have these problems in this area, that volunteers 

don’t feel supported in another area, things of that nature. We are 

a very professional staff, and we do comply with all of the federally 

mandated laws. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. I thank you for that. And you did say in your 

testimony there’s never been an instance of the Office of Attorney 

General being implicated in an improper disclosure of an identity. 

Is that correct? 

Ms. BULLER. Yes. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. And there never will be, will there? 

Ms. BULLER. No, there will not. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Well, I thank you for testifying here today, and 

we take your testimony seriously. 

Ms. BULLER. Thank you. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. 

Before I recognize myself for 5 minutes of questioning, I would 

ask that an additional document that follows up the preceding documents, a letter addressed to the Director of Office of Management 

and Budget on these issues and signed by our chairman and ranking member, as well as the corresponding chairman and ranking 

member in the Senate, be introduced into the record. Without objection, it will be introduced. 

Mr. WALBERG. I thank the witnesses for being here as well and 

carrying on with this continued investigation to make sure that 

your work is accomplished. 

Mr. Horowitz, I still remember our first meeting in my office 

when you came in after your appointment and how direct you were 

about saying my job is to be the job that the OIG is supposed to 

41 

do and to get to the bottom of the issue regardless of where we find 

ourselves, and I appreciate that. 

Let me ask you a question relative to a fairly high profile investigation that we’ve been involved with as well as you. Were there 

restrictions or limitations on your ability to access documents in 

your investigation into the Operation Fast and Furious? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. That’s one of them, the investigations, where the 

issue was first raised back in 2011 to our access. 

Mr. WALBERG. Did you have to make document requests in writing? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. We did, and the issues came up both in the context of our request for grand jury information, which, as you know, 

given the case was a criminal case, were many, as well as wiretap 

information. As you know from our report, there were many. 

Mr. WALBERG. How long did it take for you to get access to those 

documents? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. It took many months for this issue to be resolved, 

and it was resolved through an order being issued by the leadership, not through our independent access pursuant to the IG Act. 

Mr. WALBERG. Elaborate on that last statement a little bit. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Yes. In our view, we have a right, as Congress 

has laid out in the IG Act in Section 6(a), to get the materials we 

ask for. When we ask for materials, we ask for relevant information, responsive information, and in our view we’re entitled to that 

by law. Congress has been clear. 

The FBI, other components in the Department have taken the 

view that the IG Act perhaps doesn’t mean that. Indeed, we’ve 

been told that that was the Office of Legal Counsel’s preliminary 

view, that it wasn’t sure the IG Act meant what it said, and as a 

result it required an order of the Attorney General or the Deputy 

Attorney General to the component that said, I find these reviews 

are of assistance to me as the leadership of the Department, and 

therefore you can give the IG those materials. 

Mr. WALBERG. How has the requirement that the OIG obtain 

written permission to access documents related to the Fast and Furious operation affected your office’s ability to conduct a complete 

investigation in the matter? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. It delays. It frequently has the impact of delaying 

our reviews, not only because we have to go through that process 

to the leadership of the Department, but also because, frankly, it 

encourages other objections by other components of other issues. 

For example, personally identifiable information that IG Buller has 

talked about, that issue was thrown up in front of one of our reviews on sexual misconduct within the Department by both the 

FBI and the DEA. That’s a frivolous objection and after many 

months of back and forth was withdrawn by the agencies and we 

finally got the material. 

Mr. WALBERG. How does all this affect your independence? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. It compromises it, in my view, entirely. I should 

not have to go to the people I oversee for approval to get records. 

Congress I don’t think intended that. That would undercut in every 

way our independence. 

Mr. WALBERG. We certainly didn’t. I appreciate that. 

42 

Let me ask questions of each of the panelists. Other than the 

reason described in the letter from 47 IGs, what tactics do agencies 

use to deny OIGs access to agency records and documents? 

And, Ms. Buller, I’ll start with you. 

Ms. BULLER. In my case, we’ve had instances where our situation 

and the issue on the Kate Puzey Act has bled into other areas. For 

example, they redid the Crime Reporting Management System for 

standard reports, and when they did that we were denied access 

to that for no reason, because they were not a restricted report. So 

we had to go back to the general counsel, and actually I had to go 

to the director of the agency and make a personal plea to get the 

information that we had been getting all along reinstated to us. 

Once you start down the road where they’re preventing you from 

getting information, it pops up in different places and unexpected 

places. 

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Elkins. 

Mr. ELKINS. In my case what I see is stonewalling, to a large extent parsing out information. You ask for 10 pieces of information 

and you get 2 or 3 pieces of information, and there wants to be a 

discussion on the other 7 pieces of information, and then there is 

continually fighting and going back and meetings. And at the end 

of the day, a year later, you still don’t have the information. 

And in the back of my mind what I hear is cha-ching, cha-ching, 

cha-ching. That’s the taxpayers’ dollars that are going out and 

being used on the agency side and on my shop’s side to be able to 

solve an issue that the IG Act says when we ask for information 

we’re supposed to get it immediately and promptly, and if we had 

received it at that time, the cash register wouldn’t continually be 

ringing. So that’s what I see. 

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Horowitz. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. As a result of the position that the IG Act may 

not mean what it says, the FBI has put in place in our instance 

their general counsel reviewing all of the materials and all of our 

requests for materials before they come to us. That requires reviews by lawyers at the FBI, it delays us getting access. And a concrete example of what that means in a review we are doing, we 

asked one of the subcomponents within the FBI for an organizational chart. They told us they couldn’t give it directly to us because of the standing requirement within the FBI that materials 

have to go through the Office of General Counsel first. And so we 

were delayed for weeks in even getting an organizational chart so 

we could figure out who to talk to in the course of a review. 

That should not be happening. That is a waste of money, as IG 

Elkins just said. We have entitlement to the access to the records. 

I’m not sure what use there is of the resources of the FBI to go 

page by page through records before giving it to us. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you. 

My time has expired. Now I recognize the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Duckworth. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The inspector general community plays a key role in making the 

government more honest, efficient, and effective in ensuring wise 

stewardship of taxpayer money. I have seen firsthand their work, 

and obstruction of their work is simply not acceptable. So I take 

43 

the concerns being aired here today very seriously, and hopefully 

the message that my colleagues and I are sending on this point 

today is heard loud and clear. 

I’d like to discuss the concerns I have with EPA’s Office of Homeland Security in particular. And, Mr. Elkins, on May 7 of this year 

the assistant inspector general for investigations at EPA testified 

before the committee and raised a number of access concerns. Specifically, Mr. Sullivan expressed frustrations that the EPA’s Office 

of Homeland Security, OHS, was denying access to important classified threat material that was impeding your ability to investigate 

threats against EPA facilities and its employees. He also testified 

that OHS refused to share misconduct cases with his office because 

OHS believed it was, ‘‘a de facto law enforcement organization in 

itself.’’ And finally, Mr. Sullivan raised concerns that OHS did not 

recognize the IG’s statutory authority over intrusions into EPA’s 

computer networks, apparently denying access to classified information related to possible cyber intrusions. 

Is that a fair summary of your concerns also with the OHS office 

under EPA? 

Mr. ELKINS. Yes, ma’am, that is a fair characterization. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you. So I understand from your testimony today that you continue to have problems with access to information from OHS. Is that correct? 

Mr. ELKINS. Yes, ma’am, that’s correct. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. In June, June 19th of this year, EPA Administrator McCarthy sent you a memo entitled ‘‘Working Effectively 

and Cooperatively,’’ that’s correct? Is that correct? 

Mr. ELKINS. I don’t recall that exact memo. June 19th you say? 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. It’s called ‘‘Working Effectively and Cooperatively.’’ 

Mr. ELKINS. Oh, yes, I do recall that, yes. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Okay. So my understanding is that it attempts 

to construct a framework for better cooperation between OHS and 

your office, and section 5 of the memo lays out a dispute resolution 

process. Has that process been used by your office since receiving 

the memo? 

Mr. ELKINS. Well, I can speak from my own personal opinion, no. 

I mean, we still have the same issues that we had at the date of 

that letter. So if there was a dispute process that was used, it 

hasn’t worked, and I haven’t been a part of it. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Okay. Do you think it should and it could or 

should be further enhanced, the dispute resolution process, or do 

you think that that is something that’s just hindering your work 

in general? 

Mr. ELKINS. Well, personally I think the IG Act says all means 

all. I mean, when we ask for information and access to documents 

and individuals, that’s exactly what it means. Entering into a dispute resolution process sends the message that there’s some wiggle 

room, that it can be negotiated, and I am totally against that process. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. So the committee staff attempted to assist you 

in resolving this impasse that you’re having with EPA’s Office of 

Homeland Security. My understanding from your testimony, what 

you just said, that we’re still hitting roadblocks. Is that correct? 

44 

Mr. ELKINS. Absolutely. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. What steps do you think would be helpful to 

resolve some of the disputes that you’re having, and how can this 

committee be helpful to you in that process? 

Mr. ELKINS. Well, I think ultimately the Administrator needs to 

send a clear message that the IG Act requires absolute cooperation 

with the IG. If that message is sent, I think everything would 

change. And until we get some clear message from the Administrator to that effect, I think the status quo will continue. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Do you think the inspector is supporting OHS’ 

position that they are a de facto law enforcement agency within the 

EPA? 

Mr. ELKINS. I’m sorry, can you repeat the question, please. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Do you think that Administrator McCarthy’s 

position, from what he has said with this, by supporting this 

memo, ‘‘Working Effectively and Cooperatively,’’ and not sending 

out this the statement that you should have full access, do you 

think that he supports what OHS believes, that they are a de facto 

law enforcement organization within EPA? 

Mr. ELKINS. Well, I don’t want to put words in the Administrator’s mouth, but the end result is that the status quo continues. So 

I can only infer that the administrator agrees with that. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing. To 

the extent that this committee and its staff can be of assistance to 

help address this impasse, we certainly should be willing to help. 

And again, Mr. Elkins, thank you for the work that you do for 

us and for the American taxpayer. 

Mr. ELKINS. Thank you, ma’am. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank the gentlelady. 

I recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lankford. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all for being here and for your work that you do every 

single day for the American taxpayer. We really do appreciate what 

the Office of Inspector General does in every one of these agencies. 

It is extremely important. Congress and the American people established all these agencies. These agencies just didn’t appear out 

of dust and one day have responsibility. Congress created these 

agencies, and then Congress has the oversight responsibilities for 

these. What the Office of Inspector General does is to bring transparency to the American taxpayer, and so what you’re doing is 

vital. 

So with that, Mr. Horowitz, if I asked to see all of the papers on 

your desk, would you assume that’s only three pages or would you 

assume that’s all? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I would assume it’s everything. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Would you assume, if I asked for all the pages 

on your desk, that you could go back and seek counsel and then 

come back and say, no, we’ve really decided all doesn’t mean all? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Pursuant to the IG Act, no, you would get everything. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Okay. I have a real issue when any agency steps 

in and says, I know Congress has required all these pages to be 

45 

turned over, but we’ve discussed it as an agency and we’re not 

going to turn it over. I have an issue with that. I have an issue 

with anytime an agency steps up and says, we don’t like some of 

the information coming out and so we’re going to choose not to give 

it. 

I don’t like it when I read reports from the Attorney General 

when he writes back to the inspector general and says, I have determined that providing the OIG with access to it is helpful to me, 

and so I’m going to turn this over because it’s helpful to me. That 

implies to me that he’s also reviewing other documents and saying, 

I have determined this is not helpful to me, so I’m not turning it 

over. That is not the responsibility of the Attorney General of the 

United States, to be able to conceal documents that are not helpful 

and to turn over documents that are. 

So with that, I have several questions. The roadblocks that you 

all have experienced over the last several years, Mr. Horowitz, 

you’ve been at this how many years? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. A little over 2 years. 

Mr. LANKFORD. So of what you have seen and the folks that you 

have talked to—Mr. Elkins, how long have you been at this as an 

inspector general with the inspector general’s office? 

Mr. ELKINS. Just a little over 4 years, sir. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Okay. 

Ms. Buller. 

Ms. BULLER. Six years. 

Mr. LANKFORD. The question is, this is obviously an old law. This 

is not new. This is requiring the administration, every administration, any administration to say American tax dollars are at use 

here. What have you seen in the individuals that you have talked 

to and other folks that are around that have worked in the inspector general office, some for decades, what are they experiencing 

now that has changed, and has it changed? Is this just normal protocol from every administration to drag their feet on every investigation or is something changing? And I’m not asking this in a political way. I’m just trying to figure out is this just typical, normal 

protocol from every administration, every agency? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I can certainly speak to our situation. I’ve talked 

to my predecessors, and I think the answer is quite clearly no in 

our circumstances. We did FBI oversight after the attacks of 9/11, 

after the Robert Hanssen scandal. We were given complete access 

to the materials we needed. We didn’t face these kinds of issues. 

Frankly, we didn’t face these issues until 2010 or 2011. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Are you finding that FOIA requests, any information coming out from a FOIA request is coming out as fast or 

at equal speed than what you are getting from the inspector general’s office? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I actually haven’t compared those, so I couldn’t 

speak to that. 

Mr. LANKFORD. I can tell you in Congress we are finding that, 

that at times that we’ll make a request of a document and a FOIA 

request happens, and the FOIA request gets it the same day that 

we do, sometimes faster. So that has been an issue. 

Mr. Elkins, I have a question for you. You’re dealing with the 

EPA, and you said in your oral testimony that you’re being blocked 

46 

from the EPA receiving information that they have deemed intelligence activity. Tell me about that. 

Mr. ELKINS. Yes, sir. The EPA, the Office of Homeland Security 

has asserted that it is the primary office in EPA to handle any 

issues related that have intelligence connected to it. Unfortunately, 

they do not have investigation authority. There are only two entities within EPA that have investigative authorities. One is the OIG 

and the other is CID. In terms of employee misconduct cases, 

which typically result in where you have intelligence information 

where individuals inside the agency are doing something illegal, it’s 

going to be related to employee misconduct. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Right. So can you tell what intelligence activity 

is within EPA. They’re saying they’re withholding this information 

from you, you can’t look at it because it’s intelligence activities. 

Can you tell what that is? 

Mr. ELKINS. Well, to the extent that they have the intelligence 

activities information I don’t know, because they don’t share that 

information with me. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Well, I can tell you this committee finds that 

ironic because it wasn’t that long ago we had someone sitting at 

that same table that pretended to be with the CIA and was also 

with the EPA, and for years—for years—eluded EPA oversight because he claimed he was secretly working for the CIA. So I find it 

ironic that the EPA is now telling the inspector general, well, this 

is intelligence related, we can’t pass this on for oversight. 

I’m going to be very interested to hear from the EPA what intelligence activities that they are doing on the American people and 

what intelligence activities that they’re doing nationwide or worldwide related to the Environmental Protection Act and why they 

would say this is so secret that we’re not going to allow the American people to see the activities of the EPA or to allow the inspector 

general to participate in oversight for that. I think that’s a reasonable question to ask any agency that doesn’t have investigative intelligence responsibilities, how they have somehow created their 

own intelligence department and what they are doing with that. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me the extra seconds here 

of questioning, and I thank you all for your work. 

Mr. WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. 

And now I recognize the gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Horsford. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate very 

much this hearing. 

And we started off saying that this was going to be nonpartisan, 

and unfortunately, as usual, it turns into a bit more partisan than 

it should because the role that the IG plays is very important, your 

mission is important, and we should be working in a nonpartisan 

fashion to support that. 

Mr. Horowitz, I do want to follow up on your comment by my 

good friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma, and to ask you to clarify a little bit based on your testimony today and your previous testimony in January. I want to ask you about some of the concerns 

that you raised regarding your office’s access to categories of information relevant to ongoing IG reviews, including wiretap and 

grand jury materials and documents related to the Department of 

Justice’s use of material witness warrants. 

47 

Mr. Horowitz, as I understand it, in specific instances you have 

had to seek access to this information from the Department’s leadership, correct? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. That’s correct. 

Mr. HORSFORD. When testifying about this same issue before the 

committee on January 15th you stated, ‘‘In each instance the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General provided us with the 

permission to receive the materials.’’ Is that correct? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. That’s correct. 

Mr. HORSFORD. You also wrote in your testimony today that the 

Department has informed you that, ‘‘it is their intent to continue 

to grant permission to access records in future audits and reviews.’’ 

Is that correct? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. That’s correct. 

Mr. HORSFORD. So, Mr. Horowitz, as a preliminary matter, has 

all of the information you have sought from the Department been 

provided to you? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. We are told that it has been. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Has any information that you have requested 

from the Department ultimately been withheld from you? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Ultimately no, we’ve gotten it after many 

months. 

Mr. HORSFORD. So during the January hearing you testified that 

your office’s access issues were, ‘‘not necessarily specific to this Attorney General, this Deputy Attorney General, it is an issue that 

my predecessors have had to deal with.’’ Is that correct? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. It is correct that they have had to deal with timely production of materials. 

Mr. HORSFORD. So when you were asked by my good friend, the 

gentleman from Oklahoma, is this an issue that is unique to this 

Department’s leadership, that was not the answer you just gave. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. The issue arose in 2010 when my predecessor 

was still there and continued beyond that. There were other issues 

that predated in terms of timeliness, but we have not had a legal 

objection raised by a component until then. 

Mr. HORSFORD. I appreciate that clarification. 

It is my understanding that the Department recently requested 

a formal opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel to resolve a conflict between the interpretation of section 6(a) of the IG Act, which 

grants the IG prompt and full access to all necessary requested information, and several statutes that restrict the release of certain 

types of protected information, such as grand jury and wiretap material. 

It is also my understanding that the Department has told you 

that it is committed to working with you to provide access to all 

materials necessary for your office to complete its review until the 

OLC releases its opinion. Is this correct? Is this a correct understanding? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. As I made clear in my testimony, the leadership 

has made that clear. The problem is every day this goes on without 

a decision we’re not independent, we’re not acting in an independent manner. 

Mr. HORSFORD. But that is not an issue of the leadership of that 

department? 

48 

Mr. HOROWITZ. As I testified today, the leadership has made it 

clear they will continue to issue orders to the components to get us 

the records, but the issue is whether that’s really required by Congress’ Act. 

Mr. HORSFORD. And so therefore, Chairman, I think to the degree there’s some clarification, it’s the clarification within the disputes with section 6(a) and the statutes, not as some would like to 

assert somehow the Department’s leadership in a lack of providing 

information that’s being requested of them. And I just think that 

that needs to be made clear for the record. 

I am encouraged the Department’s leadership has been working 

to provide your office with access to the information it needs to do 

your job, including grand jury and wiretap information that must 

be closely guarded. And I hope that both parties continue to work 

together as we move forward on this important issue. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time. 

Mr. WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. 

And I guess I would express my pleasure at this hearing so far 

up until now that it has been bipartisan, nonpartisan, looking for 

answers of what is happening now, so that we can move forward 

and do it right. And so I would state that I think that is what this 

committee hearing has developed around and over and has been 

carried on. So I appreciate the bipartisan fashion and the nonpartisan fashion so far. 

Having said that, let me recognize, looking at the list here, Mr. 

Duncan from Tennessee. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’m sorry, I had to preside over the House, and so I couldn’t hear 

all of your testimony, but I introduced the original bill to create an 

inspector general for the Tennessee Valley Authority, and I’ve always believed very strongly in the inspector general process. It has 

been very, very helpful to the work of this committee. 

But I was really amazed by the number of inspectors general 

that signed this letter. I haven’t tried to count them, but I’m told 

it was 47, I think, or something like that. That’s pretty amazing. 

I think that certainly is not something that we’ve ever seen before. 

So apparently there’s pretty serious concern by people who are in 

the know, so to speak. 

Mr. Horowitz, I understand, though, that there are several high 

profile investigations, such as in the New Black Panther case and 

the prosecution of the late Senator Ted Stevens and the torture 

memo case, other matters, where your investigation has been hindered or delayed or something by the Office of Professional Responsibility. Could you tell me about that and explain a little bit about 

what that’s done to your work. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Certainly, Congressman. The issue there is that 

when Congress set up our IG office in 1988—we weren’t part of the 

original IG Act—it kept in place the Office of Professional Responsibility, and it provided that, unlike with regard to all the other 

employees in the Justice Department, that we don’t have jurisdiction to review alleged misconduct by Department attorneys. So as 

a result, matters such as those cases go to the Office of Professional Responsibility, which lacks statutory independence, instead 

49 

of coming to us. So we actually have no authority to investigate 

those matters. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I understand that, but what I’m asking you, 

there have been these high profile situations, and I’m sure several 

much lower profile cases where there has been misconduct by Department of Justice lawyers. Do you think that your office would 

be capable of investigating this type of misconduct along with the 

Office of Professional Responsibility? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. We absolutely think that, and I think we’ve demonstrated that, frankly, by issuing reports regarding agent misconduct, such as some of the work we’ve done in the FBI context. 

We’ve demonstrated quite ably our abilities to do that. And I think 

the same independence that Congress believes is important, independent oversight over the FBI, should also exist with regard to 

Department attorneys. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I’ll ask the panel as a whole, do you feel that 

there’s been an overclassification of documents by the departments 

or agencies with which you have worked or in which you’ve worked 

or in other departments that you’ve read or heard about? 

Mr. ELKINS. I have to concur with Mr. Horowitz here, yes, I have 

heard that. In my particular agency that has not been an issue 

particularly, but I have heard that issue raised, yes. 

Ms. BULLER. Peace Corps doesn’t have original classification authority, so that’s really not an issue at the Peace Corps. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. We have found some issues related to that in one 

of the reports we did last year and have reported out on that. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MEADOWS. [Presiding] I thank the gentleman. 

And the chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis. 

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

And let me begin by emphasizing how much I value the work of 

the inspector generals community in helping our government function better and become more efficient. So I want to thank all of you 

for being here. 

It is imperative that all inspectors general have a good working 

relationship with the agencies they are tasked with overseeing in 

order to fulfill their mission of identifying and eliminating waste, 

fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government. 

Mr. Horowitz, I would like to ask about the Department’s overall 

level of cooperation with your office. You testified before the committee on January 15 of this year that, ‘‘Most of our audits and reviews are conducted with full and timely cooperation from the Department’s components.’’ Is that a correct—— 

Mr. HOROWITZ. That’s correct. In most of our work we have had 

full cooperation. 

Mr. DAVIS. Would it be fair to say that the access concerns you 

raised in your testimony are limited to specific instances and not 

representative of a larger-scale, agency-wide problem? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I would say there are limited reviews where 

we’ve had this problem. The problem, though, is, as IG Elkins and 

IG Buller said, it takes on a life of its own. We get what I think 

are, frankly, frivolous objections in other instances that don’t have 

to go to the Deputy Attorney General or the Attorney General beVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:37 Dec 11, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\91650.TXT APRIL
50 

cause I’m able to work them out with agency leadership at the 

DEA or the FBI, wherever it is. But these problems, once some people see they can object, you get more and more objections, frankly. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. Your office’s semiannual report to Congress for the October 2013 through March 2014 reporting period 

states that it has closed 184 investigations, issued 35 audit reports, 

and made 137 recommendations for management improvement. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. That’s correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. The report mentions, for example, that your office 

issued an audit of the Department’s efforts to address mortgage 

fraud, and the Department agreed with all seven of the IG’s recommendations. Is that correct? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. That’s correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. Your office also examined the FBI’s terrorist watch 

list operations and practices and issued 12 recommendations, all of 

which the FBI agreed with. Is that correct? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. That’s correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Horowitz, can you then give us an overview of 

how these audits and recommendations help streamline costs and 

improve the Department’s programs and operations? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Well, we make these recommendations to do precisely that, Congressman, so that we can not only advise the agency leadership what steps need to be taken, but the Congress itself 

as it does its oversight. And the recommendations we make go to 

the deficiencies we find, either management or waste, fraud, misuse that save the taxpayers every year tens of millions of dollars. 

Mr. DAVIS. Then it sounds to me like your office is doing a great 

deal of very valuable work to ensure that the agency maintains 

high standards of integrity and accountability. I want to commend 

and thank you again for your efforts. 

And I thank all of you for being here this morning and clarifying, 

testifying, and giving us the assurances that we need to have to 

know that you’re doing good work and that the oversight of our 

government is in good hands. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you and yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman, and the chair recognizes 

himself for 5 minutes. 

Thank you, all of you, for your testimony. Mr. Elkins in particular, welcome. It’s been a real pleasure to work with you in a 

nonpartisan way. I think all of us here would agree that we don’t 

want Republicans, Democrats, or unaffiliated, or agencies to influence your work, that indeed it needs to be independent, that the 

American taxpayers depend on your work. And so I just say thank 

you to each one of you. 

Ms. Buller, I want to start with you. This continued stonewalling 

of access to documents, what kind of harm, potential harm can you 

see that would come from this, specifically with your work? 

Ms. BULLER. Well, in our case we do have the memorandum of 

understanding, so we are somewhat receiving information, but the 

problem with that is it’s a temporary measure and we can’t rely on 

it being there because it can be taken away at any time. And if we 

don’t receive access to the information that we need, we can’t enVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:37 Dec 11, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\91650.TXT APRIL
51 

sure the volunteers who have been victims of sexual assault are receiving the types of care and services that they need and are entitled to in order for them to move on with their lives. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So is it your testimony today that victims might 

potentially continue to suffer if you don’t get the kind of access to 

documents that is outlined in the memo of understanding? If they 

quit providing that could victims continue to be harmed? 

Ms. BULLER. We’ll never be able to tell. That’s the big problem. 

We won’t be able to tell whether or not the agency is doing what 

it’s supposed to do or whether or not they’re actually performing 

in a poorer manner than they were before. We will be able to tell 

only from when the victims come in, like they did in 2010, and 

complain about their treatment by the agency. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So what rationale would be out there to justify— 

and this question is to all of you—what rationale is out there to 

preclude you from getting information that would be deemed beneficial to the American people? Why should they withhold stuff from 

you? Mr. Elkins, we can start with you. 

Mr. ELKINS. Yes, sir. I think that’s a good question, and I scratch 

my head sometimes trying to figure out the answer to that. But it 

seems to me that sometimes some of these defenses are made out 

of whole cloth, they just kind of pop up based on the circumstances. 

So it’s random, and that’s part of the problem. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So there are times when they will very willingly 

give you information and then other times where they say you can’t 

have this? 

Mr. ELKINS. Yes, I think that’s a fair assessment. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Is that because the employees that you have 

working for the OIG are somewhat inferior to the employees of the 

agencies? 

Mr. ELKINS. Oh, no, no. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, I would hope you would answer that in that 

manner. And so what you’re saying is the level and professionalism 

of your employees would be equal with the agency? 

Mr. ELKINS. Oh, absolutely. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Do you think that the level of professionalism and 

privacy concerns within your agency is equal to that of the EPA as 

a whole? 

Mr. ELKINS. Absolutely. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Would you agree with that, Mr. Horowitz? Would 

you say you have the same desire to protect the integrity of the 

process? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Absolutely. And we have a track record of handling among the most sensitive national security information that 

the FBI has through our review of section 702 of FISA, through 

various Patriot Act reviews we have done that Congress has mandated. We have among the most sensitive information that exists 

in our possession. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So there is not a clearance issue here, there is not 

a propriety issue. And so really there is no reason at all why you 

should not be getting 100 percent of what you request. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Absolutely. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I think, Ms. Buller, you said earlier that there’s 

never been a case where some of that information has been disVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:37 Dec 11, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\91650.TXT APRIL
52 

closed by the OIG in terms of causing harm to a potential victim. 

Is that correct? 

Ms. BULLER. That’s correct. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And so if we have all of these, then what is the 

real genesis of this whole problem of why they do not want to share 

it with really the only independent source out there to protect the 

American people? What is the reason these agencies would do that, 

Mr. Elkins? 

Mr. ELKINS. It seems to me that there may be a belief that the 

IG Act doesn’t mean what it says that it means. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So has this been a new revelation, that all of a 

sudden we have this new revelation in the last couple of years that 

it doesn’t mean that? Why did they come to this conclusion recently? 

Mr. ELKINS. That’s a good question, and that’s probably one that 

you would have to—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So we have got new counsel that’s interpreting it 

a little bit differently? So what you are saying is from a bipartisan 

standpoint what we need to do is make sure that the ranking member and the chairman come together and say, well, we mean what 

we say? 

Mr. ELKINS. Well, and one other thing, sir. There is no enforcement mechanism in the IG Act. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right, I’m going to close with this: What would 

be the great enforcement mechanism, that if they don’t give you 

100 percent of the documents that they get their budget cut by 10 

percent? 

Mr. ELKINS. Sir, I will leave that up to you. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I’ll certainly yield to the ranking member. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Just this one question, Ms. Buller. I’m just trying to figure out what you are able to get under the memorandum 

of understanding. Let’s say, for example, someone is raped. Right 

now you can get the—what can you get? 

Ms. BULLER. Right now we can get access to the restricted report 

that’s filed in the incident report. We may have more difficulty getting other information concerning that particular incident because 

we don’t have a personal identifying number or anything to associate with it. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So you can get the details of the rape? Because 

I’m kind of confused when I look at what you agree to. Go ahead. 

Ms. BULLER. With the exception of explicit details, and we’ve 

tried to define that MOU very narrowly, salacious, things that 

wouldn’t necessarily add anything to our review. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I see. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman. 

The chair is going to recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma for 

4 minutes at this point. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m not going to need 

all that time. I just need to follow up. 

One of the documents that, Mr. Horowitz, you provided was some 

background information about grand jury investigations, specifically about an Oklahoma case that I want to bring up to you. In 

the 1990s the Office of Inspector General at that time requested information related to an FBI agent’s testimony and the Bureau of 

53 

Prisons related around a gentleman who died in the Federal Bureau of Prisons in Oklahoma named Ken Trentadue. That was a 

very controversial case in many ways in Oklahoma. There was a 

lot that happened around that case. And still a lot of questions still 

spin around the death of Ken Trentadue in Oklahoma. 

Your reference to that case, I just want to be able to ask why 

you’re bringing that up at this point, what you have learned from 

it, what was established then, and what’s happening now. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. So this is now the 1997–1998 time period. Our 

office was involved in the misconduct review related to that matter. 

We needed grand jury information, and the Justice Department, 

the Civil Rights Division then, but the Justice Department supported our right of access to grand jury information and went to 

court, to two different Federal judges in Oklahoma, to confirm that 

the Department’s reading of the grand jury statute allowed them 

to give us those materials. 

The two judges both said, you, Justice Department, are right in 

your legal interpretation—not the OIG, the Justice Department— 

and under the law the IG is entitled to get these grand jury materials. To our mind that should have resolved this issue. That’s now 

15 years ago. Two Federal judges have both ruled. They’re Article 

III judges. We are at a loss to understand why nonconstitutional 

officers would be deciding the issue any differently. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Okay. So fast forward to now today and to what 

you’re dealing with. You’re not getting access to grand jury information currently. Is that correct? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. The objection is we’re not entitled as a matter of 

law, so we have to go through this mechanism of getting the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General’s approval to get it. 

Mr. LANKFORD. So at that point you now have to make a request 

and the Attorney General can say I either want you to have this 

or I don’t want you to have this. It goes back to some of the earlier 

statements that I made, that he now has the ability to say this 

helps me or doesn’t help me and so I’m going to give it to you or 

not give it to you, not based on I’ve made the request, a Federal 

judge has already ruled on this in Oklahoma, this has resolved 

issues. Is that correct or not correct? I want to make sure I get this 

correct. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. It’s ultimately the decision of the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Okay. Rather than I make the request, you’re already entitled to that? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Correct. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Okay. So how many cases are out there that are 

like that for you? Do you have a guess of how many documents or 

cases that you’re either getting delayed response or getting partial 

response or getting a response at some date in a future time period? Because you had testified earlier that you are getting records, 

you’re just not getting them in a timely manner. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. There are probably 10 or more examples I could 

give of instances where we’ve either had the legal objection raised 

or the timeliness issue come up in the last 2 years. At least. I could 

probably make an even longer list if I went through it with my 

staff. 

54 

Mr. LANKFORD. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your allowing me to ask that Oklahoma-related question. Thank you. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma. 

The chair recognizes the ranking member, the gentleman from 

Maryland, Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. As we close, I want to thank all of you for being 

here today. These disputes are very serious because they without 

a doubt impede you from doing your work. On the other hand, of 

course you have the agencies, such as in, I guess, in all these cases, 

who cite laws that conflict with your duties and the rules and regulations that you operate under. It seems like we ought to be able 

to resolve this. 

I have two concerns, and one is, if we were to pass legislation, 

and sharing your viewpoint, Mr. Elkins, and if it does not prevail, 

I think that makes your position weaker, your present position. 

The other thing that I’m concerned about is that, if we were to do 

a universal thing that says your access to information is superior 

to everything, I don’t know what that universe of everything is, you 

know? And I’m sure you don’t either. You may know in your area, 

but we’re talking about 47 of you all. 

So then considering what the chairman talked about in Executive order, I think the President probably would face the same kind 

of problem with regard to what that universe is. But there’s got to 

be a way to deal with this. 

Ms. Buller, the reason why I keep coming back to you is because, 

I mean, we’ve got an agency that, when you have an IG office 

whose duty it is to get information and protect these victims and 

not be trusted with the information it seems like there’s something 

missing there, that we ought to be able to get to the bottom line 

is how do we protect victims, how do we get the information that 

we need so that we can accomplish that. 

So we’re going to put our heads together and see what we can 

do to try to resolve these issues, but they are serious issues. I 

would imagine that if the agencies came in they probably would 

say, we really do believe in what we’re doing, we’re trying to obey 

the law, too. So it’s going to take a little bit of effort—a lot of effort—but I do believe that we should be able to resolve this. 

My last question. Do you all believe an Executive order is the answer? Ms. Buller. 

Ms. BULLER. I think anything that sends a very strong message 

to agencies that the IG is there to perform oversight and in order 

to provide that oversight they need access to agency records. Anything that is very clear and states that without exception I think 

would help. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Elkins. 

Mr. ELKINS. Yeah, I agree that Executive order would be helpful. 

You know, also I’d just like to remind the panel here that in administrative law cases there’s a very rock solid case which is called 

Chevron that agencies rely on to determine whether or not deference should be paid to an agency that has jurisdiction. Well, I 

think in our case Chevron would apply as well. The IG Act, we’re 

the subject matter experts there, and there should be a certain 

amount of deference to our interpretation as to what our access 

55 

should be. That deference is not given to us. Agencies would use 

Chevron all the time. But in our circumstance, when we try 

toassert a Chevron argument, it’s ignored. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Horowitz. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I would agree with you, Congressman, that a 

clarification is critical. An Executive order, a prompt OLC decision, 

we’ve been waiting for a few months now, that would say what 

does the law mean. Because that’s the objection we’re all getting 

at some level, which is Congress didn’t mean in 6(a) what we all 

think it means, the FBI is reinterpreting statutes, DEA, others. In 

my agency, the other inspectors general have said the same thing. 

Ultimately they’re trying to interpret what Congress meant. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Right. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. So it’s really all your issue here that you’ve got 

the executive branch, in my case OLC, which speaks for the executive branch, trying to divine does 6(a) mean what it says, as we 

think has always been the case, at least until 2010 when the FBI 

general counsel raised an objection, or what the FBI general counsel and some others have said. We need clarity on that issue. An 

Executive order would do it, an immediate OLC order would do it, 

and then Congress can decide whether to fix 6(a) at that point or 

not. But that’s really what we need. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you all very much. 

Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman. 

I thank each of you for your testimony. I think today highlights 

really in a bipartisan way the need for full disclosure to the OIGs, 

not just with your agencies that you oversee, but across the board. 

Ms. Buller, some of the testimony that you’ve given us gives us 

great pause because sometimes we look at these things as just administrative, and yet the victims that you have discussed are real. 

And I don’t believe that we could tolerate the lack of cooperation. 

Ultimately the information that these agencies have belong to the 

American taxpayers, they’re not proprietary to an agency, they’re 

not proprietary to Congress, they’re not even proprietary to you. 

They belong to the American taxpayers. And what we must do is 

have full and complete disclosure. 

To give the best example, if the IRS comes in and does an audit, 

I don’t know the universe of which they may be asking for. When 

they say they want all of the documents, generally they mean all 

of the documents. And I would suggest that that simple test be one 

that the agencies hear loud and clear today, that when you request 

it, they are to provide it. And then we are going to hold you accountable to make sure that those disclosures and the integrity and 

the professionalism that each one of you have assured me that you 

have, that that gets abided by, because a fracture there really does 

irreparable harm. 

We’ve got a lot of great Federal workers. For many of the American taxpayers the OIG is the only thing that they can believe in 

to hold these agencies accountable. 

Mr. Elkins, you know in my particular district I’ve got an issue 

that has been going on for 25 years with the EPA. They have no 

confidence, Democrats, Republicans, unaffiliated, none of them 

have confidence in that agency to deal with that problem. Their 

56 

last hope, truly their last hope is your office, and your involvement 

in the independence of that and the full disclosure is what they’re 

counting on. And so I think that that can be echoed across all of 

the OIGs. 

And so I thank you for your testimony, I thank the ranking 

member for his closing comments. And I look forward to you providing to this committee three recommendations on how we can 

help with the enforcement component, the stick or the carrot that 

we need to have, I need to know three suggestions that you might 

have that we can encourage these agencies to provide what the 

American people deserve. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And with that, I adjourn this hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(57) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

58 


Insert offset folio 18 here 91650.018
59 


Insert offset folio 19 here 91650.019
60 


Insert offset folio 20 here 91650.020
61 


Insert offset folio 21 here 91650.021
62 


Insert offset folio 22 here 91650.022
63 


Insert offset folio 23 here 91650.023
64 


Insert offset folio 24 here 91650.024
65 


Insert offset folio 25 here 91650.025
66 


Insert offset folio 26 here 91650.026
67 


Insert offset folio 27 here 91650.027
68 


Insert offset folio 28 here 91650.028
69 


Insert offset folio 29 here 91650.029
70 


Insert offset folio 30 here 91650.030
71 


Insert offset folio 31 here 91650.031
72 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 32 here 91650.032