U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

26–168 PDF 2017

EXAMINING BILLION DOLLAR WASTE THROUGH 

IMPROPER PAYMENTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2016 

Serial No. 114–166 

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 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

MARK WALKER, North Carolina 

ROD BLUM, Iowa 

JODY B. HICE, Georgia 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin 

WILL HURD, Texas 

GARY J. PALMER, Alabama 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

TED LIEU, California 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

JENNIFER HEMINGWAY, Staff Director 

ANDREW DOCKHAM, General Counsel 

KATY ROTHER, Senior Counsel 

SHARON CASEY, Deputy Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina, Chairman 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Vice Chair 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on September 22, 2016 ..................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Mr. David Mader, Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management, Office 

of Management and Budget 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 3 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 6 

Ms. Sheila Conley, Deputy Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 17 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 19 

Ms. Laurie Park, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Finance, U.S. Department 

of Veterans Affairs 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 29 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 31 

Ms. Marianna Lacanfora, Assistant Deputy Commissioner for Policy and 

Chair of the Improper Payments Board, U.S. Social Security Administration 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 35 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 37 

Mr. Jeff Schramek, Assistant Commissioner, Bureau of Debt Management 

Services, U.S. Department of the Treasury 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 49 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 51 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

EXAMINING BILLION DOLLAR WASTE 

THROUGH IMPROPER PAYMENTS 

Thursday, September 22, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:05 p.m., in Room 

2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mark Meadows [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Meadows, Connolly, Maloney, and Clay. 

Also Present: Representative Palmer. 

Mr. MEADOWS. The chair would ask unanimous consent that we 

can suspend the rules, the House rules, and go ahead and start 

this subcommittee hearing. 

And hearing no objection from my learned colleague and friend, 

since there is no objection, the committee is considered in order 

and starting. So we’ll go ahead. 

The subcommittee will come to order. Without objection, the 

chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. And as we have 

noted, I want to thank each of you for being here today. 

Certainly, as we come to this time of the year where we look at 

improper payments and where we are and what has taken place, 

what should have taken place, what may have taken place, I look 

for each one of you to, hopefully, help us eliminate what changes 

that we can make in terms of, not only our accounting process, but 

our expenditures. And part of it is just reporting. 

And when we look at that, the American people expect us to 

truly be the stewards of their hard-earned taxpayer money. And 

the interesting thing that I found is, in light of so many improper 

payments and where we are, it is troubling many times because of 

the number and how high it is. And eventually, as I said, it adds 

up to real money. 

And so when we look at the numbers, it can be troubling. I would 

also say, however, though, what I have found is going from agency 

to agency to agency is a real dedication on behalf of the Federal 

worker to be accountable, and that has been one of the interesting 

aspects. 

So sometimes it is a number of our Federal employees who have 

to deal with a bureaucracy that they did not create. And by saying 

that, it is imperative that this committee look at the bureaucracy 

that has been created and, hopefully, start to address that and how 

we can, not only have better reporting, but also have an issue 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

where we start to really focus in on making sure that we are accountable to the American taxpayer. 

So in that, I just—I’ve got a longer written opening statement 

that we’ll submit for the records, but because my good friend, Mr. 

Connolly, has now arrived, I will—if he is ready, I will recognize 

him for his opening statement. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My opening statement is going to be eerily similar to that of Mr. 

Clay. So we’ll enter something for the record and forgo a verbal 

statement. He and I are like twins. We think alike, we act alike, 

we speak alike, and I can’t add to the wisdom of my friend from 

St. Louis. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, I will go ahead and acknowledge the presence of the twins here to my right and also go ahead and introduce 

our witnesses. 

I will hold the record open for 5—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I have been informed my friend did not read our 

brilliant statement. Lord Almighty here. Here’s what he would 

have said, Mr. Chairman. 

No, I will enter it into the record and not take up the time of 

the committee. Thank you. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I’ll hold the record open for 5 legislative days for 

any members who would like to submit a written statement. 

We will now recognize our panel of witnesses. I’m pleased to welcome the Honorable David Mader, controller at the Office of Federal Financial Management and Office of Management and Budget, 

OMB. Welcome. 

Ms. Sheila Conley—is that correct, Conley? 

Ms. CONLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Spelled wrong, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I wanted to verify. 

— deputy chief financial officer at the U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services. Welcome. 

Ms. Laurie Park, deputy assistant secretary of finance at the 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Welcome. 

Ms. Marianna LaCanfora—that’s close, right? 

Ms. LACANFORA. Right. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. 

— assistant deputy commissioner of policy and chair of the Improper Payments Board at the U.S. Social Security Administration. 

Welcome. 

And Mr. Jeff Schramek, assistant commissioner of the Bureau of 

Debt Management Services at the U.S. Department of Treasury. 

Welcome to you as well. 

And pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in 

before they testify. And so if you would please rise and raise your 

right hand. 

All right. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony 

you’re about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 

but the truth? 

Thank you. 

Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

And in order to allow time for discussion, please limit your oral 

testimony, if you would, to 5 minutes, but your entire written 

statement will be made part of the record. 

So I’ll go ahead, Mr. Mader, we’ll recognize you for 5 minutes. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID MADER 

Mr. MADER. Thank you, Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member 

Connolly, and distinguished members of the subcommittee for inviting me here today to discuss the administration’s efforts to reduce improper payments. 

Addressing improper payments has been a central component of 

this administration’s overall effort to eliminate fraud, waste, and 

abuse. When the President took office in 2009, the improper payment error rate was 5.2 percent, an all-time high. Since then, the 

administration, working together with this Congress and the IGs, 

has made progress strengthening accountability and transparency 

through annual reviews by agency IGs and has expanded the review requirements for high-priority programs. 

As a result of this concerted effort in fiscal year 2015, the past 

year, the rate was 4.39 percent. It’s important to note that agencies 

recovered almost $20 billion in overpayments through payment recapture audits and other methods in fiscal year 2015. However, 

this recovery amount is not factored into the calculation of the 

2015 improper payment rate or amount. 

Two notable success stories of major government programs that 

experienced significant decreases in improper payments is the Unemployment Insurance Program and HHS’ Medicare fee-for-service. 

Under the improper—under the unemployment program, decreased 

improper payment rates amounted to $2 billion, or 1 percent, between fiscal year 2014 and 2015. This program was able to achieve 

this reduction by using an enhanced national directory of new hires 

crossmatch and providing enhanced monitoring and assistance to 

the States. 

The HHS Medicare fee-for-service improper payment rate also 

decreased by $2 billion between 2014 and 2015 by reducing improper payments for inpatient hospital, durable medical equipment, 

prosthetics, orthotics, supplies and claims through the use of prior 

authorizations, new regulations, and changes in agency’s provider 

education. And I mention these two programs in particular because, as you know, these are programs—and there are many programs—that while funded by the Federal Government, are actually 

administered by States, and that adds to complexity in ensuring 

that proper payments are made. 

Prior to fiscal year 2015, agencies were required to categorize 

their improper payment estimates into three categories. However, 

several years ago, these categories were recognized as providing 

limited value in determining the root cause of improper payments. 

As a result, OMB developed improper payment categories that 

expanded the existing categories and created 13 predefined categories for agencies to use. Page 3 of my written statement actually 

has a nice graphic that shows the before and after. And these allow 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

agencies now to do a better job of analyzing the root cause in particular programs. 

Corrective actions to address root causes are an area we want 

agencies to do more of. Beginning in fiscal year 2015, with the 

issuance of OMB Circular A–136, OMB began to address a disconnect between agencies’ corrective action plans and the root 

cause analysis. OMB has held townhall meetings with both agency 

representatives and IGs over the past 2 years. 

Also in 2015, MITRE, a federally funded research and development center, conducted an independent research project that focused on governmentwide payment integrity and improper payments. And as a result of that study, my office is looking at exploring and determining whether there’s a viable need to create another program integrity group at the executive level. Although, I do 

note in some of the—my fellow witnesses here, actually, from the 

agencies have started their own group over the last several 

months, which allows them to share best practices and other ideas 

on how to improve improper payments. 

In May of 2016, we also facilitated a meeting between senior officials from GAO, HHS, and CMS to discuss corrective action plans 

and specific challenges in their particular high error programs. 

GAO—and Gene Dodaro was there for this entire meeting—was 

able to offer some insights around additional areas where HHS 

may want to explore corrective actions. 

The administration appreciates the opportunity to work with the 

Congress to achieve the passage and enactment of S.614, the Federal Improper Payment Coordination Act. And I’m pleased to report 

that OMB is working now with agencies to implement those requirements. And my colleague from Treasury has responsibility for 

implementing a lot of that as part of the do-not-pay initiative, and 

I’m sure he’ll touch on that in his testimony. 

We also worked with Congress on S.2133, the Fraud Reduction 

and Data Analytics Act of 2015, which was recently signed into 

law. And, again, when we reissued our Circular A–123 in the summer, we actually started including now some of the requirements 

for that. So in both of these cases, we’ve moved aggressively to implement these new requirements in the legislation. 

In December 4 of 2015, we submitted to Congress the first report 

required by OMB for the do-not-pay initiative. The report outlined 

the multiple components of our phased strategy for screening payments. And Mr. Schramek is going to talk extensively about the 

successes that they’ve had since the initiation of this program. 

I think it’s important to note that, in addition to Treasury, there 

are agency payment integrity centers at CMS, at DOD, at SSA, and 

the Department of Labor. So it’s not just unique to the do-not-pay 

initiative at Treasury. We have multiple efforts going on across the 

executive branch. 

There’s a compelling evidence that investments in administrative 

resources can significantly decrease the rate of improper payments 

and recoup many times their initial investment. That’s why this 

administration for multiple years has proposed making significant 

investments in program integrity initiatives, both in the 2016 as 

well as the 2017 budget. And many of these initiatives do not involve additional expenditure of funds. They actually require legislaVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:16 Aug 03, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26168.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

tive changes. And I believe that this is an area where this committee can help with other committees in Congress in educating 

them on the wisdom of making some of these legislative changes. 

Combating improper payments continues to be a top priority for 

this administration, and we continue to explore new and innovative 

ways to address these problems. Although progress has been made, 

much more remains to be done, and we need your help. 

We look forward to working with the Congress to pass many of 

the provisions contained in the President’s 2017 budget. Thank you 

for inviting me today, and I look forward to your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Mader follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 26168.001
7 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 26168.002
8 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 26168.003
9 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 26168.004
10 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 26168.005
11 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 26168.006
12 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 26168.007
13 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 26168.008
14 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 26168.009
15 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 26168.010
16 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 26168.011
17 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you so much. 

Ms. Conley, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF SHEILA CONLEY 

Ms. CONLEY. Good afternoon, Chairman Meadows, Ranking 

Member Connolly, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for your leadership in improving Federal financial management, and thank you for inviting me to testify 

about the Department of Health and Human Services’ efforts to reduce improper payments. 

I appreciate the opportunity to describe HHS’ commitment and 

progress in addressing improper payments as well as some of our 

major initiatives. With outlays of approximately $1 trillion and responsibility for some of the government’s largest programs, 

strengthening program integrity and reducing improper payments 

is a top priority of the Department. This focus extends to every 

member of HHS’ senior leadership team and throughout all of our 

operating divisions and programs. While we’ve made significant 

progress, more work remains. 

Improper payments result from many circumstances, including a 

lack of or insufficient documentation to support a sampled claim. 

Improper payments are not measures of fraud, although the concepts are often mistakenly used interchangeably. 

HHS is focused on improper payments since 1996 when we 

worked with the HHS Office of the Inspector General to establish 

a Medicare fee-for-service error rate. Since then, we’ve established 

error rate processes for several additional programs and continue 

to implement targeted corrective actions. 

For fiscal year 2015, HHS reported error rates for seven programs that are susceptible to significant improper payments. Two 

programs, Medicare fee-for-service and foster care, reported lower 

rates since last year. However, five programs reported higher rates 

compared to the previous year. Through these seven programs, 

about 95 percent of the Department’s outlays are subjected to the 

rigors of an annual error rate measurement process and the scrutiny of public disclosure. 

In fiscal year 2015, we also reported rates for seven Superstorm 

Sandy programs as directed by law. We’ve learned that our efforts 

to reduce improper payments must be strategic, multifaceted, and 

continuous. To that end, we’re pursuing three approaches that deliver results: Leveraging technology, strengthening key partnerships, and exploring innovative solutions. 

As for leveraging technology, one of our major initiatives is the 

fraud prevention system, which uses predictive analytics technology to automatically screen Medicare fee-for-service claims prior 

to payment. That’s an average of 4–1/2 million claims per day that 

are screened. It also flags suspicious patterns and identifies investigative leads. For 2015, we reported a return on investment of 

$11.50 for every dollar the government spends on this system. 

As for strengthening key partnerships, it’s important to recognize 

that many of our programs are State administered, which make the 

States critical to our success. We’re working closely with State and 

Medicaid and CHIP officials to implement important requirements 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
18 

that will both strengthen program integrity and directly impact the 

error rates. 

A very promising innovative solution relates to HHS’ use of prior 

authorization initiatives in Medicare fee-for-service, an approach 

used in the private sector and other healthcare programs. HHS 

began using prior authorization for power mobility devices and is 

expanding this practice to other areas. 

While our priority is to make payments properly in the first 

place, we also focus on recovering improper payments when they 

do occur. For example, the Medicare fee-for-service recovery audit 

program has collected over $10 billion since 2009. 

While the Department has made progress, more work remains. 

We have a proven track record of working hard to address improper payments, and this area is and will continue to be a top priority for the Department. We look forward to working with this 

subcommittee and our partners and other Federal agencies as well 

as the States to reduce improper payments and strengthen our programs. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. I’m happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Conley follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
19 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 26168.012
20 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 26168.013
21 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 26168.014
22 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 26168.015
23 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 26168.016
24 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 26168.017
25 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 26168.018
26 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 26168.019
27 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 26168.020
28 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 26168.021
29 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Ms. Conley. 

Ms. Park, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF LAURIE PARK 

Ms. PARK. Good afternoon, Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member Connolly, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss VA’s accomplishments and plans 

for reducing improper payments and achieving sustained compliance to IPERA. 

As the VA deputy assistant secretary for finance, I am responsible to the interim chief financial officer for the departmentwide 

financial management activities. I am keenly aware that VA’s financial management needs to improve, and I assure you that the 

Department is taking aggressive action to address our financial 

management challenges, including compliance with IPERA, as part 

of our stewardship of taxpayers’ dollars. 

The Department is currently responsible for ensuring accurate 

testing, projections, and annual reporting of improper payments in 

14 programs. These 14 programs provide a wide range of goods and 

services, including care in the community for our Nation’s veterans, 

medical supplies to VAhospital and clinics, benefits including compensation for disabilities, education, and vocational rehabilitation 

for our veterans, rebuilding after Hurricane Sandy, and payments 

to Federal employees. 

I am responsible for issuing departmentwide guidance for implementing IPERA and for providing oversight on related departmental activities. In an effort to ensure commitment and accountability, a senior accountable official is responsible for identifying 

and reducing improper payments in their programs. 

In May 2016, the VA Office of Inspector General reported that 

VA did not comply with two of six IPERA requirements because it 

did not meet reduction targets and maintain a gross improper payment rate of less than 10 percent for all programs. Eight of these 

programs did not meet reduction targets established in fiscal year 

2014, and two of these programs also exceeded the 10 percent 

threshold. OIG also reported that VA’s increase was due primarily 

to improvements in estimating improper payments. 

In 2015, the Department improved its testing in response to an 

OIG finding that acquisition regulation requirements were not appropriately considered. VA collaborated closely with the Office of 

Management and Budget and the IG to ensure the accurate understanding of the effect of this concern. As a result, VA classified payments that did not comply with applicable Federal procurement 

laws, including the Federal Acquisition Regulation, as improper. 

Prior to 2016, VA’s longstanding practice had been to rely on authorization with individual providers to procure care in the community when other arrangements were not practical or would delay 

care that our veterans urgently need. Some smaller providers and 

those who only treat a few veterans a year may consider following 

all five requirements a disincentive to treating veterans. 

In an effort to find a way to comply with statute and regulation, 

the VA has sought legislative authority to enter into provider 

agreements. This legislation would greatly reduce improper payVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:16 Aug 03, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26168.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
30 

ments that were considered technically improper, but do not represent any form of fraud, waste, or abuse. 

In 2015, the VA increased senior leadership collaboration and 

awareness of improper payment challenges. We also repurposed existing resources to establish a new office focused on driving identification and reduction of improper payments. This office’s singular 

focus on achieving IPERA compliance has elevated the priority and 

awareness of this important objective across the Department. 

Furthermore, the VA is working with the Department of Treasury through Do Not Pay and the Social Security Administration 

using death-to-match capabilities to identify improper payments in 

both the pre- and the postpayment phases. 

We still have additional opportunities to leverage these resources, and VA supports Treasury’s legislative proposal to enhance the effectiveness of Do Not Pay. We are continuing our collaboration with Treasury on debt collection and utilizing other 

Treasury offerings that improve our financial management performance. 

In addition, we have initiated a planning for a new financial 

management system, which will strengthen our internal controls, 

provide an opportunity to reengineer our financial business processes, and increase the visibility of our financial position. 

VA acknowledges its current improper payment rate and is taking actions to increase IPERA compliance, while at the same time 

providing veterans the benefits and the services that they have 

earned and deserve. Those actions include continuing to ensure 

that the improper payment definition is applied correctly and may 

result in an increase of reported improper payments in some programs in 2016 as well. However, most of these new improper payments are instances where VA paid the right person the right 

amount for goods and services received and do not represent a loss 

to the government. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and for 

your continued support of veterans. I look forward to your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Park follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
31 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 26168.022
32 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 26168.023
33 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 26168.024
34 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 26168.025
35 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Ms. Park. 

Ms. LaCanfora, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF MARIANNA LACANFORA 

Ms. LACANFORA. Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member 

Connolly, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting 

me to discuss our efforts to reduce improper payment. I’m 

Marianna LaCanfora, assistant deputy commissioner for Retirement and Disability Policy and chair of Social Security’s Improper 

Payments Oversight Board. 

Few government agencies touch as many people as we do. This fiscal year, we expect to pay more than $906 billion in Social Security benefits to more than 60 million people and about $59 billion 

in supplemental security income to more than 8 million people. For 

fiscal year 2014, we did not meet our accuracy targets for the SSI 

program or for the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance 

Program. Pursuant to IPERA, we sent a remediation plan for each 

program to Congress. Although we didn’t meet our targets for the 

OASDI program, we have maintained a very high payment accuracy rate in that program. In fiscal year 2015, for example, 99.6 

percent of the benefit dollars we paid were free of overpayment. 

Our greatest challenge is the SSI program. SSI is a means-tested 

program for aged, blind, or disabled individuals with limited income or resources. The SSI program has inherent complexities. 

We’re required to consider many factors each month, including income, resources, and living arrangements, in deciding whether and 

how much a recipient should receive. Since these factors can 

change often, the program’s design makes it vulnerable to payment 

errors. The SSI overpayment accuracy rate for 2015 was 93.9 percent, our highest rate since 2003. We’ve made progress, but we 

must continue to target the root causes of improper payment and 

further improve accuracy. 

Our remediation plan focuses on strategies to address these root 

causes. For example, we’re combating errors concerning financial 

accounts by using an automated process to verify bank account balances with financial institutions to identify access resources. 

In addition, last year’s Bipartisan Budget Act gave us several important new authorities. Perhaps most critical will be the ability to 

obtain timely and accurate earnings information from third-party 

payroll providers. We’re working now to implement that and other 

provisions. 

We’re also identifying new sources of reliable and timely data 

that will allow us to lessen our reliance on beneficiary reporting. 

Also worth noting is our creation of a data analytic center of excellence to inform our efforts and help measure progress, as well as 

two Federal communities of practice; one for data exchange and another for improper payment prevention. Through these efforts, we 

bring together more than 30 agencies to collaborate and share best 

practices. 

Before concluding, I’d like to emphasize our need for funding. 

We’re among the most efficient and effective agencies in the Federal Government. Our administrative costs represent only about 

1.3 percent of the benefits we pay. Our medical continuing disability reviews save $8 on average over 10 years for every $1 inVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:16 Aug 03, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26168.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
36 

vested, and our SSI nonmedical reviews save $3 for every $1 invested. 

While we appreciate the recent increases in program integrity 

funding, we also need adequate and sustained funding to provide 

basic Social Security services. Since 2010, this part of our budget 

has decreased by nearly 10 percent after adjusting for inflation, 

while the number of our beneficiaries has increased by 12 percent. 

Consequently, we are seeing service degradation in many areas, including increased wait times in our field offices and on our telephones. Moreover, we’re dealing with an unprecedented backlog in 

our program service centers where we handle much of the work to 

prevent improper payment. 

The fiscal year 2017 President’s budget request would allow us 

to increase our program integrity efforts, while providing quality 

service to the millions of people who depend on us. Conversely, 

under the House Appropriations bill, we would be forced to furlough all employees and close field offices around the country for 

up to 2 weeks next year. It’s imperative that we receive adequate 

funding in fiscal year 2017. 

We appreciate your interest in our efforts to maintain high payment accuracy and quality service. Thank you for inviting me to 

testify, and I’d be happy to answer questions. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. LaCanfora follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
37 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 26168.026
38 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 26168.027
39 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 26168.028
40 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 26168.029
41 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 26168.030
42 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 26168.031
43 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 26168.032
44 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 26168.033
45 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 26168.034
46 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 26168.035
47 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 26168.036
48 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 26168.037
49 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you. 

Mr. Schramek—I tell you, for a guy from North Carolina, that’s 

a tough one to be able to pronounce. 

You’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF JEFF SCHRAMEK 

Mr. SCHRAMEK. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Meadows, 

Ranking Member Connolly, and members of the subcommittee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Department of Treasury’s efforts to help federally funded programs to prevent improper 

payments through the Do Not Pay Business Center. 

The Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement 

Act of 2012, IPERIA, directed OMB to administer the do-not-pay 

initiative. To implement section 5(d) of IPERIA, OMB designated 

the Department of Treasury to host the do-not-pay initiative working system. Treasury’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service carries out this 

assignment, which is consistent with our mission to promote financial integrity within the Federal Government. 

The Do Not Pay Business Center, which I will refer to simply as 

Do Not Pay, is a broader government effort—governmentwide effort 

that is designed to prevent improper payments. Four agencies, represented by some of my colleagues here, have robust payment integrity programs. This direct support puts them in the best position 

to address improper payments in their own programs. Though we 

do partner with these agencies, Do Not Pay can have a bigger impact on agencies that do not have their own dedicated analytic center. In short, we fill an important gap. 

Do Not Pay’s goal is to provide timely, accurate, and actionable 

information in a secure environment. Do Not Pay provides a secure 

Web-based portal that automatically matches pay data to sources 

that can indicate a payment may be improper. In addition to the 

portal, Do Not Pay provides advanced analytic services to detect 

systemic improper payments. Fifty-seven agencies currently use 

the portal, and since 2015, we completed 21 analytics projects for 

nine agencies. 

Our work has resulted in a number of successes. For instance, 

this year, agencies identified nearly $18.4 million of improper payments through the use of the Do Not Pay portal. This is more than 

doubled the amount reported in fiscal year 2015 and is significantly 

more than in previous years. This increase is the result of two factors: More agencies are using the portal, and through technology 

we introduced in 2015, agencies can report the amount of improper 

payments more easily. Do Not Pay developed a customized function 

that helped one agency this year stop nearly $34 million in improper payments before the payments were disbursed. 

In addition, through its partnership with OMB, Do Not Pay has 

helped agencies meet IPERIA’s requirements. We did this providing agencies centralized access to the data sources identified in 

the law, including information about deceased individuals, government vendors, Medicare and Medicaid providers, and individuals 

and entities that owe a delinquent debt to the United States. 

Do Not Pay has accomplished much by working closely with 

OMB and the agencies, and we are committed to continuous improvement and innovation. Our partnership with agencies are critVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:16 Aug 03, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26168.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
50 

ical. Without them, we could not test advances in our analytics, 

such as new risk models and better data matching techniques on 

real world challenges facing those agencies. Through our services 

and existing data sources, Do Not Pay helps agencies identify improper payments that their internal processes may have missed. 

In addition, the President’s fiscal year 2017 budget contains two 

proposals that would expand Do Not Pay’s data sources. Specifically, one proposal would amend the Social Security Act to provide 

do-not-pay access to the full debt file. A second proposal would 

allow programs to access the national directory of new hires 

through Do Not Pay, if those programs are already authorized to 

use the data. 

In sum, Do Not Pay’s data matching and advanced analytics 

have evolved significantly, and agencies’ use of Do Not Pay has 

grown substantially. Do Not Pay is viewed more and more as an 

important tool for improving payment integrity and ensuring that 

the right recipient receives the right payment for the right reason 

at the right time. 

I welcome any questions you may have. 

[Prepared statement of Jeff Schramek follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
51 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 26168.038
52 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 39 here 26168.039
53 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 40 here 26168.040
54 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 41 here 26168.041
55 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 42 here 26168.042
56 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 43 here 26168.043
57 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 44 here 26168.044
58 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 45 here 26168.045
59 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 46 here 26168.046
60 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you so much. 

And the chair recognizes himself for a series of questions. 

Before I get started on those, however, all of you, thank you for 

being here. Thank you for your testimony. You have staff that is 

probably behind you that has done much of the yeoman’s work to 

get that done, and so I want to acknowledge them, as I’d like to 

acknowledge both the majority and minority staff on the work that 

we get done. It is often really that hard work that gets overlooked, 

and so I wanted to make sure that we did that. 

The other part of that that I would say is, is because of some of 

the questions on improper payments become uncomfortable, I want 

to make sure that no one takes it personally as an indictment on 

their work as much as, hopefully, a benchmark for starting to 

make progress going forward. 

Does that make sense? 

So let me go ahead. Mr. Mader, let me come to you first. And 

as we look at OMB and the role that we have, there are some statutory requirements in terms of reporting improper payments and 

the reports that need to come along with that. It appears that we 

have a little bit of a difference, our staff talking to your staff, in 

terms of what that report may or may not look like or should look 

like, because I think you refer more to paymentaccuracy.gov, which 

I would suggest is less than robust and illuminating in terms of its 

full detail. 

And so can you help me understand when we are going to see 

a more robust report from OMB as it relates to improper payments 

and complying with the statute? 

Mr. MADER. So a little history to add to the question. My predecessor, back in 2010, in implementing the statutory requirements, 

I guess, made that decision back at that time to use the—to create 

the paymentaccuracy.gov Web site as the way to satisfy the requirement that’s in the legislation. That required an annual report 

to Congress, and they implemented that payment accuracy. And 

that, you know, started in 2010, 2011. So they were updating it. 

I arrived in the summer of—as, you know, the summer of 2014. 

We updated it in 2015. I assumed that what was being reported 

on paymentaccuracy.gov was meeting the letter and the spirit of 

the legislation, only to discover this summer when your staff called 

us and said, did you know that you weren’t doing this and you 

weren’t doing that, that we realized that what started in 2010 was 

not meeting the—both the spirit and the letter of the law. 

To put it in context, what we were displaying was probably 

roughly 93 percent of the improper payments, but we were missing 

almost 7 percent of that. And there were a couple of other data elements that the statute required that we were not displaying. So we 

had a great conversation with your staff back the summer that I 

participated in personally with my staff, all of who are new and so 

weren’t around in 2010. So that’s on me to make the correction. 

And right after the conversation and in our subsequent analysis, 

we said, okay, we’re going to have to totally revise this Web site. 

So we’ve been, since the course over the last couple of months, 

looking at, okay, what are the requirements? What does it look like 

now? What do we need to do to meet the spirit and the letter of 

the law? We’re ready to launch, in the next couple of weeks, a comVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:16 Aug 03, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26168.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
61 

plete redo of paymentaccuracy.gov in a way that will capture and 

display the data so that not only the annual report to the Congress, 

but I think—Mr. Chairman, your earlier point in your opening 

statement, this is something that the American public needs to see. 

So, you know, not only will it meet the legislative intent of the annual report, but we believe it will also provide the transparency. 

We intend to have that done and updated with the new data in the 

January through March timeframe. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. Well, I don’t want to prejudge your new innovation, so I won’t. But I’m going to withhold, I guess, comment 

until we see what you come up with. Because I think, clearly, when 

we look at a report, we’re about to put out a report. That’s the kind 

of report that we should be getting from you. The data on the payment accuracy Web site, you know, doesn’t really correspond. 

And so as we start to integrate that—my good friend, Mr. 

Connolly from Virginia, knows more about the IT side of things 

than I ever did,—but when we look at the Data Act, when we look 

at FITARA, when we look at all of these other issues, we made a 

bipartisan commitment to have good quality data that actually 

gives us actionable things. And to that extent, I don’t want to create something that’s new that doesn’t follow along those two lines 

and implement that data. But the other is I don’t want to suggest 

that just having a Web site is a report. 

And so I’m going to be optimistic. You know I’m a trusting individual, and—but we will verify. So I’ll wait to see what you have 

coming up. 

In January, is that when you said we can expect—— 

Mr. MADER. Well, so our plan was to actually, starting next 

week—and I’m going to get weekly reports from the project team— 

to actually start now working on what this new display of data will 

look like. Maybe what we ought to be doing is coming up and meeting with the staff, sort of walking them through what we’re about 

to do. Because what I don’t want to do is spend a lot of time and 

money between now and, you know, March and then go, like, well, 

that’s not meeting your needs. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Yeah. If you can do that, I think that will be 

great. 

Mr. MADER. So we can do that. I mean, we have—Mr. Chairman, 

we also have an executive order that requires, you know, us to do 

this as well. So, you know, we’re going to have to do it for ourselves. You know, if the Congress wants, you know, a different 

written report, we certainly can do that. But we have to fix the 

data. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Yeah. And I’m not looking for redundancy. In 

fact, if anything, I’m looking for us to not be redundant. And I 

guess what I’m saying is, if that meets our needs, we’ll all be together and be happy about it. The more we can have it online and 

the less we have it in terms of a written report, the better off, I 

think, we all are. I just want to make sure that it’s in keeping with 

finishing. 

I want to ask one other question, then I’ll recognize the ranking 

member. And we’ve got a series of things that I’d like to go over. 

But, Ms. Conley, let me come to you. And you had a great opening statement, and we look at the numbers that, you know, your— 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
62 

the 800-pound gorilla in terms of improper payments, in terms of 

moneys going out, you and the Social Security Administration. The 

problem is, is each time we have this, we hear that it is a top priority, and each time the number continues to rise. And we have different hearings where, you know, we get stakeholders that are 

blamed or States that are blamed and, yet there are times when 

the States want to come in and help and there seems to be a reluctance from different agency heads on doing that. 

My question is real simple. If it’s the top priority, is it better 

suited for someone else to look at improper payments where we 

start a trend that goes down versus one that continues to go up? 

Because we continue to—we’re not making progress, I guess. And 

I’m saying that in a kind way but in a frustrating way. This is our 

third improper payments hearing, and it continues to go up, and 

we don’t seem to be making much progress. 

What do we need to do? 

Ms. CONLEY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your question. These are critically important programs, and we take them 

very seriously, as well as program integrity, relating to each of our 

programs. 

These programs are large and they are complex—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Listen, I’m a numbers guy. I get all of that. 

Ms. CONLEY. You understand. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And I understand that you can talk about percentages when you have a big budget, because the percentage is 

small but the dollar is big. I get that. 

I guess what I’m saying is, is there someone else that needs to 

look at this to be able to figure it out where we start to get the 

trend, we’re not making progress? Improper payments at HHS continue to go up at a disproportionate rate to the amount of benefits 

that are being paid out. And that’s my concern, is—it’d be different 

if it were—we were shrink—you know, the numbers were going but 

the percentage—but that’s not happening. 

Ms. CONLEY. So if I may follow up on that. One, I think it’s important to note, as Mr. Mader indicated in his opening remark, our 

Medicare fee-for-service program, our rate has come down from last 

year—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. 

Ms. CONLEY. —to this year, and we were well under our target. 

It is still a very large program. So while we’re making progress 

there in measuring improper payments and complying, it’s—these 

are still very large numbers. 

We’ve made significant improvements in this program, and you 

can—we use the improper payment rates. We’re very keen on the 

trajectory, whether we measure them uniformly and then we look 

to these trends. 

And in the case of fee-for-service, we can see that there’s some 

key actions that we’re taking in the fee-for-service program that 

are really paying off and driving that rate down. So as part of our 

root cause analysis for fee-for-service, we determine—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So it went down by what, $2 billion is what we’re 

looking at? So I’m looking at the numbers. But Medicare part C 

went up by $2 billion, Medicare part D went up by $1 billion. I 

mean, so—Medicaid went up by $12 billion. And so when you look 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
63 

at it, it’s easy to highlight the one where we’ve made a little—and 

I guess what I’m saying is, when you look at the overall number, 

we’re now up at $89 billion. And, again, that’s real money. I mean, 

it’s not my money, it’s not your money, it’s the American taxpayer’s 

money. 

So here’s what I would like, and I’m going to recognize the ranking member. I need from you, specifically, what we’re going to do 

different between now and next year this time when we have this 

same report that comes out where we start to reverse the trend. 

I need a specific—not that it’s important, not that it’s this. I need 

how are we going to address these particular issues? 

And I’ll recognize the ranking member, Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank my friend. And I echo a lot of what he 

had to say. I will say, however, Congress can’t have it two—both 

ways. We can’t ding on you for not getting down that number to 

the lowest possible number when we’re not willing to invest in the 

tools and resources necessary to recover those dollars or prevent 

them in the first place. 

And we know that in certain respects, certain investments have 

huge payoff. My friend and I have talked on a bipartisan basis on 

our committee about, you know, you invest more money in GAO, 

for example, and it has a big payoff. We invest in—I’ll speak only 

for myself. We invest in IRS. It has a big payoff. So if you’re looking for enhancing revenue and getting down—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, they’ll just get your tax return. I mean, we 

can almost balance the budget on—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I’ll take my chances. 

So anyway—so we in Congress also need to take responsibility 

for our part in this. But I know that my friend, Mr. Meadows, and 

I share a goal, though, that this is something we could do something about it, it seems to me, on a bipartisan basis. 

And, actually, in an odd way, if I can use this phrase, it’s free 

money. Every dollar we recover that’s not—or we avoid as an improper payment, however you define it, is a dollar we don’t have 

to raise in new taxes. It’s a dollar we don’t have to cut from a critical investment that we know we need for the future. It’s a dollar 

we don’t have to have from sequestration. And why we don’t pay 

more attention to this as a Congress, I don’t know, or as a government. And I just thank my friend for continuing this tradition. 

My first improper payment hearing was in this room on this— 

the predecessor subcommittee with our friend, Todd Platts, who 

was the Congressman from Pennsylvania at the time, who took this 

very seriously and set the kind of bipartisan cooperative tone I 

think we need on this. 

Mr. Mader, what is the universe, total universe, of improper payments we’re talking about right now? 

Mr. MADER. So the last—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Dollar figure. 

Mr. MADER. So the dollar figure fiscal year 2015 is $136 billion. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Okay. Now, I want to say, when I first went to 

my first hearing on this, it was roughly about that. It might have 

been about $150 billion then. Sound right, 5 years ago? 

Mr. MADER. So 5 years ago, the percentage was higher, the dollar 

amount was lower. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
64 

Mr. CONNOLLY. A little lower. Okay. So it made some progress? 

Mr. MADER. We’ve made progress on the rate, yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Okay. Of that $136 billion, how much is Medicare fraud? 

Mr. MADER. I would have to defer to my colleague from HHS on 

that. I don’t keep that data. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. All right. Ms. Conley? And you’re talking to your 

cousin here, don’t fudge. 

Ms. CONLEY. No relation, right? 

So you raise a very important question and important topic, because I think when we’re talking about the extent of improper payments, it’s important to go back and understand what improper 

payments are and what they are not. 

So an improper payment is making sure that—an improper payment can arise from a payment to the wrong person or on behalf 

of the wrong person, in the wrong amount, for the wrong benefit, 

or without documentation. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. No, we understand. The reason I’m trying to get 

at fraud is this: There’s different strategies. Right? 

Ms. CONLEY. Right. That’s right. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So the nature—what’s behind my question isn’t 

to ding on you for—it’s a big program and there’s going to be fraud. 

Human nature is going to be human nature and people are going 

to cheat. 

So working with Mr. Mader or with the Treasury Department, 

we can come up with systems that start to reduce the number of, 

oops, you know, we double billed, we double paid. We thought you 

were 65; you weren’t. Whatever it is. We thought you were a veteran, and it was your cousin or your neighbor; a mistake. It happens. And if we can make systems more and more efficient and fool 

proof, we can cut down on that error rate, save taxpayers’ dollars. 

Fraud’s a different matter. Fraud, I’ve got to go after it. I’ve got 

to have investigative resources. I’ve got to have prosecutorial resources. I’ve got to persuade U.S. attorneys that this is really a 

high priority, and it can become win-win. You know, I’ve got to 

make some serious investments. That’s a very different kind of improper payment, but I’ve got to do both. 

So I need to know your universe. What is—of the $136 billion, 

how much of that is Medicare fraud? 

Ms. CONLEY. We do not have a commonly accepted methodology 

for measuring the extent of fraud. We do, though, have other processes whereby we assess the various risks that fraud could occur. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Ms. Conley. 

Ms. CONLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I can’t believe you’re a relative. 

Is it not somewhere around $50- or $60 billion, best estimate, 

Mr. Mader? 

Mr. MADER. Well, I’m not sure of the—the $136 billion, I don’t 

know, but let me see if I can answer your question maybe a little 

bit differently. 

So of that $136 billion, $45 billion, 33 percent of that, is related 

to documentation errors. And I dare say it’s probably not fraud. 

Okay? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Right. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
65 

Mr. MADER. If they filled out the form or they didn’t fill out the 

form. And what’s also interesting to note is that this issue—and it’s 

a lot around insufficient documentation, you know, 33 percent of 

that total, actually isn’t required to be reported as improper payments under the underlying statute. It was actually introduced in 

the previous administration. 

And that’s not making an excuse, but I think, Congressman 

Connolly, makes—the point that you’re making is that there’s ways 

to deal with those kinds of errors and then there’s fraud. And a lot 

of the things that we’re talking about in the way of program integrity initiatives or some of the examples around Do Not Pay, merely 

speak to that, how do I—how do I get to the documentation errors? 

How do I do a better job of getting it right the first time? Because 

if I picked a sample, and a form is missing, improper payment. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Right. But we know that fraud occurs. For example, I know of one U.S. Attorney’s Office that recovered—I think, 

almost identified and helped recover almost $3 billion in Medicare 

fraud. That’s one. We have 99 U.S. attorneys. So, I mean—and I— 

this is not a new question, because I remember—unless I’m smoking something, but at this very room, this very subcommittee, we’ve 

looked at a figure of estimates of around $50- to $60 billion. It 

could be more. We don’t know. 

So I’m trying to look at the whole pie. That pie is $136 billion, 

43 percent are documentation error. So what percent do we think 

are fraud? 

Mr. MADER. We’re going to have to come back and—I don’t know 

and I don’t—you know, I don’t want to guess. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. All right. 

Treasury Department, do you want to help guess with me? Do 

you know? Any idea? Give me the universe of potential fraud. I 

mean, out of this pie. 

Ms. SCHRAMEK. I don’t have the universe. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Don’t have the universe. 

Ms. SCHRAMEK. Not for fraud. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. All right. 

Well, Mr. Chairman, I’m frustrated by this because I don’t know 

how we devise strategies that try to get at this if we’re not willing 

to put some percentage or number. And I understand it’s an estimate, a guesstimate, fraud’s—how much potential fraud is going on 

out there I know is a tough thing, because—well, to quote Donald 

Rumsfeld, there are the known knowns and the no unknowns and 

the unknown unknowns, and okay. 

But it’s kind of important we get our arms around this so we at 

least, for planning purposes, declare a universe so that we can devise strategies to reduce it. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And I would agree with the gentleman. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yeah. But let me just say a final thought here. 

Boy, would I love—I mean, the chairman asked that you come back 

to us with strategies that we can sort of sink our teeth into in the 

new year. I would love to see a—sort of a spitball strategy that 

says—okay. In theory, we know we can’t ever get to zero, but what 

would it take, in theory, to get that $136 billion to zero? Because 

every one of those dollars is a dollar for new investment or a dollar 

where we avoid having to put new burdens on taxpayers or a dollar 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
66 

to reduce the debt if we want to dedicate it to that. I mean, there 

are lots of possibilities with this, that’s why getting the fraud piece 

is important. 

And I’d love to, at some point, have somebody do some spitballing 

about this. I mean, I don’t want to raise false expectations. It can 

be zero. But surely, we can do better. Surely, as the chairman indicated, and I echo his sentiments, I mean, it’s a little bit like 

Groundhog Day when we have these hearings, because I thought 

we might be making not so much incremental progress as maybe 

spectacular progress with new data systems and new technology investments and the like. 

So I think we approach this in the spirit of trying to partner with 

you, that get our arms around this collectively as a government, because a lot of good can come out of this. And bad things happen 

when this is left unaddressed. 

So I wish you’d get back to us with the fraud estimates so that 

we have—we can work with you in devising strategies and try to 

fight for getting the resources you need for those strategies. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman. 

So let me—let me see if I can summarize that, because I—if 

we’re going to address this—and we have it titled improper payments for a reason, because we don’t put it in a bucket. And that— 

I mean, we know that it’s improper. 

Here’s what I would like to ask you to do, and it gets, I think, 

to the gentleman’s question, is if we can look at a couple of subbuckets. Coding errors is one—so I’m going to take HHS, because 

I know that probably better. 

So we know that the RAC audit say, okay, you’ve got coding errors, you’ve got issues where you’ve got the wrong date. And it 

shows as an improper payment when, indeed, it is—really, it’s 

probably a proper payment that’s improperly coded, but yet it 

shows up and so it drives the numbers up. That’s part of it. 

The other part of that is, is there are—is the suspected activity 

that may not be fraud, but we’re not sure. And so that’s got to go 

in a bucket, because you’re going to have your general counsel who 

say you can’t say it’s fraud because we can’t prove it’s fraud. And 

we understand the legal requirements here. But if you can put it 

in a bucket. 

Then if we can look from a historical standpoint, and that’s what 

the gentleman is talking about, is a percentage of those that are 

collected, how much do we go after for fraud? And I’m willing to 

work with the gentleman to look at these numbers to not say it has 

to go back to Treasury. 

So, you know, if we’re looking at SSA, and you’re saying, well, 

we’re having a tough time, and you do a better job on that, I’m 

willing to invest the political capital to say, okay, we have to return 

it. It’s part of what I talked about with Mr. Mader on real estate. 

You’ve got one group that disposes of it, but they don’t get the 

money back, so there’s no incentive to do it. And so we’re willing 

to work in a bipartisan way. We’ve got to get the number down. 

And I’d rather have accurate numbers and accurate reporting 

versus all of that. 

Does that make sense? All right. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
67 

I’m going to ask for a unanimous consent to have Mr. Palmer 

join us, because I’ve got to run to a WRDA hearing on one critical 

area that we’re trying to address when he comes in. And I may— 

I didn’t want to interrupt the gentleman from Missouri. 

Mr. Clay, you’re recognized. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you. 

In 2009, President Obama signed an executive order to reduce 

improper payments by, quote, ‘‘intensifying efforts to eliminate payment error of waste, fraud, and abuse in the major programs administered by the Federal Government.’’ 

Pursuant to this executive order, in 2011, Department of the 

Treasury established a Do Not Pay Center that offers tools and resources for agencies to use for the reduction of improper payments. 

Mr.—pronounce your name. 

Mr. SCHRAMEK. Mr. Schramek. 

Mr. CLAY. —Schramek, what services does the Do Not Pay Center offer agencies to help curb improper payments? 

Mr. SCHRAMEK. Thank you. We offer a couple of services. The 

first service is that we provide data sources to agencies so they can 

do a single online search, like a Google search. They can do—if 

they have more searches they need to do for prepayment or 

preeligibility, they can send over a file of those information that we 

can match against data sources. And then before they make a payment, they can send that file again to match—to make sure nothing has changed from when they looked the first time on their validation. 

We also, through IPERIA, have entered where payments go 

across to data sources before they go out the door, to provide information back to the agencies on if those payments are proper and 

they can adjudicate them. And then our last piece is we offer analytic services to agencies so that—because we have most of the payment data that Treasury disburses, we can look at payments within an agency, within agency—within programs within an agency 

and even across agencies. 

Mr. CLAY. And how many agencies have signed up with the Do 

Not Pay Center? 

Mr. SCHRAMEK. So we have 57 agencies that are currently signed 

up with the do-not-pay program. 

Mr. CLAY. And have these services been effective at stopping improper payments? 

Mr. SCHRAMEK. They have been, as we’ve got more and more 

agencies onboard. So just this year, we had accumulatively identified $25 million, and this is significantly higher, almost more than 

double, than we did last year because of the use of this program. 

Partially because agencies, when we give them the information 

back to determine if a payment is proper or improper, they—we 

gave them the ability to tell us how much that back is. So that is 

helping us to more and more determine how much of those payments are identified in the agency side. 

Mr. CLAY. And, Mr. Schramek, I’m pleased to hear that the Do 

Not Pay Center has saved agencies millions of dollars in improper 

payments. There are still billions of dollars in improper payments 

that are spent every year. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
68 

How can the Do Not Pay Center use its resources to save additional improper payment dollars? 

Mr. SCHRAMEK. So it’s very critical for us to continue to work 

with the agencies and with OMB to do this process. So the data 

sources we have, we will continue to provide the agencies and talk 

to them about which ones are best for them and get more agencies 

to use those data sources. We’ve also put—and we agree with the 

President’s budget for additional data sources. 

So right now we only have the public version of the Death Master File, and when we get the private version, that would help us 

as well. And then access to the National Directory of New Hires 

database would give us that information as another tool to provide 

agencies. 

Mr. CLAY. And do some agencies prefer to use their own methods 

to identify improper payments? 

Mr. SCHRAMEK. Agencies do have other programs. Do Not Pay is 

one of the tools the agencies get to use in identifying improper payments. Treasury cannot make the decision of whether a payment 

is improper or not. We provide the information to the agencies and 

then we work with the agencies to determine if it’s improper or not. 

Mr. CLAY. All right. Thank you for that response. 

And, Ms. LaCanfora, I heard you say that currently you allow recipients to volunteer data to make a determination on a monthly 

basis to determine how much they are paid. Isn’t that an easy way 

to game the system at SSI? 

Ms. LACANFORA. You’re right. What I said in my testimony was 

that the Supplemental Security Income program, or the SSI program, is our greatest challenge because we rely very heavily on 

beneficiaries to tell us information. And the structure of the program is such that we need to track lots of different factors, your 

income, your resources, who you live with, all of your living arrangements, lots of different data points that we need that we rely 

on beneficiaries to tell us about. So one of our greatest strategies 

that holds the most potential is to try to move away from reliance 

on beneficiaries and move more toward data. 

And thank you to the Congress for giving us the Bipartisan 

Budget Act. One of the most powerful provisions in there is our 

ability to use third-party payroll data so that we do not need to 

rely on IRS data, which oftentimes comes very late in the process. 

We can get timely wage data from payroll providers, and we are 

working to implement that now. So moving from self-reporting to 

data is where we think we’re going to get a tremendous payoff in 

improper payment prevention going forward. 

Mr. CLAY. And how much, an estimate in savings, do you think 

you’ll be able to identify? 

Ms. LACANFORA. I don’t have an exact number, but I will say it’s 

in the billions, with a B—— 

Mr. CLAY. Okay. 

Ms. LACANFORA. —because wages or earnings are the greatest— 

one of the greatest sources of improper payment at our agency. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. My time is up. 

Mr. PALMER. [Presiding.] The gentleman yields back. 

The chair now recognizes itself for questions. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
69 

To follow up on Mr. Clay’s questions about the apparent inability—or to identify people who have died, I mean, there are companies in the private sector that can track everything, I mean, from 

what laundry detergent we buy to what Web sites we visit, I mean, 

what political party we affiliate with. How is it—why is it so difficult to gather information when people are deceased so that you 

stop the payments? 

And that’s to Ms. LaCanfora. I’m having trouble seeing over this. 

I’m just average height, so—— 

Ms. LACANFORA. Thank you for the question. We actually receive 

2.5 million death reports each year. So our death data is pretty 

comprehensive. We receive information from States and from funeral directors and from a host of other places, including families 

who report death records to us. We share that data with nine Federal benefit-paying agencies directly so they have access to that 

today. 

We are restricted by law from sharing all of our death data with 

Do Not Pay because the law specifically allows us only to share 

that data with the Federal benefit paying agencies. So I think Mr. 

Schramek mentioned a proposal in the President’s budget that 

would authorize us to share all of our death data with Do Not Pay. 

Mr. PALMER. Are they calling votes? 

Okay. All right. I’m going to continue with this. You said there 

were 2.5 million deaths reported to Social Security. Is that correct? 

Do you have any idea how many deaths there were nationwide? 

Ms. LACANFORA. Yeah. That number is comparable to the CDC 

estimates on the number of people who are actually deceased. 

There’s always going to be a few deaths that we don’t get because 

there’s strange things happening, but by and large, our death data 

is comprehensive. I will say, however, that historically, it hasn’t always been comprehensive, because our death reporting processes 

have gotten much better over time and there’s something really important in the process that we have called electronic death registration, otherwise known as EDR. It’s a very high-quality reporting 

process that makes our death records virtually error free, but that 

is a relatively new process for most States and it’s not rolled out 

in every State. So there’s also a President’s budget proposal to expand electronic death registration to ensure that our death records 

are complete. 

Mr. PALMER. So over the last 2 or 3 years, and the last report 

I saw was for 2014, and it was what, $3 billion, something in that 

range, that went out in death benefits improperly paid? Did that 

number decrease last year? 

Ms. LACANFORA. For the Social Security Administration, death is 

actually not a leading cause of improper payment. In fact, we use 

our current set of death records to prevent—— 

Mr. PALMER. I understand that. I’m just asking you, because you 

just said that—you lauded where you are on your death reporting. 

And I come from a think-tank background prior to that engineering 

degree. I’m very linear in my thinking. So if you got from A to B 

and B is where you needed to be, there should be some result. 

Okay. 

So have we reduced the amount of improper payments related to 

death benefits? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
70 

Ms. LACANFORA. Yes, but I want to just correct. So the $3 billion 

I think that you cited is not related to death. That’s our overall improper payment rate for the OASDI program. The death-related 

overpayment amount for Social Security is much smaller than that. 

It’s actually less than 1 percent of all of our improper payment. I 

think the broader concern is sharing that data with other agencies 

that might use it. But improper payments related to death are tiny 

at the Social Security Administration. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, going back on the report that I read last 

year—actually, I’m on the Budget Committee and that’s when I 

brought this up—65 percent of the improper payments were attributed to Medicare fee-for-service, Medicaid, and earned income tax 

credit program. It is about $81 billion. And in 2014, I think we sent 

out about $125 billion in improper payments. Last year, I think it 

was about $130 something billion, and prior to 2014, it was a lower 

number. So it seems to be getting worse, not better. And one of the 

things that I found interesting was that the Treasury hasn’t corrected the issue with the earned income tax credit and it appears 

to be getting progressively worse. 

Can you address that? Are you qualified to address that, Mr. 

Schramek? 

Mr. SCHRAMEK. Yes, sir. At the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, I 

don’t have access to the information on the IRS side of the tax information. 

Mr. PALMER. Okay. Sounds like that the people I need to talk to 

are not here, because I’d also like to know why—what statutory 

limitations there are on Treasury that prevent us from requiring 

States estimating improper payments in terms of TANF benefits. 

Can you answer that? 

Mr. SCHRAMEK. Yes, sir. That would be at IRS. 

Mr. PALMER. All right. Well, given that they’ve called votes, let 

me ask that question to Health and Human Services on the TANF 

benefits. Ms. Conley. 

Ms. CONLEY. Sir, I’m sorry, could you repeat the question about 

TANF? 

Mr. PALMER. Well, in my doing my background on this, I found 

that there’s some statutory prohibition against the States reporting 

improper payments for TANF benefits. And I apologize, I was 

working on earned income tax credit with Treasury and now I’ve 

switched to TANF, and this question should have been directed to 

HHS. 

What are the statutory limitations that keep the States from reporting improper payments on TANF benefits? 

Ms. CONLEY. Yeah. Thank you very much for your question and 

for clarifying. With regard to TANF, the statutory framework for 

TANF, this is the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, is set 

up such that we don’t have the authority to either request or compel States to calculate improper payments, nor do we—are we authorized to compel them to provide us with the information that 

would be necessary to develop an improper payment rate for 

TANF. 

And we—so even though we don’t have an error rate methodology because of the statutory constraints, we do still execute program integrity activities with TANF. For instance, the Single Audit 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
71 

Act Amendments of 1996, were recognized in the TANF statute of 

1996. And those—the single audit basically is an annual audit 

process at the State level of the TANF funds that are administered 

by the States, and they’re subjected to an annual audit process by 

either the State auditors or independent audits. And we go through 

those audit findings and resolve those findings and ensure that the 

States are following up to strengthen the integrity of the TANF 

programs at the State level. 

Mr. PALMER. So do we know how much we paid out in improper 

payments in TANF benefits? 

Ms. CONLEY. So there is not a calculation of an error rate for 

TANF, because of those statutory limitations that we have. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, that doesn’t make any sense to me that we 

don’t at least have an estimate from the States. I mean, is there 

no concern of making improper payments using Federal money? I 

mean, what do we need to do to correct that? 

Ms. CONLEY. So perhaps we could reconsider, as TANF is reauthorized, to think about an error-rate methodology process and 

whether or not that makes sense given the statutory framework for 

TANF. 

As I mentioned, while we don’t have an error rate, there are 

other things that are going on in the TANF program, the oversight 

of it, as well as the work that is happening at the State levels to 

ensure we’re complying with the program requirements. TANF has 

very high level Federal requirements. They’re very broad and overarching, and so the States—the State-administered program and 

the States develop the various compliance requirements at a more 

detailed level. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, here’s my concern about this and the whole 

issue of improper payments, is that being on the Budget Committee 

we do everything in a 10-year window. And if we use the last 3 

years, say, for example, as an average, we’re sending out somewhere in the range of $110- to $120 billion a year in improper payments. In that 10-year window, that’s $1.1, to $1.2 trillion. That’s 

a lot of money. You know, it has a big impact on our ability to do 

business, and I think particularly considering that we’re approaching $20 trillion in debt, it’s incumbent upon us to do everything 

that we can to make sure that the money we spend is spent properly. 

I want to shift back to Treasury, to Mr. Schramek, if I can. 

Treasury was required to issue a report on the data analytics performed at the Do Not Pay Center under the Federal Improper Payments Coordination Act of 2015. It is my understanding that the 

report has not been issued. When do you expect to issue that report? 

Mr. SCHRAMEK. Now that report has been issued. 

Mr. PALMER. It has? When was it issued? 

Mr. SCHRAMEK. This past week. 

Mr. PALMER. Okay. We need to make sure the committee gets a 

copy of that report. 

Let me ask you this: What are the current data analytics capabilities of Do Not Pay? 

Mr. SCHRAMEK. So in the Do Not Pay program, our current analytics come around a couple of different mechanisms. One, we do 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
72 

data source matching and provide that information to agencies. 

Two, because we have access to payment data that agencies have 

provided us, we use that data to provide information related to 

data-quality errors of the payments that they provide to Treasury 

to make sure the data is better. We look at if there’s duplicate payments or if there have been duplicate eligibility information and 

provide that to agencies to validate. For example, if somebody paid 

something twice or paid the same amount twice, is that proper or 

not? And we’re also looking across the Federal Government for 

agencies to look at if similar payments went out on the same day. 

So our analytics programs have grown. We’ve, as I mentioned, 

we’ve got—we’ve done 21—22 analytics projects for nine agencies 

just this year. 

Mr. PALMER. Ms. Park, Social Security Administration and HHS 

use third-party payroll data to verify payments and the VA doesn’t. 

Why doesn’t the VA use third-party payroll data? 

Ms. PARK. So we use various methods to verify pay in the program. Specifically, I can’t talk to exactly what those are. I would 

need our senior accountable official, so I’ll have to take that for the 

record. We are looking at opportunities to partner with industry to 

get that information and we’ll be working on that in the coming 

year. 

Mr. PALMER. Are you—do you know if the VA is considering 

using additional data sources? 

Ms. PARK. Yes, we are, sir. I mean, just this year, we awarded 

a new contract to support us in our IPERA efforts, and we’re hoping that the contractor will bring different methods for us to use, 

and we’re also exploring other areas. 

Mr. PALMER. I’ll switch over to OMB because I don’t want Mr. 

Mader to feel like he’s being left out. 

So Mr. Meadows has already asked him these questions, well, 

then you haven’t been left out. 

I want to go back to Ms. Conley and HHS. And the Center for 

Medicare & Medicaid Services failed to meet reduction targets for 

Medicare Advantage, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Why weren’t you able to meet those targets? 

Ms. CONLEY. Thank you very much for your question. I think 

maybe I’ll start with the Medicaid program because this is an important large, broad program. In 2014, we began implementing 

new requirements of the Affordable Care Act as well as HIPAA, to 

require States to do three basic things: One, to screen all new enrollees into the program; and two, to reenroll all of their providers; 

and the third thing is to have all electronic claims include a national provider identification. 

So these three efforts, which were very substantive and challenging for agencies, has taken—excuse me, for States—it has 

taken the States—they’re adopting these new requirements at different rates. This is an example—each of these three new requirements is an example of where we’re actually strengthening the underlying integrity of the program by knowing who we’re doing business with with these—with the new screening and the enrollment 

process, as well as being able to identify and track payments. So 

we can reduce the likelihood of fraud by knowing who we’re doing 

business with and having screened them, as well as reduce imVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:16 Aug 03, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26168.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
73 

proper payments by encouraging the States, assisting them, if you 

will, in complying with these three requirements. 

We measure Medicaid over a 3-year period, and so 2014 was the 

first year that we measured against the first batch of States in 

compliance with this requirement for 2014, second batch in 2015, 

and the third and final batch would be captured in our 2016 error 

rate measurement. So that is why you see that error rate going up 

from 2014 to 2015 to 2016. We expect States to be in compliance. 

We’re doing a lot of outreach. We’re sharing with them information about the enrollment process that we have encountered at— 

or executed at CMS for fee-for-service. We’re doing a variety of outreach efforts and communication to assist the States, and we expect those rates to go down. 

Mr. PALMER. According to the inspector general, Medicare Advantage did not report any recovery amount audits in 2015. How 

does CMS justify not conducting recovery audits, given the estimated improper payments report? 

Ms. CONLEY. So with regard to Medicare part C, we have taken 

action to begin the procurement process for recovery audit contractors. That program, the Recovery Act, or the RAC, rather—— 

Mr. PALMER. Wait a minute. I want to make sure that I understand this. You have begun the process to—— 

Ms. CONLEY. To procure RACs for the part C program. 

Mr. PALMER. But why have you just now started the process 

when we’ve been losing billions of dollars? 

Ms. CONLEY. So we started a while back. So we did a request for 

information from the private sector to share with us ideas and options for how we could actually carry out the recovery audit contracts in a meaningful way. Information was provided and we are 

now in the process of—we’ve done a Request for Proposal and we’re 

going through the procurement process at this point in time. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, see, here’s the thing that I don’t understand. 

Private companies who have to make sure they don’t incur losses 

in order to stay in business require 100 percent claims to be audited for accuracy in billing, I think. They may be under legal requirements for that as well, and it just—I don’t quite understand 

why CMS doesn’t do a better job auditing, why they audit such a 

small percentage. 

Ms. CONLEY. So one thing that I should mention is that with regard to Medicare part C, we conduct what are called RADV audits, 

risk adjustment data validation audits, of the various plans; about 

30 plans destined to go up to about 100 plans of the total 600 eventually. And what happens is we conduct the audit at that contract 

level so that the results of that testing can be extrapolated out to 

that particular contractor. 

These RADV audits have been executed for a period of time and 

we’re beginning to see the impact of that audit process, not just on 

the entities subjected to that audit process already, but also on 

some of the plans that have yet to be audited. 

In addition to that, we have implemented a new regulation that 

requires these plans to submit back to CMS any overpayments that 

they identify in the process. The combined effect of those two activities has resulted in $650 million being returned to CMS as a 

result of this collective work. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
74 

Mr. PALMER. Well, obviously, $650 million is a lot, but it pales 

in comparison to the $125 billion that’s been lost over the last 3 

years. And the thing that concerns me about this, and again, the 

enormity of the improper payments over the last 3 years, is that 

the Medicare trustees estimate that Medicare, the program will be 

bankrupt in 12 years. And I mean, this is serious stuff. 

They’ve called votes. I’m going to transition because I have got 

to—I know Mr. Meadows asked the question, but just for my own 

purposes, I’d like to know why OMB hasn’t produced an annual report to Congress, including these subjects. 

Mr. MADER. Congressman, as I explained to Chairman Meadows, 

my predecessor in 2010 made a decision that they would use this 

paymentaccuracy.gov approach to satisfy, not only an executive 

order, but also the legislative requirement from the annual report 

to the Congress. I arrived in the summer of 2014. You know, we’re 

in, obviously, the fourth year of generating it, and I assumed that 

this was meeting the statutory requirements, until we had a call 

this summer from the staff saying, you know, by the way, you’re 

not. You’re missing this and you’re missing that. 

We had a good conversation with the staff at the time. Immediately then, I took the action to actually start doing an analysis 

of what was missing and what could we do to relaunch the site 

going forward so that it was in compliance and totally accurate. We 

have a project plan underway that would allow us to relaunch the 

site in the January through March timeframe. 

The exchange that I had with Chairman Meadows was, well, 

maybe we should talk more about, you know, do we want a, you 

know, a paper document report or do we want a, you know, a Web 

site that would meet all of the requirements? 

So my commitment to the committee is to get together with the 

staff and sort of work through what, you know, what are the interests, what are the requirements, and you know, come to a decision 

on what makes sense. I mean, we’re going to do the—we’re going 

to relaunch the Web site regardless. If the committee wants a written report, we can do a written report. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, I’ll discuss that with Chairman Meadows, but 

I do appreciate the fact that there’s been some initiative taken to 

address this. 

I tell you what we’re going to do. I’m going to recess the hearing, 

so you need to hang around, and I’ll get with Chairman Meadows 

on the floor to determine if we need to come back. I don’t want to 

adjourn the hearing without talking to the chairman. And—— 

He’s okay with it? 

Apparently, someone has talked to the chairman. This is like at 

home. I’m the last one to know. So I’m very comfortable in the situation. 

But anyway, if there’s no further business, our hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:31 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER