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

26–065 PDF 2017

DATA ACT: MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION 

PROGRESS 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS 

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 19, 2016 

Serial No. 114–156 

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 

KATY ROTHER, Senior Counsel 

WILLIAM MARX, Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

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 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

WILL HURD, Texas, Chairman 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas, Vice Chair 

MARK WALKER, North Carolina 

ROD BLUM, Iowa 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois, Ranking Minority 

Member 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

TED LIEU, California 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on April 19, 2016 .............................................................................. 1 

WITNESSES 

Ms. Michelle Sager, Director, Strategic Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office 

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

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 8 

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

The Office of Management and Budget 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 38 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 40 

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

Treasury 

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

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

Mr. Michael Peckham, Executive Director, Data Act Program Management 

Office, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 57 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 59 

APPENDIX 

Letter for the Record to Secretary Jacob Lew ....................................................... 84 

Letter for the Record to Mr. Shaun Donovan ........................................................ 86 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

DATA ACT: MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION 

PROGRESS 

Tuesday, April 19, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, JOINT

WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 2:31 p.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mark Meadows [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Meadows, Hurd, Walberg, Blum, Buck, 

Carter, Grothman, Connolly, Kelly, and Lieu. 

Mr. MEADOWS. The subcommittee on Government Operations 

and the Subcommittee on Information Technology will come to 

order. And without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a 

recess at any time. My apologies for running late to all of my colleagues and obviously each one of you as well. 

The American people deserve to know that their Federal tax dollars are being wisely spent. However, the GAO and others have 

consistently reported that Federal spending data is often incomplete, out of date, or inaccurate. Just last week the GAO told this 

committee that there are over 200 areas in the Federal Government with wasteful duplication, overlap, and fragmentation. OMB 

recently reported that Federal improper payments of nearly $137 

billion, that’s billion with a B, for fiscal year 2015, the largest annual total since 2004, when agencies first began reporting this 

data. Without accurate information, the GAO, Congress, and the 

American people are limited in their ability to prevent waste, 

fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. 

The DATA Act can help change all of that. If implemented properly, the DATA Act will allow us to finally know how much our 

government is spending, and that money is being spent wisely. In 

fact, before testimony to this committee in 2014, the GAO comptroller general said that the DATA Act is the single biggest thing 

Congress could do to address wasteful spending. Quite a statement. 

Today we are weeks away from the 2-year anniversary of the 

DATA Act passage. Treasury, OMB are leading the implementation 

efforts and they’re responsible for telling agencies what data to report and how to report it. 

Now, while OMB and the Treasury have made progress on the 

implementation, many questions are left to be answered. I’ve heard 

real concerns directly from the stakeholders that the implementation of the DATA Act is lagging behind. OMB has released little 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

information on the contractor portion of the pilot program that is 

required by statute. Several guidance documents that the agencies 

need in order to implement the act, have not been finalized by 

Treasury and OMB. And without a clear and timely guidance, 

agencies may struggle to meet the statutory reporting timeframes. 

We’re here today to determine what parts of that implementation 

are on track; where OMB, Treasury, and Federal agencies are falling behind; and while statutory deadlines are important. I want to 

make sure that agencies are implementing this bill thoroughly and 

correctly, not just on time. 

As recent as just an hour or so ago, I heard stories from a stakeholder that would suggest that the intent of Congress is perhaps 

not being best served by the direction in which we are going. So 

I look forward to working with the agencies to ensure that we realize the benefits of transparency in Federal spending that the DATA 

Act can certainly provide. 

I thank each of our witnesses for attending here today. I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

And I now recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee on 

government operations, Mr. Connolly, for his opening statement. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank 

my colleagues, you of course, the other chairman, Mr. Hurd, and 

my good friend, Ms. Kelly, the other ranking member. The four of 

us, I think have a common view about the role of IT in the Federal 

Government and how we can use it as a transformative tool, but 

how we need to use it as a transformative tool. 

And I want to thank all of you for the partnership. I think it’s 

made a real difference in building some cohesion within the Federal Government in at least this area. And it does kind of give a 

lie to the fact that we can’t really get anything done around here 

and we never act in a bipartisan, indeed, nonpartisan way, and 

that, you know, at least in this case is not true. 

Today we revisit the Digital Accountability and Transparency 

Act, which this committee supported in a bipartisan basis and was 

signed into law 2 years ago. The DATA Act, if properly implemented, as the chairman just indicated, will bring enhanced transparency to Federal spending that will in turn, I hope, lead to better 

decisionmaking. 

Agencies will now be required to report spending at a more 

granular level, and that data is to be communicated using a common language that will enable true comparisons across the Federal 

Government. Agencies, Congress, watchdogs inside and outside of 

the government will now be able to connect the dots on how agencies are spending, which will help identify duplication and waste, 

something the committee examined last week with the annual 

GAO Duplication Report. The DATA Act holds great potential for 

creating efficiencies and government savings. 

While the OMB and the Treasury Department continue to make 

progress in defining those new standards, a recent GAO report 

notes that some definitions will require additional work, as they 

could lead to inconsistent reporting. I look forward to hearing how 

those concerns are being addressed, and also I want to hear more 

about the status of the pilot program to reduce the reporting burden on the recipients of Federal grants and contracts. The DATA 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

Act directed OMB to create such a pilot program to streamline 

such reporting. 

For the grantee program, OMB partnered with the Department 

of Health and Human Services and is working with GSA on the 

contracting portion. The law also calls for input of a diverse group 

of Federal award recipients. However, GSA and OMB have yet to 

present a detailed plan to achieve this goal. As a Member representing a number of Federal grant recipients and contractors, 

and that’s an understatement, I want to hear how OMB plans to 

better engage those communities in this effort. I’m hopeful that as 

the pilot moves forward, specific grantees and contractors will have 

that opportunity to test proposals that agencies might use to reduce duplicative or unnecessarily burdensome reporting. 

While the design of the grants pilot program appears to be on 

track, I am concerned by the GAO’s assessment that OMB is taking a more narrow approach with respect to the contractor portion, 

focused on certified payroll reporting. For example, the GAO said, 

and I quote, ‘‘the plan did not include specific information on the 

methodology, strategy, or types of data to be collected. Further, a 

scalability was not addressed to result in the recommendations 

that could be applied governmentwide. The design also did not indicate how data will be evaluated to draw conclusions,’’ unquote. 

At this point, the procurement portion of the pilot is at risk of 

not meeting the 12-month reporting cycle deadline as set by Congress. 

These new DATA Act reporting requirements for agencies are not 

scheduled to be implemented until May 2017. So today’s hearing, 

I think, Mr. Chairman, is the perfect opportunity to look at what’s 

working so far and to examine those areas that might need more 

work a year out from that deadline. 

As my colleagues know, I was pleased to coauthor the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act, FITARA, also known 

as Connolly-Issa, which has a better ring to it, we think. GAO in 

its 2015 report on duplicative wasteful spending said, and I quote, 

it should improve the transparency and management of IT acquisitions and operations across the government. I think the DATA Act 

and FITARA will both complement each other and help agencies 

make smarter investments. The DATA Act holds tremendous potential. 

I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses any suggestions 

they might have for ensuring that we realize that potential and 

stay on course. 

Mr. Chairman and Mr. Hurd and Ms. Kelly, by the way, something we may also want to have a hearing on in terms of what can 

go awry with the best of intentions in the IT field is FedRAMP. 

And it may be time for us to have a hearing on that and—because 

this reminds me of that, though this, I hope, is in better shape 

than FedRAMP. 

With that I yield back. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman for his comments and his 

kind words. 

The chair now recognizes the chairman of the Subcommittee on 

Information Technology, who’s forgotten more about technology 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

than I have ever known, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hurd, for 

his opening statement. 

Mr. HURD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for including our subcommittee on this important issue. Good afternoon to 

our witnesses today. 

Yesterday was tax day in the United States, millions of Americans filled out their tax forms and sent a portion of their hard 

earned income to the Federal Government. In fiscal year 2015, the 

Federal Government spent $3.7 trillion, which amounted to about 

21 percent of the Nation’s gross domestic product. That’s about 

$12,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. 

What are taxpayers getting for that investment in their government? Is the government spending their money wisely? Are there 

some programs that work well and should be expanded and others 

that are duplicative and should be eliminated? 

The unfortunate reality is that the Federal Government’s spending data is housed in disconnected and silo systems that use various unrelated formats, making those questions very difficult to answer. And the costs of our inability to accurately track Federal tax 

dollars are steep. Chairman Meadows mentioned the over 200 

areas in the Federal Government where the GAO Duplication Report identifies areas of duplication, overlap, and fragmentation. 

Eliminating these areas of waste and duplication would save us approximately $125 billion from 2010 to 2025. 

The monetary cost is devastating, as is the cost of citizens losing 

trust and confidence in their own government. Government secrecy 

and corruption results in loss of trust from citizens, but so does 

general incompetence. That is why the DATA Act is so important. 

If implemented properly, the DATA Act will allow us to begin to 

untangle the web of Federal agency spending and start to restore 

trust between government and its citizens. 

I thank the witnesses for their testimony today. I’m looking forward to working with them to effectively implement the DATA Act. 

I yield back. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman for his comments. 

The chair recognizes the ranking member of the Subcommittee 

on Information Technology, Ms. Kelly, the gentlewoman from Illinois, for her opening statement. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our witnesses for appearing on today’s panel to discuss the administration’s progress in implementing the DATA Act. 

The act requires that agencies report spending data in a consistent way, which in turn will create opportunities to improve 

operational efficiency and oversight. The transparency that the 

DATA Act is designed to provide will help enhance accountability 

for agencies’ spending decisions. Once implemented, the DATA Act 

will provide the public with Federal spending data that is accessible, reliable, and useable. Mr. Lebryk has stated at this committee, and I quote, better data leads to better decisions and ultimately a better government. 

The Office of Management and Budget and the Department of 

Treasury have initiated multiple efforts to carry out the requirements of the DATA Act. I commend the way the administration has 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

embraced the act and worked diligently to set the executive branch 

on the right path. 

The Department of Health and Human Services has taken a significant role in designing a plan to test the pilot program to 

streamline and reduce the reporting burden on grantees. I look forward to hearing more about their plans for the pilot, some of the 

potential outcomes, and the timeframe for results. However, the 

procurement portion of the pilot program, which intends to test 

areas for reducing the reporting burden on contractors, has taken 

a narrow approach, focusing on only one area in which contractor 

reporting be reduced. 

In a report released today on the pilot program, GAO raised concerns with the design of the procurement portion and its ability to 

provide meaningful and useful data for effective testing of the pilot. 

GAO recommends that OMB clearly document how the procurement portion of the pilot will contribute to the DATA Act and requirements, and ensure the design reflects leading practices. It is 

important that congressional oversight helps ensure that the opportunity to reduce reporting burden and streamline areas of reporting 

is not missed during the implementation of the DATA Act. 

The work of Congress does not end with the passage or oversight 

of the DATA Act. It is equally important that Congress provide sufficient resources for Federal agencies to make the necessary 

changes to implement the DATA Act and transform the collection 

and reporting of Federal spending data. I look forward to hearing 

from the witnesses. 

I yield back. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentlewoman for her opening remarks. 

And I will hold the record open for 5 legislative days for any 

member who would like to submit a written statement. 

Mr. MEADOWS. We’ll now recognize our panel of witnesses. And 

I’m pleased to welcome Ms. Michelle Sager, Director of Strategic 

Issues at the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Ms. Sager, it 

is our understanding that you are accompanied by your colleague 

from GAO, Ms. Paula Rascona, who has expertise that we may 

need during questioning. 

Next we have the Honorable David Mader, controller at the Office of Federal Management—the Office of Management and Budget; Mr. David Lebryk, Fiscal Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Treasury; and Mr. Michael Peckham, executive director of the DATA Act Program Management Office at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Welcome to you all. 

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

before they testify. And we will also swear in Ms. Rascona. So if 

you’d please rise and raise your right hand. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you are 

about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth? 

Thank you. Please be seated. 

And let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

And in order to allow time for discussion, we would appreciate 

it if you would please limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes. However, your entire written testimony will be made part of the record. 

And so I will go ahead and recognize you, Ms. Sager, for 5 minutes for your opening testimony. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF MICHELLE SAGER 

Ms. SAGER. Thank you. Chairman Meadows, Chairman Hurd, 

Ranking Members Connolly and Kelly, thank you for the opportunity to discuss GAO’s ongoing work on DATA Act implementation. As we heard in your opening statements, DATA Act holds 

great potential, and I’d like to take just a moment to talk about 

that potential. 

If fully and effectively implemented, the DATA Act holds the possibility of transforming what we know about Federal spending; that 

includes grants, contracts, and loans. This holds great potential for 

you and your work as policymakers considering appropriations and 

authorizations, for Federal agency officials trying to connect the 

dots about various programs, for your constituents, and for all of 

us as taxpayers trying to understand where the Federal dollars go. 

However, transforming this promise into a reality does require a 

very heavy front-end investment as well as leadership from OMB 

and Treasury in collaboration with their colleagues across the Federal Government. 

In my statement today, I’d like to talk about some of the complex 

technical and policy issues that have already been addressed, and 

we acknowledge that these issues are ongoing. At the same time, 

there are a number of challenges that must be addressed in order 

to assure full and effective implementation. 

I’d like to briefly highlight three specific areas: first, the data 

standards and the associated technical guidance; second, what Federal agencies are reporting as some of the challenges in their 

DATA Act implementation plans submitted to OMB; and then 

third, the current status of the design of the Section 5 pilot to reduce recipient reporting burden. 

First with regard to the data standards, OMB and Treasury have 

made considerable progress in establishing data element definitions 

for reporting on Federal spending data. However, more complete 

and timely guidance is needed in order to ensure consistent and 

comparable reporting of high quality data. A lack of finalized guidance to date has slowed agencies’ ability to operationalize the data 

standards and the technical schema. It is our understanding that 

additional guidance is forthcoming very soon, and we look forward 

to analyzing this guidance to follow up on the recommendations 

and findings from our January 2016 report. 

Second, with regard to what Federal agencies are reporting as 

challenges in the implementation plans they began submitting to 

OMB in September of last year, continuing through January of this 

year, these challenges fall into a couple of main categories, and 

they include competing priorities, resources, systems integration, 

and guidance. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 

Agencies do also acknowledge that they have identified some potential mitigating strategies to mitigate these challenges, and these 

include effective communication, information sharing, and the opportunity to leverage existing resources. Agencies also reported 

that additional support from both OMB and Treasury is needed to 

ensure full and effective implementation. 

Third, with regard to the pilot to reduce recipient reporting burden, as you noted in your opening statements, OMB has taken action to implement the pilot in two parts, one focused on grants and 

one focused on procurement. The Department of Health and 

Human Services has been designated as the executing agency for 

the grant portion of the pilot, while OMB leads the procurement 

portion along with the General Services Administration. We did 

find that if implemented according to HHS’s proposed design, the 

grants portion of the pilot will likely meet requirements established 

under the act and does follow leading practices for effective pilot 

design. However, as you also noted and as we state in the report 

that we’re issuing today, the procurement portion of the plan does 

not document how it will contribute to meeting the act’s requirements as well as following leading practices for effective design of 

the pilot program. We are concerned that the design of the procurement portion of the pilot could hinder effective implementation. 

GAO will continue to monitor OMB and Treasury’s progress to 

address DATA Act recommendations, including those calling for a 

data governance structure, for developing a Federal program inventory, and for expanding two-way dialogue with stakeholders as implementation proceeds. 

In conclusion, almost 2 years into the DATA Act’s implementation, we are faced with a mixed picture. Given its governmentwide 

scope and complexity, effective implementation of the act requires 

sustained progress and attention to known policy and technical 

issues. Although progress has been made in several areas, the challenges that we in Federal agencies have identified could lead to inconsistent reporting and must be addressed in order to ensure full 

and effective implementation. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I look forward to any 

questions. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Sager follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
8 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 26065.001
9 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 26065.002
10 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 26065.003
11 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 26065.004
12 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 26065.005
13 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 26065.006
14 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 26065.007
15 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 26065.008
16 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 26065.009
17 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 26065.010
18 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 26065.011
19 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 26065.012
20 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 26065.013
21 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 26065.014
22 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 26065.015
23 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 26065.016
24 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 26065.017
25 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 26065.018
26 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 26065.019
27 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 26065.020
28 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 26065.021
29 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 26065.022
30 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 26065.023
31 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 26065.024
32 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 26065.025
33 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 26065.026
34 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 26065.027
35 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 26065.028
36 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 26065.029
37 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 26065.030
38 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Ms. Sager. 

Mr. Mader, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAVID MADER 

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

Connolly, Chairman Hurd, and Ranking Member Kelly, and members of the subcommittees. I appreciate the opportunity to be back 

here. As you recall, Mr. Lebryk and I were here in July of 2015 

to talk about the progress we had made on sort of almost the first 

anniversary of the DATA Act. What we’d like to do this afternoon 

is talk a little bit about the progress that we’ve made since we 

were last here. 

What I’d like to do is talk a little bit about the accomplishments 

over the last 9 months. First, we established the data definition 

standards for 57 data elements required under the DATA Act. And 

I do acknowledge the comment from GAO that this is an ongoing 

effort. We are really going to be looking on a forward-going basis 

at all the data elements, because we agree with the concern about 

how agencies understand the definition and then actually apply it 

so that the descriptors that are in USAspending accurately represent the spending. 

Second, we’ve provided additional guidance to the agencies on 

the initial guidance that was issued in May of 2015. In December 

of this past year, 2015, I issued an OMB controller alert that actually emphasized and provided some additional direction to that previous guidance. 

Third, as part of the President’s fiscal year 2017 budget proposal, 

we did actually receive implementation plans, which GAO has reviewed and commented on. It’s also to note that in the President’s 

2016 budget, we asked for a total of $92 million to implement the 

DATA Act. If you recall, when the legislation was passed, CBO actually scored it at about $300 million for the full implementation. 

Unfortunately in the 2016 President’s budget, of the $92 million 

that we asked for, only $31 million of it was appropriated, $25 million of that going to the Treasury Department, and rightfully so, 

because of the expansive role that they play in implementing this 

act, so that basically left about $6 million for three other agencies. 

In my written testimony in exhibit B, you’ll see a table of both 

2016 as well as 2017. 

Fourth, OMB has continued to support Treasury in their 

iterative approach in developing the data schema, which I think we 

all recognize is key to successful implementation. I want to note, 

and I know my colleague is going to talk more extensively on this, 

that the approach that Treasury took and that OMB endorsed was 

basically an agile, or iterative, approach, so over the course of the 

last year, agencies actually saw at least four versions of the data 

schema, and this allowed them to begin to actually develop implementation plans. If we had taken sort of the traditional waterfall 

approach, what we would have been waiting for is actually the 

final guidance. So the fact is that we’ve actually, over the past 

year, been sharing with agencies the progress that we’ve made on 

the design. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
39 

Lastly, I want to comment on the continued outreach that we 

have had both with Federal agencies as with stakeholders as well, 

external stakeholders. We have had extensive conversation both 

with stakeholders in and outside of the government, and our commitment is, as we move into this last year of implementation, we’ll 

continue to have that exchange and dialogue. 

I’d like to talk now about the critical nature of the next year. 

First, it’s important, and my colleague from GAO has testified to 

that, that OMB and Treasury move forward on the release of their 

documents; respective for OMB is the final implementation guidelines, and for Treasury, it’s the data schema. I’m pleased to say 

that by the end of April or very early May, both of those documents 

will be issued in final, but, again, I want to emphasize that both 

for the schema as well as for the guidance, agencies have been 

working with us all along. 

Second, tracking the agency progress to implement, Dave Lebryk 

and I last week, kicked off an initiative to do readiness reviews of 

each of the agencies, each of the 24 agencies that are covered by 

the DATA Act. We are personally leading these efforts, and last 

week we completed two, Department of Interior, Department of Energy, and actually tomorrow we’re doing Transportation. We’re 

going to continue to work with the agencies in updating their plans 

and milestones. Once all of the guidance is finalized, in the last 

week or two, agencies will begin working on implementing the revised plans. 

I think we are making progress and I am interested in continuing to work with the Congress in securing the resources that 

we need to fully implement the Act. I look forward to your questions. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Mader follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
40 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 26065.031
41 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 26065.032
42 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 26065.033
43 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 26065.034
44 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 26065.035
45 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 26065.036
46 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 26065.037
47 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 26065.038
48 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 39 here 26065.039
49 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman for his testimony. 

Mr. Lebryk, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID A. LEBRYK 

Mr. LEBRYK. Chairman Meadows and Ranking Member Connolly, 

Chairman Hurd, and Ranking Member Kelly, thank you. 

I would just echo what Dave has said is, both he and I have been 

very personally committed to making sure that the DATA Act is 

implemented in the spirit that Congress intended it to. 

This really is an important piece of legislation. I think it’s not 

an understatement to say it has the ability to really transform the 

way government functions. We have a responsibility to taxpayers 

to be good stewards of their money, and the DATA Act, I really do 

believe, truly will make, you know, better data, better decisions, 

better government, and that will save taxpayers money. 

As we get better insights into what we’re trying to do as a government and the programs that we have, the DATA Act, I think, 

is a really foundational piece to that better future for government. 

Treasury was established over 225 years ago, and we were established to sort of make sure we were accounting for government 

money, and Alexander Hamilton issued the first monthly Treasury 

statements to Congress in 1789, and we’ve been doing that every 

month since. We also issue something called the Daily Treasury 

Statement and the Financial Report of the United States Government, and while those are good and interesting documents, the 

DATA Act actually allows people to see data more specifically as 

it relates to decisions on a day-to-day basis. And so this evolution 

is a very important one, I think one that will really, again, very 

much improve the way government functions. 

I will focus a little bit on Treasury’s responsibilities with respect 

to three elements of the act: one is the schema, and I’ll talk about 

that in a second about what that means; the broker; and then ultimately the newly designed USAspending Web site. 

Critical in the discussion of those three elements picks up on 

some points that Dave made. When we approached the design of 

these efforts, we did it with an agile user-centric approach. Traditionally, in my experience 25 years of government, when government takes on a technology project, quite often what we do is we 

sit down and we think about what the functional requirements are 

and then we go off into a corner and we build that system and then 

we kind of release it in a very linear fashion. This idea here was 

that we want to make sure that we were doing quick releases and 

agile releases so that we knew if we were going to fail fast, that 

we knew that if something wasn’t working, we could get input and 

feedback from users and from a variety of communities to make 

sure we could make those adjustments, and this has proven critical 

with respect to the schema. 

The schema, kind of in plain language, is we’ve—we—Dave mentioned the 57 data elements that we identified. Well, we’re actually 

collecting more than 57, because to get that full picture of Federal 

spending, you need more than 57, and as a result of that, you need 

to ask agencies, where are you going to get that information? And 

the approach that we took was a mapping and extraction process. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
50 

Rather than building a new big system of sort of a big database, 

we sort of identified this and philosophically said we need to find 

out where the good data exists in the Federal Government, tag that 

data, extract it, and then be able to present it. 

The schema is about taking those 57 data elements as well as 

the other elements to round out that life cycle picture of Federal 

spending and then to organize it. And we’ve identified that seven 

files need to be submitted to the broker. The broker accepts those 

files, and then kind of validates them, and ultimately then prepares them, presented to the public under the USAspending Web 

site as it goes forward. 

We issued the first schema in March of last year, version .2, and 

we’ve issued four iterations of it since then. So while in December 

of this—we were hoping at December we would have a finalized 

version. We submitted—we issued version .7 in December. And 

that version really pretty much kind of rounded out the picture. In 

late March we issued version .1, and we closed the comment period 

in the beginning of April. As Dave mentioned, we’re expecting to 

finalize the final version at the end—in the next several weeks. 

Agencies have had the opportunity to see that schema, they know 

exactly what’s in it. 

We’ve also done something called a prototype broker, which is allowing the agencies to come into our sandbox to take that data and 

test it against the broker to make sure that they can validate 

whether the data is good or not. As a result, agencies are further 

along than they would be in a linear sort of waterfall kind of approach by using the agile process. 

So, you know, this gives us better confidence. And the discussions that Dave and I have had with agencies, the agencies are— 

have done the kinds of things that they need to do to get ready. 

And there are certainly challenges going forward, I don’t want to 

underestimate those challenges, but Dave and I are both very 

much committed to ensuring that we’re keeping on top of where the 

agencies are and making sure that we understand what impediments there are and facilitating the implementation the best we 

can. 

Treasury has established something called a Program Management Office, which is designed to actually follow through on a regular basis with the agencies to help them. We did an eight-step 

playbook, telling the agencies you need to do these certain things 

in order to get ready. Agencies have been following that playbook, 

and so I think that that gives me confidence that we’re very much 

on the right path. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Lebryk follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
51 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 40 here 26065.040
52 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 41 here 26065.041
53 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 42 here 26065.042
54 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 43 here 26065.043
55 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 44 here 26065.044
56 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 45 here 26065.045
57 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank you so much for your testimony. 

Mr. Peckham, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL PECKHAM 

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

and Hurd, Ranking Members Connolly and Kelly, and distinguished members of the committee. I’m the director of the Department of Health and Human Services DATA Act Program Management Office within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources, or ASFR. I’m pleased to be here along with my colleagues to discuss HHS’s activities as the executing agent of the 

DATA Act’s Section 5 grants pilot. 

Under the HHS mission to enhance and protect the health and 

well-being of all Americans, various goals of the Department are 

carried out through HHS-funded grants, where services are provided at the local level by State and county agencies or through 

private sector grantees. In support of our mission, HHS awards 

more Federal grant dollars than any other agency. 

The DATA Act PMO is strategically located within ASFR. This 

was a natural place for our PMO to reside, given the focus of the 

DATA Act on financial data and ASFR’s unique role in understanding the entire ward life cycle, from budget formulation to program policy oversight and, finally, audit resolution. We are working 

closely with all HHS operating divisions and staff divisions to carry 

out and implement the reporting goals set forth within the statute. 

In May of 2014, OMB asked HHS to be the executing agency for 

the grants portion of the Section 5 pilot. We are happy to partner 

with OMB taking on this role, given our past experience as a leader in the Federal grants community and our recognition that there 

is a valid need to reduce duplication and burden in recipient reporting. HHS sees this as an opportunity for increased recipient engagement to understand where we can find efficiencies in the reporting process throughout the grant’s life cycle. 

Section 5 of the DATA Act calls for the creation of a pilot to develop recommendation for standardized reporting elements across 

the Federal Government, the elimination of unnecessary duplication in financial reporting, and the reduction of compliance costs 

for recipients of Federal awards. Based on this structure, HHS, 

worked in close coordination with OMB to create the Section 5 

grants pilot framework, containing six test models. A test model is 

a grant tool, form, or process that we will analyze for improvement 

where the outcome will be documented within the final report. 

When developing the test models for the pilot, HHS considered 

three other factors in addition to the legislation: user feedback received during our recipient outreach efforts, leveraging existing 

system development efforts and technology, and minimizing the impact to pilot test participants. The first two tests will be performed 

using the Common Data Elements Repository Library. Through 

this tool, we will test the functionality of standard grants terminology that has been developed as a result of the DATA Act and 

the Uniform Grants Guidance. 

The second test is focused on better management and reduction 

of forms currently used during the grantee reporting process. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
58 

The third test is consolidated Federal financial reporting. Here 

we will test the benefits of having grantees submit all information 

required for Federal for the Federal financial report into one system and potentially to allow the further sharing of that data electronically. 

The next test is based on single audit. Single audit is an organization-wide financial statement and Federal awards audit. We are 

testing a consolidated work flow of forms to minimize grantee entry 

of required information. 

Notice of award proof of concept is our fifth test model. The notice of award is a form letter or other instrument that provides a 

breadth of information the grant recipient needs to perform routine 

accounting and financial reporting. We will test the benefits to 

grantees of a standardized notice of award. 

And, finally, we have learned grants. The learned grants model 

is intended to be a single source of guidance regarding the grants 

life cycle. 

Our tests will provide insight into advantages for grantees of 

having this information available through one consolidated Web 

link. 

In March of 2016, HHS began testing its first model, single 

audit, and is in the process of commencing the remaining test models. We will have final results for all models by the May 2017 deadline for inclusion in our report to OMB. 

On behalf of HHS, I appreciate the opportunity to testify today 

and share with you the work we’ve done on the Section 5 grants 

pilot. We look forward to our continued partnership with the committee, and welcome any questions that you may have. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Peckham follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
59 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 46 here 26065.046
60 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 47 here 26065.047
61 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 48 here 26065.048
62 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 49 here 26065.049
63 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 50 here 26065.050
64 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you so much. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, the chairman of 

the Subcommittee on Information Technology, Mr. Hurd, for a series of questions. 

Mr. HURD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I always like to start these things off with a positive thing. When 

we had this hearing last time, the first question I asked is what 

is the deadline for the agencies to justify identifying those 57 pieces 

of information, and we got it done. So kudos. That’s an important 

step. 

Now, the question is making sure that all the agencies are mapping their data to those 57 standards. And my question was—my 

question was going to be, when is the finalized technical schema 

going to be made available, you all said probably in May, so that 

agencies can solidify their data plans—submission plans, but what 

I heard, Mr. Lebryk, was that some agencies are already doing 

that. Correct? How many? 

Mr. LEBRYK. So when we put the eight-step implementation plan 

together, all the agencies are through the first four. We’ve had 17 

or 18 of the CFO Act agencies come to the sandbox already to test 

their data. 

Mr. HURD. Say that again. How many? 

Mr. LEBRYK. Seventeen or eighteen of the 24—— 

Mr. HURD. Gotcha. 

Mr. LEBRYK. —have actually come to the sandbox already and 

actually taken files and put them into the prototype broker. Those 

who have not, many of them have come back and said they feel 

pretty comfortable about where they are. Now, we want them to 

come in sooner, but that has not been a major concern to us yet 

that those other seven—— 

Mr. HURD. So the folks that have come into the sandbox, tested 

this on your test broker, what—were there problems? Did it work? 

Were you satisfied? 

Mr. LEBRYK. I think when you—the first time you go through 

something like this, and I know you’re very much familiar with 

this, is that when you bring data in for the first time, you realize 

that there are relationships and there are quality of data issues 

that you need to address. So those who come in early are quicker 

at getting at kind of quality issues and also some of the relationship issues that they need to understand across files. 

So that’s a significant challenge for the agencies, because you’re 

asking for seven different file formats, and in those file formats, 

there sometimes can be information that doesn’t line up the right 

way, and so you have to go back and then start really working on 

the data, which is why, again, we’ve been very pleased that people 

have been coming in early rather than later. 

Mr. HURD. So agencies are mapping their information to the 57 

pieces, the standards, you have a broker site that is functional, but 

the final guidance that is to be issued in May, what is the difference between version 7 and what is going to be issued in May? 

Mr. LEBRYK. Some of what you—I mean, when you do kind of the 

agile process, you’re taking comments back from the agencies and 

you’re getting some of the feedback from the broker, for example, 

about what needs better clarity and how the broker can be imVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:38 Jul 13, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26065.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
65 

proved, and how the schema can be improved. So in that process, 

we’ve been taking a lot—some of those comments back. 

And in the version that we released at the end of March, we received a good number of comments back, but we’ve gone through 

that list. There are none of them, in our view, which are show stoppers, they’re more about better explanation and some tweaking of 

kind of the schema to make it work better. 

Mr. HURD. So agencies are supposed to begin reporting data in 

a little over a year, May 2017? Are we going to hit that? 

Mr. LEBRYK. The short answer is yes. A little bit more complicated answer, I believe, is that we will see between now and 

then about how quickly they come along in terms of how—the quality of their data and how quickly in some cases some of the issues 

that GAO has identified of linkages. One of the critical linchpins 

of the act is the award ID, and that is the ability to link data 

across different kinds of government activity. 

Mr. HURD. So this is a pilot in addition to the sandbox that 

you’ve been running with the other 17 or 18 agencies. Is that correct? 

Mr. LEBRYK. Correct. 

Mr. HURD. And how did Treasury use their feedback from that 

pilot program to improve the broker? 

Mr. LEBRYK. Well, I think that, you know, when you have the 

SBA, it very much encouraged us that we are on the right path. 

And so when we look at what SBA was able to do and what their 

CFO came back and said, is they talked about sometimes agencies 

right now are going to USAspending today to get information about 

their own agency, because the information is siloed, they can’t get 

to it by themselves. 

The SBA pilot, I think, proved the concept that when you bring 

this data together and you do presentation, you can get much more 

granular information, much better information across the enterprise. 

Mr. HURD. And was that SBA pilot just for—limited to grants, 

or have we tested—have we done a test for contracts as well? 

Mr. LEBRYK. It was initially limited, and we expanded it further 

into the portfolio. So they do have more than just grants and that 

we—we piloted. 

Mr. HURD. So when is the centralized broker service going to be 

finalized? 

Mr. LEBRYK. So we are expecting to have—I mentioned it was a 

prototype broker. We’re expecting to have a beta broker this summer and we are expecting to have the production broker in the fall, 

early fall. 

Mr. HURD. So we should be able to start seeing more bulk data 

on USAspending in the fall? 

Mr. LEBRYK. I would say that we are more likely to see it in May 

of 2017, because I think what you’re trying to do between now and 

then is make sure that you’re comfortable with the quality of data, 

you’re making sure things are functioning the way that they 

should. 

Mr. HURD. Gotcha. 

I yield back the time I do not have. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
66 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Sager, what’s your understanding of what the objective was 

when Congress passed the DATA Act? What were we trying to 

achieve? 

Ms. SAGER. The DATA Act has several purposes, as you know, 

and it’s to increase transparency over spending, improve data quality, and to provide information on the full Federal spending life 

cycle for grants, contracts, and loans. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. In a way that we didn’t have before. 

Ms. SAGER. Exactly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And you would concur, Mr. Mader, with that? 

Mr. MADER. Absolutely. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Okay. So given that, one of the things GAO 

found was deadlines may nonetheless be missed 2 years after passage. How concerned are you, Mr. Mader, with deadlines being 

missed? 

Mr. MADER. So I think that the readiness reviews that we started last week and then the finalization of the guidance and the 

schema will allow agencies to lock down their implementation plan. 

I would suspect come the end of July, August, I could probably 

say with a certain amount of certainty this number of agencies are 

surely going to make it, and these are—you know, these may be 

not going to hit that exact date, but I couldn’t tell you today that 

all 24 of those major agencies are going to make it. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, I’ll tell you what, I think all four of us 

would love to have that report by August, so even though we’re not 

in session in August, some of us will be around, and I think all four 

of us would welcome your getting that to us so we can just monitor 

how’s it going. 

Mr. MADER. Yeah. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Speaking of implementation plans, what’s your 

guess, because that was a milestone, you know, self-set, right? So 

what is our expectation of how many agencies are going to meet 

that goal of having an implementation plan by a date certain in the 

summer? 

Mr. MADER. So everybody has an implementation plan. Those implementation plans were submitted late in the summer, those were 

the plans that GAO reviewed and commented on in their report, 

but going back to last summer, we didn’t have the final data schema then to actually look at and say, okay, now I understand we 

have the data elements, as Chairman Hurd said, we now have the 

data schema, we have the enhanced guidance, and now what they 

need to do is look at their environment, their specific environment, 

and understand what interfaces they need to make within systems 

and what data they need to clean up. One of the—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I’m sorry. If I’m a citizen watching what you just 

said, I haven’t got a clue what you just said. 

Does—everyone submitted an implementation plan that was a 

draft. 

Mr. MADER. It was a draft last summer, correct. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So when do we finalize those plans so that we 

now get to implementation? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
67 

Mr. MADER. So those plans will—I would guess that those plans 

will be finalized in the late June, early July timeframe, because 

one of the systems that all the agencies need to update is the financial management system, because that’s the authoritative 

source. 

We have three predominant software providers. They’re in the 

process now of designing the patches that they need to make. So 

once we have the design of the patch, the agencies can finish their 

plan, because there are going to be interfaces between some of 

these systems, and then, you know, we can go into full implementation. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Okay. So next step is finalizing implementation 

plans that were drafted last year—— 

Mr. MADER. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. —because of all the things I can’t repeat you 

said, and then we get on to actual implementation? 

Mr. MADER. Yes. Absolutely. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And then we monitor how well we’re implementing after that? 

Mr. MADER. Right. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Okay. And we hope to be able to say we’re doing 

that, by and large, starting around August, September? 

Mr. MADER. Correct. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Okay. Good. 

One of the other concerns GAO had was we may end up, with 

the best of efforts notwithstanding, with nonuniform reporting 

standards. Is that a concern to you, and what are we doing to make 

sure that’s not the outcome? 

Mr. MADER. So the additional guidance that we put out in December and the additional guidance, which everybody has, it’s just 

going through the OMB clearance process. The additional guidance 

that goes out formally in another week or two will reemphasize the 

importance of adhering to not only the 57, but the additional data 

standards. 

Because I think in GAO’s testimony, they point out, and rightfully so, even though we’ve defined a data element in a certain 

way, agencies are not necessarily all the time interpreting it correctly. So it’s going to be, you know, a continuous process of just 

monitoring what agencies are doing. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, does it also involve some guidance from 

your office? 

Mr. MADER. Which is the guidance that I mentioned has already 

been out there in draft, and it will be final—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So if you’re noticing real very—I mean, you 

know, somebody might say po-tah-to and somebody might say potay-to, that’s one kind of reporting variance, but if somebody’s talking about potatoes and someone else is talking about, you know, asparagus, we’ve got a problem, because we’re not speaking the same 

language, we’re looking at different things. So presumably part of 

your role is to catch that early, OMB’s role, so that we’re avoiding 

that as much as we can? 

Mr. MADER. That’s correct. And I want to emphasize what Dave 

said. 18 of those agencies brought real data in, it wasn’t test data, 

it was real data that they brought in to the broker, and they actuVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:38 Jul 13, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26065.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
68 

ally, some of these agencies, walked away and say, wow, we have 

a lot of work to do over the next couple of months to clean up our 

data. 

So not only did it help us validate as a proof of concept, it actually helped them then to start identifying things that they need to 

do with their data systems. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. My time is up. And, Mr. Chairman, I want to 

thank you and my colleagues for doing this. 

I just want to say to the panel, you know, this is not the sexiest 

of topics, apparently. Witness the press table. Lonely man. There 

he is. God bless him. And he—he will find redemption. What? And 

one over there. Sorry. Sorry. Two. 

But this is the kind of initiative that actually can be transformative for government, can save lots of money, can make us 

more efficient, make us more effective, free up resources for the 

mission, and make people feel better about actually their core mission and what they’re doing, so thank you. And we want to work 

as a team to try to make sure it happens and happens well. And 

the four of us will stay on it. So we look forward to your report to 

us, Mr. Mader, in August. 

And, Mr. Chairman, we may want to consider another hearing in 

September. I thank my colleague. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman. 

The chair recognizes himself for a series of questions. 

So, Ms. Sager, as you look at this particular program, what 

would you say is the most critical missing element that is out 

there? I know you’ve got a wide breadth within your report on 

what you’ve acknowledged, but what’s the most critical aspect that 

we’re missing? 

Ms. SAGER. There are actually a couple of things that we’ve highlighted in our report, and I’ll just emphasize them briefly. First is 

the data standards themselves. As we have heard, the data standards do exist, but agencies may still interpret them differently. 

We used a couple examples in our January report, award description and primary place of performance, which can mean very different things, and our prior work on USAspending showed that it 

does, in fact, mean different things to different agencies. So the 

standards and the forthcoming guidance, we can’t emphasize 

enough that it needs to be paired with a technical guidance with 

the technical schema so that agencies know what they have to report, how they have to report, and when they have to report. So 

those are a couple of the critical areas. 

And then for the pilot, as we noted in our report, the grants pilot 

appears to more or less be on track. We do have concerns about the 

procurement pilot, and that begins with kind of all the basics about 

the leading practices for effective design of a pilot, what’s your hypothesis, what are you measuring, how are you measuring it, how 

are you going to know if you’ve achieved success. I think if you put 

all of that together, it’s kind of a couple of critical links that are 

key to effective implementation. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So, Mr. Mader, let me follow up on that, 

because we’re having this hearing today because I left the last 

hearing, hearing from you and Mr. Lebryk on the progress we were 

making, and ended up giving a speech to people who really knew 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
69 

about the implementation of the DATA Act. And so I went away 

feeling real good based on your last testimony only to find out that 

the devil in the detail perhaps is not as glowing as it was portrayed 

to be. 

And I’m going to say this in the kindest way that I can. You and 

I go way back, and I remember you—I know your first hearing was 

on GSA properties, and I told you you were given a pass, I like you, 

you’re an engaging kind of guy, but let me—I need you to respond 

to this. 

There is the comment out there that OMB is going through the 

motions with some of these agencies, allowing them to take data 

and just move it from one reporting system to another without 

really changing the quality of the data. The 57 components are 

treated by OMB as 57 suggestions, not 57 requirements. 

How do you respond to that, because that’s—that was the question I had to respond to, and I didn’t have the answer, so I’m hopeful that you have the answer so I can go back and share it with 

the stakeholders. 

Mr. MADER. So let me start with the 57 data elements. Those are 

sort of in our policy guidance now, so—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Is it a requirement or not? Yes or no? 

Mr. MADER. Oh, it is a definite requirement. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So you believe that the statute requires 

those 57—— 

Mr. MADER. Right. And we spend—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Because there are some people out there that say 

that you think that it’s only 11. So your sworn testimony is the 57 

are required? 

Mr. MADER. Oh, absolutely. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. 

Mr. MADER. Absolutely. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Go ahead. 

Mr. MADER. And then that’s what—I think if you go back to my 

testimony from last July, that’s what we said—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. I just want to clarify. I’m just saying there’s 

something between your testimony and the implementation thereof 

that we’re missing, and I’m not sure what level that’s at, but some 

people are getting conflicting reports. So go ahead. 

Mr. MADER. So—well, the other point I’d like to make, Mr. Chairman, is, as Chairman Hurd mentioned when we were here last 

summer, we said we would be done by the end of August, and we 

were done. So—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Done with which part? 

Mr. MADER. With the 57 data—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. 

Mr. MADER. —elements. 

Mr. MEADOWS. It was—— 

Mr. MADER. —you know, and people are starting to use them in 

their system. I think that should give you confidence that when we 

make a commitment, we’re going to fulfill that commitment. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So how do you respond to the second 

part that we’re not just—so let me ask you this. Are you taking information from legacy systems and bringing it over and saying, 

okay, this is corrupt data, you know, it meets this sort of guideline, 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
70 

and allowing yourself to put it in a different format? How do you 

reconcile the two? 

Mr. MADER. So you think about several different—and Dave 

mentioned seven different files, but what I want to focus on is basically three data sources. One is the financial data system, right? 

These are the systems that actually are audited every year. We 

have a high degree of confidence in the quality of the data that’s 

in the financial system. So the financial system is the system of 

record that’s going to be used heretofore for current U.S.—it’s being 

used now for USAspending. It will be used to enhance, as you said, 

when we start displaying the full government spend. So I have 99.9 

percent confidence in that financial data. 

The other system of record that we’re going to be using is the 

procurement and contract system. And my colleagues both in GSA, 

as well as the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, have been 

working for the last couple of years and have had an extensive program of cleaning up the data in that system. So you’re going to 

bring these two data—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So how do you do that without guidance, you 

know, because here’s the interesting thing is you’ve continued to 

offer guidance, and went and looked at some of the budgets for the 

different agencies on how they’re going to—and it’s all over the 

place, I mean, you know, in terms of some agencies asking for a 

whole lot of money to implement, some—and I can’t find any rhyme 

or reason in terms of where the numbers would come—from a business standpoint. 

Mr. MADER. Right, right. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I mean, you know, big agencies asking for big dollars, big agencies asking for very little dollars, small agencies asking for a huge number. I mean, there is no rhyme or reason. So 

how do they do that without real complete guidance from you and 

Treasury on what is going to be required? 

Mr. MADER. So I’d go back to we have had complete guidance out 

there, it might not have been the final version, but it was close to 

the final version, for months now. So people have been commenting, but—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So there hasn’t been a wink and a nod that just 

says, get this information so we can comply to the DATA Act without really changing anything by anybody on your staff to your 

knowledge? 

Mr. MADER. It’s not coming from me, it’s not coming from OMB. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Are you aware of—— 

Mr. MADER. I am not aware of any, no. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Is that the first time you’ve ever heard that accusation made about OMB? 

Mr. MADER. That surprises me, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. So it’s the first time you’ve heard it? 

Mr. MADER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. 

Mr. MADER. So let me go back, though, why there’s a variance 

in request for funding both in 2016, 2017, because—and let me use 

the financial system as an example and touch on SBA, because we 

used SBA sort of as the early proof of consent. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
71 

SBA over the last couple years actually had built a totally integrated system, so their financial system is totally linked with their 

contract system as well as with their loan system. Now, compare 

and contrast that to a place like DHS that has 20 some odd financial systems. 

So what’s driving a lot of the cost of implementation is the state 

of their legacy systems. We have systems that are totally, you 

know, integrated and upgraded, like Small Business, like National 

Science Foundation, like the Department of Energy, but then we 

have legacy systems stretched across some of the bigger departments. That’s why you see that variance in requests for funding. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Really? Because I’m going to go back and look at 

that. I don’t know that that’s totally accurate, but that’s the new 

realm of thinking. 

I’m out of time, and I want to be sensitive to the ranking member, Ms. Kelly, so I’ll go ahead and recognize her. We will have a 

second round after Mr. Grothman. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Lebryk, I understand that 

Treasury has released multiple versions of the DATA Act schema 

for testing for a final release. 

Can you explain the significance of the schema and when it is 

expected to be completed and released? 

Mr. LEBRYK. So when you look across the Federal Government, 

you have enormous different kinds of systems, and you have information that resides in lots of different places. So one of the things 

that we did in the Program Management Office was to help give 

a blueprint to the agencies about how they can map those 57 data 

standards and sort of show and identify where the authoritative 

source of that information is and then extract that information. 

And that’s what the schema is about. 

It’s about taking those 57, in addition to some other data elements and describing to the agencies how they have to arrange 

that information, how they have to orient it to make these three 

files or seven files, depending on how you want to look at it, that 

they can then report into the broker. So the schema really is about 

which elements you’re going to report, how you’re going to organize 

those elements, and in what format you’re going to submit them to 

Treasury. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you. Mr. Mader, your testimony explains that 

Congress appropriated one-third of the amount requested in the 

President’s fiscal year 2016 budget request for DATA Act implementation. Can you explain the impacts on implementation of 

these short falls? 

Mr. MADER. I think if you go to the GAO report and testimony, 

I think they do a good job of raising, through the review of the implementation plan, the concerns that agencies have in resource constraints that they have been subject to in 2016, and we don’t know 

obviously where in 2017 the President’s budget is going to go. What 

it has basically caused agencies to do is to reprioritize other initiatives. For example, I also work on moving agencies to administrative shared services. There’s a lot of work that needs to be done by 

an agency to prepare to move to another service provider. Those 

are the kinds of initiatives that we have actually had to slow down 

to redirect resources to implementing the DATA Act. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
72 

I think it’s important to note you haven’t heard OMB. You 

haven’t heard the administration say at all since the beginning 

that we’re not going to implement the DATA Act, that we are moving as fast as we can in making tradeoffs in order to move forward. 

Ms. KELLY. Well, I hope we can do our part to make sure we successfully support you or support you so you will be successful. 

The DATA Act requires the Secretary of the Treasury and the 

Director of OMB to consult with public and private stakeholders to 

establish the new data standards required under the Act. Ms. 

Sager, do you agree that stakeholder engagement is important to 

the full and effective implementation of DATA Act and why? 

Ms. SAGER. Absolutely, and we are aware that there has been extensive stakeholder communication to date. Part of what we are 

talking about in some of our GAO recommendations is the importance of that stakeholder communication being two-way communication; in addition, the importance of documenting and widely 

distributing that communication. So, for example, although it may 

be very valuable for those at a particular conference to hear from 

OMB and Treasury officials, certainly there’s a much broader community that would benefit from knowing about some of the challenges that are faced by agencies, what the plans are going forward 

for implementation, and then making sure that that information is 

shared, particularly as we head toward a change in presidential administration. 

Ms. KELLY. Mr. Mader, during the last hearing you identified 

ways OMB and Treasury have engaged in outreach with stakeholders, a critical piece to your efforts to reform Federal spending 

data. What are your future plans to engage with stakeholders outside of government? 

Mr. MADER. Congresswoman, I think we’re committed to continue the kind of outreach that—I mean, I don’t think a week goes 

by that Dave or I are not out speaking at some conference with 

stakeholders, external stakeholders, about the DATA Act. As GAO 

has testified in the past, all the work that we have been doing actually is posted on our external facing Web site. So people have the 

opportunity to see what we’re doing and to also comment on it. 

Ms. KELLY. Some of the stakeholders have called on Treasury 

and OMB to go beyond the statutory provisions to consult and to 

fully collaborate with Federal and non-Federal stakeholders. Is 

there a forum for Federal stakeholders to collaborate with each 

other and share best practices? 

Mr. MADER. So for the Federal stakeholders, there are a couple 

of forums. Dave and I chair an Executive Advisory Committee. We 

also chair an Interagency Advisory Committee where we have representatives from various departments and various communities. 

We have folks from the contracting profession, from the grants 

profession, from the financial profession. We also interact with the 

various councils. I’ll give you an example. This afternoon while 

we’re here, there is a CFO Council meeting, so if we get done early 

enough, Dave and I will probably go back and talk about the hearing. So we use those kind of standing forums to communicate with 

folks. I mean, I would be shocked if a Federal agency said they 

really haven’t heard from the OMB and Treasury. That would 

mean they were probably sleeping. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
73 

Ms. KELLY. You know, the Sunlight Foundation has said in order 

to truly engage DATA Act stakeholders and the public, that Treasury and OMB must conduct their policymaking process in an open 

and transparent manner. So I yield back the time I don’t have. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentlewoman. Before I recognize Mr. 

Grothman, which I intend to do, Mr. Peckham, it’s real easy for us 

to start focus, and you haven’t had any questions, but I want to say 

that’s most of the time a good thing in this committee. And so by 

saying that, I want to recognize the great job that you and your 

team have done with regards to the pilot and really taking this 

thing seriously on the grant side of things. It’s very easy to condemn and point out the things that are not going right. And so I 

want to just say thank you. You may get some questions, but keep 

your head low. 

So Mr. Grothman, I’ll go to you for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Sure. I hope we don’t cover old ground here, but 

I’ll start off with Mr. Mader. First of all, I want to make sure that 

in your mind the DATA Act applies to all Federal agencies, and 

cover everybody? 

Mr. MADER. Yes, sir. It covers all Federal agencies who have appropriations, yes. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. Could you, just to clarify things, eventually provide the committee with a list of agencies that is you feel 

broken out that it covers? 

Mr. MADER. Absolutely. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Have all these agencies submitted implementation plans to you guys already? 

Mr. MADER. I don’t believe some of the smaller commissions have 

submitted plans. We’re in the process, and it’s timely that you ask 

for the list of finalizing who we believe under the statute is covered. And I think it’s important to, not only to sort of capture the 

total, but also to put it in the context. 

The 24 CFO Act agencies, the ones that we have been interacting 

since day one, represent 90 percent of the spend that we’re talking 

about. So we’re going to have in the DATA Act when we go live, 

at least 90 percent of the total government spend. You know, 

whether we get every last commission to that place in May, again, 

let’s see what goes on over the course of the summer. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Maybe it would be a good idea, not just for us 

but for your own benefit, if you provide a list of the agencies that 

you feel the status is of each of the agencies, and then you can kind 

of know and they can judge themselves where they are compared 

to the other agencies whether they’re up to speed at the appropriate time. 

Mr. MADER. We will. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. Thanks. Ms. Sager, can you just in general give us your opinion of the role that the OMB and Treasury 

have in addressing these challenges, or how they’re helping agencies? 

Ms. SAGER. OMB and Treasury are charged with leading the 

DATA Act implementation effort, and so they are responsible for 

providing the guidance, for providing what we refer to as kind of 

the governance structure, for how this is going to happen, for meVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:38 Jul 13, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26065.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
74 

morializing changes as they occur, and for developing the technical 

schema that brings all of the data together. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. Thank you. Just in general, Mr. Mader 

and Mr. Lebryk, how have your agencies made use of the information that’s been forwarded to you so far? What do you do with it? 

I guess Mr. Mader is always on the spot, so we’ll go with Mr. 

Lebryk. 

Mr. LEBRYK. One of the things that Dave and I hold a monthly 

senior accountable officials call with the agencies. So we have identified in each of the agencies a senior accountable official who is 

responsible for making sure the DATA Act information is flowing 

right in the organization and getting implemented correctly. 

In addition, I have mentioned this PMO, the Project Management Office, we hold—or the program management office—we hold 

office hours on a regular basis. We hold webinars where we hold— 

a question had come up earlier about our outreach to States. We 

hold a monthly call with State and local officials to give them feedback on where we are and updates on where we are. If you ever 

meet the people in the PMO, they’re just enormously energetic and 

committed to what we’re doing. And I think it’s because if you are 

kind of in this area of data, this is really kind of a great place to 

be right now because you can see the difference you’re going to be 

making across government. 

So they’re very active and aggressive in going out and talking to 

the agencies on a regular basis to make sure that we’re keeping 

them up to date and giving them the opportunity to ask questions. 

They’re the ones who have been holding the sandbox sessions with 

the agencies, and we’re hopeful, when we get to the broker, the 

beta broker, that agencies will actually be able to do that from 

their agency, rather than having to come to Treasury to do that information, so that there will be more realtime feedback and better 

to work with our data sooner. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. In general, a couple agencies have mentioned, you know, lack of resources. Of course, everybody always 

talks about lack of resources. But do you feel that’s a valid complaint, or do you feel you’re able to leverage additional resources 

and that won’t be a problem? 

Mr. MADER. As I mentioned to Congresswoman Kelly, I think 

we’re committed to implementing this, and we’re trying the best we 

can to reallocate and redirect resources. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. Thank you. One final question. How frequently are you going to ask the agencies to update their implementation plans? I guess another way of saying that is how often 

do you check in with them and make sure they’re on schedule? 

Mr. MADER. So because of the, sort of the place where we are 

with the implementation schedule, as I mentioned, we’re going to 

receive the updated implementation plans, so let’s say in the June, 

July, timeframe, which we will provide to the committee a summary. What we’re also going to do is actually implement a monthly 

dashboard where we’re going to require agencies to report in to us 

against the timelines that they have in their revised implementation plans. 

So we’ll be able to monitor between now and the first of the calendar year, and then through May of 2017 the status of each of 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
75 

these. I mean, it’s not like Dave and I are absentee landlords. 

We’re talking to these folks all the time. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Thanks. Very informative. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman. The chair recognizes the 

gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hurd, for a second round. 

Mr. HURD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mader, correct me if 

I’m wrong, or if you don’t want to throw people under the bus, you 

can just blink twice. What I bet you is probably happening is, the 

fact that Treasury is doing these agile developments, right, so you 

have the versions, different versions of the schema, and you have 

interim guidance. I bet you there are some agencies that are using 

the fact that it’s interim guidance to not implement or not begin 

implementation—and so was that two blinks? Did you just blink 

twice? I’m joking. 

So what I would like to see is if we do another hearing on this, 

let’s start bringing some of these agencies that are responsible for 

doing this, because guess what? You have guidance on what those 

57 data elements are. They can start mapping their information to 

those 57 data elements. The agencies can start linking their financial systems to their award systems. All right. You don’t have to 

have the final guidance. So I would be interested in if you could 

provide to this committee the agencies that have been to the sandbox and used their system, and then also let us know which agencies haven’t been to the sandbox. Because you all shouldn’t have 

all the fun in sitting here and answering these questions. We 

should be bringing some of these agencies and let them know that, 

you know, we’re going to hold them accountable for implementing 

this. 

You all are providing the guidance. You all are providing interim 

guidance to help them move along so they don’t have to do everything at the last minute, and if they’re not taking advantage of it, 

the problem is on them. 

All right. So this is something that I would think we do, Mr. 

Chairman, in September. And also I’d like to know if you haven’t 

already provided this to the committee, the list of all the officials 

that’s responsible for the DATA Act implementation, whether it’s 

the CIO or the CFO, so we know who’s responsible, and so if we’re 

not seeing movement at that agency, we know who we can call and 

have sitting right here. 

Mr. Mader, you look like you want to say something. 

Mr. MADER. Yeah, I want to reassure both subcommittee members, there isn’t an agency that has come to us and said they’re not 

going to be able to implement. They haven’t come to us yet. So I 

don’t think anybody is deliberately slow rolling us in the implementation. I think there are challenges, and I think that agencies, depending on their size and complexity, are starting to realize the list 

that they have between now and next January, to really get ready 

with the second-quarter data, which is the quarter of data that’s 

going to be voted in May of 2017. 

One of the reasons that Dave and I decided to go out and do 

these readiness reviews is it’s easy to just send emails back and 

forth with people. I think it’s more effective when you sit across the 

table of other senior executives and you look them in the eye and 

you sort of go over their plan and ask them, are you going to make 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
76 

it? And what I’ve been saying to agencies for the last several 

months is, if you’re not going to make it, then what you need to 

do is have your cabinet Secretary write to Sean Donovan and tell 

him, and then we’ll have a meeting. 

Mr. HURD. Mr. Mader, I apologize for cutting you off. But, listen, 

you have, Treasury has done the program, Management Office, 

you’re holding these conversations, but at this point, and, Ms. 

Sager, I’d be interested to know who’s mistaking what those data 

standards actually mean, because this is as simple as picking up 

the phone and calling one of you all and saying, hey, does this 

mean X or does it mean Y? 

And so getting to a point, I don’t think any agency should—it 

should be unambiguous at this point now that all 57 data standards have been outlined, and you all are open, and you have people 

that are willing to help these agencies with implementation. 

So, Ms. Sager, if it hasn’t been identified, I would like to see a 

list of those agencies that are still a little confused on what those 

57 data elements are supposed to be. 

Ms. SAGER. And I would just say that based on our prior work 

on USASpending, one of the things we discovered there is although 

agencies may think they fully understand the definition, it’s once 

they implement submitting data and they’re doing it differently, 

they’re trying to make those cross-agency comparisons, that’s 

where it becomes clear that what you thought was a shared understanding of a definition, upon implementation it then becomes clear 

that that shared understanding may have been different given the 

breadth of the Federal Government. 

Mr. HURD. And my last question—I don’t know if this is best for 

you, Mr. Lebryk, or you, Mr. Mader—have agencies made adequate 

progress on linking their financial and award systems in order to 

meet the DATA Act requirement? 

Mr. MADER. Let me start, and I’ll ask Dave if he wants to add. 

I think that, as I mentioned, one of the advantages that we have 

is we only have three predominant software providers for financial 

management. They’re in the process now of working, as I mentioned, on those patches. Putting the award data into the financial 

system, you know, that’s been a guiding principle since day one. So 

agencies are working on that. They didn’t need additional guidance 

to actually move out on that. 

And again, we want to see the revised implementation plans because we have actually given them—basically Treasury developed 

an implementation roadmaps that takes us from where we are to 

May of 2017, and with critical milestones. And what we’re asking 

the agencies to do is take that template and actually put your critical milestones over the top of that. So we’ll be able to see come 

December where there is a disconnect from a timing standpoint. 

Mr. HURD. Mr. Chairman, I’m sorry. My last quick question. This 

is easy for a yes or no to the gentlemen at the end of the table. 

Mr. Lebryk, has Treasury mapped its data to the 57 elements? 

Mr. LEBRYK. Treasury is right on progress. 

Mr. HURD. Excellent. Mr. Peckham, has HHS? 

Mr. PECKHAM. We are very close. 

Mr. HURD. Excellent. Thank you. I yield back. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
77 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman. Chair recognizes Ms. 

Kelly for a second round. 

Ms. KELLY. I know we asked about resources, and sometimes 

people just think about money, but do you feel across the board 

there are enough skilled people or people to get the work done? 

Mr. MADER. I think that when we talk about resources, we’re 

talking not only about dollars, but we’re talking about human resources. And, you know, with this particular initiative, this is very 

technical, I think, as Chairman Hurd will appreciate when he sees 

some of the detail. We don’t have all of the Federal resources. 

That’s why we rely on our partners, contractors to bring in those 

additional resources. When budgets are constrained, it constrains 

how much we can bring in from the outside. So, again, it’s a challenge, but we haven’t let anybody off the hook. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you. 

Mr. Peckham, I really appreciate the work that HHS has put 

into piloting the implementation of the DATA Act. Your leadership 

and the hard work of your staff has set implementation off to the 

right foot, as you said. I would like to discuss your successes in implementing the grant portion of the pilot. How have you been able 

to do so much progress in designing and preparing for testing the 

grant portion of the pilot? 

Mr. PECKHAM. Thank you, first of all. 

We at HHS take this very, very seriously. We understand that 

there are a lot of benefits to be gained, not only for the grantees, 

but for the Federal Government, and we believe that if we can lead 

by example and establish some efficiencies within our processes 

and pass those on to the grant recipients, there is a win-win situation for both areas. And that is generally the approach. I’d also like 

to recognize the staff that I work with. They are very committed. 

We have folks from different areas throughout the Department, 

from different business lines, and we are working in a collaborative 

fashion to make sure that we understand where we need to go and 

finally engaging the public as much as we can. 

Ms. KELLY. The GAO report concluded that the grants portion of 

the pilot will meet the requirements of the DATA Act if implemented according to HHS’ proposed plan. What expectations does 

HHS have for the outcome of the grant portion of the pilot? 

Mr. PECKHAM. We are hopeful that all six models are successful 

and that we can find efficiencies from them that we can recommend and then report to OMB and Congress and see what action can be taken. 

Ms. KELLY. Okay. Thank you. 

Ms. Sager, thank you for being with us today. According to the 

recent GAO report, the design of the procurement portion of the 

pilot will not meet the DATA Act requirements. What are the potential consequences of the procurement portion of the pilot not 

meeting the specified DATA Act requirements? 

Ms. SAGER. I would mention a couple of things here and also 

point out that as OMB has defined it, the Section 5 pilot consists 

of the two portions, so it is the grants portion and the procurement 

portion, both together to meet the requirements in the Act itself. 

Given that, the procurement pilot particularly, I think one of the 

things that is unclear is the extent to which the dollar amount will 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
78 

be specified and met by the procurement portion of the pilot as you 

saw it in the written statement. It is a fairly narrow portion of the 

pilot given its focus on certified payroll. That may provide informative information. At this point, there was not enough information 

available in the plan itself for us to fully understand how the procurement portion of the pilot contributes to meeting the specifications in the Act itself. 

The other thing is the diversity of pilot participants. Again, it 

was not entirely clear how that particular requirement in the Act 

would be met by the plan, or by the pilot, as it is currently specified. We understand this is a work in progress, but we look forward 

to learning more about that so that we can understand how this 

portion of the pilot also contributes to scaleability. Given its narrow 

focus, it’s important to know that the evaluation and the lessons 

learned from this portion of the pilot do have broader applicability 

to the procurement community. 

Ms. KELLY. Mr. Mader, how do you respond to the concerns 

raised? 

Mr. MADER. We accept the criticism that GAO has documented 

around the procurement pilot. We’re in the process of replanning 

that effort to ensure that the necessary methodology documentation 

is in place, and we will work with GAO on that. I think it’s important though to also recognize that long before there was a DATA 

Act, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy actually has been 

working on reducing contractor burden. I know Congressman 

Connolly knows this market very, very well from being in Northern 

Virginia. I don’t think a day goes by that my colleague Anne Rung 

doesn’t hear from the Professional Services Council, around things 

the government can do to reduce the burden that we put on doing 

business with the government. Our commitment is to come back 

with a replan in the next 45 days so that we can assure ourselves 

and you that we’ll meet all of the objectives of the DATA Act. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you. And I yield back. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentlewoman. So in 45 days, you’re 

going to come back to this committee with a revamp of what you 

plan to do on the procurement side of it. Is that what I heard? 

Mr. MADER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. So how did we end up with such a narrow 

scope? You’ve got Mr. Peckham, whose expertise is not this particular area, yours, Mr. Mader, where it is your area, and he is 

working on six. You’re working on one. But it’s not even just one. 

It’s one narrowly tailored to include Davis-Bacon. How in the world 

did you come up with that as a criteria? 

Mr. MADER. So we, as I mentioned, we have been working on 

burden reduction for contractors for several years, and there were 

several—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. How is that working? If I were to ask the general 

population that Mr. Connolly has the privilege and honor of serving, would they say that you’re getting an A or on the other end 

of the spectrum? 

Mr. MADER. I think they would comment, as my colleagues in 

GAO would, like in a blue book cover is some progress but more 

work to be done. I think the community would recognize—— 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
79 

Mr. MEADOWS. I think you’re generous with your analysis, but go 

ahead. We’ll leave it at that. 

Mr. MADER. I think they would recognize that we have made 

progress. They would probably say you could make more progress. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So answer the question. How did we come up 

with such a narrow—my understanding is the whole national dialogue, you got three responses originally from a contractor, three 

contractor responses. None of them referenced this, but yet you 

picked this. 

Mr. MADER. Because of the work that we had done previously 

with the community. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So what you’re saying is you did a pilot based on 

work you had already done, because I don’t think that’s what we 

wanted? 

Mr. MADER. So we felt, we feel that the pilot as it’s currently 

scoped, using wage reporting for Davis-Bacon, and for folks in the 

audience that don’t understand the size of that, so any Federal 

funds over $2,000 that are used in construction or renovation are 

subject to Davis-Bacon. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I understand. But we’re talking about certified 

payroll. Again, we’re talking about a narrow scope within a narrow 

scope. So it may be big in the universe of those that qualify, but 

we have narrowed the scope. And I think you’ve just admitted 

under testimony that it may not be a meaningful pilot. Would you 

agree with that? 

Mr. MADER. No, I would not agree with that. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you disagree with GAO that it’s meaningful in 

all respects to what the DATA Act was seeking to find out, that 

it will provide enough meaningful data that you will be able to implement the DATA Act properly? 

Mr. MADER. We believe we can. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you do disagree with Ms. Sager? 

Mr. MADER. Right, yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But your testimony a few minutes ago was that 

you agreed with her and that you were going to revise this in 45 

days. 

Mr. MADER. What I agreed, Mr. Chairman, was that we did not 

do a good job of documenting our methodology and our approach. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So you’re suggesting that this narrow, 

tailored, pilot is indicative to make informed decisions across, all 

Federal agencies on procurement. That’s your testimony here 

today? 

Mr. MADER. With regard to this particular area of focus. And as 

GAO has testified, there’s two components of this that need to be 

better actually put together. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Ms. Sager, would you like to have seen more inclusive on the procurement side in terms of a pilot? Would it have 

helped you to identify the strengths and weaknesses by having a 

broader scope? 

Ms. SAGER. If the pilot had broader, certainly that would have 

given us a better indication of how this would apply to the procurement community more broadly. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So do you have doubts that with the narrow scope 

of the procurement pilot, that we may not be able to make the best 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
80 

informed decisions in terms of the general procurement side of the 

implementation of the DATA Act? 

Ms. SAGER. Based on what we have seen to date, we are unable 

to take the limited documentation that we have to understand how 

certified payroll narrowly has lessons to be learned for the entire 

contracting community. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So here’s what I would ask you, Mr. 

Mader, since you’re going to revisit this in 45 days or get a plan 

back to this committee, is how we can potentially expand the scope. 

I think you’ve already said on the pilot program you’re going to 

miss the deadlines. Is that correct? I think that was in your earlier 

testimony, maybe not? 

Mr. MADER. No, it wasn’t. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. Are we going to have a full year’s worth 

of data from the pilot program? 

Mr. MADER. That’s why we’re going to go back and take a look 

at our plan, so I don’t know. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. All right. Well, here’s my request of you. 

We want a full year’s worth of data, even if it’s going to take you 

beyond the original target date, because less than a full year’s 

worth of data is meaningless in terms of really making informed 

decisions. Does that make sense? 

Mr. MADER. That makes sense. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you can commit to the committee that you’ll 

give us a full year’s worth of data? 

Mr. MADER. We can, yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you. All right. So let me close with one last 

area. You’ve been talking about the implementation plans for the 

agencies, that they’ve submitted these implementation plans. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. MADER. That’s correct. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. Can we get a copy of those implementation plans from the agencies? Will you supply those to us? Because 

I’m sure those would be very informative in terms of the understanding of agency to agency based on those implementation plans. 

Mr. MADER. When we receive the revised plans, we would be 

more than happy to come—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. You can go ahead send us the ones you have now. 

Your testimony was that you had implementation plans, and so obviously in the DATA Act, we’re going down that you’re making informed decisions on guidance based on those implementation plans, 

on what’s in them, what’s not in them, I would assume. Is that correct? 

Mr. MADER. No. I don’t think we’re making decisions based on 

the—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. You’ve looked at an implementation plan for all 

the agencies, and you’ve made no changes in your guidance? 

Mr. MADER. No, no. I didn’t say that, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. 

Mr. MADER. What I said is implementation plans were done early 

on last year, right, a year ago this past summer. And I think, as 

Dave Lebryk has testified, this iterative process allows us to have 

a—— 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
81 

Mr. MEADOWS. That’s fine. I guess what I’m saying is just send 

us the implementation plans as you have them, as they are revised 

and change from agencies, will you go ahead and send those to us 

as well? 

Mr. MADER. We will. We will. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So with that, I appreciate the specificity, Mr. 

Mader, of you answering some of the difficult questions. Let me 

share about the communication, because it’s one thing to give a 

speech. It’s another to have communication. Sometimes the only 

way that you get two-way communication when you give a speech 

is on the receiving end of either insult or things thrown from the 

audience. Let’s hope that that didn’t happen. 

But in doing that, one of my concerns is that I’m hearing from 

stakeholders that there is still ambiguity, and there is a lack of 

commitment in terms of the quality of the data. And the big concern that is being expressed, and so I’d like you to address it, not 

in a question and answer here, but it sounds like that you’re serious about reaching out, that you and Dave, as you’ve said, are 

reaching out on a regular basis. Here’s my ask of you, is to get with 

those that have, not just the agencies, but subcontractors, others 

that have to implement this, and ask them what are the problems. 

And give them cart blanche to be able to say, because sometimes 

they may not say it to you. They’re saying it to me. Because they’ve 

got to do business with you, and I don’t. 

And so as we look at that, if you would redouble your effort on 

a two-way communication and not allow it to go out, but then say, 

okay, based on this input that we have gotten from stakeholders 

and agencies and across the board, we are modifying it based on 

this input in this way, where they understand that their input is 

actually having a direct impact on you and Treasury. Now, from 

your testimony here today, you’re indicating that that is happening, and I just would ask that you redouble your efforts there 

and as we look at that, go forward. 

If there are no closing statements, I would just like to thank all 

of you for your testimony. Thank you for your diligence in protecting the hardworking American taxpayers’ dollars and transparency. If there is no further business, the committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:02 p.m., the committees were adjourned.] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(83) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
84 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 51 here 26065.051
85 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 52 here 26065.052
86 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 53 here 26065.053
87 

Æ 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 54 here 26065.054