EMPOWERING INSPECTORS GENERAL: 

SUPPORTING THE IG COMMUNITY COULD SAVE BILLIONS 

FOR AMERICAN TAXPAYERS

Joint Majority Staff Report to

Senator Ron Johnson, Chairman

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

&

Senator Charles E. Grassley, Chairman

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

114th Congress

October 17, 2016
Page | 2

Joint Majority Staff Report

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Each day, the community of inspectors general (IGs) works to oversee the Federal 

bureaucracy and make recommendations for improvements across government—improvements 

that could save the American taxpayers billions of dollars. The IGs are watchdogs, continuously

guarding against waste, fraud, and mismanagement in government. They are accountable to 

Congress and the American people. Recognizing that IGs complete work that too often goes 

unnoticed, the Chairmen of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs and the Senate Committee on the Judiciary sought information about the important work 

undertaken by IGs. This report presents the findings of this outreach, including the number of 

open and unimplemented IG recommendations, the aggregated potential cost saving of these 

recommendations, and the challenges that IGs face as they try to do their job.

In February 2015, Chairman Ron Johnson of the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs and Chairman Charles Grassley of the Committee on the Judiciary wrote 

to 72 IGs located in departments and agencies across the Executive Branch, requesting

information about the work of their offices.1 The Chairmen sent these letters to gather aggregate 

data about the work carried out by the IG community and to ensure that IGs have ready access to 

all information they need to complete their oversight.

2

 

The Chairmen requested an accounting of all outstanding IG recommendations that have 

been unimplemented by the Executive Branch, as well as the aggregate potential cost savings of 

these open recommendations.

3

 In particular, the Chairmen requested: (a) the current number of 

open and unimplemented recommendations; (b) the dates on which the open and unimplemented 

recommendations were initially made; (c) whether agency management has agreed or disagreed 

with the recommendations; and (d) the total potential cost savings to the agency of the current 

open and unimplemented recommendations.

4 The Chairmen also requested a detailed 

description of any agency attempts to interfere with IG independence and “any incident where 

the Federal agency or department, as applicable, has resisted or objected to oversight activities of 

the IG office or restricted or significantly delayed access to information.”5

The Chairmen received responses from all 72 Offices of Inspectors General (OIGs). 

From these responses, staff aggregated the data and information to understand the cumulative 

state of unimplemented OIG recommendations, see Appendix I. According to the IG community

reports, there are a total of 15,222 open and unimplemented recommendations across the federal 

																																																												 1 Letters from Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman, S. Comm. on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs & Hon. 

Charles Grassley, Chairman, S. Comm. on the Judiciary (Feb. 27, 2015) [hereinafter “Letter, Feb. 27, 2015”]. 2 Id.

3 Id.

4 Id.

5 Id.
Page | 3

Joint Majority Staff Report

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

government, which total over $87 billion in potential cost savings to American taxpayers. The 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) OIG reported over 2,000 

recommendations that its agency has not addressed, some of which have been unimplemented for 

as many as 15 years. The Department of Defense (DoD) OIG reported that the taxpayers could 

save $33 billion if its agency implemented all open IG recommendations. These numbers show 

that the Executive Branch would likely improve the effectiveness of its operations—and save 

taxpayer money—by implementing recommendations made by the IG community.

Despite a Congressional mandate that the IG community must have access to all agency 

records, eight of the 72 IGs6 described significant challenges in accessing documents held by the 

agency.7 As reported by the IGs, agency obstruction tactics ranged from months-long drawn out 

delays to blatant refusals to provide certain categories of documents.8 In one case, due to the 

agency’s noncooperation, an IG was forced to use subpoenas and threats of subpoenas to obtain 

documents it needed for oversight.

9 The use of compulsion to access documents, which the IGs 

are statutorily entitled to obtain, causes delays in reporting important information and decreases 

transparency for American taxpayers. 

The IG community needs support from Congress—urging departments and agencies to 

adopt OIG recommendations, highlighting instances where OIGs face obstruction, and ensuring 

OIGs have prompt and unfettered access to all information necessary to complete their important 

																																																												 6 (1) The Department of Justice Office of Inspector General (DOJ OIG); (2) The Department of State Office of 

Inspector General (DOS OIG): (3) The Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program 

(SIGTARP); (4) The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA); (5) The Peace Corps Office of 

Inspector General (Peace Corps OIG); (6) The Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector General (EPA 

OIG): (7) The Department of Commerce Office of Inspector General (Commerce OIG); (8) The United States Postal 

Service Office of Inspector General (USPS OIG). 

7 5 U.S.C. App. § 6; After a 2015 opinion by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel called into question 

the breadth of the IG Act’s language, Congress provided further clarity. See e.g., Letter from Members of Congress, 

to Hon. Sally Quillian Yates, Deputy Attorney Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Justice (Aug. 13, 2015) (clarifying that IGs need 

complete and immediate access to all records and highlighting that other agencies have relied on the legal rational 

outlined in the DOJ Office of Legal Council (OLC) opinion); see also Letter from Hon. Richard Shelby, Chairman, 

S. Subcomm. on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies, Comm. on Appropriations and Hon. Barbara 

Mikulski, Vice Chairwoman, S. Subcomm. on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies, Comm. on 

Appropriations, to Hon. Sally Quillian Yates, Deputy Attorney Gen., U.S. Dept. of Justice (July 30, 2015)

(clarifying that the DOJ statutory interpretation restricting the IG’s access to certain records is wrong). 

8 See Letter from Hon. Russell George, Treasury Inspector Gen., for Tax Admin., U.S. Treasury Dep’t, to Hon. Ron 

Johnson, Chairman, S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Gov’t Affairs and Hon. Charles Grassley, Chairman, S. Comm. 

on the Judiciary (Dec. 4, 2015) (on file with the Committees) (finding agency delayed turning over documents for 

months) [hereinafter “TIGTA Response , Dec. 4, 2015”]; see also Letter from Hon. Kathy Buller, Inspector Gen., 

U.S. Peace Corps, to Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman, S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Gov’t Affairs and Hon. Charles 

Grassley, Chairman, S. Comm. on the Judiciary (Dec. 14, 2015) (on file with the Committees) (finding agency 

determined certain categories of documents should be withheld from the IG) [hereinafter “Peace Corp OIG 

Response, Dec. 14, 2015”]. 9 Letter from Hon. Christy Goldsmith Romero, Special Inspector Gen., Troubled Asset Relief Fund, to Hon. Ron 

Johnson, Chairman, S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Gov’t Affairs and Hon. Charles Grassley, Chairman, S. Comm. 

on the Judiciary (Mar. 10, 2016) (on file with the Committees) [hereinafter “SIGTARP Response, Mar. 10, 2016”]
Page | 4

Joint Majority Staff Report

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

role in our system of government. This report details how the Executive Branch may improve its 

efficiency and save taxpayer money by supporting the existing work of the IG community.
Page | 5

Joint Majority Staff Report

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

FINDINGS

• According to the IG community reports, there are 15, 222 open IG recommendations that 

the Executive Branch departments and agencies have failed to implement.

• IGs reported over $87 billion in aggregate potential cost savings associated with open and 

unimplemented recommendations. 

• Many of the open recommendations were made several years ago, and some agencies 

have failed to take action to implement them. For example, the Department of State

(State) OIG and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) OIG identified

unimplemented recommendations dating back to 2006 and 2001, respectively—

representing more than a decade of potential unrecovered cost savings to the American 

taxpayer.10

• The HUD OIG reported the most open and unimplemented recommendations, with a total 

of 2,106.

11 These open recommendations date back more than fifteen years, and total 

nearly $5.4 billion in aggregate potential cost savings.12 

• The OIG for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) reported a significant amount of 

open and unimplemented recommendations—1,078 total—representing over $3.3 billion 

in potential cost savings.

13

• The Department of Defense (DoD) OIG reported the largest potential cost savings 

associated with open and unimplemented recommendations—identifying over $33 billion 

in aggregate potential cost savings from its 829 open recommendations.14

																																																												 10 Letter from Karen Ouzts, Assistant Inspector Gen. for Management, U.S. Dep’t of State, to Hon. Ron Johnson, 

Chairman, S. Comm. on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs & Hon. Charles Grassley, Chairman, S. 

Comm. on the Judiciary, at 14 (July 8, 2016) (reporting one outstanding recommendation to the Committees that 

dates back to February 24, 2006) [hereinafter “DOS OIG Response, July 8, 2016”]. 11 Office of Inspector Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Housing & Urban Dev., to Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman, S. Comm. on 

Homeland Sec. & Gov’t Affairs & Hon. Charles Grassley, Chairman, S. Comm. on the Judiciary (Feb. 18, 2016) 

(attachment to letter contains open recommendations dating back to 1989, 1995, and 1999) [hereinafter “HUD OIG 

Response, Feb. 18, 2016”]. 12 Id. 13 Office of Inspector Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, to Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman, S. Comm. On 

Homeland Sec. & Gov’t Affairs (May 13, 2016) (attachment to letter contains open recommendations dating back to 

July 2006)[hereinafter “VA OIG Response, May 13, 2016”]. 14 Letter from Hon. Jon T. Rymer, Inspector Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Defense, to Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman, S. 

Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Gov’t Affairs & Hon. Charles Grassley, Chairman, S. Comm. on the Judiciary, at 1 

(Dec. 29, 2015) [hereinafter “DOD OIG Response, Dec. 29, 2015”].
Page | 6

Joint Majority Staff Report

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

• The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) OIG reported the second largest

potential cost savings figure, reporting over $23 billion in aggregate potential cost 

savings from its 1,016 open recommendations.15 

• IGs encounter agency resistance in accessing agency information, despite a requirement 

in the Inspector General Act of 1978 (the “IG Act”) that IGs have access to “all agency 

records.”16 In at least two cases, agencies have interpreted the clear language in the IG

Act as insufficient to permit IG access to agency records.17 Both the Department of 

Justice (DOJ) OIG and the Peace Corps OIG reported an agency policy that restricted the 

OIG’s access to certain categories of information, supported by a legal opinion from the 

agency’s office of general counsel.18

• In total, eight of the 72 IGs reported difficulty accessing documents from agencies.

19

• For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) OIG reported restricted access 

to agency records concerning internal investigations of employee misconduct.20

• The State OIG reported repeated and extensive delays receiving documents that were 

requested as part of an audit as well as to records associated with internal agency 

investigations.

21

 

• In the case of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Fund 

(SIGTARP), the SIGTARP had to resort to subpoenas and threats of subpoenas to obtain 

information about the use of Federal Troubled Asset Relief Funds.22

																																																												 15 Letter from Daniel R. Levinson, Inspector Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Serv., to Hon. Ron Johnson, 

Chairman, S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Gov’t Affairs & Hon. Charles Grassley, Chairman, S. Comm. on the 

Judiciary, at 1–2 (Mar. 15, 2016) [hereinafter “HHS OIG Response, Mar. 15, 2016”]. 16 5 U.S.C. App. § 6. 17 Letter from Hon. Michael Horowitz, Inspector Gen., Dep’t of Justice, to Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman, S. Comm. 

on Homeland Sec. and Gov’t Affairs and Hon. Charles Grassley, Chairman, S. Comm. on Judiciary, Oct. 29, 2015 

[hereinafter “DOJ-OIG Response, Oct. 29, 2015”]; Letter from Hon. Kathy A. Buller, Inspector Gen. Peace Corps, 

to Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. and Gov’t Affairs and Hon. Charles Grassley, 

Chairman, S. Comm. on Judiciary, Dec. 14, 2015 [hereinafter “Peace Corps OIG Response, Dec. 14, 2015”]. 18 Id. 19 See supra note 6. 20 Letter from Hon. Arthur Elkins Jr., Inspector Gen., Environmental Protection Agency, to Hon. Ron Johnson, 

Chairman, S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. and Gov’t Affairs and Hon. Charles Grassley, Chairman, S. Comm. on 

Judiciary, (Jan. 6, 2016) [hereinafter “EPA OIG Response, Jan. 6, 2016”]. 21 DOS OIG Response, July 8, 2016, at 23; Letter from Karen Ouzts, Assistant Inspector Gen. for Management, U.S. 

Dep’t of State, to Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman, S. Comm. on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs & Hon. 

Charles Grassley, Chairman, S. Comm. on the Judiciary, at 13 (Jan. 29, 2016) (reporting one outstanding 

recommendation to the Committees that dates back to February 24, 2006) [hereinafter “DOS OIG Response, Jan. 29, 

2016”].

22 SIGTARP Response, Mar. 10, 2016.
Page | 7

Joint Majority Staff Report

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

I. TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 2

FINDINGS...................................................................................................................................... 5

I. TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................... 7

II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 8

A. The role of the IG community.......................................................................................... 8

B. The importance of OIGs in preventing and detecting waste, fraud, abuse, and 

mismanagement within the Federal Government .......................................................... 10

C. Congressional support of the IG community ................................................................. 10

III. OPEN RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................... 13

A. The number of open and unimplemented recommendations......................................... 13

B. The length of time that recommendations have been unimplemented........................... 15

C. The potential cost savings of open and unimplemented recommendations................... 15

IV. SIGNIFICANT OPEN RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................ 18

A. The Department of Housing and Urban Development................................................... 18

B. The Department of State ................................................................................................ 19

C. The Department of Defense ........................................................................................... 20

D. The Department of Health and Human Services............................................................ 22

E. The Peace Corps............................................................................................................. 23

V. AGENCY OBSTRUCTION OF OIG ACCESS TO INFORMATION ........................... 25

A. The Department of Justice.............................................................................................. 26

C. The Department of the Treasury .................................................................................... 29

D. The Internal Revenue Service ........................................................................................ 31

E. The Peace Corps............................................................................................................. 32

F. The Environmental Protection Agency.......................................................................... 33

G. The Department of Commerce....................................................................................... 34

H. The United States Postal Service ................................................................................... 35

VI. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................. 36
Page | 8

Joint Majority Staff Report

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

II. BACKGROUND 

Since the passage of the IG Act, the community of IGs has played a vital role in 

identifying and rooting out fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement in the Executive Branch. 

The IG Act created independent OIGs within most Federal agencies and departments to 

investigate, oversee, and recommend programmatic changes to improve the function of Federal 

programs and operations.23

The IG Act also established the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and 

Efficiency (CIGIE) to address specific integrity, economy, and effectiveness issues within the IG 

community.

24 Currently chaired by Michael Horowitz, the DOJ IG, CIGIE develops and sets 

government-wide policies, standards, and approaches to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness 

of OIGs.25 A significant portion of CIGIE’s role in increasing the effectiveness of OIGs involves 

ensuring that the OIG workforce receives appropriate training on how to best carry out its 

work.26 CIGIE also provides a coordinated means of discussing areas of weakness and 

vulnerability within agency programs and operations,27 as well as communicating difficulties that 

OIGs have encountered when carrying out their work.28 CIGIE has proven to be a valuable

instrument in advocating for OIGs across the Executive Branch and in informing Congress about 

access-to-information issues and other barriers confronting OIGs.29

Under the IG Act, each IG must keep Congress, as well as the head of his or her

respective department or agency, fully informed of problems and deficiencies that exist in the 

administration of programs and operations.30 At a minimum, the IG Act requires the IGs to 

produce semiannual reports to Congress describing the activities of their office. In addition, 

some IGs testify regularly before Congress, publish their reports online, and foster collaborative 

information-sharing relationships with Members of Congress and staff.

A. The role of the IG community

The IG community plays an important role in combatting waste, fraud, abuse, and 

mismanagement of taxpayer dollars. The IG Act, passed by Congress in 1978, established 

																																																												 23 5 U.S.C. App. § 2. 24 5 U.S.C. App. § 11(a)(1). 25 Id. at § 11(a)(2). 26 Id. at § 11(c)(1); see also Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE), The Inspectors 

General (July 14, 2014), available at https://www.ignet.gov/sites/default/files/files/IG_Authorities_Paper_-

_Final_6-11-14.pdf (last visited Jun. 10, 2015) [hereinafter “CIGIE, The Inspectors General”]. 27 5 U.S.C. App. § 11(c); CIGIE, The Inspectors General. 28 CIGIE, The Inspectors General, supra note 12, at 1-2. 29 See, e.g., Letter from 47 Inspectors Gen., to Hon. Darrell Issa, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov’t 

Reform, Hon. Elijah Cummings, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov’t Reform, Hon. Thomas R. 

Carper, Chairman, S. Comm. on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs, & Hon. Tom Coburn, S. Comm. on 

Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs (Aug. 5, 2014) [hereinafter “Letter from 47 Inspectors Gen.”]. 30 5 U.S.C. App. § 2(3).
Page | 9

Joint Majority Staff Report

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

statutory OIGs within agencies across the Federal Government.31 Congress created statutory 

OIGs for the purpose of providing independent transparency, accountability, and policy 

recommendations over programs and operations of the departments and agencies that they 

oversee.32 The IG Act specifies that OIGs serve several purposes: (1) conducting and 

supervising audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of the agency the 

OIG oversees; (2) providing leadership, coordination, and recommendations for activities 

designed to promote the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the administration of 

programs and operations; (3) preventing and detecting fraud and abuse in programs and 

operations of the agency that the OIG oversees; and (4) providing a means for keeping Congress 

and the head of the department or agency fully and currently informed about problems and the 

need for and progress of corrective action.33

OIGs play a vital role in assisting and advancing Constitutional congressional oversight. 

The IG Act requires that each IG provide reports to Congress on a semiannual basis summarizing 

the activities of the OIG.34 The IG Act itemizes the contents of what must be included in each 

semiannual report, including significant deficiencies relating to the administration of programs 

and operations, recommendations made for corrective action, significant open and 

unimplemented recommendations, and cases referred for prosecution and for which a 

prosecution resulted.35 The IG Act also reaffirmed Congress’ ultimate oversight responsibility 

over the IG community, specifying that Congress and congressional committees have access to 

all OIG information and material.36

In addition to keeping Congress fully informed about problems and deficiencies 

uncovered within the Federal bureaucracy via semiannual reports, the IG Act includes an urgent 

reporting mechanism for “particularly serious or flagrant problems, abuses, or deficiencies 

relating to the administration of programs and operations . . . .”

37 The head of each agency is 

required to transmit any such report made by the IG to Congress within seven calendar days

upon receipt from the IG.

38 This reporting requirement, often referred to as the “seven-day 

letter” allows OIGs to immediately notify Congress of any serious problems or deficiencies that 

an OIG encounters. Congress included this requirement in the IG Act to encourage prompt 

reporting by IGs to the head of their respective agency and Congress.

39 Although this reporting 

provision is not used often, Congress is particularly mindful when an IG transmits a seven-day 

letter to an agency, as it often raises serious concerns about the effectiveness and efficiency of an 

agency’s programs or operations.

																																																												 31 5 U.S.C. App. § 2. 32 Id. § 2(1), (2). 33 Id. § 3. 34 Id. § 5(a). 35 Id. 36 See id. § 5(e)(3). 37 5 U.S.C. App. § 5(d). 38 Id. 39 S. Rep. No. 95-1071, at 33 (1978).
Page | 10

Joint Majority Staff Report

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

B. The importance of OIGs in preventing and detecting waste, fraud, abuse, and 

mismanagement within the Federal Government

As part of their role as watchdogs within the Federal Government, OIGs identify and 

make recommendations that could result in saving billions of dollars for the American taxpayers. 

According to the CIGIE, in fiscal year 2014, the work of the OIG community resulted in 

improvements to the economy and efficiency of programs governmentwide, with potential 

savings totaling $46.5 billion.40 This aggregate figure represents an $18 return on investment for

every dollar spent by Congress toward furthering the work of the OIG community.

41 The

Washington Examiner reported that fourteen Executive Branch departments returned nearly $11 

billion to the United States Treasury in 2014 as a direct result of the OIGs work identifying 

waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement.42 In addition, CIGIE reported that audit 

recommendations agreed to by agency management across the 72 OIGs in fiscal year 2014, 

would result in $13.8 billion in potential savings.43 To achieve these savings, agencies have 

agreed to take actions to put funds to better use, such as reducing outlays, deobligating funds, 

and avoiding unnecessary expenditures.44

Given these figures—which represent just a sample of the work completed by OIGs 

during 2014—it is clear that the work of OIGs is essential to an efficient and responsible 

government. Their work not only assists in making substantial strides toward identifying and 

combatting waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement within the Federal Government, but also 

represents billions of dollars in potential savings to American taxpayers. Because OIG 

recommendations are not self-executing, Congress must ensure that it provides substantial and 

meaningful support to OIGs to ensure that agencies are reviewing the recommendations and 

implementing them to the extent practicable.

C. Congressional support of the IG community 

Congress should continue supporting effective and independent IGs to help detect and 

deter waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government. Former Senator Tom Coburn and 

																																																												 40 CIGIE, Progress Report to the President,(Fiscal Year 2014), available at 

https://www.ignet.gov/sites/default/files/files/FY14-Progress-Report-to-the-President.pdf. (last visited Sept. 16, 

2016) [hereinafter “CIGIE, Progress Report”]. 41 Id at 2. 42 Ethan Barton, Here’s How Inspectors General Found $43b Washington Could Save, WASH. EXAMINER, (Dec. 29, 

2014), available at http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/heres-how-inspectors-found-43b-washington-couldsave/article/2557914 (last visited Sept. 19, 2016). These OIGs work across the Executive Branch for the following 

departments: Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Department of Defense (DOD), Department of 

Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Department of Transportation (DOT), Department of Veterans Affairs 

(VA), Department of Commerce (DOC), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Education (DoED), Department of State (DOS), Department 

of Labor (DOL), Department of the Interior (DOI), and Department of Justice (DOJ).

43 CIGIE, Progress Report, supra note 40, at 2. 44 Id.
Page | 11

Joint Majority Staff Report

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

Senator Charles Grassley partnered to support the IG community while serving in numerous 

capacities in the United States Senate. As part of their work, on April 8, 2010, Senator Coburn, 

then-Ranking Member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and Senator Grassley, 

then-Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, wrote to IGs across the Executive 

Branch seeking several categories of information designed to enhance the oversight and support 

of the IG community.45

Senators Coburn and Grassley sent the letters in 2010 to better ensure that Congress has 

the most current and up-to-date information available about investigations that the OIG 

completes across the Executive Branch. The 2010 Coburn-Grassley letters also helped to 

enhance congressional oversight of the IG community. Because of the letters, both Senators 

learned on an ongoing basis about outstanding recommendations that could save taxpayer 

dollars. Senator Coburn continued this priority when he became Ranking Member of the 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Upon Senator Coburn’s retirement, 

Chairman Johnson assumed this responsibility.

Chairman Johnson convened a hearing of the Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs Committee on February 24, 2015 to examine ways to improve IG independence and 

effectiveness.46 The hearing highlighted the challenges facing the IG community, including the 

IGs’ ability to access their agency’s documents and records. At the hearing, DOJ IG Horowitz 

testified that an IG’s access to agency documents and materials is “of utmost importance,” and 

explained that the IG community “face[s] significant issues and challenges that affect our 

independence and ability to conduct effective oversight.”47 State IG Steve Linick elaborated:

The principle that oversight necessarily requires complete, timely, and unfiltered 

access to agency information—and the fact that the IG Act entitles IGs to that 

information—need to be upheld whenever challenged. Unfettered and complete 

access to information is the lynchpin that ensures independence and objectivity 

for the entire OIG community.48

On February 26, 2015, Chairman Grassley introduced the Inspector General 

Empowerment Act of 2015, cosponsored by Chairman Johnson.49 The Inspector General 

Empowerment Act of 2015 aims to strengthen the independence of IGs by authorizing IGs to 

issue testimonial subpoenas to Federal Government contractors, subcontractors and grantees and 

																																																												 45 Letter from Hon. Tom Coburn, Ranking Member. Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Gov’t Affairs & Hon. Charles 

Grassley, Ranking Member, Comm. on the Judiciary, to OIGs (Apr. 8, 2010). 46 Improving the Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Independence of Inspectors General: Hearing Before the S. Comm. 

on Homeland Sec. and Gov’t Affairs, 114th Cong. (2015). 47 Improving the Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Independence of Inspectors General: Hearing Before the S. Comm. 

on Homeland Sec. and Gov’t Affairs, 114th Cong. (2015) (Statement of Michael Horowitz, Inspector Gen., U.S. 

Dep’t of Justice).

48 Id. (Statement of Steve Linick, Inspector Gen., U.S. Dep’t of State). 49 Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2015, S. 579, 114th Cong. (2015), as amended by a substitute amendment 

on the floor.
Page | 12

Joint Majority Staff Report

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

subgrantees, and former Federal employees; allowing OIGs to review computer matching data 

without having to go through the agency to gain access; improving the way misconduct by OIG 

officials is investigated; and promoting transparency between OIGs and Congress.50 Chairman 

Grassley proposed the legislation in response to concerns from IGs about the need for greater 

tools to efficiently and effectively carry out their work.

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, led by Chairman 

Johnson, approved the bill on March 4, 2015, and reported it favorably to the full Senate in May 

2015.

51 In the report accompanying the bill, the Committee reaffirmed that “IGs must be given 

prompt, unfettered access to agency documents for purposes of carrying out their responsibilities 

under the Act.”52 The legislation and the accompanying Committee report reiterate the intent of 

Congress that independent and empowered IGs are needed to oversee the Executive Branch. The 

legislation currently awaits consideration by the full Senate.

In support of the IG community, and to gain a greater understanding of how their work 

can improve government, Chairman Johnson and Chairman Grassley sent letters to 72 OIGs 

across the Executive Branch requesting information about the work of the IG community.53 In 

the letters, the Chairmen requested materials to supplement the OIGs routine semiannual reports 

provided to Congress.54 In part, the letter requested:

• An accounting of all outstanding unimplemented recommendations, as well as 

the aggregate potential cost savings of these open recommendations, 

including:

o The current number of open and unimplemented recommendations;

o The dates on which the open and unimplemented recommendations 

were initially made;

o Whether agency management has agreed or disagreed with the 

recommendations; and

																																																												 50 Id. 51 Press Release, Sen. Ron Johnson, Chairman Moves Nine Bipartisan Bills Out of Committee (May 4, 2015), 

available at http://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2015/3/chairman-moves-nine-bipartisan-bills-outof-committee. 52 S. Rep. 114-36, at 6 (2015). 53 Letter, Feb. 27, 2015. Senators Johnson and Grassley sent the February 27, 2015 letter to IGs representing 

departments and agencies across the federal government, including two Special IGs (Special Inspector General for 

Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program 

(SIGTARP)), five legislative agency IGs (Architect of the Capitol (AOC), U.S. Capitol Police (USCP), Government 

Accountability Office (GAO), Government Publishing Office (GPO), and Library of Congress (LOC)), and IGs 

representing various facets of the Intelligence Community. The IG for the District of Columbia was not included in 

the data set.

54 Id. The February 27, 2015 letter sought information about open and unimplemented recommendations; reports 

provided to the agency for comment but not responded to within 60 days; investigations involving GS-15 level or 

above employees in which misconduct was found, but no prosecution resulted; cases of whistleblower retaliation; 

attempts to interfere with OIG independence; access to information delays; and details about any nonpublic 

investigations, evaluations, audits, or reports.
Page | 13

Joint Majority Staff Report

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

o The total potential cost savings to the agency of the current open and 

unimplemented recommendations.

55

• A detailed description of any incident where the Federal agency or 

department, as applicable, has resisted or objected to oversight activities of the 

IG office or restricted or significantly delayed access to information, including 

the justification of the Federal agency or department for such action.56

The request is meant to provide OIGs with a means to continually keep the Committees 

abreast of developments relating to their oversight work. The ongoing request will provide upto-date information about issues facing the OIGs—both individually and as the IG community as 

a whole, that may inhibit their work or prevent robust oversight of the Executive Branch. The

Committees received a response from all 72 OIGs that received letters. Of the responses 

received, an overwhelming majority cited a high number of open and unimplemented 

recommendations, totaling billions of potential cost savings to taxpayers.57 A number of the 

recommendations cited as open and unimplemented have been pending for prolonged periods of 

time—in some cases for 10 years or more.

58 

III. OPEN RECOMMENDATIONS

A. The number of open and unimplemented recommendations

The OIGs reported a total of 15,222 recommendations that remain open and 

unimplemented by Executive Branch departments and agencies, as of April 1, 2016. According 

																																																												 55 Id. 56 Id. 57 The IGs that oversee various components of the Intelligence Community did not report open and unimplemented 

recommendations or total potential cost savings to the Committees. The Intelligence Community IGs referred the 

Committees to their semiannual reports provided to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which are 

classified. 58 See, e.g., HUD OIG Response, Feb. 18, 2016; see also DOS OIG Response, July 8, 2016.

FINDING: The OIGs reported to the Committees over $87 billion in aggregate

potential cost savings associated with open and unimplemented 

recommendations.

FINDING: The OIGs identified a total of 15,222 recommendations that remain 

open and unimplemented by the Executive Branch departments and 

agencies they oversee. Many of the recommendations were made 

several years ago. 
Page | 14

Joint Majority Staff Report

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

to the OIG responses the Committee received, five agencies had more than 1,000 open and 

unimplemented OIG recommendations:

1. HUD with 2,106 open and unimplemented recommendations; 

2. USAID with 1,142 recommendations;

3. VA with 1,078 recommendations; 

4. State with 1,075 recommendations; and

5. HHS with 1,016 recommendations. 

Across the Federal Government, OIGs reported an average of 231 open and unimplemented 

recommendations per agency.

Figure 1: Agencies with the Most Open and Unimplemented OIG Recommendations

The number of open and unimplemented recommendations suggests that most OIGs are 

fulfilling their mission of identifying inefficiencies and waste in Federal operations, but may 

point to difficulties in urging agencies to implement their recommendations. This failure to 

implement OIG recommendations is concerning. While defining the problem is an important 

first step, it is equally important that agencies take remedial action to fix the problems identified 
Page | 15

Joint Majority Staff Report

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

by the OIGs. Federal agencies must take action promptly to implement OIG recommendations

to help ensure that agency programs and operations are as efficient and effective as possible.59

B. The length of time that recommendations have been unimplemented

Many of the recommendations OIGs made years ago are unimplemented, and some 

agencies have not taken action to address them. For example, OIGs for HUD, HHS and DoD all 

reported hundreds of unimplemented recommendations made in 2013 or earlier.60 Although 

Executive Branch departments and agencies sometimes require additional time to implement 

recommendations, some of the open recommendations have been unimplemented for ten years.61 

Every day of delay in implementing OIG recommendations means more taxpayer dollars lost to 

inefficiency, waste, fraud, and abuse.

Of all the unimplemented recommendations across the IG community, HUD OIG 

reported the ten recommendations that have been pending the longest.62 Twelve of the 

outstanding recommendations total potential savings of $4.3 million and were made prior to 

2001.63 One unimplemented recommendation made in March 2000 urged HUD to seek 

reimbursement from a local housing agency for $2.5 million in fictitious training invoices.64

Similarly, the 2002 HUD OIG audit identified nearly $1.4 million in questioned costs or 

improper payments paid by the local housing authority.65 More than a decade later, four 

recommendations from this audit remain open and unimplemented, with HUD forgoing the 

recovery or justification of millions of taxpayer dollars spent by the housing authority.66

C. The potential cost savings of open and unimplemented recommendations

The delayed action in implementing OIG recommendations has a significant cost value. 

Many of the OIGs’ recommendations have a monetary impact, representing billions in potential 

																																																												 59 See OMB Circular A-50, Audit Follow up (Sept. 29, 1982); see also DoD Directive 7650.03 (Dec. 18, 2014) 

(describing responsibilities for DoD following up on GAO, IG and Internal Audit Reports). 60 HUD OIG reported 797 open recommendations made in 2013 or earlier. HHS OIG reported 435 open 

recommendations made between 2011 and 2013, and the DoD OIG reported 162 open recommendations made 

between 2006 and 2013. 61 DOS OIG reported one open recommendation dating back to 2006. HUD OIG reported 12 open recommendations 

that were made prior to 2001. 62 HUD OIG Response, Feb. 18, 2016 (listing outstanding recommendations by year in attachment). 63 Id. 64 Id.; see also, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GEN., U.S. DEP’T OF HOUSING & URBAN DEV., 00-AT-201-1003 PUERTO RICO 

HOUSING ADMINISTRATION PROCUREMENT MANAGEMENT SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO, 27-30 (Mar. 6, 2000), available 

at http://archives.hud.gov/offices/oig/reports/files/ig041003.pdf. 65 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GEN., U.S. DEP’T OF HOUSING & URBAN DEV., 2002-AT-1002 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE 

CITY OF TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI HOUSING PROGRAM OPERATIONS (July 3, 2002), available at

http://archives.hud.gov/offices/oig/reports/files/ig241002.pdf HUD OIG Response, Feb. 18, 2016 (listing 

outstanding recommendations from 2002 in attachment). 66 HUD OIG Response, Feb. 18, 2016 (listing outstanding recommendations from 2002 in attachment).
Page | 16

Joint Majority Staff Report

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

cost savings. Typically, the total cost savings are broken down by the OIGs as so-called 

“questioned costs”—costs that were the result of an alleged violation of a law, regulation, 

contract, agreement, or document; were not supported by adequate documentation at the time of 

the OIG’s inquiry; or in which the expenditure of funds for the intended purpose was 

unnecessary or unreasonable—or funds that could be put to better use if management took 

actions to implement and complete the recommendation.67 

The OIGs reported over $87 billion in aggregate cost savings associated with 

unimplemented recommendations. According to the information received by the Committees, 

the five agencies with the largest amount of potential total cost savings from open and 

unimplemented recommendations—more than five billion each—are as follows:

1. DOD with $33.1 billion in total potential cost savings;68

2. HHS with $23.1 billion in total potential cost savings;69

3. The United States Postal Service (USPS) with $7 billion in total potential cost 

savings;70

4. The Social Security Administration (SSA) with $5.5 billion in total potential cost 

savings;71 and

5. HUD with $5.5 billion in total potential cost savings.

72

The potential cost savings from these agencies alone represented over 85 percent of the 

total $87.5 billion in savings identified by the IG community. Figure 2 displays the departments 

and agencies that reported the highest amounts of potential total costs savings from open and 

unimplemented recommendations. Several OIGs reported no estimated total cost savings in the 

recommendations made to their department or agency, or reported that the cost savings were 

incalculable. 

																																																												 67 See 5 U.S.C. App. § 5(f). 68 DOD OIG Response, Dec. 29, 2015. 69 HHS OIG Response, Mar. 15, 2016. 70 Letter from Tammy Whitcomb, Deputy Inspector Gen., United States Postal Service, to Hon. Ron Johnson, 

Chairman, S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. and Gov’t Affairs and Hon. Charles Grassley, Chairman, S. Comm. on 

Judiciary (Apr. 20, 2016) [hereinafter “USPS OIG Response, Apr. 20, 2016”]. 71 Letter from Gale Stallworth Stone, Deputy Inspector Gen., Social Security Administration, to Hon. Ron Johnson, 

Chairman, S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. and Gov’t Affairs and Hon. Charles Grassley, Chairman, S. Comm. on 

Judiciary (May 25, 2016) [hereinafter “SSA OIG Response, May 25, 2016”]. 72 HUD OIG Response, Feb. 18, 2016. 
Page | 17

Joint Majority Staff Report

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

Figure 2: Agencies with the Highest Total Potential Cost Savings of open and unimplemented OIG 

Recommendations 

The data reported to the Committees show that Executive Branch agencies have a lot of

work to do to improve their efficiency and effectiveness. Throughout the Executive Branch, 

more than 15,000 OIG recommendations remain unimplemented, with an aggregate potential 

cost savings to taxpayers of more than $87 billion. Six departments and agencies, in particular,

lead the pack in terms of both the number of unimplemented recommendations and the total cost 

savings of those recommendations. The Executive Branch as a whole, and these agencies in 

particular, must strive to implement all open OIG recommendations to ensure that taxpayer 

dollars are being spent responsibly. 
Page | 18

Joint Majority Staff Report

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

IV. SIGNIFICANT OPEN RECOMMENDATIONS

Of the Executive Branch departments and agencies with the highest number of open and 

unimplemented recommendations, OIGs identified many recommendations that appear to be 

straightforward and easy to implement.

73 Yet, despite this fact, these departments and agencies 

have failed to implement recommendations for years. In this section, the Committees highlight 

five departments with particularly notable examples of unimplemented recommendations.

A. The Department of Housing and Urban Development

The HUD OIG reported a total of 2,106 open and unimplemented recommendations, 

spanning back over fifteen years, which in aggregate represent over $5.39 billion in potential 

cost savings.74 In its response to the Committees, the OIG highlighted multiple open and

unimplemented recommendations that were repeated in 2012, 2013, and 2014 reports about 

deficiencies in HUD’s financial management practices. Combined, the outstanding 

																																																												 73 See e.g, DOD OIG Response, Dec. 29, 2015, Enclosure (listing a recommendation that the Air Force use a written 

plan for time and materials contracts); See generally OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GEN., U.S. DEP’T OF DEFENSE INSPECTOR 

GEN., D-2010-078 AIR FORCE USE OF TIME-AND-MATERIALS CONTRACTS IN SOUTHWEST ASIA (Aug. 16, 2010), 

available at http://www.dodig.mil/audit/reports/fy10/10-078.pdf (last visited Jun. 18, 2015). 74HUD OIG Response, Feb. 18, 2016 (figures cited in attachment to letter).

FINDING: The DoD OIG reported the largest amount of potential cost savings 

associated with open and unimplemented recommendations, totaling 

over $33 billion in potential cost savings associated with the 829 open 

recommendations. The HHS OIG reported the second highest total of 

aggregate potential cost savings, reporting 1,016 open and 

unimplemented recommendations, which represent over $23 billion in 

potential cost savings.

FINDING: The HUD OIG reported the largest amount of open and unimplemented 

recommendations, with a total of 2,106. The open recommendations 

span back more than fifteen years, and in aggregate total over $5.39

billion in potential cost savings. The VA OIG reported a significant

amount of open and unimplemented recommendations—1,078 total—

representing over $3.3 billion in potential cost savings.

FINDING: The State OIG has open recommendations that it made many years ago, 

including one recommendation made in 2006—representing a decade 

of unrealized cost savings to the American taxpayers.
Page | 19

Joint Majority Staff Report

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

recommendations related to thousands of expired contracts, spanning three years, represent more 

than $186 million in potential cost savings.

75 

The outstanding recommendations stem from an OIG report issued in November 2012 

concerning HUD’s contracting process.76 Specifically, the OIG recommended that HUD: (1) 

recapture excess funds paid out for contracts that had expired or where extensions were not 

granted; (2) improve its deobligation process; and (3) review funding tied to expenses that are 

no longer valid or required.

77 The OIG subsequently reiterated these recommendations in reports 

issued in 2013 and 2014, making clear that the previous recommendations were not addressed.

78 

Years later, the recommendations from all three reports remain open. The fact that HUD has yet 

to implement recommendations made by the OIG dating back to a November 2012 report—and 

then repeated in 2013 and 2014—raises concerns as to whether the agency is prioritizing efforts 

to recover millions of taxpayer dollars that were wrongly expended. 

B. The Department of State

The State OIG reported 1,075 outstanding recommendations, totaling over $773 million 

in potential cost savings.79 The number of outstanding recommendations reported by the OIG is 

current as of March 31, 2016.

80 Included in the open recommendations are several 

recommendations that were made years ago, with one of them made over a decade ago in 

February 2006.

81

Many of the open recommendations reported by the State OIG represent significant 

potential cost savings to the agency.

82 For example, in an August 2012 audit report concerning 

payments for the operation and maintenance of the United States Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, the 

																																																												 75 Id.; see e.g., OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GEN., U.S. DEP’T OF HOUSING & URBAN DEV., 2013-FO-0003, ADDITIONAL 

DETAILS TO SUPPLEMENT OUR REPORT ON HUD’S FISCAL YEARS 2012 AND 2011 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, 46 (Nov. 

15, 2012), available at https://www.hudoig.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2013-FO-0003_0.pdf. 76 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GEN., U.S. DEP’T OF HOUSING & URBAN DEV., 2013-FO-0003, ADDITIONAL DETAILS TO 

SUPPLEMENT OUR REPORT ON HUD’S FISCAL YEARS 2012 AND 2011 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, 46 (Nov. 15, 2012), 

available at https://www.hudoig.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2013-FO-0003_0.pdf. 77 Id. 78 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GEN., U.S. DEP’T OF HOUSING & URBAN DEV., 2015-FO-0002, INTERIM REPORT ON HUD’S 

INTERNAL CONTROLS OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING, 34-36 (Dec. 8, 2014), available at

https://www.hudoig.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2015-FO-%200002.pdf; OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GEN., U.S.

DEP’T OF HOUSING & URBAN DEV., 2014-FO-0003, ADDITIONAL DETAILS TO SUPPLEMENT OUR REPORT ON HUD’S 

FISCAL YEARS 2013 AND 2012 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, 56-57 (Dec. 16, 2013) available at

https://www.hudoig.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2014-FO-0003.pdf. 79 DOS OIG, July 8, 2016, at 2. 80 Id. 81 Id. at 14. 82 Id. at 5–17.
Page | 20

Joint Majority Staff Report

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

OIG identified millions of unallowable and unsupported costs that the agency approved.83 One 

of the recommendations directed State’s contracting officer to conduct a comprehensive review 

of all invoices before the operations and maintenance contract was closed to determine whether 

the contractor submitted adequate supporting documentation for costs.84 This 

recommendation—representing $1.6 million in total potential cost savings—remains open, 

despite being nearly four years old.

85

Similarly, in a September 2014 management assistance report concerning construction 

grants executed by a particular contractor, the OIG made a series of recommendations that 

remain open.

86 The OIG recommended that the agency’s Bureau of South and Central Asian 

Affairs immediately terminate two grant agreements with the contractor and deobligate over $5 

million in remaining funds.87 The contractor could not account for Federal funds spent and did 

not make accurate reports to State about its financial position.

88 Further, the contractor spent 

more than half a million dollars on unallowable costs, such as making loans to its employees.89

The OIG recommended that the Bureau direct the contractor to reimburse State for the over $1.2 

million in unspent funds and verify that State has received reimbursement for all unspent funds.90 

The OIG also recommended that the Bureau determine the validity of the remaining 

unauthorized costs and direct the contractor to refund the amount found to be unauthorized.

91 

These recommendations, totaling approximately $6.8 million of potentially recoverable taxpayer 

money, remain open.92

C. The Department of Defense

The DoD OIG reported 829 open and unimplemented recommendations, with some 

recommendations dating back to 2006.93 The DoD OIG reported the largest amount of total 

potential cost savings associated with the open and unimplemented recommendations—$33.1 

																																																												 83 Id. at 13; See OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GEN., U.S. DEP’T OF STATE, AUD-MERO-12-43, EVALUATION OF INVOICES 

& PAYMENTS FOR THE EMBASSY BAGHDAD OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE CONTRACT (Aug. 9, 2012), available 

at https://oig.state.gov/system/files/197280.pdf. 84 DOS OIG, July 8, 2016, at 13. 85 Id. 86 See Memorandum from Norman P. Brown, Office of Inspector Gen., U.S. Dep’t of State, to Nisha D. Biswal & 

Corey M. Rindner, U.S. Dep’t of State, Management Assistance Report—Termination of Construction Grants to 

Omran Holding Group (Sept. 18, 2014), available at https://oig.state.gov/system/files/232143.pdf (last visited Mar. 

8, 2016).

87 Id.; see also Letter, DOS OIG, July 8, 2016, at 11. 88 See Memorandum from Norman P. Brown, Office of Inspector Gen., U.S. Dep’t of State, to Nisha D. Biswal & 

Corey M. Rindner, U.S. Dep’t of State, Management Assistance Report—Termination of Construction Grants to 

Omran Holding Group 2-3, 5 (Sept. 18, 2014), available at https://oig.state.gov/system/files/232143.pdf . 89 Id. at 3. 90 DOS OIG Response, July 8, 2016, at 11. 91 Id. 92 Id. 93 DOD OIG Response, Dec. 29, 2015, at 1.
Page | 21

Joint Majority Staff Report

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

billion in aggregate potential cost savings.94 The DoD OIG provided a chart detailing the 

number of recommendation made each year and the number of recommendations that remain 

open.95 The DoD OIG reported three recommendations that remain open from as far back as 

2006.96 DoD has yet to implement 212 recommendations for Fiscal Year 2012 and 455 

recommendations for Fiscal Year 2015 (see Figure 3).97

Figure 3: DOD OIG Open and Unimplemented Recommendations by Fiscal Year

The DoD OIG reported a number of open and unimplemented recommendations that 

appear straightforward and easy to implement, yet some recommendations have remained 

outstanding for years.98 For instance, in 2010, the DoD OIG issued a report concerning the Air 

Force’s time and materials contracts in Southwest Asia.99 The OIG recommended that the Air 

Force establish a written plan to review invoices for time and materials task orders, request 

assistance from the Defense Contract Audit Agency in reviewing invoices, and obtain 

reimbursements for incorrect charges.100 The OIG reported to the Committees that this open and 

unimplemented recommendation represents a potential cost savings of over $24 million.101 

Although the DoD OIG made the recommendation nearly six years ago, the recommendation has 

remained unimplemented and the cost savings for taxpayers remains unrealized.

102

																																																												 94 Id. at 2. 95 Id. at 1. 96 Id. 97 Id. 98 DOD OIG Response, Dec. 29, 2015, Enclosure. 99 See generally OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GEN., U.S. DEP’T OF DEFENSE INSPECTOR GEN., D-2010-078 AIR FORCE USE 

OF TIME-AND-MATERIALS CONTRACTS IN SOUTHWEST ASIA (Aug. 16, 2010), available at 

http://www.dodig.mil/audit/reports/fy10/10-078.pdf (last visited Jun. 18, 2015). 100 Id. at 11. 101 DOD OIG Response, Dec. 29, 2015, Enclosure, at 1. 102 Id.
Page | 22

Joint Majority Staff Report

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

In 2013, the DoD OIG issued a report examining DoD efforts to minimize improper 

payments for third-party transportation of the household goods of military personnel.103 The 

report found that DoD shipping counselors made accounting errors in overriding the accounting 

system and entered invalid data.104 The accounting errors cost approximately $2.6 million to 

correct.105 To address the errors, DoD OIG recommended that DoD initiate a system change 

request to limit the use of system overrides.106 While the DoD concurred with the OIG’s 

recommendation, DoD has not implemented it, leaving the $13 million in potential cost savings 

unrecovered for nearly three years.

107

D. The Department of Health and Human Services

The HHS OIG reported 1,016 open and unimplemented recommendations made during 

the last five calendar years, from January 2011 to December 2015.

108 In addition to the large 

amount of open recommendations, HHS OIG reported a trend of an increasing number of open 

recommendations for each year.109 As reported by the OIG, HHS has yet to implement 103

recommendations made during the 2011 calendar year.

110 The number increased the following 

year to 127 open recommendations, and continues to increase each subsequent year. For 2015, 

HHS has failed to implement a total of 354 OIG recommendations (see Figure 4).111 

Figure 4: Open HHS OIG Recommendations by Year

																																																												 103 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GEN., U.S. DEP’T OF DEFENSE, DODIG-2013-083, EFFORTS TO MINIMIZE IMPROPER 

PAYMENTS FOR THE SHIPMENT OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS WERE GENERALLY EFFECTIVE BUT NEED IMPROVEMENT

(May 15, 2013), available at http://www.dodig.mil/pubs/documents/DODIG-2013-083.pdf. 104 Id. at 1. 105 Id. 106 Id. at 19. 107 Id. ; 

Letter, DOD OIG, Dec. 29, 2015, Enclosure, at 3. 108 HHS OIG Response, Mar. 15, 2016. 109 Id. at 2. 110 Id. 111 Id.
Page | 23

Joint Majority Staff Report

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

The total potential cost savings associated with the open and unimplemented

recommendations reported by the HHS OIG is $23 billion.112 Of the $23 billion, 

recommendations aimed at reducing certain improper hospital payment rates make up $15 billion 

in potential cost savings. The HHS OIG found that HHS could save $3.8 billion by ensuring 

accurate calculations for Medicaid payments for locally provided services. Another $2 billion 

could be saved by preventing inappropriate payments to Medicare home health agencies, and the 

OIG found that HHS could save $33 million simply by preventing Medicare payments to 

ineligible beneficiaries (see Figure 5).

113

Figure 5: HHS OIG Projected Cost Savings of Priority Unimplemented Recommendations

The significant potential cost savings of open and unimplemented recommendations 

reported by the HHS OIG was the second largest amount reported by OIGs in response to the 

Chairmen’s February 2015 letter. The HHS OIG was second only to the DoD, whose OIG 

reported over $33 billion in potential cost savings associated with 829 open recommendations.114

E. The Peace Corps

The Peace Corps OIG reported a total of 82 open and unimplemented 

recommendations.115 Ten of those recommendations are related to the implementation of sexual 

assault policies and guidelines by the agency.116 Although there is no monetary value associated 

with any of the ten outstanding recommendations, there are potentially significant public health 

and safety implications of leaving these recommendations unimplemented. Three of the ten 

																																																												 112 Id. at 3. 113 Id. 114 DOD OIG Response, Dec. 29, 2015, at 1–2. 115Office of Inspector General, Peace Corps, to Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. and 

Gov’t Affairs and Hon. Charles Grassley, Chairman, S. Comm. on Judiciary, May 27, 2016 [hereinafter “Peace 

Corps OIG Response, May 27, 2016”]. 

116 Id.
Page | 24

Joint Majority Staff Report

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

recommendations date back to a 2012 OIG report that reviewed protocols for volunteer victims 

reporting sexual assaults.117 Four of the unimplemented recommendations come from reports to 

Congress mandated by the Kate Puzey Peace Corps Volunteer Protection Act of 2011 (Kate Puzy 

Act).

118 The remaining three recommendations, out of the ten reported open by Inspector General 

Buller, are contained in a November 2014 Management Advisory Report (MAR).119 The 2014 

MAR identified confusion among volunteers with certain aspects of reporting sexual assaults.120

This is particularly troubling because one of the key responsibilities placed on the Peace Corps 

by the Kate Puzey Act was to establish clear procedures for volunteers to be able to report sexual 

assaults.121 According to the unimplemented recommendations, the Peace Corps should do more 

to protect its volunteers from sexual assault.

The recommendations highlighted above are only a few examples of thousands of open 

and unimplemented recommendations reported by OIGs that are many years old. Many of the 

open and unimplemented recommendations appear straightforward to implement and represent 

significant cost savings to the American taxpayer. In addition to saving taxpayer money, some 

unimplemented recommendations could improve public health and safety. As years pass and

recommendations remain open, the likelihood of an Executive Branch department or agency 

implementing years-old recommendations appears to be more and more remote. It becomes 

increasingly important, therefore, for departments and agencies to promptly take action in 

response to OIG recommendations.

																																																												 117 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GEN., UNITED STATES PEACE CORPS, IG-12-08-E, THE PEACE CORPS’ IMPLEMENTATION OF 

GUIDELINES AND PROTOCOLS RELATED TO VOLUNTEER VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT: REVIEW (Sept. 27, 2012) 

available at

http://files.peacecorps.gov/multimedia/pdf/policies/Final_Report_Review_of_the_Peace_Corps_Implementation_of

_Guidelines_Related_to_Volunteer_Victims_of_Rape_and_Sexual_Assault.pdf.

118 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GEN., UNITED STATES PEACE CORPS, IG-14-01-E, SEXUAL ASSAULT RISK-REDUCTION AND 

RESPONSE TRAINING: EVALUATION (November 2013), available at

http://files.peacecorps.gov/multimedia/pdf/policies/PCIG_Final_Program_Evaluation_of_Peace_Corps_SARRR_Tr

aining.pdf; OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GEN., UNITED STATES PEACE CORPS, IG-14-02-E, PEACE CORPS VOLUNTEER 

SEXUAL ASSAULT POLICY: EVALUATION (November 2013), available at

http://files.peacecorps.gov/multimedia/pdf/policies/PCIG_Final_Program_Evaluation_Volunteer_Sexual_Assault_P

olicy.pdf.

119 Memorandum from Kathy Buller, Inspector Gen., Office of Inspector Gen., U. S. Peace Corps, to Carrie HesslerRadelet, Director and Daljit Bains, Chief Compliance Officer, U. S. Peace Corps, (Nov. 21, 2014), available at

http://files.peacecorps.gov/multimedia/pdf/policies/PCIG_Agency_Policies_Related_to_Volunteer_Sexual_Assault_

Allegations.pdf.

120 Id. 121 22 U.S.C. § 2507(a)-(i).
Page | 25

Joint Majority Staff Report

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

V. AGENCY OBSTRUCTION OF OIG ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Under the IG Act, IGs have a statutory right to access “all records, reports, audits, 

reviews, documents, papers, recommendations or other material available to the applicable 

establishment which relates to programs and operations with respect to which that Inspector 

General has responsibilities under this Act.”122 Despite the plain meaning of this language and 

the clarification provided by Congress in Section 218 of the Consolidated and Further 

Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015,123 some agencies continue to challenge the ability of the 

IG to access all records—instead choosing to limit, redact, and delay providing certain 

information to the IG community.

124 Congress has recently reiterated the Section 218 language in 

Section 540 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016, signed into law in December 

2015.125

The Administration does not share the belief that IGs should have access to all Executive 

Branch materials. On July 20, 2015, the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued a 

memorandum for the Deputy Attorney General concluding that non-disclosure requirements in 

																																																												 122 5 U.S.C. App. §6(a)(1). 123 Department of Justice Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 113-235, § 218, 128 Stat. 2130, 2200 (Dec. 16, 2014). 124 See Improving the Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Independence of Inspectors General: Hearing before the S. 

Comm. on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 114th Cong. (2015), available at

http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/improving-the-efficiency-effectiveness-and-independence-of-inspectorsgeneral (describing access issues by agency IGs); ‘All’ Means ‘All’: The Justice Department’s Failure to Comply 

With its Legal Obligation to Ensure Inspector General Access to All Records Needed for Independent Oversight: 

Hearing before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 114th Cong. 4 (2015) (statement of Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector 

General, U.S. Dep’t of Justice), available at https://www.oig.justice.gov/testimony/t150805.pdf. 125 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-113, § 540 of Div. B, Title V, (Dec. 8, 2015).

FINDING: IGs encounter agency resistance in accessing agency information, 

despite a requirement in the Inspector General Act that IGs have access 

to “all agency records.” In at least two cases, agencies have interpreted 

the clear language in the Inspector General Act as insufficient to permit 

IG access to agency records. In the case of SIGTARP, the Special IG 

had to resort to subpoenas and threats of subpoenas to obtain 

information about the use of Federal TARP funds.

FINDING: Eight IGs reported difficulty accessing documents from agencies. Both 

the DOJ OIG and the Peace Corps OIG reported an agency policy that 

restricted the OIG’s access to certain categories of information,

supported by a legal opinion from the agency’s office of general 

counsel. Both the EPA OIG and the State OIG reported denial of 

access to agency records concerning internal investigations of 

employee misconduct.
Page | 26

Joint Majority Staff Report

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

some statutes could restrict an IG’s access to certain information on a case-by-case basis.126 The 

OLC opinion requires the IG to get permission from the Department prior to gaining access to 

certain records—if they can get access at all. Congress never intended this interpretation of the 

IG Act. In August 2015, twelve Members of Congress of both political parties wrote to DOJ and 

informed the Department that OLC’s interpretation of the IG Act was incorrect.

127 Additionally, 

in response to the OLC opinion, Chairman Johnson and Chairman Grassley, along with a 

bipartisan group of Senators, filed an amendment to S. 579, the Inspector General Empowerment 

Act of 2015, to add a provision that IGs should have access to all agency records 

“notwithstanding any other provision of law.”128 This provision aims to nullify the OLC’s

opinion and explain definitively that the IG community must have access to all records.129

On December 15, 2015, Chairman Grassley requested unanimous consent that the full 

Senate pass S. 579. Chairman Johnson supported this request; however, Senator Harry Reid 

objected without explanation and the bill was not passed.

130 It is difficult to understand why 

anyone could object to providing IGs with the tools they need to provide transparency and 

accountability in the Federal Government. Until this bill is signed into law, IGs are likely to 

continue encountering resistance from some agencies—like the DOJ—that interpret the IG Act

incorrectly. In fact, in the responses to the Chairmen’s requests, eight OIGs reported incidents of 

agency obstruction.

A. The Department of Justice

The ongoing obstruction issues experienced by the DOJ OIG have the potential to affect 

IGs across the Executive Branch. Within a week of the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel opinion 

																																																												 126 The Department of Justice Inspector General’s Access to Information Protected by the Federal Wiretap Act, 

Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and Section 626 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 39 Op. 

O.L.C. at 51 (July 20, 2015), available at

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/attachments/2015/07/23/2015-07-20-doj-oig-access.pdf 

(“[W]e believe the rule of relative specificity applies, and suggests that the nondisclosure provisions in Title III, 

Rule 6(e), and section 626 should prevail over the general right of access contained in section 6(a)(1) absent a clear 

indication of congressional intent to the contrary.”) [hereinafter “OLC Opinion”]. 127 Letter from Members of Congress, to Hon. Sally Quillian Yates, Deputy Attorney Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 

Aug. 13, 2015; Letter from Hon. Richard Shelby, Chairman, S. Subcomm. on Commerce, Justice, Sci. and Related 

Agencies, Comm. on Appropriations and Hon. Barbara Mikulski, Vice Chairwoman, S. Subcomm. on Commerce, 

Justice, Science and Related Agencies, Comm. on Appropriations, to Hon. Sally Quillian Yates, Deputy Attorney 

Gen., U.S. Dept. of Justice (July 30, 2015). 128 Press Release, S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. and Gov’t Affairs, Bipartisan Group of Senators File Legislative 

Fix to Ensure Inspectors General Have Access to All Agency Records (Sept. 21, 2015), available at

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/media/majority-media/bipartisan-group-of-senators-file-legislative-fix-to-ensureinspectors-general-have-access-to-all-agency-records. 129 Id. (copy of filed substitute amendment on file with Comm. staff). 130 161 Cong. Rec. S8672 (daily ed. Dec. 15, 2015) (statement of Sen. Charles Grassley); see also Press Release, S. 

Comm. on Homeland Sec. and Gov’t Affairs, Chairman Johnson Speaks on Senate Floor to Support Legislation 

Empowering Government Watchdogs (Dec. 15, 2015), available at https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/media/majoritymedia/chairman-johnson-speaks-on-senate-floor-to-support-legislation-empowering-government-watchdogs.
Page | 27

Joint Majority Staff Report

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

supporting restricted IG access to agency documents, the Deputy Attorney General had 

incorporated this legal interpretation into the DOJ’s policy for responding to OIG requests.131 

During an August 2015 hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, DOJ IG Michael 

Horowitz testified that the legal underpinning of the OLC opinion “represents a serious threat to 

the independence of not only the DOJ-OIG, but to all Inspectors General.”132 In addition to 

restricting IG access to certain categories of information, the OLC opinion also authorizes DOJ 

employees—and not the OIG—as the ultimate adjudicators of what information the OIG may 

access.133 This approach is extremely troubling to IG independence. It is contrary to the intent 

of Congress that an agency could act as the gatekeeper of information that an IG needs to 

conduct its oversight duties.

In reaching the conclusion that the Department can restrict IG access to certain 

information, the 68 page OLC opinion considered three particular statutes that contain 

provisions that restrict disclosure in certain circumstances.134 While the opinion was issued 

based on those three statutes, IG Horowitz worries that “agencies may object to the production

to Inspectors General of other categories of records that are subject to non-disclosure provisions 

in other statutes.”135 In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, IG Horowitz 

noted that Federal law contains hundreds of nondisclosure provisions that are similar to the ones 

analyzed by the OLC opinion, any of which could be cited in the future as a basis for denying 

an IG access to information.136

In addition to the DOJ withholding information on the basis of the OLC opinion, the 

DOJ OIG has also experienced protracted delays in accessing information it needs for reports 

relating to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration.137 In 

one instance, the OIG reported that DEA’s tactics resulted in a seven-month delay in obtaining 

highly relevant documents.138 According to OIG, the delays were the result of “numerous 

instances of uncooperativeness from the DEA,” including frivolous redactions on documents 

and DEA’s refusal to promptly provide routine documents such as organizational charts.139

																																																												 131 DOJ-OIG Response, Oct. 29, 2015. 132 Inspector General Access to All Records Needed for Independent Oversight: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on 

Judiciary, 114th Congress (2015) (Testimony, Michael Horowitz, Inspector General, Dep’t of Justice). 133DOJ-OIG Response, Oct. 29, 2015; see also OLC Opinion, at 45 (disclosing grand jury materials to the IG is 

permissible “if an attorney for the government determines that such disclosure could assist her in the performance of 

her criminal law enforcement duties”).

134 OLC Opinion, at 1. 135 DOJ-OIG Letter, Oct. 29, 2015, at 4. 136 Inspector General Access to All Records Needed for Independent Oversight: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on 

Judiciary, 114th Congress (2015). 137 DOJ-OIG Response, Oct. 29, 2015 at 5; see also Letter from Hon. Michael Horowitz, Inspector Gen., Dep’t of 

Justice, to Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman, S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. and Gov’t Affairs and Hon. Charles 

Grassley, Chairman, S. Comm. on Judiciary, March 25, 2015, Enclosure 4 (listing eight FBI and DEA investigations 

where the OIG experienced delays in access to information including two related to whistleblower regulations at the 

FBI).

138 Id. at 5. 139 Id. at 5-6.
Page | 28

Joint Majority Staff Report

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

After Congress intervened and included a provision in the 2016 appropriations law 

prohibiting DOJ from denying the OIG access to this information,140 DOJ changed course to 

provide the information to the OIG.141 Nonetheless, the tactics employed by the DOJ to restrict 

and delay DOJ OIG access to information are particularly concerning given the precedent the 

OLC opinion has set across the Executive Branch. Indeed, the Department of Commerce relied 

on the OLC memorandum to justify denying its OIG access to certain agency information.142

B. The Department of State

The State OIG has consistently experienced difficulties and delays in accessing State 

Department information. The OIG informed the Chairmen that the agency had limited access to 

information relating to an audit of the Department’s approach to the construction and 

commission of buildings at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan.

143 Additionally, the OIG 

encountered challenges obtaining documents tracking contractor expenses and records related to 

information security reviews.144 These reports follow a previous OIG notice which detailed an 

instance in which senior agency leadership restricted the OIG’s effort to investigate allegations 

of criminal or serious misconduct by agency employees.

145 The State OIG highlighted this 

obstruction regarding a 2015 report that found the appearance of undue influence and favoritism 

in some internal investigations conducted by the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS).

146

According to the 2015 OIG report, Patrick Kennedy, the State Department’s Under 

Secretary for Management, chose to handle an allegation of criminal misconduct by Former 

Belgian Ambassador Howard Gutman as a “management issue,” a process that is outside the 

normal DS investigative protocol.147 Under the procedures outlined in the Foreign Affairs 

Manual, when there are allegations of employee misconduct regarding a Chief of Mission, the 

issue should be immediately referred to either DS or to the OIG.148 In exceptional 

																																																												 140 See Pub. L. 114-113, div. B, 129 Stat. 2242. 141 Memorandum for heads of Department Componnents from Sally Q. Yates, Deputy Att’y Gen. (May 2, 2016). 142 Inspector General Access to All Records Needed for Independent Oversight: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on 

Judiciary, 114th Congress (2015) (statement by David Smith, Acting Inspector Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Commerce). 143 DOS OIG Response, July 8, 2016. 144 DOS OIG Response, Jan. 29, 2016, Enclosure 6; DOS OIG Response, July 8, 2016. 145 See DOS OIG Response, Jan. 29, 2016, Enclosure 6 (describing investigations of employee misconduct or 

criminal allegations as an area where the IG “continues to face challenges”); See also Letter from Steve Linick, 

Inspector Gen., Department of State, to Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman, S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. and Gov’t 

Affairs (Dec. 4, 2015) (describing “limited visibility” into internal investigations of State Department employees). 146 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GEN., DEPT. OF STATE, ESP-15-01, REVIEW OF SELECTED INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS 

CONDUCTED BY THE BUREAU OF DIPLOMATIC SECURITY, (2015), available at https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp15-01.pdf; See also Letter from Steve Linick, Inspector Gen., Department of State, to Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman, 

S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. and Gov’t Affairs (Dec. 4, 2015) (describing “limited visibility” into internal 

investigations of State Department employees).

147 Id. at 2. 148 3 FAM 4322.2 (“Incidents or allegations which could serve as grounds for disciplinary action and/or criminal 

prosecution against a chief of mission (or official in a position of comparable importance) will immediately be 
Page | 29

Joint Majority Staff Report

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

circumstances, the Under Secretary for Management may assign a specific individual to conduct 

the investigation.149 Under Secretary Kennedy cited the fact that the Ambassador was posted 

overseas as the “exceptional circumstance” that justified not referring the allegations to DS or 

the OIG.150 Re-designating the investigation as a management issue permitted State to avoid 

opening and maintaining a case file or any other records documenting the handling of the case.

The OIG report found that this action risked actual or perceived undue influence and 

favoritism.151 In addition to the actions taken by Under Secretary Kennedy regarding 

Ambassador Gutman, the OIG report found other instances of favoritism within the DS internal 

investigations process.152

In response to this OIG report, Chairman Johnson asked IG Linick to investigate 

whether there were other instances in which Under Secretary Kennedy re-classified an internal 

investigation as a “management issue” to avoid a DS investigation.153 The Chairman also asked 

whether State has taken steps to implement the OIG report’s recommendations to revise the 

Foreign Affairs Manual and implement protocols to ensure all internal investigations are 

handled fairly, regardless of seniority or rank.154 State IG Steve Linick reported that the OIG 

had “limited visibility into such matters because the Department does not consistently inform 

OIG about allegations of misconduct.”155 IG Linick reported that the OIG’s recommendations 

“remain open and unresolved.”156 It is troubling that the State OIG—the agency’s chief 

watchdog—has such restricted access to information about how State conducts internal 

investigations and disciplinary matters. 

C. The Department of the Treasury

Congress responded to the 2008 financial crisis by authorizing the TARP.

157 To ensure 

transparency in TARP activities, Congress also created SIGTARP, the Special Inspector 

																																																																																																																																																																																																			

referred to the Office of Inspector General (OIG) or the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS), or comparable offices 

in other foreign affairs agencies. In exceptional circumstances, the Under Secretary for Management for State; 

Assistant Administrator for Management for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID); or 

responsible official in each of the other foreign affairs agencies may designate an individual or individuals to 

conduct the investigation.”).

149 Id. 150 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GEN., DEPT. OF STATE, ESP-15-01, REVIEW OF SELECTED INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS 

CONDUCTED BY THE BUREAU OF DIPLOMATIC SECURITY, 2 (2015), available at https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp15-01.pdf. 151 Id. 152 Id. at 2-3. 153 Letter from Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman, S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. and Gov’t Affairs, to Hon. Steve Linick, 

Inspector Gen., Dep’t of State (June 11, 2015). 154 Id. 155 Letter from Hon. Steve Linick, Inspector Gen., Department of State, to Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman, S. Comm. 

on Homeland Sec. and Gov’t Affairs (Dec. 4, 2015). 156 Id. 157 Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, Pub. L. 110-343 (2008) (codified at 12 U.S.C. §§ 5201 et seq.).
Page | 30

Joint Majority Staff Report

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

General.158 Federal law specifies that SIGTARP has both the authority and the duty to oversee 

and investigate how Treasury is using TARP funds.159 Despite the clear authority and intent for 

SIGTARP to oversee TARP program activities, Special Inspector General Christy Goldsmith 

Romero reported difficulty in securing Treasury’s cooperation in accessing individualized 

TARP data for the Hardest Hit Fund (HHF). Without Treasury’s assistance, SIGTARP was 

forced to resort to subpoenas and threats of subpoenas to obtain access to information necessary 

to audit the HHF.160

The multi-billion dollar HHF program is organized similar to a block grant. Treasury 

distributes Federal funds, but the program is run by the individual 18 states and the District of 

Columbia who receive the funding. To provide oversight of the HHF program, SIGTARP 

requested access to files containing individualized data about the homeowners participating in 

the program.161 This information is not currently collected by Treasury, and Treasury refused to 

collect it in response to a request by SIGTARP.162

Because Treasury refused to facilitate SIGTARP’s access to this information, SIGTARP 

had to seek the information directly from the 19 state agencies administering the program.163

Even then, however, Treasury imposed difficulties on SIGTARP’s access. As reported by 

SIGTARP, after a conference call with a senior Treasury Department official, a majority of the 

state agencies refused SIGTARP’s request for the information—all with nearly identical 

language and on the same grounds as Treasury had previously raised. SIGTARP only began 

receiving data from the state agencies after it issued subpoenas to five agencies and threated 

subpoenas to others.164 Because the information received is already outdated, Special Inspector 

General Romero anticipates future difficulties in obtaining additional information from the state 

agencies.

Chairman Johnson wrote to Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew with concerns about the 

difficulty encountered by SIGTARP in accessing information critical to overseeing billions of 

taxpayer dollars.165 In its response, Treasury explained that it did not collect the information 

from the state agencies that SIGTARP requested and therefore the only thing it is able to do is 

																																																												 158 Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program Act of 2009, Pub. L. 111-15 (2009) (codified at 

12 U.S.C. § 5231)

159 12 U.S.C. § 5231(c)-(d); 5 U.S.C. App. 3, §6; See also Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief 

Program Act of 2009, Pub. L. 111-15 (2009) (codified at 12 U.S.C. § 5231) (clarifying that SIGTARP had authority 

to audit and investigate any TARP program).

160 Letter from Christy Goldsmith Romero, Special Inspector Gen., Office of the Special Inspector Gen. for the 

Troubled Asset Relief Program, to Ron Johnson, Chairman, S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Gov’t Affairs (Mar. 10, 

2016).

161 Id. 162 Id. 163 Id. 164 Id. 165 Letter from Ron Johnson, Chairman, S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Gov’t Affairs, to Hon. Jacob Lew, Sec’y, 

U.S. Dep’t of Treasury (Mar. 21, 2016).
Page | 31

Joint Majority Staff Report

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

encourage states to provide the information directly to SIGTARP.166 Treasury rationalized that 

“SIGTARP was able to alleviate [the state-agency concerns] by issuing subpoenas.”167 In a 

subsequent phone call with Chairman Johnson’s staff, Treasury officials confirmed that while the 

information could be collected by the agency, it has no plans to assist SIGTARP in the future in 

obtaining the individualized data it needs to oversee the HHF.

Treasury’s refusal to assist SIGTARP in obtaining information is a waste of resources. 

Treasury has the ability to collect the information from the state agencies without forcing 

SIGTARP to obtain the information directly from the state agencies using the compulsory 

process. Treasury’s refusal to do so delays critical oversight of the multi-billion dollar HHF 

program and denies taxpayers with up-to-date information about how their tax dollars are spent.

D. The Internal Revenue Service

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) is the specialized IG for 

the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). In response to the Chairmen’s requests, TIGTA identified 

instances in which the IRS delayed access to information necessary to two audits—one on the 

use of civil forfeiture authority and the other on pension fund planning.168 In both cases, the 

agency delayed access to documents for months and then when they were produced, the IRS 

produced the material in a format that was not fully usable.

In the case of the civil forfeiture audit, the IRS impeded TIGTA’s work by not providing 

requested documents, delaying production, or heavily redacting the material that was 

produced.

169 The IRS made the redactions on the basis of assertions that the information was 

subject to nondisclosure laws.170 TIGTA has been attempting to resolve these issues with the 

IRS and the DOJ to determine what information TIGTA can access. But due to DOJ’s OLC 

opinion, it is possible that these attempts will not result in increased access to information for 

TIGTA.

TIGTA initiated its audit relating to pension fund planning in July 2015, but as of 

December 4, 2015, it had not yet received all the documents it had requested.171 In fact, TIGTA 

had only received completed information for 38 percent of the cases needed for its audit by 

December 2015—nearly five months after the initial request.172 This delay in TIGTA obtaining

information in both cases prevents robust oversight of a federal agency in need of it.

																																																												 166 Letter from Anne Wall, Assistant Sec’y for Legislative Affairs, U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, to Ron Johnson, 

Chairman, S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Gov’t Affairs (April 1, 2016). 167 Id. 168 TIGTA Response, Dec. 4, 2015. 169 Id. at 2. 170 See id. at 2 (citing “grand jury secrecy”); see also, FED. R. CRIM. P. 6(e) (outlining the rules for disclosing grand 

jury matters).

171 Id. at 3. 172 Id.
Page | 32

Joint Majority Staff Report

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

E. The Peace Corps

The Kate Puzey Act requires that the Peace Corps OIG conduct a case review of how the 

agency has responded to allegations of sexual assault.

173 However, Peace Corp policy restricts 

the IG from having complete access to sexual assault cases.174 The Peace Corp first established 

this policy in 2013 when its general counsel issued a legal opinion concluding that the 

nondisclosure requirements in the Kate Puzey Act preempts the IG Act, which grants IGs broad 

access to all agency records.175 The result of this opinion was that the Peace Corps denied the 

OIG’s access to details of incidents of sexual assault and to a victim’s personally identifying 

information. 

The Peace Corps’ use of provisions within the Kate Puzey Act to restrict OIG access to 

certain information runs directly counter to congressional intent. The Kate Puzey Act originated 

after it was revealed that the Peace Corps was not appropriately addressing reports of sexual 

assault.

176 The Kate Puzey Act was intended to add protections for victims of sexual assault and 

to bring transparency to the agency. The law specifically tasked the Peace Corps OIG with 

evaluating the “effectiveness and implementation of the sexual assault risk-reduction and 

response training,” newly required by the Kate Puzey Act, “and the sexual assault policy . . .

including a case review of a statistically significant number of cases.”177 Fulfilling this statutory 

mandate requires the OIG’s access to Peace Corps records. 

In May 2014, the Peace Corps OIG and the agency reached an agreement under which 

the agency narrowed the restricted information and granted the OIG access to some details of the 

sexual assault incidents. Subsequently, in October 2014, the agency nullified some of its 

previous provisions and policies restricting OIG access to information. However, IG Buller 

remains “concerned that the reliability of [the OIG’s] 2016 report will be compromised by not 

having complete access to sexual assault cases.”178 The Peace Corps’ attempts to limit the OIG’s 

access to records necessary to evaluate sexual assault policies at the agency are particularly 

troubling given that the agency has failed to implement ten IG recommendations related to 

sexual assault policies, some of which date back to 2012.

179 The Peace Corps OIG also continues 

to express concern that the 2013 legal opinion from the Peace Corps general counsel’s office 

remains in place.180 The existence of the Peace Corps legal opinion—even with the agency’s 

																																																												 173 Kate Puzey Peace Corps Volunteer Protection Act of 2011, Pub. L. 112-57 (2011) (codified at 22 U.S.C. § 2507). 174 Peace Corp OIG Response, Dec. 14, 2015. 175 Id. 176 Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Peace Corps Volunteers Speak Out on Rape, NY TIMES (May 10, 2011), available at 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/us/11corps.html?_r=0. 177 22 U.S.C. § 2507e(d)(B). 178 Peace Corps OIG Response, Dec. 14, 2015. 179 See id. (listing open recommendations in Attachment A). 180 Id.
Page | 33

Joint Majority Staff Report

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

informal nullification of some provisions—creates a risk that the agency could elect to refer to it 

in future circumstances.

F. The Environmental Protection Agency

The EPA Office of Homeland Security (OHS) has delayed the EPA OIG’s access to 

information necessary to investigate threats against EPA employees and facilities, misconduct,

and computer intrusions.181 This obstruction has been occurring for years.182 During this time, 

IG Arthur Elkins has testified about the EPA’s restriction of his access to information many 

times before congressional committees.183 This restriction was highlighted in the August 2014 

letter signed by 47 IGs to leaders of the congressional oversight committees.

184 The EPA OIG 

also has detailed the restricted access to information in several of its semiannual reports to 

Congress, including both 2015 reports.185 According to IG Elkins’ most recent response to the 

Chairmen, the EPA obstruction issue has not yet been resolved.186

In July 2015, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy reassured IG Elkins that the OIG would 

have access to the documents it requested from OHS.187 A few weeks later, OHS produced a 

subset of the documents that were responsive to OIG’s longstanding request.188 Despite this 

production, OHS continues to resist and delay access to all responsive documents, arguing that a 

non-disclosure agreement with the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) precludes the OIG 

																																																												 181 EPA OIG Response, Jan. 6, 2016. 182See Obstructing Oversight: Concerns From Inspectors General: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Oversight and 

Gov’t Reform, 114th Cong. (2014) (Testimony by Inspector Gen. Arthur A. Elkins Jr.) (“This impairment was 

ongoing when I arrived four years ago, and is still not resolved to this day.”).

183 Obstructing Oversight: Concerns From Inspectors General: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Oversight and 

Gov’t Reform, 114th Cong. (2014) (Testimony by Inspector Gen. Arthur A. Elkins Jr.); Oversight of the 

Management of the Federal Environmental Protection, Chemical Safety, and Fish and Wildlife Agencies: Hearing 

Before the S. Subcomm. on Superfund, Waste Management, and Regulatory Oversight, Comm. on Environment and 

Public Works, 114th Cong. (2015) (Testimony by Inspector Gen. Arthur A. Elkins Jr.); EPA Mismanagement; 

Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov’t Reform, 114th Cong. (2015) (Testimony by Inspector Gen. 

Arthur A. Elkins Jr.); Inspectors General: Independence, Access and Authority: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on 

Oversight and Gov’t Reform, 114th Cong. (2015) (Testimony by Inspector Gen. Arthur A. Elkins Jr.). 184 Letter from 47 Inspectors Gen. 185 See e.g., OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, EPA-350-R-15-001,

SEMIANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS, OCTOBER 1 2014-MARCH 31, 2015, (May 2015), available at

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/semiannual_report_to_congress-march_2015_0.pdf; 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, EPA-350-R-15-002, SEMIANNUAL 

REPORT TO CONGRESS, APRIL 1 2015-SEPT.30, 2015, (Nov 2015), available at https://www.epa.gov/office-inspectorgeneral/semiannual-report-apr-1-2015-sept-30-2015. 186 EPA OIG Response, Jan. 6, 2016, at 3-4. 187 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, EPA-350-R-15-002, SEMIANNUAL 

REPORT TO CONGRESS, APRIL 1 2015-SEPT.30, 2015, 11 (Nov 2015), available at https://www.epa.gov/officeinspector-general/semiannual-report-apr-1-2015-sept-30-2015. 188 Id.
Page | 34

Joint Majority Staff Report

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

from receiving the material.

189 Similar to the DOJ’s reasoning for denying access of information 

to its OIG, the EPA’s reliance on a non-disclosure provision contravenes congressional intent in 

the IG Act and inhibits prompt and effective oversight of the EPA.

G. The Department of Commerce

The Department of Commerce (Commerce) OIG has also experienced difficulties in

attempting to access agency records. In August 2015, Acting IG David Smith testified before the 

Senate Committee on the Judiciary about problems the office was having in accessing certain 

agency records.190 Acting IG Smith explained that Commerce relied on the DOJ’s OLC opinion 

to deny OIG access to information from the International Trade Administration.191 Because the 

OIG could not obtain the information it needed, the OIG had to terminate its work on the 

audit.

192 Ultimately, after Congress passed a law prohibiting Commerce from denying access to 

this information,

193 Commerce OIG was able to resume its work.

Further, in the OIG’s response to the Chairmen, Acting IG David Smith cited a total of 

six other incidents in which Commerce attempted to interfere with the OIG’s work by restricting 

access to information.

194 Three out of the six incidents are ongoing. Of the three incidents that 

have been closed, Commerce completely withheld the requested documents, delayed their 

production, and in case of a FISMA compliance review, Acting IG Smith was informed that 

“requested documents do not exist.”195 The lack of documents necessary to review Commerce IT 

systems for FISMA compliance is problematic because, according to federal law and agency 

policy, those documents are required prior to the systems being put into operation.

196 These 

incidents are contrary to the IG Act and impede the work of the Commerce Department OIG. 

																																																												 189 EPA OIG Response, Jan. 6, 2016, at 3-4. 190 ‘All’ Means ‘All’: The Justice Department’s failure to Comply With It’s Legal Obligation to Ensure Inspector 

General Access to All Records Needed For Independent Oversight, Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 

(Aug. 5, 2015), available at http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/all-means-all-the-justice-departments-failureto-comply-with-its-legal-obligation-to-ensure-inspector-general-access-to-all-records-needed-for-independentoversight. 191 Id. (Testimony by David Smith, Acting Inspector Gen., Dept. of Commerce). 192 Id. (Testimony by David Smith, Acting Inspector Gen., Dept. of Commerce). 193 See Pub. L. 114-113, div. B, 129 Stat. 2242. 194 See Letter from Hon. David Smith, Acting Inspector Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, to Hon. Ron Johnson, 

Chairman, S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Gov’t Affairs and Hon. Charles Grassley, Chairman, S. Comm. on the 

Judiciary 21-22 (Nov. 20, 2015) (on file with the Committees) (listing the incidents as the following: “1. Blocked 

access to video footage from the Office of the Secretary; 2. Blocked access to Commerce badging data for Census 

Bureau headquarters; 3. Delay and monitoring of access by NOAA Acquisition and Grants Office; 4. International 

Trade Administration (ITA) interpretations regarding OIG access to business proprietary information; 5. Difficulties 

with access to information related to audit of the Office of the Secretary Federal Information Security Modernization 

Act (FISMA) compliance; 6. Multiple issues with USPTO regarding audits of Trademark’s Activity-Based 

Information System (ABIS) and Intellectual Property (IP) Rights Attaché Program”) [hereinafter “Commerce 

Response, Nov. 20, 2015”]. 195 Commerce OIG Response, Nov. 20, 2015, at 21-22. 196 Id. at 22.
Page | 35

Joint Majority Staff Report

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

The denial of information to an OIG—even for a short period—can hamper the OIG’s ability to 

conduct prompt and relevant oversight.

H. The United States Postal Service

The United States Postal Service (USPS) OIG encountered hurdles imposed by the USPS 

in attempting to complete work requested by Congress. The USPS OIG requested reports on 

financial services research that was managed by Postal employees and ultimately resulted in a 

loss of at least $2.4 million.

197 The USPS OIG had to resort to an official demand letter in order 

to elicit any records from the USPS.

198 After the OIG received the material and issued its report, 

it learned that USPS had withheld some key documents that were highly relevant to the work and 

were available at the time of the OIG’s investigation.199

USPS OIG conducted an investigation to determine why the documents were withheld.200

The investigation found that the documents were withheld due to “a willful indifference and 

negligent performance” of the postal employee’s duties.201 After reviewing the findings of the 

USPS OIG investigation, the Postmaster General justified the obstruction on the basis that it was

a result of “a failure of communication and of process” and was not willful or negligent.202

Whether the material was withheld intentionally or in error, it does not change the fact that the

omission of these documents led to redundant costs and a less-focused and less-useful OIG 

product. However, unlike some other agencies, the USPS recognized that the incident impeded

the agency’s obligation to cooperate with the OIG, and the agency required employees to 

undergo training to ensure that they understand their obligation to work with the OIG. 

																																																												 197 Letter from Tammy Whitcomb, Deputy Inspector Gen., United States Postal Service, to Hon. Ron Johnson, 

Chairman, S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. and Gov’t Affairs and Hon. Charles Grassley, Chairman, S. Comm. on 

Judiciary (Sept. 11, 2015) [hereinafter “USPS OIG Response, Sept. 11, 2015”]. 198 USPS OIG Response, Sept. 11, 2015. 199 USPS OIG Response, Sept. 11, 2015. 200 Office of Inspector Gen., U. S. Postal Serv., Report of Investigation, (Oct. 29, 2015). 201 Id. at 3. 202 Letter from Hon. Megan Brennan, Postmaster Gen., U. S. Postal Serv., to Curtis Lembke, Area Special Agent In 

Charge, Office of Inspector Gen., U. S. Postal Serv. (Dec. 23, 2015).
Page | 36

Joint Majority Staff Report

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

VI. CONCLUSION

The community of IGs works tirelessly to carry out its important work aimed at 

combatting waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement within Executive Branch departments and 

agencies. Across Government, IGs dive deep into Federal programs and operations, making 

recommendations that could generate significant cost savings for American taxpayers and

improve the efficiency of Federal agencies. From information received from the IG community, 

the Committees have identified 15,222 open and unimplemented recommendations totaling over 

$87 billion in potential cost savings. Many of the recommendations reviewed by the Committees 

have remained open and unimplemented for years, despite appearing straightforward and 

uncomplicated to implement. Too often, Executive Branch departments and agencies 

continuously delay or otherwise ignore recommendations made by the OIGs. These figures 

make clear that the Federal departments and agencies must fully implement the 

recommendations made by their watchdogs, not only to improve their operations but also to save 

billions of potentially wasted dollars.

The work of OIGs should receive wholehearted support from the Executive Branch 

toward improving the operations and effectiveness of federal departments and agencies. Often 

times, however, some agencies see the OIG as a problem or a nuisance—rather than a partner in 

building a better government. In those cases, agency attempts to obstruct OIG work, deny or 

delay access to information, and impose restrictions on OIG work, generally make it difficult for 

the OIG to function. Such obstructionist tactics are illegal, and Congress ought to continue to 

empower IGs for the benefit of American taxpayers. Congress should continue supporting the 

IG community, encouraging Executive Branch departments and agencies to implement OIG 

recommendations, and ensuring that the IG community has the tools and resources it needs to 

carry out its duty.