U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

59–010 

" ! SENATE 

114TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

2015

114–171 

Calendar No. 305 

INSPECTOR GENERAL MANDATES 

REPORTING ACT OF 2015 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

TO ACCOMPANY

S. 2128 

TO REQUIRE THE COUNCIL OF INSPECTORS GENERAL ON 

INTEGRITY AND EFFICIENCY TO SUBMIT TO CONGRESS A REPORT 

ON INSPECTOR GENERAL MANDATES 

NOVEMBER 30, 2015.—Ordered to be printed 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SENE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

KEITH B. ASHDOWN, Staff Director 

CHRISTOPHER R. HIXON, Chief Counsel 

PATRICK J. BAILEY, Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs 

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

GABRIELLE A. BATKIN, Minority Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

MARY BETH SCHULTZ, Minority Chief Counsel 

KATHERINE C. SYBENGA, Minority Senior Counsel 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN
Calendar No. 305 

114TH CONGRESS SENATE REPORT " ! 1st Session 114–171 

INSPECTOR GENERAL MANDATES REPORTING 

ACT OF 2015 

NOVEMBER 30, 2015.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. JOHNSON, from the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 2128] 

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 

to which was referred the bill (S. 2128), to require the Council of 

Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency to submit to Congress a report on Inspector General mandates, having considered 

the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Purpose and Summary .................................................................................. 1 

II. Background and Need for the Legislation ................................................... 2 

III. Legislative History ......................................................................................... 3 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis .......................................................................... 3 

V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact .................................................................. 4 

VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ................................................ 4 

VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................... 5 

I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The purpose of S. 2128, the Inspector General Mandates Reporting Act of 2015, is to require a one-time report to Congress on the 

mandatory reporting requirements imposed by Congress upon individual Offices of Inspectors General (OIG). The Committee anticipates using this report to inform its future lawmaking and determine whether any of those requirements can be reduced, modified, 

or eliminated. This will help ensure that OIGs have sufficient time 

and resources to perform the discretionary work they deem necessary. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN
2 

1 5 U.S.C. App. § 2 (Pub. L. No. 95–452). 

2S. Rep. No. 113–261 (2014). 

3 Id. 4Pub. L. No. 113–284. 

5Pub. L. No. 104–66. 

6Pub. L. No. 105–362. 

7Pub. L. No. 113–188. Additionally, the Committee in 2015 unanimously passed S. 579, the 

Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2015, indicating its desire to ensure inspectors general 

have all the tools necessary to efficiently and effectively perform their work. The substitute 

amendment approved by the cosponsors of the bill further streamlines the reporting requirements of the Inspector General Act 8Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111–352. 

9DHS OIG Highlights, Covert Testing of the Transportation Security Administrations Passenger Screening Technologies and Processes at Airport Security Checkpoints (Sept. 22, 2015), 

available at https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2015/OIG-15-150-Sep15.pdf. 10Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to 

Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review (May 14, 2013), available at https:// 

www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdf. 

II. BACKGROUND AND THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION

OIGs were created to ‘‘promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness’’ of the government’s operations and ‘‘prevent and detect fraud 

and abuse’’ within those programs.1 While their work is varied and 

often-times performed at the discretion of the inspector general, a 

significant portion of the OIG workload is dictated by Congress 

through directives for the OIG to perform particular audits. Some 

of these mandates are contained in the Inspector General Act of 

1978, while others have been added over time through various laws 

passed by Congress. 

According to the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) OIG, 

[t]he average OIG has approximately thirty percent of its workload 

mandated.’’ 2 The DHS OIG reported to the Committee last year 

that it had a Congressionally-mandated workload that is more than 

double that amount.3

This Committee has long been concerned with ensuring that Congressionally-mandated reports are not outdated, unnecessary, or 

duplicative. In 2014, Congress passed two bills to reduce the mandatory reporting burden on government agencies and inspectors 

general after those bills were reported favorably by the Committee. 

The DHS OIG Mandates Revision Act of 2014, introduced by thenRanking Member Tom Coburn and cosponsored by then-Chairman 

Tom Carper, reduced the mandatory reporting requirements for the 

DHS OIG.4 The Government Reports Elimination Act of 2014, 

building on similar laws passed in 1995 5 and 1998,6 eliminated 

outdated and unnecessary reporting requirements across federal 

agencies.7

While existing law requires agencies to annually report to OMB 

on any outdated or duplicative reporting requirements that they 

believe should be eliminated,8 the Committee is not aware of any 

comprehensive list of OIG reporting mandates. 

The work OIGs perform is essential to keep the Federal government accountable. OIGs perform a wide range of responsibilities, 

including reviewing whistleblower allegations, helping to ensure 

the effectiveness of federal cybersecurity programs, and investigating fraud and abuse. In the past few years, for example, inspectors general have uncovered significant weaknesses in airport 

security,9 inappropriate review of tax-exempt applications and ineffective management within the Internal Revenue Service,10 waste 

and fraud associated with operations during the Iraq and AfghaniVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:14 Dec 05, 2015 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR171.XXX SR171

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN
3 

11Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, Quarterly Report (Oct. 30, 2015), 

available at https://www.sigar.mil/pdf/quarterlyreports/2015–10-30qr.pdf. 12DOD Inspector General, DOD Methodologies to Identify Improper Payments in the Military 

Health Benefits and Commercial Pay Programs Need Improvement (Jan. 14, 2015), available at 

http://www.dodig.mil/pubs/documents/DODIG-2015-068.pdf. 13Social Security Administration Office of Inspector General, Overpayments in the Social Security Administration’s Disability Programs—A 10-Year Study (June 2015), available at http:// 

oig.ssa.gov/sites/default/files/audit/full/pdf/A-01-14-24114.pdf. 14 Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, Progress Report to the President, Fiscal Year 2014, available at https://www.ignet.gov/sites/default/files/files/FY14-ProgressReport-to-the-President.pdf. 

stan wars,11 as well as improper payments within many federal 

agencies, including the Department of Defense 12 and the Social Security Administration.13 In fiscal year 2014, the work of the 72 federal OIGs identified $13.8 billion in potential savings from audit 

recommendations and another $32.7 billion that the government 

could potentially recover (for example, through settlements, civil 

monetary penalties, or criminal restitution).14 Given how valuable 

their work is to Congress, the Committee wants to ensure inspectors general have adequate time and resources, and are not bogged 

down by unnecessary, dated, or duplicative Congressionally-mandated requirements. 

S. 2128 would enable Congress to make a comprehensive review 

of Congressionally-mandated OIG work. The bill would require 

OIGs to provide Congress with a comprehensive list of their required work, and, if the OIG so chooses, recommending those audits and investigations that should be modified or eliminated. Each 

OIG would provide its report to the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE), and CIGIE would then 

provide the aggregated information to Congress. Congress can use 

this information to examine the requirements and determine 

whether reduction, modification, or elimination of any requirement 

is warranted. 

III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Senator Ben Sasse introduced S. 2128 with Senator Claire 

McCaskill on October 5, 2015. The bill was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. 

The Committee considered S. 2128 at a business meeting on October 7, 2015. The Committee ordered the bill reported favorably 

by voice vote en bloc. Senators present for the vote on the bill were 

Senators Johnson, Portman, Lankford, Enzi, Ernst, Sasse, Carper, 

McCaskill, Baldwin, Heitkamp, and Booker. 

Consistent with the Committee’s unanimous consent agreement 

on technical and conforming changes at the business meeting, the 

Committee reports the bill with a technical amendment by mutual 

agreement of the full Committee majority and minority staff. 

IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE BILL, AS REPORTED

Section 1. Short title 

This section provides the bill’s short title, the ‘‘Inspector General 

Mandates Reporting Act of 2015.’’ 

Section 2. Reporting requirements of Inspectors General 

This section requires each OIG, within 60 days of enactment of 

the bill, to submit to CIGIE a report with a list of each report that 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN
4 

the OIG is required to complete under the Inspector General Act 

of 1978 or any other provision of law. The report may also include 

the OIG’s recommendations of any reporting requirements that the 

office believes should be modified or repealed. 

Sixty days after receiving the required reports from each OIG, 

CIGIE is required to aggregate the reports and then report to Congress on what requirements were common to more than one OIG 

and what requirements were unique to each OIG. CIGIE’s report 

to Congress may also include recommendations for requirements 

that should be modified or repealed. 

The section also clarifies that the reports to Congress shall be in 

unclassified form, but may include a classified annex. 

V. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY IMPACT

Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of 

the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has considered 

the regulatory impact of this bill and determined that the bill will 

have no regulatory impact within the meaning of the rules. The 

Committee agrees with the Congressional Budget Office’s statement that the bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 

mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

VI. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

NOVEMBER 4, 2015. 

Hon. RON JOHNSON, 

Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2128, the Inspector General 

Mandates Reporting Act of 2015. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew Pickford. 

Sincerely, 

KEITH HALL. 

Enclosure. 

S. 2128—Inspector General Mandates Reporting Act of 2015 

S. 2128 would amend the Inspector General Act of 1978 to require that inspectors general (IG) create lists of reports that they 

are required to give the Congress along with any recommendations 

for eliminating or modifying reports. Each IG would have 60 days 

to identify all reports they are required to produce. The bill also 

would require the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and 

Efficiency (CIGIE) to review all the lists for common and unique 

reports and to provide recommendations to the Congress on eliminating or modifying reports. 

There are more than 70 IGs who spend about $2.5 billion a year 

to detect and deter fraud, waste, and abuse. On average, IGs 

produce more than 7,500 audits, inspections, and evaluation reports annually. CIGIE expects that some larger IGs would need 60 

days to comply with the bill’s requirements. Based on that information, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost about $1 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN
5 

million in 2016, less than $14,000 per IG. Any such spending would 

be subject to the availability of appropriated funds. 

Enacting S. 2128 could affect direct spending by some agencies 

(such as the Tennessee Valley Authority) because they are authorized to use receipts from the sale of goods, fees, and other collections to cover their operating costs. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. Because most of those agencies can make adjustments 

to the amounts collected as operating costs change, CBO estimates 

that any net changes in direct spending by those agencies would 

not be significant. Enacting the bill would not affect revenues. 

CBO estimates that enacting S. 2128 would not increase net di- rect spending or on-budget deficits by more than $5 billion in any 

four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2026. 

S. 2128 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew Pickford. The 

estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 

Director for Budget Analysis. 

VII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

Because this legislation would not repeal or amend any provision 

of current law, it would make no changes in existing law within the 

meaning of clauses (a) and (b) of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 

Standing Rules of the Senate. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN