U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1

89–010

" ! SENATE 106TH CONGRESS

2d Session

REPORT

2000

106–510

Calendar No. 919

INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT AMENDMENTS OF

1999

R E P O R T

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

TO ACCOMPANY

S. 870

TO AMEND THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT OF 1978 (5 U.S.C. APP.)

TO INCREASE THE EFFICIENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF OFFICES OF INSPECTOR GENERAL WITHIN FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

OCTOBER 27 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 22), 2000.—Ordered to be printed

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee, Chairman

WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR., Delaware

TED STEVENS, Alaska

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine

GEORGE VOINOVICH, Ohio

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut

CARL LEVIN, Michigan

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois

ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey

MAX CLELAND, Georgia

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina

HANNAH S. SISTARE, Staff Director and Counsel

WILLIAM M. OUTHIER, Investigative Counsel

MICHAEL D. BOPP, Legislative Director for Senator Collins

JOYCE A. RECHTSCHAFFEN, Minority Staff Director and Counsel

KENNETH R. BOLEY, Minority Counsel

DARLA D. CASSELL, Chief Clerk

Calendar No. 919

106TH CONGRESS REPORT

2d Session " ! SENATE 106–510

INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1999

OCTOBER 27 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 22, 2000.—Ordered to be printed

Mr. THOMPSON, from the Committee on Governmental Affairs,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 870]

The Committee on Governmental Affairs considered S. 870, a bill

to amend the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) to increase the efficiency and accountability of Offices of Inspector General within Federal departments, and for other purposes, and reports favorably thereon with recommendations by a voice vote that

the bill do pass.

CONTENTS

Page

I. Purpose and summary ................................................................................... 1

II. Background and need for legislation ............................................................ 2

III. Legislative history and committee consideration ........................................ 4

IV. Section-by-section analysis ............................................................................ 4

V. Regulatory impact statement ........................................................................ 5

VI. CBO cost estimate ......................................................................................... 5

VII. Changes in existing law ................................................................................ 6

I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

S. 870 provides the following changes to the Inspector General

Act: (i) it prohibits Inspectors General (IGs) from receiving cash bonuses or awards; (ii) it provides for management reviews for Offices

of Inspectors General (OIGs); (iii) it modifies the reporting requirements for OIGs; (iv) it increases the pay for IGs; and (v) it requires

a study by the General Accounting Office of the need for consolidation of certain OIGs. The purpose of the bill is to increase the efficiency and accountability of federal IGs.

2

II. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

The original Inspector General Act was signed into law twentytwo years ago. It has been subsequently amended, but has not received a systemic review since 1988. During the 106th Congress,

the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee undertook a review of

the current role and status of Inspectors General, and sought to determine the proper evolution of the OIGs at the start of the 21st

century.

During the past 22 years, the Inspector General community has

grown from 12 offices in 1978 to 57 Inspectors General today.

These 57 Inspectors General receive roughly $1.1 billion in annual

funding from the Congress and employ over 10,000 auditors, criminal investigators, and support personnel. OIGs are charged with

tremendous responsibilities and are given great authority to uncover waste and abuse within the government.

In many ways, the Inspectors General are the eyes and ears of

the Congress as it works to detect and prevent waste, fraud, abuse,

and mismanagement in federal programs. From their perch inside

the federal agencies, the inspectors general have ably used their

considerable auditing and oversight ability to inform subcommittees, committees, and the Congress about the day-to-day operations

of the Executive branch. In many cases, OIGs have provided the

critical documents and information that have assisted Congress in

exposing fraud, waste, and abuse.

The IG community has performed formidable tasks ably. They

have made thousands of savings recommendations to Congress, ultimately saving taxpayers billions of dollars. Investigations by

OIGs have also resulted in the recovery of billions of dollars from

companies and individuals who defrauded the federal government.

These investigations have led to thousands of criminal prosecutions, debarments, exclusions and suspensions. In sum, the IG’s

work ferreting out criminal and abusive action in government has

gone a long way to create the clean and efficient government the

taxpaying public expects and deserves.

However, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations uncovered improprieties within one OIG itself, including poor accounting

and management standards, violations of government contracting

law, and perhaps most troubling, the abusive use of the authority

of the OIG to further political interest. These failures raise a disturbing question—‘‘Who is watching the Watchdog Congress has

created?’’

While the Committee is not aware of any indication that these

problems are widespread in the Inspector General community, the

credibility and effectiveness of government itself is put in question

whenever an office charged with combating waste and abuse engages in the kind of activity it is responsible for deterring.

In response to these developments, the Governmental Affairs

Committee has approved S. 870, the Inspector General Act Amendment of 2000, which has been designed to promote efficiency and

accountability among the nation’s OIGs.

To enhance the independence of the Inspectors General community, the first proposal of this bill prohibits IGs from accepting any

cash awards or bonuses. While this policy is followed informally by

3

OIGs, S. 870 would ensure that it is applied as a matter of law to

all OIGs.

To increase accountability among the Inspectors General, this

bill requires independent auditing of the books, and streamlines

and focuses annual disclosure requirements. In recent years, Congressional changes have allowed a greater degree of sunshine to

fall on our federal books, and the OIGs should be no exception to

that rule. The taxpaying electorate is entitled to know how their

money is spent, and, therefore, S. 870 compels transparency by

mandating independent audits of each office every three years.

On December 7, 1998, the National Commission on the Separation of Powers released its report which endorsed the concept of external reviews for OIGs. This bi-partisan commission was comprised of notable public figures including former Senate Majority

Leader Howard H. Baker, Jr., former White House Counsel Lloyd

N. Cutler, former U.S. Attorney General William Barr, former U.S.

Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, and former federal judge

and director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation William Webster.

Currently, OIGs are required by law to provide semi-annual reports to Congress. In response, OIGs have dutifully submitted voluminous documents twice yearly to Congress. However, at times

these reports have been of questionable value. S. 870 would instead

increase the efficiency and value of the report process by reducing

the requirement to a single report annually and specifying the material each report must address. Among other required information,

under this bill each OIG would be required to identify all investigations and their status, provide detail of awarded noncompetitive

contracts, and identify areas within their jurisdiction which are the

ripest for fraud. The bill would permit biennial reporting by those

OIGs that wish to continue current practices too.

To both ensure continued independence and help correct an inequity involving the pay of Inspectors General versus their senior

staff, this bill also would raise the annual pay for the Inspectors

General from Executive Level 4 to Executive Level 3.

Finally, the last provision of this bill calls upon the Comptroller

General to develop criteria for determining whether the consolidation of OIGs would be cost-efficient and in the public interest. The

General Accounting Office (‘‘GAO’’) would then conduct a study,

based upon these criteria, to determine whether any OIGs should

be consolidated. After the study is concluded, the GAO will submit

a report to the Congress containing any recommendations for legislative action.

Senator Collins noted in the July 19, 2000 hearing regarding S.

870 that it is ‘‘designed to enhance the accountability and the independence of the IGs.’’ Chairman Thompson agreed that enhancing

the independence of the IGs is important, ‘‘My own feeling is that

the Executive Branch has gotten so preoccupied with the budget

process and everything else, and has so little time to do oversight,

that the balance is a little out of whack in favor of the executive

power and that we need more * * * independence from the IGs

than we have had * * *’’

4

III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

AMENDMENTS AND COMMITTEE ACTION

On July 19, 2000 the Committee on Governmental Affairs held

a hearing to consider S. 870 as well as a legislative proposal to

grant statutory law enforcement authority to presidentially-appointed IGs. The witnesses were the Honorable Joshua Gotbaum,

Executive Associate Director and Controller of the U.S. Office of

Management and Budget, the Honorable Gaston L. Gianni, Jr., Inspector General for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and

Vice Chair of the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency,

the Honorable Patrick E. McFarland, Inspector General of the U.S.

Office of Personnel Management, the Honorable Kenneth Mead, Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Transportation, and

Nicholas M. Gess, Associate Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice. On September 27, 2000, the Committee on Governmental Affairs considered S. 870. One amendment was offered by

Senators Collins and Levin in the nature of a substitute, considered and adopted by voice vote. The Committee subsequently ordered S. 870 reported by unanimous voice vote.

IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title

‘‘The Inspector General Act Amendments of 2000’’.

Section 2. Prohibition of cash bonus or awards

This section prohibits IGs from accepting any cash award or cash

bonus.

Section 3. External reviews

This section requires that all Inspector General offices (OIGs) undergo an external review, not less than every 3 years, to evaluate

the OIG’s management and control of contracts, appropriated

funds, and personnel actions.

Section 4. Annual reports (formerly semiannual reports)

This section reduces the number of reports required to be submitted to Congress by requiring annual reports instead of semiannual reports. The provision also streamlines the information contained in those reports so that Congress and other policymakers

can make better use of the work of the OIGs. The information required in the annual reports includes:

• Program areas within the establishment identified as high

risk because of vulnerabilities to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement;

• Description of the most significant audits and investigations completed;

• Tables showing the number of audit reports issued and associated financial benefits, corrective actions taken as a result

of OIG activity, and judicial and administrative actions associated with investigations;

• Organizational and management structure of the OIG office; and

5

• Summary of each audit report issued in previous reporting

periods for which no management decision has been made.

Section 5. Inspector Generals at Level III of executive schedule

This section increases Inspector General’s annual salary from

$118,400 (Executive Level 4) to $125,900 (Executive Level 3).

Section 6. Study and report on consolidation of Inspector General

Offices

This section directs the Comptroller General to develop criteria

for determining whether the consolidation of Federal Inspector

General offices would be cost efficient and in the public interest. A

study, based on the aforementioned criteria, would then be conducted to determine whether any offices should be consolidated .

After the study is concluded, the Comptroller General shall then

submit a report to Congress containing recommendations for any

legislative action.

V. REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

Pursuant to paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules

of the Senate, the Committee has considered the regulatory impact

that would be incurred in carrying out the bill. The Committee

finds that enactment of the bill will not have significant regulatory

impact.

VI. CBO COST ESTIMATE

U.S. CONGRESS,

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE,

Washington, DC, October 3, 2000.

Hon. FRED THOMPSON,

Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 870, the Inspector General

Act Amendments of 2000.

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

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is John R. Righter.

Sincerely,

STEVEN LIEBERMAN

(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).

Enclosure.

S. 870—Inspector General Act Amendments of 2000

S. 870 would amend the Inspector General Act of 1978 to raise

the annual salary level of 28 inspectors general (IGs) from level IV

to level III of the executive schedule, prohibit the payment of cash

awards and bonuses to IGs, streamline certain reporting requirements, and require that IG offices be evaluated by an independent

entity every three years. In addition, the bill would require the

General Accounting Office (GAO) to study and report to the Congress on whether it would be cost effective and in the public interest to consolidate IG offices. GAO would have six months from enactment to complete its report.

6

Subject to the availability of appropriated funds, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost up to $1.5 million in fiscal

year 2001 and, on average, around $1 million each year thereafter.

That estimate includes annual costs of between $200,000 and

$250,000 for increasing the pay of certain IGs and, based on information from GAO, about $1 million to review one-third of the

roughly 60 IG offices each year, as well as savings of less than

$500,000 a year to streamline reporting requirements. For fiscal

year 2001, the estimate includes additional costs of less than

$500,000 for GAO to study and report on the consolidation of IG

offices. Prohibiting IGs from accepting cash awards and bonuses

would codify existing administrative policy and thus have no budgetary effect.

For most agencies with IG offices, any change in costs would be

subject to the availability of appropriations. However, because the

bill would affect direct spending by a few agencies that are not

funded through annual appropriations, such as the Federal Deposit

Insurance Corporation, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the

National Credit Union Administration, pay-as-you-go procedures

would apply. CBO estimates that enacting the bill would have a

negligible impact on direct spending.

S. 870 contains no intergovernmental mandates 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 John R. Righter. The

estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

VII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing

Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by S. 870, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted

is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, and

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

TITLE V—GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES

APPENDICES

INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT OF 1978

§ 3. Appointment of Inspector General; supervision; removal;

political activities; appointment of Assistant Inspector General for Auditing and Assistant Inspector General for Auditing and Assistant Inspector

General for Investigations

* * * * * * *

(e) An Inspector General (as defined under section 8G (a)(6) or

11(3)) may not receive any cash award or cash bonus, including any

cash award under chapter 45 of title 5, United States Code.

§ 4. Duties and responsibilities; report of criminal violations

to Attorney General; External Reviews

(a) It shall be the duty and responsibility of each Inspector General, with respect to the establishment within which his Office is

established—

7

(1) to provide policy direction for and to conduct, supervise,

and coordinate audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of such establishments;

(2) to review existing and proposed legislation and regulations relation to programs and operations of such establishment and to make recommendations in the øsemiannual¿ annual reports required by section 5(a) concerning the impact of

such legislation or regulations on the economy and efficiency in

the administration of programs and operations administered or

financed by such establishment or the prevention and detection

of fraud and abuse in such programs and operations;

* * * * * * *

(e)(1)(A) Not less than every 3 years an external review shall be

conducted of each Office defined under sections 11(4) and 8G(a)(5).

(B) The Inspector General of each Office defined under sections

11(4) and 8G(5) shall arrange with the General Accounting Office

or an appropriate private entity for the conduct of the review.

(C) If an Inspector General contracts with a private entity for a

review under this subsection, the private entity shall be contracted

in accordance with section 303 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253).

(2) At a minimum, an external review under this subsection shall

evaluate whether the Office of Inspector General properly manages

and controls—

(A) contracts awarded by the Office of Inspector General, including a determination of whether—

(i) procedures used to procure contracts are in accordance

with applicable laws and regulations; and

(ii) costs incurred are reasonable and allowable under

the terms of each contract;

(B) appropriated funds, including a determination of whether

training and travel funds are expended in accordance with applicable laws and regulations; and

(C) personnel actions, including a determination of whether

hiring and promotion practices used and performance awards

issued are in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

(3) Not later than 30 calendar days after the completion of an external review, a report of the results shall be submitted to the head

of the establishment and simultaneously to the appropriate committees or subcommittees of Congress—

* * * * * * *

§ 5. Semiannual reports; transmittal to Congress; availability

to public, immediate report on serious or flagrant

problems; disclosure of information; definitions.

(a) øEach Inspector General shall, not later than April 30 and

October 31 of each year, prepare semiannual reports summarizing

the activities of the Office during the immediately preceding six

month periods ending March 31 and September 30.¿ Each Inspector General shall, not later than October 31 of each year, prepare

annual reports summarizing the activities and accomplishments of

the Office during the immediately preceding 12 month period ending September 30. Such reports shall include, but need not be limited to—

8

ø(1) a description of significant problems, abuses, and deficiencies relating to the administration of programs and operations of such establishment disclosed by such activities during

the reporting period;

ø(2) a description of the recommendations for corrective action made by the Office during the reporting period with respect to significant problems, abuses, or deficiencies identified

pursuant to paragraph (1);

ø(3) an identification of each significant recommendation described in previous semiannual reports on which corrective action has not been completed;

ø(4) a summary of matters referred to prosecutive authorities and the prosecutions and convictions which have resulted;

ø(5) a summary of each report made to the head of the establishment under section 6(b)(2) during the reporting period;

ø(6) a listing, subdivided according to subject matter, of each

audit report issued by the Office during the reporting period

and for each audit report, where applicable, the total dollar

value of questioned costs (including a separate category for the

dollar value of unsupported costs) and the dollar value of recommendations that funds be put to better use;

ø(7) a summary of each particularly significant report;

ø(8) statistical tables showing the total number of audit reports and the total dollar value of questioned costs (including

a separate category for the dollar value of unsupported costs),

for audit reports—

ø(A) for which no management decision had been made

by the commencement of the reporting period;

ø(B) which were issued during the reporting period;

ø(C) for which a management decision was made during

the reporting period, including—

ø(i) the dollar value of disallowed costs; and

ø(ii) the dollar value of costs not disallowed; and

ø(D) for which no management decision has been made

by the end of the reporting period;

ø(9) statistical tables showing the total number of audit reports and the dollar value of recommendations that funds be

put to better use by management, for audit reports—

ø(A) for which no management decision had been made

by the commencement of the reporting period;

ø(B) which were issued during the reporting period;

ø(C) for which a management decision was made during

the reporting period, including—

ø(i) the dollar value of recommendations that were

agreed to by management; and

ø(ii) the dollar value of recommendations that were

not agreed to by management; and

ø(C) for which no management decision has been made

by the end of the reporting period;

ø(10) a summary of each audit report issued before the commencement of the reporting period for which no management

decision has been made by the end of the reporting period (including the date and title of each such report), an explanation

of the reasons such management decision has not been made,

9

and a statement concerning the desired timetable for achieving

a management decision on each such report;

ø(11) a description and explanation of the reasons for any

significant revised management decision made during the reporting period;

ø(12) information concerning any significant management

decision with which the Inspector General is in disagreement;

and¿

(1) a summary of the program areas within the establishment

identified by the Inspector General as high risk because of

vulnerabilities to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement;

(2) a description of the most significant audits, investigations

(administrative, civil, and criminal), and evaluations and inspections completed during the reporting period;

(3) a summary of each report made to the head of the establishment under section 6(b)(2) during the reporting period;

(4) a table showing—

(A)(i) the total number of final audit reports issued by the

Office of Inspector General; and

(ii) the financial benefits associated with the reports segregated by category, such as budget reductions, costs avoided, questioned costs, and revenue enhancements, and

(B) corrective actions taken and program improvements

made during the reporting period in response to either an

Office of Inspector General audit finding or recommendation (excluding any recommendation included under subparagraph (A) with respect to such corrective actions);

(5) a table showing—

(A) the judicial and administrative actions associated

with investigations conducted by the Office of Inspector

General;

(B) the number of—

(i) cases referred for criminal prosecution, civil remedies, or administrative actions;

(ii) cases presented but declined for prosecution, segregated by criminal and civil;

(iii) cases accepted for prosecution (both Federal and

State); segregated by criminal and civil;

(iv) defendants indicted;

(v) defendants convicted;

(vi) defendants acquitted or charges dismissed after

indictment;

(vii) defendants sentenced to terms of imprisonment;

(viii) defendants sentenced to terms of probation; and

(ix) suspensions, disbarments, exclusions, sanctions,

or some other similar administrative action; and

(C) the total amount of fines, restitutions, and recoveries;

(6) a description of the organization and management structure of the Office of Inspector General, including—

(A) an organization chart showing the major components

of the Office:

(B) a statistical table showing the number of authorized

full-time equivalent positions segregated by component and

by headquarters and field office; and

10

(C) the amount of funding received in prior and current

fiscal years;

(7) a table showing—

(A) the number of contracts, and associated dollar value,

awarded on a noncompetitive basis by the Office of Inspector General; and

(B) with respect to any individual contract valued over $100,000, awarded on a non-competitive basis—

(i) the name of the contractor;

(ii) statement of work;

(iii) the time period of the contract; and

(iv) the dollar amount of the contract;

(8)(A) a summary of each audit report issued in previous reporting periods for which no management decision has been

made by the end of the reporting period (including the date and

title of each such report);

(B) an explanation of the reasons such management decision

has not been made; and

(C) a statement concerning the desired timetable for achieving

a management decision on each such report;

(9) ø13¿ the information described under section ø05(b)¿

804(b) of the Federal Management Improvement Act of 1996;

and

(10) any other information that the Inspector General determines appropriate to include in the annual report

(b) øSemiannual¿ Annual reports of each Inspector General shall

be furnished to the head of the establishment involved not later

than øApril 30 and¿ October 31 of each year and shall be transmitted by such head to the appropriate committees or subcommittees of the Congress within thirty days after receipt of the report,

together with a report by the head of the establishment

containing—

(1) any comments such head determines appropriate;

(2) statistical tables showing the total number of audit reports and the dollar value of disallowed costs, for audit

reports—

(A) for which final action had not been taken by the

commencement of the reporting period;

(B) on which management decisions were made during

the reporting period;

(C) for which final action was taken during the reporting

period, including—

(i) the dollar value of disallowed costs that were recovered by management through collection, offset,

property in lieu of cash, or otherwise; and

(ii) the dollar value of disallowed costs that were

written off by management; and

(D) for which no final action has been taken by the end

of the reporting period;

(3) statistical tables showing the total number of audit reports and the dollar value of recommendations that funds be

put to better use by management agreed to in a management

decision, for audit reports—

(A) for which final action had not been taken by the

commencement of the reporting period;

11

(B) on which management decisions were made during

the reporting period;

(C) for which final action was taken during the reporting

period, including—

(i) the dollar value of recommendations that were

actually completed; and

(ii) the dollar value of recommendations that management has subsequently concluded should not or

could not be implemented or completed; and

(D) for which no final action has been taken by the end

of the reporting period; and (

(4) a statement with respect to audit reports on which management decisions have been made but final action has not

been taken, other than audit reports on which a management

decision was made within the preceding year, containing—

(A) a list of such audit reports and the date each such

report was issued;

(B) the dollar value of disallowed costs for each report;

(C) the dollar value of recommendations that funds be

put to better use agreed to by management for each report;

and

(D) an explanation of the reasons final action has not

been taken with respect to each such audit report, except

that such statement may exclude such audit reports that

are under formal administrative or judicial appeal or upon

which management of an establishment has agreed to pursue a legislative solution, but shall identify the number of

reports in each category so excluded.

(c) Within sixty days of the transmission of the øsemiannual¿ annual reports of each Inspector General to the Congress, the head

of each establishment shall make copies of such report available to

the public upon request and at a reasonable cost. Within 60 days

after the transmission of the øsemiannual¿ annual reports of each

establishment head to the Congress, the head of each establishment shall make copies of such report available to the public upon

request and at a reasonable cost.

(d) Each Inspector General shall report immediately to the head

of the establishment involved whenever the Inspector General becomes aware of particularly serious or flagrant problems, abuses,

or deficiencies relating to the administration of programs and operations of such establishment. The head of the establishment shall

transmit any such report to the appropriate days, together with a

report by the head of the establishment containing any comments

such head deems appropriate.

(e)(1) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the

public disclosure of information which is—

(A) specifically prohibited from disclosure by any other provision of law;

(B) specifically required by Executive order to be protected

from disclosure in the interest of national defense or national

security or in the conduct of foreign affairs; or

(C) a part of an ongoing criminal investigation.

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(C), any report under this section may be disclosed to the public in a form which includes inforVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:37 Oct 30, 2000 Jkt 089010 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR510.XXX pfrm02 PsN: SR510
12

mation with respect to a part of an ongoing criminal investigation

if such information has been included in a public record.

(3) Except to the extent and in the manner provided under section 6103(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 [26 USCS

§ 6103(f)], nothing in this section or in any other provision of this

Act shall be construed to authorize or permit the withholding of information from the Congress, or from any committee or subcommittee thereof.

(f)(1) Subject to paragraph (4), in addition to any annual report

required to be furnished and transmitted under subsection (b), an

Inspector General shall prepare and submit a report described

under paragraph (2) to—

(A) the applicable congressional committee, if the chairman or

ranking member of a congressional committee with appropriate

jurisdiction submits a written request to such Inspector General; or

(B) to the Comptroller General of the United States if the

Comptroller General submits a written request to such Inspector

General.

(2) A report referred to under paragraph (1) shall—

(A) contain the information required for an annual report

under subsection (a); and

(B) summarize the activities of the Office during the 6-month

period ending on March 31 of the calendar year following the

date on which the request is made.

(3) A report under this subsection shall be submitted on April 30

of the calendar year following the date on which the request is

made.

(4) An Inspector General shall not be required to submit a report

under this subsection if the written request for such report is submitted to the Inspector General after November 30 of the calendar

year preceding the date on which the report is otherwise required to

be submitted to a congressional committee or the Comptroller General.

ø(f)¿ (g) As used in this section—

(1) the term ‘‘questioned cost’’ means a cost that is questioned by the Office because of—

(A) an alleged violation of a provision of a law, regulation, contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or other

agreement or document governing the expenditure of

funds;

(B) a finding that, at the time of the audit, such cost is

not supported by adequate documentation; or

(C) a finding that the expenditure of funds for the intended purpose is unnecessary or unreasonable;

(2) the term ‘‘unsupported cost’’ means a cost that is questioned by the Office because the Office found that, at the time

of the audit, such cost is not supported by adequate documentation;

(3) the term ‘‘disallowed cost’’ means a questioned cost that

management, in a management decision, has sustained or

agreed should not be charged to the Government;

(4) the term ‘‘recommendation that funds be put to better use’’ means a recommendation by the Office that funds

could be used more efficiently if management of an estabVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:37 Oct 30, 2000 Jkt 089010 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR510.XXX pfrm02 PsN: SR510
13

lishment took actions to implement and complete the recommendation, including—

(A) reductions in outlays;

(B) deobligation of funds from programs or operations;

(C) withdrawal of interest subsidy costs on loans or loan

guarantees, insurance, or bonds;

(D) costs not incurred by implementing recommended

improvements related to the operations of the establishment, a contractor or grantee;

(E) avoidance of unnecessary expenditures noted in

preaward reviews of contract or grant agreements; or

(F) any other savings which are specifically identified;

(5) the term ‘‘management decision’’ means the evaluation by

the management of an establishment of the findings and recommendations included in an audit report and the issuance of

a final decision by management concerning its response to such

findings and recommendations, including actions concluded to

be necessary; and

(6) the term ‘‘final action’’ means—

(A) the completion of all actions that the management of

an establishment has concluded, in its management decision, are necessary with respect to the findings and recommendations included in an audit report; and

(B) in the event that the management of an establishment concludes no action is necessary, final action occurs

when a management decision has been made.

* * * * * * *

§ 8. Additional provision with respect to the Inspector General of the Department of Defense

* * * * * * *

(f)(1) Each øsemiannual¿ annual report prepared by the Inspector General of the Department of Defense under section 5(a) shall

include information concerning the numbers and types of contract

audits conducted by the Department during the reporting period.

Each such report shall be transmitted by the Secretary of Defense

to the Committees on Armed Services and Governmental Affairs of

the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the House of Representatives and to other appropriate committees or subcommittees

of the Congress.

* * * * * * *

§ 8A. Special provisions relating to the Agency for International Development.

* * * * * * *

(c) In addition to the officers and employees provided for in section 6(c) of this Act, members of the Foreign Service may, at the

request of the Inspector General of the Agency for International

Development, be assigned as employees of the Inspector General.

* * * * * * *

14

TITLE V—GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES

§ 5315. Positions at Level IV

øInspector General, Department of Education.

øInspector General, Department of Energy.

øInspector General, Department of Health and Human Services.

øInspector General, Department of Agriculture.

øInspector General, Department of Housing and Urban Development.

øInspector General, Department of Labor.

øInspector General, Department of Transportation.

øInspector General, Department of Veterans Affairs.

øInspector General, Department of Defense.

øInspector General, Department of State.

øInspector General, Department of Commerce.

øInspector General, Department of the Interior.

øInspector General, Department of Justice.

øInspector General, Department of the Treasury.

øInspector General, Agency for International Development.

øInspector General, Environmental Protection Agency.

øInspector General, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

øInspector General, General Services Administration.

øInspector General, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

øInspector General, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

øInspector General, Office of Personnel Management.

øInspector General, Railroad Retirement Board.

øInspector General, Small Business Administration.

øInspector General, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

øInspector General, Resolution Trust Corporation.

øInspector General, Central Intelligence Agency.

øInspector General, Social Security Administration.

øInspector General, United States Postal Service.¿

TITLE V—GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES

§ 5314. Positions at level III

Inspector General, Department of Education.

Inspector General, Department of Energy.

Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services.

Inspector General, Department of Agriculture.

Inspector General, Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Inspector General, Department of Labor.

Inspector General, Department of Transportation.

Inspector General, Department of Veterans Affairs.

Inspector General, Department of Defense.

Inspector General, Department of State.

Inspector General, Department of Commerce.

Inspector General, Department of the Interior.

Inspector General, Department of Justice.

Inspector General, Department of the Treasury.

Inspector General, Agency for International Development.

Inspector General, Corporation for Community and National

Service.

15

Inspector General, Environmental Protection Agency.

Inspector General, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Inspector General, General Services Administration.

Inspector General, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Inspector General, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Inspector General, Office of Personnel Management.

Inspector General, Railroad Retirement Board.

Inspector General, Small Business Administration.

Inspector General, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Inspector General, Central Intelligence Agency.

Inspector General, Social Security Administration.

Inspector General, United States Postal Service.

Æ