S. HRG. 113–231 

TASK FORCE HEARINGS 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

May 16, 2013 –Silo Busting: Effective Strategies for Government 

Reorganization 

September 18, 2013–Enhancing Accountability and Increasing Financial 

Transparency 

( 
TASK FORCE HEARINGS 
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

85–904pdf 2013

S. HRG. 113–231 

TASK FORCE HEARINGS 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

May 16, 2013–Silo Busting: Effective Strategies for Government 

Reorganization 

September 18, 2013–Enhancing Accountability and Increasing Financial 

Transparency 

( 
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 

PATTY MURRAY, WASHINGTON, CHAIRMAN 

RON WYDEN, OREGON 

BILL NELSON, FLORIDA 

DEBBIE STABENOW, MICHIGAN 

BERNARD SANDERS, VERMONT 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, RHODE ISLAND 

MARK R. WARNER, VIRGINIA 

JEFF MERKLEY, OREGON 

CHISTOPHER A. COONS, DELAWARE 

TAMMY BALDWIN, WISCONSIN 

TIM KAINE, VIRGINIA 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., MAINE 

JEFF SESSIONS, ALABAMA 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, IOWA 

MICHAEL ENZI, WYOMING 

MIKE CRAPO, IDAHO 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, SOUTH CAROLINA 

ROB PORTMAN, OHIO 

PAT TOOMEY, PENNSYLVANIA 

RON JOHNSON, WISCONSIN 

KELLY AYOTTE, NEW HAMPSHIRE 

ROGER F. WICKER, MISSISSIPPI 

EVAN T. SCHATZ, Majority Staff Director 

ERIC UELAND, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

HEARINGS 

Page 

May 16, 2013–Silo Busting: Effective Strategies for Government Reorganization ........................................................................................................................ 1 

September 18, 2013–Enhancing Accountability and Increasing Financial 

Transparency ........................................................................................................ 101 

STATEMENTS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Chairman Murray .................................................................................................... 1, 101 

Ranking member Sessions..................................................................................... 11, 114 

WITNESSES 

Stanley J. Czervinski, Director, Strategic Issues-US Government Accountability Office ......................................................................................................... 107 

Honorable Gene L. Dodaro, Comptroller General, US Government Accountability Office ......................................................................................................... 11 

Honorable John P. Holdren, Director, White House Office of Science and 

Technology Policy ................................................................................................. 56 

Gerald J. Kane, Assistant Vice President for Research Administration University of VA .............................................................................................................. 132 

Thomas Lee, Director of Sunlight Labs, Sunlight Foundation ............................ 126 

Honorable Nicole S. Poore, Senator, Delaware General Assembly; and Chair, 

Delaware Joint Sunset Committee ..................................................................... 74 

David Rosenbloom, Distinguished Professor, Department of Public Administration and Policy, The American Unversity ..................................................... 83 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Questions and Answers ........................................................................................... 96 

(1) 

SILO BUSTING: EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES FOR 

GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION 

THURSDAY, MAY 16, 2013 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET AND THE TASK FORCE ON

GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE, 

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

608, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Warner, Chairman 

of the Task Force, presiding. 

Present: Senators Warner, Coons, Murray, Johnson, and Ayotte. 

Also Present: Senators Crapo and Wicker. 

Staff Present: Evan T. Schatz, Majority Staff Director; and 

Marcus Peacock, Minority Staff Director 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN WARNER 

Chairman WARNER. Good morning. I want to welcome everyone 

to the hearing of the Budget Committee’s Government Performance 

Task Force. Today’s session is on ‘‘Silo Busting: Effective Strategies 

for Government Reorganization.’’ 

This is actually the first hearing of the 113th Congress of our bipartisan task force. I want to begin by thanking both Chairman 

Murray and Ranking Member Sessions for allowing this task force 

to continue its work. It was started the last Congress as an initiative of the Budget Committee and I think it has a wide scope of 

jurisdiction and look forward to doing a lot with it this year, because while there is a wide range of items that members of both 

parties disagree on, this is actually a place where there is an awful 

lot of general bipartisan agreement, and that is that a more effective government is something that we all want to strive for. 

I want to particularly welcome the new members of the task 

force this year, Senator Coons on the majority side, Ranking Member Senator Ayotte from New Hampshire. I am looking forward to 

working with the Senator in a joint way on a lot of subjects. Senator Johnson from Wisconsin, who I think will be coming by and 

joining us a little bit later. I want to thank Senator Sheldon 

Whitehouse who actually originally had the idea for this task force 

back in 2009, and he is going to continue to participate with the 

group. 

I also want to make sure that I make clear from the outset, this 

is kind of an ac hoc group with, I think, again, an interesting subject matter, and we welcome other members of the Budget Committee. I want to thank particularly Senator Wicker for joining us 
2 

here this morning. I think there may be a couple of other members 

who are going to join us, as well. 

For those of you who are at the first of these hearings and are 

wondering, all right, how did you stumble into this room this morning and what is the subject, our Government Performance Task 

Force has the charge from the Budget Committee standpoint, since 

we have a rather broad perspective to look at all aspects of the 

Federal Government, to review Federal programs to make them 

more effective and efficient and to examine the information that is 

available to Congress so that we, as policy makers, can make more 

informed decisions. 

As I mentioned, we began in 2009 when we started to review the 

performance reports and metrics from Federal agencies. In our very 

first hearing, we learned that there were stacks of performance reports lining the shelves across Washington that, quite honestly, 

were never used. It seemed like every new administration, there 

would be a new management agenda that would basically throw 

out the old, go through another process, and then that management agenda too often would end up on the shelf. 

So we did take a step to try to address that. In 2010, we enacted 

a piece of legislation that both members of the staff and some folks 

in the audience today were major components of called the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act, GPRA, which I 

like to refer to as one of the most important bills that nobody has 

ever heard of. And I say important because it really did two or 

three, I think, critical things. 

First, it said that, too often, Congress, when we pass legislation 

or deal with a particular agency or department, we constantly assign new goals and objectives, and any of us who have been in executive or management positions know that if you are trying to 

manage an organization and you have 50 goals, in reality, then you 

have no goals because any good executive realizes we have to focus 

on a limited but key number of priorities. The GPRA bill required 

that each agency and programmatic area try to narrow down their 

goals to three to five top priorities and that we would then be able 

to measure those three to five top priorities on a quarterly basis. 

The GAO, and Gene Dodaro was here, just issued a report that 

I am anxious to have him discuss a little bit that says that agencies are actually now using these top priorities as a way to make 

their decisions, and I believe that is some good progress. 

Second, in GPRA, we wanted to make sure that we had better 

data in terms of oversight and decision making. Part of that, and 

this was something that was—I recall there was some great consternation in the administration when we were passing this legislation. Oftentimes, agencies will be happy to trumpet their most successful programs. What we found, though, was that what was not 

as often trumpeted or acknowledged was what were the programs 

that were least performing. 

In an area of tight fiscal constraint, we have to not only look at 

those programs that are doing well, but we have to look at those 

programs that are underperforming, and the GPRA Modernization 

Act required agencies to identify outdated and programs that were 

not as high of priorities, and we have actually got some of those 

results in right now. And again, for those of us as we go through 
3 

these challenging times, hopefully, that will be a guidepost for us, 

not only the process that OMB uses, but for us in Congress to 

make some evaluations. 

GPRA also said that if we were trying to focus agencies on top 

priorities and go through the very difficult challenge of identifying 

which programs were not as important, that one of the things we 

did not want to do as we looked at the kind of management side 

of the operations, we did not want to simply add more reporting 

requirements without looking at what we could actually eliminate. 

The halls of Congress and the administration are filled with reports that nobody ever looks at, nobody ever reads, that our Federal workforce, I believe, at many times is overly burdened with, 

and GPRA also required that we come forward with those reports 

that perhaps have outlived their usefulness. And, again, GAO has 

done some great work on that subject and we are going to get to 

that. 

We also had a focus on cross-cutting organization. The fact is, we 

do an awful lot in the Federal Government that gets out of silos, 

that goes from agency to agency. For example, we have got something we are going to highlight in a few moments that looked at 

defense functions that are now being held not only within the Department of Defense, but within literally ten different agencies, 

and we have got a chart that we want to bring to the forefront a 

little bit later in the hearing. 

I do want to take a moment now—I have got a couple more minutes of an opening statement before I turn to our Ranking Member, 

but recognizing that the only reason that this task force is still 

here and that the Ranking Member and I are able to hold this 

hearing is because of the good will of both the Ranking Member 

and, of course, of our Chairman, Chairman Patty Murray, and I 

want to again just personally thank Chairman Murray for allowing 

this task force to continue. She knows as well as anyone in her role 

not only as Budget Committee member but as a member of the 

Super Committee and involved in all of the actions that the Congress has taken on to try to get our debt and deficit and spending 

under control, she has been an active participant in all of that, and 

I know she has got another item that she has got to attend to, but 

I want to break in at this point and introduce the Chairman to 

make a couple of comments. 
4 

Senate Budget Committee Government Performance Task Force 

"Silo-Busting: Effective Strategies for Government Reorganization," 

Thursday, May 16,2013,10:00 AM 

Chairman Patty Murray - Statement 

I Statement 

Senator Warner and Senator Ayotte -- thank you so much for 

your leadership on our Committee's Government Performance 

Task Force. I appreciate your efforts on this important issue, and 

I look forward to working with you both to make our 

government more efficient and effective. 

And although he is not able to be here today, I was pleased to 

work with our Ranking Member Senator Sessions to renew the 

Task Force this year. And I also want to thank Senators Coons, 

Whitehouse and Johnson for signing up to support this work. 

I wanted to stop by today's hearing - the first one this Congress 

- to show my support for the important work the Task Force will 

undertake, and also to thank Senator Warner for leading this 

effort for the Committee. 

Our former Chairman Kent Conrad began this work with 

Senator Warner with in 2009 and I am pleased to keep it going. 

It was clear throughout our budget debate earlier this year that 

there is great interest on both sides of the aisle to make sure our 

government works efficiently so that we can save taxpayer 

dollars. 
5 

Americans want a more efficient and effective federal 

government. But they also want us to keep investing in 

important priorities like education and health care. 

Finding opportunities for savings through greater government 

efficiency is an important part of tackling our fiscal challenges 

in a balanced and responsible way. 

We must strengthen our programs to that ensure every dollar is 

spent as efficiently as possible to serve the public need. And the 

work of this Task Force will be critical to that effort. 

Members of our Committee have frequently raised the issue of 

government reorganization this year - so I am pleased that the 

Task Force will begin today by examining strategies to 

accomplish this. 

And, I can't think of anyone better suited to lead this Task Force 

than Senator Warner. During his time as Governor, he made 

great progress reforming the Commonwealth of Virginia, and he 

was successful in bringing business lessons to government. I 

know we can count on him to do the same here in the Senate. 

Senator Warner understands that in order to tackle our deficit 

and debt responsibly we must also reform the way our 

government works to keep the promises we've made to our 

seniors, families, and communities. 

So thanks again for your leadership on this important Task 

Force. 
6 

And with that, I will turn the hearing back over to our Chair. 
7 

Chairman MURRAY. Well, thank you very much, Senator Warner, 

Senator Ayotte, for your leadership on putting this committee together and working on the Government Performance Task Force. 

I really appreciate your efforts on this and look forward to working with both of you to help make sure that government is more 

effective and efficient. And I want to thank Senator Sessions. I 

know he cannot be here, either, today, and I have another committee hearing I am working on. But I did want to just come in 

and say this is so important. I want to thank all of our committee 

members who are working on this and really appreciate it. 

I think it is really important that this task force move forward, 

and I think with your leadership, Senator Warner and Senator 

Ayotte, focusing on how we can be more efficient and use tax dollars more wisely is a critical part of this committee’s responsibility. 

I think all of us know that we have to invest in education and 

transportation and research and all those kinds of things and we 

need to do it in a way that is using our taxpayer dollars wisely. 

The more we can save by doing it efficiently, the better off we will 

be as a country. 

So your work is extremely important to our budget and to our 

country and I appreciate your leadership in doing this. I know, 

Senator Warner, you have a tremendous record serving as Governor doing the same kinds of thing in your home State and have 

proved very effective with that. 

So I just wanted to come by very quickly and tell you how much 

I appreciate you and Senator Ayotte taking the lead on this and 

really looking at how we can be effective and efficient and run government wisely, save the dollars that we can and use them to invest them in places that are really important for our country. 

So thank you very much for your work on this, and I would ask 

that my entire statement be printed in the record. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Murray follows:] 
8 

T.EST1MOJW THE BI)DGlIT AND ECONOMIC OUTLOOK FlSeAl. YEARS 2013 TO 2023 

Table 1. 

CBO's Baseline 

Total 

Actual, 2014· 2014~ 

201l 2013 2014 2015 l016 2017 l018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2018 2023 

In BiUions of Dollars 

Revenues 2,449 2,708 3,003 3,373 3,591 3,765 3,937 4,101 4,279 4,496 4,734 4,%1 17,669 40,241 

Outlays 3,538 3,553 ~ ~ 4,067 4,300 4,542 4,811 5,078 5,350 5,691 5,939 20,330 47,l9') ---- Oeficit (w) or Surplus -1,089 -845 '616 ,430 ,476 -535 ,605 ,710 ,798 ,854 -957 -978 '2,661 '6,958 

·1,151 ·872 ·630 ·433 ·476 ·533 ·598 ·693 ·763 ·799 ·878 ·871 ·2,670 '6,675 

62 27 14 3 ·2 ·6 ·17 '35 ·55 ·79 ·106 ·283 

Debt Held by the Public 

at the End of the Year n,280 12,229 12,937 13,462 14,025 14,642 15,316 16,092 16,957 17,876 18,902 19,944 ,],a, n.a. 

As a Percentage of Gross Domestic Product 

Revenues 15.8 16.9 18.0 19.1 19.1 18.9 18.8 18.7 18.7 18.9 19.0 19.1 18.8 18.9 

Outlays 22.8 22.2 21.7 21.6 21.6 21.5 21.7 22.0 22.2 224 12.9 22.9 21.6 22.1 

DefiCit '7.0 ,5.3 -3.7 '2.4 -2.5 -2.7 -2.9 -3.2 -3.5 "3,6 -3.8 -3.8 -2.8 '3.3 

Debt Held by the Publ[{: 

at the End of the Year 72.5 76.3 77.7 76.3 74.6 73.4 73.1 73.5 74.2. 75.0 76.0 77.0 ,loa, 

Source: Congressional Budget Office. 

Note: 'I< :=: between -$500 million and zero; n,3, :::; flOt applicable. 

a. Off~budget surpluses or deficits comprise surpluses or deficit'> in the Social $€currty trust funds and the net cash flow of the 

Postal Service. 

Looming Policy Decisions May 

Have a Substantial Effect on the 

Budget Outlook Current law leaves many 

and this year, lawmakers 

budgetary deadlines: 

II Automatic reductions in 

implemented at the when that 

happens, funding for many government acrivities will 

be reduced by 5 percent or more. 

III The 

operational 

III 

expire in late appropriations 

are provided by then, nonessential functions of the 

government will have to ccase operations. 

fedetal debt, which was 

be able to continue borrowing for a short 

time that by using what are known as exwwrdi·· 

nary measures. But to avoid a default on 

the debt limit wi!! need to 

those measures are exhausted later in 

Budgetary outcomes will also be affected decisions 

about wh~rher to continue certain policies have been 

in effect in (ce('nt Such policies could be continued, for tax provisions rhat 

have routinely been 

the 25 percent cut 

thac is due to 

3 
9 

4 THE BunGEr !\!'IfO ECONOMIC OUTIOOK: fISCAL YEARS 20 13 TO 2023 

2. 

GDP and Potential GDP 

(Trillions of 2005 doilars) 

20 

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 

Sources: Congressional Budget Office; Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of Economic Analysis. 

Notes: Potentia! gross domestic product (GDP) is GBO's estimate of 

the maximum sustainable !evel of output of the economy. 

Data are quarterly, Actual data arc plotted through the third 

quarter of 2012. Projections are plotted through the fourth 

cases, in later years), budget deficits would be substantially larger over the coming decade than in CBO's 

baseline projections. \Vith those and no offset·· 

ring r~ductions in deficits, debt held the public would 

rise to 87 percent ofGDP by the end of2023 r.uher than 

co 77 percent. 

In addition to those decisions, lawmakers will continue to 

face the longer··term 

standal federal debt and 

Economic Growth Is Likely to 

Be Slow in 2013 and Pick Up in 

Later Years The U5. economy expanded modestly in calendar year 

2012, continuing the slow recovery seen since [he recession ended in mid-2009. Although economic growth is 

expected to remain slow again this year, CBO anticipates 

that underlying faewrs in [he economy will spur a more 

rapid expansion beginning next year. 

TE,11MONY 

Even SQ, under the fiscal policies embodied in currc-nt 

law, output is expected to remain below its 

(or maximum sustainable) level unril2017. 

estimates, in the fourth quarter of2012, real 

adjusted) GDP was about 5\1; 

leveL Thar gap was 

between actual and 

of the recession {see 

put since then has been 

of potential output. 

actual and potentiaJ G D P 

that the rorallos$ 

potential, between 2007 

to nearly half of the Output that the United 

produced last year. 

The Economic Outlook for 2013 

oris 

ora2 perpayrol! tax, ;U\ 

lncrease [ax rates on income above certain thresholds, 

and scheduled auroD:tJ.tic reductions in federal spending. 

That subdued economic groWTh will limit businesses' 

need to hire additional workers, thereby causing the 

near 8 percent rhis year, 

and interest rates 

are projected (0 remain low. 

The Economic Outlook for 2014 to 2018 

to fade and that an 

(though from a very 

prices, and increasing availability 

a virtuous cycle of h,ster growth in emnlnvmem. 

consumer spending, and business 

over [he next few years. 

Nevertheless, under current law, CBO expects the 

un,emiDiovment rate to remain high-above 7~/l 

2014-beforc falling to 5Y, 

rate of inflation is 
10 

TFSflMONY THE BL'D(;E! AND ECONOMIC OUTLOOK, fiSCAL YEARS 2013 TO 2023 

Table 2. 

CBO's Economic Calendar Years 2012 to 2023 

Estimated, Forecast Projected Annual Avera~e 

2012 2013 2014 2015-2018 2019-2023 

Fourth Quarter to Fourth Quarter (Percentage change) 

Rea! Gross Domestic Product 1.9 1.4 3.4 3.6 2.2 

Inflation 

peE price Index 1.5 13 1.8 1.9 2.0 

COfe peE price indexa 1.5 1.5 1.9 2.0 2.0 

-Consumer price mdextr 1.9 c 1.5 2.0 2.2 2.3 

Core consumer price indexi> 1,9 " 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.3 

Fourth Quarter level (Percent) 

Unemployment Rate 7.8 ' 8.0 7.6 5.5 d 5.2 ' 

Calendar Year Average (Percent) 

Interest Rates 

Three-month Treasury oms 0.1 ~ 0.1 0.2 2.2 4.0 

Ten-year TreaSiJry notes 1.8 c 2.1 2.7 4.5 5.2 

SOurce: Congressional Budget Office. (Actual values tor 2012 are from Department of Labor, Bureau of labor Statistics; 'Federal Reserve.) 

Notes: The numbers shown here do not reflect the values for GDP and related series released by the Commerce Departmentls Bureau of 

Economic Analysis on January 3~. 

peE = personal consumption expenditures. 

c. Excludes prices for food and energy. 

b. The -consumer price index for all urban consumers. 

c. Actual value for 2012. 

d. Value for 2018. 

e. Value tor 2023. 

this year: eBa estimates that the annual increase in the 

price index for personal consumption expenditures will 

reach about 2 percent in 2015. The interest fate on 

3-month Treasury bills-which has hovered near zero for 

the past several years-is expected to climb to 4 percent 

by the end of20J7, and the rare on 10-year Treasury 

nOtes is projected LO rise from 2.1 percent in 2013 to 

5.2 percent in 2017. 

The Economic Outlook for 2019 to 2023 

For the second half of the coming decade, CBO does not 

attempt to predict the cyclical ups and downs of the 

economy; rather, eBO assumes that GDP will stay at irs 

maximum sustainable level. On that basis, CBO projects 

that both actual and potential real GOP will grow at an 

average rate of214 percent a year between 2019 and 

2023, That pace is much slower than the average growth 

rate of pOtential GDP since 1950. The main reason is 

thar (he growth of the labor force will slow down because 

of the retirement of the baby boomers and an end to the 

long-standing increase in women!s participation in the 

labor force. CBO also projects that the unemploymem 

rate will fall to 5.2 percent by 2023 and that inflation 

and interest rates will stay at about theiT 2018 levels 

throughout the 2019-2023 period, 

5 
11 

Chairman WARNER. Absolutely. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you. 

Chairman WARNER. Thank you, Chairman Murray. 

One other item, again, before—and I want to thank—I already 

gave Senator Johnson kudos for being part of this task force. 

Again, I want to thank you, Ron, for participating. 

I want to also acknowledge my good friend, Senator Crapo, who 

I have spent countless hours as we have talked about how do we 

get our spending and debt and deficit under control, and I know 

this is a subject of great importance to him, as well. 

One of the things that the budget process leads us to is also the 

look at—and one of the things we have tried to do is basically do 

a map of the kind of overlap of responsibilities and functions across 

the Federal Government. And again, we are going to come to that 

in a few moments. 

The last point I want to raise before we turn to Senator Ayotte 

is this whole question of reorganization. I think we all know, and 

everyone has got their favorite statistic, whether it is workforce 

training or today it is going to be STEM programs, there is every 

area of government where we will list literally dozens, sometimes, 

of programs all after the same policy goal. and one of the things 

that I find that is so frustrating is we do not measure these programs’ effectiveness against each other. And in tight fiscal times, 

one of the ways we can get more bang for the buck is if we can 

look at smart, meaningful consolidation of programs where we can 

actually put more resources into the actual public policy goal rather than in simply the kind of overhead and administrative cost of 

running a variety of programs. 

Again, GAO has done some good work in that, and one of the 

things that the administration has worked on, without, I think, a 

lot of recognition, is they have taken their own actions. The President early on asked for looking at duplicative program areas, and 

in 2012 alone, the administration proposed more than $700 million 

in savings in program consolidations that were actually enacted, 

something that we ought to at least look at. 

Part of the constraints, though, and I know this is where I speak 

more as a former chief executive, and I know there is push-back 

on this subject from both sides of the aisle, but I had legislation 

last session along with Senator Lieberman that I look forward to 

reintroducing that would give back to the President, regardless of 

who he or she may be, the ability to reorganize the executive 

branch in a way that, candidly, every governor has had. This was 

power that previous Presidents had up until President Reagan. 

That authority was taken away. 

I think in an increasingly complex, complicated world with the 

kind of mishmash of programmatic responsibility oftentimes that 

we have put in place as Congress, that we ought to regrant a President, with appropriate oversight from Congress, the ability to reorganize the executive branch in a way to make it more efficient and 

effective. Any CEO worth his or her salt knows that is a critical 

tool if you are going to try to stretch your resources. So that will 

be legislation that I will be looking forward to reintroducing and, 

again, would love to work with members on both sides of the aisle 

to try to get that done. 
12 

Today, we are going to hear from two witnesses, one, Dr. John 

Holdren, the Director of the White House Office of Science and 

Technology Policy, who will share more information about a proposal for consolidation from the White House that I think has 

promise. He is going to talk, and I will introduce him a little more 

formally in a moment, on STEM programs. Everybody is for more 

STEM education. We know that is an area that we are falling far 

behind in. But I think we would be astonished if we realized how 

many various STEM programs we have sprinkled all across the 

government without any really good metrics on what is working 

and not working and how we can perhaps do a good job of consolidation and get better bang for our buck. 

Obviously, we will also hear from Gene Dodaro, who is the 

Comptroller General at the GAO. The GAO, I think, is extraordinarily well respected across party lines in terms of that trusted 

branch that looks at, from an objective standpoint, these questions, 

from duplication to over-reporting requirements, to a host of other 

areas. And, again, Gene has got a report here that I think will be 

of great interest to our members. 

In a second panel, and again, I hope members will be willing to 

stay from this, we are going to hear from Senator Nicole Poore 

from Delaware’s Sunset Commission and Dr. David Rosenbloom 

from American University. I will introduce those folks more when 

we get to the second panel. 

Before I introduce the first panel, though, I want to turn to our 

Ranking Member, Senator Ayotte from New Hampshire. New 

Hampshire is long known for being a State that guards its resources judiciously and I look forward to working with Senator 

Ayotte on this very, very important task force. Senator Ayotte. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AYOTTE 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you very much, Chairman Warner. I appreciate your holding this hearing and I certainly thank the Chairman of the committee, Chairman Murray, as well as Ranking 

Member Sessions, for allowing us to do this and for prioritizing this 

hearing. I really appreciate all the work you did as Governor and 

here on focusing on making sure that we have better, more effective government. So I am very much looking forward to what this 

hearing will do. 

I also am very pleased to have both of the witnesses that are 

here today before us. This is something that we talk to our constituents so much about, and I think that, inherently, the American people understand that we can do so much better in our government in terms of how we use their taxpayer dollars. 

As the title of this hearing indicates, our purpose today is to help 

identify effective strategies to produce a leaner, smarter Federal 

Government. And with a large and complex government like ours, 

common sense reforms too often, truthfully, fall victim to business 

as usual politics. And that has to stop, because if you look at the 

challenging times that we are in, that we need to make sure that 

when taxpayers send their hard-earned dollars to Washington, that 

we focus on effectively using their dollars and so that they are getting the return on their investment. So we need to take advantage 
13 

of every opportunity to eliminate waste, provide more accountability and more rigorous oversight. 

And I think that has also really come to light with sequestration, 

the impact of sequestration right now. So when I look, for example, 

at the GAO report and I look at the recommendations that GAO 

has made in terms of duplicative areas within the government and 

fragmented areas, areas where, if we could more effectively run 

this government, we could find savings. I think this is an incredibly 

important discussion to have now in light of the fiscal state of 

where we are. So I appreciate GAO being here and I certainly appreciate Mr. Holdren being here, as well. 

The 2013 GAO report released last month identifies 31 areas 

where agencies may be able to achieve greater efficiency or effectiveness, and this includes 17 areas of fragmentation, overlap, or 

duplication, where multiple programs and activities may be creating inefficiencies, and 14 areas where opportunities exist to 

achieve cost savings or enhance revenue collections. 

The report also makes 81 recommended actions that the executive branch and Congress could take to reduce or eliminate overlap 

and duplication. Some of the examples that I have already seen, 

and certainly there are many within the GAO report, I also serve 

on the Armed Services Committee. A hundred-and-fifty-nine contracting organizations in ten Pentagon offices providing foreign language support. 

We have examples of 76 drug abuse prevention and treatment 

programs spread across 15 agencies. Having served as Attorney 

General, I certainly recognize the importance of Federal drug abuse 

prevention and treatment, but we need to make sure that agencies 

are working together and we do not have duplication that actually 

makes us less effective. 

Twenty-three agencies implement 679 renewable energy programs at a cost of $15 million just in fiscal year 2010 alone. Can 

we consolidate them? What should we be doing in that area to do 

better? 

Among 29 Department—and I also serve on Homeland Security—among 29 Department of Homeland Security contracts worth 

$66 billion, GAO found 35 instances where contracts overlapped 

with existing Department of Homeland Security activities. 

Let me just give an example that I really hope we get rid of next 

week: Catfish inspections. So, we are taking up the farm bill next 

week and one of the examples in this bill, of course, is duplicative 

programs that were in the 2008 farm bill assigned to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection on inspecting 

catfish. And I can tell you that I have heard quite a bit about this 

catfish duplication from my constituents and we have an opportunity to take this up next week, I hope. 

Both Congress and the administration have failed to fully or 

even adequately, sometimes, address this waste and duplication, 

and I appreciate the efforts that have been made that certainly 

were outlined very well by the Chairman today. But I think that 

we can agree on a bipartisan basis that there is so much more that 

we can do together, really, to have a better, more effective government. 
14 

For example, in its 2011 and 2012 reports, GAO identified approximately 300 actions among 131 overall areas that the executive 

branch and Congress could take to reduce or eliminate duplication. 

Yet as of March 6, only about 12 percent were addressed. That is 

not acceptable. We can do so much better, and we must do better. 

We have an obligation to the people of this country to do better 

than we are doing now. We struggle to act on many issues, but this 

is an area where we should be able to act together, and I appreciate the Chairman holding this hearing. That shows that he is 

committed to working across the aisle to see how we can have more 

effective government. And I appreciate both of you being here 

today. 

And one thing I do hope is that we can find ways that these GAO 

reports do not just sit on the shelf, that we can take them up, take 

the recommendations that we think make the most sense, and implement them quickly. 

So thank you both for being here. 

Chairman WARNER. Thank you, Senator Ayotte. 

Do other members want to make a comment before we introduce 

the witnesses? I just add one quick moment. The greatest kind of 

first year education I got on this subject was I came in—we were 

having the first budget hearings—and I looked at the programs 

that both the Bush administration and the Obama administration 

had agreed on ought to be eliminated. They had some difference, 

but there were 11 common programs that they sought. Well, that 

should be the easiest thing possible. 

Senator AYOTTE. Right. Exactly. 

Chairman WARNER. If both administrations— 

Senator AYOTTE. If you have got Republican and Democrat, let 

us put those— 

Chairman WARNER. I quickly learned that President Reagan was 

right. The hardest thing to eliminate is a government program. 

But, anyway, that is a subject that we are going to— 

Senator AYOTTE. Right. And he also said the closest thing to eternal life, as well, is a government program. 

Chairman WARNER. So let us get to the witnesses. We have got, 

I know, a lot of questions. 

First up, of course, as I mentioned, is Gene Dodaro, who is the 

Comptroller General at the GAO. He has spoken before this task 

force and committee a number of times. He spent over 30 years at 

the GAO. I know he does a great job and is extraordinarily well 

respected on both sides of the aisle. 

We are then going to hear from Dr. John Holdren. Dr. Holdren 

is the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and 

is Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology 

Policy. This is his first time, I think, testifying before this group, 

but he has got, I think, some very exciting information about some 

consolidation efforts on the STEM program. I am going to not read 

through his very lengthy resume, but I can assure you he is a topflight scientist and, I think, will bring that sense of rigor to the 

question of STEM programs. 

So, again, we will start with Mr. Dodaro first, and then Dr. 

Holdren, and we look forward to your testimony. 
15 

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE GENE L. DODARO, COMPTROLLER GENERAL, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY 

OFFICE 

Mr. DODARO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to you, Ranking Member Senator Ayotte, Senator Johnson, Senator Wicker. 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our third and latest report on ways to improve government efficiency. As Senator Ayotte 

pointed out, we identified 31 new areas, 17 focused on overlap, duplication, and fragmentation. Three quick examples I would give. 

In the military, we found that the camouflage uniforms for 

ground operations had increased from two to seven additional types 

of uniforms. Now, not only is this wasting opportunities to save 

money by joint purchasing among the different services, but it is 

not providing equivalent level of protection for joint operations. So 

we have estimated you could save up to $80-some million by taking 

action in this area and ensure better protection for the troops. 

Secondly, in the Medicaid program integrity area, we identified 

the fact that they hired two contractors, one to review State payments to identify areas for audit, and then another contractor then 

to actually go in and do those audits. We said, one contractor will 

do. You do not need to have this duplication. I am pleased to report 

that CMS has taken action now and not renewed the contracts for 

the review auditors, thus saving at least $15 million and perhaps 

more in that area. 

In the geospatial area, we found 31 different agencies purchasing 

geospatial information. There is clearly duplicative purchasing 

going on here. Now, here is an area where you have an interagency 

group. They have issued some policies, but they are not being implemented effectively and OMB does not have enough visibility 

over the investments that the agencies are making through the 

budget process. So additional effort here by the administration in 

this area could save millions of additional dollars. 

In the 14 areas where we found opportunities for cost savings 

and revenue enhancements, they span a wide range of areas. We 

identified some areas in the Medicare area where there could be 

billions of dollars of savings. The Medicaid area needs additional 

oversight. Strategic sourcing, having the government leverage its 

purchasing power to do more purchasing in bulk, could save billions of dollars, as well, and I would be happy to talk about these 

areas more in the Q&A session. 

Now, in addition to reporting these 31 new areas, we have kept 

up with our tradition of reporting on actions by the executive 

branch and the Congress in implementing our prior year recommendations. As Senator Ayotte mentioned, we had 130 areas in 

the 2011 and 2012 reports. I am pleased that there has been some 

notable progress. 

First, the Congress let the ethanol tax credit expire, which we 

pointed out duplicated the renewable fuel standard. That was having multi-billion-dollar revenue losses to the government every 

year, so that is one example. 

Last year, also, I think a good example was the passage of the 

Moving Ahead for Progress Act in the transportation area. We had 

pointed out over 100 different programs had accreted over time in 
16 

surface transportation. That bill and that Act consolidated a number of those programs and made some other important changes to 

implement our recommendations about better measuring performance of the programs that operate and clearly identifying roles and 

responsibilities. 

Also, the administration, based on our recommendation in the 

overseas operations, on our overseas posture, they had planned to 

send troops to South Korea for longer tours and to send their dependents over there. We said we do not think that that is a sustainable approach. You need to do a business case. They did, decided not to do that, and avoided about $3 billion in cost savings. 

In told, Senator Ayotte pointed out about 12 percent of our prior 

recommendations have been implemented. About 66 percent have 

been partially implemented, but there is a ways to go in those 

areas. So I agree with the Senator’s comments. There is much more 

to be done. And 21 percent have not been addressed at all. 

So we think with our new areas and these areas, there is plenty 

of an agenda to go forward. In the short term, there are a lot of 

specific actions that could be taken by the Congress where we have 

identified concrete savings. In other areas, there is a need for more 

deliberation and probing and policy judgments on how to consolidate some of these program areas. 

The GPRA Modernization Act offers a lot of promise in that regard over the long term, particularly its cross-cutting agency focus, 

and we are focused on doing our job to evaluate that legislation as 

it is being implemented. 

So I appreciate your time and attention this morning. I would be 

happy to answer questions at the appropriate point. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dodaro follows:] 
17 

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT Thursday, May 16, 2013 

GAO·13·631T 

United States Government Accountability Office 

Testimony 

Before the Committee on the Budget, 

U.S. Senate 

GOVERNMENT 

EFFICIENCY AND 

EFFECTIVENESS 

Strategies for Reducing 

Fragmentation, Overlap, 

and Duplication and 

Achieving Cost Savings 

Statement of Gene L. Dodaro 

Comptroller General of the United States 
18 

GAO 

Highlights, 

Hig~I'ghts Qf Gi\O.13-63tT, ~ testlm,ony 

:::~ the committee onlhe Budget, U;S: 

WhyGAODid.TliiS Study 

As \I1e ~s""ll>r~U\es facuig}he nation continue; So 100 does the need 

for,executiVe brsneh agencies 'and 

Congress to improve the efficlill\1>Y, and 

effeCtIveness. pf government programs 

and actlvl!leS;()ppOltunl!l~. to take 

such action exist in ~reas Where 

federslprograms orac,tlvIIles are 

fraglllE!nled, 'overlapping, W· duplicative. ," 

To, nlghRght ~ese challenges ilnd1d 

i"torm g"""mmentdedslon mllkers on actfohs that could betaken to .. ddrss. 

them, GAO Is sta,tutorlly ",qulred to 

Identify and report ",nnually to ' 

Congress onf.!ge~1 pt)lgrams, 

agencies, '¢fic<is,~nd jnHlllWes, both 

within departmerii.·'!lnd 

govemlllE!n\lNide, t~athaV!l ,duplicative 

goals Of ",ctivitieso GAO has also 

Identified addHlonal op""rlunltiesto 

l!cl1leVEi gfe~t~r<!fficiency ,and 

effeCtiveness by means of cost,saVings or enhancedrevei'l~ collection. 

This stalemehtdisi:Us~ea!he (I) ne,,! 

areas identmed,ln'GAO's201~~.Mnual 

report; (2) .slaWs olaclian. taken, by , 

Ina admfnistriltlon"ndGongressto 

addressille ,1~1"'re~s fdentifle'd in 

GAO'S 201\ 1I)1d 2912a,nnqal teport,,; 

(3) Preslden~sAp1ill'iscaIYear2014 

Budge\.sUbmlsslj)r)'!\I1drecantly 

introd,uC8d ,legislation: and (4) 

st~t811ies,!hatcanhelp ,address the 

is,sueS we ldenlified.,GAO's 3-yea, 

systematic examination Included a 

reviewPf l!'e bUdget W~cti()ns ofthe 

federal govemme~t repi!>senting " 

nearly "n of the averallfe!leral fundS 

obligate~ In {lScal year,~O,IO" 

Vi~ 'GAQ-1~31T ~ ~~rm~r~jl?fo,@sUon. contac(Ortc:.e Williams Brown or ANlcoie CIOwe(S at (202) 512.Jl616: 

GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY AND 

EFFECTIVENESS 

Strategies for Reducing Fragmentation, Overlap, 

Duplication and Achieving Cost Savings 

What GAO Found 

GAO's 2013 annual report identifies 31 new areas where agencies may be able 

to achieve greater efficiency or effectiveness. Seventeen areas involve 

fragmentation, overlap, or duplication. For example, GAO reported that the 

Department of Defense could realize up to $82 million In cost savings and ensure 

equivalent levels of performance and protection by taking action to address its 

fragmented approach to developing and acquiring combat uniforms. Additionally, 

GAO reported that a total of 31 federal departments and agencies collect, 

maintain, and use geospatial information. Better planning and implementation 

could help reduce duplicative investments and save of millions of dollars. 

The report also identifies 14 additional areas where opportunities exist to aChieve 

cost savings or enhance revenue collections. For example, GAO suggested that 

Department of Health and Human Services cancel the Medicare Advantage 

Quality Bonus Payment Demonstration. GAO found most of the bonuses will be 

paid to plans with average performance and that the demonstration's design 

precludes a credible evaluation of Its effectiveness. Canceling the demonstration 

for 2014 would save about $2 billion. GAO also noted opportunities 10 save 

billions more In areas such as expanding strategiC sourcing, providing greater 

oversight for Medicaid supplemental payments, and reducing subsidies for crop 

insurance. Additionally, GAO pOinted out opportunities for enhancing revenues 

by reducing the net tax gap of $385 billion, reviewing prices of radioactive 

Isotopes sold by the government, and providing more equity in tobacco taxes for 

similar types of products. 

The executive branch and Congress have made some progress in addressing 

the areas that GAO identified In Its 2011 and 2012 annual reports. Specifically, 

GAO Identified approximately 300 actions among 131 overall areas that the 

executive branch and Congress could take to reduce or eliminate fragmentation, 

overlap, or duplication or achieve other potential financial benefits. As of March 

6, 2013, the date GAO completed its progress update audit work, about 12 

percent of the areas were addressed, 66 percent were partially addressed, and 

21 percent were not addressed. More recently, both the administration and 

Congress have taken additional steps, including proposals In the President's 

April Fiscal Year 2014 Budget submission. 

Addressing fragmentation, overlap, and duplication will require continued 

attention by the executive brsnch agencies and targeted oversight by Congress. 

In many cases, executive branch agencies have the authority to address the 

actions thai GAO identified. In other cases, such as those involving the 

elimination or consolidation of programs, Congress will need to take legislative 

action. Moreover, sustained congressional oversight will be needed in concert 

with the administration's efforts to address the identified actions by improving 

planning, measuring performance, and increasing collaboration. Effective 

implementation of the GPRA Modernization Act of 201 0 also could help the 

executive branch and Congress as they work to address these issues over time. 

_____________ United States Government Accountability Office 
19 

GAO U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

441 G St. N.W. 

Washington, DC 20548 

Chairman Murray, Ranking Member Sessions, and Members of the 

Committee: 

We appreciate the opportunity to discuss our 2013 annual report, which 

presents 31 new opportunities to reduce fragmentation, overlap, and 

duplication as well as achieve other financial benefits. It also presents the 

resuHs of our efforts to follow up on progress made by executive branch 

agencies and Congress in addressing the areas we identified in our 2011 

and 2012 annual reports. Through these three annual reports, we have 

completed a systematic examination to identify major instances of 

fragmentation, overlap, or duplication across the federal government. In 

light of today's challenging fiscal environment, we have also identified 

additional opportunities to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness by 

means of cost savings or enhanced revenue collection. 

My testimony today describes the (1) new areas identified in our 2013 

annual report; (2) status of actions taken by the administration and 

Congress to address the 131 areas identified in our 2011 and 2012 

annual reports; (3) President's April Fiscal Year 2014 Budget submission 

proposals and recently introduced legislation; and (4) strategies that can 

help address the issues we identified. My comments are primarily based 

upon our three annual reports and related testimonies as well as our body 

of work on managing for results. 1 The work upon which these reports 

were based was conducted in accordance with generally accepted 

government audtling standards. 

In summary, our 2013 annual report identifies 31 new areas where 

agencies may be able to achieve greater efficiency or effectiveness. 

Although it may be appropriate for multiple agencies or entities to be 

involved in the same programmatic or policy area due to the nature or 

magnitude of the federal effort, our report identifies 17 areas of 

fragmentation, overlap, or duplication where multiple programs and 

activities may be creating inefficiencies. Figure 1 illustrates the definitions 

'GAO, 2013 Annual Report: Actions Needed to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and 

Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benelffs, GA0-13-279SP (Washington, D.C.: 

Apr. 9, 2013): 2012 Annual Report: Opportumlies to Reduce Du'plicatkm, Overlap and 

Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue, GA0-12-342SP (Washington 

D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012); and Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government 

Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-11-318SP (Washington. D.C.: 

Mar. 1.2011). 

Page 1 GAO-13·631T 
20 

we use for fragmentation, overlap, and duplication for this work. The 

report also identifies 14 additional areas where opportunities exist to 

achieve cost savings or enhance revenue collections. Within these 31 

areas, we identify 81 actions that the executive branch or Congress could 

take to address the issues we identified. 

Figure 1: Definitions of fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication 

Fragmentation refers to those 

circumstances in which more than 

one federal agency (or more than 

one organization within an agency) 

is involved in the same broad area of 

national need and opportunities exist 

to improve service delivery. 

Overlap occurs when mu~iple 

agencies or programs have similar 

goals, engage in similar activities or 

strategies to achieve them, or target 

similar beneficiaries. 

Ouplication occurs when two or 

more agencies or programs are 

engaged in the same activities or 

provide the same services to the 

same beneficiaries. 

The executive branch and Congress have made some progress in 

addressing the areas that we previously identified. In our 2011 and 2012 

annual reports, we identified approximately 300 actions among 131 

overall areas that the executive branch and Congress could take to 

reduce or eliminate fragmentation, overlap, or duplication or achieve other 

potential financial benefits. As of March 6, 2013, the date we completed 

our progress update audit work, about 12 percent of the 131 overall areas 

were addressed; 66 percent were partially addressed; and 21 percent 

Page 2 GAO-13-631T 
21 

were not addressed.' Within these areas, about 21 percent of the 

approximately 300 individual actions were addressed, 48 percent were 

partially addressed, and 28 percent remain not addressed, highlighting 

the need for sustained attention and leadership. 3 More recently, both the 

administration and Congress have taken add~ional steps that appear 

consistent with some of our previously suggested actions. 4 

Addressing issues of fragmentation, overlap, and duplication will require 

sustained attention by the executive branch agencies and Congress. In 

the majority of cases, executive branch agencies have the authority to 

address the actions that we identified, and could do so by, for example, 

improving planning, measuring performance, improving management 

oversight, and increasing collaboration. In other cases, Congress will 

need to be involved through their legislative and oversight activities as 

well as other strategies. Additionally, the performance planning and 

reporting framework originally put into place by the Government 

Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), and significantly 

2jn assessing overall progress for an area, we determined that an area was «addressedn if 

all actions in that area were addressed; "partially addressed" if at least one action needed 

in that area showed some progress toward implementation but not all actions were 

addressed; and "not addressed" jf none of the actions needed in that area was addressed 

or partially addressed. Percentages do not add to 100 percent because we assessed one 

area as "consolidated or other.n See GAO-13-279SP for more information on our scope 

and methodology. 

3For congressional actions, we applied the following criteria: "addressed" means relevant 

legislation has been enacted; "partially addressed" means a relevant bill has passed a 

committee, the House of Representatives, or the Senate, or relevant legislation only 

addressed part of the action needed; and ~not addressed» means a bill may have been 

introduced but did not pass out of a committee, or no relevant legislation has been 

introduced. For executive branch actions, "addressed" means implementation of the action 

needed has been completed; "partially addressed" means a response to the action 

needed is in development, but not yet completed; and "not addressed" means that minima! 

or no progress has been made toward implementing the action needed. We are not 

asseSSing 9 actions this year that were previously included in our 2011 and 2012 reports. 

Based on subsequent audit work that we conducted, these actions have been 

consolidated, redirected from a congressional to an executive branch action, or revised to 

reflect updated infonnation or data that we obtained. Further, 16 actions reported in 2011 

and 2012 were revised this year due to additional audit work or other information we considered. 

4We will assess the extent to which these steps address our suggested actions and 

update the status of the actions, as appropriate, on GAO's Act;on Tracker. 

Page 3 GAO-13-631T 
22 

enhanced by the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, could help the 

executive branch and Congress address these issues over time. 5 

2013 Annual Report 

Identifies 31 New 

Areas to Achieve 

Greater Efficiency or 

Effectiveness 

In 17 of the 31 new areas where agencies may be able to achieve greater 

efficiency or effectiveness, we found evidence of fragmentation, overlap, 

or duplication among federal programs or activities. As described in table 

1, these programs or activities cover a wide range of federal functions 

and missions. 

Table 1: Fragmentation. Overlapl and Duplication Areas Identified in Our 2013 Annual Report, by Mission 

Mission Areas identified 

Agriculture 1. Catfish Inspection: Repealing provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill that assigned U.S. Department of Agriculture's 

Food Safety and Inspection Service responsibility for examining and inspecting catfish and for creating a catfish 

inspection program would avoid duplication of already existing federal programs and could save taxpayers 

millions of dollars annually without affecting the safety of catfish intended for human consumption, 

Defense 2. Combat Unifonns: The Department of Defense's fragmented approach to developing and acquiring unifonns 

could be more efficient, better protect service members, and result in up to $82 million in development and 

acquisition cost savings through increased collaboration among the military services, 

3. Defense Foreign Language Support Contracts: The Department of Defense should address fragmentation in 

the department's acquisition approach for foreign language support contracts, which are estimated to cost more 

than $1 billion annually, by exploring opportunities to gain additional efficiencies. 

Energy 4. Renewable Energy Initiatives: Federal support for wind and solar energy, biofuels, and other renewable 

Health 5. 

6. 

Homeland 7. 

security/law 

enforcement 

energy sources, which has been estimated at several billion dollars per year, is fragmented because 23 

agencies implemented hundreds of renewable energy initiatives in fiscal year 2010-the latest year for which 

GAO developed these original data. Further, the Departments of Energy and Agriculture could take additional 

actions-to the extent possible within their statutory authority-to help ensure effective use of financial support 

from several wind initiatives, which GAO found provided duplicative support that may not have been needed in 

aU cases for projects to be built. 

Joint Veterans and Defense Health Care Services: The Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense should 

enhance their collaboration to reduce costs, overlap, and potential duplication in the delivery of health care 

services between two of the nation's largest health care systems that together provide health care to nearly 16 

million veterans, service members, military retirees, and other beneficiaries, 

Medicaid Program Integrity: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services needs to take steps to eliminate 

duplication and increase efficiency in two Medicaid Integrity Program activities-provider audits and th'e 

collection of state program integrity data. 

Department of Homeland Security Research and Development: Better policies and guidance for defining, 

overseeing, and coordinating research and development investments and activities would help the Department 

of Homeland Security address fragmentation, overlap, and potentia! unnecessary duplication. 

5pub. L No. 103-62, 107 Stat 285 (1993): PUb. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (2011). 

Page 4 GAO·13·631T 
23 

9. 

Information 10. 

technology 

11. 

International 12. 

affairs 

13. 

Science and 14. 

the 

environment 

Social 15. 

services 

Training, 16. 

employment, 

and education 17. 

FieJd~Based Information Sharing: To help reduce inefficiencies resulting from overlap in analytical and 

investigative support activities, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security and the Office of National 

Drug Control Policy could improve coordination among five types of field~based information sharing entities that 

may collect, process, analyze, or disseminate infonnation in support of law-enforcement and. counterterrorismrelated efforts-Joint Terrorism Task Forces, Field Intelligence Groups" Regional Information Sharing Systems 

centers, state and major urban area fusion centers, and High IntenSity Drug Trafficking Areas Investigative 

Support Centers. 

Justice and Treasury Asset Forfeiture: Conducting a study to evaluate the feasibility of consolidating the 

Departments of Justice's and Treasury's multimillion dollar asset forfeiture activities could help the departments 

identify the extent to which consolidation of potentially duplicative activities would help increase the efficiency 

and effectiveness of the programs and achieve cost savings. 

Dissemination of Technical Research Reports: Congress may wish to consider whether the fee-based mode! 

under which the National Technical Information Service currently operates for disseminating technical 

information is still viable or appropriate, given that many of the reports overlap with similar information available 

from the issuing organizations or other sources for free. 

Geospatiallnvestments: Better coordination among federal agencies that coilect, maintain, and use geospatia! 

information could help reduce duplication of geospatia! investments and provide the opportunity for potential 

savings of millions of dollars. 

Export Promotion: Enhanced collaboration between the Small Business Administration and two other agencies 

could help to limit overlapping export~re!ated services for small businesses, 

International Broadcasting: The Broadcasting Board of Govemors-with a budget of $752 million in fiscal year 

2012-has recognized the need to reduce overlap and reallocate limited resources to broadcasts that will have 

the greatest impact, but the agency could do more to achieve this goal, such as systematically considering 

overlap of language services in its annual language services review, 

Rural Water Infrastructure: Additional coordination by the Environmental Protection Agency and the 

Department of Agriculture could help three water and wastewater infrastructure programs with combined funding 

of about $4.3 billion avoid potentially duplicative application requirements, as well as associated costs and time 

developing engineering reports and environmental analyses. 

Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment Programs: More fully assessing the extent of overlap and potential 

duplication across the fragmented 76 federal drug abuse prevention and treatment programs and identifying 

opportunities for increased coordination, including those programs where no coordination has occurred, would 

better position the Office of National Drug Control Policy to better leverage resources and increase efficiencies. 

Higher Education Assistance: Federal agencies providing assistance for higher education should better 

coordinate to improve program administration and help reduce fragmentation. 

Veterans' Employment and Training: The Departments of labor, Veterans Affairs, and Defense need to better 

coordinate the employment services each provides to veterans, and labor needs to better target the Disabled 

Veterans' Outreach Program so that it does not overlap with other programs. 

Source: GAO. 

We consider programs or activities to be fragmented when more than one 

federal agency (or more than one organization within an agency) is 

involved in the same broad area of national need and opportunities may 

exist to improve how the government delivers services. We identified 

fragmentation in multiple programs we reviewed, including the following: 

Combat Uniforms: We found that the Department of Defense's (DOD) 

fragmented approach to developing and acquiring combat uniforms 

could be more efficient. Further, DOD has not taken steps to ensure 

Page 5 GAO-13-631T 
24 

equivalent levels of uniform performance and protection for service 

members conducting joint military operations in different uniforms, 

potentially exposing them to increased risk on the battlefields Since 

2002, the military services have shifted from using two camouflage 

patterns to seven service-specific camouflage uniforms with varying 

patterns and colors. Although DOD established a board to help 

ensure collaboration and DOD-wide integration of clothing and textile 

activities, we continue to identify inefficiencies in DOD's uniform 

acquisition approach. For example, we found that none of the services 

had taken advantage of opportunities to reduce costs through 

partnering on inventory management or by collaborating to achieve 

greater standardization among their various camouflage uniforms. We 

have identified several actions DOD should take to realize potential 

efficiencies. In addition, DOD reported that it could save up to $82 

million in development and acquisition cost savings through increased 

collaboration among the military services. These actions include 

directing the Secretaries of the military departments to actively pursue 

partnerships for the joint development and use of uniforms. 

Renewable Energy Initiatives: Federal support for wind and solar 

energy, biofuels, and other renewable energy sources has increased 

Significantly in recent years. Specifically, third-party estimates indicate 

that federal spending over the 7-year period from 2002 through 2008 

averaged about $4 billion per year and increased to almost $15 billion 

in fiscal year 2010, in part because of addITional spending through the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. We found that 

federal support for renewable energy is fragmented, as 23 agencies 

and their 130 subagencies implemented hundreds of initiatives in 

fiscal year 2010. We could not comprehensively assess the potential 

for overlap or duplication among these nearly 700 renewable energy 

initiatives, because existing agency information was not sufficiently 

complete to allow for such an assessment. However, fragmentation 

can be a harbinger of potential overlap or duplication. For example, 

we assessed federal wind energy initiatives and found that most of the 

82 wind-related initiatives that we examined had overlapping 

characteristics, and several of them have provided duplicative 

financial support to deploy wind energy projects. Such duplicative 

federal financial support may not have been needed in all cases for 

'DOD and the Joint Staff have described the modem-day battlefield as a place with no 

clearly defined front lines or safer rear area where combat support operations are 

perfonmed. 

PageS GAO-13-631T 
25 

the projects to be built. To help ensure effective use of financial 

support, we suggested that the Department of Energy and the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, to the extent possible within their statutory 

authority, assess and document whether the financial support of their 

initiatives is needed when considering applications. 

In some of the programs and activities where there was fragmentation, 

we also found instances of overlap. Overlap occurs when multiple 

agencies or programs have similar goals, engage in similar activities or 

strategies to achieve them, or target similar beneficiaries. We found 

overlap among federal programs or initiatives in a variety of areas, such 

as joint veterans and defense health care services, export promotion 

activities, drug abuse prevention and treatment programs, and veterans' 

employment and training programs, as well as the following: 

Department of Homeland Security Research and Development: Within 

the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), we found at least six 

department components involved in research and development 

activities. We examined 47 research and development contracts 

awarded by these components and found 35 instances among 29 

contracts in which the contracts overlapped with activities conducted 

elsewhere in the department. Taken together, these 29 contracts were 

worth about $66 million. In one example of the overlap we found that 

two DHS components awarded five separate contracts that each 

addressed detection of the same chemical. While we did not identify 

instances of unnecessary duplication among these contracts, DHS 

has not developed a policy defining who is responsible for 

coordinating research and development and what processes should 

be used to coordinate it, and does not have mechanisms to track 

research and development activities at DHS that could help prevent 

overlap, fragmentation, or unnecessary duplication. We suggested 

that developing a policy defining the roles and responsibilities for 

coordinating research and development. and establishing coordination 

processes and a mechanism to track all research and development 

projects could help DHS mitigate existing fragmentation and overlap. 

and reduce the risk of unnecessary duplication. 

Overlap and fragmentation among government programs or activities can 

lead to duplication, which occurs when two or more agencies or programs 

are engaged in the same activities or provide the same services to the 

same beneficiaries. Our 2013 report includes several areas where we 

identified potentially duplicative federal efforts, including the following: 

Page 7 GAO·13-631T 
26 

Medicaid Program Integrity: We identified duplication in the Medicaid 

Integrity Program, which provides federal support and oversight of 

state programs.7 ln particular, the use of two sets of federal 

contractors in the National Medicaid Audit Program-one contractor to 

review states' paid claims in order to identify potential aberrant claims 

or billing anomalies and another contractor to audit such aberrant 

claims-increased inefficiencies in data analysis and· led to duplication 

of effort. To address this duplication, we suggested that the Centers 

for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) merge certain functions of 

the federal review contractors and federal audit contractors and 

discontinue the annual state program integrity assessment to 

eliminate or avoid duplicative activities. Partly in response to our 

suggestion, CMS is not renewing its federal review contractors when 

their contracts expire this year, which has the potential for saving $15 

million or more. 

In addition to these 17 areas of fragmentation, overlap, and duplication in 

federal efforts, we present 14 areas in which we identified opportunities to 

reduce the cost of government operations or enhance revenue collections 

for the Treasury. These opportunities for executive branch or 

congressional action exist in a wide range of federal government missions 

(see table 2). 

Table 2: Cost Savings and Revenue Enhancement Opportunities Identified In Our 2013 Annual Report, by Mission 

Mission 

Agriculture 

Areas Identified 

18. Agricultural Quara~tine Inspection Fees: The United States Department of Agriculture's Anima! and Plant 

Health Inspection Service could have achieved as much as $325 million in savings (based on fiscal year 2011 

data, as reported in GAO's March 2013 report) by more fully aligning fees with program costs; although the 

savings would be recurring, the amount would depend on the cost-collections gap in a given fiscal year and 

would result in a reduced reliance on U.S. Customs and Border Protection's annual Salaries and Expenses 

appropriations used for agricultural inspection services. 

19. Crop Insurance: To achieve up to $1.2 billion per year in cost savings in the federal crop insurance program, 

Congress could consider limiting the subsidy for premiums that an individual farmer can receive each year, 

reducing the subsidy for all or high~lncome farmers participating in the program, or some combination of limiting 

and reducing these subSidies. 

7Medicaid is the joint federal-state heaHh care financing program for certain low-income 

individuals and is one of the largest social programs in federal and state budgets. We 

have had long~standing concerns about Medicaid's program integrity because of problems 

with the sufficiency of federal and state oversight For example, the Centers for Medicare 

& Medicaid Services estimated that in fiscal year 2012, $19.2 billion (7.1 percent) of 

Medicaid's federal expenditures involved improper payments. 

PageS GAO·13·631T 
27 

Mission 

Defense 

Energy 

General 

government 

Health 

Homeland 

security/law 

enforcement 

Information 

technology 

International 

affairs 

Areas identified 

20. Joint Basing: The Department of Defense needs an implementation plan to guide joint bases to achieve 

millions of dollars in cost savings and efficiencies anticipated from combining support services at 26 

installations located close to one another. 

21. Department of Energy's Isotope Program: Assessing the value of isotopes to customers, and other factors 

such as prices of alternatives, may show that the Department of Energy could increase prices for isotopes that 

it sens to commercial customers to create cost savings by generating additional revenue. 

22. 

23. 

24. 

25. 

26. 

27. 

28. 

29. 

30. 

31. 

Additional Opportunities to fmprove Internal Revenue Service Enforcement of Tax Laws: The Internal 

Revenue Service can realize cost savings and increase revenue collections by billions of dollars by, among 

other things, using more rigorous analyses to better allocate enforcement and other resources. 

Agencies' Use of Strategic Sourcing: Selected agencies could better leverage their buying power and 

achieve additiona! savings by directing more procurement spending to existing strategically sourced contracts 

and further expanding strategic sourcing practices to their highest spending procurement categaries-savings 

of one percent from selected agencies' procurement spending alone would equate to over $4 billion. 

Opportunities to Help Reduce Government Satellite Program Costs: Government agencies could achieve 

considerable cost savings on some missions by leveraging commercial spacecraft through innovative 

mechanisms such as hosted payload arrangements and sharing launch vehide costs. Selected agencies have 

reported saving hundreds of millions of dollars to date from using these innovative mechanisms. 

Medicare Prepayment Controls: More widespread use of prepayment edits could reduce improper payments 

and achieve other cost savings for the Medicare program, as well as provide more conSistent coverage 

nationwide. 

Medicaid Supplemental Payments: To improve the transparency of and accountability for certain high~risk 

Medicaid payments that annually total tens of billions of dollars, Congress should consider requiring the 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to take steps that would faellitate the agency's ability to oversee 

these payments, including identifying payments that are not used for Medicaid purposes or are otherwise 

inconsistent with Medicaid payment principles, which could lead to cost savings. GAO's analysis for providers 

for which data are available suggests that savings could be in the hundreds of millions, or billions, of dollars. 

Medicare Advantage Quality Bonus Payment Demonstration: Rather than implementing the Medicare 

Advantage quality bonus payment program specifically established by law, the Centers far Medicare & 

Medicaid Services is testing an alternative bonus payment structure under a broad demonstration authority 

through a 3~year demonstration that has design flaws, raises legal concems, and is estimated to cost over $8 

billlon; about $2 billion could be saved jf it were canceled for its last year, 2014. 

Checked Baggage Screening: By reviewing the appropriateness of the federal cost share the Transportation 

Security Administration applies to agreements finanCing airport facility modification projects related to the 

installation of checked baggage screening systems, the Transportation Security Administration COUld, if a 

reduced cost share was deemed appropriate, achieve cost efficiencies and be positioned to instal! a greater 

number of optimal baggage screening systems than it currently anticipates. 

Cloud Computing: Better planning of cloud-based computing solutions provides an opportunity for potential 

savings of millions of dollars. 

Information Technology Operations and Maintenance: Strengthening oversight of key federal agencies' 

major infonnation technology investments in operations and maintenance provides opportunity for savings on 

billions in information technology investments. 

Tobacco Taxes: Federal revenue losses were as much as $615 million to $1.1 billion between April 2009 and 

201'1 because manufacturers and consumers substituted higher-taxed smoking tobacco products with similar 

lower~taxed products. To address future revenue losses, Congress should consider modifying tobacco tax rates 

to eliminate Significant tax differentials between similar products. 

Source: GAO. 

Page 9 GAO-13-631T 
28 

Among the 14 areas of opportunity to reduce costs or enhance revenue 

identified in our 2013 annual report are the following examples of 

opportunities for executive branch agencies or Congress to take action to 

address the issues we reported: 

Medicare Advantage Quality Bonus Payment Demonstration: We 

report concerns about CMS's Medicare Advantage Quality Bonus 

Payment Demonstration, which is expected to cost $8.35 billion over 

10 years, most of which will be paid to plans with average 

performance. Medicare Advantage provides health care coverage 

through private health plans offered by organizations under contract 

with CMS. The agency's stated research goal for the demonstration is 

to test whether an alternative bonus structure leads to larger and 

faster annual quality improvement for Medicare Advantage plans. We 

found that the demonstration's design precludes a credible evaluation 

of its effectiveness because it lacks an appropriate comparison group 

needed to isolate the demonstration's effects, and because the 

demonstration's bonus payments are based largely on plan 

performance that predates the demonstration. Based on these 

concerns, we suggest that Department of Heatth and Human Services 

(HHS) cancel the Medicare Advantage Quality Bonus Payment 

Demonstration. In addition, the demonstration's design raises legal 

concerns about whether it falls within HHS's demonstration authority. 

Although the demonstration is now in its second year, HHS still has an 

opportunity to achieve significant cost savings-about $2 billion, 

based on GAO's analysis of CMS actuaries' estimates-if it cancels 

the demonstration for 2014. 

Internal Revenue Service Enforcement of Tax Laws: Additional cost 

savings and increased revenue collections may be realized by 

improving the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) enforcement of tax 

laws. I RS has estimated that the net tax gap-the difference between 

taxes owed and taxes paid on time or recovered-was $385 billion for 

tax year 2006 (the most recent year for which data were available). 

We have identified several areas where IRS can improve its 

programs, reduce its costs, and facilitate voluntary compliance with 

existing tax laws. For example, we suggested that IRS should 

complete a broad strategy, including a timeline and performance 

measures, for how it intends to use information collected to improve 

tax compliance. We also suggested better enforcement of services 

designed to facilitate voluntary compliance, such as appropriate levels 

of telephone and correspondence service and wait time. Similarly, we 

previously suggested that Congress consider granting IRS broader 

math error authority, with appropriate safeguards against misuse of 

Page 10 GAO·13·G31T 
29 

that authority, to correct errors during tax return processing. These 

and other actions we have identified could help the federal 

government increase revenue collections by billions of dollars. We 

have previously reported that the government would generate an 

additional $3.8 billion per year if service and enforcement 

improvements reduced the tax gap by 1 percent. 

Department of Energy's Isotope Program: Opportunities may also 

exist for the Department of Energy (Energy) to generate additional 

revenue by increasing the price for isotopes that it sells to commercial 

customers. 8 Energy's Isotope Development and Production for 

Research and Applications program sells isotopes to commercial 

customers for a variety of uses, such as medical procedures and 

radiation detection equipment. To achieve its mission, the program 

relies on annual appropriations and revenues from isotope sales. 

Although revenues from sales of isotopes alone totaled over $25 

million in fiscal year 2012, we found that Energy may be forgoing 

revenue because it is not using thorough assessments to set prices 

for commercial isotopes. Thus, we suggested that Energy examine 

the prices it sets for commercial isotopes to determine if prices can be 

increased. 

With the issuance of our 2013 report, we have completed a systematic 

examination to identify major instances of fragmentation, overlap, or 

duplication across the federal government. Through our three annual 

reports, we have identified 162 areas in which there are opportunities to 

reduce fragmentation, overlap, or duplication or to achieve cost savings 

or enhance revenue. Within these 162 areas, we identify approximately 

380 actions that the executive branch or Congress could take to address 

the issues we identified. These areas span a wide range of government 

missions, covering activities within all 15 cabinet-level executive 

departments and 17 other federal entities (see fig. 2). Collectively, if the 

actions we suggest are implemented, the government could potentially 

save tens of billions of dollars annually. 

81sotopes are varieties of a given chemical element with the same number of protons but 

different numbers of neutrons. For example, the helium·3 isotope, which is used in 

research and to detect neutrons in radiation detection equipment, has one less neutron 

than the helium--4 isotope, which is the helium isotope commonly used in party balloons. 

Page 11 GAO-13-631T 
30 

Figure 2: Actions Needed Directed to Federal Oepartments and Agencies in 2011 .. 

2013 Annual Reports 

Source: GAO 

LeS$thal1 0..2% eacn 

of federal budget: 

Judtcia!Branch,016~,) 

ONaflonal Science Foundation IP.14%J 

OSBA;oll%) 

• Legislative Branch (ow .. ) 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (GO<%) 

• Exec. Office of President (OOl%) 

aU.S. Postal Service (USPS) obligations are primarily funded by posta! revenues, although USPS receives minima! appropriations for overseas voting and mail for the blind. Additionally, USPS has a 

maximum $15 billion in borrowing authority, which it reached in fiscal year 2012. 

~reasury's percentage of fiscal year 2011 obligations includes interest on the national debt. 

Note: Individual actions needed are counted multiple times when they are directed to more than one 

federal department or agency. 

Our 2013 annual report completes our 3-year systematic examination 

across the federal government to identify major instances of 

fragmentation, overlap, or duplication. Our systematic examination 

required a muijiphased approach. First, we reviewed the budget functions 

of the federal government representing nearly all of the overall federal 

Page 12 GAO·13·631T 
31 

funds obligated in fiscal year 2010. 9 Federal budget functions classify 

budget resources by national need (such as National Defense, Energy, or 

Agriculture), and instances in which multiple federal agencies obligate 

funds within a particular budget function may indicate potential duplication 

or cost savings opportunities (see fig. 3). Although this type of analysis 

cannot answer the question of whether overlap or duplication exists, it 

can help in the selection of areas for further investigation. Second, we 

reviewed key agency documents, such as strategic plans, performance 

and accountability reports, and budget justifications, as we have found 

that when multiple executive branch agencies have similar missions, 

goals, or programs, the potential for fragmentation, overlap, or duplication 

exists. Third, we reviewed key external published sources of information, 

such as reports published by the Congressional Budget Office, Inspectors 

General, and the Congressional Research Service, as well as the 

President's budgets, to identify potential overlap and duplication among 

agency missions, goals, and programs. 

90ur examination did not include two budget functions: Allowances, because there were 

no actual obligations, and Undistributed Offsetting Receipts, because no obligations are 

charged to agencies. 

Page 13 GAO·13·631T 
32 

Figure 3: Spending Patterns by Executive Branch Agency and Budget Function, Fiscal Year 2010 

Executive Branch 

• • • • • • • 

• • • • • 

• • • • • • 10 

• • • • 

• • • • • • • • 

• • • • 

• • • • 

• 

• Office of Personnel Management • • • Posta!Serv~ • Small Business Admllllstration • • Socia! Secunty Administration 

Number of eXe(:utive agencfeS • • • • 10 5 10 5 11 1 charging this function 

SOUIW' GAO analy$I$, 

Pag.i4 GAO·13·631T 
33 

The Administration 

and Congress Have 

Made Some Progress 

in Addressing the 

Areas That We 

Previously Identified 

In addition to the new actions identified for our 2013 annual report, we 

have continued to monitor the progress that the executive branch 

agencies and Congress have made in addressing the issues we identified 

in our 2011 and 2012 annual reports. In these reports, we identified 

approximately 300 actions that the executive branch and Congress could 

take to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness. 

We evaluated progress by determining an "overall assessment" rating for 

each area and an individual rating for each action within an area (see 

figures 4 and 5). We found that the executive branch agencies and 

Congress have made progress in addressing the 131 areas we identified 

in 2011 and 2012. As of March 6, 2013, the date we completed our audit 

work, about 12 percent of the 131 overall areas were addressed; 66 

percent were partially addressed; and 21 percent were not addressed. 

Within these areas, about 21 percent of the approximately 300 individual 

actions were addressed, 48 percent were partially addressed, and 28 

percent were not addressed. 

Figure 4: Assessment of 131 Areas from 2011 and 2012, as of March 6, 2013 

1% 

Not~~~~~~ ~;I,'\:rI~·li:~~I~011~1==~ •••••••••• 

Consolidated 

or other 

20 40 60 80 

So(Jrce:GAO 

Figure 5: Assessment of Approximately 300 Actions from 2011 and 2012, as of March 6, 2013 

3% 

Addressed 

P"lal~==- addntSSed 

Not addrened 

Consolidated 

or other 

Page 15 

50 100 150 200 

100 120 140 

250 300 350 

GAO-13-631T 
34 

According to our analysis, as of March 6, 2013, of the 249 actions 

identified in 2011 and 2012 that were directed to executive branch 

agencies, 22 percent were addressed and 57 percent were partially 

addressed. Examples of the progress that executive branch agencies 

have made include the following: 

Overseas Defense Posture: In our 2012 annual report, we suggested 

the Secretary of Defense direct appropriate organizations within DOD 

to complete a business case analysis, including an evaluation of 

alternative courses of action, for the strategic objectives that have to 

this point driven the decision to implement tour normalization in South 

Korea-that is, the initiative to extend the tour length of military 

service members and move their dependents to South Korea. Based 

on the resulting business case analysis, DOD officials stated that 

United States Forces Korea determined that the tour normalization 

initiative was not affordable. This decision not to move forward with 

the tour normalization initiative resulted in cost avoidance of $3.1 

billion from fiscal years 2012 through 2016. 

Air Force Food Service: In our 2012 annual report, we suggested that 

the Air Force review and renegotiate food service contracts to better 

align with the needs of installations. According to Air Force officials, 

after reviewing the food service contracts at eight installations, the Air 

Force renegotiated their contracts for a total savings of over $2.5 

million per year. In addITion, according to Air Force officials, all food 

service contracts were validated again during fiscal year 2012 for 

additional savings of over $2.2 million per year. Air Force officials told 

us that the Air Force will review contracts annually for areas where 

costs can be reduced. 

Information Technology Investment Management: In our 2012 annual 

report, we suggested that the Director of the Office of Management 

and Budget require federal agencies to report the steps they take to 

ensure that their information technology investments are not 

duplicative in their annual budget and information technology 

investment submissions. The Office of Management and Budget's 

(OM B) fiscal year 2014 budget guidance requires agencies to identify 

duplicative or low value investments in information technology and 

make plans to consolidate or eliminate these investments. Reducing 

duplicative and low value investments could save millions of dollars. 

Congress has also taken steps to address some of our suggested 

actions. As of March 6, 2013, 20 percent of the 50 actions directed to 

Congress in our 2011 and 2012 annual reports were addressed and 12 

Page 16 GAO·13·631T 
35 

percent were partially addressed. Examples of progress that Congress 

has made include the following: 

Domestic Ethanol Production: In our 2011 annual report, we 

suggested that Congress address duplicative federal efforts directed 

at increasing domestic ethanol production, which could reduce 

revenue losses by more than $5.7 billion annually. To reduce these 

revenue losses, we suggested that Congress consider whether 

revisions to the ethanol tax credit were needed and we suggested 

options to consider, including allowing the volumetric ethanol excise 

tax credit to expire at the end of 2011. Congress allowed the tax credit 

to expire at the end of 2011 , which ended the ethanol tax credit for 

fuel blenders that purchase and blend ethanol with gasoline. 

Surface Transportation: In our 2011 annual report, we suggested that 

Congress address the need for a more goal-oriented approach to 

surface transportation that is less fragmented and more accountable 

for resuns. Specifically, we found that over the years, in response to 

changing transportation, environmental, and societal goals, federal 

surface transportation programs grew in number and complexity to 

encompass broader goals, more programs, and a variety of program 

approaches and grant structures. This increasing complexity resulted 

in a fragmented approach as five Department of Transportation 

agencies administer over 100 separate programs with separate 

funding streams for highways, transit, tail, and safety functions. The 

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, signed into law in 

July 2012, reauthorized the nation's surface transportation programs 

through the end of fiscal year 2014. The act addressed fragmentation 

by eliminating or consolidating programs, and made progress in 

clarifying federal goals and roles and linking federal programs to 

performance to better ensure accountability for results. 

While the executive branch and Congress have made some progress in 

addressing the issues that we have previously identified, additional steps 

are needed to address the remaining areas to achieve associated 

benefits. A number of the issues are difficult to address, and 

implementing many of the actions identified will take time and sustained 

leadership. To help maintain attention on these issues, we recently 

launched GAO's Action Tracker, a publicly accessible website containing 

the status of actions suggested in our first three reports. 10 The website 

10See http:ltwww.gao.gov/duplication/actiontracker. 

Page 17 GAO·13-631T 
36 

President's Fiscal Year 

2014 Budget 

Submission and 

Recent Legislative 

Proposals Appear 

Consistent with Some 

of Our Suggested 

Actions 

allows executive branch agencies, Congress, and the public to track the 

progress the government is making in addressing the issues we have 

identified. We will add areas and suggested actions identified in and 

future reports to GAO's Action Tracker and periodically update the status 

of all identified areas and activities. 

The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Budget submission makes several 

proposals that appear ccnsistent with our suggested actions. Many of 

these proposals require some legislative action and therefore, Congress 

may wish to examine the following areas in its oversight: 

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM): In our 

2012 annual report, we found that federal agencies obligated $3.1 

billion in fiscal year 2010 to 209 STEM education programs 

administered by 13 federal agencies, and that 173 of these (83 

percent) of these programs overlapped to some degree with at least 1 

other program in that they offered similar services to similar target 

groups in similar STEM fields to achieve similar objectives. To 

minimize this overlap, we suggested that strategic planning by 

executive branch agencies is needed to better manage overlapping 

programs across multiple agencies STEM. In an effort to minimize 

both fragmentation and overlap in STEM programs, the President's 

Fiscal Year 2014 Budget submission proposes ccnsolidating or 

eliminating 114 programs and redirecting nearly $180 million from 

consolidated programs to three agencies: Education, the National 

Science Foundation, and the Smithsonian Institution. These agencies 

would coordinate efforts with the activities and assets of other federal 

science agencies. 

Catfish Inspection: In our 2013 annual report, we found that when 

U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service 

begins the catfish inspection program as mandated in the Food, 

Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, the program will duplicate 

work already conducted by the Food and Drug Administration and by 

the National Marine Fisheries Service. For example, as many as three 

agencies-Food and Drug Administration, Food Safety and Inspection 

Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service-could inspect 

facilities that process both catfish and other types of seafood. To 

avoid this duplication, we suggest that Congress repeal this provision 

of the act, which could save millions of dollars each year. The 

President's Fiscal Year 2014 Budget submission proposes the 

elimination of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's catfish inspection 

program. Similarly, S. 632 and H.R. 1313, introduced on March 21, 

Page 18 GAO·13·631T 
37 

2013, would eliminate USDA's catfish inspection (and catfish grading) 

program. As of May 8, 2013, the bills were pending in committees of 

jurisdiction. 

Farm Direct Payments: In our 2011 annual report, we found that 

reducing or eliminating fixed annual payments to farmers-which are 

known as direct payments and which farmers receive even in years of 

record farm income-could achieve cost savings of as much as $5 

billion annually. We suggested that Congress consider reducing or 

eliminating direct payments by (1) lowering payment or income 

eligibility limits; (2) reducing the portion of a farm's acres eligible for 

the payments; or (3) terminating or phasing out direct payments. The 

President's Fiscal Year 2014 Budget submission proposes eliminating 

direct payments to farmers. 

Economic Development: In our 2011 annual report, we found that 

there was fragmentation and overlap among 80 economic 

development programs at four agencies- the Department of 

Commerce, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the 

Small Business Administration, and the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture-in terms of the economic development activities that they 

are authorized to fund. We suggested, among other things, that the 

agencies further utilize promising practices for enhanced 

collaboration, such as seeking more opportunities for resourcesharing across economic development programs with shared 

outcomes and identifying ways to leverage each program's strengths 

to improve their existing collaborative efforts. The agencies have 

taken steps to address this action, which we consider partially 

addressed, including entering into a number of formal agreements 

that are intended to help enhance and sustain collaboration. In 

addition, the administration has initiated steps that provide the 

agencies with a mechanism to work together to identify additional 

opportunities to enhance collaboration among programs. The 

President's Fiscal Year 2014 Budget submission also states that the 

President will again seek reorganization authority and use such 

authority to consolidate the economic and business development 

activities in the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Health and 

Human Services, and the Treasury, as well as the Small Business 

Administration, into a new department with a focused mission to foster 

economic growth and spur job creation. 

Crop Insurance: In our 2013 annual report, we found that applying 

limits on premium subsidies to individual farmers participating in the 

federal crop insurance program, similar to the payment limits for other 

Page 19 GAO·13-631T 
38 

farm programs, could save billions of federal dollars over 5 years. We 

suggested Congress consider either limiting the amount of premium 

subsidies that an individual farmer can receive each year-as it limits 

the amount of payments to individual farmers in many farm 

programs--or reducing premium subsidy rates for all participants in 

the crop insurance program, or both limiting premium subsidies and 

reducing premium subsidy rates. The President's Fiscal Year 2014 

Budget submission proposes to reduce farmers' premium subsidies 

by 3 percentage points for those policies that are currently subsidized 

by more than 50 percent, which is expected to save about $4.2 billion 

over 10 years. In addition, the President's Fiscal Year 2014 Budget 

submission proposes to reduce farmers' premium subsidies by 2 

percentage points on policies that provide a higher indemnity if the 

commodity prices are higher at harvest time than when the policy was 

purchased, which is expected to save about $3.2 billion over 10 years. 

Renewable Energy Initiatives: In our 2013 annual report, we 

suggested that the Secretaries of Energy and Agriculture should, to 

the extent possible within their statutory authority, formally assess and 

document whether the incremental financial support of their initiatives 

is needed in order for applicants' projects to be built, and take this 

information into account in determining whether, or how much, 

support to provide. The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Budget 

submission does not include funding for the High Energy Cost Grant 

Program, administered by the Department of Agriculture's Rural 

Utilities Service--one of the programs we identified that has provided 

duplicative support. This proposed elimination, if implemented, could 

help to reduce the potential for duplicative support. 

Congress has also taken additional actions that are consistent with those 

we have identified in our previous reports. For example, in our 2011 and 

2013 annual reports, we cited numerous information technology areas in 

which duplication could be minimized or cost savings achieved across the 

federal government and made a number of recommendations to address 

these issues. In fiscal year 2013, federal agencies reported to OMB that 

approximately $74 billion was budgeted for information technology. On 

March 18, 2013, the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform 

Act (H.R. 1232) was introduced to eliminate duplication and waste in 

information technology acquisition and management. Among other things, 

the bill requires a governmentwide inventory of information technology 

assets to identify duplicative or overlapping investments. As of May 8, 

2013, the bill was reported favorably to the full House. 

Page 20 GAO·13..s31T 
39 

Leveraging Existing 

and Proposed 

Strategies Can Help to 

Address 

Fragmentation, 

Overlap, and 

Duplication 

Identifying, preventing, and addressing fragmentation, overlap, and 

duplication within the federal government is challenging. These are 

difficult issues to address because they may require agencies and 

Congress to re-examine within and across various mission areas the 

fundamental structure, operation, funding, and performance of a number 

of long-standing federal programs or activities with entrenched 

constituencies. Compounding these challenges is the lack of a 

comprehensive list of federal programs, reliable and complete funding 

information, and regular performance results and information. Without 

knowing the full range of programs involved or the cost of implementing 

them, gauging the magnitude of the federal commitment to a particular 

area of activity or the extent to which aSSOCiated federal programs are 

duplicative is difficult. 

Addressing these issues will require sustained attention by the executive 

branch agencies and the Congress. In the majority of cases, executive 

branch agencies have the authority to address the issues we identified. 

However, in other cases, Congress will need to be involved through their 

legislative and oversight activities. Such oversight is critical to addressing 

these issues. The performance planning and reporting framework 

originally put into place by GPRA, and Significantly enhanced by the 

GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, provides important tools that help the 

Congress and the executive branch clarify desired outcomes, address 

program performance spanning multiple organizations, and facilitate 

future actions to reduce fragmentation, overlap, and duplication. 

However, realizing the intent of the GPRA Modernization Act for 

assessing government performance and improvement and reducing 

fragmentation, overlap, and duplication will require sustained oversight of 

implementation. To assist Congress with this oversight, the act includes 

provisions requiring us to review its implementation at several critical 

junctures. For example, we are to report by June 2013 on initial 

implementation of the act's planning and reporting requirement and 

recommendations for improving implementation. We are also to evaluate 

how implementation is affecting performance management at federal 

agencies to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of agency programs, 

among other things, by September 2015, and again in September 2017. 

To provide more timely and useful information, we have issued a number 

of reports over the past 2 years (1) supporting congressional involvement 

Page 21 GAO·13·631T 
40 

Executive Branch 

Agencies Have the 

Authority to Implement 

Many Actions to Improve 

Efficiency and 

Effectiveness of Programs 

Improving Planning 

in and oversight of agency performance improvement efforts, 11 and (2) 

reviewing the executive branch's implementation of key provisions of the 

act. 12 In June 2013, we plan to issue a report highlighting the key findings 

from these reports along with the results of our most recent survey of 

federal managers on the implementation of key performance 

management practices across government-the fifth such survey we 

have undertaken since 1997. 

Executive branch agencies have the authority needed to address the 

majority of the actions we identified in our three reports. Of the 

approximately 380 actions that we have suggested, 317 were directed to 

executive branch agencies. Given that the areas identified extend across 

the government and that we found a range of conditions among these 

areas, we suggest a similarly wide range of actions for the executive 

branch to consider. The executive branch agencies could address many 

of the issues we identified through improving planning, better measuring 

of performance, improving management oversight, and increasing 

collaboration. These actions are largely consistent with the tools and 

principles put in place by GPRA and the GPRA Modernization Act. 

Given the crosscutting policy areas included in our annual reports, 

planning for the outcomes to be achieved is important in helping federal 

agencies address challenges, particularly those related to fragmentation, 

overlap, or duplication. A focus on outcomes is a first step to then 

determining how all of the activities that contribute to an outcome, 

whether internal or external to an agency, should be aligned to 

accomplish results. 

i1GAO, Managing for Results: A Guide for Using the GPRA Modernization Act to Help 

Inform Congressional Decision Making, GAO-12--621SP (Washington, D.C.: June 15, 

2012); and Managing for Results; Opportunities for Congress to Address Govemment 

Performance Issues, GAO-12-215R (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 9. 2011). 

1:1GAO, Managing for Results: GAO's Work Related to the Interim Crosscutting Priority 

Goals under the GPRA Modernization Act, GAO-12-620R (Washington, D.C.: May 31, 

2012); Managing For Results: Agencies Should More Fully Develop Priority Goals under 

the GPRA Modernization Act, GAO-13-174 (Washington. D.C.: Apr. 19, 2013); Managing 

For Results: Agencies Have Elevated Performance Management Leadership Roles, but 

Additional Training Is Needed, GAO-13-356 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 16,2013); and 

Managing for Results: Data-Driven Performance Reviews Show Promise But Agencies 

ShOUld Explore How to Involve Other Relevant Agencies, GAO-13-228 (Washington, D.C.: 

Feb. 27, 2013). 

Page 22 GAO-13-631T 
41 

In our annual reports, we identified multiple instances of where better 

planning could help reduce the potential for overlap or duplication. For 

example, as we have already noted, strategic planning is needed to better 

manage overlapping STEM programs across multiple agencies. By taking 

this and other actions to increase efficiency and effectiveness, the 

administration could reduce the chance of investing scarce government 

resources without achieving the greatest impact in developing a pipeline 

of future workers in STEM fields. 

Additionally, we reported that a total of 31 federal departments and 

agencies collect, maintain, and use geospatial information-information 

linked to specific geographic locations that supports many government 

functions, such as maintaining roads and responding to natural disasters. 

OMB and the Department of Interior created a number of strategic 

planning documents and guidance to encourage more coordination of 

geospatial assets, reduce needless redundancies, and decrease costs. 

Nevertheless, we found that the Federal Geographic Data Committeethe committee that was established to promote the coordination of 

geospatial data nationwide-and selected federal departments and 

agencies had not effectively implemented the tools that would help them 

to identify and coordinate geospatial data acquisitions across the 

government. As a result, the agencies have made duplicative investments 

and risk missing opportunities to jOintly acquire data. Furthermore, 

although OMB has oversight responsibilities for geospatial data 

investments, it does not have complete and reliable information to identify 

potentially duplicative investments. Better planning and implementation 

among federal agencies could help reduce duplicative investments and 

provide the opportunity for potential savings of millions of dollars. 

As this example highlights, creating a comprehensive list of programs 

along with related funding information is critical for identifying potential 

fragmentation, overlap, or duplication among federal programs or 

activities. Currently, no comprehensive list exists, nor is there a common 

definition for what constitutes a federal 'program," which makes it difficult 

to develop a comprehensive list of all federal programs. The lack of a list, 

in turn, makes it difficult to determine the scope of the federal 

government's involvement in particular areas and, therefore, where action 

is needed to avoid fragmentation, overlap, or duplication. We also found 

that federal budget information is often not available or not sufficiently 

reliable to identify the level of funding provided to programs or activities. 

For example, agencies could not isolate budgetary information for some 

programs because the data were aggregated at higher levels. Without 

knowing the full range of programs involved or the cost of implementing 

Page 23 GAO-13-631T 
42 

Measuring Performance and 

Results 

them, gauging the magnitude of the federal commitment to a particular 

area of activity or the extent to which associated federal programs are 

duplicative is difficult. 

The GPRA Modernization Act requires OMS to compile and make publicly 

available a comprehensive list of all federal programs, and to include the 

purposes of each program, how it contributes to the agency's mission, 

and recent funding information. According to OMS, agencies currently 

use the term "program" in different ways, and OMS plans to allow them to 

continue to define programs in ways that reflect their particular facts and 

circumstances within prescribed guidelines. 13 OMS expects 24 large 

federal agencies to publish an initial inventory of federal programs in May 

2013. '4 In future years, OMS plans to expand this effort to other agencies 

that are to update their inventories annually to reflect the annual budget 

and appropriations process. OMS also expects to enhance the initial 

program inventory by collecting related information, such as financing and 

related agency strategic goals. 

Performance measurement, because of its ongoing nature, can serve as 

an early waming system to management and a vehicle for improving 

accountability to the public. To help ensure that their performance 

information will be both useful and used by decision makers, agencies 

must consider the differing information needs of various users-including 

those in Congress. As we have previously reported, agency performance 

information must meet Congress's needs for completeness, accuracy, 

validity, timeliness, and ease of use to be helpful for congressional 

decision making. '5 

130MB, Circular No, A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget. Aug, 3, 

2012. 

14These 24 agencies are the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, 

Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban 

Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, the Treasury, and 

Veterans Affairs, as well as the Agency for International Development, Environmental 

Protection Agency, General Services Administration, National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, National Science Foundation, Office of Personnel Management, Small 

Business Administration, Social Security Administration, and the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers Civil Works program. 

"GAO-12-621SP. 

Page 24 GAO-13·631T 
43 

Similarly, in our three annual reports, we reported that better evaluation of 

performance and results is needed for multiple federal programs and 

activities to help inform decisions about how to address the 

fragmentation, overlap, or duplication identified or achieve other financial 

benefrts. For example: 

Employment and Training: In our 2011 annual report, we found that 

44 of the 47 federal employment and training programs that we 

identified overlap with at least one other program-that is, they 

provide at least one similar service to a similar population. We also 

found that collocating services and consolidating administrative 

structures may increase efficiencies and reduce costs, but 

implementation can be challenging. In particular, an obstacle to 

achieving greater administrative efficiencies is that little information is 

available about the strategies and results of such initiatives. In April 

2011, we reported that as part of its proposed Workforce Investment 

Act of 1998 reforms, the Administration proposed consolidating 4 

employment and training programs administered by the Department of 

Education into 1 program. 16 In addition, little is known about the 

incentives that states and localities have to undertake such initiatives 

and whether additional incentives are needed. As a result, we 

suggested that the Departments of Labor and Health and Human 

Services should examine the incentives for states and localities to 

pursue initiatives to increase administrative efficiencies in employment 

and training programs and, as warranted, identify options for 

increasing such incentives. Labor and HHS have initiatives underway, 

but it is too early to tell what remedies they will provide. In addition, 

the Administration has proposed to consolidate employment and 

training programs. And H.R. 803, the Supporting Knowledge and 

Investing in lifelong Skills Act (SKILLS Act), which was passed by the 

House in March 2013, would streamline or eliminate multiple and 

training programs and consolidate the funding of a number of other 

programs into a Workforce Investment Fund. 

Domestic Food and Nutrition Assistance: In our 2011 annual report, 

we found that domestic food and nutrition assistance is provided 

through a decentralized system of primarily 18 different federal 

programs that shows signs of overlap and inefficient use of resources. 

16GAO, Employment and Training Programs: Opportunities Exist for Improving Efficiency, 

GAO-"-50ST (Washington. D.C: Apr. 7. 2011). 

Page 25 GAO-13-S31T 
44 

We also found that some of these programs provide comparable 

benefits to Similar or overlapping populations. However, not enough is 

known about the effectiveness of many of these programs, Research 

suggested that participation in 7 of the 18 programs is associated with 

positive health and nutrition outcomes consistent with programs' 

goals; yet little is known about the effectiveness of the remaining 11 

programs because they have not been well studied, As a result, we 

suggested that the U,S, Department of Agriculture should identify and 

develop methods for addressing potential inefficiencies and reducing 

unnecessary overlap among its smaller food assistance programs 

while ensuring that those who are eligible receive the assistance they 

need, 

Teacher Quality: In our 2011 annual report, we identified 82 distinct 

programs designed to help improve teacher quality, either as a 

primary purpose or as an allowable activity, administered across 10 

federal agencies, While a mixture of programs can target services to 

underserved populations and yield strategic innovations, the current 

programs are not structured in a way that enables educators and 

policy makers to identify the most effective practices to replicate, 

According to Department of Education officials, it is typically not costeffective to allocate the funds necessary to conduct rigorous 

evaluations of small programs; therefore, small programs are unlikely 

to be evaluated, As a result, we suggested that the Secretary of 

Education should work with other agencies as appropriate to develop 

a coordinated approach for routinely and systematically sharing 

information that can assist federal programs, states, and local 

providers in achieving efficient service delivery, 

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: In 

our 2012 annual report, we found that in fiscal year 2010, 173 of the 

209 (83 percent) Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 

Education (STEM) education programs administered by 13 federal 

agencies overlapped to some degree with at least 1 other program in 

that they offered similar services to similar target groups in similar 

STEM fields to achieve similar objectives, In addition to the 

fragmented and overlapping nature of federal STEM education 

programs, little is known about the effectiveness of these programs, 

Since 2005, when we first reported on this issue, we found that the 

majority of programs have not conducted comprehensive evaluations 

of how well their programs are working, Without an understanding of 

what is working in some programs, it will be difficult to develop a clear 

strategy for how to spend limited federal funds, Consequently, we 

suggested that the Director of the Office of Science and Technology 

Page 26 GAO-13-631T 
45 

Policy should direct the National Science and Technology Council to 

develop guidance to help agencies determine the types of evaluations 

that may be feasible and appropriate for different types of STEM 

education programs and develop a mechanism for sharing this 

information across agencies. 

The regular collection and review of performance information, both within 

and among federal agencies, could help executive branch agencies and 

Congress detenmine whether some of the federal programs or initiatives 

included in this series are making progress toward addressing the 

identified issues and could determine the actions that need to be taken to 

improve results. However, as we previously noted, our annual reports 

along with a large body of other work highlight several instances in which 

executive branch agencies do not collect necessary performance data. 

For example, in our 2011 annual report we noted that OMS has not used 

its budget and performanca review processes to systematically review tax 

expenditures and promote integrated reviews of related tax and spending 

programs. Coordinated performance reviews of tax expenditures with 

related federal spending programs could help policymakers reduce 

overlap and inconSistencies and direct scarce resources to the most 

effective or least costly methods to deliver federal support. Similarly, we 

have previously reported that as Congress oversees federal programs 

and activities, it needs pertinent and reliable information to adequately 

assess agencies' progress, ensure accountability, and understand how 

individual programs and activities fit within a broader portfolio of federal 

efforts. The lack of reliable performance data also makes it difficult for 

decision makers to determine how to address identified fragmentation, 

overlap, or duplication. 

In order for information from performance measurement initiatives to be 

useful to executive branch agencies and Congress in making decisions, 

garnering congressional support on what to measure and how to present 

this information is critical. Thus, the GPRA Modernization Act significantly 

enhances requirements for agencies to consult with Congress. 

Specifically, at least once every two years, OMS is required to consult 

with relevant commHtees with broad jurisdiction on crosscutting priority 

goals, while agencies must consult with their relevant appropriations, 

authorization, and oversight committees when developing or making 

adjustments to their strategic plans and agency priority goals. Last year 

we prepared a guide to help ensure that these consultations and the 

Page 27 GAO·13-631T 
46 

Enhancing Management 

Oversight 

performance information produced by executive branch agencies are 

useful to Congress in carrying out its various decision-making 

responsibilities. 17 Wtthout this information, it will be difficun to know 

whether an agency's goals reflect congressional input, and therefore if the 

goals will provide useful information for congressional decision making. 

Further, successful consultations can create a basic understanding 

among stakeholders of the competing demands that confront most 

agencies, the limited resources available to them, and how those 

demands and resources require careful and continuous balancing. This is 

important given Congress's constitutional role in setting national priorities 

and allocating the resources to aChieve them. 

Finally, to ensure that their performance information will be both useful 

and used by decision makers, agencies must consider the differing 

information needs of various users. The GPRA Modernization Act puts 

into place several requirements that could address users' needs for 

completeness, accuracy, validity, timeliness, and ease of use. 

Requirements to include information about how various tools, such as 

program activities, regulations, and tax expenditures, contribute to goal 

achievement could lead to the development of performance information in 

areas that are currently incomplete. In addition, agencies are required to 

disclose more information about the accuracy and validity of their 

performance information in their performance plans and reports. While 

agencies will continue to report annually on progress towards the rest of 

their goals, the GPRA Modernization Act provides timelier, quarterly 

reporting for governmentwide and agency priority goals. By also requiring 

information to be posted on a governmentwide website, the act will make 

performance information more accessible and easy to use by 

stakeholders and the public. 

When issues span multiple organizations or multiple entities within an 

organization, improved management oversight is needed to avoid 

potential overlap and duplication. For example, we found that fragmented 

leadership and lack of a single authority in overseeing the acquisition of 

space systems have created challenges for optimally acquiring, 

developing, and deploying new space systems. This fragmentation is 

problematic not only because of a lack of coordination that has led to 

delays in fielding systems, but also because no one person or 

17GAO-12-621SP. 

Page 28 GAO·13-631T 
47 

organization is held accountable for balancing governmentwide needs 

against wants, resolving conflicts, and ensuring coordination among the 

many organizations involved with space acquisitions, and ensuring that 

resources are directed where they are most needed. To help improve the 

coordination of space programs and reduce duplication, we suggest 

assessing whether a construct analogous to the Defense Space 

Council-which serves as the principal advisory forum to inform, 

coordinate, and resolve all DOD space issues-could be applied 

government wide or if a separate organization should be established that 

WOUld, among other things, have responsibility for strategic planning. 

The GPRA Modernization Act seeks to improve agency management 

oversight by including a provision for quarterly performance reviews, 

modeled after effective data driven-or "Stat" -reviews being conducted 

at the local and state level. SpeCifically, agency leaders are required to 

conduct quarterly, data-driven reviews of their performance in achieving 

priority goals and identify strategies to improve performance where goals 

are not being met. As we recently reported, consistent with state and local 

experience, reviews can be a key tool for driving collaboration by 

including all key players from within or outside an agency that contribute 

to goal achievement. " However, few agency Performance Improvement 

Officers reported they are using the reviews to coordinate or collaborate 

with other agencies that have similar goals, and agencies we reviewed 

cited concerns about involving outsiders. Nevertheless, our prior work has 

shown that agencies which participated in various planning and decisionmaking forums together reported that such interactions contributed to 

achieving their goals. 19 For example, the Departments of Housing and 

Urban Development and Veterans Affairs-which both contribute to 

efforts to reduce veterans' homelessness-have conducted several joint 

SFtat meetings, where they jointly analyze performance data to 

understand trends, identify best practices, and prioritize the actions 

needed to achieve veteran homelessness goals. Officials reported that 

these collaborative meetings have contributed to better outcomes. We 

recommended that the Director of OMB identify and share promising 

practices for including other relevant entities that contribute to achieving 

their agency performance goals. OMB agreed with our recommendation. 

18GAO-13-228. 

19GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 

Collaborative Mechanisms, GA0-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012). 

Page 29 GAO·13-631T 
48 

Enhancing Interagency 

Coordination and Collaboration 

When executive branch agencies carry out activities in a fragmented and 

uncoordinated way, the resulting patchwork of programs can waste 

scarce funds, confuse and frustrate program customers, and limit the 

overall effectiveness of the federal effort. Our 2013 annual report includes 

several areas in which improved interagency coordination and 

collaboration could help agencies better leverage limited resources or 

identify opportunities to operate more efficiently. For example, the 

Department of Veterans Affairs and DOD operate two of the nation's 

largest health care systems, together providing health care to nearly 16 

million veterans, service members, military retirees, and other 

beneficiaries at estimated costs for fiscal year 2013 of about $53 billion 

and $49 billion, respectively. As part of their health care efforts, the 

departments have established collaboration sites-locations where the 

two departments share health care resources through hundreds of 

agreements and projects-to deliver care jointly with the aim of improving 

access, quality, and cost-effectiveness of care. However, we found that 

the departments do not have a fully developed and formalized process for 

systematically identifying all opportunities for new or enhanced 

collaboration, potentially miSSing opportunities to improve health care 

access and quality, and reduce costs. 

The GPRA Modernization Act requires OMB to coordinate with executive 

branch agencies to establish crosscutting priority goals and to develop a 

federal government performance plan that defines the level of 

performance needed to achieve them. As we reported in May 2012, the 

President's Fiscal Year 2013 Budget submission included the first list of 

14 interim crosscutting priority goals. For each of the interim goals, as 

required by the act, OMB listed the agencies and programs that 

contribute to the goal in the federal government performance plan. 

However, based on our prior work, we identified additional agencies and 

programs that should be included. Accordingly, we recommended that 

OMB consider adding those additional contributors to the crosscutting 

priority goals. OMB concurred with this recommendation, and in 

December 2012, OMB updated information to the federal government 

performance plan, and added some of the additional agencies and 

programs we identified for select goals. The crosscutting approach 

required by the act will provide a much needed basis for more fully 

integrating a wide array of federal activities as well as a cohesive 

perspective on the long-term goals of the federal government that is 

focused on priority policy areas. It could also be a valuable tool for 

governmentwide reexamination of existing programs and for considering 

proposals for new programs. 

Page 30 GAO·13·631T 
49 

Congress Could Help 

Address Actions We Have 

Identified Through 

Legislative Action, 

Oversight, and Other 

Strategies 

Legislative Action 

The act also requires agencies to describe how they are working with 

each other to achieve their strategic and performance goals, as well as 

any relevant crosscutting priority goals. Moreover, for each of its 

performance and priority goals, each agency must identify the 

organizations, programs, and other activities-both within and external to 

the agency-that contribute to the goal. These new requirements provide 

additional opportunities for collaboration across executive branch 

agencies. We have previously identified key practices that can help 

federal agencies enhance and sustain their collaborative efforts along 

with key features to consider as they implement collaborative 

mechanisms.2o 

Congress also has an important role to play-both in its legislative and 

oversight capacities--ln improving the efficiency and effectiveness of 

government programs. Other legislative strategies are also available, 

such as realigning committee structures or using task forces, caucuses, 

or commissions to work to improve the effiCiency and effectiveness of 

federal programs. 

Our 2013 annual report includes several areas where legislative action is 

needed. For example, as noted earlier, we found that when the U.S. 

Department of AgricuHure's Food Safety and Inspection Service begins 

the catfish inspection program as mandated in the Food, Conservation, 

and Energy Act of 2008, the program will duplicate work already 

conducted by the Food and Drug Administration and by the National 

Marine Fisheries Service. To avoid this duplication, we suggested that 

Congress repeal the provisions of the act that assigned U.S. Department 

of Agriculture responsibilities for examining and inspecting catfish and 

establishing a catfish inspection program. Taking this action, as the 

President's Fiscal Year 2014 Budget and S. 632 and H.R. 1313 

submission propose, could save taxpayers millions annually, according to 

20GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal AgenCies, GACJ..06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005) 

and GAO-12-1022 

Page 31 GAO·13-631T 
50 

Food Safety and Inspection Service estimates of the program's 

Similarly, our 2011 annual report found that, depending on the policy 

choices made, reducing or eliminating direct farm payments could result 

in savings ranging from $800 million over 10 years to $5 billion annually. 

We suggested that Congress consider a range of options and S. 10, 

introduced on January 22,2013, would eliminate all direct fanm payments 

starting in Crop Year 2014. 

We have also suggested that Congress consider taking legislative action 

to consolidate certain programs. For example, in 2011 we reported that 

the federal government's efforts to improve teacher quality have led to the 

creation of 82 distinct programs-administered by 10 federal agenciesat the cost of over $4 billion in fiscal year 2009. In addition to 

fragmentation, we also found overlap in a number of these programs. 

Among other things, we suggested that Congress either eliminate 

programs that are too small to evaluate cost-effectively or combine 

programs serving similar target groups. Similarly, in 2012, we commented 

on the overlap that exists between the products offered and markets 

served by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and 

Agricu~ure's Rural Housing Service. In light of this overlap, we 

recommended that Congress consider requiring that both departments to 

examine the benefits and costs of merging programs. 

Given the potential benefits and costs of consolidation, it is imperative 

that Congress and the executive branch have the infonmation needed to 

help effectively evaluate consolidation proposals. At the request of the 

Task Force on Government Performance, last year GAO issued a report 

identifying key questions for agencies to consider when evaluating 

21To create this potential savings, Congress would need to repeal the provision in the 

Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, or direct in the Food Safety and Inspection 

SeNiee's appropriation that no funds may be spent on the program. If Congress enacts a 

legislative restriction, there may be some opportunity to rescind appropriated 

amounts. Because the inspection program is funded from a lump sum appropriation to 

USDA, funds that would have been used for the program could be available for new 

obligations within the appropriations account. The U.S. Department of Agriculture could 

identify the amount of funds currently available for obligation that would have been used 

for the catfish inspection program and Congress could rescind those amounts. 

Page 32 GAO-13-631T 
51 

consolidation Similarly, these questions could also help 

inform the Congress when it is considering such a proposal: 

What are the goals of the consolidation? What opportunities will be 

addressed through the consolidation and what problems will be 

solved? What problems, if any, will be created? 

What will be the likely costs and benefits of the consolidation? Are 

sufficiently reliable data available to support a business-case analysis 

or cost-benefit analysis? 

How can the up-front costs associated with the consolidation be 

funded? 

Who are the consolidation stakeholders, and how will they be 

affected? How have the stakeholders been involved in the decision, 

and how have their views been considered? On balance, do 

stakeholders understand the rationale for consolidation? 

To what extent do plans show that change management practices will 

be used to implement the consolidation? 

Congress could also require executive branch agencies to conduct 

program evaluations that would assess how well federal programs are 

working and identify steps that are needed to improve them. These 

evaluations typically examine processes, outcomes, impacts, or the costeffectiveness of federal programs. However, few executive branch 

agencies regularly conduct in-depth program evaluations to assess their 

programs' impact or leam how to improve results. Such program 

evaluations can complement ongoing performance measurement but 

typically involve a more in-depth examination to learn the benefits of a 

program or how to irnprove it. GPRA requires agencies to describe the 

sumrnary findings of any cornpleted program evaluations in their 

performance reports. In addition, agencies are to describe how program 

evaluations informed establishing or revising goals in their strategic plans, 

along wHh a schedule for future program evaluations to be conducted. 

22GAO, Questions to Consider When Evaluating Proposals to Consolidate Physical 

Infrastructure and Management Functions, GAO-12·542 (Washington, D.C.: May 23, 

2012). 

Page 33 GAO·13·631T 
52 

Legislative Oversight Congress can also encourage executive branch agencies to improve 

the efficiency and effectiveness of federal programs through its oversight 

activities. For example, our past work has highlighted several instances in 

which Congress has used performance information in its decision making 

to (1) identify issues that the federal government should address, (2) 

measure progress towards addressing those issues, and (3) identify 

better strategies to address the issues, when necessary. Congressional 

use of similar information in its decision making for the identified areas of 

fragmentation, overlap, and duplication will send an unmistakable 

message to agencies that Congress considers these issues a priority. 23 

Such oversight can also highlight progress that agencies are making in 

addressing needed reforms. 

Congress recently highlighted the importance of addressing issues of 

fragmentation, overlap, and duplication through its oversight. For 

example, the Senate Budget Resolution for fiscal year 2014 directs 

committees to review programs and tax expenditures within their 

jurisdiction for waste, fraud, and duplication and to consider the findings 

from our past annual reports. Similarly, the House Budget Resolution for 

fiscal year 2014 describes some of our findings from our past annual 

reports, notes the number of programs that will need to be reauthorized in 

fiscal year 2014, and states that that our findings should result in 

programmatic changes in both authorizing statutes and program funding 

levels. 

The importance of active congressional oversight can be seen in 

improvements made to federal programs that were once included on our 

High Risk List. 24 As the example in figure 6 describes, active 

congressional oversight has helped maintain executive branch agencies' 

attention in addressing the identified concerns and thus contributed to 

their removal from our High Risk List. 

"GA0-12-621SP. 

24GAO's High Risk list calls attention to the agencies and program areas that are high risk 

due to their vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement or are most in 

need of broad reform. For more infonnation about GAO's High Risk list, see 

http://www.gao.gov/highrisk. 

Page 34 GAO-13-631T 
53 

Figure 6: Example of the Importance of Congressional Oversight 

Congressional legislation and oversight has helped focus attention and sustain momentum to improve the processing of security 

clearances not only for DOD but governmentwide.8 As of October 2010, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence reported 

that 3,9 million federal employees (military and civilians) and contractors held security clearances. DOD comprises the vast majority 

of government security clearances. In 2004, we testified that from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2003, the average time for 

DOD to detennine cfearance eligibility for industry personnel increased by 56 days to over 1 year. Delays in issuing clearances can 

result in miUions of doUars of additiona! cost to the federal government and could pose a national security risk, As a result, GAO 

placed the DOD's Personnel Security Clearance Program on its High Risk Ust In 2005, 

Congressional oversight through hearings held by the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal 

Workforce, and the District of Columbia of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs helped highlight 

the need for security clearance reform, From 2005 to 2010, congressional committees held more than 14 hearings on security 

clearance reform, The hearings also helped set the direction for the agencies, including GAO, to work coUaboratively on developing 

metrics in order to address our concerns about the completeness and quality of investigations and adjudications, On March 17,2010, 

the leaders of the refonn effort-the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Personnel Management, Office of the Director of 

National Intelligence, and DOD-a!ong with GAO, met to discuss the status of security clearance reform efforts and consult on 

metrics that could be used to measure progress of security clearance reform efforts, After that meeting, all of these agencies 

provided a memorandum on May 31, 2010 to then-Chairman Akaka containing a matrix with 15 metrics for assessing the timeliness 

and quality of investigations, adjudications, reciprocity (an agency's acceptance of a background investigation or clearance 

determination completed by any authorized investigative or adjudicative agency), and automation.b In 2011, we reported that DOD 

processed 90 percent of initial clearances in an average of 49 days for federal civilians, military, and industry personnel and met the 

60-day statutory timeliness objective for processing atl initial clearances in fiscal year 2010. Also we found that DOD completed 90 

percent of initial clearances for industry personnel in an average of 63 days for aU the data we reviewed in fiscal year 2010. 

Based on progress made GAO removed DOD's Personnel Security Clearance program from the High Risk List in 2011. 

SOl.lrce:GAO. 

"GAO, Personnel Security Clearances: Continued Leadership and Attention Can Enhance Momentum 

Gained from Refonn Effort, GAO·12·815T (WaShington, D.C.: June 21, 2012). 

We partidpated in legislative and executive branch discussions on development of these metrics. 

However, given the need for us to remain independent in canying out its auditing responsibilities of 

the executive branch, decisions related to performance measures and their effective implementation 

are fundamentally an executive branch management responsibility, 

The consultations required by the GPRA Modernization Act can also 

serve as a tool for congressional oversight. In our guide to congressional 

consultations, we provide a list of illustrative questions Congress can ask 

during consultations about agency strategic plans, performance goals, 

and measures, including how their efforts are being coordinated with 

other agencies to ensure that related efforts are complementary in that 

they are appropriate in scope and not unnecessarily duplicative!' In 

developing our guide, congressional staff and agency officials we 

interviewed generally agreed that consultations ideally should be 

bipartisan and bicameral to help ensure involvement from all relevant 

"GA0-12-621SP. 

Page 35 GAO-13-631T 
54 

Other Strategies 

parties, In addition, to the extent feasible, consultations should be held 

jOintly with relevant authorizing, appropriations, budget, and oversight 

committees, Committee staff recognized that, due to sometimes 

overlapping jurisdictions, obtaining the involvement of all interested 

congressional committees in a coordinated approach can be challenging, 

However, the often overlapping or fragmented nature of federal 

programs-a problem that has been extensively documented in our 

work-underscores the importance of a coordinated consultation process, 

For example, in an attempt to address this issue during initial 

implementation of GPRA during the 1990s, the House leadership fonmed 

teams of congressional staff from different committees to have a direct 

role in the consultation process, 

To ensure efficient and effective oversight, Congress can take bi-partisan 

and bi-cameral action to improve its oversight through vehicles such as 

task forces and caucuses, Such specialized bodies could provide 

effective oversight for portfolios of federal programs that contribute to 

common or complementary outcomes, but cross existing jurisdictional 

lines, For example, the Caucus on International Narcotics Control was 

created in 1985 to provide oversight on a wide range of issues, including 

international counternarcotics assistance and domestic drug prevention 

and treatment programs, The Caucus has held numerous hearings over 

the years and has issued a number of reports on U,S, narcotics control 

policy, Similarly, the Senate Committee on the Budget created the Task 

Force on Government Performance in 2009 to support the Committee 

with its monitoring and oversight capacity, The Task Force is charged 

with examining the information base for decision making in Congress and 

identifying opportunities to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of 

federal programs and services, 

Congress could also establish and charge a commission with improving 

the efficiency and effectiveness of federal programs, Congress has used 

commissions to help inform their decision making on certain issues in the 

past For example, in 1947 Congress authorized the CommiSSion on 

Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government, known as the 

Hoover Commission, to recommend government reorganization changes 

to Congress, This commission was considered by many to have been the 

most successful among government restructuring efforts, The 

membership was bipartisan, including members of the administration and 

Page 36 GAO·13·631T 
55 

both houses of Congress. 26 More than 70 percent of the first Hoover 

Commission's recommendations were implemented, including 26 out of 

35 reorganization plans.:' According to a 1982 history of the Hoover 

Commissions, "the ease with which most of the reorganization plans 

became effective reflected two factors: the existence of a consensus that 

the President ought to be given deference and assistance by Congress in 

meeting his managerial responsibilities and the fact that most of the 

reorganization plans were pretty straightforward proposals of an 

organizational character."'· 

Finally, the administration has again requested reorganization authority in 

the President's Fiscal Year 2014 budget submission. Such authority can 

enable the President to propose reorganizations that are intended to 

increase the efficiency and effectiveness with which the government can 

meet existing and emerging challenges through an expedited approval 

process. We have previously testified about the importance of balancing 

the roles of Congress and the Executive Branch in considering 

reorganization authority proposals. 29 Furthermore, we noted that all key 

players should be engaged in discussions about reorganizing 

government: the President, Congress, and other parties with vested 

interests, including state and local governments, the private sector, and 

citizens. It is important to ensure a consensus on identified problems and 

needs and to be sure that the solutions our government legislates and 

implements can effectively remedy the problems we face in a timely 

manner. Only Congress can determine its appropriate powers and role in 

transformation efforts. In certain Circumstances, Congress may deem 

limitations appropriate; however, care should be taken regarding the 

nature, timing, and scope of any related changes. For example, 

2

6Ronald C. Moe, The Hoover Commissions Revisited (Boulder, Colorado: Westview 

Press. 1982). 2. 

27The first Hoover Commission, from 1947 to 1949, made reorganization proposals that 

promoted what they referred to as ~greater rationalitt in the organization and operation of 

government agencies and enhanced the president's role as the manager of the 

government. By contrast, the second Hoover Commission, referred to as Hoover 11, which 

lasted from 1953 to 1954, examined policy areas with the goal of cutting government 

programs. . 

"Ronald C. Moe, Congressional Research Service, The President's Reorganization 

AuthOrity: Review and Analysis (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 8, 2001). 

29GAO, Government Efficiency and Effectiveness Opportunities for Improvement and 

Considerations (or Restructuring, GAO-12-454T (Washington. D.C.: Mar 21, 2012). 

Page 37 GAO-13-631T 
56 

GAO Contacts 

(250736) 

safeguards are needed to ensure congressional input and concurrence 

on the goals and proposals. 

In closing, as the fiscal pressures facing the nation continue, so too does 

the need for executive branch agencies and Congress to improve the 

efficiency and effectiveness of government programs and activities. 

Opportunities exist to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of 

government operations in the 162 areas we have included in our 2011 -

2013 annual reports. Moving forward, we plan to conduct further analysis 

to look for additional or emerging instances of fragmentation, overlap, and 

duplication and opportunities for cost savings or revenue enhancement. 

Likewise, we will continue to monitor developments in the areas we have 

already identified in this series. In addition, we plan to develop a 

framework to guide policymakers' decisions regarding the issues of 

fragmentation, overlap, and duplication that we identified in our reports. 

We stand ready to assist this and other committees in further analyzing 

the issues we have identified and evaluating potential solutions. 

Chairman Murray, Ranking Member Sessions, and Members of the 

Committee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to 

answer questions. 

For further information on this testimony or our 20.13 annual report, 

please contact Orice Williams Brown, Managing Director, Financial 

Markets and Community Investment, who may be reached at (202) 512-

8678 or williamso@gao.gov, and A. Nicole Clowers, Director, Financial 

Markets and Community Investment, who may be reached at (202) 512-

8678 or clowersa@gao.gov. Contact points for the individual areas listed 

in our 2013 annual report can be found at the end of each area at 

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-279SP. Contact points for our 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs offices may be found on the 

last page of this statement. 

Page 38 
57 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 
58 

GAO.s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone 

Connect with GAO 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO's website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select .. E-mail Updates." 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO's webSite, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Pod casts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact: 

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnetifraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

. .,., 

... ~ 

Please Print on Recycled Paper. 
59 

Chairman WARNER. Thank you. 

Dr. HOLDREN. 

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE JOHN P. HOLDREN, DIRECTOR, 

WHITE HOUSE OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY 

Mr. HOLDREN. Chairman Warner, Ranking Member Ayotte, Senator Johnson, Senator Wicker, it is a pleasure to be here today to 

talk about the current state of Federal spending on STEM education and do that in the context of the fiscal year 2014 budget proposal from the President and, of course, in the context of our 

shared interest in improving the coordination, the efficiency, and 

the effectiveness of government programs. 

STEM education clearly is essential. It is essential to provide our 

citizens with the education and training that they are going to 

need to create and to fill the high-tech jobs of the 21st century. Accordingly, it is a high priority for the President. It is a high priority 

for me. I know it is a high priority for the Congress. 

The President’s fiscal year 2014 budget supports that priority with a STEM education investment totaling $3.1 billion. That is 

about a six percent increase over the 2012 enacted level. But more 

important than that modest increase is the proposed restructuring 

under which 116 of today’s 226 STEM education programs spread 

across 13 agencies would be eliminated or consolidated, with $176 

million in savings resulting from that to be invested in bolstering 

larger, more coordinated, more easily evaluated efforts at the Department of Education, the National Science Foundation, and the 

Smithsonian Institution. 

I am going to focus my remarks this morning on that reorganization, but let me take a moment to note first that the Federal Government’s investments in STEM education priorities are being amplified through important partnerships with the private and philanthropic sectors. Together, those partnerships have resulted in 

$700 million in contributions and in-kind services in support of our 

STEM education goals. 

Just in March, in support of the President’s goal of preparing 

100,000 new and excellent STEM teachers over the next decade, 

the Howard Hughes Medical Institute announced that it would invest $22.5 million in the National Math and Science Initiative to 

accelerate the scale-up of the successful You Teach Program which 

allows university students to earn a science degree and a teaching 

certificate simultaneously. 

Turning now to the proposed consolidation, its centerpiece is a 

set of three overarching focuses with a lead Federal agency for each 

one: K through 12 instruction, led by the Department of Education; 

college and university undergraduate STEM education and graduate fellowships, led by the National Science Foundation; and informal education activities that typically take place outside the 

classroom led by the Smithsonian Institution. This structure will 

help ensure that related programs are coordinated and that resources are focused on programs that deliver the most impact per 

dollar in their respective domains. 

The administration will continue to support a wide diversity of 

programs, though. Every Federal agency with a STEM education 
60 

portfolio in 2012 will continue to have one in 2014 with the addition of the Smithsonian, making a total of 14 agencies. Much of the 

planned consolidation is within the agencies to focus on programs 

that best leverage the unique assets of each agency and programs 

that are integral to those agencies’ specific scientific missions and 

goals. 

The strategy is the result of a process reflecting goals expressed 

by both the administration and the Congress. 

The National Science and Technology Council’s Committee on 

STEM Education, or CoSTEM, which was called for in the America 

Competes Reauthorization Act of 2010, did the inventory of Federal 

STEM education programs that was the starting point for this restructuring effort. And CoSTEM’s work on a five-year Federal 

STEM education strategic plan, to be released in final form later 

this month, informed the development of the proposal that is embodied in the President’s fiscal year 2014 budget. 

That process was also guided by the GAO’s recommendations on 

reducing duplication and fragmentation in the Federal Government, for which we are grateful. Thank you, Gene. 

In closing, I am looking forward to working with this committee 

and with your task force on our common vision for improving 

STEM education for all of America’s students, and I will be pleased 

to try to answer any questions that the members may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holdren follows:] 
61 

Statement of Dr. John P. Holdren 

Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy 

Executive Office ofthe President of the Uuited States 

to the 

Committee on the Budget 

United States Senate 

On 

Silo Busting: Effective Strategies for Government Reorganization 

May 16,2013 

Chairman Murray, Ranking Member Sessions, and Members of the Performance Task 

Force, it is my distinct privilege to be here with you today to discuss the current state of Federal 

support of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education in the context 

of the President's fiscal year (FY) 2014 Budget and our shared interest in improving the 

efficiency and effectiveness of Federal programs. 

President Obama strongly believes that the United States must equip many more students 

to excel in STEM fields. That's why the President's 2014 Budget invests $3.1 billion in 

programs across the Federal government on STEM education, a 6.0 percent increase over the 

2012 enacted funding level. The 2014 Budget includes critical investments in several key areas 

that will benefit aspiring students: preparing and supporting excellent STEM teachers; 

supporting more STEM-focused high schools and districts; improving undergraduate STEM 

education; improving the reach of informal STEM-learning efforts; and investing in 

breakthrough research on STEM teaching and learning. 

The President's 20]4 Budget also takes important steps to substantially decrease the 

fragmentation of STEM programs across the Federal government by decreasing the number of 

STEM programs from 226 to 110 a more than 50 percent reduction. These disciplined choices 

to reorganize and cut back lower-priority or narrow-purpose programs make room for targeted 

increases, allow for easier coordination, and improve opportunities for rigorous evaluation of the 

remaining programs. 

An Administration-Wide Priority to Improve Program Management 

The Administration has been working to reduce duplication and fragmentation challenges 

over the last four years. In February 2012, the President submitted a proposal to Congress to 

reinstate Presidential authority to reorganize Federal agencies to reduce the number of 

overlapping government programs. The 2013 Budget proposed cuts, consolidations, and savings 

across the Government totaling more than $24 billion in the upcoming fiscal year, and $520 

billion through 2022, some of which Congress adopted. The President's 2014 Budget goes even 

further, including 215 cuts, consolidations, and savings proposals, which are projected to save 

more than $25 billion in 2014. The 2013 Budget also established the first-ever government-wide 

Cross Agency Priority Goals, a new kind of management approach one that brings people 

together from across and outside the Federal Government to coordinate their work and combine 

their skills, insights, and resources on a shared cross-agency priority. In the fall of 2012, the 

Administration released 14 cross-agency priority goals, including one in STEM education to 

have Federal agencies work together to meet the President's goal of I million additional STEM 

graduates in the next 10 years. 
62 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) also has taken an active role in analyzing 

the structure of the Federal government and recommending areas to reduce duplication and 

fragmentation. In 2011, GAO began annual reporting on specific opportunities for the Federal 

government to reduce duplication, overlap, and fragmentation and to pursue other financial 

opportunities. GAO's independent analysis is a welcome addition to the effort to make 

government more effective and efficient and to modernize it for the 21st century. The GAO 

released a second annual report in 2012, and its third annual report in April 2013. 

Currently, Federal initiatives to promote STEM education are spread across the 

Government in more than 200 programs within 13 different agencies, as the GAO noted in its 

2012 report. The 2014 Budget proposes a reorganization of STEM education programs to reduce 

fragmentation and improve the delivery and impact ofthese investments. 

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Edueation 

As we look at the President's 2014 Budget, I want to provide some important context. 

During the first four years of the Administration, the Administration has used four strategies to 

make progress on improving STEM education. 

We have worked to maintain a strong investment in STEM education even during 

difficult budgetary times. For example, the President's 2014 Budget invests $3.1 billion in 

programs across the Federal government on STEM education, an increase of 6.0 percent over 

2012 funding levels. This includes the critical investments r discuss in the remainder of my 

testimony. 

We have made STEM a priority in many more of the Administration's education efforts. 

For example, in the first round of the Department of Education's $4.3 billion Race to the Top 

competition, states were encouraged to apply to a competitive preference priority to develop 

comprehensive strategies to improve achievement and provide rigorous curricula in STEM 

subjects; partner with local STEM institutions, businesses, and museums; and broaden 

participation of women and girls and other groups underrepresented in STEM fields. Other 

examples include STEM priorities in the Department of Education's Investing in Innovation (i3) 

and Supporting Effective Educator Development programs. Prioritizing STEM in existing 

programs at the Department of Education has the advantage of leveraging existing resources, and 

embedding STEM within our overall education reform efforts. 

The President has set ambitious but achievable goals and challenged the private sector. 

For example, the President announced the goal to prepare 100,000 excellent STEM teachers in 

his 20 II State of the Union Address. Answering this call to action, over 150 organizations, lcd 

by the Carnegie Corporation of New York, formed a coalition called 100Kin10. Members of the 

coalition have made over 150 commitments to support STEM teacher preparation, and raised 

over $30 million in funds. Additional examples of this all-hands-on-deek approach to 

challenging companies, foundations, non-profits, universities, and skilled volunteers include 

Change the Equation, US2020, and increasing the reach of the Advanced Placement (AP) 

program for children in military families. 

The President continues to make STEM a high priority. The President hosted the firstever White House Science Fair in late 2010, fulfilling a commitment he made at the launch of his 

Educate to Innovate campaign to directly use his bully pulpit to inspire more boys and girls to 
63 

excel in mathematics and science. Last month, he hosted the third White House Science Fair. 

The President has also issued a call to action to the 200,000 federal scientists and engineers to 

volunteer and think of creative ways to engage students in STEM subjects. 

STEM Education in the 2014 Budget 

In the 2014 Budget, the Administration is proposing a reorganization of STEM education 

programs into four key areas: K-12 instruction; undergraduate education; graduate fellowships; 

and informal education activities that typically take place outside the classroom. This 

reorganization involves the consolidation or restructuring of more than half of these programs 

and streamlining of functions across agencies to improve the delivery and impact of STEM 

education. 

The 2014 Budget is part of a broader Administration commitment to look carefully at the 

effectiveness of all STEM programs and find ways to improve them. To further this goal, in 2011 

I established a Committee on STEM Education under the National Science and Technology 

Council (NSTC) as called for in Section 101 of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 

20 I 0 (Public Law 111-358). The work of this Committee is closely aligned with the vision for 

STEM education outlined by Congress in the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act and has 

focused on improving the coordination and effectiveness of all Federal STEM education 

programs. The Administration released a description of a 5-year Federal STEM education 

strategic plan and an update to the Federal STEM inventory along with the 2013 Budget. The 

final strategic plan will be released this month. It will outline a path to increased coordination 

and collaboration among the Federal agencies that invest in STEM education. 

Guided by drafts of the strategic plan, the 2014 Budget makes disciplined choices to 

consolidate and cut baek lower-priority or narrow-purpose programs to make room for targeted 

increases. This includes the proposed elimination or consolidation of 116 programs, with 

approximately $180 million in savings reinvested in new or existing STEM programs. The 

reorganization will substantially decrease the fragmentation of STEM programs across agencies, 

allowing potential for easier coordination and strong evaluations of what's working. The 

reorganization focuses on: K-12 instruction; undergraduate education; graduate fellowships; and 

informal education activities that typically take place outside the classroom. Each key area 

would have a lead agency. The Department of Education's role in K-12 education would be to 

develop STEM innovation networks, support STEM Teacher Pathways to help reach the 

President's goal of preparing 100,000 effective STEM teachers over the next decade, and create 

a STEM Master Teacher Corps to build the STEM instructional skills of others. NSF would 

promote reform of STEM undergraduate education and enhance graduate fellowships to reach 

more students and address national needs. The Smithsonian Institution would improve the reach 

of classroom and informal cducation materials and activities by ensuring they are aligned with 

what students are learning in the classroom, and would work with Federal science agencies to 

harness their unique expertise and resources to create relevant materials, on-linc resources, and 

effective delivery mechanisms to reach more students. Other Federal science agencies would 

also play an active role in developing and implementing the initiatives at Education, NSF, and 

the Smithsonian to ensure they align with agency and national goals. The reorganization also 

includes increasing capacity at key agencies, including $5 million for a new Office of STEM at 

the Department of Education. 
64 

These disciplined choices to consolidate and cut back lower-priority or narrow-purpose 

programs make room for targeted increases in high-priority areas. In his 20 II State of the Union 

address, the President called for a new effort to prepare 100,000 effective STEM teachers with 

strong teaching skills and deep content knowledge over the next decade. That call had roots in a 

groundbreaking analysis by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology 

(PCAST) and remains a priority for this Administration. In this effort, we have been assisted by a 

robust set of partnerships with the private sector. Last month, I hosted a roundtable of more than 

30 professionals from inside and outside government committed to the cause of improving the 

Nation's corps of K-12 science and math teachers. That day, one of our partners, the Howard 

Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), announced that it would donate $22.5 million to the National 

Math and Science Initiative (NMSI) to accelerate the scale-up of the UTeach program in 

American universities. UTeach, pioneered at the University of Texas-Austin, is a program that 

allows undergraduates to earn simultaneously a teaching certificate and a Bachelor's degree in a 

STEM field. Along with othcr initiatives such as I OOKin I 0 (a collaborative effort between 

nonprofit, philanthropic, and other private organizations), NMSI and UTeach are helping to 

achieve the President's goal of preparing 100,000 effective STEM teachers over the next decade. 

In the 2014 Budget, the Department of Education is investing $80 million to support this goal. 

In line with the government-wide STEM-education reorganization, the Department of 

Education will also restructure its existing efforts to lead a cohesive and robust initiative around 

improving K-12 instruction. The Budget invests $150 million to help school districts, 

individually or in consortia, to build strategic partnerships with universities, Federal science 

agencies, businesses, museums, skilled volunteers, and other educational entities. These 

partnerships - STEM Innovation Networks - will help district leaders harness local, regional, 

and national resources to transform STEM teaching and learning by, for example, implementing 

innovative research-based practices and building teacher capacity. Each network will engage in 

activities based on local needs, such as providing quality professional development to STEM 

teachers and developing and evaluating instructional models that help students meet STEMfocused, college and career-ready standards. The Innovation Networks are modeled on 

successful State and local efforts such as the partnership bctween the Ohio STEM Learning 

Network, thc Cleveland Metropolitan School District, OE, and MC2High School. This 

investment also includes $5 million to support a STEM Virtual Learning Network, a national, 

online community of STEM educators that will enable them to exchange STEM education 

materials and best practices, including those developed through the Innovation Networks. 

Additionally, Networks will leverage the expertise of the Nation's most talented scicnce and 

math teachers-through the Budget's $35 million investment in a new STEM Master Teachers 

Corps-to help improve instruction in their schools and districts, and to serve as a national 

resource for best practices in math and science teaching. These efforts build on the foundation of 

the $150 million Math and Science Partnership program, which provides grants to every State to 

implement and improve STEM instruction. 

The President continues to support undergraduate STEM education reform as a top 

priority, in part to fulfill a recommendation of PCAST's most recent report on undergraduate 

STEM education, released in February 2012, calling for the United States to establish a goal of 

training one million additional STEM graduates over the next decade. To further this goal, the 

Administration proposes consolidating select STEM undergraduate-education activities into a 

new consolidated program at NSF. This reform will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of 

these investments by promoting implementation of evidence-based instructional practices and 

supporting an expanded evidence base. It also supports research on how new technologies can 
65 

facilitate adoption and use of new approaches to instruction. The 2014 Budget provides $123 

million for this new program, Catalyzing Advances in Undergraduate STEM Education. 

The Administration is also committed to increasing the number of college graduates with 

degrees in technical fields. Opportunities to work on real-world research problems can help 

inspire students to pursue such degrees. The 2014 Budget proposes $79 million, an increase of 

$13 million above the 2012 enacted level, for NSF's Research Experiences for Undergraduates 

(REU) program. Since early opportunities to conduct research can be especially influential in 

maintaining a student's interest in STEM fields, the program will increase its investment in 

research experiences for those in their first or second year of college. 

By reorganizing or eliminating select fellowship programs, the Budget will provide $325 

million to expand and enhance NSF's Graduate Research Fellowship program, creating a new 

National Graduate Research Fellowship. The program will not only continue to support the 

Nation's most promising students in any STEM field, but will also allow students to gain 

specialized experiences in areas of significant national need or of particular interest to mission 

agencies. Reorganizing graduate fellowships will position the Administration to implement a 

national strategy for fellowships and for graduate education more broadly, streamline the 

application and award process, and reduce administrative costs. 

Thc Budget adds $25 million to the Smithsonian Institution to improve the reach of 

informal STEM education by ensuring that materials are aligned to what students are learning in 

the classroom. The Smithsonian will work with Federal science and technology agencies such as 

the National Aeronauties and Space Administration (NASA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and other 

science partners to harness their unique expertise and resources to create relevant materials and 

curricula, on-line resources, and effective delivery and dissemination mechanisms to reach more 

teachers and students both inside and outside the classroom. 

The Budget also proposes additional steps to increase the capacity of the Department of 

Education to invest in breakthrough innovation. The Budget proposes up to $65 million for the 

Advanced Research Projects Agency for Education (ARPA-ED) within the Investing in 

Innovation (i3) program. ARPA-ED will catalyze the development and deployment of new tools 

and technologies to significantly improve student learning. ARPA-ED will push the education 

research, development, and demonstration field forward by: sponsoring the synthesis and vetting 

of public and private R&D cfforts; identifying breakthrough development opportunities; shaping 

the next wave of R&D; investing in the development of new education technologies and tools; 

and identifying and transitioning the best and most relevant R&D from other fedcral agencies. 

The 2014 Budget leaves intact over 100 programs spread across the agencies. So it by no 

means is proposing to take away all of the diverse programs the Federal government supports. 

And there has been a very serious effort to preserve the programs that best leverage the unique 

assets of the science agencies and are integral to the agencies' missions and goals. The 

reorganization also preserves programs that provide direct funding to Minority-Serving 

Institutions (MSls) because reform in this area must first begin with engagement with the MSI 

community to determine the best ways to improve services to these institutions. The 

Administration is committed to ensuring that the new system of delivering STEM education 

administered through new initiatives at the Department of Education, NSF, and the Smithsonian 
66 

Institution will be managed so that these lead agencies interact with the mission agencies and 

preserve the valuable capabilities, translational capacities, goals, and needs of the mission 

agencies. 

Conclusion 

The 2014 Budget represents a comprehensive effort to improve STEM education, and 

will allow us to achieve a number of important goals. It will help Federal STEM efforts reach 

more students and more teachers more effectively by reorienting Federal policy to meet the 

needs of those who are delivering STEM education: school districts, States, and colleges and 

universities. It will reduce fragmentation of the Federal STEM education investment, 

reorganizing efforts and redirecting resources around clearly defined priorities. It will enable 

rigorous evaluation and evidence-building strategies for Federal STEM education programs. It 

will increase the impact of Federal investments in important areas such as graduate education by 

expanding resources for a more limited number of programs. And it will provide additional 

resources to meet specific national goals such as preparing and recruiting 100,000 high-quality 

K-12 STEM teachers, recognizing and rewarding excellence in STEM instruction, strengthening 

the infrastructure for supporting STEM instruction and engagement, increasing the number of 

undergraduates with a STEM degree by one million, and broadening participation in STEM 

fields by underrepresented groups. 

I look forward to working with this Committee on our common vision for improving 

STEM education for all of America's students. I will be pleased to answer any questions the 

Members may have. 
67 

Chairman WARNER. Thank you, gentlemen. 

I will put five minutes on the clock so we can all make sure we 

get a chance. 

One of the things that I also did not mention about GPRA that 

I think Senator Johnson, in particular, would be interested in, you 

know, until GPRA, we did not even have— and it is still not complete, it is supposed to be completed in the next month—any inventory of all the Federal programs. So we did not even know how 

many programs were out there, which is a fairly remarkable— 

Senator JOHNSON. It is a problem. 

Chairman WARNER. I could not imagine how you would run your 

business or I would run mine that way. 

One of the things, again, as most of us here now—I am sorry we 

lost Senator Wicker, but the three of us are all relatively new 

members, and one of the things I did not fully appreciate until I 

got here was, so you look at this duplication. Because of the variety 

of jurisdictional responsibility of all the various committees, it is 

really hard to go—you know, it is hard enough to illuminate inside 

an agency. But when you go across departments with different 

Congressional authorizing entities, it gets much, much harder. 

One of the things that was in the GAO report that I commend 

to all my members was this basic graphing, which puts by kind of 

function across different agencies, and it is, again, Mr. Dodaro, 

good work, recognizing that each of the various—each of these programs has got a champion somewhere within the government or 

within the Congress. How can we better measure, or what could we 

use to better measure the performance and evaluate the effectiveness of these programs, particularly if they fall within different departments? 

Mr. DODARO. I think there are a couple of areas that I would 

point out. First of all, I think that the Modernization Act, the 2010 

Act, requires Congress to be consulted more in the development of 

the performance measures in the first place. And I think that consultation is really important. It has not been there in the past. 

Some of our preliminary work shows a little bit of improvement, 

but not much, in that area. I think more consultation from the 

Congress can really be a very important point in this area. 

Secondly, I think the Congressional oversight is very important, 

that the agencies need to come up with good measures and then 

keep those measures over time. What we find is that after a while, 

if they are not meeting the performance measures, they will change 

the measures and that changes your ability to monitor their performance over time and hold them accountable, and that needs to 

be rectified. 

Thirdly, I think Congress could have more joint hearings on the 

cross-cutting goals with multiple committees involved. I have testified in some cases and that works effectively, and there are 14 

cross-cutting goals that the President has identified in his budget, 

so that is a starting point. STEM is one of them. Employment 

training programs, veterans programs, other things that are really 

important to the Congress, as well, are in there, and I think the 

committees need to work together to identify those areas. 

So those are three fundamental things I would start out with. 

But I would say that unless the Congress pays attention to the per-
68 

formance information, you can only expect incremental improvements within the executive branch and it is not going to be sufficient to deal with our long-range fiscal challenges. 

Chairman WARNER. I would concur with that. Again, that was 

one of the reasons why we thought this at the Budget Committee 

level, since we have a broad enough purview, but we have got to 

get the authorizers and appropriators in on this, as well. 

I guess one of the things I want to—I want to try to get two more 

questions in and not go over my time. One is that another piece 

of legislation that I am working with actually Congressman Issa on 

the House side on is the DATA Act to try to make sure—not only 

do we have program overlap, but we have totally different financial 

reporting systems. What appears as an expenditure on one area 

looks as a grant in another, and I do not know, Gene, if you might 

want to mention about the challenges about collecting budgetary 

data and how important it would be to try to get to a common platform. 

Mr. DODARO. This is really essential. I mean, it is one of the 

basic building blocks of tackling this issue. We faced enormous 

challenges trying to identify that, and that is one of the reasons we 

were not able to go very much further in a number of these areas. 

As Senator Ayotte mentioned, there are over 600 programs in the 

energy area, efficiency. We were not able to fully evaluate those 

600 initiatives because there was not good budget information 

available on a lot of those programs and activities. So this is really 

important. 

I think the DATA Act that you and Congressman Issa have been 

working on, and others, is really important, because unless there 

is a legislative framework that is in place to ensure that there are 

clear data standards and public reporting to the Congress on these 

programs, it is not going to happen and it will not endure over time 

between administrations. 

So I commend your efforts in that area. I will be happy to do 

whatever I can to help— 

Chairman WARNER. We would love to have your help. I think 

there are over 200 different financial reporting systems just at 

DOD. 

Let me just ask Dr. Holdren one question. I think it is great that 

you are trying to consolidate these programs into these three kind 

of coordinating entities. How much push-back are you getting from 

all the other areas where these programs are currently located? 

Mr. HOLDREN. Well, the first thing I would say, there are altogether 78 programs that are actually being eliminated and the remaining 38 of the 116 that I mentioned are being consolidated, 

merged with other programs. 

The ones that are being eliminated, adding up to, as I mentioned, 

$176 million, amount actually to about 15 percent of the spending 

on STEM education across the nine agencies that are losing programs. Fifteen percent is significant. Obviously, there are some 

folks who are not pleased by losing those particular programs, and 

so we have heard about that. But I think, on the whole, the agencies appreciate and understand the reasons for this approach. They 

understand the need for greater coordination, coherence, efficiency, 

and ease of evaluation. 
69 

And part of their consolation is that some of the monies that are 

going into the Department of Education, into NSF, into the Smithsonian Institution to be spent in a more coherent, coordinated, and 

evaluative a way, will still draw on the resources of those agencies 

to exploit their specific expertises and reach their agency’s specific 

audiences. So while we are getting greater coordination and efficiency and evaluation out of this, we are working very hard not to 

lose the benefits where specific agency expertises match education 

opportunities. 

Chairman WARNER. Senator Ayotte. 

Senator AYOTTE. I want to thank both of you for being here 

today. 

You know, one of the things—I really appreciated what the 

Chairman said. How much, General Dodaro, how much—can you 

give me a sense of your work at the GAO. How much are we measuring any kind of metrics or effectiveness within government that 

you have seen of programs? My sense is, very little. 

Mr. DODARO. That is correct. And one thing really surprised me 

as we have done this overlap and duplication work. Despite the 

original Government Performance Act that was passed in 1993, 

which required goals and measures, when we looked across the 

specific program activities, we found in many areas that there really has not been good measures of performance, or more importantly, effectiveness reviews, program evaluations of what is working and what is not. And that really is a limiting factor in helping 

Congress quickly address some of these issues. 

You know, I think it is—what we found, the burden of proof is 

on us if we want to have a program stop. You have to convince people to stop a program. You do not have to say, okay, to the programs, what are you doing to justify additional expenditure? 

Senator AYOTTE. Right. 

Mr. DODARO. So the incentives are exactly the opposite. 

Senator AYOTTE. So we have to put that in reverse— 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. 

Senator AYOTTE. —if we are going to actually be able to demonstrate to taxpayers that if we put resources in a particular area, 

that we are getting the results that we are purporting to want, 

whatever the area is, whether it is STEM, drug prevention. 

You know, one of the things I see is that members of Congress 

propose new programs and then they do not even look to see 

whether there is a program already addressing the area. How 

much do you view that as a factor with where we have come in the 

duplication here, or do you see that also happening in the executive 

branch, so both branches being guilty of this? 

Mr. DODARO. I think it happens in both branches. What happens, 

there are three different factors that I have seen sort of overall. 

One is there is an accretion over time. Surface transportation is 

one. We started out with the Interstate Highway System in the 

1950s. We added over decades to come up with 100 programs. So 

it happens over time. 

Secondly, you will have a broad program to, say, provide training 

to somebody who is unemployed and somebody will say, well, we 

are not getting to the veterans. We are not getting the Native 

Americans. We are not getting to the youth. So we need programs 
70 

targeted in those areas as opposed to figuring out how to make the 

basic program work more effectively for those targets. 

And then, thirdly, defense as a whole is sort of a set of circumstances. There, you have service-centric incentives and you 

have stovepipes, and Defense is replete with overlap and duplication. 

Senator AYOTTE. How much could we, in terms of legislation— 

I mean, I almost like the idea that no one can propose a new program unless they justify that there is not another program that 

does what they are proposing to do. What thoughts do you have on 

legislation that would try to stop this proliferation of programs 

when we have not evaluated what we already have? 

Mr. DODARO. I think that that is an important area. I know Senator Coburn has introduced some legislation to that effect, and others have, as well. So I think that is one thing. 

The second thing I would say is that there needs to be--the paradigm needs to shift on programs that are already in existence of 

demonstrating their effectiveness in order to get additional funding 

in the future and to maintain their existence. 

Senator AYOTTE. The burden of proof has to shift, is what you 

are saying. 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. 

Senator AYOTTE. It should be on the program to justify to us 

versus the reverse, which is happening now. 

Mr. DODARO. That is exactly right, and I think that is one of the 

reasons—you both quoted President Reagan. That is one of the fundamental reasons that is true. 

Senator AYOTTE. Mm-hmm. When I look at some of the areas 

serving—you were talking about the stovepiping within the Pentagon. Since I also serve on Armed Services, we are--and I see that, 

that each branch has its own administrative functions, many of 

them duplicative. How would you recommend us going forward to 

try to eliminate that, because I think there have been a lot of attempts to do it. What would you do if you were in my shoes, for 

example? 

Mr. DODARO. Well, we have pointed out very specific areas, and 

I would start there. First, every service has its own military command. 

Senator AYOTTE. Right. 

Mr. DODARO. Congress has not required them to come forward 

with a proposal. We are evaluating it. They have taken some incremental steps, but probably not fully achieved everything that is 

possible there. There had been estimates that we updated. You 

could save $200 to $400 million there. 

Unmanned aircraft systems, you know, the Navy wanted to have 

its own Global Hawk instead of using the Air Force’s Global Hawk, 

and there are a lot of payload systems, you know, operating systems for these things that everybody is designing their own. Electronic warfare, same thing. Information surveillance and reconnaissance information. I mentioned the combat uniforms. So we have 

a lot of very specific areas. 

And the other area is strategic sourcing. They are not leveraging 

their purchasing power very well in this area, as well. We have estimates in the private sector—we just issued a report yesterday 
71 

saying the private sector gains from four to 15 percent annually by 

leveraging its purchasing power and DOD does not do that. Neither 

do other large civilian agencies. I do not mean to single them out. 

That is a problem across government. 

Senator AYOTTE. Right. 

Mr. DODARO. So I would say, focus on the specific areas that we 

have given and try to hold them accountable, and there has to be 

department-wide efforts and focus on this. But the Congress has to 

be an integral part of that process. 

Senator AYOTTE. My time has expired, and obviously, there is so 

much to all of this, but I appreciate you both being here. 

Chairman WARNER. Before I go to Senator Johnson, I just want 

to mention, I think, building on what you said, that one of the 

things—GAO does a great job of helping to identify some of these 

flaws. OMB, you can argue, depending on their priority, does some 

of this, as well. Until the GPRA bill, there was no effort ever at 

the actual agency level to ask those folks who are running to identify not just their good programs, but their underperforming programs. And it was enormous push-back from this administration— 

I think it would be from any administration--but we have got that 

first list and it came back a couple months ago, right. So it would 

be, I think, a good guidepost to add to this information. 

Senator AYOTTE. That sounds terrific, and I agree with that. And 

also, I think, going forward, creating incentives within the agencies 

for the people that work there, greater incentives for them to come 

forward as performance measures. 

Chairman WARNER. Amen. 

Senator JOHNSON. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding 

this hearing. 

By the way, probably the best incentive would be to cut their 

budget and then they are really going to be incentivized to get efficient. That is how you have to do it in business. 

Information is incredibly important. Mr. Dodaro, by the way, 

GAO, it is a great organization. It is providing that information. 

During the sequester, how many agencies came to GAO looking at 

all of your reports to look for help in terms of how to get a little 

more efficient with the dollars they were being allocated? 

Mr. DODARO. I did not receive any calls. Maybe they came to 

other people in the organization, but— 

Senator JOHNSON. You have done— 

Mr. DODARO. I am hopeful they looked at our material, but I do 

not know. 

Senator JOHNSON. You have done how many reports now on duplication? 

Mr. DODARO. Three. 

Senator JOHNSON. Three. 

Mr. DODARO. Three. 

Senator JOHNSON. I believe Senator Coburn—I do not want to 

speak for him, but I think he estimates the total dollar cost of 

those duplicated programs is somewhere approaching $300 billion 

per year. Is that about what you think, or— 
72 

Mr. DODARO. Well, I mean, if you add up all the money going 

into the programs, yes. But, I mean, how much of that he could actually save depends on the policy decisions. 

Senator JOHNSON. I understand, but that is really about 30 percent of discretionary spending— 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. We have covered—we have a chart in our latest report. Our goal was to cover the entire Federal Government 

in this three-year cycle, this first three-year cycle of reports, and 

we did that. We have got recommendations for virtually all major 

departments and agencies of the Federal Government. Most of our 

recommendations are in defense and health care areas, where the 

dollars are. 

Senator JOHNSON. Right. 

Mr. DODARO. So it is a wide range of potential opportunities. 

Senator JOHNSON. I was kind of surprised at the implementation 

rate—12 percent implemented, 66 percent partially implemented— 

but I am not really seeing the dollar savings. Is that an incorrect 

perception or is that correct? 

Mr. DODARO. Well, there are some notable big examples. I mentioned the ethanol tax credit— 

Senator JOHNSON. Right. 

Mr. DODARO. —and the savings over at the Defense Department, 

$3 billion not being spent in the tour normalization in Korea. But 

there are big other dollars. 

You know, we have had recommendations to cancel the Medicare 

Advantage Bonus Demonstration Project, which we think is not 

really proving anything. It is rewarding average performing plans. 

When we made that recommendation, if the Congress had acted or 

the administration, they could have saved $8.3 billion. There are 

still opportunities to save $2 billion there in that program. And we 

have other examples of that, where there are real big dollar opportunities. 

Senator JOHNSON. So, Mr. Chairman, I think the way we need 

to do this is we need to pass a budget with those recommendations 

attached and remove the dollars that those recommendations say 

we can save, and I think that is how you get the thing done. 

Mr. Holdren, it is true we do not measure the intended consequences. We certainly do not even consider, much less measure, 

the unintended consequences of government. In your area, what 

are your primary areas of measurement? 

Mr. HOLDREN. Well, of course, if you are referring to the STEM 

education domain, one of the metrics of measurement is, of course, 

the test scores. Another is graduation rates. Another is what fraction of students who enter college intending to get STEM degrees 

actually graduate with STEM degrees. 

Senator JOHNSON. Okay, so let us start with test scores. What 

has the measurement been from, let us say, the inception of the 

Department of Education in 1979 to today. What has happened 

with test scores? 

Mr. HOLDREN. I could not tell you. I can certainly get back to you 

on that. 

Senator JOHNSON. Okay. I just had staff quickly take a look. In 

1970, our average SAT math score was 460. In 1981, it was 424. 
73 

I do not know, do we have the number for today? Possibly different. 

They are not going up. 

Ms. MCNEILL. It has fallen— 

Senator JOHNSON. It has fallen another 20 points. So we have 

probably spent—again, I did not come prepared with the exact 

numbers, but over 33 years, starting out with a $12 billion budget, 

today we have got about a $19 billion budget at the Department 

of Education, close to half-a-trillion dollars on education. Falling 

test scores is not a real good result, is it? 

Mr. HOLDREN. We know we need to improve, Senator. That is 

why we are looking hard at these programs and trying to make 

them more coherent and— 

Senator JOHNSON. Do you think the Federal Government has any 

possibility of improving it, when we have given it 33 years and 

close to half-a-trillion dollars in spending on education and that is 

the result? 

Mr. HOLDREN. Well, of course, the primary responsibility for education rests with States and communities. The Federal Government 

tries to leverage its resources to achieve specific goals, and I believe, as we have already said, that we need to do better in that. 

My focus is STEM education— 

Senator JOHNSON. Can you point to a metric of success over the 

last 30 years? 

Mr. HOLDREN. Senator, I am not responsible for the last 30 

years. I am responsible for what we can do now to improve the situation we are in, and as Chairman Warner pointed out in his opening remarks, we are not doing so well in the STEM education domain. We need to do better and we are thinking hard about how 

to do it. 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Dodaro, real quick, have you ever seen 

any measurement of unintended consequences of a government program in anything you have ever looked at? 

Mr. DODARO. I cannot recall any offhand. I mean, some of our 

work does focus on what happens in some of those areas, but I 

would have to get back to you with some examples. 

But in this area, I mean, just to illustrate your point in the 

STEM area, we found over 200 programs in that area. Sixty-six 

percent of the programs had not conducted an evaluation of their 

entire program since 2005. So it is just one example. I could cite 

other examples in other functional areas. But there is little known 

about the effectiveness of all these programs. I am hopeful, with 

the consolidation, but I think in evaluating the President’s proposal, it really has to be clear how these programs will be evaluated on a consolidated level. 

Some of the programs are so small—inherent teacher quality, 

which is another area we pointed out that is relevant to your 

point—there are 82 programs on teacher quality. Some of them are 

too small to effectively measure, and that is not a way to allocate 

and learn lessons. 

Senator JOHNSON. In the areas that you have seen measured, 

have you seen a metric of success, I mean, just to point to one and 

go, hey, this actually worked? 

Mr. DODARO. There are some. In the nutrition area, food and nutrition area, for example, the largest, there are 18 different pro-
74 

grams. The seven largest have been evaluated and there is some 

positive indications of the success of those programs in achieving 

their objectives. The other 11 programs have not been evaluated. 

Senator JOHNSON. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman WARNER. I would say that one of the things that Dr. 

Holdren has pointed out, before I move to Senator Coons, is that 

they are taking this mishmash of STEM programs, and I would be 

the first to acknowledge that there is not a group that comes in 

that does not say they have got a new STEM idea. Whatever their 

function is, they are trying to attach a STEM idea to it because 

that happens to be hot at this moment in time. So I would commend the administration on this consolidation of the 116 and elimination of 79 of these programs and trying to focus this in these 

three key areas of K–12, college, and then kind of more— 

Senator JOHNSON. But if I can just quickly point out, so we are 

going to consolidate these programs, and with the savings, we are 

going to spend the savings— 

Chairman WARNER. Except for the fact— 

Senator JOHNSON. —at a point when we cannot afford to spend 

them. 

Chairman WARNER. Except for the fact that I think we do— 

Senator JOHNSON. We actually need to bank the savings. 

Chairman WARNER. —we do need to have the kind of metrics 

that Dr. Holdren has mentioned. 

Senator COONS. I want to welcome Senator Coons, who is a new 

addition to the panel, and I promise you, this will be a lively panel 

because there is actually a lot of agreement. 

Senator COONS. Senator Warner, I appreciate the invitation to a 

lively panel. I have two other committees currently in markup, so 

if you will forgive my somewhat peripatetic attendance. I am eager 

to welcome a State Senator from Delaware to our second panel. 

I know both the gentlemen in front of us and I just want to commend you for your work in both identifying areas of overlap and 

duplication and in finding ways to coordinate and organize our 

STEM investments so that they are more effective. And I think the 

general outline laid out in my briefing material suggests we have 

got some difficult work to do together here and that we could 

achieve significant improvement and better efficiencies. 

The other committee that is currently in markup, Judiciary, considering immigration, is also trying to figure out how to prioritize 

investment in STEM. My hope is that we will take into account 

some of these lessons in doing so. 

With that, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman WARNER. I know we need to get to the second panel, 

but I want to at least ask one more question, if Senator Johnson 

wants to get one more in, and— 

Senator AYOTTE. And I want to get one more. 

Chairman WARNER. All right. I will just ask a brief one, because 

we do have a second panel, and it actually is, to me, an area that 

would be extraordinarily low-hanging fruit, and that, Mr. Dodaro, 

if you can speak for a moment about your report on the duplication 

of just some of these reporting requirements and the number of 

these reports that are basically never looked at, never examined, 

never focused on. While it may not amount to huge amounts of sav-
75 

ings, if we can better allocate our workforce’s resources into actually producing more effective results in their policy area goal with 

better metrics rather than simply doing these, in many cases, duplicative reporting, I would love you to speak to that. 

Mr. DODARO. Senator, I would like to submit something for the 

record on that. I am not—I do not recall offhand enough specifics 

of that report right now, so I would prefer to submit something. 

Chairman WARNER. And here I gave you this nice, easy, slow ball 

right down the middle. I mean, I think there are 200—anyway, I 

do know there are 200-plus reports that I think you have identified. I, again, look forward to working with any of my colleagues 

on this. 

I agree with Senator Johnson that we need better metrics. We 

need to measure those metrics. We need to have a limited number 

of policy goals so that we can measure the effectiveness of these 

programs on a regular basis. And one of the ways I think we can 

get there is if there are a series of other non-essential goals that 

are paperwork being filled out, elimination of that. It is not going 

to solve the whole problem, but it would be a sign to the Federal 

workforce that we, as the policy makers, are actually going to focus 

in in a better way on a more limited, specific set of goals with 

measurable metrics. 

So I will let everybody else get one more bite at the apple before 

we go to the second panel. 

Senator AYOTTE. Just two things. You mentioned this geospatial 

issue up front. So what do we need to do on that? 

Mr. DODARO. I think you need to have oversight by OMB and 

this interagency group and to have them specify how they are 

going to change the budget process to make this more visible, that 

could be made more visible to the executive branch and to the Congress. And then I think you can ask a lot more specific questions 

about it. And there is also overlap even at the State and local level. 

So I think this is a big area you could save millions. 

Senator AYOTTE. Great. Okay. We are going to have a catfish 

amendment next week. Why should people vote to eliminate that 

catfish program in the 2008 farm bill, because we keep trying to 

eliminate it. 

Mr. DODARO. Right. 

Senator AYOTTE. It seems an example of government absurdity 

to me. 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. Well, there are two fundamental reasons. One 

is that, right now, there would be, with the addition of the agency 

at the Agriculture Department, there would be three different Federal agencies inspecting catfish. You already have Food and Drug 

Administration doing it. The Fish and Wildlife Service play a role. 

We think you need risk-based approaches to do that, but they are 

already inspecting most of the seafood at FDA. 

Secondly, it is going to cost additional money. The Agriculture 

Department estimates it would be at least $15 million for them to 

do that. So you have multiple doing something and it is costing 

more money. 

Senator AYOTTE. So we should get rid of it? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thanks. 
76 

Chairman WARNER. I just want to add that I am a cosponsor of 

that amendment. Good bipartisanship. 

Senator JOHNSON. 

Senator JOHNSON. You will have my vote. 

Just, Mr. Holdren, I guess I would appreciate your cooperation. 

We will probably submit a number of questions afterwards and 

look for those metrics over time, because— 

Mr. HOLDREN. Absolutely. 

Senator JOHNSON. —as Senator Ayotte is aware of the fact, I am 

big on numbers, and if you are going to solve a problem, the first 

step is to admit you have one, and then, secondly, properly define 

it. So I think it is extremely important that we go back, take a look 

at what has happened since, you know, for example, the inception 

of the Department of Education. Take a look at those metrics. Has 

it worked? Has it not worked? And define why it has not. 

Information is powerful. The only way you are going to solve 

problems is properly define them. So we will follow up afterwards 

so you can get some information on the record. Thanks. 

Mr. HOLDREN. I agree. 

Chairman WARNER. Well, I want to thank again this first panel. 

Mr. Dodaro, thank you for your continued good work at the GAO. 

We are going to, I think in a common way, work to put some of 

your recommendations into legislative language. I also would again 

encourage my colleagues to look at this DATA bill in terms of 

standardizing financial accountability. 

I do think one of the things we ought to look at, as well, is this 

question of ability to do the kind of level of reorganization that Dr. 

Holdren is trying to do on the STEM programs, but I can assure 

you is being held up as much from the Congressional standpoint. 

Any executive needs to have that power. 

And, Dr. Holdren, I commend you for the kind of consolidation 

work. I agree with Senator Johnson, we need the metrics, but I do 

believe the investments we make in STEM education are critical to 

making sure America stays competitive in the 21st century. 

So I thank the first panel and would invite the second panel up. 

I know Senator Coons is anxious to introduce one of the panel 

members. Thank you, gentlemen. 

[Pause.] 

Chairman WARNER. I want to welcome the second panel, and let 

the record show that it is no reflection of the quality of this panel 

that the previous two witnesses left with such large entourages. 

We are very anxious to hear from both of you. 

I know, again, Senator Coons has got to run back to a markup, 

so I am going to let him go ahead and introduce Senator Nicole 

Poore, a member of the Delaware General Assembly. The Senator 

Chairs the Delaware Joint Sunset Committee and we welcome her 

to this committee hearing and know that the idea of sunset legislation and how we actually put to rest rules, regulations, programs, 

and others that have outlived their usefulness is something that is 

of great interest to this group. With that, I will let Senator Coons 

make a more formal introduction. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Chairman Warner, and thank you to 

our second panel and in particular to my friend, Senator Nicole 
77 

Poore from Delaware. I am grateful that she is able to join us as 

a witness on this hearing today on government efficiency. 

Senator Poore is a lifelong Newcastle County, Delaware, resident 

and serves as State Senator for the 12th District and is, as you 

mentioned, the current Chair of Delaware’s Joint Sunset Committee. She has been a tireless advocate for Delaware, fighting for 

education and has advocated on behalf of disabled children 

throughout her career, and I must say to my colleagues, I would 

hate to be on the other side of the dais from Senator Poore’s 

searching questioning. 

Today, she will be here to discuss her work as Chair of our Joint 

Sunset Committee and her work to make Delaware State Government more efficient and more effective. I am pleased she has been 

joined by my friend, longtime State Senate President Pro Tem 

Tony DeLuca, as well as her husband, Bill, and Sarah Wootten and 

Deborah Allen from staff to the committee in the Senate. 

Senator Poore has a degree in criminal justice from Wilmington 

University and she and Bill are the proud parents of three children, and I am grateful for her making the effort to join us today. 

Can she proceed with testimony? 

Chairman WARNER. Thank you, Senator Coons, but let me also 

go ahead and introduce Dr. Rosenbloom and then we will hear from 

the Senator. 

Our other witness is Dr. David Rosenbloom. Dr. Rosenbloom is 

a Distinguished Professor of Public Administration at American 

University, where he specializes in constitutional administrative 

law, administrative theory history, and personnel management. He 

is the author or editor of over 300 scholarly publications. He is the 

author of the book entitled, Building a Legislative Centered Public 

Administration. He served on the Clinton-Gore Presidential Transition Team for the Office of Personnel Management in 1992 and 

holds a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. Again, Dr. 

Rosenbloom, welcome to the committee. 

Recognizing that Senator Coons is anxious to hear from his fellow Delawarean, we will let the Senator go first. 

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE NICOLE S. POORE, SENATOR, 

DELAWARE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AND CHAIR, DELAWARE 

JOINT SUNSET COMMITTEE 

Ms. POORE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Coons, Senator Ayotte, and Senator Johnson. Thank you for the opportunity 

to be here today to discuss the sunset review process in Delaware. 

The comments that I will be making today address how the Joint 

Sunset Committee was established in Delaware. I will also provide 

an overview of the sunset review process and some of our recent 

accomplishments. I will discuss how Delaware’s Joint Sunset Committee compares to the sunset committees in other States. 

The Delaware General Assembly passed legislation establishing 

the sunset law in 1979. The intent of the enabling legislation was 

to provide a system of periodic legislative review of the State’s 

agencies, boards, and commissions. The underlying purpose of this 

legislative review process was to determine the following: Is there 

a genuine public need for the entity under review? If the answer 
78 

is yes, is that entity effectively and efficiently performing to meet 

the need? 

The Joint Sunset Committee is a bipartisan committee comprised 

of ten legislators. Five Senators are appointed to serve on the committee by the Senate President Pro Tem, and five Representatives 

are appointed to serve by the Speaker of the House. Of the five appointed from each chamber, three committee members are appointed from the Majority Caucus and two are appointed from the 

Minority Caucus. The Chair and Vice Chair are chosen by the Senate President Pro Tem and the Speaker of the House. The Joint 

Sunset Committee is consistently reinvigorated with new members 

each General Assembly who accept the challenge of leading in an 

environment that requires making complex and difficult decisions. 

The Joint Sunset Committee is tasked with guiding the sunset 

review process. The committee’s governing statute mandates that 

entities can be reviewed every six years unless a significant and 

substantiated reason is provided. 

Sunset reviews are generally conducted over a ten-to 12-month 

period commencing on or before May 30, when entities are selected 

to be reviewed by the Joint Sunset Committee for the following legislative year. An entity is notified of their selection in June and 

generally receives the first of several questionnaires in July. The 

questionnaires are designed by committee staff for the purposes of 

conducting a comprehensive performance evaluation. The initial request for information may include diagrams showcasing the governing structure for the agency, board, and commission, goal objectives, duties, responsibilities, authority, financial information, and 

education, and that is just to name a few. 

Responses submitted to those questionnaires as well as information obtained from researching entities in Delaware and those in 

other States with similar missions are organized in a draft report. 

The preliminary or draft report is provided to committee members 

for their review and used during the public hearing, which is statutorily mandated to begin on or before February 7 each year. 

Public hearings are scheduled and in the evening to allow for 

greater participation by the public. Public hearings serve as a critical component of the sunset review process. They provide an opportunity for the Joint Sunset Committee members to hear from 

those who are impacted the most to determine if the agency, board, 

or commission is protecting the public’s health, safety, and welfare. 

At the conclusion of the Joint Sunset Committee public hearing, 

additional meetings are scheduled for the purpose of consideration 

of recommendations submitted by the entity under review, the 

Joint Sunset Committee members, various other stakeholders, the 

public at large, as well as those offered by the committee members. 

The Joint Sunset Committee members consider each recommendation individually and has recommendations are often 

adopted unanimously, which speak to the nonpartisan nature that 

has typically governed the way members conduct the business before the Joint Sunset Committee. 

At the conclusion of the Joint Sunset Committee may recommend 

the continuation, the consolidation, reorganization, transfer, termination of an agency, board, or commission. The committee is mandated by statute to publish a final report on or before May 30 each 
79 

year which shall include any official action taken by the committee, 

adopted recommendations for the entities under review, and a 

schedule of the sunset reviews selected for the following year. 

Some of the accomplishments in the State of Delaware. We have 

performed 241 sunset reviews evaluating and analyzing approximately 100 State agencies, boards, and commissions. In 2009, the 

Joint Sunset Committee adopted recommendations and sponsored 

legislation renaming the board the Compensation Assistance Program, transferring its duties and employees to the Delaware State 

Department of Justice and provided for the staff and executive director to award benefit compensation to victims based on existing 

criteria. 

In 2008, the Joint Sunset Committee staff worked with the board 

and commission staff in the Governor’s office to identify inactive 

gubernatorial-appointed boards, councils, and commissions to be 

submitted to sunset review. As a result of these efforts, to date, the 

Joint Sunset Committee has terminated 19 inactive entities by 

sponsoring legislation which, upon enactment, successfully eliminated them from applicable governing statutes. 

To speak in regards to other States, approximately half of the 

States have established entities with a similar purpose and function as Delaware’s Joint Sunset Committee. However, the Texas 

Sunset Committee Advisory Commission is often used as the 

benchmark by which all other sunset committees across the country are measured. 

In a number of ways, the process in place in both Delaware and 

Texas are almost identical. Both States employ specific review criteria, engage in similar sunset review processes, encourage greater 

participation from the public in the review process, and work to ensure basic recommendations are included for consideration when 

applicable. 

Two examples of a basic or standard recommendation which 

Delaware and Texas both utilize include requiring State entities to 

establish conflict of interest policies as well as including language 

to disqualify and remove gubernatorial-appointed board members 

from their positions when a specific criteria is met. 

There are some also significant and fundamental differences between the Delaware Joint Sunset Committee and the Texas Sunset 

Advisory Committee which have greatly impacted how both legislative committees operate today. For example, in Delaware, the number of State entities eligible for sunset review total more than 300, 

as the definition for eligible agency is written broadly. In Texas, 

approximately 130 State entities are eligible for sunset review, and 

each of the eligible entities’ enabling legislation include both the 

periodic sunset review requirement and a date that the entity could 

be abolished if legislation action is not taken. 

With regard to the sunset review schedule, Delaware is prohibited from conducting a sunset review within six years of a prior review. Entities are selected by the committee members and attention can be diverted to those with developing and ongoing issues 

that the legislature has not had the opportunity to address. In 

Texas, sunset reviews are conducted approximately once every 12 

years. However, there is some flexibility with changing the regimen 

schedule should an emergency or unexpected issues arise. 
80 

With regard to action taken or required by the sunset committee, 

the Delaware Joint Sunset Committee can continue a State entity 

without enacting any additional legislation. In Texas, a State agency is abolished by the Sunset Advisory Commission unless the 

Texas legislature passes a bill to reauthorize the agency for an additional 12 years. 

Finally, Delaware conducts sunset reviews for approximately four 

to six agencies, boards, or commissions each year, as the committee 

is staffed with one full-time employee. In comparison, Texas conducts approximately 20 to 30 sunset reviews on eligible entities 

each year and employs 28 staffers to assist in this process. 

Thank you for your time, and at any point, I am happy to answer 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Poore follows:] 
81 

Senator Nicole Poore, Chair 

Senator David Sokola 

Senator Bryan Townsend 

Senator Ernesto Lopez 

Senator Brian Pettyjohn 

May 16,2013 

United State Senate 

Committee on the Budget 

STATE OF DELAWARE 

JOINT SUNSET COMMITTEE 

Task Force on Government Performance 

Testimony RE: Delaware Joint Sunset Committee 

Rep. Gerald Brady, Vice~Chair 

Rep. Andria Bennett 

Rep. Stephanie Bolden 

Rep. William Outten 

Rep. Harold Peterman 

Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss the sunset review 

process in Delaware. My name is Nicole Poore and I am the state senator from the 12th 

Senatorial District and Chair of the Joint Sunset Committee. 

The comments I will be making today address how the Joint Sunset Committee was established 

in Delaware. I will also provide an overview of the sunset review process and some of our recent 

accomplislnnents. Finally, I will discuss how Delaware's Joint Sunset Committee compares to 

the sunset committees in other states. 

Establishment of the Joint Sunset Committee in Delaware 

The Delaware General Assembly passed legislation establishing the Sunset Law in 1979. The 

intent of the enabling legislation was to provide a system of periodic legislative review of the 

state's agencies, boards, and commissions. The underlying purpose of this legislative review 

process was to determine the following: 

1) Is there a genuine public need for the entity under review? 

2) If the answer is yes, is that entity effectively and efficiently performing to meet that 

need? 

The Joint Sunset Committee is a bipartisan committee comprised often legislators. Five senators 

are appointed to serve on the Committee by the Senate President Pro Tempore and five 

representatives are appointed to serve by the Speaker of the House. Of the five appointed from 

eaeh chamber, three Committee members are appointed from the majority caucus, and two are 

appointed from the minority caucus. The Chair and Vice Chair are chosen by the Senate 

President Pro Tempore and the Speaker of the House respectively, and alternate serving as the 

Joint Sunset Committee's Chairperson each year. Additionally, the Joint Sunset Committee is 

consistently reinvigorated with new members each General Assembly, who accept the challenge 

of leading in an environment that requires making complex and difficult decisions. 

Division of Research • Legislative Hall. 411 Legislative Avenue. Dover, Delaware 19901 

Sarah Wootten, Joint Sunset Committee Analyst: 302-744-4257. Fax: 302-739-3895. Sarah.Wootten@state.de.us 

Website: www.legis.delaware.gov 
82 

Sunset Review Process 

The Joint Sunset Committee is tasked with guiding the sunset review process. The Committee's 

governing statute mandates that entities can be reviewed evcry six years, unless a significant and 

substantiated reason is provided. Sunset reviews are generally conducted over a ten to twelve 

month period, commencing on or before May 30th when entities are selected to be reviewed by 

the Joint Sunset Committee for the following legislative year. 

An entity is notified of their selection in June and generally receives the first of several 

questionnaires in July. The questionnaires are designed by Committee staff for the purposes of 

conducting a comprehensive performance evaluation. The initial request for information may 

include, but not be limited to, diagrams showcasing the governing structure for the agency, board 

or commission, goal, objectives, duties, responsibilities, authority, fiscal information and 

education- to name a few. Responses submitted in the questionnaire(s), as well as information 

obtained from researching entities in Delaware and those in other states with similar missions, 

are organized into a draft report. 

The preliminary or draft report is provided to Committee members for their review and use 

during the public hearing process, which is statutorily mandated to begin on or before February 

7'h each year. Public hearings are scheduled in the evening to allow for greater participation by 

the public. Public hearings serve as a critical component of the sunset review process, as they 

provide an opportunity for Joint Sunset Committee members to hear from those who are 

impacted the most to best determine if the agency, board or commission is protecting the public's 

health, safety and welfare. 

To that end, the Joint Sunset Committee accepts any and all public comment received from the 

date an entity is selected up for sunset review until the Committee meets to consider that entity's 

final recommendations. Recommended changes for an entity under review can be submitted 

through written correspondence, as well as through testimony given at the public hearing. 

Ultimately, both the Joint Sunset Committee and the sunset review process function at their best 

when the various stakeholders and the public take an active and vested interest in the 

Committee's reviews. 

At the conclusion of the Joint Sunset Committee's public hearings, additional meetings are 

scheduled for the purposes of considering recommendations submitted by the entity under 

review, the Joint Sunset Committee members, various other stakeholders, the public at large, as 

well as those offered by Committee staff. 

Joint Sunset Committee members consider each recommendation individually and 

recommendations are often adopted unanimously, which speaks to the nonpartisan nature that 

has typically governed the way members conduct the business before the Joint Sunset 

Committee. By always keeping in mind the principle goal of the sunset review process, 

Committee members often come to the same or very similar suppositions. 

At the conclusion of a sunset review, the Joint Sunset Committee may recommend the 

continuance, consolidation, reorganization, transfer, or termination of an agency, board, or 
83 

commISSIOn. Thc Committee is mandated by statute to publish a final report on or before May 

30th each year, which shall include, but not be limited to, any official action taken by the 

Committee, adopted recommendations for the entities under review, and a schedule of the sunset 

reviews selected for the following year. 

The Joint Sunset Committee has sunset or terminated a very limited number of active state 

entities since the first reviews in 1980; however, the more common approach has been to work 

with the agency, board or commission under review to formalize specific statutory and nonstatutory recommendations, with the goal of improving the entity's overall performance and 

accountability. 

The Joint Sunset Committee's governing statute clearly states that the Committee's purpose is 

not to terminate an agency, board or commission which is sufficiently meeting a recognized need 

and has been accountable and responsive to the interests of the public. In those instances, the 

Joint Sunset Committce ultimately strives to strengthen and support these statutorily created 

entities through the sunset review process. 

The majority of the recommendations that the Joint Sunset Committee considers and ultimately 

adopts require amendments to a state entity's governing statute. A bill is then drafted to include 

these legislative amendments for introduction in the chamber where the current Committee 

Chairperson serves as a member. Historically, the vast majority of the bills sponsored by the 

Joint Sunset Committee have received broad bipartisan support in both chambers of the 

Delaware legislature. Other legislators appreciate the effort that the review process requires and 

recognize that the issues have been thoroughly vetted by Committee members prior to the 

introduction of legislation. 

Accomplishments 

Since its inception, Delaware's Joint Sunset Committee has performed 241 sunset reviews, 

evaluating and analyzing approximately 120 state agencies, boards, or commissions. 

One of the most significant sunset reviews in recent years successfully reorganized a 35 year old 

board originally created to provide a method of meeting the hardships imposed upon the innocent 

victims of certain crimes by compensating them financially for losses sustained as a result of 

those crimes. 

In 2009, the Joint Sunset Committee adopted recommendations and subsequently sponsored 

legislation renaming the board the Victim's Compensation Assistance Program, transferring its 

duties and employees to the Delaware Department of Justice, and provided for the staff and 

executive director to award benefit compensation to victims based on existing criteria. These 

changes effectively streamlined the compensation process, ensuring victims receive the 

compensation they deserve in a timely manner. 

In 2008, Joint Sunset Committee staff worked with the boards and commission staff in the 

governor's office to identifY inactive gubernatorial appointed boards, councils and commissions 

to be submitted for sunset review. As a result of these efforts, to date, the Joint Sunset 
84 

Committee has terminated 19 inactive entities by sponsoring legislation which upon enactment 

successfully eliminated them from the applicable governing statutes. 

Delaware's Joint Sunset Committee vs. Sunset Committees in Other States 

Approximately half of the states have established entities with a similar purpose and function as 

Delaware's Joint Sunset Committee; however the Texas Sunset Advisory Commission is often 

used as the benchmark by which all other sunset committees across the country are measured. 

In a number of ways, the processes in place in both Delaware and Texas are almost identical. 

Both states employ specific review criteria, engage in similar sunset review processes, encourage 

greater participation from the public in the review process, and work to ensure basic 

recommendations arc included for consideration, when applicable. 

Two examples ofa basic or standard recommendation which Delaware and Texas both utilize 

include requiring state entities to cstablish conflict of interest policies, as well as including 

language to disqualify and remove gubernatorial appointed board members from their positions 

when specific criteria is met. 

There are also some significant and fundamental differences between Delaware's Joint Sunset 

Committee and the Texas Sunset Advisory Commission, which have greatly impacted how both 

lcgislative committees operate today. For example, in Delaware, the number of state entities 

eligible for sunset review totals more than 300, as the definition for an "eligible agency" is 

written broadly. 

In Texas, approximately 130 state entities are eligible for sunset review, and each of the eligible 

entity's enabling legislation includes both the periodic sunset review requirement and a date that 

the entity could be abolished iflegislativc action is not taken. 

With regard to the sunset review schedule, Delaware is prohibited from conducting a sunset 

review within six years of a prior review. Entities are selected by the Committee members and as 

such, attention can be diverted to those with developing or ongoing issues that the legislature has 

not had the opportunity to address. 

In Texas, sunset reviews are conducted approximately once every 12 years; however there is 

some flexibility with changing their regimented schedule should emergencies or other 

unexpected issues arise. 

With regard to action taken or required by each sunset committee, the Delaware Joint Sunset 

Committee can continue a state entity without enacting any additional legislation. In Texas, a 

state agency is abolished by the Sunset Advisory Commission unless the Texas Legislature 

passes a bill to reauthorize the agency for 12 additional years. 

Finally, Delaware conducts sunset reviews for approximately four to six agencies, boards or 

commissions each year. as the Committee is staffed with one fulltime employee. 
85 

In comparison, Texas conducts approximately 20-30 sunset reviews on eligible entities each 

year, and employs 28 staffers to assist in this process. 

At this time, I will be happy to answer any questions you might have about the Joint Sunset 

Committee or the sunset review process in Delaware. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Nicole S. Poore 

Delaware State Senator- lill District 

Chair, Delaware Joint Sunset Committee 
86 

Chairman WARNER. Thank you, Senator. 

Dr. ROSENBLOOM. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID ROSENBLOOM, DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND 

POLICY, THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY 

Mr. ROSENBLOOM. Thank you very much for this opportunity to 

provide historical perspective on Congressional efforts to improve 

the performance of the executive branch administrative agencies. 

I will be speaking basically about my findings in the book that 

you mentioned, Building a Legislative Centered Public Administration: Congress and the Administrative State, 1946 to 1999. The 

book was written with the assistance of Henry Hogue, Dr. Henry 

Hogue, who was then my doctoral assistant and now is an analyst 

in American national government with the Congressional Research 

Service. 

The book is about Congress’s effort to reposition itself in 1946 

vis-a-vis the executive branch. What had happened was that during 

the New Deal and World War II, Congress felt that it had been 

eclipsed almost entirely by the executive branch. Senator La 

Follette actually asked the question, how can we maintain our 

place in the constitutional scheme? Congressman Kefauver wrote a 

book, and in that book he has a chapter, ‘‘Is Congress Necessary?’’ 

He also suggested that Congress might not exist in another 20 

years. That book was published in 1947. 

Well, Senator Fulbright sort of nailed the issue, which was how 

do you combine this newly, very powerful, extensive executive 

branch with legislative supremacy, and that was the real question 

Congress faced in 1946. They enacted three major statutes that at 

first might appear not connected, but, in fact, there are some very 

strong connections. These are the Administrative Procedure Act, 

the Legislative Reorganization Act, and the Employment Act, all 

enacted in 1946. 

The Administrative Procedure Act is based on the premise that 

government had become so extensive, Congress could not avoid delegating its legislative authority to the agencies, and equally important, that it would have to regulate how that legislative authority 

was used. 

The Legislative Reorganization Act created, really, the forerunner of the current committee structure in the House and in the 

Senate and also charged the standing committees with exercising 

continuous watchfulness of the agencies under their jurisdiction. 

The Employment Act was to promote full or almost full employment in the economy through countercyclical spending, but from 

the point of view of several members of Congress, it was really a 

bill to restore the functions of Congress, because during the New 

Deal, Congress had kind of lost control over where public works 

spending went. 

So, we had these three major statutes, and altogether, we have 

this chart. They conceptualized Congress’s relationship to the agencies as that the agencies are actually Congress’s extensions for legislative functions, primarily rulemaking, and that Congress has an 

obligation to exercise supervision over the agencies. We obviously 

cannot go in right now into all these statutes, but the reason for 
87 

putting them up there is that it is clear that 1946—it did not just 

stop in 1946, but, rather, continued. 

Now, one thing 1946 did not do in terms of the framework Congress created was to focus on productivity in a way that would be 

successful. The Legislative Reorganization Act did provide for four 

professional staff for each standing committee. The idea behind 

that, as Senator Dirksen put it, was that these staff would go and 

live in the structure of government, and then when members of 

Congress held hearings, committee hearings, they would sit at the 

elbows of the members of Congress and they would say, ‘‘Ask him 

this question. Ask him that question. Ask him about this expenditure. Ask him about that procedure.’’ 

That function, I believe, was institutionalized in the Inspector 

General Act of 1978. I think that was part of the idea, what the 

Inspectors General would be doing. However, the Inspectors General, to a very large extent, have focused more on audit and investigation than on productivity and advancing technology and innovation in the agencies. 

So that productivity piece still remains. Now, the GPRA Modernization Act does take a major step in that direction, for sure, 

and maybe that is the only step necessary at this point, is really 

to implement it well, and it may work. 

In my written statement, though, I do suggest it might be worth 

looking at the possibility of having a Chief Productivity Officer 

within the agencies. This would be a little bit different from the 

GPRA arrangement with the Performance Improvement Officer because I think that the Chief Operating Officer and the Improvement Officer will probably be focused on implementing the strategic plan and measuring more than looking forward toward how 

can agencies develop a way of innovating, of finding better ways to 

do programs across the board, not in the silos within the agencies 

but actually across the boards. So that is the basic concept behind 

the Chief Productivity Officer. 

Thank you very much, and I am certainly happy to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rosenbloom follows:] 
88 

Testimony of 

Dr. David H. Rosenbloom 

Department of Public Administration and Policy 

American University 

Washington, DC 20016-8070 

rbloom@American.edu 

Before the 

Task Force on Government Performance 

of the 

United States Senate Committee on the Budget 

May 16,2013 

Comments on "Silo Busting: Effective Strategies for Government Reorganization" 

"There are certain political duties imposed upon many officers in the executive department the discharge 

of which is under the direction of the President. But it would be an alarming doctrine that congress 

cannot impose upon any executive officer any duty they may think proper which is not repugnant to any 

rights secured and protected by the constitution, and, in such cases, the duty and responsibility grow out 

of and are subject to the control of the law, and not to the direction of the President" (Kendall v. United 

States, 37 US. 524, 610 [1838]). 

I would like to thank the Task Force on Government Performance of United States Senate 

Committee on the Budget for this opportunity to provide historical perspective on Congressional 

efforts to improve the performance of the Federal service. My name is David H. Rosenbloom 

and I hold the rank of Distinguished Professor of Public Administration in the School of Public 

Affairs at American University in Washington, D.C. My testimony is largely based on my book, 

Building a Legislative-Centered Public Administration: Congress and the Administrative State, 

1946-1999 (University of Alabama Press, 2000). The book was written with the assistance of Dr. 

Henry B. Hogue, then my doctoral research assistant and now an Analyst in American National 

Government at the Congressional Research Service. We sought to determine whether 

Congressional enactment of the Administrative Procedure Act, the Legislative Reorganization 

Act, and the Employment Act, all in 1946, was a matter of passing three major statutes largely 

independently of one another or part of a concerted effort by Congress to reposition itself with 

respect to administration of the executive branch. We concluded that it was the latter and that 

Congress subsequently built upon its 1946 model for involvement in Federal administration 

through much additional legislation. 

Briefly, the executive branch had grown so rapidly and large during the New Deal of the 

1930s and World War II that Members of Congress, along with Senator Robert La Follette, Jr. 

(Progressive-WI), were concerned that the legislature might "lose its constitutional place in the 

Federal scheme.,,1 It was a time in which Congressman Estes Kefauver (D-TN) could seriously 

ask, "Is Congress necessary?" and Members of Congress could "give serious thought to the 

I Robert La Follette, Jr., "Congress Wins A Victory Over Congress," New York Times Maga::ine, August 4, 1946, p. 

11. 
89 

possibility that Congress might not survive the next twenty years.,,2 The "basic problem," as 

noted by Senator William Fulbright (D-AR), was "one of combining a strong executive with the 

maintenance oflegislative supremacy.,,3 There was no single comprehensive Congressional plan 

for achieving this objective. Instead there was extensive legislative discussion and debate that 

produced a common institutional understanding regarding the roles Congress, its Members, and 

committees should play in Federal administration. 

Collectively, the three statutes mentioned above were partially designed to provide 

Congress with much greater direction of Federal administration. The Administrative Procedure 

Act (APA) was based on the recognition that the scope ofthe national government had become 

so extensive that Congress could not avoid delegating its legislative authority to Federal agencies 

and, equally important, that it was responsible for regulating the use of that power by the 

executive branch. The APA establishes procedures for rulemaking, enforcement, and 

adjudication. As augmented by the Freedom ofInformation Act (1966), the Government in the 

Sunshine Act (1976), and subsequent legislation, it provides for transparency in Federal 

administration. It also established parameters for judicial review of administrative action. 

The Legislative Reorganization Act (LRA) revamped the committee structure in both 

Chambers of Congress, assigning substantially parallel jurisdictions to committees in the House 

and Senate and designing their overall organization to follow that of the executive branch. A 

major feature of the act was to improve legislative oversight of Federal administration by 

charging "each standing committee of the Senate and the House of Representatives" with 

exercising "continuous watchfulness of the execution by the administrative agencies concerned 

of any laws, the subject matter of which is within the jurisdiction of the committee.,,4 The LRA 

also contains two subtitles, the Federal Tort Claims Act and the General Bridge Act, which 

shifted historically legislative functions-compensating individuals injured by Federal 

employees in the course of their official functions and approving the construction of bridges over 

navigable streams-to executive agencies. 

The main objective ofthe Employment Act was to promote employment by coordinating 

Federal spending, primarily on valuable public works, with the business cycle. However, it was 

also intended to ensure Congressional control of Federal agencies' spending. As Senator Joseph 

O'Mahoney (D-WY) emphasized, the act was "a bill to restore the functions of Congress" and 

"does not authorize the Executive to spend a dime,"s a point amplified by Senator Alben Barkley 

(D-KY), "No matter what the national budget may provide, no matter what the recommendations 

of the President may be, no matter what his annual [economic] report may contain ... under this 

bill no project can be carried out or begun unless Congress later on separately, by other 

legislation, shall authorize specifically the things which are to be done.,,6 

Taken together, as legislative debate demonstrates,7 these three statutes formed the core 

of Congress' overall effort to restructure its roles in executive branch administration by treating 

2 Estes Kefauver and Jack Levin, A Twentieth Century Congress (New York: Essential Books, 1947), title of chapter 

I, and p. 5. 

3 U.S. Congress, First Intermediate Report: Organi=ation of the Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of 

Congress, 79th Cong., 1st sess. (Senate Document 79-36). (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 

April 2, 1945), p. 20. 

4 Public Law 79-601; 60 Stat. 812, section 136 (August 2, 1946). 

5 Congressional Record, vol. 91, 79th Cong, 1st sess. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1945), 

p.9055. 

6 Ibid., p. 9131. 

7 The author and Dr. Hogue perused over 16,000 pages of the Congressional Record for 1946 and part of 1945. 

Rosenbloom, Testimony, Task Force on Government Performance, May 16,2013 
90 

the agencies as its extensions for legislative functions (especially rulemaking), regulating their 

procedures, and strengthening its capacity to supervise their implementation of statutes and 

spending on public works. Subsequent legislation built upon Congress' 1946 framework for 

involvement in Federal administration as outlined in the following chart: 

Agencies as Extensions of 

Congress for Legislative 

Functions 

eFederal Advisory Committee Act, 

1972 

eRegulatory Flexibility Act, 1980 

ePaperwork Reduction Acts, 1980, 

1986,1995 

eNegotiated Rulemaking Act, 1990 

eCongressional Review Act, 1996 

eSmall Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act, 1996 

eAssessment of Regulations and 

Policies on Families Act, 1998 

eData Quality Act, 2000 

Congress as Supervisor 

e Legislative Reorganization Act, 

1970 

eCongressional Budget and 

Impoundment Control Act, 1974 

e Inspector General Act, 1978 

eChiefFinancial Officers Act, 

1990 

eGovernment Performance and 

Results Act, 1993 

eGovernment Performance and 

Results Modernization Act, 

2010 

Strengthening Oversight for Administrative Productivity 

In 1964, with specific reference to transparency, Senator Everett Dirksen (R-IL) placed 

responsibility for Federal administrative behavior on Congress' doorstep: "These departments 

and agencies have been invested by us in the Congress with certain functions and duties in the 

administration of programs we have authorized .... I am afraid that means the burden of 

devising the proper procedures falls upon us in the Congress who have established the 

administrative system."s Earlier, the LRA had originally used the term "continuous surveillance" 

in place of "continuous watchfulness,,9 and provided that each standing committee would have 

four professional staff to help perform this function, with the exception of the Appropriations 

Committees which could have additional staff as needed.!O Along with others who thought the 

staff would work "in close contact with executive agencies,"!! Senator Dirksen thought they 

should have an investigatory role and "must go and live in the structure of Government and find 

the weaknesses and then ... sit at the elbows of the Members of Congress as they are assembled 

in committees and say: 'Ask him this question; ask him that question; ask him how he justifies 

this expense or that procedure. ",12 

Enactment of the Inspector General Act in 1978 institutionalized much of this monitoring 

8 U.S. Senate, Freedom of Information Act Source Book: Legislative Materials, Cases, Articles, Committee on the 

Judiciary, Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington. D.C.: U.S. 

Government Printing Office, 1974), p. 106. 

9 See CongreSSional Record, vol. 92, 79th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 

1946), p. 6445 for Senate debate on these terms. 

10 Public Law 79-601; 60 Stat. 812, section 202 (August 2,1946). 

11 Representative George Bender (R-OH), Congressional Record, vol. 92, 79th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Government Printing Office, 1946), p, 10060. 

12 Ibid., p. 10051. 

Rosenbloom, Testimony, Task Force on Government Performance, May 16,2013 
91 

function in the Offices of the Inspectors General (IGs). Following Senator Dirksen's approach, 

the IGs have been likened to "congressional 'moles' within their agencies.,,13 The IGs are 

charged with keeping Congress and agency heads "fully and currently informed about problems 

and deficiencies relating to the administration of ... programs and operations and the necessity 

for and progress of corrective action.,,14 

Studies indicate that the IG function is tilted toward investigation and audit to root out 

waste, fraud, and abuse, as opposed to designing systems for productivity and efficiency. IS In 

1993, the National Performance Review (NPR) addressed this theme by making "reorienting the 

Inspectors General" a major component of its overall reform effort. 16 The NPR, claimed that "At 

virtually every agency he visited, the Vice President [AI Gore] heard federal employees 

complain that the IGs' basic approach inhibits innovation and risk taking. Heavy-handed 

enforcement-with the IG watchfulness compelling employees to follow every rule, document 

every decision, and fill out every form-has a negative effect in some agencies.,,17 The NPR 

urged the IGs to devote more time to promoting cost-effectiveness in agency operations and to 

focus on improving managerial control systems for preventing waste, fraud, and abuse. However, 

such a reorientation faces significant hurdles because the IG Act institutionalizes the 

investigatory and audit functions in section 3( d), which provides: 

Each Inspector General shall, in accordance with applicable laws and regulations 

governing the civil service--

(1) appoint an Assistant Inspector General for Auditing who shall have the responsibility 

for supervising the performance of auditing activities relating to programs and operations 

of the establishment, and 

(2) appoint an Assistant Inspector General for Investigations who shall have the 

responsibility for supervising the performance of investigative activities relating to such 

programs and operations. IS 

It appears that something different than the approach first embodied in the 1946 

Legislative Reorganization Act and later incorporated into the 1978 IG Act might be useful in 

attending to administrative productivity. The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 

and the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 20 I 0 provide important 

alternatives. However, neither statute follows Senator Dirksen's call for an official "to go and 

live in the structure of Government," which may be necessary to identify broad impediments to 

greater administrative productivity, whether they are silos within agencies, poor organization, 

inadequate systems for human resources, problematic information technology, failure to integrate 

multiple functions, including those related to democratic-constitutionalism such as freedom of 

information, or other problems. 

This is not a propitious moment for recommending that another administrative office be 

established within each major agency. Yet, in recent years one strategy for trying to ensure that 

administrative agencies function well has been to appoint "chiefs" with responsibility for specific 

13 Mark Moore and Margaret Gates, Inspectors-General: Junkyard Dogs or Man's Best Friend (New York: Russell 

Sage Foundation 1986), p. 10. 

14 Public Law 95-452; 92 Stat. 1101, section 2 (October 12, 1978). 

15 Moore and Gates, Inspectors-General, pp. 12,36. See also Paul C. Light, Monitoring Government: Inspectors 

General and the Searchfor Accountability (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1993), p. 57. 

16 Al Gore, From Red Tape to Results: Creating a Government That Works Better& Costs Less (Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993), p. 31. 

17 Ibid., p. 32. 

18 Public Law 95-452; 92 Stat. 1I01 (October 12, 1978). 

Rosenbloom, Testimony, Task Force on Government Performance, May 16,2013 
92 

areas such as Chieflnformation Officers, Chief Human Capital Officers, Chief Financial 

Officers, Chief Freedom oflnformation Officers, Chief Leaming Officers, Chief Data Officer (in 

the Federal Communications Commission), Chief Records Officer (National Archives and 

Records Administration), and Chief Performance Officer (Office of Management and Budget). 

In some respects, these "chiefs" reflect and may even contribute to the silo problem. With some 

trepidation, I offer the idea that perhaps agencies now need "Chief Productivity Officers" with 

overall responsibility for promoting agency-wide productivity by identifying and developing 

managerial strategies for overcoming administrative barriers to better performance. Like IGs, 

Chief Productivity Officers would "live in the structure" of the executive branch and report to 

Congress as well as to agency heads. Unlike the IGs, their main objective would be to bring a 

managerial focus to enhancing productivity by developing effective strategies for integrating 

agency operations, continuous innovation, and upgrading organizational and technical systems as 

new knowledge and technologies warrant. 

Thank you for listening to my testimony today. r hope the historical background I 

provided on how Congress repositioned itself with respect to Federal administration in 1946 by 

viewing executive branch agencies as its extensions for legislative functions and subjecting them 

to greater supervision will prove helpful to you. I would be pleased to answer any questions 

regarding my comments or related matters that you may have at this time or after this hearing. 

Rosenbloom, Testimony, Task Force on Government Performance, May 16, 2013 
93 

Chairman WARNER. Thank you, Dr. Rosenbloom. 

I know Senator Coons has got to get back to a markup, so I am 

going to allow him to go ahead and take my time, and then we will 

go to Senator Johnson, and then I will resume. 

Senator COONS. Thank you very much, Chairman Warner, and 

thank you for your forbearance today of competing priorities. As we 

all know, we serve on several committees and at times it is difficult 

to juggle them all. 

Senator Poore, if you would, what I heard in your description of 

Delaware’s Joint Sunset Committee some could take as real lack of 

success. It eliminated 19 boards and commissions, I believe, the 

last year, but these were defunct, understaffed, or irrelevant. that 

is great. My sense of the Joint Sunset Committee is it really has 

not eliminated whole agencies of government, the sort of big things 

that are the most expensive or most demanding, yet your testimony 

implies that has been effective. So help me with how the committee 

has been successful if it has not eliminated whole departments. 

What is the dynamic that allows a bicameral, bipartisan process 

of negotiation where unanimous recommendations are essentially 

adopted legislatively in consultation with the very departments 

they seek to review. Has it worked? Has it been effective? If so, 

why? If not, why not? 

Ms. POORE. Certainly, Senator Coons. It has been effective, and 

what our goal is with this committee is to offer the opportunity to 

the agencies, boards, and commissions, quite frankly, to have bragging rights, to talk about how they have invested back in the public 

and the wonderful things that they have done for the public. Our 

job at that point is then to determine that they have successfully 

done that by the laws in which they have written or the policies 

that they have written forth for their organization, agency, or commission. 

When we have found, and as a new Chairwoman for this particular committee, when that has taken place in the past, they 

have either been incorporated under another agency, such as the 

Department of Justice, and so, therefore, those employees have 

gone underneath that department. But it has proved to be successful. 

Senator COONS. So if I hear you right, there are recent instances 

where you have got a functioning entity, but it is underperforming. 

Ms. POORE. Yes. 

Senator COONS. It is not meeting its mission. It is off focus. It 

has been years since it has been effectively reviewed. And you have 

been able to work out legislatively an agreed to process by which 

it is downsized, streamlined, and then put into another agency that 

can offer more effective operational oversight. 

Ms. POORE. Correct. 

Senator COONS. So the three outcomes we have seen in recent 

years, one, just outright elimination. That has mostly happened 

with boards or commissions that were non-functioning. 

Ms. POORE. Mm-hmm. 

Senator COONS. Downsizing and reallocation to a stronger oversight agency. Or, because they know you have the legislative power 

to restructure them or eliminate them, the large departments of 

our relatively small government come in knowing that they have 
94 

to do better and they do perform better and you leave them largely 

alone. 

Ms. POORE. That is— 

Senator COONS. Is that the range of the three outcomes you have 

seen in Delaware? 

Ms. POORE. Yes. 

Senator COONS. Any lessons you have learned by looking at other 

State commissions? You mentioned in some detail Texas. You mentioned about half of the States have comparable sunset committees. 

What lessons have you seen and what things do you think we in 

the Federal Government should consider as we discuss the possibility of a comparable sunset committee for the Federal system? 

Ms. POORE. So, Senator Coons, again, being a new committee 

member, what I would suggest is that bringing these boards, commissions, and agencies forth to be able to understand that they are 

actively working, that they are producing great results for the public, that is going to be your first determination on whether or not 

and where to move forward, and whether that means that you are 

incorporating them into another agency or you are allowing them 

to stand alone. 

Senator COONS. We have had some hotly contested discussions 

here about whether whole agencies of our current Federal Government should exist or whether they need to be significantly streamlined. What I think commends Delaware’s example is that it does 

function in a bipartisan and bicameral way and does actually 

achieve results. So, I am grateful for your presentation today and 

for those who have long served in our State Senate and who have 

made this an effective committee over now two generations. Thank 

you, Senator. 

Ms. POORE. Thank you. 

Chairman WARNER. Senator Johnson. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

By the way, I think a sunset committee is a great idea. I have 

been proposing one since I got here. I have not been crafting it 

properly to get the kind of takers on it. 

I also, by the way, appreciate the hearing we had, was it last 

year, about one in, out rule. Again, I would like one in, ten out. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator JOHNSON. The problem, certainly, with, I think, all levels 

of government is everything is additive. There really is not a process other than something like a sunset committee that is actually 

subtractive, something that is formalized. And so I certainly commend Delaware and the other States that have that. 

Is there a method, Senator Poore, of actually prioritizing the 

look, or is it just basically cycling through every agency? 

Ms. POORE. Agency, that you are asking this question, Senator, 

is that this past week, we actually decided on what agencies will 

be reviewed for next year. In consideration of what we saw and 

what was presented by our analysts, there are two agencies that 

have not been reviewed, ever, and there are two agencies that have 

been reviewed. 

But as an example, in the State of Delaware, and actually nationwide, we are going to be reviewing physical therapy and athletic directors, the reason being is at one point in time, in 1983 
95 

when they were first reviewed, there was just a Bachelor’s level degree needed. Since then, it has increased to a Doctoral degree. And 

for that reason alone, we are going to review that, because we 

know that the code needs to be updated and so that would be a 

good start for us for the physical therapy and athletic directors. 

Senator JOHNSON. You mentioned Texas has 28 staff members. 

How many does Delaware have? 

Ms. POORE. Well, I am happy to say that we have one full-time 

staff member and she actually is with us today. She has done an 

outstanding job in keeping us on track. Sarah Wootten joined me 

today in preparation for this hearing. 

Senator JOHNSON. My guess is as you proceed with the sunset 

committee, you would actually be probably dollars well spent to 

beef up that staff. Do you have any comparable groups in Delaware 

that would act kind of like the GAO to prioritize some of these 

problems, you know, high-risk lists or those types of things? 

Ms. POORE. Senator, we work together well with the committee. 

The committee, because we are not staffed at the level of Texas, 

we all work very well together in making sure that we are pulling 

the right agencies for review. 

Senator JOHNSON. Okay. Again, my guess would be this would be 

a very cost effective—kind of like GAO is actually money pretty 

well spent. 

Dr. Rosenbloom, I have sat through now a number of hearings 

where we talk about how do you make government more efficient, 

more effective, more productive. I mean, I appreciate your suggestion about a Productivity Officer, but I come from the private sector, as does Senator Warner. In the private sector, you have the 

profit motive. You have to be successful or you are just out of business. 

The problem I see with government is failure is rewarded. I just 

covered the statistics in terms of declining SAT scores, and what 

do we do? We keep pouring more money into it. 

So my concern is, okay, an agency is not particularly productive, 

so let us stand up another department within that agency. We will 

call it productivity. Do you really think that is going to work? I 

mean, is there any evidence it ever has? 

Mr. ROSENBLOOM. Well, in my written statement, I said that I 

realize this is not a propitious moment to advocate for this and 

that I do it with great trepidation precisely for that reason. 

I think, whether the Chief Productivity Officer is the right solution or not, almost everything we are talking about, including what 

the GAO does, is sort of retrospective. It is not proactive. It is not 

looking forward to make things much more efficient. It finds the 

problem and then tries to fix it. 

And so what I am trying to get at, is there a way, and I do not 

have a specific answer, but is there a way to have somebody looking out for the whole agency from a productivity point of view, 

looking for innovation, somebody who has got knowledge of management, contemporary knowledge of management and technology 

and could make recommendations when application of that knowledge is warranted. 

Also, in the written statement, see, I think this kind of officer, 

whatever it might be, should be in close contact with the relevant 
96 

committees in Congress. I think that is the link in this 1946 approach that did not work out quite the way Senator Dirksen 

thought it would work out. So it would be a source of both innovation and providing a great deal of information to Congressional 

committees. 

It is not an easy problem. I mean, obviously, if it were an easy 

problem, we would have solved it. 

Senator JOHNSON. So, and again, coming from the private sector, 

as a manufacturer, I am always looking for the root cause, and so 

you need information. And I guess that would be a question for 

both panelists. Do you know, or have you seen, not only in the Federal Government but in State governments, have you seen a governmental entity that actually does a pretty good job of actually 

measuring the intended consequences of what they are trying to 

do? I mean, are there other actually solid examples of that, or is 

it maybe just hit or miss? And I would like to ask both panelists 

whether you have seen a good example that we could maybe look 

toward. 

Mr. ROSENBLOOM. Well, if I speak first, I cannot think of a good 

example of that off the top of my head right now. I can go back 

to my library and all and look. 

Senator JOHNSON. If you find one, let me know. 

Mr. ROSENBLOOM. I certainly will. 

Senator JOHNSON. Senator Poore. 

Ms. POORE. Senator Johnson, I would agree. I am not aware of 

any at this time. 

Senator JOHNSON. So, in the State of Delaware, even though you 

have got the sunset committee, you are still battling with the fact 

that you really do not have information on measurement of programs and you struggle with that as part of your process. 

Ms. POORE. Senator Johnson, I would probably want to do more 

research to give you a better defined answer on that and I am 

happy to do so at a later time. 

Senator JOHNSON. Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman WARNER. Well, thank you, Senator Johnson. 

I do think that one of the things, and we are still working 

through this idea, as well, how you get the incentives at the agency. I am not as—I am trying to find the right word— 

Senator JOHNSON. Skeptical. 

Chairman WARNER. I am not as skeptical about all of the 

functionality and operations. I have seen a lot of waste in the private sector, as well. But you are right that there is no incentive, 

ever, to downsize or take away functionality, outmoded rules or 

regulations, and something that realigns incentives. And the one 

in, one out, which is the U.K. version, which actually, as we dug 

into, was not quite as robust as it looked at first— 

Senator JOHNSON. If you add— 

Chairman WARNER. Yes, but where you have got—if you add, you 

have got to find something to take out, you know, both makes the 

agency then think, is there a way we can— before we do this additive, can we do a slightly less additive that may still get some of 

the goal because you have got an incentive there that you have actually got to remove something. And I look forward to working with 
97 

you and others in trying to get these incentives aligned the right 

way. 

I just have two quick questions, and I really thank the panel. 

Senator Poore, you are out of Dover, so I am going to ask you a 

hard question now. One of the things—and we, this panel up here, 

we are all made up of generally newer members, so we are not 

quite as established as some— 

Senator JOHNSON. It is not our fault. 

Chairman WARNER. No. It seems here that efforts to eliminate, 

downsize, consolidate, often run into the authorizers and/or appropriators of these programs who sometimes will take great affront 

that their particular program, that we have the audacity to think 

that it might be worthy of being consolidated or eliminated. You 

know, you have kind of got over the hurdle of bicameral, bipartisan. Great. How do you take on your appropriators? 

Ms. POORE. Senator, again, we offer the opportunity in front of 

this committee bragging rights. Tell us about your agency, your 

board, your commission. Tell us how effectively you are taking care 

of the public. So it is the best presentation. It is the follow-up. It 

is the financials. It is all of those things that make a small business function well, and being able to see that happen in an agency 

and knowing that we are protecting the public, I think everybody 

comes with the best information, with the best package. And when 

we see that something needs to be adjusted, we are putting in legislation. We are offering guidance with this committee that sits in 

front of them on how we can best direct them to be a better agency. 

Chairman WARNER. I guess the only thing I would just say, 

again, if you just come forward and talk about your successes, that 

is of merit in terms of making priority. But one of the things we 

have done with GPRA, and I think the jury is still out whether we 

really use the information, but no matter what agency you are, you 

have got good programs, and chances are, you have got some that 

are not as good. Trying to also have a process where the actual operation and function of government has to come in and publicly acknowledge where they think there is room for improvement or 

some of those less successful programs is really something that is 

missing. 

And I have got to tell you, we had, as we were trying to move 

GPRA forward and there was some push-back, I thought at first it 

was partisan in nature. It was much more—and not even the senior levels of the administration, but deep within each of the agencies, this reluctance to say, hey, we do not want to have to acknowledge our less successful efforts. And we have got to get that 

into the mix. You may be flush in Delaware. We are not too flush 

at the national level. We are going to have to find ways to do this 

consolidation and elimination. 

And again, I think the jury is still out whether we use this information. It has taken us three years to get the administration to 

come forward with these underperforming programs. It will be up 

to us to say whether we will use this data. 

Last question, and again, I thank the panel. Dr. Rosenbloom, one 

of the things that you talked about in your historical basis was 

that, initially, the IG was going to maybe play this role. It seems 

like the IGs have evolved into more of the whistleblower or the 
98 

audit function or the investigative role. Is there a way to rethink 

about the IG role in a way that might be about productivity and 

performance? 

Mr. ROSENBLOOM. I think it will be difficult. I think the IG culture is probably pretty well institutionalized now. But also, the 

statute requires this separate system for audit and a system for investigation. So it is actually built into the statute that those are 

the two major functions. The National Performance Review wanted 

to reorient the IGs and they, for the reasons that you are sort of 

mentioning, and I do not think they made any real progress on 

that. 

I mean, that is why I am suggesting, with trepidation, that 

maybe some other functionary like an IG, who reports to the agency head or the Chief Operating Officer and Congress, or the Congressional committees, and does it frequently, would be better. The 

IGs are kind of sporadic. Their reports are extremely valuable, but 

they are not aimed at greater productivity. They are aimed at correcting waste, fraud, and abuse. 

Chairman WARNER. I think you do raise a good point that most 

of our actions from GAO on, as good of work as they do, are all retrospective as opposed to how do you look forward—if you are going 

to implement a new initiative, how do you look forward in terms 

of productivity on the front end. It is an interesting point. 

Senator JOHNSON. Just one quick question. I think, Senator 

Poore, you were talking—I think it might have been Texas, that 

their sunset committee actually recommends action, and would the 

program they are recommending sunset without legislative action? 

I mean, is it automatic but for legislative action? 

Ms. POORE. Yes, sir. 

Senator JOHNSON. Is that the way Delaware’s works? 

Ms. POORE. No, not at all. 

Senator JOHNSON. Okay. I like the Texas program. 

Chairman WARNER. Surprise, surprise, surprise. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman WARNER. With that, thank you, Senator Johnson. 

Thank you, witnesses. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:39 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 
99 

5/16 SBC Hearing Question on the Tax Gap (Sen. Whitehouse) 

Q. Mr. Dodaro, in your testimony you noted that the net tax gap-the difference between 

the taxes owed and the taxes ultimately paid-was $385 billion in 2006, the latest year for 

which we have data. If we collected that extra $385 billion each year, we could cut in half 

the deficits over the next decade. It strikes me that there are three categories within the 

tax gap: 

(1) a portion that could be collected with the types of management and 

performance reforms you [GAO] propose 

(2) a portion that could be collected if the IRS had greater appropriations with 

which to grow its enforcement team; and 

(3) a portion-much of it hidden overseas-that will be uncollectable unless we 

change the law to give the IRS new innovative enforcement tools. 

1. Do you have a sense of the relative sizes of these three categories of the tax gap? 

A. GAO's December 2012 report identified the net tax gap, according to IRS estimates, as 

approximately $385 billion. Unfortunately, available data from the IRS does not support an 

estimate of how much of the tax gap estimate would fall into the categories outlined in this 

question. 

2. What is the return on investment for each additional dollar IRS gets for enforcement? 

By how much would Congress need to increase appropriations to reach the point at 

which the return on investment is under 1? 

A. Every year, IRS publishes information regarding the coverage rates and additional taxes 

assessed through its enforcement programs. However, relatively little information is available on 

how much revenue is actually collected as a result of these enforcement activities (called direct 

revenue). We recently estimated direct revenue return on investment (ROI) and found that the 

ROI varied depending on the type of enforcement activity and taxpayer characteristics.' For 

example, for the 2 years of cases we reviewed, taxpayer examinations of taxpayers with 

positive incomes of at least $200,000 produced significantly more direct revenue per dollar of 

cost than exams of lower income taxpayers. Across income groups, examinations conducted 

through correspondence were significantly more productive than face-to-face examinations in 

terms of discounted direct revenue per dollar of cost. We estimated that the average direct 

'GAO, Tax Gap: IRS Could Significantly Increase Revenues by Better Targeting Enforcement Resources, GAO-13-

151 (Washington, D.C .. Dec. 5, 2012). 

Page 2 
100 

5/16 SBC Hearing Question on the Tax Gap (Sen. Whitehouse) 

revenue yield per dollar of cost across all correspondence exams of individual taxpayers was 

$7. In contrast, the average direct yield per dollar for face-to-face examinations of individual 

taxpayers was $1.8. 

It is unclear at what level of enforcement cost will result in those costs outweighing increase in 

direct revenue. As we noted in GAO-13-1S1, the average revenue yield may decline as 

enforcement resources are added; however, little is known about the likely rate of decline in the 

marginal return (the amount collected for each additional dollar spent) because IRS currently 

does not identify the marginal cases worked each year. Given the potential importance of this 

issue, we recommended that IRS develop estimates of the marginal direct revenue and 

marginal direct cost within each enforcement program and each taxpayer group. IRS agreed 

with the recommendation but has yet to implement it. 

3. How much of the tax gap is due to overseas tax dodging, and what can Congress do 

about it? 

A. There is no precise estimate of how much money the U.S. Treasury loses due to unreported 

income from offshore accounts. Former IRS Commissioner Charles O. Rossotti said at a 

congressional hearing in 2002 that he believed offshore noncompliance to be several tens of 

billions of dollars, but did not have a precise number2 

Given the mobility of money and proliferation of foreign financial institutions, the potential for 

U.S. taxpayers to evade taxes on funds held in offshore accounts is greater than ever. Likewise, 

foreign-source income presents a variety of compliance challenges related to the complex 

structure of multinational corporations, transfer pricing, and the taxation of income from 

intangible property. IRS has implemented various programs designed to entice taxpayers to 

voluntarily disclose their offshore accounts. Likewise, IRS is implementing recently enacted 

requirements related to financial institutions and taxpayers reporting to IRS on certain offshore 

accounts and assets of U.S. account holders. As it continues to implement its voluntary 

disclosure efforts and strategies for using information received on offshore accounts, IRS may 

be able to further its efforts to ensure offshore tax compliance. For example, GAO recently 

recommended that IRS leverage information it receives on offshore financial activity and take 

2U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, "Schemes, Scams and Cons: The IRS Strikes Back," hearing on April 11, 2002. 

Page 3 
101 

5/16 SBe Hearing Question on the Tax Gap (Sen. Whitehouse) 

other steps to better identify taxpayers with undisclosed offshore financial activity. IRS agreed 

with the recommendations but had yet to implement them3 

3GAO, Offshore Tax Evasion: IRS Has Collected Billions of Dollars, but May be Missing Continued Evasion, GAO-13-

318 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 27, 2013) and Foreign Account Reporting Requirements: IRS Needs to Further Develop 

Risk, Compliance, and Cost Plans, GAO-12-484 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 16, 2012). 

Page 4 
102 

5/16 SSC Hearing Question on Unintended Consequences (Sen. Johnson) 

Q. Have you seen any measurement of unintended consequences of a government 

program in any government program you've ever looked at? 

A. We have examples from two areas of our work that have touched upon this question: 

Regulatory reviews 

• In prior work, we have identified potential benefits of conducting retrospective regulatory 

reviews, noting, for example, that these reviews can identify unintended consequences 

of government programs and that retrospective evaluations of regulations could help 

inform Congress and other policymakers about ways to improve the design of 

regulations and regulatory programs. Agencies review existing regulations to determine 

whether they should be retained, amended, or rescinded, and these regulatory reviews 

can help provide information on the performance of the regulations used by regulatory 

programs to achieve their missions. We also reported that agencies believe that 

retrospective reviews have resulted in cost savings to their agencies, for example by 

reducing costs associated with implementing and enforcing outdated or unproductive 

regulations. Additionally, we reported that the usefulness of conducting retrospective 

reviews was that regulations can change behavior of regulated entities, and the public in 

general, in ways that cannot be predicted prior to implementation. We have also 

examined whether agencies' retrospective reviews identified intended or unintended 

consequences of the regulations, and reported that some agencies in the scope of our 

review had while others had not. In 2012, based on our prior work, the administration 

issued an executive order and related guidance for agencies that requires agencies to 

develop and implement retrospective review plans. At Senator Johnson's request, we 

are also starting follow-up work on this topic, including examining the extent to which 

agencies are incorporating these reviews into their processes for measuring and 

achieving agency performance goals. 

• For more information, see GAO, Reexamining Regulations: Opportunities Exist to 

Improve Effectiveness and Transparency of Retrospective Reviews, GAO-07-791 

(Washington, D.C.: July 16, 2007). 
103 

5/16 SBC Hearing Question on Unintended Consequences (Sen. Johnson) 

Program evaluation 

• Our body of work on program evaluation has highlighted that program evaluations 

should look for potential problems in implementation or results. In our prior work, we 

reviewed federally supported efforts to review evaluations identify which social 

interventions were most effective, and found that 2 of the 6 programs specifically review 

evaluation studies for evidence of both potential benefits and harm. 

• For more information, see GAO, Program Evaluation: A Variety of Rigorous Methods 

Can Help Identify Effective Interventions, GAO-10-30 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 23, 

2009). 

(105) 

ENHANCING ACCOUNTABILITY AND 

INCREASING FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET AND THE TASK FORCE ON

GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE, Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 

SD–608, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Warner, 

Chairman of the Task Force, presiding. 

Present: Senators Warner, Whitehouse, Ayotte, and Portman. 

Staff Present: John Righter, Amy Edwards, Gregory McNeill, and 

John Lawrence. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN WARNER 

Chairman WARNER. Good morning, everyone, and I would like to 

bring this Committee hearing to order. Before we get started, I 

want to—and I know Senator Ayotte joins me in this—reflect for 

a moment on the tragedy that took place a couple days ago with 

the Navy Yard. Obviously, as so many elected officials and others 

have said, our prayers are with the victims and their families and 

all the first responders at the scene. Five of the 12 victims were 

Virginians, and we in Virginia already know too much about the 

destruction wrought by such trauma. So, again, our thoughts and 

prayers are with those, and clearly we need to find out on a goingforward basis how we can make these installations more secure. 

That is obviously the subject of another matter, but I thought it 

was appropriate that we at least acknowledge that this morning. 

We do want to welcome our witnesses and guests today to the 

Budget Committee’s Government Performance Task Force on ‘‘Enhancing Accountability and Improving Financial Transparency.’’ 

And I want to again thank Ranking Member Senator Ayotte for 

joining today on this important topic. 

I have to acknowledge that—when I first got to the Budget Committee, having been a Governor and somewhat obsessed about 

these issues, I think there was an effort made by the then-Chair 

to say, ‘‘How can we make sure that Warner does not be too much 

of a pain in the neck?’’ So they gave me this working area. I am 

not sure if you got stuck with that same responsibility, but this notion that we have got to find ways to make our Government more 

accountable, more efficient, better value for our taxpayer dollars is 

something that a lot of members talk about, but to kind of dig in 

and do the hard work on how we actually get there is a bit more 

of a challenge. 
106 

So that is, again, where we start today’s hearing. It is long overdue, and incredibly important. We have got to do a better job of figuring out and decoding for the American public, how our Federal 

dollars are actually spent and what kind of value we get for the 

buck. 

Over the past several years, I have been working on this area of 

financial transparency. There are efforts, similar efforts, in the 

House, and we will come back to that in a moment. This should 

be an area where I think there should be a great deal of bipartisan 

accord, and actually it should be an area that I hope we can, on 

this issue of the DATA Act, actually move forward. 

We are about to go into budget debate part 4 or part 5 coming 

up, I think, right now, as we think about debt ceilings, super committees, fiscal cliffs. I somehow fear that this next round may be— 

while there is public fatigue on some of this issue, this next round 

could actually be one of the most challenging because there seems 

to be even less of a path forward than we have seen in the past. 

And while we will work through part of this, a corollary to the 

budget issues are the issues of, okay, even once we hit these topline numbers, how do we make sure that those numbers, whatever 

they are, are spent in a more effective and efficient manner. And 

that is, again, the work of this task force. 

I believe very strongly that our Federal Government— and I did 

not come to this totally as a neophyte. I came as a former business 

guy and a Governor. Until I got this job, I did not fully appreciate 

how completely inefficient much of our Federal Government was in 

terms of its organization, its structure, and clearly issues around 

transparency. 

This year, the GAO identified hundreds of duplicative programs 

across Federal agencies. For example—and I know this is something that Senator Coburn had pointed out a number of times, and 

I 100 percent agree with him—we have 82 different wind-related 

energy programs in six different agencies. You cannot get good 

value for your dollar if you have got limited resources that we have 

around wind energy spread amongst 82 different programs in six 

different agencies. Unless we develop better data and processes to 

weed out ineffective programs, we will never have the efficient 

structure that will support our long-term budget goals, whatever 

that top-line number might be. 

One of the stats that I think about every day is that every day 

our debt grows by $4 billion, so there is nothing self-correcting 

about the size of our close to now $17 trillion debt that will not 

come about by concerted bipartisan action. Part of that also will 

mean how we make sure that the dollars we are spending are 

spent more efficiently. 

We do not have the right—I do not believe that we have the right 

information to answer the very basic questions about, as we send 

these Federal dollars out, how are they spent, where are they 

spent, how are they categorized being spent. The remarkable thing 

is I believe we have over 100 different financial reporting systems 

just within the DOD. You know, something that appears as a grant 

in one area comes out as an expenditure in another area. And if 

you are a taxpayer or if you are a Senator trying to do responsible 

oversight, I just do not think we can do our job. 
107 

There has been small progress. One of the things I am very 

proud of we passed back in 2010, the Government Performance and 

Results Modernization Act, GPRA. I like to call it the ‘‘biggest little 

bill that nobody has ever heard of’’ that actually for the first time 

ever requires the administration to report a couple things they 

never wanted to report before: one, not only what are their bestperforming programs but their least-performing programs. Everybody likes to highlight our successes. One of the things we do a 

dreadful job in Government is talking about those programs that 

are not that effective. And as Senator Ayotte knows, having run 

back in New Hampshire a large Department in terms of Attorney 

General, and I running a State, if you have a governmental agency 

that has 50 or 60 different goals, then really they have no goals. 

Unless you can narrow your goals and priorities to a definable 

number, you are not going to get the kind of productivity that we 

would need. So GPRA also took that very important action. It was 

long overdue, and because of this legislation we now have the first 

inventory of all Federal programs, and agencies, as I mentioned, 

are now identifying both high-and low-priority programs as well as 

providing the kind of quarterly update that we in Congress and 

taxpayers should see on a regular basis. 

But we have still got a long way to go on performance data, and 

I think we are seeing gradual improvement. However, we need to 

make sure we take new steps to improve the quality of financial 

data available. 

If you take a closer look at the GAO duplication report, you will 

notice that about half of those 82 wind-related energy programs do 

not have funding information. We have these programs out there 

and you do not know the funding information, how can anyone 

make an appropriate assessment of what we ought to keep, what 

we ought to consolidate, and where we go from here? 

I believe this is totally unacceptable. We should have information 

we need to hold the Federal Government accountable, and we have 

been working to try to make that actually something that is achievable. 

So since the Federal Government spends more than $3.7 trillion 

each year with more than $1 trillion of that $3.7 trillion in awards, 

accurately tracking these funds in a consistent way can be a big 

job. And the data collected by the budget shops, the accountants, 

and the procurement officers and grantmakers should all be combined and reconciled in a more relevant, user-friendly, and transparent way. And we have legislation now in front of us that I think 

will take at least a step in that direction. 

The various systems should be available to work together based 

on consistent financial standards so that policymakers and the public can track the full cycle of Federal spending, and that is what 

the legislation, that this hearing is at least indirectly is all about. 

The Digital Accountability and Transparency Act, or DATA, that is 

what this act will do. And I am pleased that Rob Portman has been 

the cosponsor of this act. We have worked on this for a couple 

years. I welcome—would love to have Senator Ayotte and other 

members who may have staff members here joining us. This DATA 

Act in the House actually passed out of their Oversight and Government Reform Committee in a bipartisan, I believe unanimous, 
108 

way, a committee that, cosponsored by Chairman Issa and Ranking 

Member Cummings. That kind of diversity on that committee, to 

pass out almost bipartisan—and unanimously—means we ought to 

be able to do the same, and I hope that other members of this 

Budget Task Force will sign on. 

Let me just very briefly go through the four improvements that 

DATA will make, and then I want to turn to Senator Ayotte and 

our very important witnesses. 

First, it creates transparency for all Federal funds. The DATA 

Act will expand the current site of USASpending.gov to include 

spending data for all Federal funds by appropriation, Federal agency, program, function, as well maintain the current reporting for 

Federal awards like contract grants and loans. 

This expansion of USASpending.gov will allow policy makers and 

the public to actually track from start to finish Federal funds more 

clearly and make the link between spending and budget priorities. 

This is very, very important in terms of bringing clarity. 

Second, it sets governmentwide financial data standards. Our 

Task Force closely monitored the effects to increase the transparency for Recovery Act funds, and the reason that oversight was 

so successful was that they finally had consistent standards for reporting the data. And our taxpayers were able to tell where the 

funds and projects were located in their community. 

So the DATA Act requires the Department of Treasury, rather 

than an earlier version of this act that would have created a whole 

new agency, we said let us go ahead and build upon the very good 

work that is done at Treasury, and I think, again, we have colleagues in the House to agree with this, to establish governmentwide financial data standards for Federal agencies to expand the 

transparency across the whole Government. Having these commonsense standards cannot be stressed enough as an importance, if 

anybody who has had any background in business and finance, you 

have got to have common standards. 

Third, this actually—one of the things we do in Congress is we 

always add and layer on more and more reporting requirements. 

Sometimes I think we add on so much additional reporting requirements that many of the good Federal workers spend way too much 

of their time doing duplicative reporting rather than actually getting us information in an efficient and timely manner. So the 

DATA Act actually requires OMB to review existing Federal recipient financial reporting to reduce compliance costs based on new financial data standards. I have been concerned about the compliance costs for the recipients of Federal funds. It appears that with 

all these overlapping systems we are asking many of these recipients to actually report multiple times to multiple agencies in a way 

that does not improve transparency at all, and I know we are going 

to hear from the witnesses on that issue. 

Finally, it improves data quality. Under the DATA Act, the Inspector Generals at each agency will be required to provide a report every 2 years on the quality and accuracy of the financial data 

provided by USASpending.gov. The GAO will also create a governmentwide scorecard on data quality and accuracy. Again, these 

things get kind of wonky, but they are all very, very important in 

moving forward in an area where we are going to have continued 
109 

limited financial resources. We must have a reliable system in 

place to track Federal funds and compare spending across Federal 

agencies to get the best value for taxpayers and reduce duplication. 

Again, I want to particularly thank Senator Ayotte for being willing to join me in this Task Force as the Ranking Member. As we 

see by perhaps the lack of other attendance, this may not be the 

sexiest issue out there, but if we are going to get to the core of both 

getting the top line right for our budget but also making sure that 

how those dollars that we do allocate are spent more efficiently, we 

have got to have these kind of standards in place. 

And, with that, I would turn it over to Senator Ayotte. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AYOTTE 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I actually think 

transparency is sexy, so I think this is important for the Government, and I really believe that your efforts in the DATA Act are 

excellent. So my staff has been reviewing it, and one of the things 

I like about it is that we keep creating more requirements for Federal programs, but are we getting more transparency, are we getting any metrics that measure whether we are going to have the 

efficiency and effectiveness of Federal programs? 

So I really appreciate your efforts here, and I think this is a very 

overlooked area of the importance of Government. The more transparency we have, the more accountability that the Federal Government has from our constituents, and there is such great frustration, understandably, with the American people that if they cannot 

figure out where money is spent in Washington, then there is no 

accountability. They cannot ask questions of their elected officials, 

and they cannot decide whether something is worth the money that 

they are giving the Federal Government and their investment, because it is their money at the end of the day. 

And one of the things that we see so much in Washington is we 

see the examples of all kinds of wasteful spending. Right? So, I 

mean, I have multiple examples here of just recent examples. Yes, 

last week the Government Accountability Office released a report 

in which it estimated that the Social Security Administration made 

$1.2 billion in potential cash benefit overpayments to about 36,000 

individuals in January of 2013. Other examples from almost every 

department in the Federal Government. I have an example here 

from the Department of Transportation IG report: ‘‘The Maritime 

Administration did not establish effective oversight mechanisms 

when it carried out its port infrastructure development responsibilities.’’ 

In one case identified in the report, MARAD was authorized to 

administer funds for developing and modernizing the port of Anchorage. The cost estimate for this program was originally $211 

million, and it actually came in at $1 billion. So this is just—I have 

a whole host of examples. Mark has looked at all those examples 

over the years as well. And our constituents get rightly frustrated 

when they are going through hard times at home and they are having to adhere to a budget and not spend money that they do not 

have, when we are nearly $17 trillion in debt here, and we are 

where we are, thinking about that there is not this type of openness within our Government. And the Chairman pointed out about 
110 

the GAO reports on all of the duplicative programs, and there have 

been many—not just in the wind area that you have identified— 

for example, job training programs, multiple examples where we 

have had duplicative programs. And I think one of the issues and 

challenges we face is there is no measurement of effectiveness. 

So I do appreciate the effort that you have made with your prior 

legislation, but we need to have—if we are going to expend taxpayer dollars, the type of transparency we also need is measurements and metrics of effectiveness. 

You know, Ronald Reagan once said that there is nothing closer 

to eternal life than a Government program. Why is that? The reason for that is because we are not measuring effectiveness, we do 

not have the type of transparency we have in our Government, and 

so, therefore, things continue under the radar screen when they 

may have outlived their usefulness or there may be other programs 

that are much more effective in accomplishing the purpose that the 

program set out to achieve. 

And so I achieve very much all of you being here today. This is 

a very important topic. And if we can get things like this right in 

terms of transparency, openness in our Government, and more accountability for Government programs, then we can address the 

larger issues, the fiscal challenges that we face, and people will 

have more confidence that when they pay taxes, that actually that 

money is going to something that is useful and productive for our 

Nation. And we owe it to our constituents that they can hold us 

accountable when we make decisions on how to expend taxpayer 

dollars. And so I look forward to hearing from all of you here today, 

and I very much appreciate the efforts you have made in this area, 

Chairman. 

Chairman WARNER. Thank you, Senator Ayotte. Again, I want to 

echo what you have just said. Too often when we come up with 

these examples, it is only after the GAO or somebody else has done 

a report, way after the fact. 

Senator AYOTTE. Right. 

Chairman WARNER. You know, if we had this data on a more 

current basis, if we had it on a more transparent basis, not only 

would we be able to—we as Members of Congress be able to do 

this, but, you know, we have got a pretty active public out there 

that would help us in this. 

Senator AYOTTE. Absolutely. We could stop the waste before it 

happens, which would be the goal. And you are right, the public 

would be pointing this out to us, and I think that when—every 

time we see one of those examples, we know that there are five 

more that someone has not discovered. Right? 

So this is a very important hearing, and I appreciate what we 

are doing here today. 

Chairman WARNER. And, also, the only counter I would also add 

as well—and we do want to get to the witnesses. I apologize for 

both of us going on. But there are also good things that are going 

on, too, and if we highlight the successes as well, that is part of 

the balance. 

So, again, I want to welcome today’s witnesses. Let me go 

through a very brief introduction because we really want to hear 

from you. 
111 

First, we welcome Stanley Czerwinski, Director of Strategic 

Issues at GAO. Mr. Czerwinski will share GAO’s recommendations 

for expanding transparency and efforts in recent years to improve 

the data on USASpending.gov Obviously, GAO has been the single 

biggest arm of the government who has been an activist for these 

type of activities, and, Mr. Czerwinski, we really appreciate your 

being here. 

Next we have Mr. Thomas Lee, Director of the Sunlight Labs at 

the Sunlight Foundation. Mr. Lee is going to share recommendations for improving financial transparency from the Sunlight Foundation’s Clearspending report. Prior to his current role, he managed the Sunlight SubsidyScope—that is a fancy word—an effort to 

explore the level of Federal involvement in various sectors of the 

economy. SubsidyScope—maybe you can explain where that word 

came from. 

And then our final witness today is Mr. Gerald J. Kane, assistant 

vice president for research administration at the University of Virginia. At the next hearing we will have somebody from UNH. 

Senator AYOTTE. There definitely is a Virginia theme here. 

Chairman WARNER. Mr. Kane, thank you for joining us today to 

share your experience of more than 25 years in research administration. 

Mr. Kane is going to talk about, beyond his great background at 

UVA, the kind of duplicative burdens that we put on researchers 

not only at UVA but at every university across America, and ways 

that we might be able to do some improvement. 

So, gentlemen, thank you again for being here, and we will start 

with Mr. Czerwinski. 

STATEMENT OF STANLEY J. CZERWINSKI, DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. CZERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Ayotte, 

thank you very much for having this hearing, and no need to apologize to go on about accountability, transparency, GPRA. This is 

what we live at GAO, so you could have talked forever. We would 

have been happy. 

Also, thank you for having this hearing that coincides with the 

release of our report and, Mr. Chairman, for requesting that report. 

When it comes to transparency, our view is that Congress has been 

visionary and a leader, and the examples we think about: In 2006, 

Congress gave us USASpending.gov. In 2009, Congress gave us Recovery.gov. And now we have DATA in front of us. And our view 

in our report is that to keep the momentum going, you need more 

legislation, and that is at the heart of our report, is that we believe 

that legislation is required to keep up the momentum on transparency. So that is one thing that I want to focus on today. 

Another is the need to have standardization. As you mentioned 

in your opening statement, Mr. Chairman, the heart of good transparency in terms of efficiency and accuracy is going to be at standardization, and I will talk more about that, too. 

And, finally, I want to speak a little bit about the need to involve 

stakeholders, because if you are talking about having something 

that affects the recipients of the funds, you want to get their input 
112 

to make it work most effectively and actually to have them work 

most effectively. 

So those are the three themes I would like to hit, but before that, 

I would like to spend a moment and just talk about where we are 

today in terms of leadership for transparency. 

Right now, the leadership for transparency is centered in the 

GAT Board, the Government Accountability Transparency Board. 

This is made up of members of the grant-and contract-making 

agencies as well as the Inspectors General. The key members of the 

Board are from OMB, DOD, HHS, Treasury. It is headed up by 

Dick Ginman, who is the contract officer for DOD. The Vice Chair 

is Dave Williams, who is the Postal Inspector General; Kathy 

Tighe, who is the head of the RAT Board, the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board; as well as the Education IG are 

all key members. 

So our view is you have the right people, they have the right 

focus, but there is an inherent limitation in what they can do based 

on their governance. The GAT Board does not have clear lines of 

authority. It does not have its own funding. So they are dependent 

upon a loosely knit configuration of the grant-making and contractmaking agencies to carry out their work. And this has a limitation 

as to how far they can take it. 

In terms of standardization, I think this gives a really good example of when a limitation comes into effect. For standardization, 

what you want is every agency to name things the same way across 

all agencies, and that way what it does, it links up the award with 

the payment. The beauty of this is that the payments are already 

audited, so you have complete, accurate, consistent data on payments that right now we cannot link up with awards, so you cannot have it cradle-to-grave. But if you have standardization, you 

can do this. 

The other piece of standardization that is very good is that it is 

efficient. It allows for pre-population of the data systems. We are 

not asking people to do over and over again information that we 

already have and, frankly, that we already have right. So when you 

are entering it over and over again, it just more work, and it can 

introduce more errors. So standardization is a win-win, and the 

GAT Board believes in standardization, as do we. But they do not 

have the power to compel it. 

So what they have done instead is taken an incremental approach, and working with OMB, there is guidance out there right 

now that says agencies should have unique identifiers but only 

within their agency. Therefore, we cannot have the cross-government look, and that is what is essential. And I know you will hear 

more from the other witnesses about standardization, so I want to 

move on then to stakeholder input. 

A contrast between what we have now and what we have with 

Recovery.gov is the way stakeholders were involved. I believe that 

in Recovery.gov you have probably among the best examples of involving those who had to do the work. When we rolled out recipient 

reporting in Recovery.gov, OMB and the RAT Board both reached 

out to the stakeholders—State and local governments, research institutions, nonprofits, Sunlight—and said, well, how should we do 

this? And the guidance came across that way. Then, once it was 
113 

implemented, there were lessons learned. How is it going? There 

were challenges, there were changes. And in doing that, what happened was the guidance was improved instantaneously. Also, the 

capacity of those to report was enhanced. And very quickly under 

Recovery.gov we had accurate, complete, consistent data. So I cannot overemphasize the importance of stakeholders, and, again, I 

think you will hear more about that today. 

In doing our work, we talk to stakeholders. For example, we talk 

to Sunlight, we talk to research institutions, we talk to State and 

local governments. We also had discussions with all the major Federal players— DOD, OMB, HHS, Treasury, the Rat Board, the 

GAT Board. What we do in our work is that when we have then 

done our reports, we give the Federal agencies a chance to comment and to give us their reactions. In this case, the reactions focused on the three things I mentioned: the need for legislation, the 

importance of standardization, and the value involving stakeholders. In all cases, all the Federal agencies concurred in what we 

found, what we analyzed, and what we recommended. 

So, with that, I would like to conclude my statement. If you have 

questions, I would be glad to answer. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Czerwinski follows:] 
114 

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT September 18, 2013 

GAO-13-871T 

United States Government Accountability Office 

Testimony 

Before the Government Performance 

Task Force, Committee on Budget, 

U.S. Senate 

FEDERAL DATA 

TRANSPARENCY 

Opportunities Remain 

to Incorporate Recovery Act Lessons 

Learned 

Statement of Stanley J. Czerwinski 

Director, Strategic Issues 
115 

t:llghlights of GAO·13:..a7'i'i", a testimony 

before the. Government ~ertormance Task 

For~, Cor!rmitt~e on, BUdget, U',S. Senate 

Why GAO Did This Study 

The fetleraJgovernl11eot spends more 

than $3.7 lrilllo!1 annually, wit" more 

than $1triilion awarded through 

contracts', gia,!t$, andloahS. Improving 

transparenCY of Ihis spending.;s 

essential to imProve accountability. 

RecenUederallaws have required 

increased public information on federal 

.awards and spending. 

This testimony is based on GAO's 

rej:entlyissued repqrt GAO:13-75~; It 

ad~resses(j) the status of 

transparency.efforts underway and 

(2) the .extent to which new initiatives: 

address lessonsleamed from the 

ReCovery Act. GAO reviewed relevant 

legislatiOn, e~ecutive orders, .oMB 

circulars and gUid"nce, and Previous 

GAO work,including worK on RecoverY 

Act reporting, GAO also interviewed 

officials from OMB, the GAT Board; 

and other federal entilies; government 

reform ad~QCaies;associations 

representing .fund. recipients; and ",. 

v,\riety ef contract and grant repipients. 

Wbat<GAOR4)commends 

In Its repert GAel recommended that 

the directOr of OMB, with the GA,. 

B9ard, develop a longeterm plan to 

impleme~t comprehensive 

tr,ansparency refo~m; and }n~re~se 

e1jorls for obtaining ~takeholder input 

to ensure reperting challenges are 

addressed, Further; Congress s",oultl 

consider l'lgislating transparency 

reqUirements ~n<j estanlishjng clear 

auth9ritY to i,mpl<;lT1ent these 

requirementsto ensure that 

recommended approaches fotimprovlng 

transparetlcy are ~rried ou(ac.r9ss'the 

federal government. l'he GAT Board; 

OMS and other c'Ognlzan! agenctes 

generallyCOncllrred With GAO's 

rec9mmend~tions., 

View GAO~ i3~871T; For trtore information, 

contact ~ariley 'J. CZerwlnskl; ,(202) 51'2..a~()6; 

czelWin~I:-(i$@gao . .g:ov, 

i#jNMm.fs1II:*NE 

FEDERAL DATA TRANSPARENCY 

Opportunities Remain to Incorporate Recovery Act 

Lessons Learned 

What GAO Fouud 

Several federal entities, including the Government Accountability and 

Transparency Board (GAT Board), the Recovery Accountability and 

Transparency Board (RecoverY Board), and the Office of Management and 

Budget (OM B), have initiatives under way to improve the accuracy and 

availability of federal spending data. The GAT Board, through its working groups, 

developed approaches to standardize key data elements to improve data 

integrity; link financial management systems with award systems to reconcile 

spending data with obligations; and leverage existing data to help identify and 

reduce fraud, waste, and abuse. With no dedicated funding, GAT Board plans 

are incremental and leverage ongoing agency initiatives and resources designed 

to improve existing business processes as we!! as improve data transparency. 

These initiatives are in an early stage, and some progress has been made to 

bring greater consistency to contract and grant award identifiers. The GAT 

Board's mandate is to provide strategiC direction, not to implement changes. 

Further, while these early plans are being developed with input from a range of 

federal stakeholders, the GAT Board and OMB have not developed mechanisms 

for obtaining input from non-federal fund recipients. 

Lessons from implementing the transparency objectives of the Recovery Act 

could help inform these new initiatives: 

• Standardize data to Integrate systems and enhance accountability, Similar 

to the GAT Board's current focus on standardization, the RecoverY Board 

recognized that standardized data would be more usable by the public and the 

RecoverY Board for identifying potential misuse of federal funds. However, 

reporting requirements under the Recovery Act had to be met quickly. Because 

agencies did not collect spending data in a consistent manner, the most 

expedient approach was to collect data from fund reCipients, even though 

similar data already existed in agency systems. Given the longer timeframes to 

develop current transparency initiatives, OMB and the GAT Board are working 

toward greater data conSistency by focusing on data standards. Their plans, 

however, do not include long-term steps, such as working toward uniform 

award identifiers, that would improve award tracking with less burden on 

recipients. 

• Obtain stakeholder inVOlvement as reporting requirements are 

developed, During the Recovery Act, federal officials listened to the concerns 

of recipients and made changes to guidance in response, which helped ensure 

they could meet those requirements. Without similar outreach under the current 

initiatives, reporting challenges may not be addressed, potentially Impairing the 

data's accuracy and completeness, and increasing burden on those reporting. 

• Delineate clear requirements and lines of authority for implementing 

transparency Initiatives, Unlike the present efforts to expand spending 

transparency, the RecoverY Act provided OMB and the RecoverY Board with 

clear authority and mandated reporting requirements. Given this clarity, 

transparency provisions were carried out successfully and on time. Going 

forward, without ciear, legislated authority and requirements, the ability to 

sustain progress and institutionalize transparency initiatives may be 

jeopardized as priorities shift over time. 

_____________ United States Government Accountability Office 
116 

Chairman Warner, Ranking Member Ayotte, and Members of the Task 

Force: 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the findings from our recent 

report on federal efforts to increase the transparency of information 

detailing federal awards and expenditures. ' The federal government 

awards more than $1 trillion annually through contracts, grants, and 

loans. Transparency-shedding light on the amount of spending, what it 

is spent on, who receives the funds, and what are the results of that 

spending-is essential to improving government accountability and 

fostering civic engagement. Within the last decade, Congress and the 

administration have taken several steps to improve the transparency of 

federal spending data, including passing two statutes intended to expand 

public access to information on federal programs. The Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATAj2 and the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act)' have allowed 

the public to access information on spending, recipients, and uses of 

funds. Information on grant and contract awards is available on 

www.USAspending.gov, and information on Recovery Act awards and 

spending is available on www.Recovery.gov. The data's availability has 

also provided opportunities for increased oversight to prevent and detect 

fraud, waste, and abuse of federal funds, and to improve the efficiency 

and effectiveness of federal spending. 

While the transparency of federal spending data has increased, both the 

administration and Members of Congress have suggested the need for 

more transparency. For example, USAspending.gov only provides data 

on funds awarded and does not include information on disbursements. In 

terms of data collection, federal agencies and recipients report to various 

systems, sometimes with the same information and, as a result, direct 

unnecessary time and resources to administrative activities. In addition, 

the lack of consistent data structures prevents easy aggregation of data 

at the government-wide level, hampering the ability to link existing 

1GAO, Federal Data Transparency.' Opportunities Remain to incorporate Lessons 

Learned as Availability of Spending Data Increases, GAO~13-758 (Washington, D.C: 

Sept. 12,2013). 

'Pub. L. No. 109-282, 120 Stat. 1186 (2006), as amended by Pub. L. No. 110-252, § 

6202(a), 122 Stat. 2323, 2387 (2008) (codified at 31 U.S.C. § 6101 note). 

'Pub. L. No. 111-5, §§ 1512, 1526, 123 Stat. 115,287-288,293-294 (2009). 

Page 1 GAO-13-871T 
117 

financial, award, and procurements systems, It also increases the cost of 

government transactions and the burden on federal fund recipients, And, 

as we have reported previously, the accuracy and reliability of the data 

needs to be improved' Emerging transparency efforts include specific 

changes in data collection under consideration by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OM B) and the Government Accountability and 

Transparency Board (GAT Board), newly-created under a June 2011 

Executive Order. 5 

My testimony today is drawn from our recent report to you on efforts to 

improve federal data transparency, It will address (1) federal initiatives 

under way to improve the accuracy and availability of federal spending 

data and (2) the extent to which lessons identified by us and federal fund 

reCipients from the operation of Recovery,gov and USAspending,gov are 

being addressed by these new transparency initiatives, 

To conduct our work on federal data transparency efforts, we examined 

data collection and reporting requirements under FFATA and the 

Recovery Act; the June 2011 Executive Order related to transparency;6 

relevant OMB guidance; 7 and action plans created by the GAT Board, the 

Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board (Recovery Board), and 

other federal entities with responsibility for developing approaches to 

improve federal data transparency, We interviewed officials at OMB, the 

GAT Board, and the Recovery Board who are examining new data 

transparency initiatives, We also interviewed officials at three agencies 

who are developing new transparency prototypes within their agencies: 

the Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS), and Department of the Treasury (Treasury), and also 

interviewed officials at the General Services Administration (GSA), the 

agency that manages USAspending,gov, To get their perspectives on 

4See, for example, GAO, Electronic Government: Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, GAO-10-365 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 12, 

2010), 

5Executive Order 13,576, "Delivering an Efficient, Effective, and Accountable 

Government," 76 Fed, Reg, 35,297 (June 16, 2011), 

6Executive Order 13,576. 

70MB, Open GovemmentDirective, M-10-06 (Washington, D,C,: Dec, 8, 2009); OMB, 

fmprov;ng Acquisition Data Quality for Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010 (Washington, D.C.: 

Oct 7, 2009), 

Page 2 GAO,13·871T 
118 

Transparency Efforts 

Under Way Focus on 

Standardizing Data to 

Integrate Systems and 

Enhance Spending 

Oversight 

lessons learned from both the operation of existing transparency systems 

and federal efforts under way to improve data transparency, we spoke 

with officials from organizations representing federal fund recipients and 

government reform organizations. We also conducted seven focus groups 

with federal fund recipients representing state and local governments, 

nonprofit organizations, higher education research institutions, and 

private businesses who receive grants from, or contracted with, the 

federal government. Finally, we reviewed our previous work on the 

reporting successes and challenges experienced by both agencies and 

federal fund reCipients. This step allowed us to identify lessons learned 

from those experiences that should be considered as new approaches to 

data transparency are developed. Our work was performed in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. More detailed 

information on our scope and methodology can be found in our report. 

The GAT Board, the Recovery Board, and OMB, have initiatives under 

way to improve the accuracy and availability of federal spending data. 

The GAT Board, with a mandate of providing strategic direction, has four 

working groups charged with developing approaches for improving the 

quality of data in federal contract, grants, and financial management 

systems, and for expanding the availability of these data to improve 

oversight of federal funds. The working groups represent the federal 

procurement, grants, financial management, and oversight communities 

and include interagency forums such as the Chief Acquisition Officers 

Council and the Council for Inspectors General for Integrity and 

Efficiency. (See appendix I for more information on the GAT Board 

working groups.) For example, the GAT Board established the 

Procurement Data Standardization and Integrity Working Group to 

develop approaches that ensure that contracting data are accurate and 

contract transactions can be tracked from purchase order through vendor 

payments. The GAT Board selected DOD to lead this effort in order to 

leverage its long-standing efforts to increase the accuracy of contract 

data submitted to the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation 

(FPDS-NG). 

Through these working groups, the GAT Board has begun to develop 

approaches to (1) standardize data elements across systems; (2) link 

financial management systems with award systems so that spending data 

can be reconciled with obligations; and (3) use the data to help identify 

and reduce fraud, waste, and abuse. However, the GAT Board's mandate 

does not provide it with the authority to implement these reforms; 

therefore, it must rely on its working groups' lead agencies to implement 

Page 3 GAO·13·871T 
119 

approaches that it has approved. Moreover, the GAT Board has no 

dedicated funding, so its strategic plan is short-term and calls for an 

incremental approach that builds upon ongoing agency initiatives. 

We found that standardizing data and having a uniform convention for 

indentifying contract and grant awards throughout their life cycle are the 

first steps in ensuring data quality and tracking spending data. Without 

this uniformity, reporting and tracking spending data is ineffiCient and 

burdensome. Current efforts are focused on identifying approaches to 

standardize contract and grant award data elements to improve data 

accuracy, and to date some progress has been made, such as: 

Based in part on work of the GAT Board for the Federal Acquisition 

Regulatory Council, DOD proposed a regulation requiring federal 

agencies to use a uniform procurement identifier-a number that 

could be attached to a contract so it can be tracked across various 

systems throughout the procurement process. 8 

OMB, working with the GAT Board, issued new guidance that requires 

all federal agencies to establish unique identification numbers for 

financial assistance awards. 9 While this guidance could help bring 

greater consistency to grant award data, it only requires agencies to 

assign award numbers unique within their agency and thus does not 

provide the same level of uniformity as is required for contracts. OMB 

has noted that standardizing an identifier format could cause 

problems for agency systems because some agencies structure their 

award identifiers to track particular characteristics of grants for their 

internal use. 

Through its work with the GAT Board, HHS examined more than 

1,100 individual data elements used by different agencies and found 

wide variation in terminology and associated definitions that impacted 

how spending was captured, tracked, and reported. 

The Recovery Board recently concluded its Grant Reporting 

Information Project that tested the feasibility of using the website 

FederalReporting.gov to collect data on non-Recovery Act grant 

expenditures. The Recovery Board's analysis of the project supported 

Fed. Reg. 34.020 (June 6,2013). 

90MB, Improving Data Quality for USAspending.gov. (Washington, D.C : June 12, 2013). 

Page 4 GAO-13-871T 
120 

using FederalReporting.gov for grant reporting and validated the 

effectiveness of using a universal award identifier. 10 

The GAT Board is also building on Treasury's effort to integrate financial 

management systems to track spending better. Its Financial Management 

Working Group is developing recommendations for a work plan that will 

seek to leverage Treasury's on-going transparency and system 

modernization efforts. For example, the board is building on Treasury's 

initiative to standardize payment transaction processes, which will 

consolidate more than 30 agency payment systems into a single 

application. This application will process agency payment requests using 

a standardized payment request format, which all agencies that use 

Treasury disbursing services will be directed to use by October 1, 2014." 

The GAT Board also intends to leverage Treasury's plans to develop a 

centralized repository with detailed and summarized records of payment 

transactions from all federal agencies including payments reported by the 

federal agencies that disburse their own payments. The Payment 

Information Repository will contain descriptive data on payments that can 

be matched with other data to provide additional information regarding the 

purpose, program, location, and commercial recipient of the payment. 

A third area on which federal transparency efforts have focused is on 

using existing data to enhance spending oversight. Data mining 

applications are emerging as essential tools to inform management 

decisions, develop government-wide best practices and common 

solutions, and effectively detect and combat fraud in federal programs. 

For example, predictive analytic technologies can identify fraud and errors 

before payments are made, while data-mining and data-matching 

techniques can identify fraud or improper payments that have already 

been awarded. The Recovery Board's Recovery Operations Center 

10Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, Grants Reporting Information Project, 

Washington, D.C.: June 2013. 

11Treasury disbursing organizations wi!! be directed to use the Standard Payment Request 

format to submit detailed payment and accounting data, which in turn wi!! be used to 

populate the Payment Information Repository. Non*Treasury disbursed agencies will be 

directed to report detailed payment and accounting data directly to the Payment 

Information Repository using a different but standard format. Both the Standard Payment 

Request format used by Treasury disbursing organizations as weI! as the direct input 

format used by Non·Treasury disbursed agencies defines the data elements and 

validation rules that must be used to report payments and associated information into the 

Payment Information Repository. 

Page 5 
121 

(ROC) uses data analytics to monitor Recovery Act spending and has 

provided several inspectors general with access to these tools. ROC staff 

were able to notify agencies that they had awarded Recovery funds to 

companies that were debarred. ROC analysts also found hidden assets 

that resulted in a court ordering the payment of a fine, and indentified 

several individuals employed by other entities while receiving worker's 

compensation benefits. The GAT Board's Data Analytics Working Group 

has set a goal of expanding on the ROC's work to develop a shared 

platform for improving fraud detection in federal spending programs. This 

approach relies on the development of data standards. It will provide a set 

of analytiC tools for fraud detection to be shared across the federal 

government. Although this work is just starting, working group members 

have identified several challenges including reaching consensus among 

federal agencies on a set of common data attributes to be used and 

obtaining changes needed to existing privacy laws to allow access to 

certain types of protected data and systems. A forum we co-hosted in 

January 2013, along with the Council of the Inspectors General on 

Integrity and Efficiency and the Recovery Board, explored these 

challenges and identified next steps to address them. Forum participants 

identified a range of challenges, including a lack of data standards and a 

universal award identifier that limit data sharing across the federal 

government and across federal, state, and local agencies. Working 

groups or other structures have been formed to forward these issues. For 

example, we are leading a community of practice for federal, state, and 

local government officials to discuss challenges and opportunities related 

to data sharing within and across government agencies. 12 

12See GAO, Highlights of a Forum: Data Analytics for Oversight and Law Enforcement, 

GAO-13-680SP. (Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2013). 

Page 6 GAO·13~871T 
122 

As Transparency 

Efforts Get Under 

Way, Opportunities 

Remain to 

Incorporate Lessons 

Learned from the 

Recovery Act 

In many cases, the transparency initiatives of the GAT and Recovery 

Boards, OMB, and key federal agencies build on lessons learned from the 

operation of existing transparency systems. But as new transparency 

initiatives get under way, we believe there are opportunities to give 

additional consideration to these lessons to help ensure new 

transparency programs and policies are implemented successfully. 

First, we found that in implementing the Recovery Act, OMB directed 

recipients of covered funds to use a series of standardize data elements 

and report centrally into the Recovery Board's reporting web site. The 

transparency envisioned under the Recovery Act required the 

development of a system that could quickly trace billions of dollars 

disbursed to thousands of recipients, across a variety of programs. 

Agencies had systems in place that captured such information as award 

amounts, funds disbursed, and, to varying degrees, progress being made 

by recipients. However, the lack of uniform federal data and reporting 

standards made it difficult to obtain these data from federal agencies. 

Because agencies did not collect spending data in a consistent manner, 

the most expedient approach for Recovery Act reporting was to collect 

data from fund recipients, which placed additional burden on them to 

provide these data. Federal fund recipients we spoke to said that the lack 

of consistent data standards and commonality in how data elements are 

defined and reported places undue burden on them because it can result 

in having to report the same information multiple times and requires 

recipients to enter data manually, which can impact the accuracy of the 

data. For example, a nonprofit group representative who participated in 

one of our focus groups said that they had to report the same information 

through 15 different reporting platforms, so having data standards and 

single reporting platform would make the reporting process more efficient. 

Given the longer time frames to develop current transparency initiatives, 

OMB and the GAT Board are working toward greater data consistency by 

focusing on data standards. Citing agency budgetary constraints and the 

potential of emerging technologies for extracting nonstandard data 

elements from disparate systems, the GAT Board and OMB are taking 

incremental steps toward increasing data standardization. Their plans, 

however, do not include long-term steps, such as working toward uniform 

award identifiers that would improve award tracking with less burden on 

recipients. 

Second, we found that early in the development of both the Recovery Act 

reporting system and its procedures, federal officials listened to the 

concerns of recipients and made changes to guidance in response, which 

helped ensure they could meet those requirements. Given the daunting 

Page 7 GAO-13-871T 
123 

task of rapidly establishing a system to track billions of dollars in 

Recovery Act funding, OMB and the Recovery Board implemented an 

iterative process which allowed many stakeholders to provide insight into 

the challenges that could impede their ability to report Recovery Act 

expenditures. Federal fund recipients we spoke with stressed the 

importance of having a formal mechanism to provide feedback to the 

federal government as guidance is crafted and before new transparency 

reporting requirements are established to ensure that the guidance is 

clear and understandable. Such guidance will ensure that the data they 

report are accurate, on time, and minimally burdensome. Although, the 

GAT Board has implemented a structure that leverages the expertise of 

federal officials with in-depth knowledge of federal procurement, grantmaking, and financial management operations, the board does not have 

any formal mechanisms, other than the federal rule-making process, to 

obtain input from non-federal fund recipients. As we learned through our 

work examining Recovery Act implementation, without similar outreach 

under the current initiatives, reporting challenges may not be addressed, 

potentially impairing the data's accuracy and completeness, and 

increasing burden on those doing the reporting. 

Third, we found that the under the Recovery Act, specific requirements 

and responsibilities for transparency were clearly laid out in statute, which 

provided unprecedented transparency and helped to ensure that the act's 

transparency requirements were implemented within tight time frames. 

The Recovery Act specified the timing of reporting, including its frequency 

and deadlines, and the items that needed to be included in the reporting. 

The act also required the Recovery Board to conduct and coordinate 

oversight of the funds and to deploy a data-collection system and a 

public-facing website to provide spending data to the public. Unlike the 

GAT Board, the Recovery Board had funding which was used to provide 

staff and resources for developing and operating its data collection 

system, website, and oversight activities. In contrast, authority for 

implementing the current transparency initiatives is not as clearly defined 

and authority for expanding transparency is centered in an executive 

order rather than legislation. An official from an association representing 

federal fund recipients told us that of clear reporting guidance was 

essential for ensuring compliance with reporting requirements, especially 

for recipients with limited resources. Moreover, unlike under the Recovery 

Act, new transparency initiatives are being funded through existing 

agency resources using agency personnel, as separate funding is 

unavailable. As, we have previously reported, given the importance of 

leadership to any collaborative effort, transitions and inconsistent 

leadership, which can occur as administrations change, can weaken the 

Page 8 GAO·13·871T 
124 

effectiveness of any collaborative efforts, and result in a lack of 

continuity." We found that the GAT Board's vision for comprehensive 

transparency reform will take several years to implement, and therefore, 

continuity of leadership becomes particularly important. Going forward, 

without clear, legislated authority and requirements, the ability to sustain 

progress and institutionalize transparency initiatives may be jeopardized 

as priorities shift over time. 

In our recently released report, we recommended that OMB and the GAT 

Board develop a long-term strategy for implementing data standards 

across the federal government and for obtaining input from federal fund 

recipients. Specifically, we recommended that the Director of OMB, in 

collaboration with the members of the GAT Board, take the following two 

actions: 

Develop a plan to implement comprehensive transparency reform, 

including a long-term timeline and requirements for data standards, 

such as establishing a uniform award identification system across the 

federal government. 

Increase efforts for obtaining input from stakeholders, including 

entities receiving federal funds, to address reporting challenges, and 

strike an appropriate balance that ensures the accuracy of the data 

without unduly increasing the burden on those doing the reporting. 

The GAT Board, OMB and other cognizant agencies generally agreed 

with our recommendations and identified actions underway or planned, 

which they believe will operationalize comprehensive transparency 

reforms and help them obtain stakeholder input. 

Our recently issued report also suggested that Congress could consider 

legislating transparency requirements and establish clear lines of 

authority to ensure that recommended approaches for improving 

spending data transparency are implemented across the federal 

government. Among other things, this will ensure effective decision 

making and the efficient use of resources dedicated to enhancing the 

transparency of federal spending data. 

13GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 

Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO·12·1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept 27, 2012). 

Page 9 GAO-13-871T 
125 

Contacts and 

Acknowledgements 

Chairman Warner, Ranking Member Ayotte, and Members of the Task 

Force, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to 

respond to any questions that you may have at this time. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this testimony, please 

contact me at (202) 512-6806 or czerwinskis@gao.gov. Contact points for 

our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this statement. GAO staff who made key contributions to 

this testimony are Carol L. Patey, Assistant Director and 

Kathleen M. Drennan, Ph.D., Analyst-in-Charge. Additional contributions 

to our detailed report were made by Gerard S. Burke, Patricia Norris, 

Cynthia M. Saunders, Ph.D., Robert Robinson, Jessica Nierenberg, 

Judith Kordahl, and Keith O'Brien. 

Page 10 GAO-13-871T 
126 

Appendix I: Government Accountability 

and Transparency Board and Work Group 

Agency Partners 

The Government Accountability and Transparency Board (GAT Board) is 

composed of the following 11 members designated by the President from 

among agency inspectors general, agency chief financial officers or 

deputy secretaries, and senior officials from OMB. The President 

designates a chairman from among the members. 

Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, U.S. 

Department of Defense 

Inspector General, U,S, Postal Service 

Assistant Secretary, Department of the Treasury 

Inspector General, U.S. Department of Energy 

Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

Inspector General, National Science Foundation 

Inspector General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources and Chief Financial 

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

Inspector General, U.S, Department of Transportation 

Inspector General, U.S, Department of Education 

Deputy Controller, Office of Management and Budget 

The GAT Board established four working groups, as shown in table 1. 

Page 11 GAO·13·871T 
127 

Appendix I: Government Accountability 

and Transparency Board and Work Group 

Agency Partners 

Table1: Composition and Purpose of the GAT Board Working Groups 

Working Group 

Procurement Data Standardization and 

Integrity 

Grants Data Standardization and Integrity 

Financial Management Integration and 

Data Display 

Data Analytics 

(451072) 

Working groups members 

Department of Defense (Lead) 

Office of Federal Procurement Policy 

(OMS) 

Chief Acquisition Officers Council 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (Lead) 

Office of Federal Financial 

Management (OMS) 

Council on Financial Assistance 

Reform 

Department of Treasury 

Office of Federal Financial 

Management (OMS) 

United States Postal Service (Lead) 

Recovery Board 

Source GAO AnalysIs of GAT Soard Documents 

Page 12 

Purpose 

Identify approaches for standardizing 

contract data elements and electronic 

transactions to ensure data accuracy and 

enable the tracking of contract transactions 

from purchase order through vendor 

payment. 

Identify approaches to standardize grants 

data elements to achieve great consistency 

across the federal government. 

Identify approaches for linking the financial 

management data maintained in agency 

financial systems with agency awards data in 

order to improve the quality of the data 

displayed to the public. 

Expand upon the work of the Recovery 

Board's Recovery Operation Center to 

develop a shared platform to improve fraud 

detection in federal spending programs. 

GAO·13·871T 
128 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 
129 

GAO.s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Connect with GAO 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO's website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select .. E-mail Updates." 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO's website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact: 

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

.... 

"".~ Please Print on Recycled Paper. 
130 

Chairman WARNER. Mr. Lee. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS LEE, DIRECTOR OF SUNLIGHT LABS, 

SUNLIGHT FOUNDATION 

Mr. LEE. Thank you. My name is Tom Lee, and I am director of 

Sunlight Labs, the technical arm of the Sunlight Foundation. Sunlight is a nonpartisan nonprofit dedicated to using the power of the 

Internet to catalyze greater Government transparency and openness. We take inspiration from Justice Brandeis’ famous adage that 

‘‘Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.’’ 

We believe that data on Government spending is among the most 

important measures that citizens have of their Government’s priorities. Public spending data allows us to cut through political rhetoric and see for ourselves what expenditures the Government 

prioritizes over others. If it is timely enough, it also allows private 

industry, local governments, and service delivery organizations to 

align their plans and investments with those made in Washington. 

Since USASpending.gov launched in 2007, Sunlight researchers 

have become very familiar with its underlying data systems, and 

what we have found is troubling. Our data quality analysis of the 

assistance data in USASpending.gov shows that it is deteriorating 

by the year. In 2011, over $900 billion of the direct assistance data 

on the site was misreported. 

For example, according to USASpending.gov, the United States 

spent zero dollars on Medicare Insurance and zero dollars on Medicare prescription drugs in 2011, 2012, and 2013. And although in 

testimony to the House Oversight Committee the CIO of the Department of Education asserted that ‘‘when [he] looks at [his agency’s] data in USASpending.gov, it is accurate,’’ USASpending currently shows that no money was spent on student loans from 2008 

to 2012, despite these loans comprising one of the Department’s 

largest assistance programs. But these data sets— 

Chairman WARNER. Mr. Lee, I do not mean to interrupt, but we 

both—how is that possible? 

Mr. LEE. I think that the fundamental problem is a lack of clear 

guidance and centralization of authority about what should be reported. But various justifications have been used for this lack of reporting, including the idea that the ultimate beneficiary of the 

spending is an individual, which is exempted from reporting under 

FFATA. But we have seen this excuse used in, for example, school 

lunch programs where grants are given to schools with the rationale that ultimately it is the children who are receiving this who are 

individuals and, therefore, the spending does not need to be reported. So I think this speaks to the lack of centralization of authority. Really just historically there hasn’t been someone paying 

close attention to what is and is not being reported. 

But to continue, these data sets are not only full of bad data; 

they are also badly designed. A lack of standardization makes it 

difficult to conduct the type of data quality analysis that Sunlight 

has in the first place and contributes to agencies’ and recipients’ 

inability to report accurate, timely, and complete data about their 

spending. Without governmentwide data standards to facilitate 

interoperability, using complementary data sets as a crosscheck to 

identify data quality problems will remain limited. And without 
131 

better, nonproprietary identifiers for recipients of Federal dollars, 

spending transparency efforts will never fully deliver on the promise to reduce fraud and waste that Senator Ayotte has referred to. 

Without an integrated approach to budget, spending, and disbursement data, attempts to measure programs’ efficiency and effectiveness will be stymied. 

While the aims of USASpending.gov are laudable, it has failed to 

fulfill its promise to allow the American public to see where their 

dollars are being spent. We believe that further legislative action 

is needed to allow the site to achieve its mission. Sunlight has long 

been a supporter of the Digital Accountability and Transparency 

Act, or DATA Act, which would mandate that the Department of 

Treasury create a set of governmentwide standards to facilitate 

better spending reporting. 

The DATA Act would also make spending data more complete. 

One of the main drawbacks of the Federal Funding Accountability 

and Transparency Act, or FFATA, the law that created 

USASpending.gov, is that it only requires the posting of direct assistance and contracts data. This means that much of the money 

spent on general Government operations, including over $350 billion annually in salaries, is not present on USASpending.gov. 

Indeed, if you were to view overall spending, by agency, on 

USASpending.gov, you might get the mistaken impression that 

agencies that rely more heavily on contract personnel spend more 

money than agencies that do not, since permanent employees’ salaries are not disclosed. The DATA Act would correct this problem. 

Under FFATA, the Government Accountability Office was required to report on the implementation of USASpending one year 

after the passage of the act. This report, issued in 2010, noted several problems with the site’s data. The DATA Act would formalize 

and distribute this oversight role across the Inspector General offices at each Federal agency, requiring IGs to report every 2 years 

on the quality of the data submitted. While Sunlight has been 

pleased to conduct our own data quality analysis, we believe that 

the Inspectors General could perform a more thorough audit than 

our resources and access allow. 

The benefits of improving the data will accrue not only to the 

American public but also to Government. The historically low levels 

of fraud associated with Recovery Act spending are a testament to 

the savings that well-executed spending transparency measures 

can deliver. We believe that investments in improving Federal 

spending oversight and disclosure are overwhelmingly likely to pay 

for themselves in smarter and less error-prone spending decisions. 

We applaud the efforts of both the administration and this Congress to increase the transparency of Federal spending. Recent proposed regulations for streamlining award and contract identifiers 

across agencies are a meaningful step forward. Sunlight is a supporter of the administrative initiatives in this area. But we also believe that the mandate for publishing all federal spending should 

be grounded in law, to demonstrate and formalize our Government’s lasting commitment to transparency about how tax dollars 

are spent. 

We welcome the Committee’s attention to this issue and encourage you to continue to engage with spending transparency as it re-
132 

lates to your work. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look 

forward to answering any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lee follows:] 
133 

Comments of the Sunlight Foundation 

Committee on the Budget 

and the 

Government Performance Task Force 

Enhancing Accountability and Increasing Financial Transparency 

Thomas Lee 

September 18, 2013 

Chairman Murray, Ranking Member Sessions, and the members of the Committee, thank you 

for the invitation to appear before you today to speak about federal financial transparency. 

My name is Tom Lee and I am the Director of Sunlight Labs, the technical arm of the Sunlight 

Foundation. Sunlight is a non-partisan non-profit dedicated to using the power of the Internet to 

catalyze greater government openness and transparency. We take inspiration from Justice 

Brandeis' famous adage that "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." 

We believe that data on government spending is among the most important measures that 

citizens have of their government's priorities. Public spending data allows us to cut through 

political rhetoric and see for ourselves what expenditures the government prioritizes over others. 

If it is timely enough, it also allows private industry, local governments and service delivery 

organizations to align their plans and investments with those made in Washington. 

Since USASpending.gov launched in 2007, Sunlight researchers have become very familiar with 

its underlying data systems. What we have found is troubling. Our data quality analYSis of the 

assistance data in USASpending.gov shows that it is deteriorating by the year. In 2011, over 

$900 billion of the direct assistance data in USASpending.gov was misreported. 

For example, according to USASpending.gov, the United States spent $0 on Medicare Insurance, 

and $0 on prescription drugs for Medicare in 2011, 2012 and 2013. And although in testimony to 

the House Oversight Committee the CIO of the Department of Education asserted that "when 

[he] looks at [his agency's] data in USASpending.gov, it is accurate," USASpending currently 

shows that no money was spent on student loans from 2008 to 2012, despite these loans 
134 

comprising one of the department's largest assistance programs. 

But these data sets are not only full of bad data; they are badly designed. A lack of 

standardization makes it difficult to conduct this type of quality analysis in the first place and 

contributes to agencies' and recipients' inability to report accurate, timely and complete data 

about their spending. Without government-wide data standards to facilitate interoperability, using 

complementary data sets as a cross-check to identify data quality problems will remain limited. 

Without better, non-proprietary identifiers for recipients of federal dollars, spending transparency 

efforts will never fully deliver on their promise to reduce fraud and waste. Without an integrated 

approach to budget, spending and disbursement data, attempts to measure programs' efficiency 

and effectiveness will be stymied. 

While the aims of USASpending.gov are laudable, it has failed to fulfill its promise to allow the 

American public to see where their dollars are being spent. We believe that further legislative 

action is needed to allow USASpending to achieve its mission. Sunlight has long been a 

supporter of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act (S.994), which would mandate that 

the Department of Treasury create a set of government-wide standards to facilitate better 

spending reporting. 

The DATA Act would also make spending data more complete. One of the main drawbacks of 

the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, the law that created 

USASpending.gov, is that it only requires the posting of direct assistance and contracts data. 

This means that much of the money spent on general government operations, including over 

$350 billion annually in salaries, is not present in USASpending.gov. Indeed, if you were to view 

overall spending, by agency, on USASpending.gov, you might get the mistaken impression that 

agencies that rely more heavily on contract personnel spend more money than agencies that do 

not, since permanent employees' salaries are not disclosed. The DATA act would correct this 

problem. 

Under FFAT A, the Government Accountability Office was required to report on the 

implementation of USASpending one year after the passage of the act. This report, issued in 

2010, noted several problems with the site's data. The DATA Act would formalize and distribute 
135 

this oversight role across the Inspector General offices at each federal agency, requiring IGs to 

report every two years on the quality of the data submitted. While Sunlight has been pleased to 

conduct our own data quality analysis, we believe that the Inspectors General could perform a 

more thorough audit than our resources and access allow. 

The benefits of improving the data will accrue not only to the American public, but to government 

as well. The historically low levels of fraud associated with Recovery Act spending are a 

testament to the savings that well-executed spending transparency measures can deliver. We 

believe that investments in improving federal spending oversight and disclosure are 

overwhelmingly likely to pay for themselves in smarter and less error-prone spending decisions. 

We applaud the efforts of both the administration and this Congress to increase the 

transparency of federal spending. Recent proposed regulations for streamlining award and 

contract identifiers across agencies are a meaningful step forward. Sunlight is a supporter of 

the administrative initiatives in this area. But we also believe that the mandate for publishing all 

federal spending should be grounded in law, to demonstrate and formalize our government's 

lasting commitment to transparency about how tax dollars are spent. 

We welcome the Committee's attention to this issue and encourage you to continue to engage 

with the issue of spending transparency as it relates to this committee's work. Thank you for the 

opportunity to testify today. I look forward to answering any questions you might have. 
136 

Chairman WARNER. Thank you. 

Mr. Kane? 

STATEMENT OF GERALD J. KANE, ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION, UNIVERSITY OF 

VIRGINIA 

Mr. KANE. Good morning, Chairman Warner, Ranking Member 

Ayotte, and members of the Task Force. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on the transparency and Federal reporting requirements. My name is Gerry Kane, and I am the assistant vice president for research administration at the University 

of Virginia. UVA is a nonprofit public institution of higher education located in Charlottesville, Virginia. In fiscal year 2012, the 

university received research awards totaling over $306 million from 

all sources, of which 80 percent came from Federal grants and contracts. 

The Office of Research Administration supports the research endeavors of university faculty, ensures the responsible stewardship 

of research funding, and oversees the submission of proposals, negotiation, and acceptance of awards by the university according to 

State, university, and sponsor regulations. 

With such a large research portfolio, UVA interacts with a variety of Federal agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, 

the National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense, and 

others. As the Task Force examines legislation to create greater 

transparency in Federal spending and standardize across agencies, 

I would like to highlight several examples of duplication and burdensome reporting requirements that do not increase transparency 

but, rather, increase the cost of compliance at our public institution. 

In order to comply with Federal reporting requirements, we are 

required to submit numerous reports, at different time frames, 

many of which include the same information in different formats. 

For example, I will use the National Institutes of Health. 

The NIH is the largest Federal funder of research at the University of Virginia, and this funding has led to numerous medical 

breakthroughs. As one example, recently the School of Medicine received a 5-year, $14 million grant, in a consortium with other universities, to develop methods to better predict which heart disease 

patients are at the greatest risk of heart failure and sudden death. 

This type of award will require us to submit yearly and quarterly 

financial reports, subcontract monthly reports, annual principal investigator progress reports. Were this grant an American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act Award, it would require all of the above and 

additional quarterly reports. This information is collected despite 

the invoicing process, which additionally collects information each 

time funding is drawn down from a grant. This reporting schedule 

is normal for most Federal grants across the agencies, so these 

issues of redundancy are relevant to many agencies, not just NIH. 

Another example of inefficiency is our experience with agencies 

losing reports we have filed, which causes additional work re-filing. 

It would be much more efficient to set up a Federal report repository where we upload the same form for agencies. Then the agencies could reference and download the reports at their convenience. 
137 

A third area of our concern is invoicing. This is one of the most 

difficult tasks our office has with agencies as they use different systems and some use multiple systems. This causes confusion and 

extra work to determine the appropriate system. A key element 

that would improve invoicing and reporting efficiency across agencies would be to allow universities and other awardees to upload 

all data electronically at one time for multiple awards. This would 

save many staff hours. 

On a positive note, we have seen one recent improvement, which 

is the launch of the System for Award Management—SAM. Presently, it combined three existing reporting systems to make a more 

efficient award management process. 

UVA, along with the Association of American Universities, the 

Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, and the Council 

on Governmental Relations, applauds the Task Force’s bipartisan 

efforts to address some of these duplicative and burdensome reporting regulations while expanding transparency through the Digital 

Accountability and Transparency Act. Importantly, the legislation 

mandates the establishment of governmentwide data standards 

and tasks the Office of Management and Budget with reviewing 

current reporting requirements and reducing duplication. We appreciate that universities are explicitly mentioned as a stakeholder 

for input in the OMB process. We also support and would be happy 

to participate in the pilot program to evaluate consolidated recipient reporting. We support this legislation and hope to be a resource 

as this moves forward. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today, and 

I am happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kane follows:] 
138 

TESTIMONY 

of 

Gerald J. Kane, Assistant Vice President for Research Administration 

University of Virginia 

to the 

Budget Committee Taskforce on Government Performance 

United States Senate 

September 18, 2013 

Good morning Chairman Warner, Ranking Member Ayotte, and members of the Taskforce. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on transparency and federal reporting 

requirements for institutions of higher education in regards to federal research grants and 

contracts. My name is Gerry Kane and I am the Assistant Vice President for Research 

Administration at the University of Virginia. The University of Virginia is a non-profit public 

institution of higher education located in Charlottesville, Virginia. The University sustains the 

ideal in developing, through education, leaders who are well-prepared to help shape the future 

of the nation. In fiscal year (FY) 2012 the University received research awards totaling over 

$306 million from all sources (federal and state agencies, industry and private foundations). Of 

this amount, $245 million, or 80 percent, came from federal grants and contracts. 

The Office of Research Administration is located in the Office of Sponsored Programs (aSP) at 

the University of Virginia. The asp mission is to provide leadership in research administration, 

support the research endeavors of University faculty, ensure the responsible stewardship of 

research funding, and oversee the submission of proposals and the negotiation and acceptance 

of awards by the University according to State, University and sponsor regulations. Once an 

award has been made, asp provides a comprehensive service in award administration and 

regulatory compliance. 

With such a large research portfolio, UVa interacts with a variety of federal agencies, including 

the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department 

of Energy (DOE), the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of Education (ED), and 

others. As the Taskforce examines legislation to create greater transparency in federal 

spending and standardize across agencies, 1 would like to highlight several examples of 

duplication and burdensome reporting requirements that do not increase transparency, but 

rather increase the cost of compliance at our public institution. 

Example Reporting Requirements 

In order to comply with Federal reporting requirements, we are required to submit numerous 

reports, at different time frames (annually, quarterly, monthly, etc.), many of which include the 

same information in different formats. For example, we will use the National Institutes of 

Health (NIH). 
139 

NIH is the largest federal funder of research at the University of Virginia and this funding has led 

to numerous medical breakthroughs that have supported the health of the people of the 

Commonwealth and across the nation. As an example, recently the University Of Virginia 

School Of Medicine received a five year $14.4 million grant, in a consortium with other 

universities, to study and to develop methods to better predict which patients with 

hypertrophic cardiomyopathy - the most common genetic heart disease - are at the greatest 

risk of heart failure or sudden death. 1 

This type of award will require us to submit the following: 

• Yearly financial expenditure report (eRA Commons) 

• Annual Principal Investigator Progress Reports 

• SF425 Quarterly financial receipt report (Payment Management System) 

• If you have a subcontract that meets the threshold then you have additional monthly 

reporting for the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA). 

This information is collected despite the invoicing process, which additionally collects 

information each time funding is drawn down on a grant. American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (ARRA) awards required all the above and additional quarterly reports to 

FederaIReporting.gov. This reporting schedule is normal for most Federal grants across 

agencies, so these issues of redundancy are relevant for many agencies, not just NIH. 

Loss of Filed Reports at the Agencies 

At UVa, and I believe for our colleagues at peer research institutions, we have experienced and 

continue to experience agencies losing reports we have filed causing additional work re-filing 

reports. It would be much more efficient to set up a federal report repository where we upload 

the same form for all federal agencies. Then the agencies could reference and download the 

reports at their convenience. 

Invoicing Challenges 

Invoicing is one of the most difficult tasks for our office as agencies use different systems and 

some use multiple systems. This causes confusion and extra work as the award prescribes one 

system and when we invoice we are told to use another system. Once it is determined which is 

the proper system and we invoice in that system the payment request then comes from yet 

another system. When there is a problem it is difficult and time consuming to find a point of 

contact and get the issue resolved. This also causes time delays in our receiving payment. 

Below is a sample list of the various invoicing systems we use today across agencies, some of 

which still require paper forms: DOD - Wide area workflow (WAWF); Office of Naval Research 

1 Source: http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/ciinical/departments/radiology/medical-imagingrese a rch/ news-a n d-high lig hts / som-receives-14. 4-m i Ilion-fro m-n ih -to-battle-d ea d Iy-h ea rtcondition 
140 

(ONR) - Payweb; DOE - Vendor Invoicing Payments Electronic Reporting System (VIPERS); EDG5; NSF - Research.gov; Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) - Electronic 

Handbooks; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - Grants Online; 

Department of Justice (DOJ) - Grants management System; National Endowment for the 

Humanities (NEH) - eGMS; National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) -Invoicing 

Processing Platform (IPP); AmeriCorps - OnCorps; Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS) - Payment Management System (PMS); and several agencies use Automated Standard 

Applications (ASAP), including the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Interior 

(DOl), Park Service, Department of Commerce (DOC), and others. 

One key way to improve inVOicing and reporting efficiency across federal agencies would be to 

allow universities and other federal awardees to upload all of the data electronically at one 

time for multiple awards. This would save many staff hours. 

On a positive note one recent improvement has been the launch of the System for Award 

Management (SAM). This system combines the Central Contractor Registration (CCR), the 

Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA), Federal Agency Registration 

(Fed Reg) and the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS), making a more efficient process for award 

management. 

The DATA Act 

UVa, along with the Association of American Universities (AAU), the Association of Public and 

Land-grant Universities (APLU), and the Council on Governmental Relations (COGR), applauds 

the Taskforce's bipartisan efforts to address some of these duplicative and burdensome 

reporting regulations while expanding transparency on government grants and contracts 

through the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act (DATA Act). Importantly, the 

legislation mandates the establishment of government-wide data standards and tasks the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) with reviewing current reporting requirements and 

reducing duplication. We appreciate that universities are explicitly mentioned as a stakeholder 

for input in the OMB process. We also support and would be happy to participate in the pilot 

program to evaluate consolidated recipient reporting. We support this legislation and hope to 

be a resource as this legislation moves through Congress. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today and I'm happy to answer any 

questions. 
141 

Chairman WARNER. Well, thank you all for your comments. 

We have been joined by Senator Whitehouse. We will do 5- 

minute rounds here, and for the first round we can kind of turn 

this more informal. 

Mr. Czerwinski, the RAT Board you spoke about. 

Mr. CZERWINSKI. Yes. 

Chairman WARNER. Why have they—has this been OMB’s reluctance to grant them the authority? Has it been Congress’ lack of 

willingness to grant them the authority to do the kind of centralized work and decisionmaking? Can you explain that a little bit 

more to us? 

Mr. CZERWINSKI. Are you talking about the GAT Board? 

Chairman WARNER. Yes. I am sorry. The GAT Board. 

Mr. CZERWINSKI. I know we have the GAT Board, the RAT 

Board. 

Chairman WARNER. Yes, I meant the GAT Board, not the RAT 

Board, yes. 

Mr. CZERWINSKI. In terms of the GAT Board, that is the way the 

Executive order was set up so that the Board has what we would 

call a loosely knit strategic direction, but it does not have a clear 

line of authority, and that is something that we feel very strongly 

about. And, frankly, even if it was set up that way in the Executive 

order, executive administrations can change, so we believe in the 

permanence of legislation. 

So the concept of clear lines of authority we think is essential to 

having good transparency as well as the permanence and structure 

of legislation. 

Chairman WARNER. Well, again—and I know the DATA Act we 

have reworked a couple of times, and it does not answer everything, and candidly, I was originally hoping that we would move 

towards even greater requirement of moving towards a more single 

financial standard. I have been advised we need to take this step 

by step, but you would concur that the DATA Act would move us 

at least in the right direction here while we are not directly addressing some of the things on the GAT Board. 

Mr. CZERWINSKI. Oh, absolutely, Mr. Chairman. The DATA Act 

has the concepts that we believe are important that our work 

showed. So, for example, on standardization, that is exactly what 

it would do. This is something that does take some time, so a 

phase-in period may be useful, because we are talking about agencies reconfiguring their award systems so they would then be consistent with the payment systems. Agencies have to redo their financial systems anyways over time, so that a strategic vision of 

doing that would work, and that is very much consistent with legislation you are talking about. 

Chairman WARNER. Mr. Lee, again, I think Senator Ayotte and 

I looked at each other kind of astounded when you mentioned the 

school lunch programs that do not indicate they are spending any 

money or the Medicare programs that do not look like they are 

spending any money. How does this pass the smell test? Why isn’t 

this information more known that we have a system that is so kind 

of out of whack, you know, when you have got data like this that 

is on the face so obviously wrong? I know that sounds like a bit 

of a naive question, but— 
142 

Mr. LEE. Not at all. I think part of the problem is that no one 

is doing any smelling, or historically has not been. Senator Ayotte 

referred to the Maritime Administration earlier. They are a favorite of mine. They for a period of time, when I was working on the 

SubsidyScope project, just did not report any spending at all. And, 

of course, when there are no records, it is difficult to identify a 

problem. We were able to find a point of comparison that exists 

elsewhere in the Government to identify mismatched spending, but 

this was quite limited. In fact, we were only able to look at grants 

and other types of assistance spending. There is no comparable 

point for contract spending. That is still something we are endeavoring to work on. 

In our experience talking to both of OMB and the agencies, we 

were impressed by the professionalism of everyone involved, and, 

you know, I used Medicare as an example. But, in fact, the people 

we spoke to at HHS were going to incredible lengths to make sure 

that their obligation data was correct and that it was uploaded to 

USASpending. It was only confusion about the disclosure burden 

that ultimately led to these data quality problems and the fact that 

nobody at OMB was mandating—or paying sufficient attention to 

these systems to ensure data quality. 

Chairman WARNER. I want to get to Mr. Kane, but are there examples at State or local areas where they have got it right? Have 

you guys worked through and said here are some best practice examples at other levels of Government? 

Mr. LEE. There are a number of State checkbook sites that we 

have reviewed that showed real promise, although we have not conducted as comprehensive a data quality analysis. I will say that 

internationally there are a number of examples of governments 

that are getting this right. We recently published a case study regarding the Slovakian procurement tracking system. They do a 

wonderful job. 

So I think that there are exemplars that we can turn to as we 

try to implement these systems. 

Chairman WARNER. Mr. Kane, I want to just get one quick question. Could you estimate with this multiple reporting requirements 

combined with this invoicing process, you know, have you been able 

to compute even in kind of a generalized range how much additional administrative cost burden and whether this is actually—do 

you have to pay for this—can you pay for this out of any of these 

Federal grants in kind of an overhead account? Or does it have to 

come out of a separate budget? 

Mr. KANE. So we have not calculated that. It is just that you 

can—by the workload that our department has and what we have 

got to do each month to get these things out, you can—it is a push 

for the staffing that we have had, which is not—usually it comes 

from the State. So, you know, the university is a State-supported 

institution, so the grants themselves do not pay for this directly. 

Chairman WARNER. Senator Ayotte. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you. I want to thank the witnesses for 

being here. Let me just ask up front, how do we measure—is there 

anything that is out there right now where we are measuring performance? So we are talking about obviously data that connects the 

payment to recipient, and we are not there yet, as I hear the wit-
143 

nesses, of where we want to be, and particularly since $900 billion 

is not in USASpending.gov, that is a huge amount of money that 

is not being accounted for in terms of transparency. But I am also 

interested in hearing your thoughts on the next step. So we have 

this step to get right, but my sense is that there is very little within our Government that is ever required to measure whether the 

money that we are allocating toward particularly grant programs, 

you know, has any result. 

So I just wanted to get all of your thoughts on that piece of it 

as we start this discussion. 

Mr. CZERWINSKI. Well, I am happy to start off. I think that the 

answer to your question begins with what Mr. Chairman mentioned at the beginning, and that is, GPRA modernization. This is 

an act that would require agencies to essentially establish the 

types of performance goals that you are talking about, outcomebased. So typically what we find in agencies is that they are very 

good at outputs, you know, so many units of this done, so many of 

that done, but not to what end. So it is to establish, one, those type 

of outcome goals; two, to set those goals at an agency level, program level, and roll them up so that you can then prioritize; and, 

three, to populate them with data that shows what your outcomes 

were achieved, but also linked to what was spent. So we are talking about essentially a system that runs multiple steps. 

Senator AYOTTE. So how far are we away from outcomes on that? 

Mr. CZERWINSKI. We have some in some places, some agencies 

are further along than others, but we have a start in that direction. 

There is a long ways to go, but you still want them populated with 

what you are expending, too. So there are a lot of pieces still. I 

would say it is early. That would be my— 

Mr. LEE. To add to that, I would say that these systems do include some attempts to measure performance and efficiency. For instance, in USASpending, there is the concept of the subsidy rate 

associated with loan records, which is supposed to capture an estimate of how many of the loans in that portfolio default. Under the 

Recovery Act, recipients were also required to report the number 

of jobs created for each associated grant. 

The problem with all of us is that the guidance and actual implementation has been inconsistent. So having different recipients try 

to figure out the formula for calculating number of jobs created 

leads to a tremendous amount of errors. This occurs around that 

loan subsidy rate figure at the agency level as well. 

These measures may or may not prove to be useful, but centralizing authority over them so that they can be implemented in a 

consistent way that allows comparison across programs is a necessary first step. 

Senator AYOTTE. Mr. Kane, I do not know if you had any 

thoughts on that. 

Mr. KANE. So to latch on to the Recovery Act, when we were 

counting jobs created, I sat in a meeting at the beginning of that 

with three different Federal agencies, and none of them could agree 

on how we were to count how many jobs— 

Senator AYOTTE. Well, there was so much inaccuracies with that. 

I mean, you had—I mean, you basically had people who had existing jobs and whether when the had some piece of Recovery funding, 
144 

that—I mean, there was obviously—I think that was very hard to 

measure in all of that. 

So, Mr. Lee, you know, the work that you have kind of dedicated 

your life to in the Sunshine Foundation, if you were in our position, 

so if you were elected to the United States Senate and were carrying on your work but as a policymaker now, what would be the 

number one priority for you to get done legislatively? If you were 

in charge, what would you do? 

Mr. LEE. I think the most important thing that could be done 

around spending data systems is to make the systems that are 

used for public disclosure to inform Americans the same as the 

ones that agencies use to track their own spending and report 

within Government. Right now that is not the case at all, and it 

makes the public disclosure systems an afterthought, by and large. 

Ultimately, we would like to see a unified stream of reporting 

that lets dollars be tracked from the budget to obligation to disbursement. I think that last linkage is likely to happen thanks to 

the DATA Act and the centralization of authority within Treasury. 

But there are going to be continued challenges as we try to create 

a really unified picture of Federal spending. 

Senator AYOTTE. And in your testimony, your written testimony, 

Mr. Czerwinski, you talked about—you mentioned predictive analytic technologies that can identify fraud and errors before payments are made— 

Mr. CZERWINSKI. Yes. 

Senator AYOTTE. —and data-mining and data-matching techniques that can identify fraud or improper payments that have already been awarded. 

Mr. CZERWINSKI. Yes. 

Senator AYOTTE. I was fascinated by that. Can you provide us 

with an example of how that technology has been used and a success story? And are these technologies available to agencies as a 

whole? And, you know, just where are we on this? 

Mr. CZERWINSKI. That is a wonderful question, and the answer 

to that begins with a capacity that the RAT Board has in something they call the ROC. It is the Recovery Operations Center. And 

what they did is with Recovery.gov data, because those data were 

complete and accurate and consistent, they were able—the spending of that, they were able to look and look for patterns and actually identify issues with maybe crossing agencies, crossing programs, where certain maybe people were on debarment lists or people were getting multiple awards and could actually find these 

early on. 

Now, the question that you make about whether this can be replicated, that is the next step, because what you have is this capacity that has been built up centrally, the idea then is to share it— 

to share it with other Federal entities, to share it with State and 

local, because you can have economies of scale of taking this protocol, this information that is out there, and sharing them and how 

to do it. And that is the next step that needs to be done. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you all. 

Chairman WARNER. Before we go to Senator Whitehouse, I do 

think GPRA at least started to look about how do we evaluate performance, but it was still pretty much within agencies. So within 
145 

DOE there would be this. But when you look at something like 

workforce training, which crosses all these different agencies— 

Senator AYOTTE. This whole issue of the duplication, how do we 

get— 

Chairman WARNER. The duplication. We are not getting to that. 

Part of it is because, I think—and I do not want to pretend that 

DATA Act is some panacea. But if you do not at least have common 

financial standards and common definitions of what may be a grant 

versus an expenditure, you know, it really makes you wacky. 

Senator AYOTTE. Right. 

Chairman WARNER. That is a technical political term. 

Senator AYOTTE. I think you are right, and I think, obviously, the 

other challenge we have too is that, as you know, when a particular 

district receives a certain grant and then—but regardless of the 

fact that there are ten other grants doing the same thing, we also 

have to look at it—and I know that you have been focusing on that, 

and Congress has. It is not just about, you know, bringing home 

the bacon in my particular district. It is about, Does this help the 

country as a whole and, therefore, my State? So I think that is one 

of the challenges we face around here. 

Chairman WARNER. Let me also turn to my friend and colleague 

Senator Whitehouse. It was actually his idea originally to create 

this working group. He was the originator of this, and he cares 

deeply about it, and particularly he has been absolutely a leader 

in the Congress on how we drive some of this better data around 

health care. So thank you again for joining us here, Senator 

Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, thank you, Chairman Warner, and 

I want to thank our active and interested Ranking Member, Senator Ayotte, as well. Credit really goes to former Chairman Conrad 

for doing this. I did urge him to, but it is the Chairman’s call to 

do this, and it was Kent Conrad who made that call. And we all 

agreed that Senator Warner, who had been the Governor of Virginia when it was the best managed State in the Union, a subject 

that—there we go. 

Chairman WARNER. Can you repeat that for the record, please? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. That Senator Warner would dedicate his 

considerable energies effectively to this Committee, and he has, 

and I want to applaud both him and Senator Ayotte for the way 

in which they have led it. 

I agree that this question of having a data foundation for policy 

and for watching spending is vital. It is my understanding that 

USASpending was actually designed to capture a specific kind of 

spending, which was contract spending over $25,000. So if that is 

the case, I am not sure it is completely fair to fault that program 

for not taking into account things that it was not told to take into 

account, i.e., spending that is not contract spending over $25,000. 

But I take your point that because of that limitation that was 

put on it, it does not provide the complete picture that others are 

looking for, and I look forward to being able to work with you to 

expand that. 

It appears from your testimony that we seem to be agreed that 

the Recovery Act data and transparency standards were better 
146 

than average and are something that would be wisely extended, 

continued, applied in other areas. And I would like to ask those of 

you comment in your testimony, particularly Mr. Czerwinski and 

Mr. Lee, just to be a little bit clearer. I mean, do you think that 

those standards are like best in show or just better than average? 

Are they a good starting point that we should expand to the rest 

of Government? Or are they kind of a launching point from which 

we should do further improvements before expanding it? Which 

way would you have us go: expand first and then improve, or improve first and then expand? 

Mr. CZERWINSKI. I think the Recovery Act set out some very good 

ideas, and you have to think about the time frame and time that 

it was done. It had to be done very quickly. So it did require a burden on the recipients, and that is something you would probably 

want to improve upon going forward. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Reducing that burden. 

Mr. CZERWINSKI. Yes, exactly. Exactly. 

Now, that is a type of platform called recipient reporting. The 

Recovery Act did not build on the existing data systems that we 

have primarily on the payment side because it is too difficult and 

too long under that compressed recovery period to get consistency, 

i.e., data standardization. So that is the area that you would want 

to use to focus in on your improvement. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Okay. 

Mr. CZERWINSKI. Now, what Recovery also has, though, that you 

want to just replicate is the concept of stakeholder involvement and 

clear lines of authority. In this case, the Recovery and Accountability Transparency Board and OMB by legislation had control 

over what was done, and that is something that is missing now for 

going forward. 

Also, in terms of— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. My time is running out, and I want to 

have Mr. Lee have a turn. 

Mr. CZERWINSKI. Okay. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So if you could sum up your answer. 

Mr. CZERWINSKI. Okay, okay. And then stakeholder involvement 

is very good. The Recovery Board also have very good staff, and 

you would hate to lose that resource. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Got you. Mr. Lee? 

Mr. LEE. First, to clarify, USASpending is intended to cover direct assistance as well as contracts. The unified two data sets created in the late 1970s, early 1980s, called FAADS and FPDS–NG, 

and expanded FAADS to some extent. So that information is supposed to be in there, and in some years it is, at least as block 

grants to States. 

As far as the question of expanding the disclosure mandate 

versus improving the quality of the data, I think the mandate is 

fairly broad already. The real problem is implementation, both 

from agencies not reporting and from difficulties related to sub-recipient reporting not coming in completely. 

As we have discussed, the Recovery Act’s mandated fields, like 

jobs created, I think is open to review. One of the nice things about 

the way the DATA Act is currently structured is that it allows 

flexibility in terms of some of the technical standards going for-
147 

ward, and I think it might be worth looking at the question of what 

disclosures and what fields are specifically mandated in law versus 

the ones that those administering data would have the flexibility 

to alter, if necessary, in order to harmonize data sets. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Okay. Let me close by telling Mr. Kane 

that I have run administrative agencies, I have litigated administrative agencies, I have overseen administrative agencies, I have 

worked legislation for administrative agencies, and one of the 

things that I have learned over those years is that if you are a legislator and you lose the substantive fight that you would like to 

win, very often your consolation prize is a reporting requirement; 

and that those reporting requirements take on a life of their own, 

and they can live on beyond the fight from which they were the 

consolation prize. They can live on beyond the career of the legislator who stuffed them into some bill. They can live on virtually 

eternally. And I think you have got a WAHU majority present on 

this Committee right now, and you are an honorary one, right, 

from having been Governor of Virginia? You were chairman of the 

board, right? There you go. 

Chairman WARNER. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Appointed the chairman. So we would be 

very interested in hearing from you some specifics about the—at 

least I would. I sit on the HELP Committee, and we are going to 

be looking at a higher education bill, and I would love to be able 

to work with my colleagues on that Committee to try to reduce 

some of the dead hands reaching from the past that were based in 

a political defeat for somebody but now still require some poor person to have to sit down and scribble out report after report after 

report that in some cases, I believe, nobody actually reads. 

Mr. KANE. I am sure there is plenty of that. I am not prepared 

to say specifics about it, but as this Committee does its fact finding, 

I invite any of your staff to come down to my office and sit with 

our folks as they go through, and we will show them examples. 

They can actually see the mechanics of what reports go to what 

agencies, why this is done this way, why this one is done that way. 

And I think it would give you a real good insight into how things 

are actually working. So that invitation is open for your folks. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. But usually I think we have got it completely backwards. The group whose convenience is maximized is 

the group that requires the report, and the group whose convenience is less important is the group that has to fill out the report, 

and the group that is barely considered at all is the public, which 

is supposed to get the advantage of reading a useful piece of information when it is all done. And we need to turn that upside down 

so that it is most convenient for the public to get this information, 

it is more convenient for the institutions to provide it. And if that 

means it is even more inconvenient for the Government to organize 

it in such a way that the institutions and the public have more convenience, we should be willing to bite that bullet, because ultimately that is where the rubber meets the road. It is the interface 

with the public. 

Mr. KANE. Correct. I agree with that. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I have gone on too long, but I appreciate 

the Chairman’s indulgence. 
148 

Chairman WARNER. No, no. I appreciate you coming here, and I 

could not agree more. 

I do want to give one good piece of information. I apologize about 

stepping out, but from a Virginia-based facility, Wallops Island, we 

just launched the largest rocket we ever had in the entire east from 

Orbital Sciences, so— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Not on Syria. 

Chairman WARNER. Not on Syria. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman WARNER. For scientific purposes only. 

Let me follow up with where I think all three of us are going but 

where Senator Whitehouse I think drilled down. Mr. Czerwinski, 

you have at GAO pointed out the duplication on the programs and 

also on some of the reporting, and I really applaud that work, and 

we actually have been talking to some of my colleagues about how 

we could actually eliminate some of this reporting duplication. 

I guess, Mr. Lee, one of the things I would like to hear from you 

as kind of the largest advocates and the brand name around sunlight and transparency, how we can get at this issue. I think Senator Whitehouse and Senator Ayotte and I both have raised what 

seems to be an implicit contradiction that by actually cutting back 

on the reporting, we might actually be able to be more transparent. 

And can you help us on that? Can you help us articulate how that 

is? Because, again, as a relative short-timer here, I agree with Senator Whitehouse. You know, people want to make a legislative 

change, and they are not successful getting a legislative change, so 

the booby prize becomes you get a study with an ongoing reporting 

requirement that may or may not ever be revisited. But, you know, 

how do we get at this issue? 

Mr. LEE. I think the perspective we bring is that we are aware 

that there are a number of competing priorities within agencies, 

committees, everywhere, and a limited amount of attention, patience, resources will be brought to questions of transparency. We 

want to make sure that they are spent as effectively as possible. 

So, for instance, when FFATA mandated the expansion of the 

FAADS system into FAADS Plus and added a few new fields, it did 

not actually get rid of FAADS. Instead, this subset of the data continued to be reported to Census and maintained, released quarterly 

instead of on the more frequently updated basis that FAADS Plus 

was through USASpending. Really all that was required was some 

central authority that could pare away this duplicative system and 

put those resources toward better ends. 

So while I think there is obviously a tension between reporting 

burdens and the needs of the public and oversight bodies for transparency, there are some obvious wins here that can be eliminated. 

Chairman WARNER. We would just—at least this Senator 

would—really invite your cooperation and collaboration on this, because I think that—and I again want to compliment the GAO. 

When you have got so much data and it is so incomprehensible and 

there are not these common standards, you know, I am not sure 

we are getting to that goal of greater transparency for the taxpayer 

or for us as policymakers. 

I want to ask you all one other question and cede more time to 

Senator Ayotte, and then we can go back and forth. 
149 

One of the questions we had in an earlier version of the DATA 

Act, there was this idea of, you know, let us take the goal to try 

to get common financial standards and create a large new entity, 

and we have come to the conclusion that perhaps the better way 

is to actually reinforce and beef up the activities that are being 

done at Treasury and trying to have them be the repository for creating these common financial standards. 

I would just like to get—and, Mr. Kane, this may be outside your 

purview, but for Mr. Czerwinski and Mr. Lee, is that the right approach? Are we taking the right approach in DATA and working 

this through Treasury rather than creating some new enterprise? 

Mr. CZERWINSKI. I am willing to start, Mr. Chairman. I think the 

key is what capacity you bring and what responsibilities go with 

it. So, for example, let us pick the Recovery Board right now. They 

have very strong resources that have already been built up and 

have been practiced. So that is something you want to maintain in 

whatever institutional structure you have, you want to get those 

resources someplace. 

The point that we make about responsibilities, wherever you 

place something, it is very important to set certain standards that 

have to be met, for example, involving stakeholders. So whether it 

is in Treasury or someplace else, you want to have it so that it addresses the needs of the people who are receiving the funds, not 

just the needs of the system. 

So we are agnostic about institutions, but we are very strong 

about the principles that you want to build into whatever institution— 

Chairman WARNER. Can you let me just follow up very briefly 

here. 

Mr. CZERWINSKI. Sure. 

Chairman WARNER. You know, I got harangued by staff that the 

idea that we are going to get to a common Federal financial standard would be a bridge too far, we need to start with just pilots. But 

what kind of timeline should we—you know, you see the rest of the 

world being transformed, and new technology-driven financial data 

systems that businesses and consumers use in a fairly easy fashion. Should we accept or be willing to accept what seems to be such 

a long transition period for the Federal Government to kind of get 

its act together on this stuff? 

Mr. CZERWINSKI. Yes, I think you have nice comparison between 

contracts and grants. In terms of contracts, what you have is a requirement by 2014 that you will have uniform identifiers that are 

consistent across all agencies, so there you have a time frame already in place for half of that trillion dollars that you are talking 

about. 

Now, what that is based on is a platform of capacity. In terms 

of contracts you have, the Federal Acquisition Regulations, which 

standardize things. You do not have quite that in place with 

grants, so grants will be a little bit more difficult. But just to leave 

things open-ended, that is a problem that we have when that is 

done. 

We believe that there should be—and this is one of our recommendations—time frames, there should be deliverables, and that 

they should be held accountable for that. So we are right on line 
150 

with what you are talking about, that it will take some time, but 

the only way we will shorten the time is by setting time frames. 

Chairman WARNER. Thank you. Senator Ayotte? And I am very 

glad to be joined by Senator Portman, who is, as I mentioned, the 

lead cosponsor on the DATA Act as well, and I am really appreciative of his strong work in this field. 

Senator AYOTTE. I just have a couple of brief follow-ups, and then 

I know that my colleague Senator Portman is here. 

One of the things, as I heard Senator Whitehouse relay his experience of having worked with administrative agencies, I have seen 

that myself, and I often think that when we—obviously, the structure of how we do this reporting and what we are trying to accomplish on the uniform reporting I think needs to remain stable. But 

when we are talking about specific reporting requirements that are 

not inherent of all the basic financial data, should we be looking 

at, you know, sunsetting some of these things? And, also, I am a 

fan of sunsetting programs as well, because it seems to me that in 

the absence of some forcing mechanism within this body to review 

the effectiveness of something, it just continues to live on. And so 

when we talk about deadlines and accountability, I think that we 

here do not enough put limits on what we are enacting. And I just 

wanted to get your thoughts on that, you know, what— certainly 

some things we would not—you know, if you have got a basic structure, you are not going to revisit the basic structure necessarily 

without—but a lot of things it just seems they go on and on with 

no end date of things we ask you to do. 

Mr. LEE. I certainly think that the fields and specific requirements for disclosure are worth review. I would be hesitant to suggest sunsetting disclosure requirements simply because those disclosures have not been made. Noncompliance strikes me as something that needs to be addressed first through more serious sanctions and consequences for programs that have an obligation to report prior to ending those programs, although, of course, review at 

any time may be appropriate. 

Mr. CZERWINSKI. I will give you a shot at it. I think the concept 

of sometimes things have seen their life and they need to be terminated is exactly correct— 

Senator AYOTTE. Well, like thinking about all the multiple duplicative programs, it is like they keep living, nobody reviews them, 

nobody has any accountability on it. Even if we have all the data, 

if somebody does not act on it, then we are going to continue going 

where we are. 

Mr. CZERWINSKI. Yes, and staying just within the concept of 

transparency, I think that concept applies there too. What I would 

throw out are a couple principles. One is—and this is something 

that Tom got at in his statement, and that is, there are certain 

pieces of information that are required to be reported that the 

agencies do not need, and, therefore, they are not ensuring their 

accuracy. It is the same as what Gerry was talking about, some 

things that he has to report that do not help him managing, and, 

therefore, it is an extra burden, and maybe we are not consistent. 

So I think what you can do is you can say where are the requirements and overlay that do not improve the awarding of a contract 

or grant, the management of a contract or grant, or how the recipi-
151 

ent handles a contract or grant. And that can then lead to the— 

it is not just additional work, but it also leads to greater inaccuracy 

and greater inconsistency. So it is a lose-lose-lose if you do not do 

the discipline that you just talked about. 

Senator AYOTTE. I thank you all for being here. I appreciate this 

important topic. Thank you. 

Chairman WARNER. Just before I turn to Senator Portman, I 

want to just mention I had a—the first 6 months of being a Senator 

here on this Committee, this idea of could you actually eliminate 

some programs, I thought that I could take the lowest-hanging 

fruit, which OMB comes up with a program elimination list, and 

so I said, well, why don’t we take the ones that— 

Senator AYOTTE. Well, and also they recommend that to the 

President. 

Chairman WARNER. Right. 

Senator AYOTTE. Don’t they? And then the President accepts— 

Chairman WARNER. You will like this part. I said, well, why 

don’t we take the ones that both the Bush administration and the 

Obama administration had agreed upon. 

Senator AYOTTE. Right. 

Chairman WARNER. Sixteen programs, in total $1 billion, many 

of them quite small. It was a great—it was like, I guess, Congress 

101 for me, because you would think that I was, you know, calling 

for the destruction of the whole Federal Government. And these 

were programs that both Obama and Bush had agreed upon. So we 

have got our work cut out for us. 

Senator AYOTTE. If you want someone to take this fight on with 

you again, count me in. Thank you. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman WARNER. Somebody who has been working on this 

issue long before both of us and has got great bona fides here, and, 

again, I want to thank him for his cosponsorship of DATA since he 

has seen this both from the administrative side and the legislative 

side. Senator Portman? 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thanks for your 

courage in taking on this issue as a Democrat. And to my colleague 

from New Hampshire, it is great that you are the Ranking Member 

in this effort, and just listening to your questions there and your 

commitment to this, I am glad we have this forum and this opportunity to promote it. 

Look, I wish I had been here for the whole meeting. We were at 

the Finance Committee, and I have got to go to the floor for something else. But I just want to thank you all for what you are doing 

to promote transparency and sunlight being the best disinfectant 

and simplicity so that, you know, not only can you and your organizations understand better how every dollar is spent, but we can let 

our constituents know. 

My background on this is that when I was at OMB, the CoburnObama legislation was introduced. I supported it and implemented 

it initially. Actually, we went out and used a private sector website 

because we did not have the ability to move as quickly as we wanted to using Government technology. So we actually purchased that 

original website platform from an outside Government watchdog 

group in 2007, USASpending.gov. 
152 

Anyway, enormous challenges, as Chairman Warner has talked 

about, in trying to get at this issue, but I think we made progress 

across the board. Data uniformity is something I am very interested in, and I guess you talked about that today. Certainly the 

burdens, the reporting burdens and compliance costs, we have got 

to be cognizant of that. 

This DATA Act that Senator Warner has introduced and I am 

the cosponsor of we think is helpful because we think it does create 

more transparency by setting these governmentwide financial 

standards and data standards, streamlining some of the reporting 

requirements, improving the quality, therefore, of the data that we 

are getting, and using that improved data more effectively. 

Here on the Budget Committee, we often find ourselves in a situation where we are asking agency heads about their data—the Department of Defense comes to mind—and we cannot get the information—we are really not doing effective oversight. Not that it 

should be all about us, but it would help if the people’s representatives had the ability to get this data as well. 

So maybe, Mr. Czerwinski, I would just ask you quickly, do you 

think establishing a more accurate system that tracks all Federal 

spending is important to the work you are doing? And both the recent GAO report and your testimony today emphasized that while 

OMB and the GAT Board have begun these standardization initiatives linking systems, better utilizing information, that the current 

mandates come primarily from the Executive order in June 2011, 

which does not provide authority to implement some of these much 

needed reforms. So what do you think about the DATA Act? Does 

that help you to be able to do your job? 

Mr. CZERWINSKI. Yes, Mr. Portman. What we agree with, one is 

the need for legislation because you want to institutionalize this; 

two, the kind of concepts that are in the DATA Act we support 

completely, the need for standardization to have uniform reporting, 

involving recipients in what is being done. So we are completely in 

alignment with the goals of the DATA Act. 

As far as information for oversight and allowing us to do our job, 

for one we very much believe in congressional oversight, so we 

come into it with that perspective. But I will give you an example. 

We were asked by the House 

Committee on Appropriations as well as the Black Caucus to determine where funding was going to disadvantage rural and urban 

areas for community economic development. The data just were not 

there to do that. And how can decisionmakers make decisions when 

the data are not there? And how can we do our job supplying you 

with the information you need when the data are not there either? 

So, yes, there are tangible real costs of not doing this. 

Senator PORTMAN. That is a great point, and we are entering 

into an era here where we are going to be having tighter budgets, 

regardless of what happens with the CR and the debt limit, feeling 

more and more pressure, and, you know, some of us hope sequester 

can be released so we will have more flexibility. But this need for 

data, as you say, is going to be greater and greater across the spectrum, the political spectrum, in terms of how do you more efficiently target that Federal dollar to programs that work. That is 

a good point. So it seems to me the act is coming at a time when 
153 

there is a particular need on having this information readily available. 

To Mr. Lee, you have been an advocate for great transparency 

across Government, including getting some of this financial data to 

the public, and I guess I would ask you how expansion of financial 

data could be used by organizations like Sunlight or other researchers in academia. How could better data, more complete data 

be analyzed from outside groups to help make Government more 

accountable to the citizens we represent? 

Mr. LEE. Well, I think we cannot overemphasize how central this 

stream of data is for reporting on the activities of the Government. 

It previously powered the consolidated Federal Funds Report when 

it existed, and if you open any GAO report on program effectiveness, you are likely to see caveats about the data quality problems 

inherent in these data sets. 

It is a persistent problem for people both within and outside of 

Government, so I would say that improving the quality is absolutely essential for anyone who is trying to oversee the use of these 

funds, the effectiveness of these funds, and the general structure 

of it who does not have access to the internal systems at Treasury 

or agencies that cannot be open to the public in general. 

Senator PORTMAN. Listen, I am over time. Thank you. And, Mr. 

Kane, thanks for your work at UVA. I know you had an opportunity to talk about that earlier, and we can learn from your examples in the—it is a Commonwealth, right? 

Chairman WARNER. It is the Commonwealth. 

Senator PORTMAN. Yes, as the Governor will remind me. The 

Commonwealth of Virginia. Thank you all very much. I appreciate 

it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman WARNER. Thank you, Senator Portman. 

I just have one last question. One of the things—and this goes 

back to Mr. Kane’s earlier comments, and I would like to get your 

response as well, of this duplicative reporting and reporting versus 

invoicing versus lost reports. As the administration and all governmental entities move to more of a cloud-based computing function, 

shouldn’t conceptually the ability to be—if you filed that report, 

then once—it should be in the cloud and it should not be then— 

it should be more then the Government’s responsibility to find it 

rather than you having to go back and refiling a second, third, or 

fourth time and trying to get that architecture right? We will start 

with Mr. Kane and go down the list really quickly. Then we will 

close up this hearing. 

Mr. KANE. Yes, that would make life very easy for everybody, the 

information was filed once, that it was there, and that it is not duplicated in multiple reports. But my own personal experiences with 

this, it also creates a cash flow problem for the university because 

we are not getting paid for some of this stuff because they are looking for paper. Some of this stuff is done electronically. You talk 

about the cloud, but there is still a lot of paper-based systems out 

there, and I think that is a lot of where the problems are. 

Chairman WARNER. Mr. Lee, obviously there are privacy issues 

involved here, too, but have you all thought through this notion of 
154 

how we can use the cloud to both better share information, avoid 

some of this duplication, commonize the standards? 

Mr. LEE. Absolutely. I think it is important to stress that centralization of data collection efforts is not only going to reduce the 

reporting burden, but will actually improve data quality. When 

Sunlight, for instance, investigates lobbying reports, we see that 

General Motors and GM show up as different entities. Unifying 

those systems in a simple auto-complete form is very basic Web design stuff can make sure that that is the same record in the database. 

I should also stress, though, that in addition to the need for centralization of authority over these processes that the DATA Act 

moves toward, it will be important to look at other measures that 

are currently in effect, like the Paperwork Reduction Act that make 

it difficult to modernize disclosure systems. 

Chairman WARNER. Yes, I would love to get—I know enough 

about the Paperwork Reduction Act to be dangerous, but not 

enough to know it substantively. So I would love to get you to 

share with our staff some of your concepts and ideas on that. 

Mr. Czerwinski, you get the last word. 

Mr. CZERWINSKI. I agree completely with the points that Gerry 

and Tom just made, and to me, what this comes down to is the concept of pre-population, and it has the benefits I talked about: efficiency, accuracy, completeness. 

What it also does, it goes back to the very point that we talked 

about at the start, and that is data standardization, which is exactly what you have in the DATA Act. So the platform is almost 

irrelevant, whether it is the cloud or whatever. It is the concept, 

and the concept gets you to where you are. So, yes, that is a legitimate way to go, and, again, it is further reason why there should 

be legislation such as this. 

Chairman WARNER. And I guess I will close out with—I was, 

when you looked for best practices, intrigued that you picked Slovakia as the place, but I do recall back when I wore a business hat 

that this is not a unique problem to the Federal government enterprise. Large, large corporates, many of them in the technology 

space, complaining about lots of systems that worked that did not 

work that well together. You know, do you think we are doing 

enough? And even if we pass the DATA Act, which I hope we will, 

you know, how do we make sure that we get enough kind of not 

just recipients like the University of Virginia, but how do we make 

sure we get the advice from best practices, whether they are other 

governmental entities or private sector entities that can have input 

into the system? Any suggestion on that? 

Mr. LEE. I would say the DATA Act has some provisions for the 

use of current technologies, and as I mentioned, it allows for flexibility in, for instance, the data formats that are employed. Future 

proofing, as we say, when we are engineering is an important part 

of this, and the use of open, non-proprietary formats is an essential 

ingredient. 

Beyond that, I would say that there is, to some extent in my experience, a backlog of expertise within Government that knows how 

to improve these systems, but is stymied in one way or another. I 
155 

think centralization under DATA and the removal of other barriers 

to doing a better job could let us tap that expertise. 

Chairman WARNER. Anyone else? 

[No response.] 

Chairman WARNER. Well, again, I want to thank all three of you 

for very good testimony and for I think a subject that merits a lot 

more attention, and my sincere hope is that when we see the kind 

of broad-based bipartisan support in the House on data, we can duplicate that here in the Senate and that we can get this tool in 

place that will help you, but, more importantly, help the public at 

large and us as policymakers make the right decisions. 

With that, again, my thanks, and the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

Æ