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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

57–521 PDF 2010

FULL COMMITTEE HEARING ON 

OVERSIGHT OF THE SMALL BUSINESS 

ADMINISTRATION AND ITS PROGRAMS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

UNITED STATES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

JULY 28, 2010 

Small Business Committee Document Number 111-076 

Available via the GPO Website: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 


Congress.#13
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York, Chairwoman 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

KATHY DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

GLENN NYE, Virginia 

MARK CRITZ, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine 

MELISSA BEAN, Illinois 

DAN LIPINSKI, Illinois 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

YVETTE CLARKE, New York 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama 

DEBORAH HALVORSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri, Ranking Member 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

MICHAEL DAY, Majority Staff Director 

ADAM MINEHARDT, Deputy Staff Director 

TIM SLATTERY, Chief Counsel 

KAREN HAAS, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

STANDING SUBCOMMITTEES 

Subcommittee on Contracting and Technology 

GLENN NYE, Virginia, Chairman 

YVETTE CLARKE, New York 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

DEBORAH HALVORSON, Illinois 

MELISSA BEAN, Illinois 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

MARK CRITZ, Pennsylvania 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois, Ranking 

ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania 

Subcommittee on Finance and Tax 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon, Chairman 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

MELISSA BEAN, Illinois 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

DEBORAH HALVORSON, Illinois 

GLENN NYE, Virginia 

MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida, Ranking 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma, Ranking 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

(III) 

Subcommittee on Regulations and Healthcare 

KATHY DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania, Chairwoman 

DAN LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MELISSA BEAN, Illinois 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama 

MARK CRITZ, Pennsylvania 

LYNN WESTMORELAND, Georgia, Ranking 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

Subcommittee on Rural Development, Entrepreneurship and Trade 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina, Chairman 

MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine 

BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama 

KATHY DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

YVETTE CLARKE, New York 

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri, Ranking 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania 

(IV) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Vela ́zquez, Hon. Nydia M. ....................................................................................... 1 

Graves, Hon. Sam .................................................................................................... 2 

WITNESSES 

Mills, Hon. Karen, Administrator, U.S. Small Business Administration ........... 3 

Kutz, Managing Director, Forensics Audits & Special Investigations, U.S. 

Government Accountability Office ...................................................................... 4 

APPENDIX 

Prepared Statements: 

Vela ́zquez, Hon. Nydia M. ....................................................................................... 26 

Graves, Hon. Sam .................................................................................................... 28 

Mills, Hon. Karen, Administrator, U.S. Small Business Administration ........... 30 

Kutz, Managing Director, Forensics Audits & Special Investigations, U.S. 

Government Accountability Office ...................................................................... 32 

Statements for the Record: 

Clarke, Hon. Yvette ................................................................................................. 45 

GAO Report: Undercover Tests Show HUBZone Program Remains Vulnerable 

to Fraud and Abuse ............................................................................................. 47 

(V) 

(1) 

FULL COMMITTEE HEARING ON 

OVERSIGHT OF THE SMALL BUSINESS 

ADMINISTRATION AND ITS PROGRAMS 

Wednesday, July 28, 2010 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:00 p.m., in Room 2360 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Nydia Vela ́zquez [chairwoman of the Committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Vela ́zquez, Moore, Dahlkemper, 

Schrader, Nye, Critz, Bean, Altmire, Bright, Graves, Luetkemeyer. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Good afternoon. This hearing is now 

called to order. House Resolution 40, which was passed at the beginning of this Congress, amended Clause 2(n) of House Rule XI 

by requiring that committees undertake intensive and regular examination of executive branch activities. Such actions are necessary to not only safeguard taxpayer dollars, but to also improve 

the operations of federal agencies. 

This Committee has taken this role very seriously. We have exceeded the quarterly requirement and held ten hearings on the 

Small Business Administration and its programs. This has included four GAO investigations, all of which were requested by this 

Committee. 

With 3,500 employees, 84 district and regional offices, and a 

broad range of programs, congressional oversight is essential to the 

operation of the SBA. This ensures that resources are directed 

more efficiently and effectively to small businesses. 

We have examined every area of the agency, including its access 

to capital, entrepreneurial development, and contracting initiatives. 

The Committee has convened hearings on the agency’s lending programs and how they are meeting the needs of small firms in today’s economy. In addition, we worked with the GAO to oversee the 

disaster program so that businesses are better able to secure the 

funds they need to rebuild after a catastrophe. 

A main focus of the Committee’s oversight work has been the 

agency’s procurement programs. With large businesses receiving 

small business contracts and fraud regularly being uncovered, it is 

critical that the Committee examine these programs. We will continue our investigations until the agency fully resolves these issues. 

Finally, the Committee has held hearings about the agency’s entrepreneurial development and innovation programs. This has included testimony from a wide range of experts that allowed us to 

2 

consider how the agency’s resources can be improved without unnecessarily increasing taxpayer expense. 

Today’s hearing continues the Committee’s strong commitment to 

thorough oversight. Doing so provides a basis for not only taxpayer 

savings, but also the long-term modernization of the agency. This 

is critical because small businesses are counting on the SBA, its 

staff, and its programs more than at any other time in the past 

decade. 

The agency has risen to the task before and I know— with all 

of the resources it has at its disposal—that it will again. And I 

would like to take this opportunity to applaud your efforts to hold 

the free fall of small business lending. By doing so, we will allow 

entrepreneurs to do what they do best, create the ideas and the 

jobs that our economy needs to move forward. 

I want to take also this opportunity to thank the witnesses for 

your presence here this afternoon. And I now recognize Ranking 

Member Graves for his opening statement. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for holding this important hearing today regarding the oversight of the 

Small Business Administration and its programs and I look forward to hearing from the Administrator and the GAO on some very 

important issues concerning the management of the agency and 

particularly its inability to root out fraud and abuse in the government contract programs. 

Since I’ve been on this Committee, the challenges facing the 

agency have never been resolved, nor do they seem to change. 

When I first joined the Committee, the SBA’s contracting databases 

were riddled with inaccuracies and today their same contracting 

databases remain full of errors concerning the eligibility of firms 

for the agency’s government contracting programs. Even before I 

was elected to Congress, there were problems with the loan management accounting system and here it is a decade later and those 

problems still exist. 

Five years ago, there was an obvious lack of coordination in responding to disasters. And today, there appears to be an absence 

of coordination between SBA and BP concerning the compensation 

to victims of the oil spill in the Gulf. Quite frankly, the litany of 

problems facing the SBA does not involve rocket science. 

The SBA does not seem to take an aggressive approach to fixing 

the problems identified by Congress, by the GAO, and the Inspector 

General. Instead, it spends scarce resources studying these problems. For example, the agency issued a contract that examined, 

among other things, what value-added benefits the agency will obtain from moving to a new loan management accounting system. 

The SBA doesn’t need any more studies. It needs action. And if it 

is incapable of taking necessary corrective action, then it might be 

time to examine whether a complete overhaul of the SBA is needed 

to separate its regulatory functions from its mission to promote 

small businesses. 

Congress cannot tolerate and the taxpayer can ill afford the status quo at the SBA. 

Again, I want to thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this important hearing and I look forward to the recommendations from 

3 

the witnesses of actions that the agency is going to take to move 

in the right direction. I appreciate it. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. And it is my pleasure to welcome the 

Honorable Karen Mills who was sworn in April 6, 2009 as the 

twenty-third Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration. The SBA helps small business owners and entrepreneurs secure financing, technical assistance, training, and fill our contracts. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KAREN MILLS, 

ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

Ms. MILLS. Thank you very much Chairwoman Vela ́zquez, Ranking Member Graves, Members of the Committee. It’s an honor to 

be with you again. Thank you for working closely with us to improve oversight and reduce risk, while removing fraud, waste, and 

abuse. 

The SBA has a three-pronged risk-management framework for 

our contracting and business development programs: upfront certification, robust monitoring, and pursuing and removing ineligible 

firms. 

HUBZone is a great example. 

First, we have reengineered our certification process, requiring 

more stringent documentation. We now require a statement under 

penalty of perjury that both applicants and renewing firms are eligible. 

Second, we dramatically increased monitoring: from less than 

100 site visits in 2008, to over 800 in 2009, to more than 1,000 slated for this year. 

Third, we’re removing ineligible firms. For example, we investigated the 29 firms the GAO identified. After reviewing the facts, 

16 were decertified, 8 voluntarily decertified, and 5, in fact, remained eligible for HUBZone. 

We’re also pursuing HUBZone fraud cases with the Department 

of Justice and the Inspector General, and we continue to suspend 

and debar firms suspected of fraud. In fact, just yesterday we suspended four more firms and two individuals. 

An environment of integrity across all of our contracting programs is crucial. 

The President included more funds in SBA’s proposed budget exactly for this purpose. He also created an Interagency Task Force, 

led by OMB, SBA and Commerce. We’ll soon provide formal recommendations, including some that will help equip our agency 

partners with tools they need to help in the shared mission of reducing fraud, waste and abuse.At the same time, we’re committed 

to working more closely with Congress to make sure small businesses can continue to grow and create the jobs we need now. 

Two examples: This Administration supports parity, or equal 

treatment, through small business contracting and business development programs: 8(a), HUBZone, service-disabled veterans, and 

women-owned. But a recent court decision interpreted the law to 

give a preference to HUBZone. Without clarity on this issue, billions of dollars could be redirected away from programs like 8(a), 

which help thousands of minority-owned small businesses. 

4 

Already, we fear that the current confusion is causing a chilling 

effect in small business contracting. 

We support bipartisan legislation co-sponsored by 12 Members of 

this Committee to provide a fix for this problem at this crucial 

time. 

Second, there’s still a credit gap. Too many good small businesses 

still can’t find access to capital. The increased guarantee and reduced fees from the Recovery Act have put more than $30 billion 

in the hands of small businesses at a cost of only about $680 million. Taxpayers got a big bang for the buck, but we ran out of funds 

two months ago. As a result, SBA lending has plummeted down 60 

percent. 

Yesterday, I was at a service-disabled-veteran and minorityowned small business in Jacksonville. Andy Harold got a Recovery 

Act loan to support a contract for electronics work on a simulator 

that trains our troops whose vehicles get flipped over on the battlefield. He hired 10 people because of that loan. 

Now is not the time to pull back. We need to continue helping 

firm’s like Andy’s that create jobs and so much more.Overall, we 

will continue to be vigilant in reducing fraud, waste, and abuse in 

all of our programs. To do that, we are committed to transparency 

and a strong, ongoing partnership with GAO, our IG, and this 

Committee. 

I welcome any questions and comments about our efforts in any 

of the areas I’ve mentioned today. Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Mills is included in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. It’s now my pleasure to 

welcome back Mr. Gregory Kutz. He’s the Managing Director of Forensic Audits and Special Investigations at GAO. FSAI Unit investigates waste, fraud, and abuse related to government programs 

and taxpayers’ dollars. FSAI has investigated abuses of Hurricane 

Katrina relief dollars, border security and overtime and minimum 

wage complaints, among other topics. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF GREGORY KUTZ, MANAGING DIRECTOR, 

FORENSICS AUDITS AND SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS, U.S. 

GENERAL ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. KUTZ. Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to discuss theHUBZone program. Today’s testimony highlights the results of our most recent investigation. 

My testimony has two parts. First, I will discuss the results of 

our undercover testing, and second, I will discuss the actions SBA 

has taken against the 29 firms identified in our past investigations. 

First, the HUBZone program remains vulnerable to fraud and 

abuse. Specifically, SBA’s validation controls failed as three of our 

four bogus firms were certified. As you know, to qualify for this 

program, a firm’s principal office must be located in a HUBZone. 

Our past investigations show that fraud and abuse related to the 

principal office were a significant problem. 

The monitor shows a picture of the address of our first bogus 

company, Crocket and Associates. You may recognize the site of our 

5 

principal office. This is the Alamo in San Antonio. Madam Chairwoman, we thought that SBA would catch this one. In fact, at your 

hearing in June of 2008 on HUBZone, SBA represented that they 

were going to be using Internet searches to validate the principal 

office. 

The next picture on the monitor shows what a Google search 

using the address from our bogus company shows. These links lead 

you to the next picture on the monitor which as you can see again 

is the Alamo. It took us seven months and the submission of numerous counterfeit documents to be certified for this bogus company. However, these pictures clearly show that a one or two 

minute Internet search would have at least raised suspicions about 

the validity of this application. 

For our second application, we used the address of a rental storage unit in Florida as our principal office. The certification of this 

company took about 14 months. 

For our third application, we used a city hall in Texas as our 

principal office. The certification of this firm took seven months. 

We decided to abandon our fourth application, but only after SBA 

lost the documentation that we submitted several times. 

To go to my second point, SBA has taken action on some of the 

29 firms identified in our first two investigations. As the Administrator said, 16 were decertified, 8 voluntarily withdrew from the 

program, and 5 were determined to be in compliance with the program. For those five, we continue to believe at the time we looked 

at them that they were not in compliance. 

Since our March 2009 report, 17 of these firms have received $66 

million of new government contracts. Of the 29 companies before 

yesterday, and there’s been more suspensions, only 1 was currently 

suspended and proposed for debarment, which brings me to the importance again of the consequences for fraud and abuse. And I’m 

going to use Case Study 2 from our current report to make that 

point. 

In my June 2008 testimony, we determined that this construction firm fraudulently received $4 million of HUBZone contracts. 

Madam Chairwoman, this firm also fraudulently received $48 million of 8(a) set-aside contracts. Because this firm was not suspended or debarred in 2008, they received $10 million of new stimulus contracts. We understand that in March of this year, this firm 

was suspended and proposed for debarment. 

In addition, the SBA IG has taken some of the 29 cases to U.S. 

Attorneys. We understand that in certain instances, U.S. Attorneys 

are declining these cases because they believe there is no loss to 

the government. We believe when a firm fraudulently receives one 

of these contracts that the entire amount of that contract is fraud 

and the victims are not only the taxpayers, but the legitimate 

HUBZone firms. 

In conclusion, our work continues to show that SBA is not very 

good at fraud prevention and enforcement. We understand it’s very 

difficult to be an advocate for small business and at the same time 

to be the enforcer. However, to be an effective advocate you need 

to have an effective fraud prevention system and make examples 

of the bad actors. 

6 

I believe that fraud and abuse in small business programs such 

as HUBZone, 8(a) and service-disabled-veteran contracting is widespread. I encourage this Committee to continue making oversight 

of program integrity a priority. 

Madam Chairman, that ends my statement and I look forward 

to your questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Kutz is included in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. Mr. Kutz, Crocket and Associates at the Alamo; what are you going to try next, Franklin and 

Sons at Independence Hall? 

Could you please outline for the Committee what type of sophisticated method GAO employed to bypass all of the SBA’s new security controls? 

Mr. KUTZ. As we do in all of our testing, we use publicly-available hardware, software, and materials. In this particular case, we 

set up websites for these companies. We had computers, email, and 

we stole the address, as you see, effectively. We used addresses of 

companies or the Alamo in the one case to really test this. So I 

would say it was not a highly-sophisticated operation, basic software and computers, emails, and back-up phone numbers. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Administrator Mills, SBA has come before this Committee several times in the past years and said that 

there is either no problem or it’s been fixed. Let me take a minute 

to read to you some of the SBA responses over the years. 

On March 25, 2009, Acting Administrator Darrel Hairston testified that ‘‘SBA has undertaken aggressive procedures. They are undergoing right now business process reengineering where they are 

looking at all of the elements of the program and they’re establishing the necessary corrections.’’ 

Administrator Mills, on July 29, 2009, you testified that ‘‘we 

have tightened it up. We require more documentation already, but 

we are also going to do a business process reengineering of it. We 

did the extra 600 visits.’’ 

Administrator Mills, on November 18, 2009, testified, ‘‘We actually have changed our certification process. We now ask for extensive documentation and are working through how to make sure we 

get the right documentation up front.’’ 

And finally, Administrator Mills, on April 20, 2010, ‘‘we’re working to ensure that only legitimate, eligible firms are benefiting from 

the HUBZone program.’’ 

So as you can see, there is a web of double talk here. SBA comes 

before the Committee and says that they’re doing one thing, but 

GAO is finding that you’re doing another. So what are you going 

to do differently this time to make sure that we are not having the 

same conversation three months from now? 

Ms. MILLS. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, for raising this issue 

because these are shared goals. We agree with the GAO and with 

this Committee that it’s very difficult to have integrity in the program when firms that are ineligible are getting into it. 

So we perceive this as a process of continuous improvement. This 

has been a program that, as you point out, has had many of these 

issues over time. As I described, we have developed a threepronged approach. The four firms that the GAO just described realVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:02 Nov 15, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\CLERKS~1\HEARINGS\TRANSC~1\57521.TXT DARIEN
7 

ly fall into the first category which is the issue is certification. Why 

can a firm which is not an eligible firm get into the program? And 

that is something that we have, as I described earlier, created a 

new set of criteria that had not existed before where we are asking 

our companies to submit extensive documentation. And we actually, I think, distributed to the Committee in our report to Congress, exactly what that documentation includes. 

I can talk about some of it, if it’s of interest. But we are taking 

that specific documentation now in a much more rigorous oversight 

process. 

We have not yet seen the GAO report with the details of how 

this got through the process. But what— 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. How do you think that Crocket— what 

is the name—and Associates at the Alamo. 

Ms. MILLS. Exactly. We’re going to find out. And we’re going to 

find the facts. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Last time you said you would be using 

Google Earth, right? You said do an Internet search and that you 

will use any kind of tools to validate HUBZone addresses. 

Ms. MILLS. Right. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Here, you have this one, not only for— 

so last time you said this is just so simple, do you know how many 

firms are participating in the HUBZone program right now? Nine 

thousand. How much will it take to Google the address of—30 seconds. So it will take at least 77.5 hours of man hours to determine 

whether or not those are bogus addresses. 

Ms. MILLS. In fact, we are currently using tools such as Google 

Earth to find out the addresses and principal locations of the workers who are reported to be in the HUBZone. 

One of the suggestions, I believe, that Mr. Kutz may suggest is 

that we use Google Maps to Google these addresses. And in fact, 

we’ve already discussed this recommendation given these preliminary findings. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Okay. I’m going to switch to another 

topic and that is the oil spill. 

Recently, Kenneth Feinberg testified before our Committee—and 

another time I understand that he and the SBA have now talked. 

Now, I understand that that has changed. And my question concerns how SBA treats BP claim payments for those seeking disaster loans? To this point, it is important that the SBA recognize 

BP claims payment as income, not as compensation for losses. Are 

you taking steps to ensure that this will happen? 

Ms. MILLS. Thank you for your interest and your help with the 

BP claims process coordinating with the SBA. In fact, as you and 

I talked, we did make contact right after that hearing with Ken 

Feinberg. He called in return to my phone call. We had several conversations and meetings and consultations because what the people 

in the Gulf need is a BP claims process that works. 

We are currently in the Gulf in 27 locations. We have 178 people, 

but we believe and we are giving—we are doing two things. We’re 

giving economic injury disaster loans and we are deferring existing 

disaster loans because sometimes that’s all a small business needs 

is to defer it. 

8 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. I hear all that, but I would like for you 

to answer my question and that is if SBA is going to recognize BP 

claims payment as income, not as compensation for losses, and are 

you taking steps to ensure that this will happen? 

Ms. MILLS. Well, that’s actually a very good question and I’m 

going to get back to you on whether we are. Because at the moment, the primary focus is to have people get their first claim from 

BP. So in our actual claim places, we are helping people fill out BP 

paperwork, referring them to the proper BP claims place, because 

it’s better for them to get their proper compensation. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. I would like to share with you that the 

chair of the Senate Committee agreed with me that BP claims payment should be considered income and not as compensation for 

losses. 

Administrator Mills, in 2003, Diamond Ventures brought a lawsuit against the SBA alleging racial discrimination in the SBIC 

program. Earlier this year, a federal judge denied SBA’s motion for 

a summary judgment and subsequently ordered mediation in this 

case. 

I understand that the court-ordered mediation recently came to 

a close without a settlement. Why haven’t you been able to resolve 

this issue? 

Ms. MILLS. I will get back to you on that issue and we’ll see why. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Well, I just want to make clear that 

your own statistics, SBA’s own statistics show that less that four 

percent of all SBIC investment dollars went to minority-owned 

firms and less than 1.5 percent went to women-owned business. 

And at the time of Diamond’s lawsuit, there were only a handful 

of minority investment firms in the program. So I hope that you’re 

paying attention to that, because I don’t think that it needs for 

someone to bring a lawsuit for you to realize that this disparity is 

taking place among SBIC companies. 

Ms. MILLS. Thank you. We agree. I’ll look at it, too. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Kutz. In your opinion, are the enforcement mechanisms implemented by SBA to punish those that 

violate eligibility standards for the HUBZone sufficient? 

Mr. KUTZ. I would say no. I think we’re better off than we were 

two years ago, because as you’ve heard, 24 of the 29 firms we 

looked at are no longer in the program. We validated that they’re 

no longer in the system. They’re not in the system. They cannot get 

HUBZone contracts. And it sounds like there’s been additional suspension. So—but are we where we need to be? No. I believe more 

quick, aggressive action. I think the example I used in my opening 

statement of the firm that committed 8(a) fraud also and they received $10 million of stimulus contracts, it’s still never too late. 

They still get suspended. It’s never too late to make it right, protect 

the government, but it should have been done earlier. 

So I think it’s still, on a scale of 1 to 10, maybe a 3 is where we 

are at this point. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Administrator Mills, what kind of message do you think this sends to individuals looking to game the system that only 1 out of 29 with exception of the 4 that you just mentioned that happened yesterday maybe because we were having 

this hearing today? 

9 

Ms. MILLS. Madam Chair, you’re exactly right. If we don’t punish 

the bad actors, people will not be deterred. So we have, as our third 

prong, made a concerted change in terms of going after bad actors. 

So to that extent we actually have a whole series of tools that 

we’re employing: suspension, debarment, collaboration with the Inspector General, civil fraud actions with the Department of Justice, 

and false claims actions with the Department of Justice. 

In addition, now when you sign the HUBZone contract, it’s under 

penalty of perjury and it has to be notarized. So all of these activities should give us more basis to do what you so rightly urge us 

to do which is to go after bad actors. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Kutz, you have been working at 

the HUBZone program for a number of years now. Why is this program so vulnerable to fraud? 

Mr. KUTZ. I think it’s a combination of the inherent nature of 

maintaining the 35 percent, perhaps. In some areas like Washington, where you’ve got slivers of HUBZone locations and those 

places it’s difficult to perhaps police and look over. So it’s the inherent nature and in addition to that just some of the lack of fraud 

prevention controls and consequences in the past. 

I mean most companies look at this and say, hey, if I cheat, I 

get to keep the contract. If I get caught, I might get decertified. 

Chances of going to jail are zero and I might not get suspended or 

debarred. 

Now that’s changing here, hopefully. And I appreciate the oversight here and the efforts SBA is making. So we need to move more 

aggressively to get where we need to be. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Okay. Mr. Graves. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Madam Chair. How important do you 

think it is, Mr. Kutz, as far as how important a role is the possibility of punishment play in a good anti-fraud program? And we’ve 

kind of danced around that, but a strong punishment program has 

to be—it has to be out there. 

Mr. KUTZ. I think it’s enormous. I mean if you look across the 

government, we look at programs across the government, those programs that there are no consequences and no one is ever held accountable through prosecution or in suspension debarment, those 

are the ones that are most vulnerable to something happening. So 

I believe it’s critical. 

Mr. GRAVES. What steps would you take to ensure that only 

qualified applicants, I mean beyond what some of the things we’ve 

already talked about? 

Mr. KUTZ. I think that the Internet searches we’re talking about 

as the Chairwoman said, if you did it for all several thousand, 

that’s an achievable thing. They take several minutes. It may not 

catch everything, but certain obvious indicators would come out. 

And I’m a proponent of at least unannounced site visits to these 

locations. I think that’s a good practice. Our experience is when 

you show up unannounced, you get a very different view than when 

you tell them you’re coming. So those are my two primary prevention techniques here. 

Mr. GRAVES. And you may have already answered this, but given 

your background, how would you rate the SBA’s aggressiveness in 

suspending federal debarment? 

10 

Mr. KUTZ. I think it was at zero before we started this and I 

think it’s moved towards two and today it may be three—suspended firms and two more individuals, maybe three. But it’s not 

quite where we need to be. 

Mr. GRAVES. It’s a long ways where we need to be. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Critz? 

Mr. CRITZ. I just have one question. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

You know, we talk about that it’s been a while since we—or since 

your audit showed that there were problems and I’m just curious 

to hear from the Administrator, how aggressively you are addressing these issues. 

Is this a training issue? Is it that the staff that exists don’t have 

the training that they need to follow through on this? And I’m just 

curious to hear what the plan is going forward. 

Ms. MILLS. Thank you. I think Mr. Critz spoke earlier and we 

have aggressively added staff to the HUBZone oversight function. 

And we have re-engineered it. 

So he is correct, that we were starting at a place that was about 

zero, that there was not firm action against bad actors and there 

was no plan or program for how we went after oversight on this 

program and getting rid of fraud, waste, and abuse. 

And in fact, there was not even a statement that we would not 

tolerate fraud, waste and abuse. Now we have a position and specific actions that have been implemented. On the front end, we did 

the certifications. In the middle end, we increased the site visits. 

There were seven in the six months before I came. There will be 

a thousand this year, the majority of which will be unannounced. 

In the back end, we’re working very hard, making progress on 

going after the bad actors. And once again, we’re using a lot of 

tools in the tool kit, including going after them with the Department of Justice on multiple fronts. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Critz, will you yield for a second? 

How many of the 29 firms that were ineligible continue to receive 

federal contracts? 

Ms. MILLS. This is one of the most troubling findings of the GAO. 

And we have not— 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Kutz, do you know? 

Mr. KUTZ. Seventeen. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Seventeen. 

Ms. MILLS. Seventeen. Thank you. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Do you know the total amount of 

money? 

Mr. KUTZ. The total amount is $200 million. The amount of new 

contracts is $66 million since your last hearing in 2009 on 

HUBZone. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. Thank you for yielding. 

Mr. CRITZ. I appreciate your answer and I’m from a school of 

thought that there’s benchmarks, there’s goals, there’s timing. 

I would like to hear an answer from both of you as to is this 

something that you feel that the staffing level that you have or the 

plan for staffing, the training level that you have and the plan for 

training that this is something that will be resolved within six 

months that you’ll be at some artificial number, 95 percent assurance that HUBZone, 8(a), and small business or the veteran classiVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:02 Nov 15, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\CLERKS~1\HEARINGS\TRANSC~1\57521.TXT DARIEN
11 

fications will be running at a level that you feel comfortable that 

you’re really catching all the bad actors? 

Ms. MILLS. At this time, we are making significant progress in 

each of the pieces. But as I said, it’s really in the continuous improvement. And we think that we’ve got now a good partnership 

with the GAO. We have a lot of ways that people have in the past 

been able to come into this program that have been ineligible. 

We’ve blocked up some of the holes. We’ve got some more work to 

do. And this involved a complete reengineering of our department 

and the addition of enormous resources. In the President’s budget, 

there are additional resources for us which will be very valuable. 

Mr. KUTZ. I would say there’s progress, certainly. There’s a long 

ways to go, but when you consider where we were two years ago 

when the first hearing was held, I think that what they’ve done 

and the oversight you’ve done here have made a difference. 

With respect to people, it’s interesting. It’s two pieces to it. It’s 

not only the number of people, it’s the type of people and I think 

you know we’ve seen SBA has been in traditionally more of an advocacy organization than enforcement. That’s a difficult transition. 

And I mentioned that in my opening statement. 

I think the Ranking Member mentioned the same thing. That’s 

an important aspect to make sure that they have the right people 

doing this. 

Mr. CRITZ. I appreciate your answer and from my perspective, I’m looking at the numbers that $680 million worth of investment 

yield $30 billion worth of loans or activity economically. And certainly, these kind of backwards movements, it’s hard to measure 

what the true impact is, but I appreciate your testimony and I 

yield back. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Luetkemeyer. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. Mills and Mr. Kutz, as I’ve sat here over the last year and 

a half and watched this play out, are there any tools that you 

need? You mentioned tools a minute ago to be able to do your job. 

Are there any additional tools or things that you need that we 

can help you with that you see right now? 

Ms. MILLS. To be honest with you, this oversight is actually extremely helpful. And we see this as a partnership. It’s difficult to 

make progress, but we have changed the view I think now in partnership, that this is a valid concern, that we do do oversight and 

that we don’t tolerate fraud, waste, and abuse and that we have 

to have integrity in the programs. 

We are trying to use our resources as effectively as possible. We 

do appreciate the help that many have given us in terms of going 

after bad actors. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Okay. Do you need anything else? Have you 

got what you need? 

Ms. MILLS. Yes, I think we would very much like to have the 

budget— 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I apologize for cutting you off. I’ve just got 

five minutes. 

Mr. Kutz? 

Mr. KUTZ. Two things. There may be some software or other law 

enforcement-type tools they don’t have access to what we have, in 

12 

some cases other law enforcement that they could use. But I think 

the big one here is getting the Department of Justice and U.S. Attorneys interested in taking these cases. Because if you don’t get 

U.S. Attorneys interested in taking the cases, you’re going to get 

a declination as I mentioned in my opening statement. 

So this Committee perhaps could work with the Department of 

Justice and SBA and the whole IG investigative community to try 

to make at least a couple examples a year of these firms and 

maybe each program, 8(a), service-disabled-veterans, HUBZone, 

etcetera. Because if the U.S. Attorney won’t take the case, you’re 

out of luck. If they say this isn’t interesting, there’s no loss to the 

government by these frauds, then they’re not going to do anything. 

And you won’t get any prosecutions. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. That is always a problem with law. We can 

make all the laws here in the world, all the great laws, but if 

there’s no enforcement of them we’ve just wasted our time and 

wasted a lot of trees. So think enforcement is a key provision here. 

The next question of you, Mr. Kutz, are you working with SBA 

with recommendations regularly in your oversight to explain to 

them what you see, where weaknesses are, what your recommendations are, instead of playing a game of gotcha? 

Mr. KUTZ. Right. After the undercover, under our protocols, we 

have to first of all brief the requestor, which is the Chairwoman. 

And then we brief the Agency on what we’ve done. And we’ve provided past recommendations. 

I don’t know if we’ve had any new recommendations. Just some 

of the things like using the Internet tools. I think the Administrator said they’ve staffed up to 20 people. I don’t know how welltrained they are, but the training and type of backgrounds they 

have are important. And so we’re always available. 

And two years ago, or a year and a half ago, I sat down for an 

hour, an hour and a half with their consultant and kind of did a 

brain dump of everything we could think of that they could do. So 

we have and will always be available to help them. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Ms. Mills, with regards to that, can you give 

me a percentage of the stuff they’ve given you that you’ve implemented at this point? 

Ms. MILLS. Well, in the past recommendations, particularly on 

8(a) they gave us 12 distinct recommendations. They were really 

excellent. They were like a roadmap. And we’ve done all 12. 

We’re in the process of doing the last five, but we’ve accepted all 

12 and we’ve implemented the majority. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Okay, Mr. Kutz, with regards to other programs that SBA has implemented, how much oversight—how much 

investigation have you done in those and are there problems in 

other areas? 

Mr. KUTZ. 8(a) definitely. We issued a report to the Chairwoman 

on that and we found 14 firms with $325 million of fraud and as 

she mentioned, there’s been some recommendations and certainly 

progress. The one that’s probably the most troubling, I think Representative Nye and I had a field hearing I attended on service-disabled veteran-owned small business and that’s a joint effort with 

SBA and VA. That’s very troubling. We continue to get dozens and 

13 

dozens of allegations of fraud in that program. I believe that there 

is significant fraud still. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. One of the problems that I see is the fact 

that you—I’ve served in the private sector and I’ve also served in 

the public sector. 

In the public sector, you’re dealing with lifetime bureaucrats. 

And it’s difficult with their mindset to sometimes change which is 

what you’re trying to do, to change them to become a different type 

of organization, to look at things in a different light. This is the 

way they’ve done it for the lifetime. They’ve been there 20 to 30 

years. You’re not going to tell me anything different. I’m going to 

outlast you, because you’re going to be gone with the next administration. All I’ve got to do is bide my time and we’ll deal with the 

next Administrator. That’s a problem. 

And I think in fairness to you, Ms. Mills, I think that the inherent problem with bureaucracy and trying to change their attitudes 

is a difficult thing. And I admire—I certainly understand your 

task, although obviously we’ve got to do it. We’ve got to change it 

because obviously we’ve got some problems here that we’ve been 

looking at for a long, long time. 

With that, I yield back, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. Ms. Bean. 

Ms. BEAN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And thank you to 

both of our witnesses for your testimony here today. 

A couple questions for Administrator Mills. Welcome back. My 

first question is just in follow up to what’s going on relative to contracts being awarded to some of those who shouldn’t have been eligible in the first place, you talked about a new certification process. 

Are you in the process of creating a new decertification process to 

once and for all take that those bad actors out? 

Ms. MILLS. Well, many of those have been decertified. I think our 

decertification process at this point works. The question is getting 

to it quickly. And then making sure that those who are decertified 

don’t get back in the system and that they come out of the system. 

And that’s the place. We’re looking forward to working with GAO 

on exactly what happened in these cases and then fixing. 

Ms. BEAN. My next question is relative to Recovery Act provisions. I think you painted a striking picture of how important it is 

to providing many small businesses that you speak to and that we 

speak to in our districts in terms of small business lending in the 

secondary market. 

The recent decline in loan approvals is very disconcerting, having 

followed the success that you had had in increasing it so drastically 

in helping address the credit gap. 

I guess my question is what do you think we need to be doing 

further? I have a lot of small business forums in my district with 

businesses and I hear from many who shared successes from the 

Recovery Act loans that they’ve received through the 7(a) or 504 

programs. And then I’m also hearing from others who may not 

have even applied to SBA, but just have access to capital issues 

which is so critical. 

Obviously, we’ve passed a number of initiatives through the 

House. We’re waiting for the Senate to act and I would assume 

you’d want to see not only an extension of the Recovery Act proviVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:02 Nov 15, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\CLERKS~1\HEARINGS\TRANSC~1\57521.TXT DARIEN
14 

sions that just expired in May and have led to this downfall in 

lending, but the small business lending fund, maybe the 504, to address the commercial real estate markets. 

What other things would you like to see us act on or the Administration act on in support of access to capital improving to address 

that gap? 

Ms. MILLS. First of all, I want to thank this Committee and the 

House for passing the extensions several times actually, for the Recovery Act. We believe that we’ve been very effective putting the 

$30 billion in. We are very, very, very concerned about the drop off 

that occurred when the authority and the money ran out. We’re 

down 60 percent. We’re hearing from small businesses and all over 

the country that the freeze is back on. 

We have over 600 in the Recovery Act queue, so as soon as that 

passes, we can fund them. And this bill is on the floor of the Senate 

at this moment and we are very, very hopeful. The Administration, 

the President is very clear in urging the Senate to pass this bill. 

Ms. BEAN. We’re glad to see them to closure which is always a 

big feat over there. And I know we’re helpful that that happens because there is such leverage potential to take that $30 billion and 

put essentially $300 billion of lending out into the small business 

community. 

My last question for you is regarding the recent recovery report 

card that showed that 32 percent of the Recovery Act federal contracts went to small businesses. And I commend your efforts and 

the Administration’s on improving the level of contracts that are 

awarded to small businesses. 

To what would you attribute that relatively high increase and 

what could we learn from it that we could apply to other federal 

contracting efforts? 

Ms. MILLS. Well, first, in the Recovery Act there actually weren’t 

goals, the Vice President announced that he was going to consider 

that all the small business goals did exist. And we beat them all. 

And we did that by a joint effort with the Department of Commerce 

where we conducted over 300 match-making events to make sure 

small businesses and minority-owned businesses and womanowned businesses got access to Recovery Act contracts. 

The lessons there were so strong that the President has asked 

us to form a task force, and we have, to implement, not just to 

study, but to implement the best practices from that Recovery Act 

success to make our numbers in our entire program. And we are 

in the process of doing that. 

Ms. BEAN. Thank you very much, and I yield back. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Bright. 

Mr. BRIGHT. Yes, ma’am. Thank you, Madam Chairman.Let me 

thank the witnesses first for being here today and giving us the 

testimony. 

Administrator Mills, like every member of this Committee, I am 

a strong supporter of American small businesses and I believe Congress and the SBA should do everything in their power to support 

businesses across the nation. 

Hearings like this provide us with an opportunity to evaluate 

how that process is working. Ask questions and share any concerns 

we may have. 

15 

And I am disappointed to have to say this, but I have serious 

concerns about the SBA’s ability to carry out some of its most basic 

responsibilities. 

Far too often I hear complaints from small businesses in my district that are having difficulty working with the SBA. When the 

situation calls for it, my office has made efforts to help these businesses navigate the red tape individuals encounter any time they 

deal with the Federal Government. 

Most of the time we find ourselves sharing the frustration felt by 

my constituents. This is particularly troubling because the SBA, 

like every other agency, has a constitutional or a congressional affairs staff that helps answer Members’ inquiries. If a Member can’t 

get the attention of the SBA, I can only imagine how hard it is for 

an average business owner to get answers. 

While this has been my experience on a number of complaints 

that have been shared with my office, let me remind you of a specific case that has concerned me, one that I brought to your attention the last time we spoke which was about a month ago. 

Last year, the Defense Department awarded a contract to build 

MI-17 helicopter simulators to a business in Pennsylvania. In November 2009, a company in my district filed a protest that the company that won the bid didn’t qualify under the SBA guidelines. 

I wrote you a month later asking that the SBA conduct a fair 

and rigorous review of that protest. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen. SBA ruled that this company met SBA requirements in February of this year. But when it was sent back by your own office 

of Appeals and Hearings in May, the Judge in that case found numerous errors in the determination. He wrote a scathing report 

and remanded the decision back to SBA to do it over again. 

So nearly nine months later, we find ourselves right back at 

square one with no review of that evaluation. Now I know the 

Judge in this case can’t make the determination himself, nor do I 

want him to try. 

What I do expect, however, is that the SBA should be able to 

conduct a fair and rigorous review and get it done in a timely fashion. Instead, my letters on this issue have been returned with nonanswers and my staff has been given the runaround when they ask 

for information. 

What should have been done months ago remains in SBA limbo 

with no assurances from anyone from your office that this would 

be done and done soon. 

Let me be clear. I can accept this when businesses in my district 

don’t win a contract. It happens and that’s okay. That’s not the 

point of my discussion or my comments today. What I cannot accept is a series of errors and potentially allow a business to win 

a contract that they are ineligible to receive and I say potentially 

because the sad fact is we’re still waiting on SBA to settle the matter over nine months later. That’s entirely too long. The contract 

will be completed by the time the review has been completed by 

your office. 

So Chairperson, Madam Chairman, I’m sorry to have to spend 

my time focusing on such a specific issue, but I remain concerned 

about the case that I believe is my responsibility to raise the issue 

16 

in whatever venue necessary so that we can get this matter 

righted. 

So Madam Administrator Mills, I have one question for you and 

one question only. Can I get your commitment today, to direct your 

folks and your office to take this issue more seriously and try to 

come to a conclusion as quickly as possible so we can right a significant wrong out there? 

Ms. MILLS. Yes, absolutely. You have my commitment. And we 

apologize for this distress that you described. 

Mr. BRIGHT. Thank you. I yield back the remainder of my time. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Schrader. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question for 

Administrator Mills. 

You’ve obviously made huge strides in what you’ve done I think 

since coming to the office, previous administration, seven site visits, you’re up over a thousand, and I think you deserve some congratulations for that. 

These are tough questions, but we’re trying to help you do a little 

bit better going forward. But I appreciate your leadership and taking the GAO’s counsel to heart. 

The question I guess I have is some basic stuff here. Mr. Kutz 

talked about the Internet search to come up with some pretty obvious—that the Alamo is not exactly the place where a new business 

starts up. And yet at the same time, your organization, some of 

your staff members, it was taking like 7 to 14 months to certify 

these folks. Why the 7 to 14 months versus a few minutes on the 

Internet? 

Ms. MILLS. Well, thank you very much for your support. We do 

think we’re making progress. 

This is a very tough task and we are getting after it aggressively 

and getting some achievements because we have some great people 

working on it. Specifically, we created a quite rigorous front-end requirements on HUBZone which had not existed. Appendix Table 1 

of our report describes it. I’d love to read it, but I won’t. 

That created a backlog, because when we switched to a much 

more rigorous up-front progress, it created a lengthy delay in getting all the applications through until we re-engineered the process 

and began to process more applications. We have gone over that 

bump and are pushing, making great process in reducing the time, 

but it was unacceptably long. 

We also brought on new staff, trained new staff. Re-engineered 

the process. Greatly enhanced the amount of documentation that 

was required so we had to then take it seriously and go over it. 

We’re now going to also add and continue to refine that set so that 

we find the thing that will help us be able to get out the bad actors. 

Mr. SCHRADER. I just hope that there will be some prioritization 

of obvious things that you would do first, you know, for maximum 

value of minimal amount of effort or expenditure of human resources and capital. 

I would take Mr. Critz’ suggestions to heart. Develop some performance metrics. I mean that helps you, when you come before us 

show the fact that perhaps you have made substantial progress and 

17 

you do have a target date for 95 percent compliance as opposed to 

the other. 

If we’ve got 29 firms with $66 million in new federal contracts, 

it probably shouldn’t have them or that’s 29 out of how many contracts? I mean, unfortunately we’re talking probably billions and 

billions of dollars here. 

The other, I guess, concern I have is the one where the documents are actually lost. Mr. Kutz talked about four firms and one 

firm, they had to stop pursuing their investigation because the documents are lost. Isn’t that sort of unacceptable? 

Ms. MILLS. Yes. We are going to look into that when we get the 

full report. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Would it be advisable to maybe reduce the overall funding for this program down to something where you guys 

can kind of match your resources on the enforcement side to the 

contracting resources on the other side to show yourselves to advantage? 

Ms. MILLS. I’m not sure I understand the question. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Well, I’m concerned that we’ve got a lot of money 

going out the door, but we don’t have the personnel in place obviously to make sure that we’re getting adequate bang for the buck 

if you will. 

Ms. MILLS. We have a goal to meet of three percent of the contracts. The only cost is in the oversight and the interactions with 

the agencies to make sure there’s access. 

Mr. SCHRADER. I’m just suggesting that we want to balance our 

resources within the agency. It takes a while to change the culture 

of the agency and perhaps less money for the HUBZone program. 

We have the Supreme Court decision to deal with. We’ve got obvious fraud and abuse that’s going on. So I’m just a little concerned. 

Ms. MILLS. Just to clarify, there is no money, funding for the 

HUBZone program except for in the oversight and promotion of the 

program. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Well, then I’m even more concerned a little bit. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Ms. Dahlkemper. 

Ms. DAHLKEMPER. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the 

witnesses. 

Ms. Mills, I wanted to ask you about a different subject, a 

women-owned small business contracting program. I know you’ve 

been a champion for the implementation of this program and that 

the proposed rules for this program were put out earlier this year, 

but where do we stand now on putting out the final rule and finally 

implementing this program? 

Ms. MILLS. As I have mentioned before here, this is one of the 

things that we feel very proud of. A rule that came about in the 

year 2000 had never been implemented for women’s contracting. 

We were able to get this rule out for public comment. We received 

a thousand public comments that closed on May 3rd. We have dealt 

with each and every one of them. Some were extremely helpful and 

valuable to rewrite the rules, based on the input. And that rule is 

going through final clearance. 

We expect to have this program operational by the end of the 

year. 

18 

Ms. DAHLKEMPER. That’s great. That’s obviously great news for 

many women in my district who have talked to me and I know 

some have talked to you about this very important program. 

As we’re looking at some of these other programs and the fraud 

that we’ve seen in these programs, what kind of mechanisms are 

being put in place to ensure that fraud that we’ve seen these other 

programs don’t occur in this small business program? 

Ms. MILLS. We’re taking the same three-pronged approach. In 

the women’s rule, it’s likely to be both self-certification and external certification. So we need to make sure that we have a process 

to make sure that only the qualified people get in. 

Then in the middle, we will have oversight which will be program exams, some unannounced. And in the final part, we will 

have the same kind of emphasis on enforcement that we’re trying 

to bring at an accelerated level to all of the programs. 

Ms. DAHLKEMPER. So this three-pronged approach you’re bringing to every program that’s coming out of SBA at this point? 

Ms. MILLS. That’s correct. 

Ms. DAHLKEMPER. Mr. Kutz, can you comment on if you think 

this is all adequate as we bring out another new program? 

Mr. KUTZ. I did look at the report that they put out yesterday. 

I just got it yesterday. And they did talk about something similar 

to what we call the fraud prevention model where you’ve got the 

prevention, the monitoring and the enforcement involved. And if 

they do some of the things they’re talking about that’s certainly a 

large step in the right direction. 

Ms. DAHLKEMPER. Thank you very much. I yield back, Madam 

Chair. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Nye. 

Mr. NYE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Kutz, you mentioned in an earlier answer to a question that 

you had taken part in a field hearing that I held in my district in 

Virginia earlier this year in May. That field hearing was a followup on a full Committee hearing that Chairwoman Vela ́zquez held 

last November here where we discussed a GAO report on fraud in 

the service-disabled-veteran small business program. 

You mentioned again in your answer earlier today that you felt 

that that was still a problem area and I agree with you on that. 

I wanted to ask you just a couple of quick follow-up questions to 

establish kind of a baseline of where we started back in November 

and where we are today. 

The report came out in November, at least in one of the particular cases, you told us about a firm that was ineligible, you had 

discovered, because it didn’t perform any of the actual work and it 

subcontracted 100 percent of the job to a Denmark-based firm that 

had reported over $12 billion in 2008 revenues, so clearly not a 

small business. 

After the report came out, that firm’s partner admitted the contract award was improper and they would withdraw as soon as another contractor was found. Can you tell us, if you know, if any action had been taken against that particular firm in that case? 

Mr. KUTZ. As of today, they have not been suspended or 

debarred, although I know that the SBA IG, the VA IG, and the 

FBI are involved in a criminal investigation and that one is such 

19 

a clear case. If we don’t get debarment and prosecution for that 

one, we may as well give up. 

Mr. NYE. I appreciate that answer. What about the other nine 

cases that you mentioned in your—that you had found fraud in the 

report that you released last November?Have any of those companies involved in suspension or debarment to your knowledge? 

Mr. KUTZ. None as of today. I do believe there are on-going criminal investigations on several. There is even a Grand Jury involved 

I believe on one. So there is some hope that we’ll get one of these 

first prosecutions hopefully here, but again, there’s nothing imminent that I’m aware of. 

Mr. NYE. Can you tell us about those ten companies if any of 

them have received additional contracts subsequent to the report 

that you issued back in November of 2009? 

Mr. KUTZ. Right, and my data is a little bit old, but they’ve got $5 million of service-disabled sole source and set-aside. They’ve got 

$10 million of other contracts and they’ve got millions of dollars of 

stimulus contracts. Just those. 

Mr. NYE. Okay. So thank you for helping us establish what is to 

my mind a bleak picture of what’s going on in the service-disabledveteran business program. 

You came to my district in May where you gave us an update on, 

and some of these figures, we talked to some local businesses, service-disabled business owners about their impressions of the program and what they thought about it. 

We’ve talked a lot today about penalties and how important it is 

to have consequences when firms commit fraud in order to deter 

other firms from doing exactly the same thing and continuing to 

create the same kind of problems that we’ve already seen revealed. 

I held a hearing of my Subcommittee here on July 15th where 

we visited with folks from the SBA, but also from a lot of the agencies that had specifically been involved in doing the contracting of 

those ten cases that we talked about in your report that had been 

found to be fraudulent. 

And to be honest, I was very disappointed to hear the responses 

from the agencies in terms of what action they have taken since 

the nine months have passed since they knew about these particular cases of fraud. 

Administrator Mills, I wanted to ask you, you had Associate Administrator Joe Jordan with us at that hearing and he mentioned 

that out of those cases that we discussed, only one of them has 

been referred to the Inspector General of the SBA for suspension 

or debarment. And it was decided at the end of the day not to pursue a debarment or any penalty whatsoever as far as we could tell. 

What I wanted to ask you is can you comment on why none of 

those cases have gone on to the penalty phase where we have been 

able to see at least a suspension that we can show our other veteran firms that we’re taking action on these things? 

Ms. MILLS. Well, first, I want to thank you for your leadership 

in this area. This is a shared goal, because as you said, if we don’t 

have the enforcement action, people won’t believe there’s a real 

consequence to misbehaving. 

And, as I understand it, there are nine firms still being investigated by the IG. And we hope that there will be action taken as 

20 

you said. There seems to be—we’re trying every tool in the tool kit. 

We’re trying to bring new ones in and we’re trying to find a way 

to do things more quickly for consequences. 

And we appreciate your continued focus. 

Mr. NYE. One quick follow-up and I note that my time is getting 

short, but Associate Administrator Jordan mentioned that the SBA 

and the VA have formed a task force on these particular types of 

fraud issues. Can you talk about exactly what it is that you foresee 

that task force doing and how far along they’ve gotten in their 

work? 

Ms. MILLS. I’m happy to tell you about the overall task force. The 

President has asked myself and General Shinseki to form a task 

force on small business veteran activities. 

We have loans, small business veteran loans. We have government contracting and we also have entrepreneurial development 

and counseling programs. 

And the task force will deal with all of the—specifically in this 

area, we’re working very hard with them on their computer systems to identify small business, small businesses that are owned 

by service-disabled veterans. Who is a service-disabled veterans is 

something they work in their computer systems. And on any other 

specifics, I’m happy to have Mr. Jordan come back to you. 

Mr. NYE. I would appreciate and as I told the folks that were 

participating in my hearing, we intend to continually follow up on 

this issue. 

It’s been nine months since the first report came out. My feeling 

is that having talked to a lot of folks representing many different 

executive agencies, there’s a big focus on process here, task forces 

and committees and other things. 

But at the end of the day the folks that pay the bills, the taxpayers, want to see some results here, and I think we owe it to 

them to show them results. And results mean consequences on the 

businesses and so while I appreciate the fact that we’re making 

progress in the sense of setting up procedures, we need to get to 

the consequence phase in some way that we can report openly and 

honestly to the taxpayers that we’ve pursued fraud and we’ve rooted it out. 

There’s a reason why I have written a bill that provides for 

criminal penalties for those who would defraud this program because I think it’s important that they see a real result when they 

try to defraud our veterans and our taxpayers and we’re counting 

on you and the other agencies to show us some results from your 

work as well. Thank you very much. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Moore. 

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Mills, I want to ask 

a question concerning the question of pass-through fraud which can 

occur in the federal contracting process. 

As I understand it, a pass-through is an arrangement where a 

large corporation sets up a shell company known as a pass through 

to obtain federal contracts which are to be set aside for small businesses. 

Each year since 2006, the SBA’s Inspector General has listed 

pass throughs as the top challenge facing your agency. To combat 

this problem, some in Congress have suggested passing legislation 

21 

which would direct the SBA to more specifically define pass 

throughs and would permit the Agency to penalize pass throughs 

with defined prison terms. 

Do you agree that some legislation is necessary to combat this 

type of fraud. If so, what would you like to see? If not, what other 

measures are currently being taken or should be taken in the future to combat pass through fraud? 

Ms. MILLS. The issue of a big business masquerading as a small 

business with a shell corporation or something else is highly problematic for us. We agree with you, that we want to go after this. 

I believe, but I’ll get you the details that the 8(a) regulation reform 

that went out for public comment and is going to be final does help 

address that issue and we’re happy to get you those details and see 

if you have further suggestions. 

Mr. MOORE. I would like to see those details because obviously 

if the law is not being complied with as a former prosecutor, I want 

to see that happen. Thank you very much and Madam Chair, I 

yield back my time. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. KUTZ. Can I mention one more thing about that, Madam 

Chairwoman? 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Sure. 

Mr. KUTZ. The issue of having this—the numbers you get on 

these goaling requirements and stuff, those pass throughs help 

misstate those numbers. In other words, if you are given a number, 

Congressman Nye and I talked about, there was a pass through to 

a company in Denmark with $12 billion of revenue. That was 

scored a service-disabled-veteran-owned small business contract in 

the reports that you get. 

So the other impact of the pass through, is that you’re getting 

misleading information on how much money is actually going to 

small businesses, that’s an important point. I just want to make 

sure that you all understand. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Graves. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thanks, Madam Chair. Administrator Mills, the 

data concerning firms that are found to be ineligible for all the special contracting programs, is it being submitted to the new federal 

warranty performance and integrity information system? 

Ms. MILLS. If I could get back to you on the answer to that, because I’m not familiar with the specific system that you just mentioned. 

Mr. GRAVES. All right, if you could do that this week, it wold be 

great. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. I do have some more questions. 

Ms. Mill, GAO has recommended that SBA conduct unannounced 

site visits on HUBZone applicants such as the one at 30 Alamo 

Plaza, right? 

What percentage of companies do you currently visit, unannounced and in person and how do you decide which firms to visit? 

Ms. MILLS. This year, we’re going to visit a thousand firms. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. You are? 

Ms. MILLS. We have visited so far 711 and by Fiscal Year end 

one thousand. My understanding is that the majority of those are 

unannounced. 

22 

I don’t know— 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Can you corroborate that information 

for the Committee? 

Ms. MILLS. And we’ll find out how we decide. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Kutz, can you explain to the Committee and the SBA why unannounced visits are different from announced visits and what the value-added for such unannounced visits? 

Mr. KUTZ. The element of surprise is always important. 

Our unannounced visits have revealed things like mail stuck 

under the door and the neighbor saying no one has been there for 

six months. You would not get that with an announced visit. 

We had one where we did an unannounced visit and I showed 

this at one of your hearings where the next time we showed up 

they had actually nailed in a shiny new mailbox, I don’t know if 

you recall that, where the next time we came they made it appear 

as if they were there. 

So that’s one of the issues that SBA is waiting six or nine 

months to go after the companies we identified. By then, they may 

have doctored it up and made it look like it is a qualified firm. So 

yes, it’s very, very important. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. SBA has previously indicated that they 

do not have the resources to perform site visits for all the applications that they receive. 

In your opinion, what kind of resources will SBA need to perform 

this site visit? 

Mr. KUTZ. I think that they’ve moved toward 20. That’s the report I read yesterday said, from single digits when what first started this, so that’s a large step. You can do a lot with 20 people. My 

unit only has 55 people and we do investigations across the government. I think with leveraging technology, the Internet searches, 

other vehicles they’ve got, whether that means they can do 10 percent or 50 percent site visits I don’t know that, but again, the 

threat that there is a site visit of these firms, either entering the 

program or they’re in the program is an important element of a 

control system. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. The ten percent that SBA is doing 

right now, do you think that is adequate? 

Mr. KUTZ. It depends. If it’s done on a risk basis and is done appropriately, it’s better than what we had before. I would say, again, 

I believe, they’re doing it mostly—my understanding is for people 

who have already gotten contracts. It’s just as important to do it 

for people who haven’t gotten them yet. Because as we’ve seen 

here, once someone has fraudulently gotten a contract, very little 

has been done in the past. So I think it should be done on both 

and ideally more than ten percent would be better. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Kutz, in your last report, you mentioned that the three parts of a good fraud prevention program are 

prevention, monitoring, investigation with consequences. 

How does this concept apply to the HUBZone program with respect to prevention, monitoring investigations and prosecution? 

Mr. KUTZ. We’ve talked about several of the prevention methods 

with respect to the unannounced site visits. One of the other things 

I would mention is they’re asking for lots of documents now. The 

23 

one thing we didn’t see is validation of those documents. In other 

words, we sent in utility bills which is one of the things they get 

for support, for example, as to whether or not someone is in a 

HUBZone. You can doctor those up in about a minute or two. But 

maybe randomly calling the utility company and saying yeah, does 

this company actually live there or work there, the site visit. 

So the front end is the site visits, the Internet research and other 

document reviews. The monitoring is what I think they call the recertifications and it’s important. We’re looking at moving from 

every three years to every year to do those. That would certainly 

be more effective. 

And the investigations serve not only as a consequence for people, but actually it’s a prevention also. When people know there’s 

a chance of getting caught, there’s a better chance they’re not going 

to try. So I think we’ve touched on many of the things. 

The key thing we hadn’t talked about until your question here 

was the validation of documents. They should do some independent 

validation of documents in some instances. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. And have you made those recommendations? 

Mr. KUTZ. I don’t know if we’ve done the validation of documents. 

I have to go back and look at our recommendations. But the other 

ones I think are part of all of our recommendations. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Altmire? 

Mr. ALTMIRE. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Kutz, GAO found 

in one case that a firm continued to benefit from another SBA program even though it had misrepresented its HUBZone eligibility 

and had been decertified. When GAO did further investigation on 

this company, it was discovered that the firm had also misrepresented its status in the 8(a) program as well. 

So my question is how could this happen and when SBA finds 

that a firm is ineligible for one program, do they cross check with 

another? What’s the process? 

Mr. KUTZ. It doesn’t appear that they did in this particular case 

until they got our 8(a) report and they found it was with the same 

firm we had found in the HUBZone program. So I have to ask the 

Administrator. I don’t think in that case they did. That is a good 

practice. We have definitely suggested to that to them in our corrective action briefings, not just 8(a) but all their other programs. 

Because again, if people are inclined to commit fraud, they’re not 

going to do it in just one area. We found that with tax cheats and 

a lot of other types of places. You don’t just do it once. You typically are a repeat offender. 

Administrator Mills, do you want to comment on that? 

Ms. MILLS. In fact, I don’t know if it was a specific recommendation that you have, but it’s something that has been discussed and 

we’re looking at the computer compatibility because it’s quite obvious that you’d want to do this. 

Mr. ALTMIRE. How about sort of the opposite scenario, hypothetically, when one firm that does business with the SBA qualifies 

legitimately in one program, but misrepresents itself in another 

program, what are the consequences to that? What’s being done to 

prevent that? What happens in the program that they’re legitimately qualifying for? So far, we haven’t seen anything as a conVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:02 Nov 15, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\CLERKS~1\HEARINGS\TRANSC~1\57521.TXT DARIEN
24 

sequence. I don’t know if going forward they’re looking at doing 

that. 

Ms. MILLS. I think that’s a good question and one of the issues 

is coming down to the facts which is in what way did they get disqualified? Is it a foot fault or is it a fraud? 

Mr. ALTMIRE. Right. And for Administrator Mills, as you know, 

in the 2008 report, GAO recommended that SBA formalize a specific time frame for decertifying HUBZones. As indicated in the 

previous reports, SBA had an informal time frame for decertification of 60 days. 

I was wondering, has a formal time frame been implemented yet 

and if so, what is that time frame? 

Ms. MILLS. I’m happy to get back to you about that. 

Mr. ALTMIRE. Okay, thank you. Do you know what’s being done 

at SBA to ensure that those contractors that are in the process of 

being decertified are not receiving HUBZone contracts while that’s 

taking place, while they’re in the process of decertification, that 

they’re not still qualifying for HUBZone contracts? 

Ms. MILLS. Our process is that we turn them over for investigation. There is a fact finding and as we know, sometimes we have 

found that, in fact, they were put up for decertification, but they 

are eligible. And so we do presume that they’re innocent until we 

find the facts and then we go after them. 

Mr. ALTMIRE. My final question for Administrator Mills, GAO 

has found that five of the firms that had been decertified were still 

continuing to claim on their websites that they were HUBZone certified. What does the SBA do to prevent this type of misrepresentation? 

Ms. MILLS. Well, we would not necessarily know what’s on their 

website. But we do believe that in some areas, for instance, servicedisabled veterans, we are now requiring them to take themselves 

off the Federal Register. If they don’t take themselves off, we take 

them off. 

Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Kutz? 

Mr. KUTZ. We’d be happy to make sure—if they don’t know who 

those ones are that still have HUBZones up, we will let you know 

that, so maybe you can send them a little email message. 

Ms. MILLS. I’d be happy to do that. 

Mr. ALTMIRE. So how does that work? Is there someone that 

searches to make sure that those people that have been decertified 

have not continued to claim or is it something that would have to 

be brought to your attention? 

Mr. KUTZ. That’s something we did as part of our investigation. 

We wanted to see once they were decertified if they still held themselves out as being HUBZone firms. 

Mr. ALTMIRE. Is that something that will be done going forward? 

Mr. KUTZ. We wouldn’t do that. That would be something SBA 

could consider certainly. 

Mr. ALTMIRE. Maybe give that some consideration. Thank you 

both for your testimony. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. Mr. Kutz, this is my last 

question for you today. If you were put in charge of the HUBZone 

program tomorrow, what is the one thing that you would change 

in an effort to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse? 

25 

Mr. KUTZ. Well, normally I would talk about—and we do fraud 

across the government. I always talk about the front end. But in 

this particular case, I would probably look at the back end and 

really make an effort to get some poster children prosecuted, 

debarred, so that the message is out there to people that hey, if you 

do something wrong here, we’re going to be serious about it. Don’t 

even think about it. You might get caught. And if you get caught, 

something serious will happen. 

So usually I would say the front end, but given where we are 

today, I would say the back end. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Administrator Mills, after hearing and 

listening to all the questions and comments made, I want to ask 

you and I would like a yes or no answer, do you believe that the 

HUBZone program has sufficient internal controls to prevent 

fraud? 

Ms. MILLS. This is—I know you want a yes or no answer, but of 

course, the answer is it’s process. We’re better than we were, but 

we’re not good enough yet. We’re making progress. We need to 

make more. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. So you’re not there yet? 

Ms. MILLS. Not there yet. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Well, I hope that three months from 

now we will not come back and hear or find that four bogus companies are still on the certification list or getting contracts. This is 

serious business because in the process, not only taxpayers are losing, but those legitimate small businesses who today are suffering 

and they’re playing by the rules. So it is up to you to have an oversight process in place, internal controls, to make it happen. 

So with that, I want to thank all of you for being here today and 

I ask unanimous consent that Members will have five days to submit a statement and supporting materials for the record. Without 

objection, so ordered. This hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:23 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

26 


57521.001
27 


57521.002
28 


57521.003
29 


57521.004
30 


57521.005
31 


57521.006
32 


57521.007
33 


57521.008
34 


57521.009
35 


57521.010
36 


57521.011
37 


57521.012
38 


57521.013
39 


57521.014
40 


57521.015
41 


57521.016
42 


57521.017
43 


57521.018
44 


57521.019
45 


57521.020
46 


57521.021
47 


57521.022
48 


57521.023
49 


57521.024
50 


57521.025
51 


57521.026
52 


57521.027
53 


57521.028
54 


57521.029
55 


57521.030
56 


57521.031
57 


57521.032
58 


57521.033
59 


57521.034
60 


57521.035
61 


57521.036
62 


57521.037
63 


57521.038
64 


57521.039
65 


57521.040
66 


57521.041
67 


57521.042
68 


57521.043
69 


57521.044
70 

Æ