U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

96–955 PDF 2016

DATA ACT IMPLEMENTATION 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 29, 2015 

Serial No. 114–45 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://www.house.gov/reform 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MICK, MULVANEY, South Carolina 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

MARK WALKER, North Carolina 

ROD BLUM, Iowa 

JODY B. HICE, Georgia 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin 

WILL HURD, Texas 

GARY J. PALMER, Alabama 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

TED LIEU, California 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

MARK DeSAULNIER, California 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Staff Director 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

TROY D. STOCK, IT Subcommittee Staff Director 

KATY ROTHER, Counsel 

SHARON CASEY, Deputy Chief Clerk 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

WILL HURD, Texas, Chairman 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas, Vice Chair 

MARK WALKER, North Carolina 

ROD BLUM, Iowa 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois, Ranking Member 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

TED LIEU, California 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina, Chairman 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Vice Chair 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on July 29, 2015 ............................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

The Hon. Gene L. Dodaro, Comptroller General of the United States, U.S. 

Government Acountability Office, Accompanied by Christopher Mihm, Managing Director of Stategic Issues, U.S. Government Acountability Office 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 5 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7 

The Hon. David Mader, Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management, 

Office of Management and Budget 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 36 

Mr. David A. Lebryk, Fiscal Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of the 

Treasury 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 37 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 40 

Mr. Robert A. Taylor, Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audit, U.S. 

Department of the Treasury 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 45 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 47 

APPENDIX 

2015–07–23 Powner-GAO to Hurd Meadows-Duckworth Post Hearing Questions ....................................................................................................................... 64


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

DATA ACT IMPLEMENTATION 

Wednesday, July 29, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY JOINT

WITH SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 1:05 p.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Will Hurd [chairman of 

the Subcommittee on Information Technology] presiding. 

Present for Subcommittee on Information Technology: Representatives Hurd and Kelly. 

Present for Subcommittee on Government Operations: Representatives Meadows, Walberg, and Carter. 

Mr. HURD. The Subcommittee on Information Technology and the 

Subcommittee on Government Operations will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any 

time. 

And we expect a vote series during the middle of this hearing, 

so we will try to get through as much testimony as we can, and 

then go for votes and come back for questioning. And as Ranking 

Members Kelly and Connolly arrive, we will have them offer their 

opening remarks. 

Good afternoon. Thanks for being here today. We have got a pretty crowded house. 

You know, this committee has investigated and explored issues 

at the forefront of this Nation’s security with the data breach at 

OPM, the future of our commercial sector in drones, and the everevolving capacity for our technological innovators in as collegial 

and bipartisan a way as possible. 

Today’s topic is no different, because while we may disagree on 

the size and scope of the Federal Government, we can all agree on 

the importance of understanding how government spends its taxpayer dollars. 

Enacted in May 2014, the Digital Accountability And Transparency Act, or DATA Act, is an important step in leveraging technological capabilities and know-how to make financial spending information accessible to the general public. If implemented properly, 

the DATA Act will allow anyone from public policy experts and 

journalists, to academics and average citizens, even Members of 

Congress, such as myself, to untangle the web of Federal agency 

receipts, appropriations, obligations, allotments to create a clear 

picture of government spending. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

This is an ambitious goal, to be sure, and we are here today to 

examine the progress that Treasury and the Office of Management 

and Budget have made in implementing the DATA Act. Whereas 

prior reform efforts have faltered, the work of the Executive Steering Committee and the fact that OMB and Treasury have met the 

statutory deadlines for issuing data standards and the consolidated 

receipt reporting pilot program give me hope that we are on the 

right track. 

While it is certainly important to meet statutory deadlines, agencies also have an obligation to make sure they are implementing 

bills correctly, not just on time. The use of standardized data has 

revolutionized entire industries and drives multi-million-dollar decisions and transactions in the private sector on a daily basis. Similarly, accurate data will help drive efficient decision-making at all 

levels of the government. 

I thank the witnesses for their testimony today, and I am looking 

forward to working with them to effectively implement the DATA 

Act, and realize the benefits of true transparency in Federal spending. 

Now it is an honor to recognize my friend from the great State 

of North Carolina, Mr. Meadows, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Operations for his opening statements. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

holding this hearing, for your leadership on this effort. Thank each 

of you for coming. Obviously, some of this is not your first rodeo. 

For many of you, welcome back. And it is nice to meet some of you 

who I am just meeting today for the first time. 

Obviously the Government Accountability Office and others have 

consistently reported that data on the Federal spending is often incomplete, out of date, and inaccurate. This lack of accurate, reliable, consistent data makes it difficult, if not impossible, to properly evaluate whether taxpayer dollars are being wasted or wisely 

spent. And in this era of very tight fiscal concern, when you are 

trying to make decisions on where money is to be appropriated and 

where it should go, having good record-keeping and good tools to 

make informed decisions is critical. 

In just 5 years, GAO had identified wasteful duplication, overlap, 

fragmentation in 106 areas across the government, and an additional 72 areas of potential cost savings. You know, each year, Mr. 

Dodaro, we get your report, and it is illuminating. The only troubling thing is is that it seems like a lot of times, those things continue to stay on there. So hopefully, today’s hearing will help us 

better implement a law that was initiated right here in this committee, one that I think will provide great tools for OMB and others as we look forward to that. 

You know, to give you an example, the EPA has 37 different laboratories managed by 15 different EPA officials, spread across 30 

cities and 170 buildings without any coordination. Now, if that is 

not a recipe for disaster, I can not imagine what it would be, because just the duplicative nature of that, you know, is one thing 

being done here, I can just imagine what we have got. 

So it is with this duplication and the type of efficiencies that we 

want to make sure that we have, that the GAO could not even tell 

the taxpayers where dollars were being wasted at the EPA, beVerDate Sep 11 2014 09:31 Feb 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\96955.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

cause they did not maintain sufficient documentation on the operating data. 

Well, it is not just there. As many of you know, the Social Security Administration is required to offset benefits for certain individuals who receive similar benefits under another program, like 

Workers’ Compensation. In 2012, GAO found that the Social Security Administration was not effectively administering the Workers’ 

Compensation offset due to a lack of information about which recipients were receiving what benefits. And in an 8-year period, it 

was estimated that some $43 million in disability insurance overpayments were made. Those are just a few examples that we have. 

The DATA Act requires that Federal agencies need to maintain 

and report Federal spending data in a format that will allow for 

government watchdogs to weed out the waste and the fraud. And 

if implemented correctly, we will finally know how much our government is spending and where the money is being spent. 

I think today’s hearing, we are looking forward to you illuminating those particular issues as we see, even with that law that 

has been in effect a little over a year now, is not really taking hold 

to give us the tools to make informed decisions. So we look forward 

to you sharing what we can do better to help you implement it, and 

ultimately help the American people. 

With that, I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HURD. Thank you, Chairman Meadows. 

And now it is my pleasure to do something I get to do almost 

every week, and that is, recognize the distinguished gentlewoman 

from the great State of Illinois, my friend, Robin Kelly, the ranking 

member of the Subcommittee on Information Technology, for her 

opening statement. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you 

for holding this hearing to examine the progress of the implementation of the DATA Act. I would also like to thank each of our witnesses for coming to address us today. 

Effective implementation of the DATA Act is crucial in order to 

improve the transparency of Federal spending. The Act requires 

that agencies report spending data in a consistent way, which, in 

turn, will help them operate more efficiently. The transparency 

that the DATA Act is designed to provide will help hold agencies 

accountable for their spending decisions. 

Comptroller General Gene Dodaro testified before this committee 

last year that the DATA Act was one of the single biggest things 

Congress could do to address wasteful spending. OMB and Treasury have taken major steps forward in carrying out the requirements of this Act. I applaud the way the administration has embraced the Act and worked so diligently over the last year to set 

the executive branch on the right path. 

In the last hearing concerning this topic, David Mader, the Controller for the Office of Management and Budget, stated, ‘‘We have 

charted a very aggressive path towards implementation building off 

past experiences and successes to transform the way the government does business.’’ Mr. Mader is here with us again today, along 

with Mr. Lebryk from the Treasury Department. I look forward to 

hearing from them how well OMB and Treasury are progressing. 

OMB and Treasury got off to a great start by meeting the first big 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

deadline, which required them to establish government-wide data 

standards by May 9, 2015. 

I want to highlight the efforts the administration has taken to 

get feedback from stakeholders and provide opportunities for public 

comments over the past year. Stakeholder input is crucial to ensuring the success of the DATA Act. This Act is an initiative that encourages innovation. Including stakeholders in the discussion will 

help foster that innovation, both inside and outside the government. 

I also want to commend the way the GAO and the Office of Inspector General for Treasury has engaged early in the process. I 

know both GAO and the OIG already have work underway to access implementation efforts. 

The work of Congress did not end with the passage of the DATA 

Act. It is our duty to stay engaged and see that the execution of 

the Act happens seamlessly. We must keep our finger on the pulse 

of the agencies to assure them that they have our support and 

guidance as well as the resources they need to ensure the law is 

carried out as it was intended. 

Again, I welcome the witnesses and I thank the chairman for 

holding this bipartisan hearing, and I look forward to hearing from 

you. 

Mr. HURD. Thank you, Ranking Member Kelly. 

Now it is an honor to welcome the Honorable Gene Dodaro, 

Comptroller General of the United States at the U.S. Government 

Accountability Office. He is no stranger to this committee. It is 

great to have you here. And he is going to be accompanied by 

Christopher Mihm, the managing director of strategic issues at the 

GAO, whose expertise may be needed during this hearing. 

The next person I would like to introduce is the Honorable David 

Mader, the Controller of the Office of Federal Financial Management at OMB. 

And Mr. David Lebryk, the Fiscal Assistant Secretary at the U.S. 

Department of Treasury. Thank you for being here today, and it 

was great meeting you earlier this morning. 

And Mr. Robert Taylor is our fourth panelist, the Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audit at the U.S. Department of Treasury. Thank you for being here today. 

And pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in 

before they testify. We will also swear in Mr. Mihm. 

Please rise and raise your right hand. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are 

about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth? 

Thank you. Please be seated. And let the record reflect that the 

witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

In order to allow time for discussion, please limit your testimony 

to 5 minutes. Your entire written record and your written statement will be made part of the record. And I would like to recognize 

Mr. Dodaro for his opening remarks for 5 minutes. Welcome, sir. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF HON. GENE L. DODARO 

Mr. DODARO. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Chairman 

Hurd and Meadows, Ranking Member Kelly. It is very nice to see 

all of you today. I want to thank you for holding this hearing and 

for asking for GAO to participate. 

The DATA Act, if effectively implemented, can really enhance the 

transparency and accountability of government, and lead to more 

efficient and effective government operations. 

Treasury and OMB have gotten off to a good start. I think they 

have taken some significant steps. They have issued 27 of an eventual 57 data elements that plan to be implemented by the end of 

this summer. So that is very important. 

Now, we have given them a lot of technical suggestions that 

could lead to some revisions. The intent of our effort to engage 

early is to make sure that we get a good solid foundation in the 

beginning to make sure that the standards are clear, they can be 

consistently applied, and will produce the desired result over time. 

So we plan to continue to provide them ongoing feedback to achieve 

those objectives, but much more needs to be done in order to effectively implement the Act. 

Today, I’d like to focus my opening remarks on three recommendations that we have made in our written testimony. One 

is we think OMB and Treasury need to accelerate the efforts to 

merge the DATA Act standards requirements with the requirement 

in the Government Performance Results Act to ensure that the government has a complete inventory of Federal programs. The Federal Government still does not have this. We need an inventory of 

Federal programs so that Congress can collectively look at the aggregate investment the Federal Government’s making in Federal 

programs and activities. And also, if we are going to efficiently and 

effectively be able to reduce fragmentation, overlap, and duplication in the Federal Government. It is critical that this inventory be 

developed so that Federal spending can be linked to Federal programs and activities. 

Secondly, we encourage Treasury and OMB to establish a permanent governance structure for the life cycle of the standards to ensure that they’re enforced, that their integrity’s maintained over 

time, and that they use leading practices in data governance that 

have been used by standard-setting bodies throughout the world. 

And we have made that recommendation. 

I think it is very important. Treasury and OMB have a good, initial governance structure, but they have yet to establish how it is 

going to be permanently done over time. Now, I think it is very important to do it now, because the implementation of the DATA Act 

will span the next two administrations, and I am concerned that 

there will be lost momentum and lack of direction to the agencies 

without that permanent governance structure being in place now 

that can transcend the transition to the new administration. 

Thirdly, Treasury and OMB have outreached to stakeholders, but 

we think there is more that could be done in this area that would 

effectively replicate a lot of good practices that were established 

during the Recovery Act. There needs to be a two-way dialogue beVerDate Sep 11 2014 09:31 Feb 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\96955.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

tween Treasury, OMB and the agencies and various stakeholders, 

particularly at the State and local level, non-for-profit level, the 

contracting community, and we believe that Treasury and OMB 

need to provide feedback to them based upon their suggestions. 

That hasn’t happened to date. We think that that dialogue is important. The initial standards were more focused on Federal Government budget data and requirements, so that there is not yet a 

lot of standards that are going to affect the recipient community. 

Those will be coming out, or have been coming out now, so it is 

very important to get this dialogue up and running effectively over 

time. 

Lastly, I would say, there needs to be continued attention by this 

committee and the administration to ensure that these standards 

are effectively implemented. We can come up, and OMB and Treasury and the government come up with the best standards in the 

world, but unless they’re implemented effectively, you are not going 

to have accurate data. 

Chairman Meadows mentioned our work in the past about the 

inaccurate, incomplete data on USASpending.gov. It significantly 

has—we found it to be incomplete and inaccurate. And unless attention is made to effectively implementing the standards, I am 

afraid that we could have the same very poor result after a lot of 

good intentions and good efforts to get the DATA Act implemented. 

So a long way to go. GAO will be there every step of the way. 

And I thank you for the opportunity. I will be happy to answer 

questions at the appropriate time. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Dodaro follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 96955.001
8 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 96955.002
9 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 96955.003
10 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 96955.004
11 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 96955.005
12 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 96955.006
13 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 96955.007
14 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 96955.008
15 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 96955.009
16 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 96955.010
17 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 96955.011
18 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 96955.012
19 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 96955.013
20 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 96955.014
21 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 96955.015
22 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 96955.016
23 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 96955.017
24 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 96955.018
25 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 96955.019
26 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 96955.020
27 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 96955.021
28 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 96955.022
29 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 96955.023
30 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 96955.024
31 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 96955.025
32 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 96955.026
33 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 96955.027
34 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 96955.028
35 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 96955.029
36 

Mr. HURD. Thank you very much, sir. 

Mr. Mader, you have 5 minutes for your opening remarks. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID MADER 

Mr. MADER. Thank you, Chairman Hurd, Ranking Member Kelly, 

and Chairman Meadows for the opportunity to be here today to 

talk about the progress that OMB and Treasury have been making 

since our last appearance in December with the implementation of 

the DATA Act. As you stated, Mr. Chairman, the Act presents the 

unique opportunity to improve the way the government works by 

providing all Americans with the ability to see how Federal dollars 

are spent. By delivering access to reliable financial information 

through USASpending, the DATA Act will provide both individuals 

and organizations in and outside of government to understand how 

the Nation’s tax dollars are being spent, and provide opportunities 

to create innovative solutions for improving the efficiency and effectiveness and oversight of how the government does its business. 

Equally important, increasing transparency will enhance intergovernment and intra-governmental communication, allowing for 

more informed, effective, and efficient decision-making. Access to 

standardized data will improve the efforts of Federal, State, local, 

and tribal governments as well as all other stakeholders. 

We believe the DATA Act’s statutory requirements are driven by 

three clear goals: First, continuing to improve how the Federal 

Government accounts for and displays total spending; second, institutionalize a culture of data-driven decision-making; and third, reexamine how we can lessen the burden on Federal contract and 

grant recipients and their reporting burden. 

Since last December, we have had an opportunity to make significant progress. Since our December meeting here, there are significant actions that have been accomplished: first, we continue to 

work to improve USASpending’s government interface; two, we established government-wide USASpending data definitions and data 

exchange standards for all Federal spending; third, we developed 

an agency playbook to assist the agencies in the DATA Act implementation; fourth, we issued guidance to agencies to systemically 

improve data quality; and fifth, we launched a pilot to simplify 

Federal award reporting. 

Moving forward from this day, we have significant work ahead 

of us: One, we must complete the remaining work for additional 

data standards, including additional data definitions; second, we 

need to work with agencies, specifically, for them to develop implementation plans; third, we need to continue to collaborate with 

Federal and non-Federal stakeholders to develop the display of 

DATA Act information; and lastly, we need to continue to enhance 

the Section 5 pilot. 

As we close out fiscal year 2015 and move into fiscal year 2016, 

the success of our ongoing efforts will be contingent on the appropriation of sufficient resources for Federal agencies. Thus far, 

progress made in the implementation of the DATA Act has been accomplished using existing resources. In fiscal year 2016, the President’s budget included $84 million for DATA Act implementation, 

which would put us on a strong path towards May of 2017. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
37 

As you recall, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the DATA Act would cost somewhere around $300 million for the period 2014 through 2018. Without dedicated resources, agencies will 

have a substantial difficulty in reaching both the statutory requirements and the overall intent of the DATA Act. With Congress’s 

continued support, appropriate funding, and continued robust collaboration, we will be on a path for successful DATA Act implementation. 

We look forward to the opportunity to continue to work with 

GAO, with the IG community, and this committee to ensure that 

we meet the objectives of the DATA Act. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to 

answering your questions. 

Mr. HURD. Thank you for your remarks, sir. 

Mr. Lebryk, 5 minutes is yours. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID A. LEBRYK 

Mr. LEBRYK. Thank you. Chairman Hurd, Ranking Member Kelly 

and Chairman Meadows, thank you very much for having us here 

today to talk about—— 

Mr. HURD. Mr. Lebryk, can you—— 

Mr. LEBRYK. Yep. There you go. 

Thank you for having us here today to talk about the implementation of the DATA Act. In my over 25 years of experience in the 

Federal Government, there are few initiatives I’ve seen in the financial management area that can make as much of a difference 

as this Act can across government. 

When Mr. Mader and I have gone out and spoken to the Federal 

community, I think what we have been struck by is how receptive 

the Federal community has been to getting better access to data. 

And the underlying premise of our implementation has been better 

data, better decisions, better government. And I think our ability 

to actually improve the access to data, to unlock the data that exists in disparate and siloed systems across government can make 

a major difference in terms of making government operate better, 

both internally as well as externally, with respect to citizens understanding how government is spending their money, as well as seeing ways that we can improve program performance and enhancements. So I think that it is really an ample opportunity here, a 

really good opportunity for us to make a significant difference long 

term for how government operates. 

When I testified last on this, we talked about the implementation 

approach we had. And I think, you know, when you have a new 

piece of legislation and it is as comprehensive and as transformational as this, one of the first things you have to do is articulate what your business approach is and what the business case is 

of why you want to do this. 

So Dave and I have spent a lot of time within the Federal community talking about the importance of the Act and explaining our 

approach. And significantly, we have talked about a data-centric 

approach, which is more about the ability to access the data rather 

than the systems approach. In the past, government oftentimes 

builds large-scale systems in attempts to access data or change sysVerDate Sep 11 2014 09:31 Feb 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\96955.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
38 

tems to access data. Our approach has been more data-centric. It 

is about finding the data that currently exists within existing systems, mapping to that data, and then being able to present it and 

make it accessible to both government and externally. 

So this has been something that is a little bit new. And as we 

have gone out and spoken about that, we have had to sort of—once 

we get people to kind of understand a little bit better, the next 

question is, what do you want us to do? So part of the implementation has been for us to put together a playbook. And, you know, one 

of the probably smarter things I think we have done was to develop 

a PMO, a Program Management Office, a small group of people 

who are very much getting up every morning and going to sleep 

every night thinking about how can we advance the implementation of the Act? And one of the things that they have done, and the 

office was established within Treasury, was working closely with 

OMB, was put together this 8-step plan, and saying to the agencies, if you are going to implement the Act, what kinds of things 

do you need to do? And we’re at the very beginning stages of that. 

In May, when we announced the standards, we also announced 

the playbook. And one of the first things that people needed to do 

is put together a small team to understand where the data resides 

within their existing systems. 

And that process, which is underway today, is going well. We 

have held over 20—we have met with all 24 of the CFO Act agencies, we have met with the IG community, the GAO, and spoken 

about the implementation and how you need to proceed as an organization to actually get access and start mapping the data. 

So that is gone very well. We’re at the very beginning stages of 

that, and I think the results of that will give us some indication 

of how difficult this will be across government over the coming 

months, what kind of resources are going to be necessary, how easy 

it is going to be to actually map the data and actually extract it 

from the different systems. 

One other philosophical point of view we had in implementation 

was that we would try pilots, that we would try an agile approach 

to development, which is more about sprints and failing fast if you 

are going to fail, and understanding, you know, what’s working and 

what’s not working. So we have had a number of pilots that we 

have been testing as it relates to the implementation. Those have 

been very effective at having us learn lessons and moving forward. 

And we’ll be doing more of that. 

I should also mention that I know we have been getting a lot of 

very good constructive feedback. And the GAO and our IG, I think 

it is been very good that they have been involved in this in the beginning to give us quick feedback and allowing us to make corrective course corrections as necessary with respect to how we’re doing 

the implementation. 

We have done a lot of outreach to the community. We have done 

something new with respect to getting input, using something 

called the Github, which is allowing people in real-time to actually 

look at proposals that we have out there and getting us back their 

comments and their feedback. This is, I think, a useful tool in the 

sense that it does allow a community of experts to really—to be a 

community and talk about how you actually implement data and 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
39 

use the data, and we have been—we have found that a very effective way to move the project forward. But certainly, there are challenges, and I don’t want to suggest this is easy, because it is not. 

And moving the Federal Government in a direction, it is going to 

take resources, as Dave mentioned, but we’re very much committed 

to doing what we can to move this effort forward. 

I look forward to taking questions. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Lebryk follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
40 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 96955.030
41 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 96955.031
42 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 96955.032
43 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 96955.033
44 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 96955.034
45 

Mr. HURD. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Taylor. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. TAYLOR 

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes. Chairman Hurd, Chairman Meadows, Ranking 

Member Kelly, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for 

the opportunity to appear before you this afternoon for the hearing 

on DATA Act implementation. I am here to discuss our office’s recent oversight report on Treasury’s effort under this Act. 

The DATA Act places initial responsibility for implementation 

squarely on Treasury and OMB, requiring that they issue guidance 

on government-wide financial data standards for Federal spending, 

ensure financial and payment information data is accurately posted 

and displayed on USASpending by May 2017, and then ensuring 

the data standards established are applied to the data made available on this Web site by May 2018. 

As the DATA Act moved towards passage, Treasury Inspector 

General Eric Thorson, recognized that our office would hold an important oversight role. He asked that we engage Treasury early in 

this process. In response, we started what will be a series of audits 

over the next several years focused on Treasury’s DATA Act efforts. 

We issued our first report this past May. That report covered actions taken by Treasury as of October 31, 2014. We found that 

Treasury and OMB made progress in setting up an implementation 

approach. For example, Treasury and OMB established an executive steering committee with Mr. Mader and Mr. Lebryk. This committee is supported by an interagency advisory committee comprised of representatives from various government-wide communities to provide leadership in obtaining stakeholder buy-in. 

And as Mr. Lebryk mentioned, Treasury and OMB also developed a data-centric vision for implementation. This approach focuses on managing existing data to avoid massive system changes 

across government. To execute the data-centric approach, Treasury 

and OMB created a structured divide into four general areas: Lead, 

implement, support, and consult, with specific workstreams under 

each. 

While Treasury’s progress is notable, we did identify concerns 

with project management that we believe could hinder implementation. Due to the complexities involved, Treasury is using a combination of agile and traditional project management practices. 

Very briefly, agile is characterized by quick, small-scale pallets to 

test innovative concepts and strategies to get to an end result. Traditional project management, on the other hand, is a more structured methodology that is characterized by a detailed step-by-step 

approach done in chronological order to achieve an end product 

that is clearly defined upfront. 

Conceptually, the combination of these two approaches makes 

sense. However, we know that Treasury’s project planning documents did not describe the different practices being used for each 

identified work stream, it did not clearly show how the tasks in the 

various workstreams tied together to produce desired results. Additionally, the planning documents did not fully reflect or recognize 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
46 

artifacts, tools, and metrics for either an agile or traditional project 

management methodology. 

There were also inconsistencies between the status of activities 

reflected in certain tracking documents, and some documents that 

we expected to see were either not prepared or not maintained. 

Furthermore, at the time, Treasury did not have a formal process 

to track stakeholder feedback. We also know that Treasury had 

some trouble filling the position of program manager, which may 

have contributed to some of the concerns we found. However, 

Treasury did fill this critical role in November 2014. 

We are pleased to report that in his response to our audit, Mr. 

Lebryk agreed with our recommendations for strengthening project 

management. I also want to emphasize that the above concerns 

were as of a point in time, October 31 of last year, and a lot has 

taken place since that time. 

In closing, I’d like to say that our office views the DATA Act as 

a critical step in providing government managers, the Congress, 

citizens, and the inspectors general, and GAO, for that matter, 

with a better tool to evaluate how government is using the resources entrusted to it. We believe that a key component is the 

strong oversight provision incorporated in the Act; specifically, that 

the Congress and inspectors general and GAO conduct a series of 

rigorous reviews to assess the quality of data submitted under the 

Act. These reviews will hopefully give users comfort and reliability 

of the spending information presented, something that is currently 

lacking with USASpending data. 

This concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer any 

questions you may have. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Taylor follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
47 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 96955.035
48 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 96955.036
49 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 96955.037
50 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 96955.038
51 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 39 here 96955.039
52 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 40 here 96955.040
53 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 41 here 96955.041
54 

Mr. HURD. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. 

Now I’d like to recognize Chairman Meadows for 5 minutes for 

questioning. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank each of you for 

your testimony. I am going to start out very briefly, and maybe emphasize the reason why, Mr. Mader, Mr. Lebryk, why it is so critical that we get this information. 

If you go back to the Wastebook of 2014, it highlights a few 

things in there. And so I looked at what I found egregious, and 

then I went and looked to try to find the information on the site 

for how we would make a decision on whether we should give that 

grant or not. And so this—I won’t mention the institution, but the 

institution name is there, and it basically is two pages of just 

where they’re from and the name of the institution, and then the 

project description is Research in Strong Interaction Theory. Now, 

I mean, that could mean a lot of things to a lot of people, and so— 

but that was the extent of the information that we had from the 

Federal Government. 

Well, come to find out, that was a $331,000 project that allowed 

parents, or individuals, to stab voodoo dolls with pins so that they 

could figure out if you—when you are hungry, if you are angrier. 

Now, most parents who have toddlers know that when they’re hungry, they get cranky, and so to spend $331,000 to stick pins in a 

voodoo doll may be important to someone, but when we have so 

many unbelievable needs out there, to make an informed decision, 

we need more data. And so I want to give that example. I’ve got 

more, but we won’t go into those. 

So, Mr. Dodaro, let me come to you. I understand there are some 

pilot programs that we’re trying to implement. What would you believe that a good pilot program would look like? 

Mr. DODARO. Well, the characteristics of a good pilot program 

would be clear objectives of what you would want to test, a defined 

time frame, clear criteria on how you are going to evaluate the 

pilot to know whether it was successful or not, and having good 

data along the way in order to be able to monitor the effective implementation of the pilot and evaluate the results of the pilot. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So basically, a matrix of where you are trying to 

get to, some standards on what those expectations are, and then 

the quality of the input to see if it measures up to that so you can 

make an informed decision? 

Mr. DODARO. Right. Right. And so you can compare it to the existing system to make sure it is going to improve the situation. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So as we look to do this, and the pilot 

programs, Mr. Mader, I know you’ve been working, I guess, with 

HHS, and what that pilot program, as it is described to me, and 

it may be wrong, it seems that it misses the target that Mr. Dodaro 

has in that, you know, it is a blog and, you know, we’re putting 

up a few things and we’re getting a little bit more information here 

and there, but it really is not clearly defined. So when it comes 

from a pilot standpoint, how can, one, do you see any deficiencies, 

and I guess the other is, is how can we go to improve that? 

Mr. MADER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I agree with Mr. Dodaro’s 

description of what the critical elements are for a good pilot. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
55 

And I think with regard, specifically, to the Section 5 pilot, which 

is basically—if we go back to the underlying statute, it basically 

talked about a pilot and it talks about a report at the end of the 

period. And when we looked at the statute and we looked at what 

we know the outcome needed to be—and that really is to reduce 

the burden on individuals that interact with the government with 

regard to contracts, or with financial assistance and loans. And I 

think if we had taken a traditional approach of doing a study, what 

we would have wound up at the end of 2 years is a 3-inch binder 

with a series of recommendations. And I don’t think that that 

would be satisfying to us, nor would it be satisfying to the committee, or anybody, for that matter. 

So in thinking about how to construct a pilot with the intent that 

everybody wants, we said let’s sort of think, and I will use something that Dave mentioned, is let’s take a more iterative approach. 

Let’s start working with the recipients, the stakeholders, and asking them, if you are applying for a grant, what is the burden? How 

difficult is it? What are things that we could improve? If you are 

applying—if you are going to bid on a Federal contract, how could 

we make that process easier? So the first part of the strategy is actually to ask the recipients, the stakeholders, what would you fix? 

What’s broken? And that is the step that we have embarked on 

now. 

As we gather that input from the stakeholders, then we’re going 

to start looking at the business processes, the business practices, 

whether it is in financial assistance or in contracting, saying, can 

we change this? Can we change the practice? Can we do it now instead of 2 years from now? 

So I do believe that the way we are constructing this pilot adheres to best practices, because we’re just getting started. We only 

began a couple months ago. But I also think that this iterative approach is actually going to get us real results faster. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, I hope you are right. The only problem that 

I have is, is if Mr. Dodaro’s definition of what success is and you 

go in to the stakeholders who receive the grants and say, How do 

we make this better? Really it doesn’t meet the requirements of 

what a pilot program is supposed to be, you know, with regards to 

the statute, you know, because it is got some pretty—you know, A, 

B and C there in terms of what it needs to do, and it sounds like 

you haven’t really addressed those. Have you addressed those in 

your pilot? 

Mr. MADER. Mr. Chairman. We are going to—we’re going to—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Have you already addressed them? 

Mr. MADER. No. We’re in the process of addressing, but we will 

address what’s required in the statute, but I think we’re going to 

do it in a way that actually will generate real results sooner rather 

than later. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I will yield back since I am—you were very gracious with your time, Mr. Chairman. I will have a follow-up series 

of questions. 

Mr. HURD. Ms. Kelly, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. Dodaro, the Recovery Accountability and Transparency 

Board in consultation with inspector generals established the ReVerDate Sep 11 2014 09:31 Feb 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\96955.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
56 

covery Operation Center, ROC, in 2009. The ROC has been successful in using enforcement and analytics in software tools to 

identify patterns and identify areas at risk for fraud. For example, 

the inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security 

used ROC to investigate companies that receive contracts for debris 

removal from Hurricane Sandy. The ROC identified contractors 

who had tax liens and filed for bankruptcy, as well as organizations that committed fraud previously on similar contracts. 

Do you agree that ROC has been an effective tool in identifying 

fraud? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. 

Ms. KELLY. You said that pretty emphatically. 

Mr. DODARO. Well, I will tell you, we were involved in the Recovery Act implementation as well. Our job was to look at the use of 

the money by State and local governments, but I went over and I 

saw demonstrations of the ROC’s capabilities. I think the Recovery 

Board and the IGs did an excellent job. I think there was great 

concern about the amount of potential fraud that could occur pushing out $800 billion in a short period of time. And I think that their 

effective implementation of these sets of tools in the Recovery Operation Center led to a relatively minimal amount of identifiable 

fraud in that program, a lot less than people anticipated. 

Ms. KELLY. Thanks. 

Mr. Taylor, has the ROC also been a valuable service to the inspector general community? 

Mr. TAYLOR. To some extent. I am going to defer to the GAO on 

that. I can speak for myself. I have not used it, but they have been 

doing a body of work looking at the requirements under the DATA 

Act. There is a requirement that Treasury consider setting up a 

data analytic center. When GAO informed us that they were going 

to do a study of that, we deferred our work. 

Ms. KELLY. Okay. So under the DATA Act, Treasury can transfer 

the assets of the ROC to establish a data analysis center, or to simply expand an existing service. 

So Mr. Dodaro, your written testimony states that the Treasury 

Department does not plan on transferring any of the ROC’s assets. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. DODARO. That is correct. I mean, they are engaged in transferring information and knowledge from the ROC operations. They 

have hired one person, who had an integral role in the ROC’s area, 

but for various reasons that we cite in our testimony, that they told 

us about the age of the hardware, the proprietary nature of some 

of the contracts, and et cetera, no, they do not plan at this time, 

what they have told us, to transfer those assets, intact, over to 

their operations. 

Ms. KELLY. And, Mr. Lebryk, is that accurate? 

Mr. LEBRYK. Yes, it is. 

Ms. KELLY. Okay. And, Mr. Dodaro, your testimony identifies 

four categories of assets that could be transferred from the ROC to 

Treasury. One of those is personnel. 

Mr. Lebryk, has Treasury hired any employees from the ROC? 

Mr. LEBRYK. Yes. We have hired several employees from the 

ROC, as well as have leveraged significantly kind of what they 

have learned in the process of operating the ROC. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
57 

Ms. KELLY. Another category of assets Treasury could obtain 

from the ROC is data sets. And your written testimony includes a 

chart that shows the data sources available to Treasury Do Not 

Pay Program compared to the data sources available to the ROC. 

Mr. Lebryk, do you agree with GAO’s assessment that there are 

data sets available to the ROC that are not available to Treasury 

Do Not Pay Program? 

Mr. LEBRYK. That would be correct in the sense that the ROC 

had very specific authorities that were not transferred in the Act. 

The Act actually allows Treasury to take assets, but to not transfer 

the authorities of the ROC. 

Ms. KELLY. And has Treasury taken any steps to use its authority under the DATA Act to obtain access to those data sets that the 

ROC has but Treasury does not have? 

Mr. LEBRYK. So it may be useful to sort of talk about how we 

have approached the issue of improper payments and fraud. Treasury is very much committed to reducing improper payments across 

government, and we operate something called the Do Not Pay Center. The Do Not Pay Center is more comprehensive than what the 

ROC is doing, because what Do Not Pay is doing is over 500 million government payments have already been run through the Do 

Not Pay Center; that is, making sure that you are doing real-time 

matching against existing government payments, something the 

ROC was not able to do. 

The second piece, which is—that is important is in Do Not Pay, 

we’re looking at pre-award, that is, when someone’s making a determination about whether they should give an award to someone, 

they have the ability to come in to Do Not Pay and do an assessment about whether they should give that person an award. They 

then have the ability prior to actually issuing award to run it 

against the Do Not Pay databases. And finally, there is real—thirdly, there is real-time ability that once payments are being made, 

to match them against the Do Not Pay database. And then finally, 

fourth, is the ability after a payment has been made, to do analysis 

to figure out whether the payment is appropriate. 

So we have used the Do Not Pay Center as well as our existing 

capabilities and payments to use that information to do analytics 

and to stop improper payments, which is much more expansive 

than what the ROC can do today. 

Our IG recently gave us an award for the ability to actually help 

identify and prosecute over 130 cases of fraud that was based on 

our payment files. So what we’re doing right now is we’re going by, 

which is something the ROC did not have the capability of doing, 

is analyzing all the government payments that are being made. So 

if a beneficiary has received a payment for the last 10 years to a 

bank account, and all of a sudden, it appears as though it is not 

going to a prepaid debit card, that may be an indication that there 

is fraud. 

In one of the cases that was prosecuted, there were over 10 government payments being made to a single address, and we did geospace coding and sort of said where is that house that those payments are going to? And it turned out it was a warehouse. And 

you, therefore, can sort of say, well, that is not—those payments 

shouldn’t have been being made that way and they’re problematic. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
58 

So we have been working with the IG community to—in CIGIE 

to sit down and talk about how can they get better access to Do 

Not Pay, how can we work with them more closely to provide those 

services that currently are being provided by the ROC in addition 

to further services that we can offer to them to reduce improper 

payments. 

Ms. KELLY. Well, congrats on the award, and my time is up. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HURD. Mr. Walberg from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just last week, I believe, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee approved 

the Taxpayer Right to Know Act, which, as you know, establishes 

a definition for a government program. It seems it is about time 

that we do that since we have plenty of programs. 

It requires OMB to publish an inventory of all programs as well 

as its activities online, and so Mr. Dodaro, can you describe the effect of not having an established definition of ‘‘Federal program’’ on 

both transparency and the ability to conduct oversight? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes, I’d be happy to. I mean, it is very problematic 

not having this definition. We were charged in law by the Congress 

5 years ago to produce an annual report on overlap, duplication, 

fragmentation in the Federal Government. It took us great pains 

and time and effort to come up with an inventory. 

For example, we identified, after a lot of work and a lot of 

digging, 82 programs that provided assistance for teacher quality. 

Not even the Department of Education had a comprehensive list of 

all these programs. There are 160 programs in the housing area 

that we eventually unearthed, but even then, we couldn’t tell how 

much spending was associated with these programs. 

So this is a very—it is an impediment from several means, Congressman. Number one, you and other policy Members of Congress, 

in making decisions, can not tell what the aggregate Federal investment is in a related set of programs. This is problematic if you 

are trying to decide priorities and make decisions, also knowing 

whether you are getting a return on the investment. 

The other problem we found was there wasn’t a lot of data on 

evaluating the success and the outcomes of Federal programs, so 

you did not have a lot of good inventory of the programs, you did 

not have a good listing of the spending associated with the programs, and what you were getting in outcomes for the programs. 

This is not a way to run a government. You need to have that information. 

Mr. WALBERG. So implementing the DATA Act would be very difficult for OMB as well without this definition of a program. 

Mr. DODARO. Yes, that is exactly right. That is one of my recommendations in our testimony today is they accelerate the DATA 

Act with the—the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act passed in 2010 required OMB to come up with an 

inventory of Federal programs. They have not yet done that. They 

have allotted a lot of flexibility to the agencies, and the agencies 

implemented it in different ways, and so you can not compare 

across departments and agencies. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
59 

So they agreed with our recommendation then and said they 

were going to defer implementation until the DATA Act was in 

place, which I thought was a reasonable position, but we need to 

get it done, and it is not yet done. 

Mr. WALBERG. I guess then I’d slide over here, Mr. Mader, and 

ask you why has OMB then not created a Federal program and inventory to date? 

Mr. MADER. Mr. Congressman, my understanding was that at 

the time that OMB attempted to create the inventory, they took an 

approach that basically went out to, and I will say, let’s say the 24 

major departments across government, and asked them to identify 

within their particular organization what programs—you know, 

what rose to the program level. 

And then when they brought all of that data back and looked at 

the 24, what they couldn’t do—and I think this goes to an earlier 

comment about duplication and overlap is you couldn’t actually see 

across the 24 where there were common expenditures against the 

particular activity. 

For example, there are programs that exist and are executed in 

different departments. They weren’t able to link them because everybody defined what was important to them as a program, so—— 

Mr. WALBERG. When it was action and activity; is that what you 

are saying? 

Mr. MADER. Well, it was—they identified a program, but they did 

not identify a program so that it was consistent with another program in a different department. 

Mr. WALBERG. Okay. 

Mr. MADER. So there was inconsistency, so you couldn’t crosswalk that. 

What we’re doing now is we have, right now, 3,800-plus program 

activities, and in the DATA Act, what we’re doing is actually refining them and ensuring that everybody understands the definition 

of those program activities. If you think about program activities 

and you think about a pyramid, to us, the program sits on top of 

that. Where you would have multiple program activities, that 

would aggregate up to a broader definition of program. And as 

we—— 

Mr. WALBERG. But you are defining those programs now? 

Mr. MADER. We have not started yet, Congressman, because our 

goal is, first, to perfect, and we’re starting to perfect the program 

activities, get that right across the government, and then start 

looking at, so when we look at a breadth of these 3,000-plus program activities, how do you aggregate that up to fewer? Because 

there will be fewer than 3,000 if you bring the definition up. 

Mr. WALBERG. Well, my time is expired, but if I could ask just 

an expected date of getting to that point where you have that list 

of programs, is there any timeline you have on it now, based upon 

what you are doing already with the activities? 

Mr. MADER. We don’t have a timeline yet, but what we have said 

is that we’re going to start looking at, you know, can we start that 

activity some time in the new fiscal year so that werun it concurrent? But as I’ve told Senator Lankford recently, the same people 

that are implementing the DATA Act will have to do this, and it 

is a matter of prioritization, and also the fact that program activity 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
60 

is foundational to the program. So while there—while we may be 

able to launch the effort, our sense is that won’t be finished until 

after May of 2017. 

Mr. WALBERG. Whoa. Mr. Chairman, I guess I would say, with 

the Taxpayer Right to Know proposal, with the DATA Act in place 

now, I would encourage you to bump that up, an aggressive work 

to get those programs defined. That is the only way we gain control, as I understand it, gain control on what the size, scope, cost, 

and responsibility of government is. I yield back. 

Mr. HURD. Thank you. I recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

I’ve been in Congress for 7 months, I think that is it, and my 

staff makes fun of me because I say the word ‘‘outrageous’’ a lot, 

because as I learn more about how our government operates, it is 

pretty outrageous, and something as simple as understanding how 

the Federal Government spends money, I would think we’d be able 

to answer that question, and we can not. 

And I recognize the four of you all are involved in trying to get 

us to a point where we can answer that question, and my understanding, and Mr. Lebryk, I think the philosophy that you all are 

using to try to solve this problem is a good one, and we recognize 

that whether it is fed 57 pieces of data that we want track, and 

that every agency may have one of those 57 pieces in a different 

database that doesn’t talk to each other. Now, for me, it doesn’t 

take 2 years to map that, right? 

And so my first question is, what is the deadline for the agencies 

to just identify those 57 pieces of information, whether they have 

it or not or how they’re going to get? When is the next—when is 

there a deadline for them to identify that? 

Mr. LEBRYK. So what we have done in the—with the guidance 

that we set out on May 8th was we laid out the eight steps we 

want agencies to go through, and as I mentioned, they’re in the 

process of doing that right now. 

From that process, they put small teams together, and I think 

this is one of the values of the approach we’re taking. It doesn’t 

take lots of people to do this. You just need a small number of 

knowledgeable people to sit down and sort of look at the systems. 

From that effort, we’ll have a much better sense of the level— 

degree of difficulty to actually get to that end state. What we have 

done, and also part of that May 8th announcement was that by the 

end of this summer, agencies—early September, agencies are asked 

to come back what their agency implementation plan will be. 

So after they have done their sort of assessment, they’re going 

to comeback and they’re going to say, this is what the degree of difficulty is, these are the resources that are necessary in order to do 

it. 

Mr. HURD. So what resources do they need in order to look 

through their databases to find out if there is—you know, where 

that 57 pieces of information is? And Mr. Mader, you said at the 

beginning—and I wasn’t around when the DATA Act was passed. 

I think it is a good thing, and we’re moving in the right direction, 

but $3 million to get 24 Federal agencies to map 56 pieces of information to a single database does not require 2 years and $300 million. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
61 

This is something that I’ve spent time doing in the private sector, and what are we using the $300 million for? 

Mr. MADER. Mr. Chairman, that was a CBO mark. The administration asked for $94 million in ’16 and the—— 

Mr. HURD. So what did we use the $94 million for? Or $84 million? 

Mr. MADER. And the House appropriations have only allocated 25 

million for four agencies. And I think when you think about, let’s 

talk—— 

Mr. HURD. there is programmers on staff, right, already in some 

of these agencies, they’re collecting the information. 

Mr. MADER. The information, Mr. Chairman, is being collected. 

There is a financial system that collects and reports information. 

There are acquisition systems—— 

Mr. HURD. Yeah. 

Mr. MADER. —that collect and report—— 

Mr. HURD. And somebody is maintaining these systems. 

Mr. MADER. —and will be—— 

Mr. HURD. Somebody is maintaining these systems already. 

Somebody is already putting data in these systems. Why do we 

need more people and more resources to come in, because basically, 

this is going to be—you are going to identify some database tables 

and which attributes was in those tables, and you know, run an 

SQL query and generate that to some place that sends it to 

USASpending.gov, right? 

The solution is quite simple. The real problem, in my opinion, is 

the data that is already been entered, because now we’re going to 

have to go back through in 24 agencies and 56 different pieces of 

information, folks have put in a lot of different data and probably 

done it the wrong way, so going back and cleaning up the data is 

going to be a challenge. 

And Mr. Dodaro, I am interested in hearing your thoughts on 

how we solve that problem. 

Mr. DODARO. I think that the agencies need to do the identification as you say. I don’t think it should require a lot of resource to 

identify whether they have the 57 data elements or not. The question is, what—what’s the gap between what they currently provide 

and what they need to do in order to come into compliance with 

the standards and ensure the quality of the data. 

There is a lot of money being spent now by the Federal Government to produce inaccurate, incomplete data, and I think that the 

money, we also ought to look as to whether some of the money that 

is currently being spent for the systems, our estimate is there is 

about, in this current fiscal year, about $900 million spent for financial management systems upgrades across the Federal Government. Some of that money potentially could be reprioritized to 

come into compliance with these standards. 

Mr. HURD. Amen, brother. Help us identify these things because—and know this, and I recognize the endeavor that you all 

are taking, right, and also make sure the agencies that you are 

working with, because you all are going to create the framework, 

you’ve already hit the timelines that you are supposed to hit, you 

know, good on you all, but the agencies, better make sure that 

they’re giving you the information that you all need in order to 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
62 

move forward, because this will be something that we continue to 

look at as we go forward in executing our oversight role. Because 

this really is outrageous that we don’t know how much money is 

being spent, and we’re spending money on, you know, poking voodoo dolls when we’re angry to see if you poke it more in the knots, 

and this is the kind of—this is the kind of stuff that needs to stop. 

This is the kind of stuff that I think the folks that we represent 

expect us to fix, and we’re going to need you-all’s help to do that, 

but also know we’re watching, we’re going to continue to watch, 

and if there is folks that are having—if there is—if there is agencies that you all are having difficulty with, please let me know. 

Any further questions? Ranking member? I would like to thank 

our witnesses for taking the time to appear before us today. If 

there is no further business, without objection, the subcommittee 

is to stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:00 p.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(63) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
64 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 42 here 96955.042
65 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 43 here 96955.043
66 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 44 here 96955.044
67 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 45 here 96955.045
68 

Æ 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 46 here 96955.046