U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

86–637 PDF 2014

S. Hrg. 113–367 

STRENGTHENING GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT: 

EXAMINING THE ROLES AND EFFECTIVENESS 

OF OVERSIGHT POSITIONS WITHIN THE FEDERAL 

WORKFORCE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE EFFICIENCY AND 

EFFECTIVENESS OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND THE 

FEDERAL WORKFORCE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 19, 2013 

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

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEIKAMP, North Dakota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Deputy Staff Director 

KEITH B. ASHDOWN, Minority Staff Director 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

LAUREN CORCORAN, Hearing Clerk 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF 

FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE 

JON TESTER, Montana, Chairman 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

TONY MCCLAIN, Majority Staff Director 

BRENT BOMBACH, Minority Staff Director 

KELSEY STROUD, Chief Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statement: Page 

Senator Tester .................................................................................................. 1 

Senator Portman .............................................................................................. 3 

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2013 

Hon. Peggy E. Gustafson, Inspector General, Small Business Administration 

and Chair Legislation Committee, Council of the Inspectors General on 

Integrity and Efficiency ....................................................................................... 5 

Hon. Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice ....... 7 

Hon. Carolyn N. Lerner, Special Counsel, U.S. Office of Special Counsel ......... 9 

Karen Neuman, Chief Privacy and Freedom of Information Act Officer, U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security ..................................................................... 11 

Wendy Ginsberg, Ph.D., Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service 12 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Ginsberg, Wendy, Ph.D.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 59 

Gustafson, Hon. Peggy E.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35 

Horowitz, Hon. Michael E.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 

Lerner, Hon. Carolyn N.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45 

Neuman, Karen: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51 

APPENDIX 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record: 

Ms. Gustafson ................................................................................................... 71 

Mr. Horowitz ..................................................................................................... 77 

Ms. Lerner ......................................................................................................... 86 

Ms. Neuman ...................................................................................................... 88 

Ms. Ginsberg ..................................................................................................... 90 

(1) 

STRENGTHENING GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT: 

EXAMINING THE ROLES AND 

EFFECTIVENESS OF OVERSIGHT POSITIONS 

WITHIN THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE 

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2013 

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF

FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, 

OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in room 

342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jon Tester, Chairman of 

the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Tester, Portman and Johnson. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER 

Senator TESTER. I will call to order this hearing on the Subcommittee on Efficiency and Effectiveness of Federal Programs and 

the Federal Workforce. 

This afternoon’s hearing is titled Strengthening Government 

Oversight: Examining the Roles and Effectiveness of Oversight Positions within the Federal Workforce. 

I want to thank Senator Portman, who will be here shortly, for 

his ongoing engagement and leadership on this Subcommittee, and 

we look forward to continuing our partnership as we move forward 

the hearings that are in front of us. 

I want to thank our witnesses for joining us today and for their 

ongoing work that brings greater oversight, accountability and 

transparency to the Federal Government. 

I can tell you that folks back in Montana are a bit skeptical 

about the way things work in Washington. I hear about it every 

weekend when I go home. 

So they see news coverage of lavish retreats and of conferences 

hosted by government agencies on the taxpayer dime. They read 

about millions wasted on construction contracts in Afghanistan 

that are not needed or cannot be sustained. They hear about the 

latest infringement of their privacy by government programs carried out in the name of national security. 

And so I do not blame them for being a bit wary of what is going 

on here in Washington, DC. In fact, I often feel the same way. 
2 

Today, over two million men and women make up our Federal 

workforce. They administer programs and initiatives that touch 

upon every aspect of our lives. 

And we know that good oversight comes with the executive and 

legislative branches working together. We need partnerships within 

the executive branch. Without independent voices of oversight 

within the Federal agencies, including the folks that are here 

today, we have no hope for accountability or transparency, and we 

certainly have no hope of maintaining the public trust in our government. 

As I told the Council of Inspectors General earlier this year, 

they, along with our privacy officers, comptrollers and oversight officials, have some of the toughest jobs in government. 

I know that when you call an agency head or division chief, they 

do not often sprint to the phone to pick it up, and you frequently 

have to fight for access that you need to do your jobs. And I get 

that. 

It is critical that you let us know when impediments prevent you 

from performing effectively your roles of oversight, whether it is a 

lack of authority or resources. 

Earlier this year, in the wake of Edward Snowden leaks, the 

Subcommittee held a hearing on security clearance reforms. At that 

meeting, we learned that the Inspector General (IG) of the Office 

of Personnel Management (OPM) was precluded from using funds 

from the OPM’s revolving fund for audits and oversight. This is a 

$2 billion fund that finances background investigations as well as 

other OPM programs such as human resource solutions and 

USAJobs. 

Because the OPM IG is unable to access these funds, rigorous 

oversight is not being performed and a financial audit on the fund 

in its entirety has never happened. So I, along with Senators 

Portman and McCaskill, Senators Johnson and Coburn, subsequently introduced a bill to provide the OPM IG’s office with the 

access that it needed to those funds. 

The SCORE Act has now passed the Senate, and we are closer 

to seeing the level of oversight of this fund that should have been 

performed a long time ago. But it is good news where we are at 

today for taxpayers, and I think it is good news for our national 

security. We need our House colleagues to move forward on the 

SCORE Act. 

The point is that we can be productive partners with the oversight workforce to effect change. All that is required is an open and 

frank line of communication. We are here to help, but we often 

need folks like you to serve as our eyes and our ears within the 

agencies. Whether it is reining in wasteful spending, holding individuals and agencies accountable for wrongdoing, shining a light on 

government operations or protecting the privacy rights of law-abiding Americans, we want to empower you and your efforts. 

Today, with this hearing, we hope to examine the various roles 

currently played by our Federal oversight workforce, to explore 

some of the challenges that you confront and to identify ways to 

overcome those challenges. And I look forward to the discussion 

today. 
3 

With that, I want to welcome Senator Portman, Ranking Member 

of this Committee, and turn it over to him for his opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PORTMAN 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 

Thank you all for being here today. 

As you know, this Committee, and specifically this Subcommittee, relies on you, and we love to drag you up here and have 

you join other expert witnesses to tell us what is really going on 

in your agencies. 

We are concerned, frankly, with the vacancies, and that is one 

reason we wanted to have this hearing today. We think Inspectors 

General and their oversight offices are key as the watchdogs of the 

Federal Government. 

We are looking at fraud and abuse, efficiency and effectiveness 

even outside of fraud and abuse. We like to get your input on pending legislation and regulations. And we have all got a big task. So 

we need the independent oversight professionals like yourselves. 

On the vacancy issue, since early 2009, we have had a real issue 

here. At its height of this problem of lack of IGs, in the 12 cabinet 

departments and major Federal agencies, we were without a permanent IG. That was the worst that it has been as far as we can 

tell in the history of IGs. 

In fact, at the State Department, as some of you know, we had 

a vacancy there that went over 1,400 days, not having a permanent 

IG at the State Department really for the whole first term. 

Such vacancies leave these offices without proper leadership, and 

as a result, we have seen allegations of political influence and suppression of the IG office at the Department of State, and allegations of abuse of power and misconduct at the Homeland Security 

IG Office. 

So we also want to be sure that we can have trust in our oversight professionals because when you cannot there is a serious 

breakdown in the management of any organization, let alone such 

large and important Federal agencies. 

So, with the current financial status of the Federal Government 

and our now $17 trillion debt, we certainly owe it to our constituents to ensure their tax dollars are being spent in the right way— 

the most efficient and effective way possible. And it is the oversight 

workforce, you all, who are on the front lines to ensure that happens. So we want to continue to find ways to support and empower 

IGs and the oversight community. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today. I 

look forward to the testimony as we move forward together to 

achieve that goal. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Senator Portman. I appreciate your 

words. 

Senator Johnson, do you have an opening statement? 

Senator JOHNSON. No. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Well, what I will do is, first of all, I want 

to welcome you all once again to the hearing today. We are very 

fortunate to have such a great panel of witnesses. I will introduce 
4 

you all right now, and then we will start with Peg and just go right 

down the line. 

Peggy Gustafson is the Inspector General of the United States 

Small Business Administration (SBA). As Inspector General of 

SBA, she heads up the audit and investigative programs that seek 

to identify fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement in programs at 

SBA. 

She also is the head of the Legislation Committee for the Council 

of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE). CIGIE 

members include 72 IGs from the executive and legislative 

branches of government as well as 6 senior Administration officials 

with related portfolios and responsibilities. 

Welcome, Peg. 

We have Michael Horowitz, who is the Inspector General for the 

United States Department of Justice (DOJ). He oversees an oversight workforce of approximately 450 special agents, auditors, inspectors, attorneys and support staff. Their mission is to detect and 

deter waste, fraud and abuse and misconduct in the Department of 

Justice programs and personnel, and to promote economy and efficiency in the Department’s operations. 

Welcome, Michael. 

Carolyn Lerner is the head of the Office of Special Counsel 

(OSC), an independent investigative and prosecutorial Federal 

agency. Among other missions, the OSC protects the merit system 

for 2.1 million civilian Federal employees, provides a channel 

through which whistleblowers can report waste, fraud and abuse, 

and enforces the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment 

Rights Act (USERRA), which upholds the employment rights of our 

Service members. 

Carolyn, thank you for being here. 

Karen Neuman was recently named as Chief Privacy and Freedom of Information Act Officer for the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS). She leads the first statutorily mandated privacy office in any Federal agency. That office is tasked with protecting 

Americans by embedding and enforcing privacy protections and 

transparency in all DHS activities. 

Once again, welcome, Karen. 

Wendy Ginsberg is an analyst in American National Government 

of the Congressional Research Service (CRS). She received her 

Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania in 2011. We are very 

happy to have her historical perspective on all things oversight 

today. 

I want to welcome you, Wendy. 

And thank you all for being with us today. 

It is custom to swear in all witnesses who appear before this 

Subcommittee. So, if you do not mind, please stand and repeat 

after me. 

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give before 

this Subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing 

but the truth; so help you, God? 

Ms. GUSTAFSON. I do. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I do. 

Ms. LERNER. I do. 

Ms. NEUMAN. I do. 
5 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Gustafson appears in the Appendix on page 35. 

Ms. GINSBERG. I do. 

Senator TESTER. Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

We will start with you, Peg. You can start with your presentation. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. PEGGY E. GUSTAFSON,1 INSPECTOR 

GENERAL, SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, AND CHAIR, 

LEGISLATION COMMITTEE, COUNCIL OF THE INSPECTORS 

GENERAL ON INTEGRITY AND EFFICIENCY (CIGIE) 

Ms. GUSTAFSON. Good afternoon, Chairman Tester, Ranking 

Member Portman and Members of the Committee. On behalf of the 

Chair of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, I am honored to represent the Federal Inspector General 

community this afternoon to discuss our work and recent accomplishments as well as some of the challenges we face in carrying 

out our oversight duties. 

I want to begin by thanking the Subcommittee on behalf of the 

IG community for your continuing support of our mission and your 

interest in our work. The support of the Subcommittee has been 

longstanding and bipartisan, and we very much appreciate that. 

I am pleased to report that the Inspector General Reform Act of 

2008 is working as intended. CIGIE serves a leadership role and 

is the core of the IG community. Together, the work of the IG community has resulted in significant improvements to the economy 

and efficiency of programs governmentwide, with potential savings 

totaling approximately $46.3 billion in fiscal year (FY) 2012. With 

the IG community’s aggregate budget of approximately $2.7 billion 

in that year, these potential savings represent about a $17 return 

on every dollar invested in the IG community. 

Notwithstanding these results, IGs do face certain challenges as 

they work to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of government 

programs. Our principal challenges pertain to independence concerns and timely access to information that we need to perform our 

duties. In recent years, we have been advocating for some additional tools to alleviate these challenges. 

For example, CIGIE feels strongly that Offices of Inspector General (OIG) should be exempted from the Computer Matching and 

Privacy Protection Act relative to using electronic means to identify 

those who improperly receive Federal assistance and payments and 

subsequently, seek removal of those persons from the program 

after verification of this information and due process is applied. 

This would improve program efficiency throughout the government. 

Similarly, CIGIE has recommended that the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) be amended to exempt Federal IG Offices. The PRA 

requires that information collection, such as surveys that we may 

want to do of a certain community, be subject to approval from a 

senior official of the agency, not the IG Office but a Federal agency, 

and also from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). While 

changes have been made to the PRA to exempt independent regulatory agencies and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

remains exempt from the PRA, all laws have been silent as to the 
6 

application of the PRA to IGs. We believe that if these exemptions 

could be provided to IG Offices, it would enhance our independence 

and remove lengthy processes that are hampering our ability to do 

our job. 

In the last few years, the IG community has been hit especially 

hard by the uncertainty in the budget process and cuts to operating 

budgets. Offices of Inspector General, by nature, are comprised 

principally of personnel, and their budgets are dedicated to funding 

the same. A recent survey of the IG community by the Association 

of Government Accountants has found that more than two-thirds of 

IGs interviewed identified budget resources as a top challenge. 

Many of our offices have undertaken hiring restrictions, hiring 

freezes and limited new investments in order to operate under the 

current budget levels. To highlight this finding, right now in my office, we are suffering an approximately 17 percent vacancy rate in 

positions that we simply have not been able to fill in order to maintain the current spending levels. 

I am grateful that IGs across the government have a voice 

through CIGIE and have access to training and other resources 

that have been provided to them in the IG Reform Act. In conjunction with that, our training academy has trained last year 1,677 IG 

employees, representing a 17 percent increase of students from our 

previous year. 

In addition, and in accordance with CIGIE’s primary mission, 

over the past several years, the IG community has identified and 

addressed a number of issues that transcend individual agencies 

through cross-cutting projects, as talked about and mentioned and 

suggested in the IG Reform Act. 

For example, CIGIE has issued reports on such topics as 

cybersecurity, the use of suspension and debarment throughout the 

Federal Government, the use of new media, the effectiveness of the 

CFO Act, disaster preparedness programs in the various agencies, 

international trade and competitiveness, as well as things like our 

hotline operations and whistleblower protections. All of these reports are public and available on CIGIE’s Web site. 

In conclusion, I would just like again to emphasize that I am 

very proud and pleased to represent the IG community. I am very 

happy to be back in this hearing room, where I have spent a lot 

of time in my previous iteration. And I am grateful for the chance 

to take your questions. 

Thank you. 

Senator TESTER. Well, thank you, Peg. And the fact that your 

testimony ran 20 seconds short of 5 minutes shows that you are 

not new to this party; you have been here before. 

And we appreciate it because I forgot to tell you up front that 

you have 5 minutes for your oral statement and your entire statement will be put in the record. 

With that, thank you. 

Michael, you are up to bat. 
7 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Horowitz appears in the Appendix on page 38. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. MICHAEL E. HOROWITZ,1

INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Thank you, Chairman Tester, Senator Portman, 

Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify 

at today’s hearing. 

The need for strong and effective independent oversight over 

agency operations has never been more important. I am pleased to 

highlight for you examples of our oversight work as well as some 

obstacles we face in conducting that independent oversight. 

During my 18 months as Inspector General of the Department of 

Justice, our office has issued reports ranging from our review of the 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATFs), Operations Fast and Furious and Wide Receiver, to our interim report 

on the Department’s handling of known or suspected terrorists in 

the Witness Security (WITSEC) Program to our audit of ATF’s income-generating undercover operations. We issued 90 audit reports 

in this past year which will help make the Department’s operations 

more effective and efficient. 

Our Investigations Division had dozens of arrests and convictions 

during that same period of time and investigated allegations that 

resulted in more than 250 administrative actions against Department employees. 

Additionally, we conducted extensive oversight of the Department’s use of its national security-related authorities. For example, 

we issued reports on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) 

activities under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 

Act (FISA) Amendments Act and the FBI’s Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force’s sharing of information. And we expect to issue, in 

the near future, reviews on the FBI’s use of National Security Letters (NSL), Section 215 Orders and Pen Register and Trap-andTrace Authorities under FISA, as well as on the management of 

terrorist watch list nominations. 

The oversight we conduct routinely produces measurable benefits 

for taxpayers. Over the past 10 fiscal years, we identified over $900 

million in questioned costs, far more than our budget during that 

same period. In addition, we identified nearly $250 million in taxpayer funds that could have been put to better use, and our criminal and administrative actions resulted in more than $118 million 

in various recoveries. 

And I am particularly proud of having instituted our office’s first 

ever whistleblower ombudsperson program. I have seen firsthand 

the important role whistleblowers play in advancing our mission, 

and whistleblowers should never suffer reprisal for coming forward 

with what they reasonably believe to be evidence of waste, fraud, 

abuse and misconduct. 

Let me turn now to some of the challenges we faced in conducting our oversight. 

As we all know, these are difficult budgetary times across the 

government, including for Inspectors General, and sequestration is 

having a real impact on our office. The substantial budget reduction for our office in fiscal year 2013, combined with the uncertain 

budget situation for fiscal year 2014, has caused me to lower our 
8 

staffing levels by approximately 8 percent, or 40 full time equivalent (FTEs), since I took office in April 2012. Further reductions in 

our staffing will inevitably require us to reduce the number of audits, investigations and reviews that we conduct, and it may also 

impact how we proceed with those that we do conduct. It may impact on the scope of those reviews and cause us to overemphasize 

the importance of budgetary decisions in choosing those audits, investigations and reviews. 

However, let me say, despite those financial issues, I am confident the dedicated professionals in our office and in all OIGs will 

continue to provide the extraordinary service to the American public that they have demonstrated over the years. 

I want to address the issue mentioned earlier, which is access to 

documents. For any OIG to have the ability to conduct effective 

oversight, it must have complete and timely access to all records 

in the agency’s possession. This principle was codified by Congress 

in Section 6(a) of the Inspector General Act. 

Most of our audits and reviews are conducted with full and complete cooperation. However, there have been occasions when our office has had access issues due to the Department’s views regarding 

access and being limited by other laws. 

Such issues arose in Fast and Furious and our current review of 

the Department’s use of material witness warrants in connection 

with grand jury and wiretap records. In both of those instances, the 

Attorney General (AG) and Deputy Attorney General came forward 

and provided us with written permission to gain access to those 

records, and they both indicated they will continue to do that in the 

future. But the issue is that having an Inspector General have to 

go to its agency head to get approval and to get that permission— 

that impairs our independence, and it conflicts with the core principles, in our view, of the Inspector General Act. 

And I understand from speaking with several other Inspectors 

General that they have had similar issues. 

I believe the view of my colleagues in the Inspector General community is straightforward and follows from what is explicitly stated 

in the IG Act. An Inspector General should be given prompt access 

to all relevant documents within the possession of its agency. 

Finally, I have outlined another limitation in my testimony, 

which is unique to my OIG, which is we do not have oversight authority over all misconduct in our agency. We have authority over 

non-attorneys, but we do not have authority over attorneys whose 

misconduct is alleged to have occurred in the course of their litigating authority. That is an anomaly of history, as I outline in my 

testimony. It is something we believe should be corrected. Other 

IGs across the Federal IG community have that authority, and we 

think we should have that authority as well. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Michael. Appreciate your testimony. 

Carolyn, you are up. 
9 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Lerner appears in the Appendix on page 45. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. CAROLYN N. LERNER,1 SPECIAL 

COUNSEL, U.S. OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL 

Ms. LERNER. Chairman Tester, Ranking Member Portman, Senator Johnson, Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

The Office of Special Counsel, protects the merit system for over 

2.1 million Federal civilian employees. We have a very broad mission. We provide a safe and secure channel for whistleblowers to 

report government wrongdoing. We protect employees from prohibited personnel practices, especially retaliation for whistleblowing. 

We enforce the Hatch Act. And we protect the employment rights 

of veterans and Service members employed by the Federal Government. 

We do all this with 110 employees and the smallest budget of 

any Federal law enforcement agency. While our staff is more efficient and effective than at any point in OSC’s 35-year history, our 

capacity for improving government is limited by serious resource 

challenges. 

OSC’s caseload is historically high. It has nearly doubled in the 

last 5 years. But our staffing is at the same level as it was 10 years 

ago. And, despite the increases in our workload, OSC’s already flat 

budget took a dramatic hit with sequestration. The combination of 

high caseloads and a shrinking budget threatens OSC’s oversight 

potential. 

The good news is that Congress and the Administration recognized that the status quo is not sustainable. The President’s Fiscal 

Year 2014 budget request for OSC provides for an increase of approximately $1.7 million, which both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees have approved. I am very hopeful that the 

final spending bills for 2014 will include this total. 

With that overview, I want to provide a little bit more detail on 

OSC’s recent successes. 

The last 2 years have been a record-setting period. By nearly 

every statistical measure, OSC achieved the most positive results 

in its history, and these successes result in greater confidence in 

OSC. However, such confidence can be a double-edged sword as it 

directly correlates to our skyrocketing caseload. 

Our increased efficiency helps us manage this growing caseload, 

and it also translates into real savings. In the last 5 years, OSC’s 

cost to resolve a case dropped by 40 percent. So we are doing a lot 

more efficiently. 

And we are getting more favorable actions for whistleblowers, 

such as back pay or reinstatement for victims of retaliation, as well 

as disciplinary actions against supervisors who retaliated or engaged in other prohibited conduct. In 2012, our staff achieved a remarkable 89 percent increase in favorable actions from the prior 

fiscal year, far surpassing the number achieved in any previous 

year in history, and the total number of favorable actions rose 

again last year. 

But the numbers do not tell the whole story. Our efforts often 

stop the immediate problem and spark systemic reforms that pre-
10 

vent wasteful, inefficient or unsafe practices, and we save the government money. 

For example, 2 weeks ago, we issued a report detailing serious 

overtime abuse by the Department of Homeland Security, costing 

the government tens of millions of dollars annually. Thanks to this 

Subcommittee and others, reform is already underway, and I look 

forward to returning on December 10 to testify a little bit more 

about our report in that case. 

Also, in the past year, OSC worked with whistleblowers at the 

VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Jackson, Mississippi. Physicians 

and other employees raised concerns about unlawful prescriptions 

and unsterile medical equipment among a range of other issues affecting patient safety. OSC’s efforts in that case have resulted in 

greater oversight by the Administration and Congress. 

In the last 2 years, OSC also successfully carried out its expanded role to protect the rights of veterans and Service members 

under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment 

Rights Act. We have always prosecuted USERRA cases before the 

Merit System’s Protection Board (MSPB), but under a 3-year pilot 

project mandated by Congress, OSC is also investigating half of all 

Federal sector USERRA claims while the Department of Labor 

(DOL) continues to investigate the other half. 

We resolve many of our cases through alternative dispute resolution—a low cost and highly effective approach. It is particularly effective in USERRA cases, where we have a 100 percent success 

rate. 

OSC is also implementing the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA) which became law in 2012. We are the primary agency responsible for enforcing this law, and we are seeing 

a significant increase in claims. In the first quarter after the Act 

was passed, we had the highest number of filings in our entire history. 

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) conservatively estimated that we would need about $1 million more each year to successfully 

implement the WPEA. However, under sequestration, our resources 

have actually been cut by about a million dollars since the enactment of the WPEA. 

Investing in OSC is one of the most cost effective methods of promoting good government and preventing violations of the merit system laws. Whether we are enforcing the Hatch Act, USERRA, the 

Whistleblower Protection Act or the laws protecting employees 

from prohibited personnel practices, OSC provides a high return to 

the Federal Government and the public. 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to hearing your questions. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Carolyn. Appreciate your testimony. 

Karen Neuman, you are up. 
11 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Neuman appears in the Appendix on page 51. 

TESTIMONY OF KAREN NEUMAN,1 CHIEF PRIVACY AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OFFICER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

Ms. NEUMAN. Thank you. 

Good afternoon, Chairman Tester, Ranking Member Portman, 

Senator Johnson and Members of the Subcommittee. I am very 

pleased to be here today to discuss the DHS Privacy Office and our 

oversight responsibilities. 

I joined the Department of Homeland Security as the Chief Privacy Officer just under 1 month ago. In this short time, I have experienced firsthand the broad responsibilities borne by this small, 

but critically important, office and the commitment of the staff to 

ensuring that privacy is embedded throughout the Department’s 

programs. Our holistic approach to privacy protection reflects our 

statutory policy, compliance and oversight responsibilities. 

I would like to address some of the specific questions you raised 

in your invitation to testify today. 

You asked about privacy and transparency. In addition to my duties as Chief Privacy Officer, I am also the Department’s Chief 

FOIA Officer, and I understand the importance of transparency in 

that respect. 

Transparency is also central to our mission to protect privacy. It 

is the first of the Fair Information Practice Principles that guide 

the work of my office. Transparency lets the public understand 

what information we collect from them, how we use it across our 

vast mission set, how long we will keep it and who we might share 

it with. 

To promote transparency, the Privacy Office has published hundreds of privacy impact assessments (PIAs), and system of records 

notices (SORNs), on our public Web site. Our PIAs are often the 

fullest description to the public of how DHS activities and programs collect and use information and the specific measures we 

take to provide a high level of privacy protection. 

The Privacy Office is able to provide this level of protection because we operationalize privacy throughout the Department. Our 

privacy and compliance teams work with DHS programs and system owners at the earliest stage of development, planning and implementation to identify potential privacy risks. 

For example, the compliance team may identify risks associated 

with a particular program and help craft corrective measures 

whereas the policy team identifies complex or novel privacy issues 

that may have department-wide implications which can be addressed through DHS-wide directives or policies. 

I think from what I have seen in the short time I have been here 

that our efforts to operationalize privacy have been very effective. 

You also asked about oversight. The Privacy Office implements 

its oversight authority through a new oversight team within the office that was established by my predecessor. The team uses a suite 

of tools for reviewing the Department’s use of personally identifiable information (PII), each with the goal of improving data stewardship. These tools include collaborative privacy compliance re-
12 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Ginsberg appears in the Appendix on page 59. 

views, privacy investigations, privacy incident response and privacy 

complaint handling and redress. 

The oversight team has forged close working relationships with 

other oversight authorities, including the DHS Office of Inspector 

General, GAO, OMB and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight 

Board (PCLOB). 

I believe this layered approach has been extremely effective at 

avoiding duplication of effort while leveraging the highly specialized expertise of the Privacy Office. 

You also asked how well our incident response program is functioning. We have a great working relationship with the component 

privacy offices and security staff and the DHS Security Operations 

Center, who are the privacy incident first responders. 

The Privacy Office provides guidance and oversees the process to 

ensure that breaches or other incidents are properly mitigated and 

remediated, and if we have questions about the adequacy of the response, we may reach out to the components involved to ascertain 

facts and work toward an effective resolution. 

DHS policy requires staff to report known or suspected privacy 

incidents, and reporting has consistently improved over the years 

as incident response training has intensified. I believe this program 

is working well. 

I would like to share a few examples with you where we have 

integrated privacy policy compliance and oversight to provide clear 

benchmarks for evaluating adherence to DHS privacy policy. These 

areas include our review of some of the Department’s screening 

rules, Privacy Office clearance of certain intelligence products, and 

our review and evaluation of major systems’ privacy compliance in 

preparation for the Department’s annual budget submission. 

Finally, you asked about the office’s role in the budget and policy 

process. My office reviews and evaluates major systems’ privacy 

compliance in preparation for the Department’s annual budget submission. More broadly, the Privacy Office has meaningful input 

into this submission in order to carry out all of our functions. 

Budget reductions and sequestration have resulted in an inability to backfill key positions that have been vacant. That we are 

meeting our obligations really speaks to the commitment and professionalism of the Privacy Office staff. Maintaining and strengthening our workforce is a key priority of mine to ensure that our 

mission does not suffer. 

In closing, I would like to thank you again for your invitation to 

address you this afternoon, and I look forward to taking your questions. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you very much, Karen, for your comments. 

Wendy Ginsberg. 

TESTIMONY OF WENDY GINSBERG,1 PH.D., LIBRARY OF 

CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE 

Ms. GINSBERG. Chairman Tester, Ranking Member Portman, 

Senator Johnson, thank you for the opportunity to testify before 

you today on technology’s effects on Federal oversight. 
13 

In 1885, Woodrow Wilson said that Congress should use every 

means to oversee the executive branch. Otherwise, he argued the 

country would remain in embarrassing, crippling ignorance of the 

very affairs which it is most important it should understand and 

direct. 

In this testimony, I make three broad points. First, evolving technologies can assist in oversight. Second, the use of these technologies has advantages and disadvantages. And, finally, technology must be thoughtfully and carefully implemented if it is to 

assist Federal oversight. 

To my first point, that technology can assist oversight, it is important to first note that oversight lacks a precise definition. In 

fact, it is not mentioned in the Constitution. Yet, oversight is an 

implicit obligation of Congress. 

It can be performed in various ways to meet many objectives. 

Congress has created a variety of tools to assist its oversight function. Among these tools are hearings, reporting requirements, general management laws and the creation of an oversight workforce, 

which includes institutions like the Government Accountability Office and the 72 offices of Inspectors General. 

Additionally, Congress and the President have employed new 

and evolving technologies to increase information access and, arguably, have facilitated greater public participation in the oversight 

process. 

One example of such an initiative is the Obama Administration’s 

Open Government Initiative, which employs four core strategies: 

first, publish government information online; second, improve the 

quality of government information; third, create and institutionalize a culture of open government; and fourth, create an enabling policy framework for open government. 

Private sector reviews of the initiative suggest that agencies varied in their open government achievements. Perhaps to address 

some of these criticisms, the Administration began promoting what 

it called smart disclosure, which requires agencies to release complex information and data in standardized, machine-readable formats that enable consumers to make informed decisions. 

Another transparency-related oversight mechanism was the establishment of the Web site, Recovery.gov. It was created in compliance with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

The public-facing Web site includes information about the Recovery 

Act and the distribution of Federal funding related to the Act. It, 

arguably, allowed taxpayers to be in a better position to hold their 

government accountable. 

Similar technology was used to create other public-facing Web 

sites, including USASpending.gov, Data.gov and Performance.gov. 

Additionally, the 72 offices of Inspectors General have employed 

technology in a variety of ways to assist Federal oversight. The 

variance in department and agency missions, however, prompts variety in how Inspectors General conduct oversight and, therefore, 

disparate adoption of technologies within the Inspector General 

community. 

A 2011 survey conducted by the Council of Inspectors General on 

Integrity and Efficiency found that only 26 of more than 70 Inspectors General reported using any form of new media. 
14 

Next, to my second point that use of technology has advantages 

and disadvantages, employing technology and new media can assist 

Federal oversight but can complicate information security, privacy, 

legal oversight and records collection. Continued use of large databases and new media may require investments in training, equipment, personnel and other resources. Additionally, existing statutes, regulations or policies may need to be revisited to determine 

whether they encumber IGs, the public or other entities from effectively using online tools and data to assist oversight. 

Technology can assist in government oversight. It can provide 

new information and allow overseers to use data in innovative 

ways. 

Technology and use of new media can assist in investigations 

and facilitate public input on agency actions. Providing interested 

stakeholders access to information can allow them to track where 

Federal dollars are spent, can provide context on the methodology 

used to rate the most effective child safety seat or can provide data 

on the spread of the flu virus. This access may help uncover fraud, 

improve safety or even save lives. 

And my final point, agencies must determine which technologies 

to employ based on their mission and their resources. Technology 

must be thoughtfully implemented, and sensitive data and information must remain protected. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my opening statement. Thank you 

for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to your questions. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Wendy. 

And I want to thank everybody who testified here. 

We will put 7 minutes on the clock for questions, and we will just 

kind of go down the line. 

Peg, you are first. In your testimony, you reported that twothirds of the Inspectors General list budgetary resources as their 

primary challenge in oversight. At the same time, you testify that 

in fiscal year 2012 there was a $17 return on every dollar that our 

government invested in IGs. 

Well, first of all, this looks like a way to fix a national debt. How 

long does this go on before the return becomes less? 

In other words, has anybody put any metrics to that to find out 

how much you are underfunded? 

Ms. GUSTAFSON. Right. I do not think anybody has certainly put 

any metrics to effect. 

I think, just speaking for my office, we have ways to go before 

we start seeing diminishing returns. For example, I think I am considered a mid-size office. Were I fully staffed and not subject to sequestration, I think I could have about 100 people. In the meantime, the SBA loan portfolio is $100 billion, and 

small business contracting is, of course, 23 percent of all Federal 

contracts. And so, I think, just off the top of my head, 100 of us 

overseeing that is small. 

Senator TESTER. OK. This is for anybody who wants to answer. 

It is kind of a lengthy question because it is multiple choice. OK? 

When it comes to agency budgets for IGs, you must ask yourself, 

why are you being underfunded? Now is it because you do not have 

a seat at the table when agencies submit their budget? Is it a matter of not placing a high enough priority on IGs’ duties when the 
15 

budget is being formed compared to other resources? Is there a conflict because some of the folks you are requesting oversight from 

will be part of the folks that you are tasked to do oversight on? Or, 

is it a matter of Congress not providing appropriate amounts of 

funding? You send the request in. We whack it and send it back 

at a lower level. As with all these, I mean, let us know where it 

is at. I mean, who wants to respond to that? 

Ms. GUSTAFSON. Well, let me tackle it first—— 

Senator TESTER. Sure. 

Ms. GUSTAFSON [continuing]. Especially as a member of the executive council and Chair of the Legislation Committee. 

I have to say one of the things that Congress did for IGs that 

was a tremendous benefit—and I hate to say that because I worked 

on the IG Reform Act of 2008 because what that does for us, which 

is tremendously helpful, is Congress does get visibility into what 

the IGs are requesting for their budgets. 

And so the way that the IG Reform Act is supposed to work is 

you will see what we believe—what we are asking for from the 

President and from Congress for our budget. It may not be the 

number that the President’s budget—may be. It may be a different 

number. But you will get both numbers, which I think is tremendously helpful. 

We also have the ability to note if we believe that the number 

actually requested for us is too low for us to perform the functions 

of our job. We are allowed to note that, write a letter, and that gets 

attached to the budget. 

Quite frankly, the immediate issue that we have all been facing 

in the last few years has been the lack of an appropriation. I think 

what many of us have found is when you look—to get a little inside 

the Beltway, when you look at the marks that we are getting and 

when we look at the committees are offering us, those tend to be 

much better than what we are getting under a continuing resolution (CR), under a straight line and certainly under sequestration 

because, again, we are mostly salaries and expenses. 

Just very briefly, the basic breakdown of my budget—and that 

is very similar to all IGs. Eighty-four percent of my budget goes to 

salaries and expenses. Ten percent is a fixed price contract for my 

financial statement audit of the agency. And 6 percent is everything else, which is every time my investigator needs to go somewhere to investigate a crime. 

So, when you take 10 percent off the top, you are taking people. 

And we have been in that position for a while now. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Does anybody else want to respond to that? 

Go ahead. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Just briefly, I have only been on 18 months, so 

I am only here on my second budget cycle. But, last year, what 

happened is we got the same 5 percent cut as everybody else did. 

So there was no distinguishing between IGs’ budgets and other 

budgets. 

As a result, that hits us for the reasons Peg mentioned. It is basically all salaries. It is hard to find other savings. We cannot just 

walk out of our rent space, our space, and all of a sudden save 

money. 
16 

The other is, also as Peg mentioned, even though our House 

mark and what we have requested is higher than 2013, and the 

House mark was higher, on a CR, I cannot hire at this point based 

on the hope that something will come through. I am either going 

to go maybe up on the House mark, maybe down if sequestration 

hits. 

So, as a manager, I have to understand what my budget is, 

frankly, before I can start making hiring decisions. 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Ms. NEUMAN. And, Mr. Chairman, may I answer that also? 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Ms. NEUMAN. The best way I can answer that is by just talking 

about our budget. If you take sequestration into account—— 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Ms. NEUMAN [continuing]. The Privacy Office’s Fiscal Year 2013 

enacted funding level was $7.793 million, which is $614,000 below 

the level appropriated in fiscal year 2011. 

And the main result of this has been our inability to backfill key 

positions that have been vacated due to attrition. And it has resulted in the loss of 4 privacy professionals, leaving 20 in my office 

and a backlog of—a FOIA backlog. 

It is important to note we do not have a separate budget for oversight. Our Privacy Office gets one budget that goes to policy compliance and oversight. And with the funding levels being what they 

are, we are doing what we can with what we have, but it will— 

the effect is to have fewer people to conduct investigations, do privacy compliance reviews and investigations. 

Senator TESTER. Maybe we should have an IG report on how 

much the fact that you guys do not have the personnel you need 

is costing the government—the IGs. 

I mean I do not have a clue if anybody has ever done any work 

on that. You probably do not have time to, and nobody has requested it. But the truth is if you are talking about $17 per dollar invested—and, Peg, you said we are nowhere near the point where 

we could top out—well, it is not good government. Let’s just put it 

that way. 

I will turn it over to Senator Portman. Senator Portman. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all 

for coming in. 

I am probably going to start with Ms. Gustafson only in that you 

are chairing the IG Legislation Committee. 

On the budget issue, I think Chairman Tester asked a good question, which is, are you at the table? 

And I guess the other question is—and anybody should feel free 

to answer this. Assuming that you are at the table, I understand 

what you are saying about the Appropriations Committees being a 

better way to get your funding than through a CR because appropriators appreciate your work for the most part. I know sometimes 

they may disagree with you—and are likely to see the value of the 

return on investment you talked about. 

But do you feel in a CR environment, and particularly a CR and 

sequester environment, that you guys are getting a disproportionate cut, and do you have any data to back that up? 
17 

Ms. GUSTAFSON. I think that the one thing that is troubling, 

too—and I cannot speak for every IG because every agency, I think, 

kind of treated it differently. But I think one of the things that was 

a source of some frustration for IGs, as Mr. Horowitz had mentioned, is, when these across-the-board cuts come, they are not supposed to be—and that is where we really do not have as much of 

a seat at the table because it is just a directive to do an acrossthe-board cut. 

I think some of us found ourselves being subject to just the 5 percent cut whereas it seemed that the agencies were being told, do 

kind of a cost-benefit analysis; do not do just across-the-board, but 

figure out where this 5 percent should be applied. 

I think sometimes that is not happening. I cannot say that this 

is not the same across every single agency, but I think that sometimes it is not happening. 

I have found, for example—again, just anecdotally as far as the 

budget request—when the agency has been asked, find 10 percent 

but, again, do that kind of analysis, they take 10 percent from me. 

Now I benefit again—and I think we all benefit—from the fact 

that I do not then submit a 10 percent cut to the President. I submit my number. And through the budget process, I, again, have 

been pleased—again, this is the appropriations process—with the 

President’s request for myself. 

I do not know if anybody else wants to add. 

Senator PORTMAN. Yes, Mr. Horowitz. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I do feel like I have a seat at the table and am 

heard by the Attorney General, and I do not think that has been 

the issue. 

I only have 18 months of experience, but the bigger challenge for 

me, frankly, has been living on a CR, not knowing if sequestration 

is going to go into effect or not, managing and figuring out whether 

I can or cannot hire because I am either looking at squeaking by 

next year or being able to hire and fill some of the vacancies, but 

I am going to be halfway through the fiscal year or close to that 

before I can do that. 

And, frankly, with all the security clearances my folks have to 

go through—— 

Senator PORTMAN. Yes. 

Mr. HOROWITZ [continuing]. It takes many months. There is such 

a lag time between losing someone and hiring someone. It is a tremendously difficult thing to manage. 

Senator PORTMAN. So it is the uncertainty. 

But you do not feel as though there is a disproportionate cut in 

your office as compared to other offices at Justice under sequestration? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. No, I do not think I can fairly say that. 

I think it is the bigger question of the across-the-board and the 

importance, frankly, as Peg said, of stepping back and saying, 

where is the value-add and where do we have the ability to cut, 

and making that analysis. That would, obviously, be helpful from 

my standpoint. 

Senator PORTMAN. On the vacancy issue, quickly, we talked 

about that in my opening statement, and some of you addressed it 

briefly. But, frankly, I think that issue is a real concern. 
18 

The 2008 law, it seems to me, has been helpful. Do you agree 

with that? 

Two thousand nine was kind of the low watermark, right? I 

mean, it was kind of the—— 

Ms. GUSTAFSON. Yes. I do not recall the historical level of vacancies. I do know the 2008 law addressed a little bit the idea of 

CIGIE keeping a list of potential candidates for IGs, which I know 

that this is done and that list is always available to both the President or to the agency, depending on how they are chosen and how 

they are hired. 

But, I think it has gotten better in the recent past, but it does 

seem to fluctuate. 

Senator PORTMAN. Do you support what we are doing here in 

terms of confirmations on IGs? Do you have thoughts on that? 

Ms. GUSTAFSON. Well, I think it was very heartening, if I can 

speak for the IG community, that two of our very well respected 

IGs were just confirmed very quickly for State and for Defense, and 

I think that has to have been seen as a favorable process. 

Again, it seemed to me that the nomination process went very 

smoothly. From the day of intent to nominate and to the day they 

were confirmed was a fairly short amount of time—— 

Senator PORTMAN. Yes. 

Ms. GUSTAFSON [continuing]. Which is, obviously, a positive 

thing. 

Senator PORTMAN. And this Subcommittee and this Committee 

are sort of the champions of trying to get our IGs through. So, 

when you have issues, I hope you, as the Chair of the Legislation 

Committee, will come to us. 

I think one thing, if you can get it in the record, that probably 

would be helpful, is to say what is the impact of not having a permanent IG? 

In other words, if you have Acting IGs, how does that affect the 

morale of the office? Is there a wait-and-see-what-happens attitude 

among folks when you guys are dealing with your counterparts in 

the agency? 

In other words, this person is not going to be here forever. Why 

don’t I just see if we can wait him or her out? 

Ms. GUSTAFSON. I think it is hard to make a universal claim 

about what the effect of an Acting IG is because, quite frankly, it 

seems to me, having been even on both sides, having worked on the 

IG Reform Act and now having been an IG for over 4 years, an Acting IG has all the ability to be as independent as a permanent IG, 

which is to say the great things that the IG Act does that gives the 

IG that independence are available to an Acting IG as well as a 

permanent IG. So, there is not a structural problem with that. 

As to the other part of your question, whether some things are 

waiting for the permanent person to come, I think that would also 

depend on the Acting IG. I know that when I came in to my office 

that my Deputy Inspector General (DIG) had been Acting for a 

while. I think, in general, the place was running quite smoothly. 

Quite frankly, there were some policy decisions that I made 

when I came in, to take it in a different area. There were some 

changes I made. 
19 

But whether things were being held off, I think, depends on—it 

really gets down to the individual office and how that Acting IG is 

doing. 

Senator PORTMAN. OK. I would think continuity would be affected, and just accountability. 

Ms. Lerner, you mentioned you are protector of the merit system 

laws. 

And, as you know, Senator Tester and I have recently been working with you. 

And you sent a letter to the DHS Acting Secretary, Beers. So the 

Department of Homeland Security does not have a Secretary or a 

lot of positions filled, but the Acting Secretary was asked to provide 

you information regarding this recent report you guys did administratively uncontrollable overtime (AUO). 

And, as you know, this administratively uncontrollable overtime 

is supposed to be very limited. In fact, the statute says it should 

be used for irregular and occasional circumstances only, such as if 

a failure to stay on duty would constitute negligence, so a very narrow kind of overtime. 

And, looking at it, you determined that these improper claims of overtime have reportedly cost the Federal Government up to $9 

million annually at 6 DHS offices, reported by whistleblowers to 

you. The amount of annual abuse of this is unknown because we 

do not have the information yet. 

Senator Tester is holding a hearing on this in the next month, 

and we look forward to that hearing, but just a couple process 

questions for you on how organizations respond to situations like 

this because we are concerned about the lack of response. 

The statute that governs these responses requires agencies to describe any action taken or planned as a result of the Office of Special Counsel investigation. To me, the response to you from DHS 

seemed totally lacking in detail, specifically, anything about any 

disciplinary action against employees. And I guess we can either 

assume that there were not any actions taken or that they are not 

telling you what actions were taken. 

Can you comment on this briefly? 

I want to get to my colleagues’ questions. So we can maybe do 

a second round on this. But, just briefly, does this happen often, 

that agencies do not fully respond to your requests, and do you 

think it is consistent with the requirements outlined in the statute—the way they responded from DHS? 

Ms. LERNER. Well, I think there are several parts to your question. Let me sort of address the process one first. 

You are absolutely correct that the agency has to respond to us 

when we send over a disclosure, and the type of response that we 

got from DHS was actually pretty much on par, if not better, than 

some of the responses that we get because DHS did confirm the allegations that the whistleblowers made. They did not deny the allegations at all. 

So I took some measure of comfort from the fact that they admitted that they had a problem and, at least on paper, said that they 

are taking responsibility for fixing it. 

Now the problem is they said the same thing 5 years ago. A very 

significant portion, like maybe a quarter, of the report that we got 
20 

back recently was basically cut and pasted from the report that we 

got back 5 years ago when the same allegations were sent over 

there for investigation. So not much has changed. 

The other thing that has not changed, as you mentioned, is the 

detail about what they are going to do to fix the problem. The action plan, if you will, that they gave us this time mirrors the same 

steps that they said they were going to take 5 years ago, with the 

exception of a new video that they plan to show to all employees. 

So it is a little bit bare-bones in terms of what they are going 

to do to fix this problem. 

They have said that they are going to do a full audit of this problem. So let’s hope that that helps expose both how deep the problem is—how widespread it is—and how they might fix it. 

Senator PORTMAN. Let me cut you off there because I want to get 

to Senator Johnson’s questions, but if we can do a second round, 

I will have some other questions for you about how they responded. 

Ms. LERNER. Sure. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator TESTER. We will be doing a second round. Senator Johnson. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Gustafson and Mr. Horowitz, I guess I would first like to 

start out asking, how do you prioritize your cases for investigation? 

Ms. Gustafson, we will go with you first. 

Ms. GUSTAFSON. I have about 45 criminal investigators. And they 

are spread out throughout the country. So I think there are any 

number of factors go into how they are prioritized, including the 

caseload of the investigators that I have. 

My criminal investigators work very closely with DOJ, U.S. attorneys, assistant U.S. attorneys, and very often the decisions on 

whether a case is a go or no-go often is dependent or contingent 

upon talking to DOJ, seeing the likelihood of that case, of course, 

being accepted for prosecution because it is important that we do 

that. 

So, in addition, of course, certainly the amount of loss is always 

a factor in any case. For my investigators, again, the two biggest 

things that we are looking at are loan fraud in the SBA lending 

programs and then small business contracting fraud. 

And so, one of the emphases I made was to reemphasize a little 

bit the contracting fraud. Those cases sometimes went a little bit 

by the wayside, and so we put more of an emphasis on that. 

And I think that that plays a part in that, which has resulted 

in some of our biggest cases, including a $100 million contract 

fraud case, with a billion-dollar contract that was about to be 

awarded fraudulently that we had a couple years ago. 

So there are any number of factors. 

Senator JOHNSON. So, I mean, likelihood of prosecution or quality 

of the prosecution, then the dollar amount. 

Mr. Horowitz. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. If it is a criminal allegation involving Justice Department employees or Justice Department funds, we will investigate it. We will open an investigation and go forward. 

I have had occasion where I have had to call the U.S. Attorney 

because my personal view, having been a prosecutor on corruption 
21 

cases before, is the dollar value in a corruption case should not 

matter, like it should in many others. If a public official is taking 

money, that warrants—and you can prove it as a crime—that warrants prosecution. 

In the noncriminal context, because we get thousands of various 

pieces of information coming across, first off, as I mentioned earlier, we do not have authority over attorney misconduct in the 

course of attorney work. That is a problem from our standpoint. So 

those cases go back to the Department. They investigate themselves in that instance. 

For non-attorneys, we will look at the seriousness of the allegation. We take high-level official misconduct. So GS–15 and above— 

generally, we will look at that. 

And then, separately, we assess in the remaining cases, what is 

the need for independent oversight? What value do we bring as an 

independent oversight authority to look at that? 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. I just kind of want to explore your relationship with the agency and the Department and your independence. 

Let me first ask, what is—and I realize this is kind of hard to 

summarize or typify. But, what would be a ballpark in terms of 

how long you want to take on an investigation? 

I mean, how quickly do you want to get through something? 

What would be an average length of time for an investigation? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Well, let me speak from our standpoint. We have 

such a wide range, frankly, of allegations. We have some in the 

prison, and we have the prison system. We might have a video that 

will take a very short time. Other more sophisticated, grant-related 

frauds that could require us to go administrative or grand jury 

could take months and years. And we do not control some of those 

because those then to go the prosecutor, and they have to bring 

them. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Well, let’s talk about timing of the release 

of a report. Who is in charge of that? Is that strictly a call made 

by the Inspector General’s Office? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. In a noncriminal case, we would make the call. 

In a criminal case, obviously, it is going to be the indictment, and 

that is the prosecutor’s control. 

Senator JOHNSON. In terms of the reports you issue—and I will 

ask both of the Inspectors General this—what is the appropriate 

relationship between yourself and the agency or the department 

you are investigating? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. From our standpoint, when we do an investigation, we do it—of the Department—if it is a third-party, for example, we might have the FBI where we—— 

Senator JOHNSON. I am just talking about if you are talking 

about your Department. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Right. Internally, we do it ourselves. We talk 

about it ourselves. And, when the time comes, like in Fast and Furious, to issue the report, we send the proposed final report for 

comment, and that is when the Department gets its first chance to 

comment. 
22 

Senator JOHNSON. So it would be totally inappropriate for the 

Department to comment or see the report ahead of time, before it 

is released? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. We will give them a chance to review our—for example, in audits, investigations—audits and reviews—let me do audits and reviews. 

We will give them a chance to review and provide us, in some 

instances, with informal comment but always with formal comment, which is what you see attached. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK, but that would be a comment. It would 

be an addendum to the report. 

Would they be changing wording in your report? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. They would not have authority to change wording. 

In audits, for example, we will often sit down with the component and say, here is what we found. Here is a problem. 

For example, ATF undercover operations that we just did, we 

found unreconciled $100 million worth of cigarettes. We went to the 

Department when we heard about that to alert ATF and the Department that they needed to fix the problem. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. So, for example, in that instance, they would 

know even earlier in the process. 

Senator JOHNSON. But the department or agency would not 

change the wording of your report. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. We would not let them change the wording. 

Senator JOHNSON. They could read—— 

Mr. HOROWITZ. They could comment to us. 

Senator JOHNSON. So it would be totally inappropriate if an 

agency or a department changed wording with a report? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I would not allow the Department to edit my document. 

They might give me comments. They might say I have it wrong. 

We would then sit down and talk about it internally, and we make 

the decision. 

Senator JOHNSON. Ms. Gustafson, do you agree with that? 

Ms. GUSTAFSON. I do agree with that, again, and I have to say 

for myself I am basically talking about the audit context. 

My criminal investigators, again, that we are talking about—— 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. I am talking about a report on your agency or your department. 

Ms. GUSTAFSON. Right. The reports that we issue are done by us. 

Certainly, there is always a lot of communication between the 

agency. 

There is no question, though I am not an auditor, that they are 

probably suggesting language. But, do they get to dictate language 

and edit and then have final say? No, absolutely not. 

Senator JOHNSON. Would either of you ever—or would it be appropriate for you—to utilize the agency or the department’s counsel 

in any capacity? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. The Department actually does not have a general 

counsel. It has the Office of Legal Counsel, and we would not necessarily go to them for guidance or legal advice. 

Senator JOHNSON. Ms. Gustafson, 
23 

Ms. GUSTAFSON. No. As the IG Reform Act notes, we have our 

own counsel. 

Certainly, OGC always has their own opinion of the legal issues 

in our audit reports, and we get to hear those, but we do not rely 

on them. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Let me echo that. I go to my general counsel regularly on issues. That is where I would go. 

Senator JOHNSON. But, again, your general counsel in the IG’s 

Office, not the Department’s. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. The IG, correct. 

Ms. GUSTAFSON. Yes. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Thank you. 

Senator TESTER. OK, I want to talk a little bit about overclassification. It is something both, quite frankly, of information and of 

positions. It has something that has come to light in a number of 

different areas. It is something that I actually feel very strongly 

about because it compromises transparency and it impairs our ability to perform quality oversight. 

The question is, have you run into situations where you are not 

able to get information due to overclassification? 

Anybody who wants to answer that can. 

Ms. GUSTAFSON. First off, I am supposed to, under the IG Act, 

have access to anything that I need from my agency, and so what 

they are classified as should not dictate what I get to see or not 

see. Section 6 of the IG Act is very clear about that. 

Senator TESTER. So, if it is classified as being secret information 

of any type, you still have access to it? 

Ms. GUSTAFSON. I have. There are people in my office who have. 

For example, I have a top secret clearance. There are people in my 

office—I mean, we have people who have certain clearance levels 

just as the agencies do. 

Senator TESTER. Sure. 

Ms. GUSTAFSON. And, for example, if we have worked on audits— 

we have done audits on DOD projects, for example. 

Senator TESTER. Sure. 

Ms. GUSTAFSON. I had a team of auditors who actually I stole 

from DOD IG, who came with top secret clearances. If we needed 

to see that information, they would have the auditors who would 

see it because they would have the appropriate clearance levels. 

So we have not encountered that problem. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. In terms of the Department saying we cannot 

look at classified information, we have not had that problem. 

We have had discussions, though, as I referenced in my testimony, to a question being raised whether we are, for example, allowed to see raw FISA data, which—as you know, we do many reviews related to FISA. That would be problematic for us. 

We have not had it withheld from us. We have worked through 

the issues. But that is, for example, one of the issues that we occasionally deal with. 

The other context that this comes up is when we want to issue 

a report we fight very strongly to have the report go public in as 

great a detail as it can, and we often get faced with, in our view, 

the initial response being overclassified, whether law enforcementsensitive, which is a separate category, or actual classification. We 
24 

end up pushing back very strongly and having in many instances, 

I will call it, a robust discussion internally. 

We ultimately do not control the final decision because it is not 

our information, but we do push forward very aggressively in ensuring that when we think there is an overclassification in response to our report we fight internally and often elevate it within 

the Department and frequently prevail, frankly. 

Senator TESTER. Anybody else want to respond to that? [Pause.] 

So let me ask it this way. From your answers—do not let me 

words in your mouths—I am not hearing that there is any impediment as far as getting information regardless of the classification. 

Ms. GUSTAFSON. I am not aware of impediments regarding classifications. 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Ms. GUSTAFSON. I am aware there are sometimes IGs—and I 

think Mr. Horowitz has some of his own specific examples—how 

some laws are thrown up, saying—thrown up to them, saying you 

do not have access because of this specific law, and then IGs need 

to work through that. 

Again, the IG Reform Act is supposed to give us access to that, 

but I have not heard of classification being an issue. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Right. As Peg said, it is an issue that has been 

thrown up. We have had to work through several and various 

areas, not necessarily the classification issue, but on the raw FISA 

information area—it has come up. It takes many months. 

To the point of how long does it take sometimes to do our views, 

they are greatly impacted by those back-and-forths. So it can take 

months. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Ms. Neuman, your office handles privacy 

policy within DHS. It has sought to create an environment in DHS 

where neither privacy nor security is compromised—an admiralable 

task, tall task, especially in an agency like DHS that has something like 22 agencies in it. Many interact daily with literally millions of Americans. 

How successful have you been? 

Ms. NEUMAN. Well, in the short time I have been here, I have 

to say that I think we have done a really good job. We have been 

very successful. We work very closely with our component privacy 

officers and privacy points of contact during the development of 

programs and systems to build privacy in on the front end, to build 

privacy protections in on the front end. 

All of this is documented in our compliance documents, the PIAs 

I mentioned earlier, which serve a really important—two very important functions. One is transparency to the public so they know 

what information is being collected and how it is used, but it is also 

used—these PIAs are also used to help provide benchmarks for the 

oversight process so that the privacy risks are identified. 

Through the PIA process, we work to develop very strong mitigation mechanisms to protect privacy, and then we refer to those 

benchmarks during PCR reviews and other assessments of how effective the privacy protections have been. And we update the PIAs 

as necessary. They are posted on our Web site. 
25 

So you are right; it is a very challenging job, but our mission is 

to sustain privacy in the systems and programs that the Department is implementing and developing. 

Senator TESTER. Can you give us an example of where your office 

has interjected itself into the process to voice its concerns over privacy? 

Ms. NEUMAN. Well, there are a number of programs that are developed to collect information, whether it is at the border or from 

passengers traveling into the country, students coming in on visa 

programs. And we are very careful that the information is collected 

only for a specific purpose. We pay very close attention to retention 

periods so that information is not collected longer than is necessary 

to accomplish a purpose and that access to that information is really limited to people who have a need to know that information or/ 

and a need to use that information to carry out their responsibilities. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Michael, the same series of questions as far 

as privacy goes—is there a time where you have been able to be 

successful in balancing that, or is that not an issue in your Department? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. The privacy issue for us really does not arise in 

my office. 

Our view is we are independent. We make our own decisions on 

those issues. 

We push very strongly to put forward publicly, as long as it is 

legally allowed, and obviously, the Privacy Act plays into this. We 

want to be transparent. We want our reports public. We want the 

information posted on our Web sites. 

The issue comes back in pushing on what is law enforcementsensitive and some of the other issues that we struggle with. 

Senator TESTER. All right, Senator Portman. 

Senator PORTMAN. Ms. Lerner, going back to the previous questions we had about administratively uncontrollable overtime, your 

response sort of surprised me because you said you thought this 

was about par for the course in terms of the response from DHS. 

You were pleased that they did not deny the allegations; in fact, 

they admitted them. You also noted that they had essentially done 

that 5 years ago and that you were still concerned about the kind 

of follow-through you would get. 

Let me just ask you specifically about whether you think the current statute gives you the authority you need to get the information that you need. 

The statute is 5 U.S.C. Section 1213(d)(5). It says, agencies are 

required to describe any action taken or planned as a result of the 

OSC investigation. 

However, it uses the term, such as, and it says, such as changes 

in agency rules. 

The restoration of any aggrieved employee is what we were talking about earlier, that you do not know whether there has been 

any disciplinary action taken. 

Ms. LERNER. Right. 

Senator PORTMAN. Disciplinary action taken against any employee, referral to the IG of any evidence of criminal violation, 

changes in rules, and so on. 
26 

Do you think it would be helpful for you, in terms of getting the 

responses you feel that you need, to have that a requirement in the 

reporting in the statute, or do you think you have the authority 

that you need to be able to get to the bottom of these? 

Ms. LERNER. Well, unlike prohibited personnel practices, where 

we have, for example, a retaliation case after someone comes to us 

with a disclosure—and we do have some of those in the DHS matter too—the agency does have to let us know what actions they 

have taken or will take as part of an agreement with our agency. 

And I think that is very helpful. 

Of course, in that context, we have the ability to actually prosecute cases to the MSPB and either require the agency to take disciplinary action or make sure that the whistleblower is made whole 

if they have been retaliated against. So we can require the agency 

to take remedial action. 

We do not have that same ability in the disclosure context under, 

as you said, 1213(d). We do not have independent investigative authority. 

In assessing whether the report from the agency is reasonable or 

not, one of the things that we look at is what remedial action they 

have taken. 

So the reason that I found the report inadequate was not because 

they did not come up with the right outcome in terms of verifying 

the allegations; they did. 

The reason I found it inadequate was because they had not taken 

effective remedial action and because their steps for solving the 

problem were not appropriately outlined, and it left me with the 

concern that they did not have the ability or the willingness to take 

corrective action. 

Senator PORTMAN. OK, given the history, but I guess what I am 

questioning is whether you even have adequate information to 

know whether they have taken remedial action because they were 

not required to tell you. 

Ms. LERNER. Well, they were not required to tell me if they took 

disciplinary action. They were not required to tell me if they were 

trying to figure out whether the overtime that was being taken was 

actually fraudulent overtime versus just inappropriate overtime. 

They are required to tell me what steps they are going to take 

to solve the problem. 

Senator PORTMAN. Like the video. 

Ms. LERNER. Like the video. 

Senator PORTMAN. Yes. 

Ms. LERNER. They outlined a few steps. 

Senator PORTMAN. But not disciplinary steps and so on. 

Ms. LERNER. That is right. 

Senator PORTMAN. We will get into this more in the hearing, and 

I just wanted to prepare us maybe better for the hearing by getting 

your input on that. 

Ms. LERNER. Sure. 

Senator PORTMAN. Our job is, among other things, is to look at 

legislation. So we are going to be looking at that code section. If 

you have additional thoughts, I hope you will let us know. 

Ms. LERNER. OK. 
27 

Senator PORTMAN. On whistleblowers, we talked a little bit about 

this. Mr. Horowitz, maybe you are the right person to talk to since 

you have had some experience here. 

In 2006, the IG at Justice testified before another congressional 

committee. This is Glenn Fine, and he said that—this is in the context of FBI reprisals against whistleblowers by revoking an employee’s security clearance. You are probably familiar with this. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Mm-hmm. 

Senator PORTMAN. He testified, ‘‘The IG would have authority to 

investigate an allegation that an employee’s security clearance has 

been revoked in reprisal for protected disclosure under its general 

authority to investigate allegations of misconduct, fraud, waste and 

abuse in the Department.’’ 

He also stated that the FBI official said that they were not familiar with any case in which an employee alleged that revocation or 

denial of a security clearance was in retaliation for protected disclosure. 

A couple questions—one, do you agree with IG Fine’s point on 

the authority of your office to be able to do that, and are you aware 

of any instances in which an employee has alleged that revocation 

or denial of a security clearance was in retaliation for a protected 

disclosure? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I do agree that we would have the ability to go 

forward as he suggested. 

I do not, as I sit here, recall any such instance in my 18 months 

on the job, but I can certainly go back and check on that. 

Senator PORTMAN. Have you ever investigated an allegation of 

reprisal based on a security clearance being suspended or revoked? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. We do have several reprisal cases going on, and 

I would have to, frankly, go back and see if that was one of the 

components of the claim. There may be one, but I would want to 

double-check. 

Senator PORTMAN. OK. I think it would be helpful to me if you 

would get back to me on that. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I will do that. 

Senator PORTMAN. Given some information that we had received, 

we just want to try to confirm or determine whether it is an issue 

or not. 

On the privacy issue, Ms. Neuman, you responded to the Chairman’s questions about how your office operates within DHS. You 

were pretty positive about that and the experience you have had 

there. 

Can you give us a specific example of where your office has interjected itself into the process to voice a concern over privacy? 

Ms. NEUMAN. Let me answer the question this way. I am not 

sure that I would see us as interjecting ourselves. We foster a culture of privacy throughout the Department. And included in the 

context of oversight, part of that culture is encouraging—in fact, requiring—the reporting of privacy incidents. 

We do so in a way that encourages people to come forward without fear of reprisal or humiliation, and we would initiate an investigation if we found evidence or allegations of really egregious conduct or willful noncompliance with Department policy or directives. 
28 

We work with the components to address problems. We often find 

that we do not have to get involved or initiate resource-intensive 

full-scale investigations. We are really able to address issues 

throughout privacy compliance review process, which is a collaborative process that enables us to make—to validate that the privacy requirements are being adhered to. 

So I see us as really working collaboratively throughout the Department and not interjecting ourselves absent the need to do so 

for really egregious conduct. And we have initiated three investigations where we felt it was necessary to investigate conduct that 

was brought to our attention or that we otherwise discovered. 

Senator PORTMAN. OK. If you are at liberty to provide us that 

information, that would be helpful. 

Ms. NEUMAN. One of them was public. 

Senator PORTMAN. No need to do it now. We want to get on to 

Senator Johnson’s questions. 

Ms. NEUMAN. Certainly. 

Senator PORTMAN. But if you would not mind in writing to provide that to the Subcommittee. 

Ms. NEUMAN. Certainly. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Senator Portman. Senator Johnson. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Gustafson, in your position as Chair of the Legislation Committee of CIGIE, I just kind of want to walk through a couple questions. 

First of all, when there are allegations of wrongdoing or reports 

of wrongdoing in the Inspector General’s Office, can you just quickly walk us through exactly how CIGIE handles those? 

Ms. GUSTAFSON. So the IG Reform Act of 2008 codified the Integrity Committee, which I will tell you existed before the IG Reform 

Act. The Integrity Committee was in existence. 

And it is there specifically to investigate allegations of wrongdoing by IGs or by those direct reports of IGs where an investigation could not be done by the IG Office due to a conflict, our head 

of investigations or our DIG, so that when an allegation is received—the Integrity Committee has a Web site and a number. 

Some people would report those allegations directly to the Integrity Committee, which is chaired by the FBI. And then the Integrity Committee is comprised of the FBI, four Inspectors General 

chosen by the Chair of the Council and also Office of Special Counsel and Office of Government Ethics. 

The FBI chairs that and takes those allegations, and it goes 

through a process of determining whether it should be sent to Justice, determining whether an IG needs to answer it. 

If the allegations come through some other way—sometimes I believe these allegations are sent to CIGIE themselves. CIGIE has an 

office, seven employees, an executive director. 

I think sometimes the allegations are conveyed to the Chair of 

the Council. Those are always sent right to the Integrity Committee for the process. All allegations are processed the same way 

and go through that process. 

I do not know if you want me to walk through that process a little bit. 
29 

Senator JOHNSON. No, let’s try talking about it specifically. Has 

CIGIE received allegations from the then-Acting and now-Deputy 

Inspector General in the Department of Homeland Security? 

Ms. GUSTAFSON. Well, unfortunately, I do not know the answer 

to that question because I certainly have not. I am not being facetious. I do not know. 

I know this is has been a topic of discussion. 

I believe that to the extent that any allegations have been made 

and they have been sent to the Integrity Committee, I was not—— 

Senator JOHNSON. You would have no knowledge of that then? 

Ms. GUSTAFSON. I have no personal knowledge of that. 

My understanding is any allegations received by any—about any 

IG are sent by CIGIE which, again, would be the Executive Director or the Chair, to the Integrity Committee. 

But I do not have personal knowledge of that. I was in a briefing 

it was—where they talked about that is the process they would 

have taken, but I do not have personal knowledge of what IG—— 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, let me ask anybody in the panel. Is anybody on the panel aware of any allegations of wrongdoing on the 

part of now-Deputy Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security? Anybody aware of that? Ms. Lerner. 

Ms. LERNER. Senator Johnson, I do sit on the Integrity Committee. I am recused from any matters involving the DHS IG because the same allegations are at my agency. So I cannot speak to 

you specifically about anything, and I probably could not in this 

public forum anyway. 

But I can confirm that allegations were at least being considered. 

I do not know the status now. As I said, I am recused. 

Senator JOHNSON. Anybody that is not recused that can answer 

the question? [Pause.] 

Then I have no further questions. 

Thank you. 

Senator TESTER. Wendy, you cannot get off. The technology and 

how IGs throughout government are utilizing it—how would you 

grade them on utilizing technology in their jobs as Inspectors General, whether it is getting to the problem of problems or getting information out to the citizens? 

Ms. GINSBERG. If you are asking about the Inspectors General 

specifically, the best resource for that that I could find was the 

Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency had 

their own report on the use of new media. And, as I said in my testimony, they did not have a high level of respondents for that particular ask of information on how many IGs were using new media, 

but only 26 of the 72 existing IGs responded that they were using 

any form of new media whatsoever. 

Senator TESTER. So what you are really saying is that they 

would have been utilizing it they would have probably responded. 

Ms. GINSBERG. My thinking on it was if they were doing something incredibly innovative they probably would have responded. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Let me ask you about information being 

put out there for public consumption when there is so much of it 

that actually dilutes its effectiveness. 

Is there anything that we can do—quite frankly, because transparency is a big thing in any part of government—that could help 
30 

make it so it is more accessible to folks? It might be out there, but 

it still might not be accessible. 

Ms. GINSBERG. Well, I think the Smart Disclosure Initiative is 

one way. The Administration is trying to tackle exactly that problem, that you just cannot pour reams of data out there and expect 

that every user who has an interest in finding a particular data 

point can find that data point. You get lost in the big haystack and 

cannot find the needle. 

But Smart Disclosure is an attempt to put this data in machinereadable formats that allow interplay between sets of databases. It 

is a way to try to get through and find at least a few needles that 

might fit together and create something that is more usable to individuals and the public, so they can assist in Federal oversight, or 

create really new, incredible apps that help people in their daily 

lives. 

Senator TESTER. These guys have enough to do, plus, with short 

budgets and sequestration. 

Who would be responsible to give some guidance on that so 

that—whether it is apps or whether it is—— 

Ms. GINSBERG. It has historically been communicated through— 

the Office of Management and Budget has come out—they have 

been in charge of creating a lot of the public-facing Web sites with 

the Electronic Government Fund that is administered through the 

General Services Administration (GSA). 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Ms. GINSBERG. So I think that they have done a lot of writing 

of guidelines and memoranda to help agencies figure out how to 

frame what data sets they should be releasing in making information more accessible to the public. 

Senator TESTER. OK. This next couple of questions are for the Inspectors General. We rely upon your oversight work to shed light 

on misconduct and waste in the agencies. Who is ultimately responsible for policing the work that you do? 

Ms. GUSTAFSON. Well, it depends on what you mean by policing, 

but as I—because there are a couple different—— 

Senator TESTER. Well, let me put it this way. If you have an IG 

that is really not doing their job—— 

Ms. GUSTAFSON. Right. 

Senator TESTER [continuing]. Who checks? Where is that box 

checked at? 

Ms. GUSTAFSON. Well, just to reiterate, first off, as far as allegations of wrongdoing or things that are serious enough to suggest 

that an IG should not be an IG, that is the Integrity Committee. 

Those referrals are made to the Integrity Committee. 

And, just so you know, in the context of that process, DOJ Public 

Integrity Group also is referred to anything where there may be allegations of criminal wrongdoing. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Ms. GUSTAFSON. As far as making sure that our work is up to 

standards, all of our offices are subject to peer review. Our audit 

shops receive a peer review every 3 years from another audit shop. 

Those of us with law enforcement authority undergo a peer review 

as well from another IG every 3 years. 
31 

But, as far as whether we are being as effective as you want us 

to be, we are reportable to Congress, and of course, I am reportable 

to the President. 

And whether I am doing the best job, in general, what that is, 

is that is up to you to make hay about it if you do not think so 

and the President to remove me if he does not think so, with 30 

days notice, too, as to why. 

Senator TESTER. Yes, but here is the problem from our perspective, and I do not want to give you guys a way out here, but unless 

somebody is doing the evaluation of you, I guarantee you—well, 

maybe Senator Portman can, but I cannot evaluate the work that 

you are doing. I do not have the skill set to do that—— 

Ms. GUSTAFSON. Right. 

Senator TESTER [continuing]. In a way that is fair and effective. 

Ms. GUSTAFSON. Right. 

Senator TESTER. So where do we go to get the information? 

Ms. GUSTAFSON. Well, again, I think that if it is a function of 

whether we are working under standards our peer reviews are 

posted on the Web sites, and whether we pass peer review. 

But, as far as whether we are up to snuff, I go to hearings. The 

Small Business Committee will have hearings very regularly where 

they will, I think, have a little bit more insight into whether I am 

doing the job that they think I should be doing just because of, obviously the subject matter. 

I am sure Mr. Horowitz has the same type of thing. 

But, as far as the effectiveness, we issue semiannual reports that 

talk about the accomplishments that we have made. 

One of the things that I think is often very useful myself is we 

issue the top management challenges from the agency. That is a 

report that we issue annually. Personally, I think that that is a 

good arbiter of how effective we are because the agency has to— 

I think it shows whether the agency is listening to us, paying attention and whether the big problems are being fixed. I think that 

is often sometimes a good measure. 

I think there are any number of things that way. 

I do not know, Mr. Horowitz, if you have something to add. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. And, just briefly from my standpoint, frankly, 

having been on the job for 18 months and seeing what we can do 

and the impact we can have, if you are not seeing strong, solid reports from IGs, they are probably not doing all they can because 

there is a fair amount of follow-up work, audits, investigations and 

reviews that can be done that, if they are done aggressively, will 

find things. 

And so I think one of the things that is very important is getting 

those reports out publicly and getting them out to Congress. 

And I think also, frankly, from the discussion we have had today, 

we in the CIGIE community need to be as transparent as we are 

with our own agencies. We, as a community, should be putting out 

there what we are doing to self-police and self-patrol so that taxpayers know what we are doing and whether they are getting value 

for what we are doing. 

Senator TESTER. OK, Senator Portman. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
32 

And thank you all for being here today. We will continue to be 

in touch with you and your colleagues. 

To Ms. Ginsberg, I have to ask you some questions here because 

you kind of left out earlier. The Chairman started with his, so I 

will, too. 

On this whole issue of technology, we are in the middle, as you 

may know, of looking at security clearances—this Subcommittee. 

This comes out of a longer interest but particularly the horrific 

events at the Navy Yard and how that guy got his clearances. We 

had been into it a little bit on the privacy side, protecting some of 

our most important government secrets. 

And what we are trying to do is figure out how we can, on the 

security clearance front, get better access to databases, sometimes 

within the government, sometimes outside the government, for 

more expedited clearances, more thorough clearances and that sort 

of thing. 

So just hearing your testimony and your response to the Chairman’s other question, can you tell us more about how the Inspectors General should appropriately access data? 

You talk about the fact that there are so much more data out 

there and that that is good because the public now knows more 

about how their government operates. 

When I was at the Office of Management and Budget, we put all 

grants and contracts online, and I was a strong proponent of that. 

That actually came out of legislation in this Committee as I recall. 

But the reality is someone has to analyze it and do the sort of 

next-level analysis to determine whether this information is the 

right information coming from agencies—in other words, if it is accurate, if the agency is doing what it says it is going to do. 

And also, I think there is a responsibility among the IG community to look beyond the data and sort of say, is this the right data? 

In other words, you might have a whole lot of data on certain 

issues out there from, say, the Department of Justice, but other 

stuff—I mentioned whistleblowers earlier and some of the reprisal 

issues—that might not be out there. So how to sort of balance that 

out? 

Anyway, what are your thoughts on that, Ms. Ginsberg, and can 

the IGs use data more effectively to do their important jobs? 

Ms. GINSBERG. I think it is certain that data can be helpful to 

figuring out the best policy options and the oversight process generally. But I will say that more data does not necessarily equal better; more use of new technologies and new media does not necessarily mean you are going to better execute your mission. 

You have finite resources. You have to spend them in a way that 

is the best way to execute your mission. So just going out here to 

find as many databases that you can get access to is maybe going 

to encumber your mission more than anything else. You are just 

going to get more background noise than the information that you 

actually need to execute what you want to execute. 

So I think it is more of a strategic game about figuring out what 

media might best suit your needs. 

And I think earlier Ms. Gustafson talked about the issues that 

exist with the Privacy Act that inhibit data matching in some cases 

for IGs. They cannot get access to one data set that might provide 
33 

them and tell them whether applicants for another entitlement, 

whether they are providing accurate information to get that entitlement. And you can cross data sets there. That might be a really 

great use of a new database that an IG can acquire. 

But to just start using Twitter, to start using Twitter might not 

be the best use of resources of an IG. 

Senator PORTMAN. Yes. And I think it is an opportunity but also 

a challenge, including, as the Chairman said, just the inability to 

have adequate staffing to do your current job, much less to be able 

to look through these troves of data. 

And there is a lot out there, but how much of it is really useful 

is the question. 

And then some of it is classified or at least not public, and so 

that is a challenge for you guys to get a hold of that. 

Any other comments on that? 

Mr. Horowitz, you seem like you have a comment. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Let me just add. We did a report shortly after I 

got there on referencing checking, vetting of applicants at the Department, and the Department was not doing a very good job of 

that. Put aside, separately, just the security clearance and background check. Good old-fashioned reference checking is something 

the Department was not doing. 

And I am happy to send a copy of the report up to the Committee 

because that is something that should be done. There is really not 

much that it takes to get references and followup. 

And on the data issue, it is a big issue for us. We look, for example, at travel card purchases. We have our fraud detection office 

and my office looking for anomalies in that data, seeing if they can 

get out of there what would otherwise be subsumed. It may be a 

very small charge, but if you can find a couple of small charges—— 

Senator PORTMAN. It might show a pattern. 

Mr. HOROWITZ [continuing]. That are fraudulent, it might show 

the pattern. 

And so we try and do that, but it is very hard. 

Senator PORTMAN. Well, thank you all very much for being here. 

Senator TESTER. With every answer comes another question. 

I mean, the truth is you are exactly right; they do need to do the 

followup on the background checks. If they do not, we end up in 

a very difficult situation. 

I would hope that you have the ability—the IGs—to get people’s 

attention if they are not doing their job so that, ultimately—well, 

I have a different perspective. I do not think there is any tolerance 

for folks who do not do their job in this particular area. They 

should be gone. 

And I do not know if you have that ability to make those recommendations or not. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. We absolutely make the recommendations, and 

one of the things that we try and do is followup on our recommendations. We have hundreds of open recommendations in the 

Department in a variety of areas—— 

Senator TESTER. Right. 

Mr. HOROWITZ [continuing]. Not just in this one. 

But one of the things that is incumbent upon us is to do a better 

job regularly following up on those recommendations and reporting 
34 

to the leadership of the agency and to Congress on what the status 

of those open recommendations is because changes—finding the 

problem is not—is 10 percent of the issue. Remediating it is the 

key part, frankly. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. And along those lines, if we want to make 

your job less necessary in the future, we need to do prevention up 

front. From my perspective, one of the best ways to stop waste, 

fraud and abuse is drop the hammer on the folks who are doing 

it. 

Any other ideas in prevention that would work? 

Ms. GUSTAFSON. I think that there is definitely dropping the 

hammer certainly in a lot of these contexts. For example, again, we 

do a lot of Federal contracting work, and that is a fairly small community. When we are able to get good successes in contractors 

being debarred, contractors being prosecuted, people know that, 

and that message gets out. 

I also think that you are right; there is also a need to be 

proactive and work with the agency, make sure that it is best to 

get the money before it goes out the door—— 

Senator TESTER. Right. 

Ms. GUSTAFSON [continuing]. Rather than to try to get it back. 

And I do think that that is something that all IGs are working on 

and working closely with agencies, to kind of—to prevent the fraud 

and the waste before it occurs. 

Senator TESTER. OK, I have a few other questions that we are 

probably going to enter for you guys to respond to at a later date 

because this hearing has gone quite a while. 

I want to thank you all once again for being here. 

Senator Portman, do you have any closing remarks? [Pause.] 

We have covered a fair amount of ground here today, and I think 

it is important that we cast a light on the challenges of our oversight workforce and the opportunities we have to increase efficiency 

and effectiveness of government. It is all something we all want to 

see happen. 

As I said at the outset, public trust in the Federal Government 

is waning, and we certainly have a lot of work to do to restore that 

faith. And we can start by moving forward on some of the ideas 

that were put out for us today and support the efforts to shed light 

on government and help ensure taxpayer dollars are being spent 

responsibly and productively. 

I certainly look forward to working with the folks not only on 

this Committee and Ranking Member Portman but all of you and 

the other folks that work in the different IG offices. I think it is 

the only way we will tackle the problems. 

The hearing record will remain open for 15 days for any additional comments or questions. 

Once again, I want to thank the panelists. 

We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:09 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(35) 

A P P E N D I X 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 

Æ