89–006 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 111–623 

INSPECTOR GENERAL AUTHORITY IMPROVEMENT ACT 

OF 2010 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2010.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. TOWNS, from the Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 5815] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to whom 

was referred the bill (H.R. 5815) to amend the Inspector General 

Act of 1978 to provide authority for Inspectors General to subpoena 

the attendance and testimony of witnesses, and for other purposes, 

having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 2 

Background and Need for Legislation .................................................................... 3 

Legislative History .................................................................................................. 5 

Section-by-Section .................................................................................................... 5 

Explanation of Amendments ................................................................................... 7 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 7 

Rollcall Votes ............................................................................................................ 7 

Application of Law to the Legislative Branch ....................................................... 7 

Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee ...... 8 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 8 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 8 

Federal Advisory Committee Act ............................................................................ 8 

Unfunded Mandates Statement .............................................................................. 8 

Earmark Identification ............................................................................................ 8 

Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .................... 9 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 9 

Additional Views ...................................................................................................... 21 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
2 

The amendments are as follows: 

Strike section 5 and insert the following: 

SEC. 5. REPORTS AND RESPONSES TO IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS, ABUSES, AND DEFICIENCIES. 

(a) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT.—Section 

5(b) of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended— 

(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) as paragraphs (5), (6), and 

(7), respectively; and 

(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new paragraphs: 

‘‘(2) a description of any corrective action taken or proposed to be taken with 

respect to questioned costs, a recommendation that funds be put to better use, 

or any significant problems, abuses, and deficiencies identified by the Inspector 

General; 

‘‘(3) a description of any potential cost savings generated by any corrective action taken pursuant to subsection (e)(1); 

‘‘(4) any certification required under subsection (e)(2);’’. 

(b) CORRECTIVE ACTION.—Section 5 of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. 

App.) is amended— 

(1) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections (f) and (g), respectively; and 

(2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following new subsection: 

‘‘(e) CORRECTIVE ACTION BY THE HEAD OF THE ESTABLISHMENT.— ‘‘(1) CORRECTIVE ACTION.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), the head of 

the establishment shall take corrective action in response to any questioned 

costs, a recommendation that funds be put to better use, or any significant problems, abuses, or deficiencies identified by the Inspector General of such establishment. 

‘‘(2) CERTIFICATION TO CONGRESS.—If the head of the establishment determines that no action is necessary or appropriate with respect to any questioned 

costs, a recommendation that funds be put to better use, or any significant problems, abuses, or deficiencies identified by the Inspector General of such establishment, such head shall submit a certification to Congress that no such action 

is necessary or appropriate, with a detailed explanation why no such action is 

necessary or appropriate.’’. 

Page 5, beginning on line 14, and all that follows through page 

6, line 13, by moving the margins of paragraph (2) in the quoted 

matter 2 ems to the left. 

Page 15, line 1, by striking ‘‘31 U.S.C. 501 note)’’ and inserting 

‘‘5 U.S.C. App. 11 note)’’. 

Page 16, line 13, by inserting ‘‘note’’ after ‘‘5 U.S.C. App. 8L’’. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 5815, the ‘‘Inspector General Authority Improvement Act of 

2010,’’ was introduced by Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Edolphus Towns (D–NY) and Ranking Member 

Darrell Issa (R–CA) on July 22, 2010. The legislation would amend 

the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) and make other 

changes to existing law to strengthen the authority and independence of Inspectors General (IGs). 

Specifically, H.R. 5815 amends the Inspector General Act to provide IGs with the ability to compel witness testimony through the 

use of subpoenas, subject to certain restrictions. H.R. 5815 further 

amends the Inspector General Act by requiring agencies to take 

corrective action in response to any concerns identified by an IG 

audit, inspection or investigation, or report to Congress why such 

corrective action is not necessary or appropriate. The legislation 

also exempts IGs from agency and White House notification requirements in the Paperwork Reduction Act and the Privacy Act. 

These exemptions will promote independence in IG investigations. 

Finally, H.R. 5815 makes a number of technical and conforming 

changes to the Inspector General Act to codify several provisions 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
3 

that were passed by Congress in the Inspector General Reform Act 

of 2008 (P.L. 110–409). 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Inspectors General (IGs) conduct independent audits, investigations, and inspections of federal programs. This work promotes cost 

savings and helps to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal 

government. In the last Congress, the Inspector General Reform 

Act of 2008, a bipartisan Act to strengthen the independence and 

accountability of IGs, became law. The Committee’s review of the 

implementation of this law has found that certain restrictions and 

requirements in federal law continue to hamper the ability of IGs 

to carry out their important oversight mission. H.R. 5815 will further strengthen the authority of IGs so they can better protect the 

interests of the taxpayers. 

CORRECTIVE ACTION RESPONSES BY AGENCY HEADS

In its FY 2008 annual report, the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) noted that IGs identified 

$18.6 billion in potential savings from a range of audits, investigations, and evaluations across the government. H.R. 5815 will help 

ensure that agencies are held accountable for implementing any 

needed actions to recover all of these potential savings of tax dollars. H.R. 5815 will require the heads of agencies to take corrective 

action to address significant deficiencies or problems identified by 

an IG, or report to Congress why corrective action is not necessary 

or appropriate. 

TESTIMONIAL SUBPOENA AUTHORITY

H.R. 5815 would also amend the Inspector General Act of 1978 

by providing IGs with the ability to compel by subpoena the attendance and testimony of non-federal witnesses. Under current law, 

IGs have the authority to subpoena documents and records of nonfederal entities, but cannot compel witness testimony. Extending 

the IGs subpoena authority to allow for subpoenas of persons in addition to records will enhance the ability of IGs to conduct thorough 

audits and investigations, particularly in the area of contractor 

fraud. Congress has already passed legislation to grant this expanded subpoena authority to the Department of Defense IG, and 

several proposals have been put forth to extend the authority to 

other IGs or groups of IGs. A uniform and consistent approach is 

needed to assist the IG community in conducting thorough and 

timely investigations. 

Testimonial subpoena authority would assist IGs by allowing 

complete and thorough investigations of government contractors. 

Federal government contracts accounted for approximately $1 trillion in federal spending in the last two fiscal years. IGs have cited 

numerous instances in which contractors placed unreasonable conditions on IG investigators, limited access to principal witnesses, or 

simply refused to cooperate. For example, a contractor that had 

previously been cited for severe design and performance deficiencies in connection with a multi-billion dollar national security 

acquisition program put up such resistance to IG requests for interviews that the IG ultimately had to conclude its investigation withVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:17 Sep 25, 2010 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR623.XXX HR623

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
4 

out statements from the contractor. Resistance to legitimate inquiries by an IG impedes the timeliness and completeness of audits, inspections, and investigations, and hampers IGs’ ability to fulfill 

their statutory mission to prevent and detect fraud in government 

programs. In another instance, an investigation of misuse of classified information by an employee of a contractor could not be pursued because the contractor would not cooperate. In addition, in 

cases of fraud involving multiple companies, contractors may be 

unwilling to provide statements without the benefit of a ‘‘friendly 

subpoena’’ from an IG in order to protect their legal interests while 

cooperating with a government investigation. 

IGs have cited numerous instances of non-cooperation by former 

federal employees, in cases ranging from political misconduct by 

high-ranking government officials to IG investigations of sensitive 

national security programs to the theft of government property. Investigations have been closed because IGs were unable to receive 

information from former employees, including former senior government officials, who may have witnessed or participated in the 

alleged misconduct. 

Testimonial subpoena authority would also allow IGs to present 

investigative information to the Department of Justice (DOJ) in a 

more comprehensive and timely manner, aiding DOJ’s criminal and 

civil prosecutive decisions. In cases involving abuses by contractors 

and former employees, even with semi-admissions or incriminating 

information caught on tape, the inability to compel follow-up interviews has resulted in an incomplete record and subsequent decisions by DOJ not to prosecute. Testimonial subpoena authority will 

help ensure that criminal or civil wrongdoing is not overlooked because of stonewalling by former federal employees, grantees, or 

contractors. 

INDEPENDENCE IN USE OF INVESTIGATIVE TOOLS

H.R. 5815 will further enhance the effectiveness and independence of IGs by exempting IGs from certain requirements of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and the Computer Matching and 

Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (Computer Matching Act). The PRA 

requires the Chief Information Officer of an agency and the OMB 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to approve any 

request for collection of information from 10 or more ‘‘non-federal 

entities or persons,’’ including a request made by an IG. This preapproval process impedes the independence of IGs in pursuing investigations. GAO is already exempt from this PRA requirement. 

Similarly, the Computer Matching Act requires a review and approval process by an agency and OMB before computer matching 

can be performed by an IG to identify improper or fraudulent federal assistance payments. The timely use of computer matching to 

identify persons who improperly received federal assistance improves program efficiency, enables the government to focus its resources on eligible applicants, and can help prevent improper payments from occurring in the first instance. The requirement for approval from an agency in order to pursue an investigation through 

computer matching impedes IG independence. 

Collectively, the reforms in H.R. 5815 will enhance IGs’ ability 

to gather information in connection with their audit, evaluation, 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
5 

and investigation functions, so the IG community is betterequipped to carry out its work on behalf of U.S. taxpayers. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

H.R. 5815, was introduced by Oversight and Government Reform 

Committee Chairman Edolphus Towns (D–NY) and Ranking Member Darrell Issa (R–CA) on July 22, 2010. The Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a business meeting to consider 

the bill on July 28, 2010. The Committee ordered the bill, as 

amended, to be reported favorably on a voice vote. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION

Sec. 1. Short title 

The short title of the bill is the Inspector General Authority Improvement Act of 2010. 

Sec. 2. Subpoena authority for Inspectors General to require testimony of certain persons 

Section 2 of H.R. 5815 would amend the Inspector General Act 

of 1978 by providing those IGs covered by the Act with the authority to require by subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses. The authority is limited to persons other than current federal employees (who may be compelled to testify under agency 

rules and procedures), and to circumstances in which issuing a subpoena is necessary in the performance of the functions assigned to 

IGs under the IG Act. 

An IG is required to provide reasonable notice to the individual 

whose testimony is sought. The notice must provide both the name 

of the individual and the place where the testimony will be taken. 

A subpoena issued by an IG may be enforced in the United 

States District Court in the district in which the individual resides 

or is employed. Alternatively, a proceeding to enforce a subpoena 

may be brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia if the individual resides within 25 miles of the District of Columbia and if the complaint seeking enforcement alleges that a significant portion of the matters that are the subject of the IG investigation occurred in the District of Columbia. In both instances, the 

Attorney General is required to represent the IG in the enforcement proceeding. IGs’ use of testimonial subpoena authority is limited by a procedure that requires the IG to notify the Attorney 

General if the IG has reasonable grounds to believe that the subpoena being issued is in connection with a matter involving a violation of federal criminal law or the False Claims Act (5 U.S.C. 

§ 3729). A subpoena may not be issued unless such a notification 

is made at least 15 days before the subpoena is to be issued. 

After a notification, the IG may not issue the subpoena if the Attorney General informs the IG, within 14 days, that the Attorney 

General objects to the issuance of the subpoena. The Attorney General is required to cite the grounds for the objection, which include 

a determination that the subpoena is likely to endanger national 

security, is likely to interfere with any Federal or State criminal 

investigation or prosecution, or is likely to interfere with any pending False Claims Act investigation or any other civil litigation to 

which the United States is or is likely to be a party. If the IG does 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
6 

not agree with the objection, the Attorney General must provide an 

explanation to the IG within 30 days after the initial IG notification. 

Sec. 3. Investigations, audits, inspections, evaluations, and reviews 

conducted by inspectors general 

Section 3 of H.R. 5815 amends section 3518(c) of title 44 of the 

United States Code by exempting IGs from the statutory provisions 

of title 44 that are commonly referred to as the ‘‘Paperwork Reduction Act’’ (44 U.S.C. § 3501 et seq.). The exemption applies to any 

investigation, audit, inspection, evaluation, or other review conducted by any federal office of Inspector General, including any IG 

covered or defined under the Inspector General Act, any Special Inspector General established by statute, the Council of Inspectors 

General on Integrity and Efficiency, and the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board. 

Sec. 4. Enhanced Inspectors General authority for computer matching 

Section 4 of H.R. 5815 amends the Inspector General Act of 1978 

to allow IGs to use a computer matching program to compare any 

federal records with other federal or non-federal records while conducting an audit, inspection, or investigation authorized under the 

IG Act. The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 

(P.L. 100–503) (CMPPA) revised the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 

by adding procedural requirements that agencies must follow when 

matching electronic databases. Currently, Offices of Inspectors 

General are dependent on the cooperation of their agency in meeting these CMPPA requirements. This impedes the independence of 

IGs in conducting investigations. The amendments to the IG Act in 

Section 4 would exempt IGs from certain provisions of the CMPPA 

to allow for greater autonomy in pursuing computer matching as 

an investigative or auditing tool. 

Sec. 5. Reports and responses to identified problems, abuses, and 

deficiencies 

Section 5 of H.R. 5815 amends the Inspector General Act of 1978 

by requiring agency heads to take corrective action in response to 

any questioned costs, recommendations that funds be put to better 

use, or any significant problems, abuses, or deficiencies identified 

by an IG. If the head of any agency determines that corrective action is unnecessary, the agency head must submit a certification to 

Congress that no such action is necessary or appropriate, and provide a detailed explanation for such a determination. 

In addition to requiring that corrective action be taken in response to IG recommendations, section 5 of H.R. 5815 also 

strengthens the reporting requirements in the Inspector General 

Act of 1978. The enhanced reporting requirements will require the 

heads of agencies to provide a description of any corrective action 

taken or proposed to be taken to address areas of concern identified 

by an Inspector General. The enhanced reporting requirements will 

also require agency heads to provide a description of any potential 

cost savings generated by corrective actions taken in response to IG 

recommendations. Finally, the reporting requirements will require 

agency heads to report on any decision not to implement a recVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:17 Sep 25, 2010 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR623.XXX HR623

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
7 

ommendation concerning potential cost savings or other areas of 

concern identified by an IG. 

Sec. 6. Codification of certain provisions of the Inspector General 

Reform Act of 2008 and other technical amendments. 

Section 6 of H.R. 5815 makes a number of technical and conforming changes to the Inspector General Act of 1978. These 

changes codify several provisions from the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008 (P.L. 110–409), including those concerning level 

of pay for IGs at Designated Federal Entities (DFE) and the process for making allegations of wrongdoing against the Special Counsel of the Office of Special Counsel. In addition, section 6 makes 

other technical corrections to ensure that all IGs are authorized to 

fund and participate in CIGIE activities. Section 6 makes an additional technical correction to ensure that all DFE IGs are required 

to protect the confidentiality and identity of individuals who contact the IG through the IG’s web site ‘‘hotline.’’ A technical change 

is made to the IG Act to provide a more accurate and complete description of the type of reports IGs are required to post on their 

web sites, including audit, inspection, and evaluation reports, but 

not criminal investigations. The changes repeal a duplicative provision in appropriations law that conflicts with the IG web site requirements in the IG Act. Finally, the changes correct some typographical errors and incorrect references in the Inspector General 

Reform Act. 

EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS

Rep. Cuellar offered an amendment, which was considered and 

adopted by the Committee by a voice vote. The amendment 

strengthens and clarifies the corrective action and reporting requirements in section 5 of H.R. 5815. Specifically, the amendment 

added a requirement that agency heads provide an estimate of any 

cost savings generated on account of corrective actions taken in response to IG cost savings or other recommendations. In addition, 

the amendment requires agency heads to provide a detailed explanation for any determination that no corrective action is needed or 

appropriate in response to an IG recommendation and makes other 

technical changes to section 5 of H.R. 5815. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On Wednesday, July 28, 2010, the Committee met in open session and favorably ordered H.R. 5815, as amended, to be reported 

to the House by a voice vote. 

ROLLCALL VOTES

No rollcall votes were taken during the Committee’s consideration of H.R. 5815. 

APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104–1 requires a description of 

the application of this bill to the legislative branch where the bill 

relates to terms and conditions of employment or access to public 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
8 

services and accommodations. The bill does not relate to employment or access to public services and accommodations. 

STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF

THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause 2(b)(1) 

of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the 

descriptive portions of this report, including the need enhanced authorities so IGs are better-equipped to conduct audits, inspections, 

investigations, and evaluations. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee’s performance goals and 

objectives are reflected in the descriptive portions of this report, including strengthening the Inspector General community by providing new authorities and holding government agencies accountable for implementing cost savings and other recommendations 

identified by IGs. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Under clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the Committee must include a statement citing 

the specific powers granted to Congress to enact the law proposed 

by H.R. 5815. Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution of 

the United States grants the Congress the power to enact this law. 

FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT

The Committee finds that the legislation does not establish or 

authorize the establishment of an advisory committee within the 

definition of 5 U.S.C. App., Section 5(b). 

UNFUNDED MANDATES STATEMENT

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, P.L. 104–4) requires a statement on whether the 

provisions of the report include unfunded mandates. In compliance 

with this requirement the Committee has received a letter from the 

Congressional Budget Office included herein. 

EARMARK IDENTIFICATION

H.R. 5815 does not include any congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), 

or 9(f) of rule XXI. 

COMMITTEE ESTIMATE

Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs that would be incurred in carrying out H.R. 

5815. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
9 

report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of 

the Congressional Budget Act. 

BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST

ESTIMATE

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect to requirements 

of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 

Committee has received the following cost estimate for H.R. 5815 

from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2010. 

Hon. EDOLPHUS TOWNS, Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5815, the Inspector General Authority Improvement Act of 2010. 

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

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew Pickford. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 5815—Inspector General Authority Improvement Act of 2010 

H.R. 5815 would amend the Inspector General Act of 1978 to expand the subpoena authority of inspectors general at some agencies, require additional reports, and codify, clarify, and make technical changes to various authorities of inspectors general. 

Based on information from several agencies, CBO estimates that 

any additional administrative costs or savings from implementing 

H.R. 5815 would not be significant over the 2011–2015 period. The 

legislation would affect direct spending by agencies not funded 

through annual appropriations, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the National Credit Union Administration; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However, CBO estimates that any net increase in 

spending by those agencies also would not be significant. Enacting 

H.R. 5815 would not affect revenues. 

H.R. 5815 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew Pickford. The 

estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:17 Sep 25, 2010 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR623.XXX HR623

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
10 

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

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

INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT OF 1978 

* * * * * * * 

APPOINTMENT AND REMOVAL OF OFFICERS

SEC. 3. (a) There shall be at the head of each Office an Inspector 

General who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the 

advice and consent of the Senate, without regard to political affiliation and solely on the basis of integrity and demonstrated ability 

in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law, management analysis, public administration, or investigations. Each Inspector General shall report to and be under the general supervision of the 

head of the establishment involved or, to the extent such authority 

is delegated, the officer next in rank below such head, but shall not 

report to, or be subject to supervision by, any other officer of such 

establishment. Neither the head of the establishment nor the officer next in rank below such head shall prevent or prohibit the Inspector General from initiating, carrying out, or completing any 

audit or investigation, or from issuing any øsubpena¿ subpoena 

during the course of any audit or investigation. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 5. (a) * * * 

(b) Semiannual reports of each Inspector General shall be furnished to the head of the establishment involved not later than 

April 30 and October 31 of each year and shall be transmitted by 

such head to the appropriate committees or subcommittees of the 

Congress within thirty days after receipt of the report, together 

with a report by the head of the establishment containing— 

(1) * * * 

(2) a description of any corrective action taken or proposed to 

be taken with respect to questioned costs, a recommendation 

that funds be put to better use, or any significant problems, 

abuses, and deficiencies identified by the Inspector General; 

(3) a description of any potential cost savings generated by 

any corrective action taken pursuant to subsection (e)(1); 

(4) any certification required under subsection (e)(2); 

ø(2)¿ (5) statistical tables showing the total number of audit 

reports, inspection reports, and evaluation reports and the dollar value of disallowed costs, for reports— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(3)¿ (6) statistical tables showing the total number of audit 

reports, inspection reports, and evaluation reports and the dollar value of recommendations that funds be put to better use 

by management agreed to in a management decision, for reports— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(4)¿ (7) a statement with respect to audit reports on which 

management decisions have been made but final action has not 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
11 

been taken, other than audit reports on which a management 

decision was made within the preceding year, containing— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(e) CORRECTIVE ACTION BY THE HEAD OF THE ESTABLISHMENT.— (1) CORRECTIVE ACTION.—Except as provided in paragraph 

(2), the head of the establishment shall take corrective action in 

response to any questioned costs, a recommendation that funds 

be put to better use, or any significant problems, abuses, or deficiencies identified by the Inspector General of such establishment. 

(2) CERTIFICATION TO CONGRESS.—If the head of the establishment determines that no action is necessary or appropriate 

with respect to any questioned costs, a recommendation that 

funds be put to better use, or any significant problems, abuses, 

or deficiencies identified by the Inspector General of such establishment, such head shall submit a certification to Congress 

that no such action is necessary or appropriate, with a detailed 

explanation why no such action is necessary or appropriate. 

ø(e)¿ (f)(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(f)¿ (g) As used in this section— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

AUTHORITY; ADMINISTRATION PROVISIONS

SEC. 6. (a) In addition to the authority otherwise provided by 

this Act, each Inspector General, in carrying out the provisions of 

this Act, is authorized— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(4) to require by subpoena the production of all information, 

documents, reports, answers, records, accounts, papers, and 

other data in any medium (including electronically stored øinformation, as well as any tangible thing)¿ information), as well 

as any tangible thing and documentary evidence necessary in 

the performance of the functions assigned by this Act, which 

øsubpena¿ subpoena, in the case of contumacy or refusal to 

obey, shall be enforceable by order of any appropriate United 

States district court: Provided, That procedures other than 

øsubpenas¿ subpoenas shall be used by the Inspector General 

to obtain documents and information from Federal agencies; 

* * * * * * * 

(8) to obtain services as authorized by section 3109 of title 

5, United States Code, at daily rates not to exceed the equivalent rate prescribed for grade GS–18 of the General Schedule 

by section 5332 of title 5, United States Code; øand¿ 

(9) to the extent and in such amounts as may be provided 

in advance by appropriations Acts, to enter into contracts and 

other arrangements for audits, studies, analyses, and other 

services with public agencies and with private persons, and to 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
12 

make such payments as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Actø.¿; 

(10) to require by subpoena the attendance and testimony of 

witnesses necessary in the performance of the functions assigned to the Inspector General by this Act, except as provided 

for and subject to the provisions in subsection (g); and 

(11) notwithstanding subsections (o), (p), (q), (r), and (u) of 

section 552a of title 5, United States Code, to compare, through 

a matching program (as defined in such section), any Federal 

records with other Federal or non-Federal records while conducting an audit, inspection, or investigation authorized under 

this Act to identify weaknesses that make a program vulnerable 

to fraud, waste, or abuse and to detect improper payments and 

fraud. 

* * * * * * * 

(g)(1) An Inspector General shall use procedures other than subpoenas to obtain attendance and testimony from Federal employees. 

(2)(A) A subpoena issued under subsection (a)(10) shall provide 

reasonable notice to the individual whose testimony is sought and 

shall state the name of the individual and the place of taking the 

testimony. 

(B) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), a subpoena issued 

under subsection (a)(10), in the case of contumacy or refusal to obey, 

shall be enforceable in the United States District Court in the district where the individual whose testimony is sought by subpoena 

resides or in the district of the individual’s place of employment. 

(C) A proceeding to enforce a subpoena may be brought in the 

United States District Court for the District of Columbia if the individual whose testimony is sought by the subpoena resides within 25 

miles of the District of Columbia and if the complaint seeking enforcement alleges that a significant portion of the matters that are 

expected to be the subject of the investigation, audit, inspection, 

evaluation, or review occurred in the District of Columbia. 

(D) The Attorney General shall represent an Office of Inspector 

General in the enforcement of a subpoena under this subsection. 

(3)(A) An Inspector General may not issue a subpoena under subsection (a)(10) if the subpoena is being issued in connection with a 

matter in which the Inspector General has reasonable grounds to 

believe there has been a violation of Federal criminal law or section 

3729 of title 31, United States Code, unless the Inspector General 

notifies the Attorney General of the intention of the Inspector General to issue the subpoena, including the name of the individual 

whose testimony is sought and the nature of the testimony sought, 

at least 15 days before issuing the subpoena. 

(B) The Inspector General may not issue the subpoena if the Attorney General informs the Inspector General, within 14 days after receipt of the notification under subparagraph (A), that the Attorney 

General objects to the issuance of the subpoena on one or more of 

the grounds listed in clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph (C). 

(C) If the Attorney General objects to the issuance of the subpoena 

as described in subparagraph (B) and the Inspector General does 

not agree with the objection of the Attorney General, the Attorney 

General shall, within 30 days after receipt of the notification under 

subparagraph (A), submit an explanation to the Inspector General 

that the taking of the testimony— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
13 

(i) is likely to endanger the national security of the United 

States; 

(ii) is likely to interfere with any Federal or State criminal 

investigation or prosecution; or 

(iii) is likely to interfere with any pending investigation under 

section 3729 of title 31, United States Code, or any civil litigation to which the United States is or is likely to be a party. 

* * * * * * * 

SPECIAL PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE

TREASURY

SEC. 8D. (a)(1) Notwithstanding the last two sentences of section 

3(a), the Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury shall 

be under the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of 

the Treasury with respect to audits or investigations, or the 

issuance of øsubpenas¿ subpoenas, which require access to sensitive information concerning— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(2) With respect to the information described under paragraph 

(1), the Secretary of the Treasury may prohibit the Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury from carrying out or completing any audit or investigation, or from issuing any øsubpena¿ 

subpoena, after such Inspector General has decided to initiate, 

carry out, or complete such audit or investigation or to issue such 

øsubpena¿ subpoena, if the Secretary determines that such prohibition is necessary to prevent the disclosure of any information described under paragraph (1) or to prevent significant impairment 

to the national interests of the United States. 

* * * * * * * 

SPECIAL PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

SEC. 8E. (a)(1) Notwithstanding the last two sentences of section 

3(a), the Inspector General shall be under the authority, direction, 

and control of the Attorney General with respect to audits or investigations, or the issuance of øsubpenas¿ subpoenas, which require 

access to sensitive information concerning— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(2) With respect to the information described under paragraph 

(1), the Attorney General may prohibit the Inspector General from 

carrying out or completing any audit or investigation, or from 

issuing any øsubpena¿ subpoena, after such Inspector General has 

decided to initiate, carry out, or complete such audit or investigation or to issue such øsubpena¿ subpoena, if the Attorney General 

determines that such prohibition is necessary to prevent the disclosure of any information described under paragraph (1) or to prevent the significant impairment to the national interests of the 

United States. 

* * * * * * * 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
14 

REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL ENTITIES AND DESIGNATED FEDERAL

ENTITIES

SEC. 8G. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(d) Each Inspector General shall report to and be under the general supervision of the head of the designated Federal entity, but 

shall not report to, or be subject to supervision by, any other officer 

or employee of such designated Federal entity. The head of the designated Federal entity shall not prevent or prohibit the Inspector 

General from initiating, carrying out, or completing any audit or 

investigation, or from issuing any øsubpena¿ subpoena during the 

course of any audit or investigation. 

* * * * * * * 

(g)(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) Notwithstanding the last sentence of subsection (d) of this 

section, the provisions of subsection (a) of section ø8C¿ 8D (other 

than the provisions of subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (E) of subsection (a)(1)) shall apply to the Inspector General of the Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Chairman of the 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in the same 

manner as such provisions apply to the Inspector General of the 

Department of the Treasury and the Secretary of the Treasury, respectively. 

* * * * * * * 

(i) INSPECTORS GENERAL OF DESIGNATED FEDERAL ENTITIES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of 

law, the Inspector General of each designated Federal entity 

shall, for pay and all other purposes, be classified at a grade, 

level, or rank designation, as the case may be, at or above those 

of a majority of the senior level executives of that designated 

Federal entity (such as a General Counsel, Chief Information 

Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Human Capital Officer, 

or Chief Acquisition Officer). The pay of an Inspector General 

of a designated Federal entity shall be not less than the average 

total compensation (including bonuses) of the senior level executives of that designated Federal entity calculated on an annual 

basis. 

(2) LIMITATION ON ADJUSTMENT.— (A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of an Inspector General of 

a designated Federal entity whose pay is adjusted under 

paragraph (1), the total increase in pay in any fiscal year 

resulting from that adjustment may not exceed 25 percent 

of the average total compensation (including bonuses) of the 

Inspector General of that entity for the preceding 3 fiscal 

years. 

(B) SUNSET OF LIMITATION.—The limitation under subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any adjustment made in 

fiscal year 2013 or each fiscal year thereafter. 

* * * * * * * 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
15 

SEC. 8L. INFORMATION ON WEBSITES OF OFFICES OF INSPECTORS 

GENERAL. 

(a) DIRECT LINKS TO INSPECTORS GENERAL OFFICES.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Each øagency¿ Federal agency, establishment, or designated Federal entity shall establish and maintain 

on the homepage of the website of that øagency¿ Federal agency, establishment, or designated Federal entity, a direct link to 

the website of the Office of the Inspector General of that 

øagency¿ Federal agency, establishment, or designated Federal 

entity. 

* * * * * * * 

(b) REQUIREMENTS FOR INSPECTORS GENERAL WEBSITES.— (1) POSTING OF REPORTS AND AUDITS.—The Inspector General 

of each øagency¿ Federal agency, establishment, or designated 

Federal entity shall— 

(A) not later than 3 days after any øreport or audit (or 

portion of any report or audit)¿ audit report, inspection report, or evaluation report (or portion of any such report) is 

made publicly available, post that øreport or audit (or portion of that report or audit)¿ report (or portion of that report) on the website of the Office of Inspector General; and 

(B) ensure that any posted øreport or audit (or portion 

of that report or audit)¿ report (or portion of that report) 

described under subparagraph (A)— 

(i) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(2) REPORTING OF FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Inspector General of each øagency¿ Federal agency, establishment, or designated Federal 

entity shall establish and maintain a direct link on the 

homepage of the website of the Office of the Inspector General for individuals to report fraud, waste, and abuse. Individuals reporting fraud, waste, or abuse using the direct 

link established under this paragraph shall not be required to provide personally identifying information relating to that individual. 

(B) ANONYMITY.—The Inspector General of each øagency¿ Federal agency, establishment, or designated Federal 

entity shall not disclose the identity of any individual making a report under this paragraph without the consent of 

the individual unless the Inspector General determines 

that such a disclosure is unavoidable during the course of 

the investigation. 

SEC. 8M. PAY RETENTION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The provisions of section 3392(c) of title 5, 

United States Code, other than the terms ‘‘performance awards’’ and 

‘‘awarding of ranks’’ in paragraph (1) of such section, shall apply 

to career appointees of the Senior Executive Service who are appointed to the position of Inspector General on or after October 14, 

2008. 

(b) NONREDUCTION IN PAY.—Notwithstanding any other provision 

of law, career Federal employees serving on an appointment made 

pursuant to statutory authority found other than in section 3392 of 

title 5, United States Code, shall not suffer a reduction in pay, not 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
16 

including any bonus or performance award, as a result of being appointed to the position of Inspector General. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 11. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COUNCIL OF THE INSPECTORS GENERAL ON INTEGRITY AND EFFICIENCY. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF COUNCIL.— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES.— 

(A) INTERAGENCY FUNDING.—Notwithstanding section 

1532 of title 31, United States Code, or any other provision 

of law prohibiting the interagency funding of activities described under subclause (I), (II), or (III) of clause (i), in the 

performance of the responsibilities, authorities, and duties 

of the Council— 

(i) * * * 

(ii) upon the authorization of the Executive Chairperson, any ødepartment, agency, or entity of the executive branch¿ Federal agency, establishment, or designated Federal entity which has a member on the 

Council shall fund or participate in the funding of 

such activities. 

* * * * * * * 

(d) INTEGRITY COMMITTEE.— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(12) ALLEGATIONS OF WRONGDOING AGAINST SPECIAL COUNSEL OR DEPUTY SPECIAL COUNSEL.— 

(A) DEFINITION.—In this paragraph, the term ‘‘Special 

Counsel’’ refers to the Special Counsel appointed under section 1211(b) of title 5, United States Code. 

(B) AUTHORITY OF INTEGRITY COMMITTEE.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—An allegation of wrongdoing 

against the Special Counsel or the Deputy Special 

Counsel may be received, reviewed, and referred for investigation by the Integrity Committee to the same extent and in the same manner as in the case of an allegation against an Inspector General (or a member of 

the staff of an Office of Inspector General), subject to 

the requirement that the Special Counsel recuse himself or herself from the consideration of any allegation 

brought under this subparagraph. 

(ii) COORDINATION WITH EXISTING PROVISIONS OF

LAW.—This paragraph does not eliminate access to the 

Merit Systems Protection Board for review under section 7701 of title 5, United States Code. To the extent 

that an allegation brought under this paragraph involves section 2302(b)(8) of that title, a failure to obtain 

corrective action within 120 days after the date on 

which that allegation is received by the Integrity ComVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:17 Sep 25, 2010 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR623.XXX HR623

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
17 

mittee shall, for purposes of section 1221 of such title, 

be considered to satisfy section 1214(a)(3)(B) of that 

title. 

(C) REGULATIONS.—The Integrity Committee may prescribe any rules or regulations necessary to carry out this 

paragraph, subject to such consultation or other requirements as might otherwise apply. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE 44, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 35—COORDINATION OF FEDERAL 

INFORMATION POLICY 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER I—FEDERAL INFORMATION POLICY

* * * * * * * 

§ 3518. Effect on existing laws and regulations 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c)(1) Except as provided in øparagraph (2)¿ paragraph (3), this 

subchapter shall not apply to the collection of information— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (3), this subchapter shall not 

apply to the collection of information during the conduct of any investigation, audit, inspection, evaluation, or other review conducted 

by— 

(A) any Federal office of Inspector General, including— 

(i) any office of Inspector General of any establishment, 

Federal entity, or designated Federal entity as those terms 

are defined under sections 12(2), 8G(a)(1), and 8G(a)(2) of 

the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), respectively; or 

(ii) any office of Special Inspector General established by 

statute; 

(B) the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency established under section 11 of the Inspector General 

Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.); or 

(C) the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board established under section 1521 of division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5; 123 

Stat. 289). 

ø(2)¿ (3) This subchapter applies to the collection of information 

during the conduct of general investigations (other than information collected in an antitrust investigation to the extent provided 

in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1)) undertaken with reference to 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
18 

a category of individuals or entities such as a class of licensees or 

an entire industry. 

* * * * * * * 

INSPECTOR GENERAL REFORM ACT OF 2008 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 4. PAY OF INSPECTORS GENERAL. 

(a) * * * 

ø(b) INSPECTORS GENERAL OF DESIGNATED FEDERAL ENTITIES.— ø(1) IN GENERAL.— Notwithstanding any other provision of 

law, the Inspector General of each designated Federal entity 

(as those terms are defined under section 8G of the Inspector 

General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.)) shall, for pay and all 

other purposes, be classified at a grade, level, or rank designation, as the case may be, at or above those of a majority of the 

senior level executives of that designated Federal entity (such 

as a General Counsel, Chief Information Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Human Capital Officer, or Chief Acquisition 

Officer). The pay of an Inspector General of a designated Federal entity (as those terms are defined under section 8G of the 

Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.)) shall be not less 

than the average total compensation (including bonuses) of the 

senior level executives of that designated Federal entity calculated on an annual basis. 

ø(2) LIMITATION ON ADJUSTMENT.— 

ø(A) IN GENERAL.— In the case of an Inspector General 

of a designated Federal entity whose pay is adjusted under 

paragraph (1), the total increase in pay in any fiscal year 

resulting from that adjustment may not exceed 25 percent 

of the average total compensation (including bonuses) of 

the Inspector General of that entity for the preceding 3 fiscal years. 

ø(B) SUNSET OF LIMITATION.— The limitation under subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any adjustment made in 

fiscal year 2013 or each fiscal year thereafter. 

ø(c) SAVINGS PROVISION FOR NEWLY APPOINTED INSPECTORS GENERAL.— 

ø(1) IN GENERAL.— The provisions of section of title 5, 

United States Code, other than the terms ‘‘performance 

awards’’ and ‘‘awarding of ranks’’ in subsection (c)(1) of such 

section, shall apply to career appointees of the Senior Executive Service who are appointed to the position of Inspector 

General. 

ø(2) NONREDUCTION IN PAY.— Notwithstanding any other 

provision of law, career Federal employees serving on an appointment made pursuant to statutory authority found other 

than in section of title 5, United States Code, shall not suffer 

a reduction in pay, not including any bonus or performance 

award, as a result of being appointed to the position of Inspector General.¿ 

* * * * * * * 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
19 

SEC. 7. ESTABLISHMENT OF COUNCIL OF THE INSPECTORS GENERAL 

ON INTEGRITY AND EFFICIENCY. 

(a) * * * 

ø(b) ALLEGATIONS OF WRONGDOING AGAINST SPECIAL COUNSEL

OR DEPUTY SPECIAL COUNSEL.— 

ø(1) DEFINITIONS.— In this section— 

ø(A) the term ‘‘Integrity Committee’’ means the Integrity 

Committee established under section 11(d) of the Inspector 

General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App), as amended by this 

Act; and 

ø(B) the term ‘‘Special Counsel’’ refers to the Special 

Counsel appointed under section of title 5, United States 

Code. 

ø(2) AUTHORITY OF INTEGRITY COMMITTEE.— 

ø(A) IN GENERAL.— An allegation of wrongdoing against 

the Special Counsel or the Deputy Special Counsel may be 

received, reviewed, and referred for investigation by the 

Integrity Committee to the same extent and in the same 

manner as in the case of an allegation against an Inspector General (or a member of the staff of an Office of Inspector General), subject to the requirement that the Special Counsel recuse himself or herself from the consideration of any allegation brought under this paragraph. 

ø(B) COORDINATION WITH EXISTING PROVISIONS OF LAW.— 

This subsection does not eliminate access to the Merit Systems Protection Board for review under section of title 5, 

United States Code. To the extent that an allegation 

brought under this subsection involves section 2302(b)(8) 

of that title, a failure to obtain corrective action within 120 

days after the date on which that allegation is received by 

the Integrity Committee shall, for purposes of section 1221 

of such title, be considered to satisfy section 1214(a)(3)(B) 

of that title. 

ø(3) REGULATIONS.— The Integrity Committee may prescribe 

any rules or regulations necessary to carry out this subsection, 

subject to such consultation or other requirements as might 

otherwise apply.¿ 

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE AND EXISTING EXECUTIVE ORDERS.— 

(1) * * * 

(2) EXECUTIVE ORDERS.—Executive Order No. 12805, dated 

May 11, 1992, and Executive Order No. ø12933¿ 12993, dated 

March 21, 1996 (as in effect before the date of the enactment 

of this Act) shall have no force or effect on and after the earlier 

of— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
20 

FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT 

APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009 

(Division D of Public Law 111–8) 

DIVISION D—FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL 

GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE VII 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—GOVERNMENT-WIDE 

* * * * * * * 

øSEC. 744. (a) Each executive department and agency shall establish and maintain on the homepage of its website, an obvious, 

direct link to the website of its respective Inspector General. 

ø(b) Each Office of Inspector General shall: (1) post on its website 

any public report or audit or portion of any report or audit issued 

within one day of its release; (2) provide a service on its website 

to allow an individual to request automatic receipt of information 

relating to any public report or audit or portion of that report or 

audit and which permits electronic transmittal of the information, 

or notice of the availability of the information without further request; and (3) establish and maintain a direct link on its website 

for individuals to anonymously report waste, fraud and abuse.¿ 

* * * * * * * 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
(21) 

1Letter from J. Anthony Ogden, Chair CIGIE Legislative Committee, to Rep. Darrell Issa, 

Ranking Member, Comm. on Oversight and Gov’t Reform, April 2, 2010, at 2. 2 Id. 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

H.R. 5815, the ‘‘Inspector General Authority Improvement Act of 

2010,’’ was introduced by Chairman Edolphus Towns and Ranking 

Member Darrell Issa on July 22, 2010. The legislation amends the 

Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) to enhance the authority of Inspectors General (IGs) to conduct meaningful audits, 

inspections and investigations by allowing them to subpoena witnesses to interviews, and by providing them with additional tools 

to conduct their duties. The legislation also allows an exemption 

from two federal laws—the Paperwork Reduction Act and the Computer Matching Act. These laws, according to the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE), slow down investigations, and other critical functions. 

IMPETUS FOR THE LEGISLATION

In March of this year, Ranking Member Issa wrote to seventyfour IGs requesting legislative suggestions to improve the Inspector 

General Act (a copy of Mr. Issa’s letter and the recipient list of IGs 

is attached). The CIGIE Legislative Committee replied to Rep. Issa 

on April 2, 2010 and recommended several changes to the IG Act. 

TESTIMONIAL SUBPOENA AUTHORITY

Presently, under the IG Act, IGs have the authority to subpoena 

documents and other tangible evidence but cannot compel witnesses to appear for interviews or depositions. This legislative enhancement will allow IGs to interview witnesses who are unwilling 

to cooperate voluntarily. 

In response to a letter from Ranking Member Issa, the Legislative Committee of CIGIE suggested expanded subpoena authority. 

In their letter, CIGIE stated ‘‘This proposed expansion of authority 

would enhance the IG’s ability to conduct thorough audits and investigations, particularly in procurement fraud matters dealing 

with Government contractors or grantees.’’ 1 The Department of Defense IG already has subpoena authority, and extending this tool 

to the entire IG community will allow a uniform and consistent approach for all IGs.2

In 2009, CIGIE surveyed 69 inspectors general to better understand how testimonial subpoena authority would improve their 

ability to perform their duties. Ninety-four percent of respondents 

agreed that procurement fraud investigations are currently hamVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:17 Sep 25, 2010 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR623.XXX HR623

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
22 

3Letter from J. Anthony Ogden, Chair CIGIE Legislative Committee, to Sen. Joseph 

Lieberman, Chairman, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 

Sept. 18, 2009, at 2. 4 Id. 

pered by an inability to compel testimony of non-federal witnesses.3

The Department of Justice National Procurement Fraud Task 

Force also has recommended providing IGs with subpoena authority. In a 2008 report, the Task Force observed, ‘‘Many fraud matters are brought against companies, and being able to compel interviews from employees or customers during investigations would be 

invaluable in investigating and prosecuting a case.’’ 4

The Committee has found during the course of its investigations 

into matters concerning government contracts—particularly those 

relating to the rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan—that investigations often cannot be sufficiently concluded because of the inability 

to interview key fact witnesses. Non-federal witnesses such as employees of government contractors and subcontractors are acutely 

aware of the limits inspectors general have. Consequently, witnesses refuse to talk to IGs. Likewise, the Committee is aware of 

numerous instances of procurement fraud uncovered by an inspector general and referred to the Department of Justice, only to languish for want of a complete factual record. The Justice Department does not have the desire, the time or the resources to reinvestigate all matters referred to it by our inspectors general. Currently, without transcripts of witness depositions or interviews, the 

Justice Department must rely on notes prepared by IG investigators. 

Extending the testimonial subpoena authority to inspectors general will allow them to conduct more rigorous investigations, develop a deeper factual record, and better perform their duties. 

OTHER ENHANCEMENTS

The legislation also exempts IGs from the burdensome requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act and the Computer Matching 

Act. According to CIGIE, these acts require IG offices to undertake 

lengthy and burdensome information collection processes, making 

it more difficult for them to execute their audit, evaluation, inspection and investigation duties. 

DARRELL ISSA. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
23 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 27 here HR623.001
24 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 28 here HR623.002
25 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 29 here HR623.003
26 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 30 here HR623.004
27 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 31 here HR623.005
28 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 32 here HR623.006
29 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 33 here HR623.007
30 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 34 here HR623.008