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

79–903 PDF 2013

GOVERNMENT SPENDING: HOW CAN WE BEST 

ADDRESS THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WASTED 

EVERY YEAR? 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 5, 2013 

Serial No. 113–6 

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

( 

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

http://www.house.gov/reform 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOC HASTINGS, Washington 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

MARK POCAN, Wisconsin 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

TONY CARDENAS, California 

STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

LAWRENCE J. BRADY, Staff Director 

JOHN D. CUADERES, Deputy Staff Director 

ROBERT BORDEN, General Counsel 

LINDA A. GOOD, Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on February 5, 2013 ......................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Thomas A. Schatz, President, Citizens Against Government Waste 

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

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

Mr. Ryan Alexander, President, Taxpayers for Common Sense 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 30 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 33 

The Honorable Dan G. Blair, President, National Academy of Public Administration 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 61 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 63 

Mr. Jonathan M. Kamensky, Senior Fellow, IBM Center for the Business 

of Government 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 75 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 77 

APPENDIX 

Record Taxpayer Cost Is Seen for Crop Insurance, The New York Times 

Article Submitted by Rep. Cummings ................................................................ 121 

The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings, a Member of Congress from the State 

of Maryland, Opening Statement ....................................................................... 123 

National Academy of Public Administration, Responses for the Record ............. 125 

Sliding Past Sequestration, Taxpayers for Common Sense Article Submitted 

by Rep. Mica ......................................................................................................... 127 

(1) 

GOVERNMENT SPENDING: HOW CAN WE BEST 

ADDRESS THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS 

WASTED EVERY YEAR? 

Tuesday, February 5, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 12:59 p.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Darrell E. Issa [chairman of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Issa, Mica, Turner, Duncan, Jordan, 

Chaffetz, Lankford, Amash, Gosar, DesJarlais, Farenthold, 

Lummis, Massie, Collins, Meadows, Bentivolio, DeSantis, 

Cummings, Maloney, Norton, Tierney, Cooper, Connolly, Speier, 

Cartwright, Pocan, Duckworth, Davis, Cardenas, Horsford, and 

Lujan Grisham. 

Staff Present: Ali Ahmad, Majority Communications Advisor; 

Robert Borden, Majority General Counsel; Molly Boyl, Majority 

Parliamentarian; Joseph A. Brazauskas, Majority Counsel; Caitlin 

Carroll, Majority Deputy Press Secretary; Sharon Casey, Majority 

Senior Assistant Clerk; Steve Castor, Majority Chief Counsel, Investigations; John Cuaderes, Majority Deputy Staff Director; Adam 

P. Fromm, Majority Director of Member Services and Committee 

Operations; Linda Good, Majority Chief Clerk; Ryan M. Hambleton, 

Majority Professional Staff Member; Jennifer Hemingway, Majority 

Senior Professional Staff Member; Mark D. Marin, Majority Director of Oversight; Scott Schmidt, Majority Deputy Director of Digital 

Strategy; Matthew Tallmer, Majority Investigator; Peter Warren, 

Majority Legislative Policy Director; Rebecca Watkins, Majority 

Deputy Director of Communications; Meghan Berroya, Minority 

Counsel; Jaron Bourke, Minority Director of Administration; Krista 

Boyd, Minority Deputy Director of Legislation/Counsel; Ashley 

Etienne, Minority Director of Communications; Devon Hill, Minority Research Assistant; Carla Hultberg, Minority Chief Clerk; Elisa 

LaNier, Minority Deputy Clerk; Dave Rapallo, Minority Staff Director; and Mark Stephenson, Minority Director of Legislation. 

Chairman ISSA. The committee will come to order one minute 

early. 

The Oversight Committee exists to secure two fundamental principles: first, Americans have a right to know that the money Washington takes from them is well spent and, second, Americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them. Our 

duty on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee is to 

2 

protect these rights. Our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers, because taxpayers have a right to 

know what they get from their government. It is our job to work 

tirelessly in partnership with citizen watchdogs to deliver the facts 

to the American people and bring genuine reform to Federal bureaucracy. 

Today we continue that mission. For months we have been engaged in a national discussion about how government takes and 

spends money from hardworking taxpayers. As this debate has unfolded, a lot of attention centers on which taxpayers should be paying more so that government could keep spending more. The question that hasn’t been asked enough, although it has been asked, 

whether or not Washington should be taking more. 

I come from a business background, and the only way you can 

make more is to deliver a better product. You need to be transparent and you need your services to be delivered efficiently. Understanding we are not questioning that services need to be delivered here today but, rather, ensuring that the delivery of services 

be done in the most cost-effective possible way. Too often the distinction between needed services and wasteful government gets 

blurred. Perhaps it is for political purposes on occasion; perhaps it 

is simply because attacking waste in government often looks like 

you are attacking the underlying program. 

We are not an authorization committee, for the most part. We do 

not authorize most major spending programs. So I believe we can 

be an honest broker. We will end no programs, but we will work, 

and are working in our hearing today, at finding places to find out 

if in fact these financial realities need to be fixed and that they are 

clearly broken. Ignoring the problem is no longer an option. We are 

running out of time because, when government doesn’t function 

properly, American people lose access to important government 

services. 

In any other enterprise producing nearly a $1 trillion deficit for 

the foreseeable future every year would in fact be shut down. Last 

year the government reported a total of $108 billion in improper 

payments. It would have taken us down by one-tenth of our problem. In 2011, the inspector general community identified potential 

savings produced from government reform totaling another $100 

billion. 

The General Accountability Office has published report after report identifying dozens and dozens of government agencies that do 

duplicate and overlapping and cost-inefficient projects that hardworking Americans pay tens of billions of dollars a year for. 

We need, and have, a blueprint to change that. What we need 

is the political will, from both parties and the President, to do so; 

and we have never had a better reason. Ultimately, as the debate 

in other committees is on tax increases or simply cutting programs 

to spend less money, we are the committee that needs to be part 

of a fix that is a win-win: a win for the taxpayer because he doesn’t 

have to pay more; a win for the service recipient because, in fact, 

services can be delivered for less. That is our challenge; it is what 

we are here today to talk about. 

I don’t believe it falls anywhere from the far left to the far right 

of the ideological spectrum to reform government. Just the oppoVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:43 May 07, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\79903.TXT APRIL
3 

site; I believe it is in the interest of all of us, no matter where you 

are in the spectrum, to spend less doing what we have agreed or 

disagreed to do so that, in fact, the American people have a smaller 

burden than they do today. I believe today’s hearing will take us 

a long way in that direction. We have a distinguished panel here 

to tell us about it. 

With that, I would like to recognize the ranking member for his 

opening statement. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 

for holding this hearing. It is very encouraging that the first two 

committee hearings of this committee have been bipartisan and focused on the core jurisdiction of this committee. Your staff did an 

exemplary job leading up to this hearing in sharing information 

and making the planning of this hearing a bipartisan effort. 

The title of this hearing gets right to the heart of the issues we 

are examining today. The title is Government Spending: How Can 

We Best Address the Billions of Dollars Wasted Every Year? 

We in Congress talk all the time about cutting waste and making 

the government more efficient. It is time to go from talking to acting. I am looking forward to hearing from the witnesses testifying 

today about concrete actions the Administration and Congress can 

take to save taxpayers money. 

The Department of Defense is responsible for an appalling 

amount of wasteful spending each year through its contracts. DOD 

obligated $365 billion for contracts in fiscal year 2012 and the Department has had significant problems with contract management 

and oversight. 

The Congressional Research Service recently reported that DOD 

acquisition programs have experienced ‘‘poor performance against 

the backdrop of war in Afghanistan, spiraling contract costs, and 

decline in the size of the defense acquisition workforce.’’ 

In testimony before this committee last month, a witness from 

the Government Accountability Office said that several DOD IT investments ‘‘experienced significant performance problems and were 

indeed high-risk.’’ One of the specific examples the chairman and 

GAO pointed out in that hearing was a contract that the Air Force 

canceled last December, after having spent $1 billion. The Expeditionary Combat Support System was plagued by delays and cost 

overruns. 

Representative Speier highlighted this issue in a letter to us in 

December, Mr. Chairman, and I agree that it makes sense for the 

committee to adopt her proposal to investigate this contract further. 

Another example is the $750 million in overpayments by DOD to 

the contractor that provides food supplies to United States troops 

in Afghanistan. This is an issue that has been highlighted by the 

ranking member of the National Security Subcommittee, John 

Tierney, and the subcommittee’s chairman, Mr. Chaffetz. Ranking 

Member Tierney has also been a leader in exposing problems with 

DOD’s F–35 Joint Strike Fighter, the largest weapons procurement 

program in history, which has had substantial cost overruns and 

repeated schedule delays. Full production of the Joint Strike Fighter Program has been delayed by six years and the cost per unit 

have doubled. 

4 

We are better than that. We can do much, much better. 

Another area of significant Federal spending is crop insurance. 

I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a New York 

Times article from January 15, 2013, titled ‘‘Record Taxpayer Cost 

Is Seen for Crop Insurance.’’ 

Chairman ISSA. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. According to this article, the government pays 

$1.3 billion, $1.3 billion each year to 15 insurance companies. The 

article states ‘‘government documents show the taxpayers have 

paid nearly $7 billion so far to subsidize premiums for 2012. The 

documents also show that taxpayers could pay another $7 billion 

to underwrite losses by the insurance companies and other costs.’’ 

These are just a few examples of government waste. There are 

many, many more. And I hope the committee will conduct vigorous 

oversight to expose these and other sources of wasteful spending 

and ensure that necessary actions are taken to address the root 

problems. As I have said many times, and I said just here today, 

that taxpayers want to make sure that their tax dollars are spent 

effectively and efficiently; and, Mr. Chairman, we are committed to 

work with you in a bipartisan way to not only see where that waste 

is taking place, but then to come up with meaningful solutions to 

try to address them. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman, and we will. 

We now recognize our distinguished panel of witnesses. 

Mr. Tom Schatz is president of Citizens Against Government 

Waste; Ms. Ryan Alexander is the president of Taxpayers for Common Sense; the Honorable Dan Blair is president and CEO of the 

National Academy of Public Administration; and Mr. Jon 

Kamensky is a senior fellow at the IBM Center for The Business 

of Government. 

Lady and gentlemen, pursuant to the committee rules, would you 

please rise to take an oath and be sworn? And raise your right 

hands. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are 

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

the truth? 

[Witnesses respond in the affirmative.] 

Chairman ISSA. Please be seated. 

Let the record indicate all witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

Before I recognize Mr. Schatz, I just want to thank you all for 

being here. Often we talk about individuals coming before us as 

witnesses. Ultimately, you are all partners in the process of understanding and exposing waste in government, so I am particularly 

pleased to start off this oversight hearing with this panel. 

With that, you all are experienced; you know the five minutes, 

you know the red, green, black, blue, the whole bit, so I know you 

will finish up pretty close to that five minutes. With that, I recognize Mr. Schatz. 

5 

WITNESSES STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS A. SCHATZ 

Mr. SCHATZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I ask that my 

full testimony be submitted for the record. 

Chairman ISSA. Without objection, all testimonies will be entered 

in the record. 

Mr. SCHATZ. My name is Thomas Schatz. I am the president of 

Citizens Against Government Waste, a nonprofit organization with 

more than one million members and supporters nationwide. 

It is no secret that government waste is present throughout 

every agency and all functions could be performed more effectively 

and efficiently. Recommendations to eliminate waste, fraud, abuse, 

and mismanagement are regularly provided by GAO, CBO, the 

President’s budget, and congressional committees. Outside of Congress, think tanks, advocacy groups, and private sector companies 

also provide information on government expenditures. 

For example, since 1993, CAGW has released Prime Cuts, a compendium of recommendations that emanate from both public and 

private sources. The most recent edition of Prime Cuts identified 

691 recommendations that would save taxpayers $391.9 billion in 

the first year and $1.8 trillion over five years. 

Over the years, there have really only been two large comprehensive studies of government spending, the Hoover Commission under 

President Truman and the Grace Commission under President 

Reagan. The Hoover Commission inspired many States to establish 

similar entities, especially the Little Hoover Commission in California, which has been operating continuously since 1962. However, 

there is no similar permanent entity at the Federal level. 

Now, any evaluation of government programs should both determine whether or not the expenditures are complying with statutory 

requirements and how the programs could and should function in 

today’s world. In addition to thinking about how programs relate 

to current needs, there should also be a mechanism in place to prevent the establishment of new programs when current programs already serve a particular need. 

Indeed, an underlying reason for government waste and mismanagement is Congress’s tendency to create a program to solve a 

problem. Unfortunately, neither the House nor Senate has adopted 

proposed rule changes that would require committee reports to contain an analysis by CRS on whether or not the bill creates a new 

Federal program that would duplicate or overlap any existing program. The reporting committee would also be required to explain 

why the creation of the new program would be necessary if a similar program already existed. 

On the other hand, Congress could act at any time to terminate 

or consolidate duplicative and overlapping programs, and particular findings that were produced by GAO in two annual reports 

published in 2011 and 2012. For example, in 2012, GAO recommended consolidating Federal offices, selling excess uranium at 

the Department of Energy, and cutting improper payments by 

Medicare and Medicaid. 

The 2012 report cited 209 Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math programs costing $3.1 billion spread across 13 agencies in fisVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:43 May 07, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\79903.TXT APRIL
6 

cal year 2010. More than one-third of those programs were adopted 

and first funded between fiscal years 2005 and 2010, yet the 

United States still does not have enough future workers in STEM 

fields and U.S. students are still behind in math and science, compared to other highly technological nations. 

GAO found 47 job training programs in nine agencies that cost 

$18 billion in 2009. Only five have had an impact study completed 

since 2004 to determine whether or not participants secured a job 

as a result of the program, rather than a separate cause. 

Finally, and most absurdly, there are more than 50 programs 

across 20 agencies to promote financial literacy. There is no reliable data on the total cost of those programs, and a government 

that itself is going broke has no business trying to teach the American people how to balance their checkbooks. 

My written testimony contains several specific proposals to cut 

wasteful spending and improve efficiency, including replacing the 

one dollar bill with the one dollar coin, eliminating the Medium Extended Air Defense System, reducing identity theft at the IRS, increasing the use of Recovery Audit Contractors, and reducing or 

eliminating farm subsidies, particularly the sugar program and the 

proposed dairy market stabilization program. 

In regard to information technology, we commend the efforts by 

this committee to address wasteful spending in this area. Agencies 

should also be increasing the use of cloud services and, at the same 

time, reducing the number of unnecessary or excessive IT software 

licenses. 

Finally, we urge the committee to adopt structural reforms of the 

U.S. Postal Service, while avoiding a taxpayer bailout. 

While programs can be consolidated, reformed, or terminated by 

Congress at any time, such actions have been few and far between. 

In addition to taking action on specific proposals to cut wasteful 

spending, Congress should also consider establishing a new commission to provide recommendations to reorganize Federal agencies, as well as a sunset commission. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the committee today 

and would be glad to answer any questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Schatz follows:] 

7 


Insert offset folio 1 here 79903.001
8 


Insert offset folio 2 here 79903.002
9 


Insert offset folio 3 here 79903.003
10 


Insert offset folio 4 here 79903.004
11 


Insert offset folio 5 here 79903.005
12 


Insert offset folio 6 here 79903.006
13 


Insert offset folio 7 here 79903.007
14 


Insert offset folio 8 here 79903.008
15 


Insert offset folio 9 here 79903.009
16 


Insert offset folio 10 here 79903.010
17 


Insert offset folio 11 here 79903.011
18 


Insert offset folio 12 here 79903.012
19 


Insert offset folio 13 here 79903.013
20 


Insert offset folio 14 here 79903.014
21 


Insert offset folio 15 here 79903.015
22 


Insert offset folio 16 here 79903.016
23 


Insert offset folio 17 here 79903.017
24 


Insert offset folio 18 here 79903.018
25 


Insert offset folio 19 here 79903.019
26 


Insert offset folio 20 here 79903.020
27 


Insert offset folio 21 here 79903.021
28 


Insert offset folio 22 here 79903.022
29 


Insert offset folio 23 here 79903.023
30 

Mr. MICA. [Presiding.] Well, thank you so much, Mr. Schatz, for 

your testimony. We will withhold questions until we have heard 

from all of the witnesses, but appreciate your testimony. 

Let me now recognize Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers 

for Common Cause. You are welcome and recognized. 

STATEMENT OF RYAN ALEXANDER 

Ms. ALEXANDER. Thank you. Thank you for inviting me to testify 

this afternoon. I am president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a 

national nonprofit budget watchdog. 

I sat before this committee nearly two years ago testifying on 

GAO’s high-risk and duplicative program reports. I want to recognize one positive change since then: the wasteful volumetric ethanol excise tax credit expired in 2011. So there is some good news, 

but there is much more work to be done. 

Almost every major piece of legislation of the 112th Congress, 

from the Budget Control Act to the transportation bill to the fiscal 

cliff deal, highlighted the need to reduce waste without really reducing waste. 

The Department of Defense is the world’s largest bureaucracy 

and extremely vulnerable to waste and duplication. The cost of 

TRICARE has more than doubled in the last decade and in fiscal 

year 2012 will exceed more than $50 billion due to unchanged premiums. We can modernize the program and maintain the promise 

of health care coverage for the men and women who have served 

our Country. 

Significant savings can also be found through acquisition and 

contracting reform. The Pentagon is the government’s largest 

buyer, and many contractors rely on the government for the vast 

majority of their business. We are concerned that the 2.0 version 

of DOD’s Better Buying Power turns away from fixed price contracts. Contracts are not one size fits all, but this factor of losing 

billions of taxpayer dollars should be sufficient incentive for a company to control costs. 

The National Nuclear Security Administration’s nuclear weapon 

laboratories and production plants are operated and managed by 

private corporations. These government-owned contractor-operated 

contracts have in some cases actually increased NNSA’s persistent 

problems with inflated overhead costs, security breaches, and construction cost overruns. 

On the positive side, lawmakers appear ready to uphold the 

funding freeze on the CMRR project at Los Alamos National Laboratory. A similar fate should meet the Mixed-Oxide Fuel Program. 

Acquisition is a major challenge across Federal agencies, as evidenced by the failures of Future Combat Systems, SBInet, US– 

VISIT, Deepwater, and others. A common thread among these programs is the use of Lead System Integrators, where the government relies on the contractor to define and meet its needs. As then 

Senator Truman observed, I have never yet found a contractor who, 

if not watched, would not leave the government holding the bag. 

Public lands are taxpayer assets and should be managed in ways 

that preserve their value and ensure a fair return for taxpayers. 

Securing a fair return for the hundreds of newly proposed wind 

and solar projects on Federal lands is vital. Similarly, taxpayers 

31 

are shortchanged by coal leases which allow companies to pay royalties based on domestic prices, not their actual export prices. 

Finally, the General Mining Law of 1872 collects no royalty from 

hard rock mining on Federal lands. Taxpayers cannot continue to 

simply give gold away. 

The Title XVII Loan Guarantee program jeopardizes billions of dollars if project loans default. Solyndra’s $535 million default 

brought the program under increased scrutiny, but the $2 billion 

loan guarantee for the nearly bankrupt USEC and the $8.3 billion 

loan guarantee for the Southern Company carry much greater potential losses. 

Ineffective and duplicative agriculture policies waste billions of 

dollars. Direct payments must end immediately. The highly subsidized crop insurance program, which cost taxpayers a record $14 

billion in fiscal year 2012, must be reined in and efforts to create 

shallow loss programs that crowd out private sector risk management options must be rejected. 

Congress consolidated programs and included performance measurements in MAP–21, but failed to address the underlying issue of 

demand for transportation projects exceeding revenue generated to 

cover their costs. In just five years, Congress transferred more than 

50 billion to backfill the Highway Trust Fund. 

The Essential Air Service, which subsidizes flights between rural communities and regional hub airports, costing up to $1,000 per 

flight, should be eliminated except in Alaska, saving $1 billion. 

Many communities can maintain transportation links through 

intercity bus service with little or no subsidy. 

Tens of billions of dollars are lost to waste and fraud in Medicare 

and Medicaid. Last Congress, Senators Carper and Coburn introduced the Medicare and Medicaid Fighting Fraud and Abuse to 

Save Taxpayer Dollars Act and Representative Roskam introduced 

a companion. More needs to be done, but this represents a start. More than $1 trillion in Federal revenue is foregone each year 

due to nearly 200 tax expenditures, spending channel through the 

tax system that lacks oversight. Some tax expenditures Congress 

should look at for 10-year savings include prohibiting last in, first 

out accounting, any deferral on foreign earnings, and converting 

the mortgage interest deduction to tax credit and limiting it to one 

home totaling $500,000. 

The Army Corps of Engineers needs a prioritization system with 

explicit criteria from Congress. Up until the earmark moratorium, 

prioritization and guidance came in the form of project-by-project 

funding in annual appropriations. The Sandy supplemental and 

regular Energy and Water appropriations have pots of funding 

without enough guidance. Congress needs to increase the strings 

and direction without resorting to earmarks. 

We always like to point out that the Corps motto should be: we 

may take twice as long, but we cost twice as much. 

Superstorm Sandy brought into relief problems surrounding our 

approach to disasters. The current ad hoc, scattershot approach to 

disaster funding creates an opportunity for waste, fraud, and 

abuse. Worse, sometimes the money actually puts people and infrastructure back in harm’s way. The number and cost of major disaster declarations has increased in recent decades due to an inVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:43 May 07, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\79903.TXT APRIL
32 

crease of major weather events, but also because our Nation’s programs are more generous responding to disasters than presponding to them. 

Through both the National Flood Insurance Program and the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers flood and storm damage reduction 

programs we encourage development in an unsustainable manner. 

Furthermore, research indicates that every dollar spent on mitigation saves four or more dollars in recovery. We should be helping 

people, communities, and States prepare for disaster and respond 

to disaster in a way that protects taxpayers and reduces future 

risks and costs. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My written testimony and reports we submitted contain much greater detail, and 

Taxpayers for Common Sense would be happy to work with the 

committee to identify other ways to ensure that our tax dollars are 

spent wisely and effectively. Sorry for the overrun. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Alexander follows:] 

33 


Insert offset folio 24 here 79903.024
34 


Insert offset folio 25 here 79903.025
35 


Insert offset folio 26 here 79903.026
36 


Insert offset folio 27 here 79903.027
37 


Insert offset folio 28 here 79903.028
38 


Insert offset folio 29 here 79903.029
39 


Insert offset folio 30 here 79903.030
40 


Insert offset folio 31 here 79903.031
41 


Insert offset folio 32 here 79903.032
42 


Insert offset folio 33 here 79903.033
43 


Insert offset folio 34 here 79903.034
44 


Insert offset folio 35 here 79903.035
45 


Insert offset folio 36 here 79903.036
46 


Insert offset folio 37 here 79903.037
47 


Insert offset folio 38 here 79903.038
48 


Insert offset folio 39 here 79903.039
49 


Insert offset folio 40 here 79903.040
50 


Insert offset folio 41 here 79903.041
51 


Insert offset folio 42 here 79903.042
52 


Insert offset folio 43 here 79903.043
53 


Insert offset folio 44 here 79903.044
54 


Insert offset folio 45 here 79903.045
55 


Insert offset folio 46 here 79903.046
56 


Insert offset folio 47 here 79903.047
57 


Insert offset folio 48 here 79903.048
58 


Insert offset folio 49 here 79903.049
59 


Insert offset folio 50 here 79903.050
60 


Insert offset folio 51 here 79903.051
61 

Mr. MICA. Thank you for your testimony, and we will include 

your entire testimony and additional comments for the record. 

We will now recognize and welcome Dan Blair. Mr. Blair is president of the National Academy of Public Administration. 

Welcome, sir, and you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAN G. BLAIR 

Mr. BLAIR. Thank you, Mr. Mica. It is good to see you, Mr. 

Cummings. I appreciate this opportunity to testify today and thank 

the committee members. 

I am Dan Blair, president and CEO with the National Academy 

of Public Administration. The Academy is a nationally recognized, 

nonpartisan, not-for-profit chartered by Congress to address and 

advise all levels of government on pressing issues of public administration. We are comprised of almost 750 fellows who are selected 

by our membership for their significant contributions in the field 

of public administration. I ask consent that my entire written 

statement be accepted for the record, and I am pleased to summarize. 

Mr. MICA. Without objection. 

Mr. BLAIR. Your hearing today is timely and helps key up many 

important management issues that Congress and the Administration could tackle to solve some of the most pressing problems in 

government. Government has become increasingly complex, and actions on the Federal level resonate at the State and local level. We 

have, today, an opportunity to begin to find common ground to address long-term structural fiscal and governance problems before 

they potentially overwhelm our budget. 

Collaboration between Federal, State, local, and private sector 

stakeholders is critical for improving program delivery and minimizing waste, fraud, and abuse. To that end, the Academy began 

work with the Office of Management and Budget in October 2011 

to involve stakeholders nationwide in developing pilot projects that 

test innovations in how States administer federally funded programs. 

Funded through the Partnership Fund for Program Integrity Innovation, the Collaborative Forum network has increased more 

than 750 in-person and online participants who share best practices and lessons learned for how to improve payment accuracy, improve service delivery and administrative efficiency, and reduce 

barriers to program access. To date, this work has resulted in the 

funding of nine pilot projects, with more expected to come. 

In addition to collaboration, evidence-based decision-making can 

aid in identifying those programs worthy of continued government 

support. One use of this approach can be found in what is called 

Pay for Success. This approach utilizes a financing organization 

where private investors provide up-front funding to help achieve a 

specific result and the government only pays if the agreed-upon 

goal is achieved. Using this third-party approach enables government to partner with private and nonprofit entities who already 

have demonstrated their ability to produce high returns on investments. The approach also maximizes flexibility and allows the government to piggyback on already existing infrastructures and netVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:43 May 07, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\79903.TXT APRIL
62 

works, and, importantly, the risk if borne by the third party for 

producing the results. 

Another example of evidence-based decision-making involves a 

Washington State model. This model provides State administrators 

with tools to identify which programs are working and worthy of 

continued funding. This allows cuts in funding to be targeted to 

those programs which are not working. 

Apart from identifying ways of identifying government investment, challenges remain for agencies in identifying prospects for 

waste, fraud, and abuse. Such tools include greater use of data and 

analytics to strengthen financial management controls and facilitate improved mechanisms for preventing and detecting improper 

payments. 

My written statement identifies additional opportunities to 

streamline programs across the Federal Government. As Mr. 

Schatz noted, the 2012 and 2011 GAO reports on duplication overlap identified many areas for review. While a belts-and-suspenders 

approach for some programs may be desirable, this overlap in duplication is often an unintended consequence of the proliferation in 

government programs. 

One way to address this is through the consolidation of programs 

within a department. Another way is through a virtual reorganization and the establishment of interagency councils. Broader structural reorganizations can compensate for deficiencies of current 

ones, but can be challenging in practice. 

In conclusion, Congress and the executive branch have an opportunity to work together to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse; invest 

in effective evidence-based programs; and create a results-oriented 

culture inside the Federal Government. The Memos to Leaders 

project my testimony highlights addresses issues in nine critical 

government management areas that are ripe for reform. Key areas 

include the nominations process, budget process reform, civil service reform, managing large public-private partnerships, 

rationalizing the intergovernmental system, and IT transparency. 

The Academy possesses a unique set of fellows who stand ready 

to assist in these critical management challenges. Thank you for 

the opportunity to testify this afternoon. I would be pleased to answer questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Blair follows:] 

63 


Insert offset folio 52 here 79903.052
64 


Insert offset folio 53 here 79903.053
65 


Insert offset folio 54 here 79903.054
66 


Insert offset folio 55 here 79903.055
67 


Insert offset folio 56 here 79903.056
68 


Insert offset folio 57 here 79903.057
69 


Insert offset folio 58 here 79903.058
70 


Insert offset folio 59 here 79903.059
71 


Insert offset folio 60 here 79903.060
72 


Insert offset folio 61 here 79903.061
73 


Insert offset folio 62 here 79903.062
74 


Insert offset folio 63 here 79903.063
75 

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you, and we will, as I said, withhold questions. 

We will hear our last witness next, and that is Mr. Jonathan 

Kamensky, and he is a senior fellow with the IBM Center for The 

Business of Government. 

Welcome, sir, and you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF JONATHAN M. KAMENSKY 

Mr. KAMENSKY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I am pleased to have the opportunity to testify before you on 

strategies to reduce cost and improve performance in the Federal 

Government’s mission-support functions. I think this gets at your 

win-win criteria that you mentioned earlier. 

I am a senior fellow with the IBM Center for The Business of 

Government. The IBM Center connects public sector research with 

practice by sponsoring independent research by top minds in both 

academia and the nonprofit sector. 

Two years ago the IBM Center produced a report, summarized 

here, identifying seven leading commercial strategies that could 

contribute up to $1 trillion in reduced cost of Federal operations 

over a 10-year period, while improving performance. I would like 

to share these with you today, but, first, why do we think this magnitude of savings is possible? 

The mission-support costs in the Federal Government, for crossgovernment activities such as personnel processing, contracting, 

supply chain management, historically average about 30 percent of 

total operating costs, compared to about 15 percent in the private 

sector. While the precise numbers may not compare well, they do 

suggest that changing the way mission-support functions are operated to reflect leading practices in the private sector may provide 

opportunities for cost savings. 

I would like to highlight four of the seven strategies outlined in 

our report. All seven are in my written statement. 

Strategy 1: Consolidate information technology infrastructure to 

the extent possible. The government’s cost of operating its IT infrastructure are high when compared to the private sector. In addition, according to GAO, only about one-third of the government’s IT 

investment in fiscal year 2011 was actually spent on direct mission-related IT, such as air traffic control systems or the veterans 

benefit determination system. The Gartner Group reports that by 

reducing IT overhead management costs, consolidating data centers, eliminating redundant networks, and standardizing applications could lead to savings of 20 to 30 percent. 

Strategy 2: Streamline government supply chains to be more efficient and effective. The government annually procures about $550 

billion in goods and services. These are purchased largely through 

independent procurement processes and individual agencies. In 

contrast, large corporations have transformed their procurement 

and supply chain systems by integrating them across the enterprise. 

Now, there have been efforts to do this in the Federal Government. For example, starting in 2005, OMB launched a strategic 

sourcing initiative to leverage the purchasing scale of the Federal 

Government. Progress to date has resulted in savings, but these 

76 

savings have been less than one-half of one percent of the Federal 

Government’s procurement spending. In contrast, private sector 

companies report savings of 10 percent or more. GAO, last year, 

concludes that if the government could achieve a 10 percent savings level, that could be savings of up to about $50 billion. 

Strategy 3: Apply advanced business analytics to reduce improper payments. The Administration is moving aggressively to reduce improper payments with strong congressional support. However, GAO says more could be done, and industry experience suggests that this is a valid conclusion. Industry experts believe that 

expanding the use of recovery audits and advanced business analytics could increase the identification rate of improper payments 

to about 40 percent. This could potentially generate an additional 

$200 billion over the next decade. 

Strategy 4: Move to a greater reliance on electronic self-service 

and reduce the government’s field operations footprint. Most government agencies have citizen-facing services that rely on largely 

manual, paper-based business processes. The government could 

both reduce cost and improve citizens’ experiences by moving as 

many touch points to electronic platforms as possible and rethink 

the footprint of its field operations. 

Other countries have done this by creating a one-stop approach 

to social services. For example, Service Canada is an agency that 

delivers 70 services on behalf of 13 other agencies online, in person, 

and on the phone. This has allowed the Canadian Government to 

reduce the number of field offices, reduce costs, and improve service delivery at the same time. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, it is important to emphasize that 

leadership and governance are key to implementation. The seven 

strategies outlined in my testimony are being addressed by the Administration, but with different levels of intensity. One approach to 

create concerted action might be for the OMB director to appoint 

a steering committee led by the deputy director for the management at OMB and a subset of departmental secretaries. 

A small central support team could be created, operating out of 

OMB or the President’s Management Council, not unlike the Recovery Act implementation team, to ensure action. For each of the 

seven areas, a cross-agency sub-team could be created and work 

under the direction of a departmental deputy secretary who is 

charged with action. 

So I would like to conclude at this point and thank you again for 

the opportunity to speak before you, and I would be pleased to answer any of your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Kamensky follows:] 

77 


Insert offset folio 64 here 79903.064
78 


Insert offset folio 65 here 79903.065
79 


Insert offset folio 66 here 79903.066
80 


Insert offset folio 67 here 79903.067
81 


Insert offset folio 68 here 79903.068
82 


Insert offset folio 69 here 79903.069
83 


Insert offset folio 70 here 79903.070
84 


Insert offset folio 71 here 79903.071
85 


Insert offset folio 72 here 79903.072
86 


Insert offset folio 73 here 79903.073
87 


Insert offset folio 74 here 79903.074
88 


Insert offset folio 75 here 79903.075
89 

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you. 

We will now turn to some questions. I want to thank all of the 

panelists for their contribution today. It is interesting to have you 

all suggest these potential areas in which we can cut and save and 

be on that side of the aisle sometimes from a practical position. It 

is much more difficult on our side, again, of the witness table. 

But I recognize myself for five minutes, and then we will turn 

to other Members for questions. 

First of all, I think we are facing the prospect of sequestration. 

It is coming down the road and I my guess right now, I didn’t think 

this before the holidays, but I think after the holidays I think it 

is going to go into effect, and that is going to, of course, impact dramatically probably Defense has the biggest cut, and some other 

programs. Most of the sort of core programs are protected. 

This is an opportunity to save some money, to institute some savings. 

Mr. Schatz, you cited a number of past studies and commissions, 

etcetera, several major commissions. Maybe another commission is 

necessary, but it still ends up coming back to Congress. Here we 

are in a situation where these cuts are going to come. I think the 

cuts could go beyond, and some of you described other potential 

areas of savings. Maybe we could go down and get your take on 

what you would do, again, with sequestration looming, to make 

cuts. You have talked about some things, but maybe some specifics 

you might suggest to Congress, since that looks like it is pretty imminent. 

Mr. Schatz, first. 

Mr. SCHATZ. Thank you, Mr. Mica. Sequestration, if it does go 

into effect, may push Congress to look at spending across the board 

because there is a large part of government expenditures that are 

simply not included in sequestration. Certainly, we have been very 

critical of excessive Defense spending. We led the effort to eliminate the alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. Certainly 

TCS and other taxpayer groups were very helpful in that effort. 

And, yes, you can find specific examples, but across-the-board cuts 

eliminate both wasteful spending and what might be essential 

spending at the same time. 

Mr. MICA. But that could be targeted, could it not? 

Mr. SCHATZ. Well, my understanding of sequestration is that, at 

least the way it is set up now, it is across the board. 

Mr. MICA. But, again, sequestration will probably go into effect, 

and then what will happen is Congress will say—— 

Mr. SCHATZ. Maybe they will wake up and say let’s do this the 

right thing, or a better way. 

Mr. MICA. Exactly. Well, I am asking you, and you have a couple 

minutes here. Maybe we could impose something that redirects the 

cuts. Go beyond, of course, the big gouge for Defense. People talked 

about Defense contracting being out of control and IT across-theboard solutions that can save billions of dollars. You all gave lots 

of areas we could save. Here we have an opportunity, with sequestration coming up, and if it goes into effect there are going to be 

a lot of people who are going to run around with their hair on fire. 

But we have an opportunity to redirect that. How would you do 

that? 

90 

Mr. SCHATZ. Well, again, I would look at everything. 

Mr. MICA. Okay, everything is on the table. There is probably not 

an agency, you would agree, that couldn’t stand some trimming efficiencies, et cetera. 

Mr. SCHATZ. Oh, absolutely. Any organization can cut between 10 

and 15 percent of its expenditures. 

Mr. MICA. Well, that is well within the range of what we are 

talking. 

Ms. Alexander? 

Ms. ALEXANDER. We released a report last fall with $1.2 trillion 

in deficit reduction called Sliding Past Sequestration, so one thing 

is people could just adopt all our recommendations, although I 

wouldn’t expect that. 

Mr. MICA. Okay, we will look at those. 

Ms. ALEXANDER. That was submitted with our testimony as part 

of the record, which we would like to be submitted into the record. 

I think a couple points, just to point out, I do think within the 

context of Defense spending, looking at service contracts as a particular area where there could be reductions in spending without 

necessarily affecting core function, I think that this committee in 

particular has a huge opportunity to help reshape how we do disaster spending. We waste a huge amount of money through disaster spending and both the recent disaster funds. There is just an 

opportunity to look at a better way. 

Mr. MICA. Well, we put in some of those things, although they 

got pretty hoggy at the end and funded projects. 

Ms. ALEXANDER. And we made some reforms to the flood insurance program. 

Mr. MICA. Well, maybe the chairman gets a little bit of discretion 

here, or acting chairman. But you slammed transportation and the 

MAP program. The problem is sometimes you don’t get the support 

from the groups. I remember FAA, on the twentieth extension, 

when I said this can’t go on, this madness, because that cost millions of dollars, those extensions, leaving our programs at bay. 

So I sent out one extension, just cutting out airline ticket subsidies of $1,000 or more, and we closed down the FAA partially for 

two weeks; all hell broke loose. Where were you then, Ms. Alexander, when I was getting my brains beat out? 

Ms. ALEXANDER. Well, A, I am pretty sure I can find a press release where we thanked you for doing that. 

Mr. MICA. I want to see that. We will make it part of the record. 

Mr. Blair and Mr. Kamensky, would you answer the sequestration and how we target? What would you do, again, in our shoes? 

Mr. BLAIR. I think that Congress will have a blueprint before it 

when GAO comes out with its new overlap and duplication list. I 

think that is going to give you an idea of areas in which efficiencies 

can be achieved that shows that multiple agencies or multiple departments are trying to deliver to the same constituency group on 

similar, non-duplicative programs, and that is a start. 

Mr. MICA. And I might say that I think in the Republican rules 

we put in the reports have to now show if it is duplicative, in addition to constitutionality. 

Mr. Kamensky, real quickly? 

91 

Mr. KAMENSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sequestration does 

not allow tradeoffs. 

Mr. MICA. We write the law. It will be the revised, come what 

may after sequestration A. 

Mr. KAMENSKY. But just plus or minus dollars will not solve the 

challenge. What will need to happen is changing the way government does business. For example, in energy efficiency, in order to 

be able to have much more energy efficient operations, sometimes 

it requires an investment up front for longer term savings. If you 

look only at the how do we cut dollars next month, sequestration 

will do that, but it may not actually improve operations very well. 

Mr. MICA. Look at long-term, too. Thank you. 

Ms. Norton? 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am grateful to this 

panel for all of your very specific testimony and ideas. It brings to 

mind the words waste, fraud, and abuse. That is always thrown out 

when people can’t think of what should be cut or how to preserve. 

I found your testimony edifying, indeed. 

I would like to ask Mr. Kamensky a question, because he pointed 

to a specific example that was, in part, under my own jurisdiction 

in another committee; it was your discussion of improper payments. Mr. Mica is aware of this because he was on the same committee, it was the committee that had jurisdiction over a great 

many of the Recovery Act funds, and my particular subcommittee, 

the subcommittee which I chaired, had jurisdiction over more than 

$5 billion of those funds, which were to go to each and every State, 

District of Columbia, and every territory, and we had to deliver the 

funds swiftly because of the recession. The whole point was to stimulate the economy and create jobs. So I was intrigued. 

I am now going to your testimony. I am intrigued by your discussion of the Administration’s recovery board, apparently the first 

time anything of the sort had been used, and you say in preventing, rather than recovering, improper payments. And you say 

this shows the value of a concerted effort essentially up front and 

across agencies. Now, you point out that the Recovery Act was 

dealing with upwards of more than 25 agencies and we had nothing in place in those agencies beforehand to carry that out. 

So my question goes to how did this pilot, I will call it, effort prevent these overpayments through this special board? I don’t know 

if this board still exists or whether you think we could apply this 

to other circumstances, because there are many instances where essentially you are distributing funds through many agencies or to all 

the States. I want to know how did they, given the speed with 

which this money had to go out, how did they prevent, rather than 

catch after the fact, these improper payments? 

Mr. KAMENSKY. Well, the Congress, as part of the legislation, required quarterly reporting, which actually turned into much more 

frequent reporting internally, within the agencies, and all the 

spending data were shared through this recovery operation center 

that Mr. Earl Devaney, who was the chair of the board, set up; and 

that way they were able to look at data from a number of different 

agencies at the same time and look for patterns that were suspicious. 

92 

So, for example, when you notice funds from three or four different Recovery Act programs going to a yacht in the harbor of 

Miami, which is one of the examples that we gave, he said let’s go 

look there and see whether this is a legitimate operation. So it is 

an ability to quickly find where things were being requested or 

being spent, and then moving in quickly. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, now, I don’t know if you know if the board 

exists or if you think this board would be useful in other circumstances. That was a very special circumstance. Recovery Act 

building is still going on; money is all out. Are there circumstances 

within the government today, in the usual course of business, 

where you think something similar, or would we be accused of establishing another ‘‘bureaucracy’’? 

Mr. KAMENSKY. The Recovery Act Transparency Board I believe 

is authorized through the end of this fiscal year. There is a Government Accountability Transparency Board that was administratively 

developed by President Obama, which is looking at ways of taking 

some of the lessons from the Recovery Board and extending them 

administratively, at least, and potentially even legislatively. 

Agencies such as the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services 

have something like this for payments that they make. They make 

like one billion payments or transactions a year, so they have a 

mini version of it. But oftentimes it is when you are able to compare funding flows across agencies that you are able to detect patterns that are sort of anomalies. So something equivalent to that 

may be one of the lessons that comes out of the Recovery Act legislation. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, the chairman of our full committee has shown 

an interest in institutionalizing some of that lessons learned. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentlelady. 

The gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lankford. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is an area that 

we can have bipartisan agreement on. I go back to President 

Obama’s inauguration speech, where he identified some Federal 

programs as outworn and inadequate. I would agree that we have 

some Federal programs that do need to be sunset, and we need to 

be able to identify and be able to work together, Republicans and 

Democrats, identify those programs and let’s sunset them. Let’s 

deal with that. 

But I do have a series of questions and one piece of good news 

for you, Mr. Schatz. I noticed in your testimony you referred to a 

Senate action to try to put into the Senate rules a duplication requirement, that that failed in the Senate last time. That is something I personally worked on and is in the House rules for this 

year, to be able to identify duplicative programs before they go into 

effect. So I need to get you a copy of the latest House rules so you 

get a chance to identify that, because that is a very important 

thing to us. 

There are two ways to deal with duplication: one is to get it out 

once it is there and one is to prevent it from starting. And our 

focus in the House is to try to find ways to prevent duplicative programs from beginning so we can take those on. 

93 

In the middle of all your testimony, though, you also mentioned 

the RAC Audit process. You called it an effective process. There are 

billions of dollars that have been recovered in the RAC Audit process, still in Medicare and Medicaid, and how they are not doing 

pay-and-chase anymore; they are trying to identify some of those 

things. We do have some issues on that and I wanted to be able 

to just have some conversation about it as well. 

They are pulling about 30 percent of the files from these hospitals and now from doctors’ offices for certain payments for just 

a normal doctor’s visit; identifying those, not paying them for any 

length of time. It becomes a hostile exchange back and forth because 30 percent of their cash flow gets pulled. It is pulling honest 

physicians, their files, the same as it is for fraudsters and their 

files, and it can go back as far as they want it to. 

As of September of last year, if they want to go back to 10 years 

ago and pull on a doctor or pull on a hospital and say we are going 

to pull this file and we are going to check it as well, they can. Since 

they are paid a commission, basically, somewhere between 9 and 

12 percent per whatever fraud that they find, or wrong coding, they 

have great incentive to go back and search and go as far as they 

want to go. 

How do we identify fraud and waste, and not create a hostile relationship with good doctors and good physicians and hospitals that 

are doing the right job? How do you strike a balance on that? 

Mr. SCHATZ. Well, I think anybody who is asked questions about 

payments is going to have concerns about whether or not they were 

legitimate, and also be concerned about how they are conducting 

their business, but improper payments, as you know, constitute 

about $29 billion out of the $108 billion that was mentioned earlier, 

so it is a large amount, about a third of what is out there now. 

Mr. LANKFORD. A lot of those are paperwork; they miscoded. 

They go back and check them; they are not really fraud, they are 

just, in all the checks and everything that is going on. There is a 

tremendous amount of fraud as well, but just trying to narrow 

down what was just coded wrong and what is actually fraud. And 

that is what we want to go after initially. 

Mr. SCHATZ. Well, I think it is different. I think the RAC process 

is to look more at the waste, rather than the fraud. In terms of 

fraud, you have to have prosecution, and contractors can’t prosecute somebody who is committing fraud; they can report it, of 

course. But our understanding is that they can only look at about 

2 percent of the billings over a three-month period. Now, in some 

cases it may require some more paperwork; in others it may not. 

And everything can always be improved. There was a big objection to RAC when it first started, particularly from some of the 

Members of the California delegation. When it spread across the 

Country, clearly, as it moves ahead, there are going to be issues 

that can be addressed. But we think the process works well. They 

have saved billions of dollars for taxpayers so far, and when that 

$29 billion goes down further, that frees up more money for Medicare beneficiaries, and I think that is the ultimate goal, is to help 

the people that truly need help, and not keep the money out there 

that shouldn’t be paid. 

94 

Mr. LANKFORD. I completely agree. We have to be able to make 

those payments, but we have to find a way that doesn’t trash the 

relationship. The Federal Government doesn’t have a great relationship with several contractors anyway. Those that are doing a 

good job, we want to maintain we have a good relationship in the 

process. 

This is for any of you, as well. Quick story. Last weekend my 

MasterCard is stopped; I get a phone call immediately saying I no 

longer can use it until I call in. I do a quick call-in in automation; 

within 10 minutes it is back active again, as they have identified 

something. 

Is there anything comparable to that in the Federal program for 

identifying any of the anomalies that may come up, to say we are 

going to stop this and then can correct it in a 10-minute turnaround? 

Mr. SCHATZ. Not that I know of. That would be nice to have. But 

that also is a function of incompatible accounting systems, financial 

systems that have been abysmal for years. One of the original 

Grace Commission findings, and I think it is still true, there are 

hundreds of incompatible systems across government. It makes it 

difficult to find out how the money is being spent. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Do we have any agency that is trying to implement something within payments close to that that we can raise 

up as an example and be able to encourage other agencies to look 

at? Yes, sir. 

Mr. KAMENSKY. There is a database that has been created by the 

Administration called the Do Not Pay List, and it is an integration 

of seven or eight different databases from different agencies to ensure that somebody that has been disbarred by one agency for improper dealings won’t be given a contract in another agency. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Right, the suspension and debarment list. Okay, 

thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. MICA. The gentleman from Virginia I think is next, Mr. 

Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome to our panel. Let me ask Mr. Blair, first. When we look 

at something like improper payments, one of the subcommittees, 

formerly, of this full committee looked at improperly payments and 

the estimate was something like $125 billion a year. Maybe 50 of 

it is fraud, and Medicare fraud particularly. A lot of it is, as Mr. 

Lankford was saying, just bad coding, getting it wrong in terms of 

who is eligible and not eligible, and the like. If we are going to get our arms around $125 billion a year, that 

is not raising anyone’s taxes, it is not cutting any strategic investment, it is just managing more efficiently, what would we have to 

do? 

Mr. BLAIR. I think you need to better engage stakeholders into 

what exactly the improper payment is. Also keep in mind that improper payments are not just overpayments or underpayments, as 

well. So you need to keep in mind that, as government goes about 

doing its business and putting out money, it needs to keep an accurate check as to what it is expending and what it is authorized to 

pay for. 

95 

I think one of the ways that you can look at this is to look at 

what is going on in the States and localities, as well, and one of 

the things that we have been involved with at the National Academy is what is called a Collaborative Forum in which we brought 

in stakeholders from State, local, nonprofits, the cities in order to 

identify best practices and also lessons learned in trying to identify 

how to stop these kinds of improper payments and what more can 

be done to improve the administration of these programs. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Kamensky, I was kind of hoping Mr. Blair 

would include, however, in his answer the better deployment of 

technology. Maybe you could address that. 

Mr. KAMENSKY. Thank you very much, Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. By the way, has anyone ever told you, if we close 

our eyes, you sound exactly like Harry Reid? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And that is a compliment on this side of the 

aisle. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. KAMENSKY. Thank you, sir. There are concrete examples of 

this happening. For example, IBM has worked with the New York 

Department of Taxation and Finance, and developed analytic applications which has saved over $2 billion. Its optimizer software uses 

a combination of data analytics and models that increase the efficiency of field agents so that they know which audits to go follow. 

In 2010 there was an overall increase in collections by 12 percent 

as a result of better targeting which returns to go check out. The 

average age of a case decreased by about 10 percent, so they were 

able to get quicker turnaround. So the use of analytics in figuring 

out where the risks are and where the potential returns are help 

place the agents where they need to be. 

The U.S. IRS recently created an Office of Compliance Analytics 

and they were able to identify, last year, during the tax season, 

where tax preparers were making consistent mistakes. They were 

able to send out notices to those people saying here is what you 

need to do to change it, and they managed to prevent over $100 

million of money going out improperly during the course of the year 

so they wouldn’t have to go back and recover it. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Right. I just point out the chairman rightfully 

pointed out sequestration. Sequestration, we are all worried about, 

is $1.2 trillion over 10 years. Improper payments are $1.25 trillion 

over 10 years. Getting our arms around that would be a really good 

downpayment in terms of the problem. 

One more question. GAO found that the Department of Defense 

relies heavily on contractors and then concluded, however, that the 

lack of an adequate number of trained acquisition and contract 

oversight personnel contribute to unmet expectations and placed 

the Department at risk of potentially paying more than necessary. 

An understatement if there ever was one. 

I would like your feedback in terms of how much does the lack 

of adequate training, adequate skilled procurement and contract 

personnel, perhaps, contribute to the problem of government waste. 

Mr. BLAIR. I think the backbone of attacking this problem is 

making sure you have the right people with the right people with 

the right skills in the right jobs to get this done. If you don’t have 

96 

the proper training or the proper skill sets, it is just pouring good 

money after bad. One of the things that sequestration and also 

across-the-board cuts do is puts in jeopardy and effectively negates 

any further efforts at training, because that is among the first 

monies that goes when you have these kind of cuts. 

So I think that Congress is going to have to be mindful that in 

the future. Our Federal workforce is at a crossroads, and has been 

over the last two decades, in terms of the changeover from people 

retiring, bringing in new people, recruitment and retention; and 

training is an integral part of that and you need to make sure that 

that money doesn’t go when the budgets are cut for the departments and agencies, especially across the board. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. 

Chairman ISSA. [Presiding.] I thank the gentleman. 

We now go to the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Gosar. 

Mr. GOSAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think you highlight a good starting point, but I also think that 

we have to start with a culture of accountability, and that starts 

with secretary heads, it starts with agency heads, and you have a 

whole mantra. I am from the private sector, so you are constantly 

reviewing our your workforce; you hold people accountable for that 

process. 

And I think there is also you can label this in we tend to be politically correct. A lot of this is theft, point blank theft. We had a 

hearing here. We actually had a large State in regards to Medicaid 

fraud, which was perpetrated within the State bureaucracy. I don’t 

care how you slice it and dice it, it is theft, and we need to hold 

people accountable for it. 

The private sector is held to a different standard than public 

service. I mean, here you just get rotating chairs, and I think there 

is where we also have to have that accountability process. You 

have to be able to fire people. You have to have them, when they 

do intentional wrong, be held accountable for those services and 

restitution, as well as losing benefits. I think then you will have 

many eyes on the prize. 

I have a couple questions. As a practicing dentist, we have seen 

some of the problems within the Medicaid programs and Medicare 

programs. For Mr. Blair, in your testimony you mentioned that the 

OMB’s Collaborative Forum has improved HHS grants, Medicare 

and Medicaid. What were those improvements? 

Mr. BLAIR. Those improvements were due to the fact that you 

could bring in State and local health care officials and the types 

of people who actually are the beneficiary of these programs to look 

at better ways of accounting for the money and for better ways of 

obtaining those results that they are trying to do. What the beauty 

of the Forum does is that it brings together multiple parties from 

Federal, State, and local sectors, the nonprofit sector, to talk about 

these types of things in an environment which encourages collaboration, best practices sharing, and also looking at problems and the 

common solution. 

It is an ongoing process, but to date we have brought in more 

than 750 local people, 750 participants, which include local, as well 

as State officials, and the beauty of this is that it recognizes that 

not all wisdom resides here in Washington, whether it is going 

97 

back to the State and the locals in order to look at these problems 

and look at it not from a top-down solution, but from a bottom-up. 

Mr. GOSAR. Interesting. So you would do that on like micro targeting, or would you have a bigger forum? How would you put 

those pieces together? 

Mr. BLAIR. Well, what we have done so far is we have targeted 

a few pilot projects. One was with the earned income tax credit, 

which was done through the Department of the Treasury, and the 

second one is looking at health care through the Washington State 

model, which uses analytics looking at what programs are actually 

working and what will continue to be funded. 

One of the other promising areas to look at in terms of this is 

what is called Pay for Success, in which a government grant is administered through a third party, and that grant is not given to 

that third party until certain results are achieved by way of the 

program. 

For instance, if you were doing health care or justice programs 

and you are looking at recidivism, you could say that the third 

party could agree with the State or local who is going to receive 

this money that you are going to reduce recidivism by X percent. 

And if it is not achieved and that third party doesn’t get paid and 

the government is not at risk, it shifts the risk to these third-party 

payers. 

So what you are doing with this is you are giving up a little bit 

of control, but in fact you are actually enhancing accountability and 

responsibility by saying that the government is not at risk in these 

types of grant programs. 

Mr. GOSAR. But I think in some of those that are patient-specific, 

you are also dependent upon the patient base to be compliant as 

well, so you are going to have to be very careful with your metrics 

and how you measure that, because you could also skew it in an 

inappropriate way. 

Mr. BLAIR. The beauty of this, though, is that it is done through 

a third-party such as a philanthropic organization, a nonprofit, a 

local investor; and that way you don’t have the Federal Government at risk. Most of these grants that the Federal Government 

does now with State and local governments is that they just pass 

the check through and you hope for results. This way money is not 

paid by the Federal Government until results are achieved. 

Mr. GOSAR. But wouldn’t you also want to have some risk to the 

Federal Government because they have skin in the game? You 

don’t want to advocate that. 

Mr. BLAIR. You want skin in the game on all parties in order for 

something like this to be successful. 

Mr. GOSAR. Absolutely. Okay. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. 

We now go to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Cartwright. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My questions are for you, Mr. Kamensky. Thank you for coming 

here today, sir. What I am going to ask you to do is elaborate on 

your testimony a little bit regarding the efforts of the Federal Government to reduce its energy use. And in your comments I hope 

you will include the Department of Defense. 

98 

We freshman in Congress were treated to a CRS seminar some 

weeks ago, where they informed us, some panel members there, 

that as much as one-third of the DOD budget goes to energy consumption. In fact, you heard here today Ranking Member 

Cummings quoting CRS and its evaluation of DOD’s overall efficiency as being poor performance. 

As you note in your testimony, the Federal Government is the 

Country’s largest consumer of both energy and water. The Federal 

Government can lead by example in increasing energy efficiency, 

reducing greenhouse gas emissions, conserving water, and preventing pollution. And your organization has written about the ambitious efforts that the Administration has undertaken to make 

this a reality. 

Mr. Kamensky, tell us a little bit more about the Executive order 

President Obama issued that was aimed at making government operations more sustainable. What do you believe will be the shortand long-term impacts of that Executive order? 

Mr. KAMENSKY. Thank you, Mr. Cartwright. The Executive order 

draws upon a number of other Executive orders and statutes, and 

it sets a target of reducing greenhouse gas and increasing the reliance on alternative energy sources other than coal base. 

One of the things that we had a report that was done on the implementation of this Executive order by a Dr. Fiorino, who used to 

be, actually, at the Environmental Protection Agency and is now at 

American University, and he had a number of findings. He said 

there was mismatch between the expectations in the Executive 

order versus what can actually be done in terms of action by the 

agencies, in part because there is not an investment or a set of incentives. And one of the things that he was suggesting, much like 

in the private sector, is to allow sort of trading of energy costs between agencies, and the other is allow an investment fund so that 

agencies can borrow money, but have to then pay it back once 

there is energy savings that have been incurred. So this becomes 

something that takes place over a period of years. 

The Department of Defense has something similar to that where 

private industry will come in, they will put something in place, and 

then they will get paid back out of the energy savings that come 

out of that program, and that has been used in a number of military bases. I don’t believe it is a widespread initiative across the 

Department, but it does show that there is a return on investment 

that comes from energy savings. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. And I know it has only been two years since 

that Executive order was issued, but how do you think the Administration has done so far in terms of implementing it? 

Mr. KAMENSKY. The Administration sent energy savings as a 

cross-agency priority goal. There are 14 in the Government Performance and Results Act modernization law earlier this year, or 

earlier last year. One of the 14 cross-cutting goals was around energy savings and it said that it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 28 percent by 2020 and indirect greenhouse gases by 13 

percent from a 2008 baseline. 

So they have real measures. And they are reporting every quarter on the progress against their goals in a report that is posted 

on the Web. They are looking at the impact on 500,000 buildings 

99 

that the Federal Government manages, and in 2011 they reduced 

emissions by 8.3 percent from the 2008 fiscal year baseline. So 

there is progress being made against the targets that were set, in 

part because the Executive order helped put these things into motion. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Thank you. Finally, where do you see a need 

for improvement in the Administration’s implementation efforts? 

Mr. KAMENSKY. Well, one of the things, as Dr. Fiorino mentioned, is this ability to create incentives, much like in the private 

sector, of allowing tradeoffs between agencies, and the other is creating an investment fund so that agencies can go in with an ROI 

where they are going to recover the cost and therefore make longer 

term investments. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Thank you very much. 

Chairman ISSA. Would the gentleman yield for a question? 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Yield. 

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Cartwright, I enjoyed this exchange. I think 

it was very good for us to hear it, but at the beginning, when you 

mentioned that as much as a third of DOD’s budget went for energy, is it a little bit more minute than that? No one on our side 

seems to be able to find a third. In other words, when you get past 

labor, which is so much, there isn’t a third left that we could find 

after labor and outsource contracting. Could you elaborate on what 

the nuance of that one-third is? 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. That is why I raised it, Mr. Chairman. I was 

shocked when I heard that number. It was from one of the panelists presented by the CRS. I think that merits further investigation. 

Chairman ISSA. Excellent. I would ask that you try to get the details of that. We will include it in the record, because I think that 

is an extremely important point and I was glad you made it. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

I will now recognize myself for a round of questions. 

Ms. Alexander, you have the best title in Washington: Taxpayers 

for Common Sense. Now, next week we are going to have our annual high-risk list coming out, the 2013 list, and it is no surprise 

to you or Mr. Schatz, or any of you, that that list will include DOD, 

Medicare, Medicaid, the Post Office has managed to get on that. 

For the most part, the people that are on it are always on it and 

they never get off it, isn’t that basically the truism? 

Ms. ALEXANDER. Absolutely. I mean, they narrow or broaden or 

alter, but it seems like it is much more static of a list than we 

would like to see. 

Chairman ISSA. Well, let me ask you a detailed question, but I 

will make it a little bit long. There is that expression about Albert 

Einstein saying if you keep doing the same thing over and over 

again, expecting a different result, that is the definition of insanity. 

We keep doing the same thing over and over again. 

Is it time, and I think it is, but is it time that we seriously look 

at our inspectors general at the act and the power to not just make 

suggestions, not just tell people that there is huge waste, but in 

fact take a more active role, an enforcement role in insisting those 

changes occur? Isn’t it essentially at the GAO and the IG that we 

100 

have recognized repeatedly these hundreds of billions, and through 

both Republican and Democratic administrations we have seen 

them come back saying they are going to do it, and then we see 

the exact same things or more on the list the next year? Either of 

you. 

Ms. ALEXANDER. I absolutely think that there needs to be increased powers for GAO and the IGS in terms of enforcement. I 

know this committee has been looking at legislation to make that 

possible, and that is something we support. I think there are some 

agencies where we would be particularly happy to see that happen; 

of course, DOD because of the scale. Taxpayers for Common Sense 

has talked at length about the concerns about the Army Corps of 

Engineers. I think the Department of Interior, just, again, because 

of the sheer scale of what they manage in both revenue and programs. So we definitely would support efforts to give the IGS and 

GAO more authority and power to get information and enforce 

issues. 

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Schatz? 

Mr. SCHATZ. Well, I agree generally with that point, but if there 

were no consequences for wasting money, money will continue to 

be wasted; and those consequences either come in the form of 

changing a program, eliminating a program, or sending someone to 

jail, though the last time I remember probably was the Boeing tank 

release, the original tank release debacle. 

Chairman ISSA. The so-called lease. 

Mr. SCHATZ. The so-called lease, yes. So I am not suggesting that 

there are people out there that should be incarcerated, but either 

there should be an incentive for performing your job at a certain 

level; there have been suggestions that agencies retain some of the 

money they get back if they recover it; and there should also be a 

disincentive for performing your job incorrectly, and that really, 

rarely happens. 

Congress doesn’t have the power to hire and fire people; neither 

does the President. You can do it by reducing budgets or cutting 

staff in an appropriations bill, but that is pretty rare. 

Chairman ISSA. Well, let me ask you a question, a very tight 

question here. Currently, if you are an IG, you can talk about debarment, but you are not able to do it. Is that an example of something where actually bringing a debarment action by the IGS as a 

regular part of enforcing against contractors, and then perhaps 

other motions that could be brought where the IG would have direct standing even when it was not criminal. 

For example, the GSA scandal. All of you got to see them sitting 

here. You got to see the former administrator telling all us, to our 

amazement, that the reason that the individual in the bathtub got 

his bonus was because he was entitled to it. That is an example 

that the question is should we change the dynamic so that somebody other than the next person up the chain has input into whether you either deny somebody’s ability to continue doing business 

with the government or at least, in the case if they are employees 

of the government, deny some of their ups and adds, affect their 

promotions, affect their pay grade increases, and certainly affect 

their bonuses. 

101 

Mr. SCHATZ. You would probably have to change the Civil Service 

Act to address misconduct, for one, because I am sure there are 

rules that prevent that from happening. 

Chairman ISSA. Well, bonuses are currently, by law, discretionary. It doesn’t appear that way when you look at the performance versus the bonuses. And I will say that in a report that I recently reviewed of ours, what I noticed was that there are agencies 

that have very small bonuses and there are agencies that have 

huge percentage bonuses. And I can’t say that as a bonus goes up 

as a percentage, that those agencies are the ones that you would 

be pleased with. 

Ms. ALEXANDER. I mean, I certainly think that increasing the 

ability of IGs and kind of independent actors to do something 

would be positive, and I also think it may also have an effect on 

Congress’ ability to respond to some of the waste they see, because 

we, all the time, criticize things that happen, but we know that it 

is difficult to find real agreement across party lines and across 

committee lines when you are trying to make a change. So I think 

if there is more action within the agency. And I think the question 

on bonuses, I mean, for debarment, for bonus payments on contracts, those legal issues are different than they are for government 

employees, but they are probably solvable without a statutory 

change, I would think. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay, any other comments, Mr. Blair, Mr. 

Kamensky? 

Mr. BLAIR. I found really curious that statement about the bonuses being entitled, too, because, as you point out, they are not. 

Bonuses are supposed to be awarded for exceptional achievement, 

and it seems to be an abuse of that system when it is viewed as 

an entitlement and as part of your everyday salary. 

One of the questions that I would have about debarment and giving more authority to the IGs is is there a way that we can use 

this not after the fact, but before the fact, because we see a lot of 

these scandals occur and we are always looking at them after the 

money has already gone out the door, after the bad acting has occurred, and oftentimes after the bad actors may be out of government. 

Chairman ISSA. And that is a great question for another hearing, 

and we will be picking up where you left off. 

With that, I am going to announce that we are going to go to the 

gentlemen from Wisconsin for five minutes, but we will then recess 

until immediately following the second vote. The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. POCAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the 

panel. I had a chance to read your reports last night and they were 

very comprehensive and very thoughtful, and some might even say 

fearless in some of the areas that you decided to point out to us. 

As a local government official, when I was on a county board I used 

to co-chair a reinventing government committee, where we looked 

at efficiencies and savings, and as a State legislator I served on 

Governor Scott Walker’s waste, fraud, and abuse commission, 

where we did, again, the same thing at the State level. So I really 

appreciate this conversation, especially when we look at the 

thoughtful ways to do it. 

102 

I guess one of the concerns I have, and when Mr. Mica was 

chairing he brought up sequestration. I have to admit, being one 

of the freshman and being new, there seems to be a Washington 

way of doing things and then a way the rest of the Country operates, especially those of us in the Midwest; I think we like to think 

we are a little more commonsense. If the car is about to run out 

of oil, we put oil in the tank rather than let it completely grind to 

a grinding halt and then try to fix it later. 

And sequestration is one of those issues that is coming up, as 

was talked about, it is in a few weeks. We can always come back 

and try to fix something later, but it just doesn’t necessarily make 

sense. 

Ms. Alexander, I appreciated reading your report, Sliding Past 

Sequestration, and I notice you have a little bit of that midwestern 

common sense. You went to school in Wisconsin. Congratulations. 

And you have a line in here that says specifically sequestration is 

bad; it would cut the good along with the bad, the effective and the 

wasteful. It is irresponsible. 

Again, coming in new, not being from Washington or around 

when this happened, I would kind of concur with your thoughts on 

that, but I also have fears, as I talk to a lot of constituents about 

what is going to happen in the next few weeks, rather than trying 

to fix it after the fact. 

I was just wondering if you could maybe address, just for some 

of us who are new, although everyone is kind of running off to a 

vote right now, but some of the areas if we do the sequestration. 

You have done a great job in, and I think very fearless, covering 

a lot of different areas of cuts. What are some of the areas that, 

if sequestration happens, are some of those effective and some of 

those good that are going to potentially be hurt? 

Ms. ALEXANDER. Well, I am midwestern, so I appreciate the midwestern kind of practicalness, and I think that is part of the reason 

why I do what I do. Coming from Wisconsin and Illinois, I have always looked for solutions. 

I think that if you look across the board, I mean, everybody 

agrees that we have a need for a strong national defense. Everybody agrees we need the Pentagon to operate at a very high level 

of efficiency, and there are good programs within the Pentagon. 

But that kind of conviction and consensus that we need a strong 

national defense has been exactly what has allowed the waste that 

exists at the Pentagon to thrive and grow. 

So I think there is kind of no way other than doing the very hard 

work of looking at things program by program, dollar by dollar, to 

say, actually, you know what, a return on investment for this is 

really good; we are reducing risk or we are getting something for 

it. 

I am trying to think of kind of within the context of the Pentagon. We are in the business of we are kind of naysayers a lot of 

the time, so I am much quicker with what not to do than with what 

to do. But I think that, again, I was thinking about what is our 

approach to reducing waste, our approach to reducing waste is just 

to do it. So you really just have to look program by program, because every program started for a reason, because somebody 

103 

thought it was a good idea. There is going to be somebody to defend 

it. 

So you just have to make sure you are looking through and saying this has delivered on the promise that we said would be there, 

so, okay, let’s give it a little more money or tweak it this way, and 

look at other things. Mr. Schatz and I have both worked on kind 

of the strike fighter and other programs, the alternate engine program, where it is just like we are just throwing good money after 

bad and we just have to stop. 

Mr. SCHATZ. If I could throw in one thing quickly. We did talk 

about these GAO reports a few times. Senators Coburn and Sessions estimate that the information shows about $400 billion in annual waste, duplication. Let’s just call it duplication and overlap; 

it may not all be waste. But you have 209 of these stem programs. 

No one knows which one works. The GAO says the duplication is 

causing ineffectiveness. So if we are trying to improve something 

and get higher science and math achievement, get rid of the programs that don’t work. And that is really where all of this should 

start. 

Mr. POCAN. And, Mr. Chair, again, I want to thank the panel. 

I really thought you went into a lot of areas of sacred cows, like 

we talked about, that are a little difficult sometimes for people to 

talk about, and I really appreciated the suggestions. 

With that, I would yield back time. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman, and, as promised, we will 

stand in recess until immediately following the second vote. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman ISSA. The committee will come to order. 

I am going to yield to the first person that walks in the room, 

but you do understand the advantage of being the chair and back 

here first. 

We were talking, a little bit earlier, about IG empowerment, but 

the GAO, which is a part of this branch of government, does all 

this work again and again and again, but, Mr. Kamensky, maybe 

looking at it a little more from the IBM and the private enterprise 

standpoint, recognizing we have limitations in our branches and 

our separation, is there a fundamental problem in that administration after administration doesn’t have, if you will, the continuity of 

government to really go after some of the deep problems and fix 

them? 

Well, Congress doesn’t take an active role in oversight, meaning 

the GAO is almost the controller, the honest ombudsman and yet 

it has no authority, Congress, for the most part, and you saw it 

earlier in the discussion on CMS, for 20 years ignoring a law as 

to how much you could reimburse and 35 times giving reimbursement amounts greater than the law allowed, without recourse. 

Do any of you have institutional changes, in other words, major 

government reform changes that you believe structurally would 

help us and our successors do a better job here in this body for the 

benefit of the executive branch? 

Mr. KAMENSKY. If you are looking at specifically IT. 

Chairman ISSA. Well, we could look at IT. The Data Act that we 

are trying to get out of the House again and get the Senate to live 

up to creates more transparency, an easier recognizing of the probVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:43 May 07, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\79903.TXT APRIL
104 

lems. Ms. Norton, I understand, while I was out over at judiciary, 

talked in terms of the RAC board and how they were able to look 

through and identify misspending better than in the past. Those 

would be examples of structural change where you actually have a 

process change that makes accountability easier. 

Mr. KAMENSKY. Well, there are several broad conceptual frameworks, and part of it is how do you create incentives to do the right 

thing, to do the win-win that you mentioned earlier. And one of 

these is disclosing hidden costs, and these are the costs that are 

buried into programs that are just accepted unless somebody asks 

a question about them. 

But you can’t ask a question about them unless you can see 

them. Some of them in State and local governments are using 

budget capital charging. In other countries there was a very interesting initiative in New Zealand, probably about 20 years ago, that 

they had to budget explicitly for all capital costs in the agency and 

had to pay like interest to the government if you had capital that 

you had, and if you didn’t use it, if you didn’t want to be paying 

this interest charge on it—— 

Chairman ISSA. So it was sort of define your cap X, define your 

ROI, and pay on it. 

Mr. KAMENSKY. Well, that was for the agencies that actually had 

the ability to do some sort of revenue charging. For example, the 

forest service in New Zealand, they were given a target of 6 percent 

return to the government for whatever their activities were, with 

exceptions for like you can’t chop down Yosemite Park type things. 

Chairman ISSA. I knew a politician who once said it was a renewable resource, and he didn’t win that election. 

Mr. KAMENSKY. But what was interesting was by creating this 

incentive for people to look at excess capital costs, because they 

were being charged for owning them, they would get rid of, automatically, things that were excess buildings. The New Zealand Embassy here sent a painting of Queen Elizabeth back, saying we 

don’t need it, we will deal with a print. We don’t want to have to 

pay the capital costs. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay. That certainly would be a game-changer. 

Let me ask a question. Many decades ago, before John Dingle 

was in Congress, there was a Hoover Commission, and my understanding is it is the poster child for the one time reorganization 

worked. Is it, in your opinions, time to do that again, to have that 

kind of a continuity of big thinking, reorganization at all levels, 

and then a continuity of doing it through multiple administrations? 

Mr. Blair? 

Mr. BLAIR. Mr. Chairman, I think it is time for that kind of big 

thinking. I think you need to look at what government does. I 

think one of the things that you can look at, you have a menu of 

options available to you, from looking within the departments and 

agencies themselves, and looking at overlap and duplication. But I 

would urge you to look at government from a unitary or a corporate 

perspective and saying what are we actually trying to do. 

In my testimony I built off the GAO list of overlap and duplicative programs, and some of those are intentionally duplicative. As 

I said in my testimony, you wants belts and suspenders on some 

105 

programs because you want to avoid program failure or you want 

to avoid the risks associated with program failure. 

Chairman ISSA. But is that the reason we do breast cancer research at DOD? 

Mr. BLAIR. Well, that is exactly the question. 

Chairman ISSA. Or is it just because we can stick a little funding 

there? 

Mr. BLAIR. Do you need NIH and DOD? And now you fund 

breast cancer research through the Postal Service. So you can look 

at these kinds of things. 

Chairman ISSA. But they deliver. 

Mr. BLAIR. That is right, they do, six days a week. 

Chairman ISSA. Five very soon. 

Mr. BLAIR. That is right. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BLAIR. So what you can do, and one of the efforts that we 

have been involved with, it is called Smart Lean Government, and 

it takes a look at these programs and says what is the most effective way of delivering on these programs? That you don’t need multiple agencies or departments doing the same thing with similar 

programs and similar mandates in order to accomplish the delivery 

of the service to the constituency group. 

If you eliminate that duplication and overlap, you can achieve 

savings while avoiding cutting the actual benefit. For instance, veterans health care. How many agencies are involved in something 

like that? Do you need that many agencies in order to get that final 

benefit down to the veteran? 

Chairman ISSA. Well, I want to thank you. 

And I promised to yield as soon as someone came in, so I will 

get to you, Mr. Schatz. 

Mr. Collins, I will go to you in a second. 

I just wanted you to know the question was, is it time for a Hoover commission again, and the answer seemed to be yes. And, Mr. 

Schatz, if you could be brief. 

Mr. SCHATZ. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. 

I agree with Mr. Blair that this is something that should be 

done. It has been a long time. Of course, the Grace Commission, 

from which CAGW arose and was kind of the predecessor to our 

work, looked at more waste than reorganization, although there 

was certainly some reorganization. And also looking at a sunset 

commission, which has been very successful in the State of Texas, 

where, for every dollar that has been spent on the sunset process, 

taxpayers have saved $29. They have abolished 78 agencies; 37 

completely abolished, 41 transferred or moved into new agencies or 

existing agencies. That is another way that programs can be evaluated and agencies can be evaluated over time. 

Chairman ISSA. Great idea; second only to closing law offices. 

Mr. Collins. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity. 

I thank you for being here. This is, I think, going to be one of 

the big topics as we go on government spending, and I have several 

questions. 

106 

I will start with Ms. Alexander. In your prepared testimony you 

stated that loan guarantees for two nuclear reactors at Plant 

Vogtle in Georgia are now loans given to Solyndra. However, there 

is a major difference in the two situations. Solyndra was a startup 

company based on unproven technology with no history and assets 

to protect taxpayers; in the case of Plant Vogtle, in my home State 

of Georgia, the loans are backed by a 100-year-old A-rated investment company with $25 billion or more in assets. 

In the case of Plant Vogtle, taxpayers also have first lien to recover taxpayer money. Expansion of nuclear power will not only 

help lessen our dependency on foreign oil, but it provides a steady 

cost-effective source of power for customers. 

Having dealt with this in different ways in Georgia, based on 

these facts, is it not comparing apples and oranges when you are 

looking at these types of loan guarantees? 

Ms. ALEXANDER. I don’t think that it is comparing apples and oranges. I should just be clear for the record that our organization 

opposed the Title XVII Loan Guarantee program in 2005. We opposed it all the way along the way. We think that the taxpayer protections in the program are just inadequate across the board. Our 

concerns specifically about the Vogtle loan guarantee really go to 

the fact that it has been a conditional loan guarantee where there 

is renegotiation after renegotiation without real transparency for 

the taxpayers, and it is a lot of money. It is just a lot of money. 

Mr. COLLINS. I don’t disagree, but in the word of hyperbole, 

which is thrown around these halls very quickly, comparing a 

startup company with absolutely no history to a company that has 

been around forever, that is publicly traded, that is publicly regulated and others, I get the prospect. We are okay with where we 

are at. I think the Title XVII needs some issues, but are we not 

being a little hyperbolic when we state that and we put it in with 

Solyndra? 

Ms. ALEXANDER. We didn’t put it in with Solyndra. 

Mr. COLLINS. You did. You did in your testimony. 

Ms. ALEXANDER. I did in my testimony and I will again, I am 

sure, but I don’t want to back off on my statement. 

Mr. COLLINS. Okay, well, is that not apples and oranges? 

Ms. ALEXANDER. But I am just saying the Title XVII Loan Guarantee program was created and expanded to include lots of different kinds of technology. It is the Title XVII Loan Guarantee program that we believe puts taxpayers at risk. There is not a single 

project in the pipeline that we don’t have concerns about because 

we think the program does not adequately protect taxpayers. And 

time and again the protections we have seen for taxpayers we 

think have been eroded. 

Mr. COLLINS. Okay. I get your point. I think my concern is, especially in this situation here with a lot of transparency, what has 

been going on back where there is protection that has been made 

for this, especially in the two companies, my concern is you are just 

simply over-generalizing to make a point, and that is my concern 

there. 

I agree with you on the need for better consolidation, better 

treatment of that; it just struck me as very odd when you started 

comparing a very political favored industry such as Solyndra, 

107 

which there was a lot of bad issues there, as compared to say you 

or I, when we were 17 and a loan given to us then when we had 

nothing, to now, when we probably have a decent backing. So I just 

wanted to state that for the record. I believe it to be apples and 

oranges. 

Mr. Schatz, I have a question for you. As a State representative 

in Georgia, I had authored a bill that consolidated State agencies 

as one of the things. For the first time in history as a Republican, 

we actually were able to follow through on what we believed, and 

that is a limited government, smaller government, and we were 

able to do that. 

On this committee we have discussed ways in which taxpayer 

funds can be saved through IT reform. Maybe a bigger question 

here. Redundant services, redundant services. I know this has been 

discussed some more, but I would like to hear your thoughts. Do 

you see potential cost savings through consolidated services or 

maybe even I’ll go on and say entire agencies? 

Mr. SCHATZ. I think that every program should be examined to 

determine how it should function in today’s world, which is what 

the Little Hoover Commission has been doing in California; also 

similar to, I imagine, the sunset process in Texas and other States. 

But in software, for example, agencies have hundreds of software 

assets that are unnecessary or excessive, particularly in licensing. 

GAO issued a report in July of 2011 noting that 15 agencies did 

not list all of their software assets in their reports. Software is expensive, of course, and certainly if it is unnecessary, it shouldn’t be 

purchased. The IT budget is $80 billion and this committee had a hearing a week or two ago identifying almost $20 billion in annual waste. 

We favor investment and modernization of information technology, 

but not when it is not managed properly; and that is true of how 

the money is spent in all agencies. 

The problem is listing all of the duplication and overlap, as GAO 

has done, is helpful, but without an evaluation of which of those 

programs are effective, Congress just keeps adding new programs. 

Mr. COLLINS. One last little follow-up. And that is why I am 

looking at it. Let’s put a bill out there and let’s let them fight over 

it, let’s decide which is best; which one needs to be run and which 

one doesn’t. And I believe in the end if one proves better than the 

other, then that is the one that wins, but if they both prove to be 

inadequate, then we may have a situation where we get rid of the 

entire program. 

So I appreciate your comments there and I think that is something we can definitely look at. It is something I am going to be 

looking at greatly. 

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Collins, could you yield for a second? 

Mr. COLLINS. Definitely, Chairman. 

Chairman ISSA. Ms. Alexander, I want to follow up on his question and ask it a little differently, his first question. Regardless of 

the challenges and the safeguards of Title XVII, if in fact a company has substantial skin in the game, very substantial, doesn’t it, 

in general, reduce that risk? In other words, with Solyndra, they 

were operating to a great extent on our money, and some of the 

other entities even started with their money and then got a loan 

108 

or a grant and substituted Federal money for the money that in 

fact they had. 

Isn’t the gentleman’s question valid, that if in fact any program 

the government does with the private sector, the private sector has 

a large percentage of skin in the game, that reduces the risk of failure simply because those companies are at least going to invest 

their money, generally, more wisely? 

Ms. ALEXANDER. I mean, I don’t mean to gloss over the fact that 

there are operational differences between the Solyndra loan, where 

the credit subsidy cost was covered by an appropriation, and 

Vogtle, which will have to cover the credit subsidy cost. We have 

concerns about the calculation of the credit subsidy cost. We have 

concern about whether or not their skin in the game is sufficient. 

If it is 90 percent or 100 percent of the loan, we are very concerned 

about the credit subsidy cost calculation. 

So, yes, there is a difference between whether or not you have 

zero skin in the game. That is worse, I agree. But we still think 

this is not good. 

Chairman ISSA. I appreciate that and I appreciate the clarification. 

Mr. Horsford, welcome to a committee that asks these kinds of 

questions a lot. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you. 

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and it is 

an honor to be on this committee, particularly at a time when we 

are trying to find every way to responsibly balance the budget, 

while protecting the most essential parts of services that are provided. And as a former State legislator in Nevada, that is what we 

had to do over the last four years, with 30 percent less revenue, 

was to basically comb through the budget and find areas that we 

had to cut back on. 

And I look at all of these issues and say that everything really 

needs to be on the table for consideration and discussion, so specifically I would like to ask that during these challenging economic 

times there have been certain companies, I will use oil and gas 

companies in this example, who have remained highly profitable. 

Taxpayers for Common Sense issued a report in May of 2011, I believe, that described these record profits, and in the report it said, 

‘‘In 2008, Exxon posted the largest annual corporate profit in U.S. 

history. Chevron became the second most profitable company in the 

United States. Shell, Exxon, Total S.A., BP, and Chevron together 

made a total of almost $150 billion.’’ 

So even with these profits, oil and gas companies continue to receive tax breaks and other corporate entitlements. The Office of 

Management and Budget estimates that taxpayers could save more 

than $43 billion over the next 10 years if these corporate entitlements were repealed. 

So my question to Ms. Alexander is do you believe that the oil 

and gas companies should be getting these tax breaks and corporate entitlements? And if not, how should Congress deal with 

that? 

Ms. ALEXANDER. We have been on the record for a long time 

against oil and gas subsidies, whether through the direct spending 

109 

or through the tax code. We have always treated subsidies through 

the tax code the same as financing mechanisms and spending 

mechanisms, or at least on equal footing in terms of analysis. So 

we would say the last in, first out accounting, prohibiting the use 

of that in U.S. tax returns is something that we think should be 

prohibited for all businesses, but is a particular benefit for oil and 

gas. The intangible drilling cost tax deduction is something that we 

would also support appealing. 

All of the subsidies that are listed in our 2011 report are things 

that we would be very happy to see Congress appeal. I will note 

that VEETC, which did go to oil companies, but also to the benefit 

of corn growers, has been eliminated, so that is awesome. 

I think that this is one of those very difficult issues because we 

work on energy subsidies and we work with Members from both 

sides of the aisle. There is kind of a starting point of when we say 

we think tax breaks that are targeted towards individual industries or significantly benefit individual agencies or subsidies, a lot 

of times we talk to people who just don’t agree with that statement. 

We think that. We have been doing this for 17 years; we think 

that. 

So we think that is something you should look at, at kind of how 

are we picking winners and losers through the tax code, how are 

we picking winners and losers through spending. So we look at energy subsidies across the board, and for industries that have been 

profitable for so long and that have been around for so long. These 

are mature industries. 

It is hard to understand why we need to continue to give them 

the kind of tax preferences that they have received for 100 years. 

Mr. HORSFORD. As a follow-up, Mr. Chairman, if I may, can you 

give any specific recommendations for ways that the Department 

of Interior can improve its oversight on the royalties that are provided to oil and gas companies? 

Ms. ALEXANDER. I would be happy to follow up on the record 

with kind of longer detailed responses to that because that is something we have given a lot of thought to. I think certainly in the reorganization of the Department of Interior, since the Deepwater 

Horizon spill, we have seen some movement towards improvement 

in terms of making sure we hope we are getting better enforcement 

and collection of royalties from both offshore and onshore drilling. 

I think that the terms of leases need to be very carefully examined to make sure that we are getting a fair return on any kind 

of development, on public lands. But we would be happy to kind 

of give you the kind of specific recommendations that we have advanced over the years and work with you further on that. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you. 

Mr. JORDAN. [Presiding.] I recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This is 

my 25th year here, and I can tell you that when I first came our 

national debt was, I think, $2.8 trillion, $2.9 trillion, and I thought 

that was too much. I was voting to reduce spending even then. Now 

it is $16,400,000,000,000, and they tell us under the most optimistic scenario it is going to go to $20 trillion, probably, more realistically, $22 trillion in the next four years; and we just passed 

110 

major legislation that the CBO says is going to add another $4 trillion to our debt over the next 10 years. I mean, it is just incomprehensible, and I think that is the problem. 

But I remember Edward Rendell, when he was mayor of Philadelphia and, of course, later became governor of Pennsylvania, he 

was having trouble with city unions when he was mayor, and he 

testified, I think, in front of one of our committees and he said government does not work because it was not designed to. He said 

there is no incentive for people to work hard, so many do not. 

There is no incentive for people to save money, so much of it is 

squandered. 

I have always remembered that, and I think the problem and the 

reason there is so much waste, people are spending money that is 

not coming out of their own pockets and there is just not the incentives to save money. There are not the same incentives or pressures that there are in the private sector. And I am wondering, I 

would like to ask all of the witnesses, do you know of ways that 

we could create more incentives for Federal employees to save 

money? I mean, we hear these stories. For years we have all heard 

stories about how agencies use 60 percent of their budget the first 

11 months and then scramble around the last month to try to 

spend it so they won’t be cut the next year. Can we come up with 

a program to give Federal employees bonuses if they hold down or 

save money within their particular agencies or programs? 

Mr. Schatz? How long have you been here? 

Mr. SCHATZ. I have been at Citizens Against Government Waste 

since 1986, and we certainly appreciate your voting record, because 

most people who come to Washington end up voting for more 

spending over time. 

Mr. DUNCAN. So you have been here slightly longer than I have. 

Mr. SCHATZ. Slightly longer, yes. Even before that; worked on the 

Hill before that. 

But I mentioned earlier the idea of having some kind of remuneration for either individuals or agencies that go out and either 

save money or collect money. Unfortunately, we probably need that 

kind of incentive to do a better job of managing our money. So that 

is something we have always supported. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Anybody else? Yes. 

Mr. KAMENSKY. Mr. Duncan, I have been in Washington, first 

with GAO, since 1977, so I have seen a lot of changes over time, 

and when I was given the opportunity to work for Vice President 

Gore, his deputy for reinventing government, this very issue was 

something that he raised, and there were pilots, gain-sharing programs in some agencies that were used that if they were able to 

save money, they were allowed, administratively, to give that 

money either back to the employees or to invest it in, for example, 

an upgrade in their technology in the office, or to paint the office. 

So it was done as a team rather than as individuals. 

Another thing that was done, and this was in the 1990s, is the 

Vice President said that a lot of employees are more than willing 

to do something if there is some recognition. So he created something called the Hammer Award, which was given to teams of employees that were able to put customers first, cut red tape, or to 

cut costs; and that award was given to about 1400 teams. And as 

111 

we were doing this over a period of years, we said that there are 

some savings associated, and we asked agency budget officers to 

calculate, behind each team’s award, what kinds of savings were 

accruing or cost avoidances, and it totaled about $50 billion. 

And this wasn’t something that came from Congress, it wasn’t an 

IG report, it wasn’t GAO, it wasn’t OMB; it was the employees 

themselves. 

Mr. DUNCAN. And you said $50 billion with a B? 

Mr. KAMENSKY. Billion dollars. So, in part, I think employees, if 

given the inspiration or the incentive, are more than willing to do 

something. I had the opportunity to actually deliver some of these 

awards in ceremonies around the Country, and there were people 

in tears saying, I worked for 30 or 40 years for the Federal Government and no one has ever told me thank you. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, we have to do more in this way because this 

debt problem gets worse and worse, and I can tell you many cities 

around the Country have had to come in and cut their pensions. 

Well, the Congress won’t come in and cut Social Security, but we 

will just print more money and more money and more money, and 

pretty soon these veterans pensions and Social Security won’t be 

able to buy anything. 

Mr. Blair, you want to say something? 

Mr. BLAIR. I do, Mr. Duncan. I think you bring up a good point, 

and you can look at it from more of a micro level of look at the Federal compensation system. It rewards longevity, not performance. 

There are ways of changing that, and it is difficult. There are a lot 

of employee groups and unions that oppose that, but at the end of 

the day compensation is the single largest tool you have in order 

to spur performance, so it needs to be more performance-oriented. 

It is interesting. I have heard this expression several times this 

afternoon, skin in the game. I think you need to give some agencies 

some skin in the game to reward them if they are doing a good job 

in managing and functioning well. You have this high-risk list that 

is coming out. 

Well, you have been here since 1986. I started in 1985 on the 

predecessor to this committee and I have seen a lot of this, and it 

seems like every year, every time the high-risk list comes out, Congress brings the agencies up, fusses at them, and then nothing 

really happens; Congress throws some money at them to correct 

the problem. 

But you have to have some real consequences, and I think that 

that, at the end of the day, is the largest issue in government, is 

you have to hold people accountable. And this diffusion of accountability by saying, well, if an agency head doesn’t do this, let’s give 

authority to this person. You have to hold the individual accountable. 

So I think that you can look at it on multiple levels, but at the 

end of the day it is about accountability and holding agency heads 

accountable and making sure they are answerable to Congress and 

holding Congress accountable as well. I mean, look at the budget 

process; it has been in shambles for years now, and I think that 

is just one of the things that can be done to strengthen that accountability. 

112 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I appreciate your testimony. I know my time 

is up, but I will say, since it is a veteran panel, that when I am 

telling some of the newer Members that I have been here this long, 

they look at me; it sort of boggles their minds. But I will tell you 

they will be amazed at how fast the time passes. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. 

Let me just pick up real quickly and then I will turn to Mr. 

DeSantis. 

So you can incentivize, as the panel talked about and as Mr. 

Duncan talked about. It seems to me you can also penalize. One 

of the things I am reading that our Majority staff put together is 

GSA sets a benchmark for what Federal agencies can spend at 

their conferences. The benchmark is $3,000 per attendee per conference, $6,000 per attendee per day. 

One hundred and eighty-three times the Federal Government, 

the various agencies, went above the benchmark. In fact, 64 conferences the Department of Defense held they went above the 

benchmark; Social Security, 22 times at 22 different conferences; 

Department of Energy, 21 times. And, of course, GSA, which set 

the benchmark, went above the benchmark when they had their 

big shindig in Las Vegas. 

So it seems to me you can incentivize, but, frankly, we should penalize them. One simple piece of legislation, just after reading this 

here a few minutes ago, that I would be looking at doing is if you 

go above the benchmark and you spend more per conference, next 

year your budget gets cut by that exact amount. That is an incentive to do the right thing. That is the way everyone operates; you 

do something wrong, you should get penalized. 

So it seems to me we can do both of those as we are looking to save some dollars to deal with the $16.5 trillion debt that we now 

face. 

That is just me rambling; you don’t have to answer that. 

We will go next to the gentleman from Florida. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Good afternoon. Over here. Over here. Out in left 

field. 

Mr. JORDAN. Hang on. I messed up. I didn’t see the gentlelady 

from California. We have to go back and forth. She gets to go, then 

we will go to you and I won’t interject next time. 

Mr. DESANTIS. No problem, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. SPEIER. Thank you, Mr. Jordan. I will join you in that 

amendment, if you want to offer it on the floor, because unless we 

start, as a committee, requiring accountability in these various departments, nothing is going to happen. 

And I am thrilled that each of you are here today to testify. If 

we spent the next year just implementing the recommendations 

that are in these great people’s testimony today, we will have done 

something for the American people. The problem is is that we know 

what the problems are; we just never effectuate the changes that 

need to take place. The inspector general, the GAO constantly tell 

us where we should be making cuts, where we should be making 

reevaluations, and we just never act on it. 

So we, as a Congress, have got to take some blame for what is 

going on; and I think this committee is poised to do the right thing, 

113 

and we are poised to do it in a bipartisan fashion. If we just take 

the recommendations that were presented here today, we will have 

done our work on behalf of the American people this year. So I 

hope that we can work together on that moving forward, and you 

can count me in on any of your efforts on that behalf. 

Let me just go back to something that is truly troubling, and any 

of you that have any perspective, I would appreciate it. 

The fact that the Air Force wasted $1 billion on the Expeditionary Combat Support System, that it came before us as a Congress a number of times, I believe the GAO had made recommendations, and we kept allowing it to continue to foment, and then finally it only got pulled after the Air Force said, hey, this isn’t 

working. But we had already spent $1 billion. 

And then on top of it we ended up paying $8.2 billion as a parting gift to CSC for terminating the contract? Is that true? Or is it 

$8.2 million? Actually, this is a typo. It is $8.2 million in contract 

termination fees. So they screw up, we spend $1 billion of taxpayer 

money on a system that doesn’t work; finally the Air Force says it 

is not going to work; we terminate the contract and we pay them 

another $8.2 million. 

Does anyone have any perspective of why it got as bad as it did, 

went on for as long as it did without someone pulling the plug? 

Mr. SCHATZ. Unfortunately, it is not the first time, although we 

hope it is one of the last times, because there have been many 

other examples of projects, programs, not just in information technology, but elsewhere, that go over budget and, unfortunately, 

since there are really no consequences for spending more money by 

Congress to hope the program works eventually, that is one of the 

reasons why they keep going. It is not just the agencies that continue to come in and say we need more; it is Congress that doesn’t 

put their foot down and say no. 

Ms. SPEIER. Exactly. 

Mr. SCHATZ. So ultimately, not to lecture the committee or the 

Congress, but it is their responsibility as a body to say this should 

just stop. Let’s do something different or let’s just not do it at all. 

And, unfortunately, it doesn’t happen often enough. 

Ms. ALEXANDER. I would say the one other thing I would add is 

I think that it is just incredibly important, and all we talk about 

in contract and acquisition reform is to have very clear consequences for failure to deliver what you say you are going to deliver. The cost of the termination fee was less than continuing the 

program, so that is the good news, but they didn’t deliver what 

they said they were going to deliver which, ironically, was to help 

the Air Force meet its audit requirements. Of course, they still 

haven’t done. 

So I think we just need to hold, make sure that in DOD, in particular just because it is so large, but across the government that 

when a contract is let to whatever service provider, that we have 

clear consequences; that we don’t have to pay when they don’t deliver. I think that is something that anybody who has been in business, if you enter into a contract with somebody, you know, there 

are some areas of gray, did you give me exactly what you I contract 

for, but there are some areas that are not gray, where it is pretty 

114 

clear. We didn’t get what we paid for, so we shouldn’t have to pay 

for the rest of it. 

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, I believe I only have 20 seconds, but 

if I could, any kind of discussion that we could have, a rational discussion on TRICARE would be greatly appreciated, because right 

now TRICARE is costing us an extraordinary amount of money and 

over time is going to eclipse what we pay in Defense expenditures 

for, I believe, other personnel costs. And TRICARE is being paid 

for individuals who have retired from the military, but are working 

in employment settings where they could get health insurance 

through their employer, and I want to know if you have any number as to how much that would save us. 

Ms. ALEXANDER. We have done a little analysis, and we can follow up and send you some numbers on the record. But I think that 

this committee has a huge opportunity to play a role in that, somewhat difficult conversation about reforming TRICARE. It shouldn’t 

be that difficult because we of course we are going to take care of 

the people who have served the Country so well, but we are subsidizing employers who have great employees who got trained by 

the U.S. Government, and we should think about that before we 

continue to spend money on it. 

I think that it is just worth noting that Congress has actually 

blocked some efforts by the Pentagon to put in cost reforms to 

TRICARE, so it is important that this committee lead the way. 

Ms. SPEIER. It is important to remember that, up until the year 

2000, those who retired from the military were in the Social Security system, and TRICARE is actually a fairly new incarnation. 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the lady. 

The gentleman from Florida is recognized. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for your testimony. The material that you provided is 

great. 

After he got elected in 2008, the President, then President-Elect, 

said that he thought it was important to go through the budget 

page by page, line by line, to eliminate unnecessary programs and 

operate existing programs in a cost-effective way. As individuals 

who study this, has the Administration ever put forward a list of 

these programs that needed to be eliminated? Have they actually 

eliminated any programs? Have they introduced some legislation in 

Congress to make good on this promise four years later? 

Mr. SCHATZ. Not to defend everything they have done, but there 

are certainly some education programs that appeared in the President’s budget: National Institute for Literacy, Even Start, 

Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership. Others have been 

eliminated by Congress, but in that case maybe a few hundred million dollars in savings. 

So every President produces a list of terminations. Unfortunately, Congress only adopts about usually less than $15 billion, 

often under $10 billion, less than one-half of one percent of Federal 

spending. But there are lists. Many of them have programs that 

have been around for, unfortunately, 10, 20, 30 years; and overall 

it is a small percentage, but the answer is yes, there are lists that 

President Obama and others have put forward. They are just not 

large enough. 

115 

Mr. DESANTIS. And they haven’t been actually enacted into law, 

by and large? 

Mr. SCHATZ. Some have, yes. There are some changes that have. 

Mr. DESANTIS. But it is in the hundreds of millions, not billions, 

of dollars? 

Mr. SCHATZ. Well, again, just in the information we have on education programs, because that was the easiest to find, it is a few 

hundred million. But overall anywhere between $10 billion and $15 

billion a year, I would say, gets adopted by Congress from the 

President’s budget. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Okay. 

Yes, sir. 

Mr. KAMENSKY. Mr. Congressman, the line-by-line review of a 

budget doesn’t capture a lot of the costs that could be saved. There 

are system costs that are just hidden in the procurement system, 

in the personnel systems, etcetera. But there is also cost or savings 

potential by looking at tax expenditures, which is an alternative 

way of buying things for the Federal Government, and that is almost $1 trillion, about the equivalent of the general discretionary 

spending each year; and there is also money that is hidden through 

regulatory costs that are in the hundreds of billions of dollars, that 

you are shifting cost to the private sector that do things. 

There are also laws that are just hidden programs. For example, 

the General Mining Act of 1872 allows the miners to extract resources from Federal lands at costs far below the market value of 

the minerals that they are mining. 

So if you just restrict the look or the view only to what is in the 

discretionary budget, you wind up missing something that may be 

two or three times as large. 

Mr. DESANTIS. I totally agree with that. I appreciate that. I was 

just trying to isolate what has been done; where do we stand four 

years out; what more can we do. 

My second question is we talk about individual items that can 

be cut, we talk about different things that can be done to save the 

Federal Government money, but I am wondering, in your judgments, what is the capacity of this body in the Congress to actually 

follow through on some of these things. And I guess my point is 

if you look at the last several decades, it seems that the incentive 

is always to spend more. And I am wondering if you think that we 

need an external pressure, constraint, such as a balanced budget 

amendment to the Constitution, to finally get us on a path to fiscal 

solvency. 

Mr. SCHATZ. Well, we have always supported a balanced budget 

amendment, but, again, all of this could be done. It is a political 

will issue. A good example of one project that was eliminated after 

2010, that was kept in 2009, is the alternate engine to the joint 

strike fighter, which, before the change in the control of the House, 

I believe it was about 230 Members voted to keep it going. The 

Senate, by the way, always rejected it. In 2009 that vote took place, 

excuse me, 2010, prior to the election. In 2011 the vote was reversed. 

So perhaps, one by one, some of these wasteful programs can be 

eliminated. The House has done a much better job of voting to reduce wasteful spending; it simply has gotten stuck over in the SenVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:43 May 07, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\79903.TXT APRIL
116 

ate. But I think it is all a matter of finding 218 votes in the House 

and 60 or so in the Senate that agree that these changes should 

be made. 

Mr. DESANTIS. My final question is I look through some of the 

materials about a lot of the improper payments. This is billions and 

billions of dollars, so it is a lot of good stuff that would be great 

to save. But I am wondering to what extent is that something that 

you can just isolate and fix, or to what extent is that just simply 

inherent in the nature of a big bureaucracy, so that the answer 

isn’t that we can simply identify this $10 billion in improper payments and snap our fingers, but we actually may need to simply 

reduce the size and scope of the bureaucracy as the best way to be 

able to save money. 

Mr. BLAIR. I think there are ways of isolating certain of those improper payments. For example, paying dead Federal employees 

their retirement annuities. I think that was highlighted in one of 

the recent reports that came out a couple years ago, that we continue to pay these retirement annuities to people who died a year, 

two, or three years ago. I think that if you go through each of these 

you can identify areas where you can actually make a difference 

now. 

But you are, with a government as large and as broad as what 

we have, addressing waste, fraud, and abuse, you have to look in 

terms of the sheer volume, but you also have to look at it as part 

as a holistic part of government and something that we are going 

to have to live with. We just have to make sure that we have the 

processes in place that are stringent enough to keep it at a minimum, and that is what we don’t have in place right now. 

Our government has grown up over the past 225 years to a point 

that, if we were reorganizing government today, it wouldn’t look at 

all what we have in place now; it would be a totally different function. But we have, through the years, departments and agencies reform to respond to specific constituencies and to specific programs, 

and it is time to take a look at how governments administer and 

how governments organize in order to cut down the systemic waste 

that we have seen over the past few years. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you. 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Let me go back to where I just was. Mr. Schatz had said something earlier, before we went for votes: if there is no consequence 

for wasting money, money will continue to be wasted. The one example that jumped out to me was the one I gave just a few minutes 

ago, where we have this benchmark and 183 times various Federal 

agencies exceeded the benchmark. Ms. Speier and I are going to do 

legislation on that specific thing. 

But I just wanted to know if there are no consequences, you are 

going to see money continue to be wasted. What other specific 

things, specific, would you point to that we can get at where there 

are consequences for wasting taxpayer money? We can just go 

down the line. 

Mr. SCHATZ. Well, one consequence would be to, again, penalize 

Members of Congress who vote to waste money in some manner. 

Mr. JORDAN. Well, that happens on election day. I get that. 

117 

Mr. SCHATZ. Well, that would help. Because, again, the Congress 

cannot fire people who overspend; they can change how the budget 

process works. 

What seems to happen, however, is when something is either not 

working or something is trying to be achieved, the STEM programs 

really strike me as the best example because a third of those 209 

STEM programs were added between 2005 and 2010, which means 

that both sides of the aisle were responsible. Somebody sees a 

science and math failure; we need to achieve more, we will spend 

more. 

Spending money does not solve problems. So this is a fundamental change in the approach to spending. That is one of the reasons that one of the Grace Commission recommendations was to 

change the Office of Management and Budget to the Office of Federal Management. 

So management comes first; the spending comes later, because 

the planning here is totally different than it is outside of Congress, 

where someone looks at a problem, says can we solve it, how do 

we solve it, and then how do we either raise the money to resolve 

it or can we afford to do this, or is there something else that exists 

that already achieves this; all the questions that really don’t get 

asked. So I am happy to see that there now is this rule that identifies duplicative programs, because at least that information is 

there. It doesn’t mean Congress won’t vote to create a new program, but at least there will be more transparency on that, and 

that may help, in and of itself. 

Mr. JORDAN. Anyone else? 

Ms. ALEXANDER. I think in the context of contract reforms, I 

think looking at kind of when contractors are entitled to termination fees. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. That is a specific. 

Ms. ALEXANDER. And going back into the context of fixed price 

contracts particularly for goods, where kind of having the government as a client should be a pretty good incentive to keep your 

costs down. So looking at kind of the very specific things to make 

sure that contractors have adequate skin in the game, to use the 

phrase of the day, but also just adequate controls so that we don’t 

have to pay people who aren’t doing what we want them to do. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. 

Mr. BLAIR. We talked about, earlier, a more accountable pay system for Federal employees and also a reorganized government, but 

one of the things I would urge you to take just a brief look at is 

a project that the Academy worked on with the American Society 

for Public Administration called Memos to National Leaders. It was 

intended to be addressed to both Congress and the Administration 

over the next four years in identifying the toughest management 

areas in government. And some of the things to look at is better 

use of technology. We talked about realtime technology, more analytics to identify waste, fraud, and abuse; better use of social media 

to inform constituency groups. FEMA has used this in the past, but 

how about other agencies as well? 

One of the things that our memos talked about was strengthening the intergovernmental system. I say in my testimony that actions at the Federal level reverberate on both the State and local 

118 

level, and we don’t seem to have, here in Washington, as firm a 

grip on this as we need, because we still haven’t funded mandates 

that trickle down to the State and local level. 

We need to do a better job of recognizing the budget constraints 

that they have at the State and local level and really strengthen 

that Federal system so that, while recognizing the independence 

that our States and localities have, the Federal Government should 

be a unified approach at least with some of the programs, and 

there are ways of doing that; better collaboration, bringing stakeholders together through online dialogues and other technological 

innovations. 

But the bottom line is that we really need to do a better job of 

communicating and highlighting the transparency and accountability of government. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Kamensky, do you want to comment? 

Mr. KAMENSKY. Thank you. The emphasis on greater transparency is a good one. The overall goal should be trying to create 

some sort of incentive to save money. One of the things that has 

been interesting is a barrier for some of the savings that I mentioned that were around the back-off as administrative costs is because many of those savings are not scoreable; and because it is 

not scoreable, neither OMB, nor the Congress, seem to want to pay 

attention to them, even though there will be savings that result 

from them. 

There are processes to make things like that scoreable, but it 

takes a lot of effort. So the transparency, by creating more 

scoreable savings figures, can be a strategy that would help. 

Mr. JORDAN. One last thing. Maybe what you have suggested is 

part of the inspectors generals’ reports. But we have 73 different 

inspectors generals who, in 2011, their reports, when you total it 

up, is almost $94 billion that the government save. It seems to me 

these are sharp people; they make good salary; they have a staff. 

I think the average salary of an inspector general is $165,000; 

sharp people working identifying things. 

Do you agree with the inspectors generals’ report, the compilation of all that, that there is that kind of savings achievable? And, 

if so, what do we need to do to make sure that happens? Obviously, 

we need to pass a law or whatever, but give me your thoughts on 

that real quick. And I apologize if you talked about it before I was 

here, but let’s just, real quick, do that, then I will let you all go. 

Mr. BLAIR. Well, one of the things I would look at in that inspector general report, and I am not that familiar with it, is I recall 

what I think is something like $75 billion in that was achieved 

through the savings of the Postal Service IG looking at the pension 

system. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. I have not looked at it that closely. 

Mr. BLAIR. And correct me if I am wrong on this, but if you take 

that off the table, you look at the other instances of potential 

waste, fraud, and abuse, I think it is important to say that a lot 

of that is potential; and I think more work needs to be done in addressing and highlighting exactly what can be done, because I 

think that would give Congress a good blueprint from which to 

start. 

119 

I would also urge you, in addition to the IG report, to look at this 

upcoming GAO list of duplicative programs, because I think that 

that gives you the starting point from which to ask why are we 

continuing to do that. 

Mr. JORDAN. Oh, we can do that anywhere. I just haven’t done 

a little bit of work in the welfare reform area. We have, I think, 

73 different means tested social welfare programs, job training, 

education, nutrition, health care, scattered all over the various 

agencies in government. We might help families a little better if we 

didn’t have 73. 

Mr. BLAIR. And you might get that money to the families who 

need it a little quicker. 

Mr. JORDAN. Exactly. No, that is the whole point. 

Mr. BLAIR. Rather than going through 73 different agencies. 

Mr. JORDAN. Save money and help more people. Imagine that. 

Imagine that. 

Mr. Schatz. 

Mr. SCHATZ. Well, I think that is also an approach that should 

be taken in discussing what to do about duplication and waste, because whenever someone talks about it, and we have all seen this 

over the years, well, we are going to ‘‘eliminate, terminate,’’ someone thinks they are not going to get something that they may or 

may not deserve, but certainly expect. But to show how more people will be helped through the consolidation of programs, through 

better management of programs, through more information about 

programs is something that needs to be better communicated, I 

think. 

Mr. JORDAN. We are actually having a subcommittee hearing on 

that very subject next week. 

Mr. SCHATZ. Right. Because it will enable Members of Congress 

to feel a little better about talking about how these things are 

going to work and how people will be helped. 

Ms. ALEXANDER. I just think the one other thing I would say that 

I think this committee is in a position to do is factor in the duplication within the congressional process, because sometimes there is 

a lot of duplication in programs because there are multiple committees of jurisdiction; and this committee is in a unique position to 

do oversight over multiple programs that have jurisdiction of other 

committees. 

Mr. JORDAN. That will win us a lot of friends with our colleagues. 

Ms. ALEXANDER. Win friends and influence people, I know, but 

it is something that this committee can do. 

Mr. JORDAN. I understand. No, good idea. 

I had one other thing and it has escaped me. Oh, I am just curious. And I should know this, and our staff will work on finding this 

out. Is the scheduled sequester, the $85 billion in reductions and 

spending scheduled to happen in twenty-some days, would that be 

one of the largest cuts government has ever implemented since, I 

would assume, World War II, in the modern times? Do you know? 

Mr. Schatz said you have been here twenty-some years, since 1986. 

I am just curious. 

Mr. SCHATZ. Well, again, remember, it is reduction of an increase, so it is not necessarily a cut. It may be a cut for some areas, 

120 

but maybe under Gramm-Rudman. I don’t recall what that number 

was. 

Mr. KAMENSKY. That was in 1986. 

Mr. SCHATZ. A hundred billion, maybe? I think. I am trying to 

remember. 

Mr. KAMENSKY. But it didn’t last. 

Mr. SCHATZ. Right. 

Mr. JORDAN. We know they don’t. They never last. 

Mr. SCHATZ. Right. 

Mr. JORDAN. We are trying to make some of them last. 

Mr. BLAIR. I think it was for a period of a few years. 

Mr. SCHATZ. I think Gramm-Rudman might have been larger, 

but not by much. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. 

Mr. BLAIR. Gramm-Rudman was only for a few days, wasn’t it? 

Didn’t Congress act that sequester? I can’t recall. 

Mr. SCHATZ. We remember a lot more about how much they 

spend. 

Mr. JORDAN. You are highlighting the problem. You are highlighting the problem. 

I want to thank you all for being here. I know it has been a while 

and you had to break in the middle. We appreciate the good work 

you are doing and the work you have helped with the committee. 

We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:38 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

121 


Insert offset folio 76 here 79903.076
122 


Insert offset folio 77 here 79903.077
123 


Insert offset folio 78 here 79903.078
124 


Insert offset folio 79 here 79903.079
125 


Insert offset folio 80 here 79903.080
126 


Insert offset folio 81 here 79903.081
127 


Insert offset folio 82 here 79903.082
128 


Insert offset folio 83 here 79903.083
129 


Insert offset folio 84 here 79903.084
130 


Insert offset folio 85 here 79903.085
131 


Insert offset folio 86 here 79903.086
132 


Insert offset folio 87 here 79903.087
133 


Insert offset folio 88 here 79903.088
134 


Insert offset folio 89 here 79903.089
135 


Insert offset folio 90 here 79903.090
136 


Insert offset folio 91 here 79903.091
137 


Insert offset folio 92 here 79903.092
138 


Insert offset folio 93 here 79903.093
139 


Insert offset folio 94 here 79903.094
140 


Insert offset folio 95 here 79903.095
141 


Insert offset folio 96 here 79903.096
142 


Insert offset folio 97 here 79903.097
143 


Insert offset folio 98 here 79903.098
144 


Insert offset folio 99 here 79903.099
145 


Insert offset folio 100 here 79903.100
146 


Insert offset folio 101 here 79903.101
147 


Insert offset folio 102 here 79903.102
148 


Insert offset folio 103 here 79903.103
149 


Insert offset folio 104 here 79903.104
150 


Insert offset folio 105 here 79903.105
151 


Insert offset folio 106 here 79903.106
152 


Insert offset folio 107 here 79903.107
153 


Insert offset folio 108 here 79903.108
154 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 109 here 79903.109