U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

31–371 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

FEDERAL GRANT MANAGEMENT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 25, 2018 

Serial No. 115–94 

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

( 

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

http://oversight.house.gov 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, Chairman 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Darrell E. Issa, California 

Jim Jordan, Ohio 

Mark Sanford, South Carolina 

Justin Amash, Michigan 

Paul A. Gosar, Arizona 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Thomas Massie, Kentucky 

Mark Meadows, North Carolina 

Ron DeSantis, Florida 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Mark Walker, North Carolina 

Rod Blum, Iowa 

Jody B. Hice, Georgia 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Will Hurd, Texas 

Gary J. Palmer, Alabama 

James Comer, Kentucky 

Paul Mitchell, Michigan 

Greg Gianforte, Montana 

Michael Cloud, Texas 

Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Carolyn B. Maloney, New York 

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia 

Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri 

Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts 

Jim Cooper, Tennessee 

Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia 

Robin L. Kelly, Illinois 

Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan 

Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey 

Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois 

Jamie Raskin, Maryland 

Jimmy Gomez, Maryland 

Peter Welch, Vermont 

Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

SHERIA CLARKE, Staff Director 

WILLIAM MCKENNA, General Counsel 

KELSEY WALL, Professional Staff Member 

KILEY BIDELMAN, Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

Gary Palmer, Alabama, Chairman 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin, Vice Chair 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Thomas Massie, Kentucky 

Mark Walker, North Carolina 

Mark Sanford, South Carolina 

Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking Minority 

Member 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania 

Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri 

(Vacancy) 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on July 25, 2018 ............................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Hudson Hollister, Executive Director, Data Coalition 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 4 

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

Ms. Michelle Sager, Director, Strategic Issues, Government Accountability 

Office 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12 

Andrea L. Brandon, MPA, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Grants and 

Acquisition Policy and Accountability, OS/ASFR/OGAPA, U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 31 

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

Mr. Peter Tyler, Senior Policy Analyst, Project on Government Oversight 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 38 

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

Ms. Natalie Keegan, Analyst, American Federalism and Emergency Management Policy, Congressional Research Service 

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

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


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

FEDERAL GRANT MANAGEMENT 

Wednesday, July 25, 2018 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:33 p.m., in Room 

2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Gary Palmer [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Palmer, Foxx, Grothman, Raskin, and 

DeSaulnier. 

Mr. PALMER. The Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs 

will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. I will begin with my opening statement. 

To determine what the American people value in society, you 

might start by following the money transferred from the Federal 

government to the public. To this end, the subcommittee is holding 

this hearing to examine the management of Federal grant awards. 

Since the earliest days of the republic, the Federal government has 

used grants to advance public policy. From veterans assistance in 

the aftermath of the War of 1812 to land grants for railroads after 

the Civil War, Federal grants have been part of our Nation’s history for a long time. Today the Federal government awards over 

$700 billion in grants annually. Seven hundred billion. 

Federal grants finance essential government programs, like infrastructure, by transferring Federal dollars to State and local governments, nonprofits, and individuals. However, different standards and reporting requirements scattered across Federal programs 

can pose a high cost. Federal grant managers spent 40 percent of 

their time monitoring compliance rather than monitoring results. 

According to a report by the Data Foundation, grant recipients are 

also burdened by the complexity of Federal grants. Grantees are required to submit duplicative reports and forms to multiple program 

officers spread across multiple agencies. 

Congress and the executive branch have made several attempts 

to improve grant management and transparency. In 2014, Congress 

passed the DATA Act. The DATA Act was intended to standardize 

Federal spending data, improve accuracy and usability of the data, 

and make Federal spending data accessible to the public online. 

Section 5 of the DATA Act created a pilot program to explore 

standardizing recipient reporting to reduce burdens on awardees 

and improve the usability of the reported data. The Section 5 pilot 

wrapped up last year. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

The final report offered three recommendations: continue to 

standardize data, leverage technology—excuse me—leverage technology to reduce compliance burden by auto populating forms with 

previously-provided data, and leverage open standards to rapidly 

develop new tools. My colleagues, Dr. Virginia Foxx from North 

Carolina and Congressman Jimmy Gomez from California, agreed 

with these recommendations. They introduced bipartisan legislation, The Grant Reform Efficiency and Agreements Transparency 

Act, the GREAT Act, to codify the pilot report’s recommendations. 

The GREAT act would require HHS and OMB to create data standards for grant recipient reporting and require Federal grantmaking 

agencies to use those standards. The President’s management 

agenda also calls for an integrated datacentric strategy to standardize grant reporting and reduce compliance burdens. 

In addition to reducing waste and burdens from unnecessary 

compliance exercises, modernizing grant data will improve accountability at grantmaking agencies. Annually, the Federal government 

loses track of millions of dollars due to a failure to review and reconcile grantee reports in a timely manner. In 2016, the GAO found 

nearly $1 billion in expired grants with undisbursed balances and 

over 8,000 accounts contained in the HHS Payment Management 

System. To address this problem, Congress passed the Grants 

Oversight and New Efficiency, or GONE, Act. Among other things, 

the GONE Act requires agencies to report to Congress explaining 

delays in closing out certain grant awards that were past their performance end date. 

The first report was sent to the committee in May. According to 

the report, one of the primary explanations for delayed closeout in 

expired grants cited by Federal agencies was disconnected IT systems for managing grants and for paying grants. Without a modern 

technological framework, we cannot expect agencies will improve 

their ability to track the administration of Federal grant awards. 

It is my hope that this Congress can continue to help in this effort 

with continued oversight of the grantmaking process. Fortunately, 

we have with us today a panel that can speak to the role Congress 

can play in reforming and modernizing the grant management 

process. I thank the witnesses for being here. 

I now recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. 

Raskin, for his opening statement. 

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and thanks for 

those thoughtful opening remarks. Thanks also to the witnesses for 

coming to testify today on this important subject. Alas, I disagree 

with a lot of what is taking place right now with the Administration, and I want to say that President Trump has eliminated or undermined a host of Federal programs and grantmaking processes 

that he disagrees with, and this is a complete misunderstanding of 

his role as President. As President, his job is to take care that the 

laws are faithfully executed even if he disagrees with the laws. And 

if he does not like our laws and he does not like our programs, he 

can try to convince Congress to change them. He has got that authority and power or he can run for Congress himself, but he cannot just unilaterally decide to stop implementing our laws and our 

programs. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

And this is the kind of sabotage he engaged in when his agents 

at the Department of Health and Human Services eliminated the 

Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program, which has helped to significantly lower the Nation’s teen pregnancy rate, bringing it down to 

its all-time low I believe. This program has bipartisan support in 

Congress. It has trained more than 7,000 health professionals and 

supported more than 3,000 community-based groups that serve millions of young people in America. So, the decision to kill the Teen 

Pregnancy Prevention Program was so lawless and so extreme that 

a Federal judge reversed HHS’ action, writing, and I quote, ‘‘HHS’s 

failure to articulate any explanation for its action, much less a reasoned explanation, exemplifies arbitrary and capricious agency action meriting reversal.’’ And that’s what the Court did. 

The Administration has also acted by way of godfather-style offers, too. It has illegally threatened to hold hostage Federal grant 

funds for public safety in order to coerce local governments into 

support of its anti-immigrant policies. Judges blocked that one, too. 

In April, a three-judge panel of all Republican appointees, I should 

add, ruled that the Administration exceeded its legal authority by 

imposing conditions that Congress simply had never authorized. 

The judges wrote, and I quote, ‘‘The Attorney General in this case 

used the sword of Federal funding to conscript State and local authorities to aid in Federal civil immigration enforcement. But the 

power of the purse rests with Congress,’’ the court wrote, ‘‘which 

authorized the Federal funds at issue and did not impose any immigration enforcement conditions on the receipt of such Federal 

funds.’’ 

The Trump Administration has also destroyed best grantmaking 

practices employed to ensure that grant recipients use Federal 

funds as Congress intended. In June, OMB disbanded the Council 

on Financial Assistance Reform, an interagency group that was created under the Obama Administration specifically to improve Federal grantmaking practices. OMB also directed agencies to stop reporting key metrics and remove mandatory quarterly progress reporting. 

I thought the President promised to run the government like a 

business, but I did not realize he meant businesses like Trump 

University, or Trump Mortgage, or Trump Steaks, where the various, now defunct, casinos that used his name. If you are going to 

run the government like a business, let us make it a good business, 

a solvent business, not a bankrupt entity which has been looted by 

its owner. 

I do not see a lot of faithful execution of the laws. I see an Administration intent on picking winners and losers in Federal 

grantmaking based on ideology. The American people deserve better than this highly-politicized process. The American people deserve to know how billions of their dollars are being managed and 

how the Federal government is monitoring the effectiveness of 

grant programs. 

Just 2 days ago, the GAO reported that only 15 percent of Federal agencies met their IG standards for completeness, timeless, 

and accuracy under the Digital Accountability Transparency Act, 

the DATA Act, the 2014 law that aims to make information on Federal expenditures accessible and transparent. Again, that means 85 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

percent of our agencies failed to meet the standards because of the 

tone that has been set at the top, and that has obvious results in 

terms of transparency and accuracy. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for calling this hearing because 

there are some really important problems that we need to deal 

with, and I think the Administration has done a disservice to 

Americans with the policies it has engaged in, undermining Federal programs and Federal laws. And we should be able to work together in a bipartisan way in Congress to get back on track and 

to restore the coherence of legislative dictates. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. PALMER. I thank the gentleman. I am pleased to introduce 

our witnesses: Mr. Hudson Hollister, executive director of Data Coalition; Ms. Michelle Sager, director of strategic issues at the U.S. 

Government Accountability Office; Ms. Andrea L. Brandon, deputy 

assistant secretary of the Office of Grants and Acquisition Policy 

and Accountability at the U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services; Mr. Peter Tyler, senior policy analyst at the Project on 

Government Oversight; and Ms. Natalie Keegan, analyst of American Federalism and Emergency Management at the Congressional 

Research Service. Welcome to you all. 

Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in before you testify. Please stand and raise your right hand. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you are about to 

give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so 

help you God? 

[A chorus of ayes.] 

Mr. PALMER. The record will reflect that the witnesses answered 

in the affirmative. Please be seated. 

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

to 5 minutes. Your entire written statement will be made part of 

the record. As a reminder, the clock in front of you shows your remaining time. The light will turn yellow when you have 30 seconds 

left and red when your time is up. Please also remember to press 

the button to turn your microphone on before speaking. 

I now recognize Mr. Hollister for his testimony. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF HUDSON HOLLISTER 

Mr. HOLLISTER. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Chairman Palmer, 

Ranking Member Raskin, thank you for inviting me to testify 

today. 

If the Federal grant system were a business, as Mr. Raskin has 

suggested, it would be the world’s largest with almost 50 percent 

more revenue than Walmart. The overwhelming majority of these 

funds go to State and local governments both directly and through 

subgrants issued by State agencies. And this whole enormous system is managed through a complex array of reporting requirements. The reporting requirements are spread across thousands of 

different grant program offices. 

Here’s our challenge. Grant reporting is a document-based affair. 

Grantees fill out forms and submit those forms to grantor agencies. 

Some agencies have implemented grant management systems that 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

collect these forms through electronic uploads, but even in those 

systems the forms are still PDF documents. They are electronic 

versions of the paper that they replaced. 

Document-based reporting presents two basic problems. First, it 

does a very poor job of delivering transparency to agencies, to Congress, to taxpayers. There is no central repository of all the information that grantees report to grantor agencies, nor is there any 

feasible way to create one. Second, grantees sustain unacceptable 

compliance costs in both time and money. Grantees must manually 

fill out their reporting forms, often providing the same information 

multiple times. Document-based reporting prevents both the grantees and the grantors from tracking and comparing performance or 

from making data-driven decisions. 

Here’s our solution. By replacing document-based forms with 

standardized data, the Federal government can resolve both problems. First, standardized data will allow transparency and easy 

comparisons across programs and across government. And second, 

standardized data will allow grantees to compile and submit their 

information automatically and more cheaply. 

Now, this is not the same thing as creating a single governmentwide system or a single government-wide reporting portal. If we 

were to replace document-based forms with standardized data, the 

agencies and the program offices could still operate separate grant 

management systems if they so chose. But by adopting common 

data structures and formats, we can allow information to easily be 

pulled from all of those systems automatically and easily aggregated for agency-wide and even government-wide transparency. 

Now, a transformation from document-based reporting to 

datacentric reporting requires three steps. First, the White House, 

working with grantor agencies and grantees, must define the data 

elements that are most commonly used in all these forms. Second, 

the White House must make this list of data fields or taxonomy 

mandatory for all grant programs. Third, all the grantor agencies 

must begin collecting grant reports as data instead of as documents. 

In early 2018, this committee and the Administration both took 

major steps toward that transformation. First, on February 6, 

2018, this committee favorably reported the Grant Reporting Efficiency and Agreements Transparency Act, or GREAT Act, which requires exactly the three steps I mentioned. Dr. Foxx and Mr. 

Gomez deserve credit for championing this critical reform. And second, on March 20th, as part of the President’s management agenda, the White House announced a cross-agency priority goal, CAP 

goal, on results-oriented accountability for grants. Under that goal, 

the White House has committed to creating a taxonomy of the data 

elements that are most commonly used in grant reports with a 

deadline of the end of this Fiscal Year. Now that’s the first of the 

necessary three steps. We eagerly await the publication of that 

data taxonomy. 

Now, the Data Coalition represents 46 data companies all working together to make our government more efficient and transparent. Our companies’ solutions can deliver transparency and can 

automate grantee reporting, but only if the Federal government undergoes this basic transformation from document-based to 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

datacentric. I’m also the president of the Data Foundation. Last 

month the Data Foundation issued our most recent report on transforming Federal grant reporting, explaining that Federal leaders 

are ready for this transition. Federal leaders are ready for the 

GREAT act and for the realization of the CAP goal. 

Thank you, and I look forward to the subcommittee’s questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Hollister follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 31371.001
8 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 31371.002
9 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 31371.003
10 

Mr. PALMER. The chair now recognizes Ms. Sager for her testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MICHELLE SAGER 

Ms. SAGER. Chairman Palmer, Ranking Member Raskin, and Dr. 

Foxx, thank you so much for inviting me to participate in this very 

important hearing on Federal grants management. 

As we have all heard, Federal grants are an important tool of 

government, representing hundreds of billions of dollars in Federal 

expenditures every year. They also vary in many ways, including 

how Federal agencies implement them, their size, the nature of 

their recipients, and the types of programs that they fund, everything from transportation, to disaster assistance, to child nutrition, 

and the list goes on and on. This diversity and complexity contributes to the challenge of any efforts to make crosscutting grants 

management reform across the government. 

GAO has done a number of reports on Federal grants management spanning several decades. My oral statement today will focus 

on two key points: first, observations on longstanding grants management challenges, and, second, opportunities to address these 

challenges through some of the current grant modernization initiatives. 

First, GAO’s body of work on Federal grants has identified a 

number of crosscutting challenges, including streamlining, transparency, collaboration and consultation, overlap and duplication, 

and oversight. A couple of key examples illustrate these challenges. 

These examples are highlighted in my written statement, and, of 

course, the underlying GAO reports provide additional detail. 

First, as we’ve heard about in terms of transparency, the DATA 

Act required agencies to increase the type of information that is 

available in a public way. Agencies have made great progress in 

providing standardized information and making that publicly available. But as GAO has reported a couple of times now, there is still 

additional progress that needs to continue, particularly with regard 

to data quality. Second, with regard to duplication and overlap, we 

have made a number of recommendations to agencies aimed at refining their grant management practices to check for duplication 

before they actually make grant awards. In response to these recommendations, agencies have taken action, and they are now 

checking for duplication. 

GAO has also identified weaknesses related to grants oversight 

and internal controls in a number of areas. For example, as we’ve 

already heard, we’ve identified opportunities for agencies to more 

consistently close out grants when the grantee period of performance has ended. The GONE Act passed Congress, and we are grateful for that act, and we now are looking forward to following what 

agencies are doing in response to the GONE Act as they are taking 

action to close out their expired grant accounts. 

As we go forward, the current grant management initiatives 

present opportunities to address these challenges. As the current 

Administration looks at the CAP goal that we just heard about, results-oriented accountability for grants, this goal needs to be integrated with other ongoing government-wide initiatives, for examVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:38 Sep 25, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\31371.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
11 

ple, with DATA Act implementation, as well as with other initiatives related to evidence-based policy. 

We have made a number of recommendations about crosscutting 

government-wide initiatives and have focused on a couple of key 

features that those initiatives need to represent. So, for example, 

in any government-wide crosscutting initiative, you need to have a 

clear sense of what your goals are, and then follow up to make sure 

that those goals are in progress. You also need to have clear roles 

and responsibilities and have a sense of who’s doing what. And finally you also need to have clear communication that is two way 

with the stakeholders involved in any of these initiatives. 

As the CAP goal for grant goes forward, it’s very important that 

it relates to these other government-wide initiatives and that it is 

an integrated approach to make sure that these initiatives work together. Otherwise, you run the risk of these initiatives operating 

in silos or even working at cross purposes. We have ongoing work 

related to the implementation of the CAP goals as well as implementation of the DATA Act and the infusion of evidence-based policy across the Federal government, including in Federal grants. 

In conclusion, as we move forward, part of the challenge of any 

government-wide initiative is designing and implementing grants 

management policy that maintains accountability on the one hand, 

but at the same time is attuned to the potential administrative 

burden for grantors, agencies, and grantees. Meeting this challenge 

requires intergovernmental collaboration across the Federal government, intergovernmental collaboration with State and local governments and other partners, as well as the integration that I 

made reference to with other ongoing initiatives. 

This concludes my prepared remarks, and I look forward to any 

questions that you may have. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Sager follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
12 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 31371.004
13 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 31371.005
14 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 31371.006
15 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 31371.007
16 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 31371.008
17 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 31371.009
18 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 31371.010
19 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 31371.011
20 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 31371.012
21 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 31371.013
22 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 31371.014
23 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 31371.015
24 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 31371.016
25 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 31371.017
26 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 31371.018
27 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 31371.019
28 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 31371.020
29 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 31371.021
30 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 31371.022
31 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you. 

The chair recognizes Ms. Brandon for her testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ANDREA L. BRANDON, M.P.A. 

Ms. BRANDON. Chairman Palmer, Ranking Member Raskin, and 

Dr. Foxx, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the Department of Health and Human Services’ grants policies and practices, in particular the standardization and transparency of grant reporting, HHS’ role in the President’s management agenda across agency priorities, CAP Goal 8, and HHS results of grant closeouts and undisbursed balances as required by 

the Grants Oversight and New Efficiency Act, also known as the 

GONE Act. 

As the deputy assistant secretary for HHS’ Grants and Acquisition Policy and Accountability Office, I serve as the Department’s 

lead executive responsible for the management, administration, 

and oversight of HHS’ grants and acquisition programs. HHS is the 

Federal government’s largest grantmaking organization, awarding 

approximately $500 billion in discretionary grants annually. 

Last year, HHS kicked off the ReImagine HHS Transformation, 

which was prompted by OMB Memorandum M–17–22. HHS has 

taken this as an opportunity to re-examine and improve how we 

deliver on our mission. Grants management was identified as one 

of 10 priority initiatives under ReImagine HHS, and ReInvent 

Grants Management was formed to identify and implement improvements to the grants management processes. 

HHS plans to improve, or reinvent, the grant notice of award, 

the Federal financial report, grants management training and certification, and the grants management information technology business systems. Further, HHS plans to standardize data elements, 

eliminate forms while creating structured data sets, and provide a 

single sign-on capability for our public-facing systems. HHS is also 

looking at the newest technology in artificial intelligence, process 

robotics, and block chain for reinventing how we do grant business 

at HHS. 

The Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 expanded the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act 

of 2006 to increase accountability and transparency in Federal 

spending, making Federal expenditure information more accessible 

to the public. HHS was pleased to have led the grants work done 

under Section 5 of the DATA Act, and HHS believes strongly in 

furthering DATA Act Section 5 grants’ pilot efforts under its ReImagine initiative. 

The PMA CAP Goal 8 challenges Federal agencies to maximize 

the value of grant funding by applying a risk-based, data-driven 

framework that balances compliance with current requirements 

with demonstrating successful results. The strategy is three 

pronged: number one, standardize the grant data; number two, leverage existing data sources and processes; and three, develop a 

risk-based framework for performance management. 

OMB has initiated three government-wide working groups in 

order to formalize the development and implementation of this 

CAP goal. HHS is vested in providing guidance and leadership for 

the CAP 8 Goal as our deputy CFO is designated Colle leader of 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
32 

the goal, and several HHS staff are currently leading several of 

those work groups. HHS will coordinate our internal efforts via ReInvent Grants Management to coordinate with the PMA CAP Goal 

8. 

The GONE Act was signed into law on January 28, 2016 with 

the aim to facilitate the closing of expired grants. HHS, via all 

GONE Act compliance activities, found two primary challenges 

leading to delays in closing out grants and cooperative agreements 

in the HHS Payment Management System. Number one was policy 

and number two was system issues. Under policy, reconciliation 

issues led to a large number of expired grants with small 

undisbursed balances remaining open. Under system issues, management pooled accounts in PMS also affected the timeliness of 

grant closeouts. 

HHS has implemented several measures to reduce the number of 

open, but expired, awards. Operation Clean Sweep resulted in the 

closure of over 30,000 Federal awards across HHS, and the GONE 

Act monthly reporting initiative resulted in an additional 17,000 

grants being closed. The resolution of the remaining award balances involve a number of business functions, such as grants policy, financial policy, and IT systems. Therefore, we have convened 

a multidisciplinary work group to develop and implement strategies for closing these accounts and preventing future issues. 

In conclusion, HHS strongly agrees with the need to protect taxpayers’ dollars and is committed to using its ReInvent Grants Management initiative to standardize and/or eliminate duplicative processes in order to serve as careful stewards of these funds. Thank 

you for the opportunity to testify, and I am glad to answer any 

questions. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Brandon follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
33 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 31371.023
34 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 31371.024
35 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 31371.025
36 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 31371.026
37 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 31371.027
38 

Mr. PALMER. I thank the witness. 

The chair now recognizes Mr. Tyler for his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF PETER TYLER 

Mr. TYLER. Chairman Palmer, Ranking Member Raskin, and Dr. 

Foxx, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee about grant management improvement. This is a critical 

topic of government reform, and successful efforts would result in 

better accountability of Federal grants and a more effective use of 

grant money. I am a senior policy analyst for the Project on Government Oversight, or POGO, where I focus my efforts on a range 

of government accountability initiatives. Founded in 1981, we are 

a nonpartisan, independent watchdog that champions good government reforms. 

The subcommittee has my written testimony, so I would like to 

highlight just a couple of points at this time. First, Congress has 

an important role in helping the Administration and agencies to 

move forward with the President’s management agenda goal on 

Federal grant reform. This laudable initiative will need much more 

specific plans to achieve its goals. Second, there are many lessons 

we learned from the recent successes and challenges of the Digital 

Accountability and Transparency Act, the DATA Act, implementation that are directly applicable to grant management reform. 

The President’s management agenda released earlier this year 

correctly included grants management as a major goal in outlining 

the challenges and strategies for improvement. Currently, Federal 

agencies simply do not perform adequate levels of oversight and 

are too often unable to detect problematic or even fraudulent 

grants. Further, each Federal agency or even each Federal program 

can have its own process and standards for awarding and managing grants. 

The President’s agenda proposes several solutions, one of which 

is to standardize grant reporting data, especially financial data. 

This could lead to improved grant evaluations and increase the understanding of performance. However, success will depend on the 

thoughtful development and implementation of specific and welldefined steps. The President’s management agenda needs further 

articulation, and all the milestone dates must be set. 

Currently, for example, the Administration’s public document 

outlining implementation steps has four milestones for data standardization. The first milestone was completed in 2017. The next 

two are due by the end of the current Fiscal Year. Unfortunately, 

the final and most important data standardization goal lacks specificity or even a time frame for completion. The Administration 

must create specific plans for data standardization and other key 

implementation goals. This should include more detailed implementation steps, reporting procedures for agencies, and quarterly milestones over multiple years. Further, these steps should be developed in a transparent manner with the input of stakeholder and 

civil society groups. 

Will implementation of the Administration’s grant management 

reforms prove successful? Perhaps. The recent history of a related 

Federal data transparency plan offers important lessons. The 

DATA Act, enacted in 2014 with the strong support and work of 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
39 

this committee, has the goal of significantly improving the quality 

and scope of government spending data made available to the public. Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget smartly 

engage in a collaborative and transparent process. They established 

a multiagency working group and involved outside stakeholders, 

which successfully identified potential pitfalls well before committing to an approach. POGO recommends that grant management 

follow a similar approach, especially including stakeholder and civil 

society dialogue and input. 

The Federal government spends about $2.5 trillion annually 

through grants, contracts, direct assistance loans, insurance, and 

other financial awards. While each type of spending might need 

specialized requirements, we should ideally move forward with improvements in all of these major fiscal vehicles at the same time 

rather than breaking them apart and addressing them only one at 

a time. For example, the Administration and Congress should work 

together to curb improper payments in grants and other types of 

spending. Federal spending through government contracts also 

pose ongoing challenges for accuracy and transparency. 

In conclusion, the coming years could see great progress. These 

efforts should include increased specificity in the President’s Federal grant reform initiative, learn from the successes and challenges of DATA Act implementation as well as ongoing implementation of the DATA Act, and finally, pursuing other Federal spending reform initiatives, such as new improper payments legislation 

and oversight of Federal contracting. 

Thank you once again for the opportunity to provide our testimony to the subcommittee, and I look forward to your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Tyler follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
40 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 31371.028
41 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 31371.029
42 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 31371.030
43 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 31371.031
44 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 31371.032
45 

Mr. PALMER. This has been a great panel of witnesses so far. Everybody has finished early. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. PALMER. So, it puts a huge burden on the next witness. Ms. 

Keegan, we look forward to your 5-minute testimony. 

STATEMENT OF NATALIE KEEGAN 

Ms. KEEGAN. Chairman Palmer, Ranking Member Raskin, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to testify. 

As requested, my testimony focuses on a selection of issues relating to grant modernization priorities outlined in the President’s 

management agenda and standardizing Federal grant reporting 

and transparency. The written statement goes into more detail, but 

I will touch upon the key points. 

First, it may be helpful to provide some context. While Congress 

enacts legislation authorizing grant programs and providing funding, grant recipients must apply for the funds, and Federal agencies establish policies and procedures to award and manage those 

funds. Congress is, therefore, directing grant funding towards policies. The Federal agencies and grant recipients play a key role in 

how Federal grants are distributed and managed. 

In constant dollar terms, Federal grant funding has grown sub- stantially over the last 75 years from about the equivalent of $17 

billion in 1942 to over $674 in Fiscal Year 2017. OMB provides 

overall guidance to Federal agencies for grant management, and 

Federal agencies may choose how to promulgate that guidance into 

regulations for individual grant programs, which may result in inconsistencies across Federal agencies. 

The President’s management agenda discusses IT modernization, 

data accountability and transparency, and the workforce. When assessing these topics in terms of Federal grant management, one of 

the emerging themes is how silos in grant management have created challenges to effective and efficient program management. 

Generally, Federal agencies separate grant management functions 

into three categories: financial management, program management, 

and grant oversight. These functions are usually assigned to different parts of the agency with the financial management done by 

the chief financial officer shop, program management by the program shop, and grant oversight by the agency’s inspector general. 

Financial management includes, among other things, reporting 

award information and dispersing funds. Program management involves reviewing and processing grant applications and approving 

changes in the scope of work. And grant oversight includes investigating allegations of waste, fraud, and abuse. Although some 

functions are shared, there is often limited communication between 

grant management components, which can impede effective grant 

management and limit oversight. 

There are also silos within each grant management function. 

This is particularly true in the context of IT modernization. For example, the financial management function of Federal agencies 

often contains multiple cash management systems within a single 

agency, and these systems may not be interoperable. The program 

management function has separate grant management databases, 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
46 

and like cash management systems, there may be multiple grant 

management databases within a single agency. Additionally, the 

cash management systems and the grant management systems are 

not interoperable. Both types of systems contain information that 

informs program evaluation, but evaluating a grant program would 

require drawing from multiple databases across multiple Federal 

agencies. 

Grant data transparency is also hindered by silos due to different 

types of data, such as financial data and performance data. These 

silos exist in part because of the division of grant management 

functions between financial managers and program managers. Because of the silos of grant management functions, it is difficult to 

define who comprises the grant management workforce, which may 

explain why there’s no mandatory training requirements. As a result Federal agencies established their own grant management 

training which may lead to variation in job skills of grant management personnel across the government. 

Consequently, standardizing Federal grant reporting faces challenges. When evaluating options, Congress may wish to consider 

the following questions. Can Federal Acquisition Regulation inform 

the development of government-wide grant management regulations? If so, what are the potential limitations and benefits of using 

Federal acquisition regulation as a model for grant regulation? 

What are the current limitations on evaluating grant management 

practices across Federal agencies and among Federal grant recipients? What challenges are facing Federal agencies and grant recipients in implementing current grant management standardization 

and transparency measures such as the DATA Act and the GONE 

Act? How would Federal agencies and grantees prioritize standardization and transparency requirements should additional standardization measures be enacted? While Federal grant management 

faces challenges on many fronts, greater transparency can improve 

ways to overcome those challenges and improve Congress’ ability to 

exercise oversight. 

This concludes my statement. I’d be happy to answer any questions. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Keegan follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
47 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 31371.033
48 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 31371.034
49 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 31371.035
50 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 31371.036
51 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 31371.037
52 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 31371.038
53 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 39 here 31371.039
54 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 40 here 31371.040
55 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 41 here 31371.041
56 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 42 here 31371.042
57 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 43 here 31371.043
58 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you. I thank the witnesses for the testimony. 

The chair now recognizes Dr. Foxx for her questions. 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I thank our 

witnesses for being here today. You know, there are very few people who get excited about this issue. It is talking about data, and 

standardization is not something that is going to bring smiles to a 

lot of people’s faces, but it brings a smile to my face to hear you 

all talking about this. And if the people involved with applying for 

grants and reporting on grants knew a little bit more about it, they 

would be smiling too. So, thank you all very much for being here. 

I have actually been a grant writer for a long, long time. I go back, 

way back, and I have actually dealt with the kinds of issues you 

are talking about. 

Mr. Hollister, the Federal government tends to impose policy on 

State governments—excuse me—by assigning conditions to grants 

that it awards. As we work to modernize grant management, how 

can we protect State sovereignty? 

Mr. HOLLISTER. Thank you, Dr. Foxx, and thank you for championing the GREAT Act. I had the opportunity a few years ago to 

sit with the staff of then Governor Patrick of the Commonwealth 

of Massachusetts, and they told me that Governor Patrick, when 

Congress imposed sequestration, wanted to figure out the cumulative impact of sequestration on Massachusetts. Could not do it 

because grants were separately administered between each grantor 

agency and the corresponding grantee agency of the State. There 

was no way to understand the full picture of grant funding for 

Massachusetts. 

In order to try to address that, 11 States and Puerto Rico have 

set up grant offices that seek to get a handle on the entire picture 

of all of the grants that the State is receiving. However, this is still 

almost prohibitively difficult because of the multiplicity of the reporting requirements. If your GREAT Act were enacted and if we 

had a common data structure for all those forms, it would be simple for a governor’s office or grants office to understand the full picture of all grant funding received by the States. And as sovereign 

governments, the States could elect to comply in some places, perhaps refuse in others, while still maintaining all the requirements 

of the grants. 

Ms. FOXX. Right. And, my feeling, again, about this legislation, 

it is a bipartisan piece of legislation. It is something that all of us 

who care about how money is being spent in the government 

should want to get done in a hurry. So, you have already talked 

about how the GREAT Act builds off of the DATA Act initiatives. 

Was there anything else you wanted to say in that area that you 

did not get to say in your testimony goes on because time is so 

short? 

Mr. HOLLISTER. As a matter of fact, there is, Dr. Foxx, and I 

thank you. Some of the other witnesses have pointed out how the 

DATA Act set up a single unified data set of all the information 

that Federal agencies report on their spending. If your GREAT Act 

were enacted and implemented, we would also have a single unified data set of all the information that grantees are reporting. And 

because of the requirements in your bill, those two data sets would 

be interoperable. That means it would be possible to take a parVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:38 Sep 25, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\31371.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
59 

ticular grant, see all of the aspects of congressional appropriations 

and individual payments coming from the agency, and also see 

what the grantee is saying about that grant. That means 360-degree transparency. 

Ms. FOXX. Wow. Again, having more information can only be 

good, and having information that you can compare can only be 

good in my opinion. Are there some other areas of grant reform 

that Congress should be aware of that are going on or that folks 

are thinking about? 

Mr. HOLLISTER. Dr. Foxx, we do have some interesting stories 

from overseas of how other developed countries have gone even farther, have set up a single portal to which all of the information 

flows. There might be some savings there because it means the individual agencies no longer have to collect information themselves. 

However, that is not necessary to get to the transparency. What is 

really essential is that step of adopting the data standards. 

Ms. FOXX. Great. Thank you. Ms. Brandon, have you had a 

chance to review the GREAT Act, and if you have, how do you 

think it relates to the DATA Act pilot recommendations? 

Ms. BRANDON. Thank you, Dr. Foxx, for that question. Yes, I 

have had the opportunity to review the GREAT Act bill. And with 

regard to the way that we implemented the DATA Act, we have 57 

standard data elements that actually tie the financial management 

data elements for the Agency with the acquisition and grant data 

elements and the sub-award data elements. So, we standardized all 

those data elements across the financial acquisition and grants. 

With regard to the GREAT Act, I think this is an awesome opportunity for us to continue to standardize those data elements 

across the entire lifecycle of the grants management process, so everything from pre-award aspects through the award, the monitoring, the audit resolution, and the close out. And so, definitely we 

are working currently within the President’s management agenda 

CAP 8 Goal on something called the Federal Integrated Business 

Framework data elements that we have already started pulling together. We call it FIBF for short. And it is 417 at the current point 

where across the Federal government we are working in a collaborative working group to look at those data elements across the entire grants management lifecycle. 

So, I think that that will actually tie in very nicely with the 

DATA Act data elements that were created, and we are looking forward to implementing it. 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. PALMER. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman, for his questions. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. We will start with Ms. Sager. We are talking 

about grants that should be closed out. What are some of the reasons the grants are not closed out in a timely manner at the end 

of the performance period? 

Ms. SAGER. Thank you for the question. There are a number of 

reasons why grants may not be closed down in a timely manner, 

and we are delighted to see that they are now being tracked. 

So, to just give you a couple of examples that appeared repeatedly in some of GAO’s work, we did three reports on grant close 

out, and some of the reasons that we heard at one end of the specVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:38 Sep 25, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\31371.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
60 

trum, a grantee may no longer exist, thus making it very difficult 

to follow up and close out a grant. In other cases, you may have 

a grant system and a financial management system within an 

agency that need to be reconciled before the grant can be closed 

out. In other cases, you may have final deliverables that still need 

to come in before the final agreement can be closed out. And still 

another example could be when you have multiple entities within 

an agency that are all contributing to the grant, all of them need 

to contribute to the final close out. 

So, all of those kinds of things are now being tracked, and we 

certainly would welcome additional requests to see where we are 

at this point in time now that the GONE Act has passed. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. How are we going to recapture the expired grants? 

Ms. SAGER. So, agencies, depending on the nature of their authorizing legislation, they may be able to redirect those funds. In 

other cases, those funds may be returned to the Treasury. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. Would GAO consider another review of 

grant close-out issues? 

Ms. SAGER. We absolutely would. We know that agency financial 

reports for 2017 are now in hand, and we soon will have another 

year in hand. That would then provide us with an opportunity to 

look at those 2 years and see the progress that we have made. And 

if there are opportunities to make additional recommendations, certainly look forward to working with this committee to do so. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. We will move over to Ms. Brandon. You 

are familiar with the DATA Act? 

Ms. BRANDON. Is that for me? Did you say ‘‘Ms. Brandon?’’ 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Yes. 

Ms. BRANDON. Thank you so much, sir. Yes, I am familiar with 

the DATA Act. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. What lessons have been learned so far regarding 

standardized recipient reporting? 

Ms. BRANDON. With regard to the DATA Act and standardized 

recipient reporting, we actually had to take a look at the actual 

business management data elements from the Federal Financial 

Report that come in, and actually work across our Department to 

look at standardization of how we implement those particular data 

elements and how we report out on those particular DATA Act data 

elements with regard to the DATA Act. 

In addition to that, we actually had to look at the reconciliation 

across the Department with the financial data that came in from 

our financial systems, and we had to actually massage the data, if 

you will, to look at those anomalies, those types of data anomalies 

that fell out as we coagulated all the data together in order to report out on the DATA Act. So, we were able to look across our 11 

operating divisions and staff divisions and make sure that we had 

better quality data. And so, it enabled us to help report in a more 

timely way and with the better data quality for the DATA Act. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Thanks. Does the huge number of data elements 

raise any concerns for HHS and other agencies? 

Ms. BRANDON. With regard to the data elements, the concerns actually had to do with what we were using as standard data elements that were taken out of SAM.gov versus other data elements 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
61 

that were required through the DATA Act portal, USAspending.gov 

that were not in SAM.gov. And we were not prepared for that actually, so we had to make some very quick adjustments and some 

data mapping to ensure that we could meet the new requirements 

and that we still would retain the quality of data necessary to report accurately. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. Once HHS identifies duplicative data elements, is there an effort to standardize or consolidate the forms? 

Ms. BRANDON. Actually, we are trying to get rid of the forms. We 

would like to come up with a specific set of structured data elements across our entire department and actually have them reported in the system, and not necessarily articulated or attached 

to a form per se. In addition to that, we are looking at having the 

recipients submit the information in a structured data way and not 

have to be tied to actual forms. As we look at all the forms that 

are currently in use, we are looking at the duplicative data elements, and we are snapping them down to address only those data 

elements that are required and only necessary for reporting, because we also did an analysis that reflected we were collecting data 

elements that we actually never use. And so, we are going to strip 

those away. But definitely, we want to use our systems more and 

actually get away from forms. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. You finished that right on the button, so 

thank you. 

Mr. PALMER. The chair recognizes my friend, the ranking member, Mr. Raskin, for his questions. 

Mr. RASKIN. Thank you very much, Chairman Palmer. Mr. Tyler, 

what was the Council on Financial Assistance Reform? 

Mr. TYLER. Thank you, Congressman. That is an important question about this issue. There may be some people here at the table 

who could answer the question better. But, in effect, COFAR was 

established to make sure that the then grant initiatives under the 

last Administration would go forward in an effective way. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. But is there anybody else who wants to provide any insight on that? 

[No response.] 

Mr. RASKIN. I understand that the new director of the Office for 

Management and Budget disbanded the council, which was charged 

with trying to streamline and improve the policies. Can anybody 

tell me what was behind that decision? 

[No response.] 

Mr. RASKIN. Does anybody know? Ms. Brandon, do you not 

know? 

Ms. BRANDON. I —— 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. But, you know, and I understand, hey, I am 

a politician. I understand politicians like to create their own councils and commissions and get rid of the last person’s, but was this 

replaced with something new that was tasked with trying to improve the practices generally? Mr. Tyler, do you know? 

Mr. TYLER. Congressman, that is a great question, and I actually 

have the same question. We definitely want to see movement forward on good reforms for the grant process. What I am asking is 

the same question. I am not 100 percent sure who is in charge. 

Recognizing the importance of Health and Human Services’ work, 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
62 

they are correctly taking a leadership role, but this is an interagency process. HHS, in effect, cannot tell the Department of Commerce what to do with their grant program, and that is why a 

council approach where people are brought to the table effectively 

and regularly is so important. I simply do not know who is convening those meetings. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. Is that interagency process taking place to 

the knowledge of anybody on the panel? Does anyone know whether this Council on Financial Assistance Reform has been replaced 

with another interagency coordinating group? 

Ms. BRANDON. I can actually tell you that the work that was 

done under the Council on Financial Assistance Reform has now 

been moved under the Chief Financial Officers Council at Office of 

Management and Budget. And while there is not a new committee 

that has been formed, the work is actually being addressed through 

that council. And that council actually has the co-lead on the new 

cross-agency of priority CAP Goal 8 in the President’s management 

agenda. So, all the grant’s work and activity has been moved under 

the CFOC Council. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay, great. Are you involved in that process? 

Ms. BRANDON. I am a sub-leader, if you will, under our deputy 

CFO. 

Mr. RASKIN. Were you involved in the COFAR, the Council on Financial —— 

Ms. BRANDON. In prior years, yes. 

Mr. RASKIN. You were? 

Ms. BRANDON. Yes. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. So, well, what has been the effect of dissolving that council? 

Ms. BRANDON. Basically, we actually submit information to our 

chief financial officer council member, so that is our deputy CFO 

at HHS. And we submit any type of grant reform considerations 

and initiatives that we would like to see from the grants perspective, and she ensures that it is put on the agenda at the CFOC 

Council. And in addition to that, there is another committee that 

does not fall under the Chief Financial Officers Council. It’s called 

the Financial Assistance Committee on e-Gov, and it actually falls 

under the Acquisition Committee for e-Gov and the integrated acquisition environment. And that committee is made up of the 26 

Federal grantmaking agencies, and we do look at the standardization of the grant data elements and the business processes, and et 

cetera. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. Let me stick with you then for a second. Can 

you tell me about USAspending.gov, the website? 

USAspending.gov. 

Ms. BRANDON. In particular? 

Mr. RASKIN. Well, it was created to try to build transparency, I 

think, into the process. 

Ms. BRANDON. Yeah. 

Mr. RASKIN. But it was plagued with a whole host of problems 

when it first started. Is that right? 

Ms. BRANDON. It was actually created in results of the Federal 

Financial Assistance Transparency Act, the ‘‘Transparency Act’’ for 

short, and I think that was in 2010. And basically, it was to 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
63 

produce the transparency, and grant obligation and acquisition obligation data elements, and the sub-award data elements. And 

while I think it did initially have issues, we actually were able to, 

I believe, overcome that and get probably about 90 percent of the 

data accurate across the Federal government. Prior to —— 

Mr. RASKIN. But has there not been an attempt by this Administration to upgrade it and change it that failed? 

Ms. BRANDON. It was upgraded during the DATA Act implementation. 

Mr. RASKIN. I see. Okay. 

Mr. HOLLISTER. Mr. Raskin, I can speak to that if you wish —— 

Mr. RASKIN. Please. 

Mr. HOLLISTER.—because I know when I was an Oversight Committee staffer here. 

Mr. RASKIN. That is great. 

Mr. HOLLISTER. The DATA Act of 2014 dramatically expanded 

the website. Previously, the website only carried information about 

award spending. That is about one-third of all Federal spending, 

the stuff that goes out in grants or in contracts, but there was no 

bigger picture. In 2014, Congress unanimously passed the DATA 

Act, which required Treasury and OMB to get together to set these 

data standards for all the information and then publish one unified 

data set of everything, not just what goes out in grants and contracts, but all spending by the executive branch. The reporting for 

that spanned Administrations. They did not finish the project 

under the law until May of 2017, and that is when the reporting 

began. We now have that unified data set. 

Mr. RASKIN. Got you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for your patience, and I yield back to you. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you. I now recognize myself for a few questions. Mr. Tyler, in your testimony, in your written testimony, you 

said one example from the Department of Agriculture grant program is the School Breakfast Program. It should have records for 

approximately $4.5 billion in Fiscal Year 2017, but searches for 

this program return no records. And then you go on to point out 

that the Department of Transportation oversees the Federal Transit Capital Investment Grants Program, which spent approximately 

$4.6 billion in 2017, but USAspending records only show $1.6 billion of that, and that is less than half, as you pointed out. 

Did you or your organization attempt to research this further? 

And what I am trying to find out is has there been any—two 

things. Has there been any effort to try to determine why we do 

not have complete records, and then after that, what happened to 

the money? 

Mr. TYLER. Mr. Chairman, your question goes to one of the key 

issues we are facing now with this website and the implementation 

of the DATA Act, and it also refers back to the question that Mr. 

Raskin asked. There is a lot of data missing and a lot of inaccurate 

data on the website, and this is a problem. The fact that —— 

Mr. PALMER. And this is on USAspending records or just across 

the board? 

Mr. TYLER. USAspending records I am referring to, sir, that is 

correct, and we want to see more data. We want see more complete 

data. We want to see more accurate data. The examples we gave 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
64 

in my testimony showed some rather serious lags there. The Government Accountability Office is also doing some very good work 

detailing this and, in fact, looking at a lot of reports of the various 

inspectors general. Without complete data, we simply do not have 

a complete picture. Progress is being made. 

One other aspect is making sure the data is accessible to the 

public and to Congress. We as POGO put together a letter, a very 

long one, pointing out many ways of improving not only the data, 

but access to the data, and we think that is an important thing to 

move forward. Its relevance to grants is twofold. First off, we want 

to make sure the grant data on USAspending is correct and complete, but secondly, as we move forward on grants reform, we 

should learn from some of the history of how to implement the 

DATA Act. 

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Hollister, you, in response to the question 

raised by the ranking member, Mr. Raskin, seemed to know a great 

deal about USAspending. What expectations should we have that 

the data that they have now is up to date and accurate and could 

answer the question about the $4.5 billion in the Breakfast Program and the $3 billion that is unaccounted for in the Transportation? 

Mr. HOLLISTER. Yes, sir. The law currently requires every agency 

to report all of its spending using this common format to the 

USAspending.gov system, which is maintained by the Treasury Department. The responsibility belongs to the agencies, not to the 

Treasury. 

Of course there are challenges in taking the world’s largest and 

most complex organization, the United States Federal government, 

all of disparate means of accounting that all those agencies use, all 

of the hundreds, thousands of different financial systems, putting 

all that information into one view, so there are some technical 

problems. However, if I could offer a suggestion, the fastest way for 

Congress to fix the quality of that data that is up there on that 

website for taxpayers is to appropriate based on it. Tell the agencies that if they do not report the spending to the 

USAspending.gov, you will assume that is all that they got, and 

you will only appropriate that much more. I think you will find a 

great deal of improvement in the quality if Congress appropriates 

based on what is there. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, that brings me back, gets me to a point that 

I have been trying to make here for 3 years, 7 months, and 22 

days. That is how long I have been in Congress. And that is you 

generally get what you expect to find and hold people accountable 

for, and that would apply to grantmaking. I think it is incumbent 

on the Federal government to make it very clear the expectations 

on performance and cost, but at the same time for people who 

apply for grants that we do a good job of evaluating their grant request that should have clearly defined objectives that are measurable, and that we should be exercising oversight over it to make 

sure that when we spend that money, we get what we paid for. I 

do not think we did that, and that is a problem across the board. 

I hope what we are doing now, and particularly with the legislation that has been introduced by Dr. Foxx and Mr. Gomez, that we 

are much, much closer to that kind of accountability and oversight. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
65 

Ms. Sager, also in regard to the Breakfast Program, and the Department of Agriculture, and Department of Transportation, is this 

something that GAO would be able to answer, you know, where 

that money is? 

Ms. SAGER. We certainly would be happy to assist. In addition 

to broad grant management reform engagements, we also do a 

number of specific projects looking at individual grant programs or 

individual aspects of grant programs. So, we certainly would be 

happy to assist. And, of course, ‘‘accountability’’ is our middle name 

at GAO, so we would be happy to help the committee. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, GAO is one of my favorite agencies in the 

Federal government. I joke with people back home that a lot of people anticipate the latest novel from their favorite author. I anticipate the latest publication from GAO. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. PALMER. I am going to go a little over. We are going to do 

another round, so I am going to exercise a little flexibility here as 

chairman. I want to stay on this line about this USAspending and 

GAO. Is there a working relationship between you and 

USAspending so there is an exchange of information and ability to 

cross reference? 

Ms. SAGER. Absolutely. We are required under the DATA Act to 

produce reports looking at the implementation of the act. So, we 

just recently did a report that compiled some of the findings from 

the inspectors general, the CIGI community, that came out earlier 

this week. We had done our own report looking at the first quarter 

of data submitted last year in 2017. And although, as we have 

heard, there has been great progress, there are still opportunities 

to for continuous improvement. 

It is to be expected given the size and breadth of the Federal government that this would be incremental, but particularly in terms 

of completeness, accuracy, and data quality, there are still great 

strides that remain. And so, we remain in touch on a couple of 

ways with OMB and Treasury looking at data governance following 

up on the Section 5 pilot that we heard about. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, it was also mentioned by Mr. Hollister about 

what the law requires, and the law requires that all agencies report on their improper payments, and that includes Federal programs. And there were 18 programs that did not report, including 

Managed Care for Medicaid, which I think could be a significant 

addition to the—to the improper payments from last year, $141 billion, $36.3 of which was the non-managed care part of Medicaid. 

In regard to grants programs, I think Mr. Raskin mentioned 15 

percent. Historically, what has that that rate been, and how well 

are we monitoring the improper payments on that end? And then, 

you know, that includes fraudulent grants. 

Ms. SAGER. Right. Improper payments is something I know you 

have heard from our comptroller general. He cares deeply about it 

and for good reason. We spend billions of dollars on Federal programs, and you have appropriated them for a reason, to serve 

something you consider a public good. And so, it is something that 

we continue to plan to follow. It is, in many cases, waste, fraud, 

or abuse, and so we, of course, look forward to continuing that 

work for this committee. If there are particular areas that we have 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
66 

not already looked at but you are interested in, we would certainly 

be happy to talk with you and your staff and determine how we 

could do that going forward. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, it is an area that I am very focused on right 

now. But, again, the thing that I want to try to get to is to figure 

out a way not only to reduce improper payments, but to get the 

Federal agencies and Federal programs to comply with Federal law 

in their reporting. With that, I will yield and recognize again the 

ranking member, Mr. Raskin, for additional questions. 

Mr. RASKIN. I have no additional questions, Mr. Chairman, and 

I just want to thank all the witnesses for their very insightful testimony today. 

Mr. PALMER. I believe Dr. Foxx would like to ask some additional 

questions, and so I am happy to recognize her. 

Ms. FOXX. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will, as 

you have, follow up a little bit on the issues you were talking 

about. And I will say to Ms. Sager, I am a big fan of the GAO also, 

and my middle initial is ‘‘A,’’ and I have got you one better, Mr. 

Chairman. I tell everybody stands for ‘‘accountability.’’ It used to 

stand for ‘‘Ann,’’ but —— 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. FOXX.—since I came to Washington, it stands for ‘‘accountability’’ because I think that is all I talk about. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. FOXX. We all know that trying to change any organization 

is difficult. I do not care if it is a big organization or a small organization. But do you guys, and Ms. Sager in particular, do you have 

any particular insights into why this grant reform that we are attempting to do has presented such a longstanding challenge? Any 

insights into that? 

Ms. SAGER. A couple of things that I would mention, and it was 

interesting preparing for this hearing to look back at some of 

GAO’s work literally spanning decades. The challenges that I mentioned, streamlining, transparency, et cetera, they are truly longstanding challenges. We have had a number of these reform initiatives that we have heard about today, and in spite of that, across 

Administrations, across people implementing these programs, these 

challenges remain for a lot of the reasons that you have already 

cited. 

The Federal government is a huge entity spending hundreds of 

billions of dollars, and we are the nature of a democracy. We do 

have transitions from one Administration to the next, so you do 

have constant churn. At the same time, one of the things certainly 

that we have seen is this incremental progress. So, as these reform 

initiatives have occurred, we have been able to see progress. 

In addition, certainly we are in an age where we have technological capabilities that we certainly did not have a decade ago or 

2 decades ago. So, now we have this tremendous opportunity to 

take these reform initiatives in a new direction, not just for some 

of the standard grants management issues that we have talked 

about, but then also to tie it to some of the other initiatives that 

are happening that I mentioned in my statement. So, we are really 

looking at value for money and looking at outcomes as we have 

some of the evidence base, that we understand whether or not we 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
67 

are actually achieving the goals that are in the legislation and the 

purpose statements, to tie that with the budget and performance 

information so that we can look more holistically, and you can then 

be better positioned to have decision making that is based on facts. 

Mr. HOLLISTER. Dr. Foxx, if I may —— 

Ms. FOXX. Sure. 

Mr. HOLLISTER.—it is also true, Ms. Sager points out technological capabilities. Nobody has ever tried to do what you are trying 

to do, and that is separate the data itself from the forms and the 

filings that right now contain it. 

Mr. TYLER. And to add one thing, Dr Foxx, the other aspect of 

this is the great opportunity here forcing bipartisan efforts by this 

committee and this Congress to move forward. Every example of 

reform that we have talked about has been bipartisan, and I think 

that is one of the powers we can see. 

Ms. FOXX. Well, as I have said before, this should be totally bipartisan. I mean, we may disagree on policy, but once legislation 

is passed, it is going to be implemented. And the thing we all ought 

to care about is making sure that the money is being spent the way 

people said it was going to be spent, and that you get results. 

I mean, again, there are a lot of programs around here I would 

love to get rid of. I know I am not going to be able to do that, so 

the best thing to do is to put in systems so everybody can see is 

that money being spent the way it should. Are you getting results? 

Are we helping people in the way that we said we were going to 

help people? That is my motivation right now, and I think everybody should want to do that and say money is scarce. I mean, there 

is never enough of it here. And so, everybody should want to know 

how to get the best out of it. 

We just had an Innovation Forum in the Education Committee 

a few minutes ago, this morning, and amazing kinds of things 

going on to share about what is happening, how much better things 

are going in some places in terms of education and workforce development. And the whole idea, again, was to get this information out 

to people so other people could replicate it, and that is, again, the 

whole idea. But I am encouraged. I am very encouraged by a lot 

of the things that have been said today. So, I thank you, and I 

thank the chairman for his indulgence in allowing me to ask additional questions. 

Mr. PALMER. Okay. I have just a couple other things that I want 

to bring up. Mr. Tyler, in your testimony you also talked about 

what the Administration is trying to do and that the final and most 

important data standardization goal lacks specificity, and this is for 

any of you. Have any of you taken a look at what the Administration tried to do and offered any recommendations to close that gap 

or to get the specificity that we need? And I will start with you, 

Mr. Tyler. 

Mr. TYLER. Sure, and this is very straightforward. It may sound 

like common sense, but because that plan, and this is the only public climate we have access to, simply had ‘‘to be determined’’ in 

many, many locations, especially in the outyears, we really have no 

understanding at all, so very straightforward. I think I would be 

a good question for the Administration when we have more specificity, when we have milestones. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
68 

Mr. PALMER. Does the GREAT Act help provide some of that? 

Mr. TYLER. I think one of the key things the GREAT Act, and 

I say this in respect for the legislation, probably the Administration 

and the agencies have the full authority to do that if they wanted 

to. What I think the GREAT Act does, like a lot of legislation, including the GONE Act, is put the stamp of importance from Congress to say let us get this done, as well as making sure that there 

are timelines in reporting back to Congress on a regular basis. 

That is key. 

Mr. PALMER. Ms. Keegan, you were talking about the divisions 

between the Federal grant departments and databases contribute 

to issues for reporting and compliance, and I just had this thought, 

and you respond to it. But you mentioned grant management, and 

I wrote a note, ‘‘define grant management,’’ because what I am 

thinking—‘‘grant management workforce’’ I think is what you 

said—is if you are talking about grant management workforce, it 

seems to me, and, again, I ran a think tank for 24 years. Prior to 

that, I worked for two engineering companies. 

It seems to me that those who approve the grants, who do the 

evaluations and approve them, should also be the ones who evaluate them, and we were talking about a single portal, eliminating 

the various silos. I would like for you to give me an explanation 

of what you meant by ‘‘a great management workforce.’’ 

Ms. KEEGAN. So, one of the challenges with having siloed grant 

management functions is that each function has different training 

needs. So, if you are dealing with financial information and disbursing grant awards, you are going to train that CFO program 

people differently than you would if you are dealing with grant program experts who are running, say, a FEMA hazard mitigation 

grant program who need much more training on specific regulations for those programs. 

You mentioned the question about whether or not the folks that 

approve the grants would also be the folks that would evaluate the 

grants. The short answer is it depends on what you mean by 

‘‘evaluate.’’ The program workforce, the grant program specialists 

are the ones that run the review panels to review applications and 

to make awards. Those people are also the ones that manage the 

grants. So, theoretically, it would be the same workforce that would 

approve a grant that would then evaluate whether or not the 

grantee had met any kind of performance matrix that was required, or whether the grantee was in compliance with the regulations for the grant program. 

Now, you might have the other shops, like the financial shop, review things like was the audit completed correctly, was the audit 

submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse, et cetera, and the 

IG might get involved if there was some allegation of waste, fraud, 

and abuse by the grantee. But the grant program people do definitely have a key role in approving and then also evaluating that. 

So, if you were to look at developing training requirements, you 

could theoretically break it up where here is the training requirements for financial grant management, here are training requirements for program grant management. 

Mr. PALMER. Here is the thing. We have the Federal acquisition 

regulations for procuring goods and services. And, you know, we 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
69 

will put out specifications for what we need to buy, and then supposedly we buy what we specified. And maybe this is a little simplistic, but I would think that we should be doing something similar to that on grants, that if someone submitted a grant request 

and they define the objective and the timeline, then they ought to 

be. And I tend to think it should be the same people that then follow up on that to make sure that the objective was achieved and 

within the time frame. 

I would literally go so far on some of the really big grants that 

we send out the money similar to what you would do on an engineering contract. If we had a $500 million facility we were going 

to build, we would get so much on the design phase, so much, you 

know, on breaking ground, and, you know, the construction phase, 

and, you know, 50 percent, 75 percent complete, and then after 

final inspection you get the balance of the payment. What I have 

found is we do not do that a lot, and, consequently, we have created a huge problem on the spending side. 

And I guess the thing, and, again, going back with my meetings 

with GAO and Inspector General Dodaro, is that every dollar that 

we spend right now on this stuff that goes out improperly or is mismanaged is a dollar we have to borrow. We are projecting deficits 

next year of a trillion dollars. So, every grant dollar, if it is $700 

billion, every grant dollar is a borrowed dollar that we are paying 

interest on. I think we owe it to the taxpayers, we owe it to the 

American public, and we owe it to our own future to make sure 

that that we maximize whatever spending that we approve, and we 

get what we are paying for, and that we eliminate as much as possible as we are trying to do on the improper payments so that we 

can get better control of this. 

I think I am going to conclude with that. I do not want to weary 

the witnesses. You have given excellent testimony. I appreciate you 

being here. It is insightful and helpful. 

The hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks for any members to submit a written opening statement or questions for the 

record. 

Mr. PALMER. If there is no further business, without objection, 

the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:48 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER