inspector general given a new job as chairman of that and we saw his years of experience help him help us understand what we would do next to improve transparency in the federal government. today, four i.g. poepss have been vacant more than 1,000 days, five i.g. vacancies are cabinet departments. one of our points will in fact be to deal with such situations as usaid vacancy at a time in which afghanistan and iraq are not yet settled questions and the variability of that entity to deliver its historic support rather than direct funding to indigenous nationals without aig or usaid direct oversight concerns us and would concern us more if we cannot have an inspector general there. so, in closing, i think it's extremely important not to allow today's hearing in any way to reflect on the current executive

branch individuals including president obama and vice president biden. in fact, we need to look beyond that. we need look to the question of do we need to change the law for future presidents that would ensure prompt filling of vacancies in the absence of presidential action. could significanty have the right to temporarily fill those f. there is a dismissal and i must admit i was tardy because i was dealing with a potential false dismissal of an inspector general today, the fact is, if that occurs, what is our ability to ensure that the acting inspector general in that entity or agency is in fact independent and that that dismissal is reviewed or any other action reviewed in a way that prevents any loss of the independence, no matter what the allegation is. as we all know, it is clear that

inspector generals wear two hats. one of them is for the agency or the cabinet position they work for, they may or may not be presidentially appointed. they may or may not be confirmed in the same way. that may be something that needs to be changed. but today we will primarily be dealing with and asking the question of, how can we get greater independence and for this committee, forconsistent transparency with -- to this committee and to the public. with that i recognize the opening of ranking member for his opening statement. >> a point of clarification. the omb i understand has a policy of -- >> i recognize the omb has chosen not to be on this panel. we'll remove the name. it may very well mean that he'll

be called back. >> that will be fine. first of all, it's not unwilling, just that it's another precedent and they'll testify at any time. they are glad to come back. >> no. it was an asked for and i had hoped that they would view this as a time in which it would not be a problem. as you know, administration selectively decides at times that they will sit with non-administration, and selective times they won't. ultimately we'll respect their decision. we'll get through the first panel f there's time based on some change but i suspect strongly there won't be and we'll have to reschedule. >> thank you. i appreciate that. inspectors general are critical to ensuring that our government works efeshltively and efficiently on behalf of the american taxpayers. although our committee plays a prominent and often public role in oversight we rye rooe lie on

ig's for audits and inspections on a daily basis at federal agencies. our committee plays a unique role in overseeing i.g.s and ensuring that they have the tools to do their jobs. in 2007, one of the most respected members of our committee, jim cooper, introduced hr 928, the improving government accountability act to enhance i.g. independence and efficiency. under the then chairman henry waxman the committee approved this legislation by a voice vote. the house and senate then adopted it and the bill was signed into law by president bush in 2008. in my opinion, this is how we should approach today's hearing. by working together in a bipartisan manner to ensure that oversight rigorous and instructive. today we'll discuss i.g. strakcys at federal agencies. right now seven positions are vakt that require presidential nominations and senate confirmations. although the president has

nominated several candidates who are waiting, awaiting senate confirmation, he has yet to nominate others. in addition an existing vacancy at the special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction requires a presidential nomination but not a senate confirmation. we all agree that we should have highly qualified, dedicated professionals in place at every i.g. office across the federal government. personally i am most concerned that the administration has not nominated any one to serve the state department i.g., the last senate confirmed state department i.g. was howard krongod and he resigned after an investigation by this committee into his conflicts of interest and his failure to conduct sufficient oversight of agency operations. that position deserves to be filled as soon as possible. to be fair, the number of current vacancies is not necessarily unusual. in fact, in the fourth year of

george w. bush's presidency, there were also seven vacancies for senate confirmed i.g.s including at the state department, department of treasury, and the general service administration and the department of health and human services. and this does not include the recess appointment to serve as i.g. of the department of homeland security which was never confirmed by the senate. the fact that president bush had as many i.g. vacancies in 2004 as president obama does today does not mean we should ignore the current vacancies. similarly we should not single out the current administration for partisan reasons. we acknowledge the role played by the senate in these vacancies. for example, president obama nominated michael horowitz to be the i.g. of the department of justice on july 29, 2011. until 2009 mr. horowitz had served as the presidentially appointed senate confirmed

commissioner on the united states sentencing commission, yet even though the senate had confirmed him previously, his nomination was held up for eight months. when the senate finally did vote they confirmed his nomination by a voice vote. similarly brian miller, the current i.g. at gsa, who will be testifying here today, had to wait nine months before the senate finally confirmed his nomination by president bush in 2005. the i.g. vetting process is very extensive and challenging. it becomes even more difficult to identify qualified candidates who are willing to serve when they are blocked by anonymous holes and under delays in -- undue delays in the senate. finally, i would be remiss if i did not recognize the hard work of those who serve in i.g. offices. this includes not only the thousands of staff who dedicate their professional careers to these tasks, but also those who serve as acting i.g.s while

others await senate confirmation. in fact, just yesterday, our committee heard testimony from the capable acting i.g., at the department of homeland security. nobody should be under the misimpression that the lights are turned off at i.g. offices while they await a permanent i.g., these officials and staff do a terrific job on behalf of the american people and i commend them for their dedication and with that mr. chairman i'll yield back. >> all members will have seven days to split. i would ask unanimous consent because we're not sure whether we'll get to them, that the honorable daniel we're fell's opening statement be placed in the record as though he testified. without objection, so ordered. we introduce the honorable phyllis k. fong t inspector general of the u.s. department of agriculture and chair of the consul of inspector generals or cigie as we tend to call it here. we also a returning favorite t

honorable brian d. miller, the inspector generally of the united states general services administration. welcome back. and mr. jay queens t investigator for the project on government oversight often called pogo. i'd ask to you please rise to take the sworn oath. and raise your right hands. do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. let the record indicate all witnesses answered in the affirmative. please be seated. as i previously said, we're unfortunately today, going to be on a very tight constraint because of votes. i will try to keep our folks to their five minutes. i'd ask you to try to stay to your five minutes and i assure you we'll will stay as long as we can on a vote and if possible return as soon as possible. we recognize miss vong for her opening statement. >> thank you mr. chairman, members of the committee. it's a real privilege to be here

today to represent the federal i.g. community which consists of 73 i.g.s in the executive and legislative branches. and at the outset before i get into the topic of this hearing i would like to express the appreciation of the i.g. community to you and the members of the committee for your continuing support of our mission and your interest in our work. this committee has a noteworthy record of bipartisan support for the contributions of i.g.s and in particular we note your work on the data act of 2012, which was recently passed by the house. and which contains several provisions that would greatly assist i.g. operations if enacted. so on behalf of the community we want to thank you for your support. my written statement provides an overview of the i.g. council's activity so i'm going to focus my remarks on the role that we play as a council in filling i.g. vacancies. as has been remarked, the process to fill vacancies

involves multiple players and a thorough vetting process. and cigie play as small role at the front end of this process. by law, we are responsible for submitting recommendations on potential i.g. candidates to the appropriate appointing authority, namely, the president, for cabinet level agencies, and the agency head for smaller designated federal entity i.g.s. to do this we have set up an i.g. recommendation panel to receive materials from interested candidates. the panel is composed of experienced i.g.s, who represent different kinds of i.g. offices, who bring insight and experience to the process. with respect to the pasi.g.s the panel provides recommendations on an ongoing and continuous base ties the office of presidential personnel, so that that office can consider candidates as vacancies arise. when a vacancy arises in a dfeig

position t panel contacts the appropriate agency head directly to offer assistance in filling that vacancy. cigie actively reaches out to numerous groups to publicize this process and ensure that people who may be interested in i.g. positions understand the process that we play, the role that we play in the process, and that they are able to take advantage of that role. i should note here that while we do provide one source of i.g. candidates to appointing authorities, we are not the only source of candidates. for example, people who are interested in i.g. jobs can apply directly to the appointing authorities if they so desire. also, our recommendations are not binding. they are -- the appointing authorities are not required to accept or to act on our recommendations when they make decisions on how to fill i.g. vacancies.

once we provide our recommendations, our formal role in the appointment process is over. we look forward today to continuing our work in this area, and we welcome your questions and comments. thank you. >> thank you. inspector miller. >> good morning, chairman issa, ranking member cummings. thank you for inviting me here to talk about the role of inspectors general. my remarks today reflect only my personal experience. it is a great privilege for me to have served agency inspector general since being confirmed in 2005. and i recognize the tremendous responsibility that comes with this job. i.g.s wield a large amount of discretion and authority. they issue reports that can have a devastating impact on the agency and individuals. i.g.s make criminal referral, often resulting in felony convictions and incarceration. i.g.s advise heads of federal

agencies and the congress. we regularly appear at hearings such as this one, and often meet with members of congress and their staff. perhaps most importantly, i.g.s need navigate sometimes difficult relationships with their home agency as well as relationships with other i.g.s, agencies, prosecutors and the law enforcement community as a whole. part of the genius of our system of government is that igs provide the needed check and balance on the operation of federal agencies. now, the usual incentives for taking a presidential appointment do not apply to i.g. positions. i.g.s are not policymakers, they apply the laws and policies already on the books. they are not political. i.g.s have to be nonpartisan, fair and impartial. finding and nominating the right person for the job is absolutely

vital. i.g.s have a dual reporting requirement to congress and the agency head. as one former inspector general sherman funk put it in the fall of 1996 issue of the journal of public inquiry, dual reporting equates to straddling a barbed wire fence, unquote. mr. funk stated that because of the challenges facing i.g.s t job must be done with sufficient common sense, a healthy dose of good humor, unremitting home work, support by professionally competent staff and above all a solid and reflexive integrity. then the barbed wire fence may cut occasionally but it will not disable. based on my own experience i believe that once selected and appointed an i.g. needs time and experience on the job to develop. long term audit and investigative priorities, the ability to hire highly

specialized staff, and the independence to accomplish the mission. my permanent appointment allowed me the needed leverage to make lasting improvements to my office and make long term recommendations to gsa. additionally, i believe my impact has been greater because i have been able to create long standing relationships with agency officials, the department of justice, and the congress. i have also worked hard to establish partnerships with state and local i.g.s in law enforcement as part of my duties with the fraud enforcement task force. examples of some of the steps i have been able to take include the following. in 2008 i formed the office of forensic auditing, to employ no, no vative auditing and investigative techniques and develop evidence that meets admissibility standards for prosecution in federal courts. in 2011 we began a criminal

intelligence program to augment our investigative activities by consolidating our information gathering efforts and serving as a force multiplier for our special agents around the country. we integrated our hot line into this so that a trained investigative analyst looks at every complaint an tip to identify trends and connections to other open cases. addition additionally, our partnership broadens you are agents' ability to spot bribery cases and kickbacks. i appreciate the time and effort that went into confirming me as an inspector general. and i hope that my efforts have served the interests of the united states. thank you for your time and i'd be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. mr. wiens. >> chairman issa, ranking member

cummings, thank you for -- >> if you pull it closer. thanks. >> my name is jake wiens. i'm an investigator at the projects on government oversight also known as pogo. from pogo's perspective the inspector general system is an essential component of a well functioning federal government. igs identify billions of dollars in cost savings every year, they conduct investigations that hold government officials and contractors accountable for misconduct and help to evaluate the effectiveness of government programs and policies. because pogo considers i.g.'s to be so important they regularly undertake effortses to strengthen and improve the ig system as a whole. some of those efforts focus on giving the tools to be more independent. and other efforts have focused on the necessity of holding igs accountable. our most recent effort to strength at any system is a webpage called where are all of

the watchdogs. it tracks the overall number and length of ig vacant sis and whose responsibility it is to fill the positions. pogo created the tracker because we firmly believe the effectiveness can be diminished when the office does not have permanent leadership. ig offices led by permanent igs have structural advantages. some of those are unique to the ig context and others are general management concepts that could apply in any organization. one structural advantage, permanent ig leadership involves independence. another advantage includes credibility. both of those qualities can have a huge determineant of an office. as of today, ten of the 73 statutory ig positions are vacant. some of the positions have been without permanent leadership for years where others only recently

became vacant. >> though the number is important the context around certain vacancies is necessary to truly understand the implication of that vacancy. ig positions can become strak for a variety of reasons. some of which are troubling, while others are completely appropriate. in some occasions a vacancy may be beneficial. likewise, ig vacancies can continue for extended periods of time for a variety of reasons. it's useful to look at some of the current vacancies to understand what the implications of the vacancies might be. the state department ig has now been vacant for 1,576 days, over four years, the position became vacant when the state's most permanent ig resigned amid allegations he had been blocking criminal investigations into contractors in iraq. the the initiation of that vacancy created an opportunity to fill that with a highly qualified well respected permanent ig, who could restore

credibility to that officials. but that opportunity has not been realized as the position has remained vacant without a nominee since the last year of the bush administration. the corporation position has been vacant 1,064 days. the position became vacant in june 2009 whenment obama removed the most recent under controversial circumstances. since the termination the obama administration nominated two candidates for the position. the first nominated in february 2010, his nomination has been withdrawn and the second was nominated in november 2011 and has been awaiting senate confirmation for 177 days. the continued vacancy regardless of fault, comes at a terrible time for the cncsig because the budget was cut in half in the fy 2012 appropriations. the special inspector general for afghan afghan reconstruction position has been vacant for 461 days. the position became vacant after the original resigned his office

amid execute knee from a group of senators and pogo who arrived at the conclusion he was not qualified for such an important position. the fact a replacement has not been appointed even though it has been more than a year shows it can be easy to create remo l removal. pogo strongly urges the obama administration and congress to make filling all of these vacancies a priority. but we also caution that filling the vacancies quickly should not come at the expense of identifying highly qualified candidates, a process which can take time. thank you very much for asking pogo for our views on these important issues. i'd be happy to answer any questions. >> before i recognize myself i ask unanimous consent two letters from congressman chafe fits, one to president obama

february 9, 2012 and one also to president obama dated may 17, 2011, be placed in the record. both related to these vacancies. without objection, so ordered. mr. wiens, one quick question. in your opening statement you said that sometimes a vacancy can be good. i'm presuming that what that meant was sometimes creating a vacancy would be good but retaining a vacancy is never desirable. >> exactly. it's the initiation of that vacan vacancy. >> no problem at all. i'm going to start with a question i know the answer to. that always makes it easier from the dais. mr. miller, are you familiar with white house liaisons that operate within, for example, gsa? >> generally. i've met i think each one. >> miss fong, you are too? >> yes. >> and mr. wiens, are you

familiar with how white house liaisons are placed in all of the branches of the executive. >> i'm not as familiar. >> i'll stick to my two igs for a moment. in your experience isn't it true that these white house liaisons regardless of who is in the white house, have pretty much unfettered access to information that they would choose to have and the ability then to report it directly back to councils in the white house? >> i wouldn't know, mr. chairman. >> well, in your particular case the white house liaison was aware of your investigation and the chief of staff actually in this case i believe, reported it back to the white house council. so there is a separate avenue in every administration of these legislative or white house liaisons. here's one of my basic questions for the two igs, that's all well and good, but do we currently have that same level of

transparency from igs or any one else in each of the branches? we'll take that as a no? >> i'm sorry, but i don't follow your question. >> miss fong, unless you report with the same specificity and constant reporting nature that a white house liaison does at, you name the abc, justice, gsa, s.e.c., wherever, unless we have that same level, then white house knows a lot more about things going right and wrong, more directly and more unfett unfettered than we do. isn't that true? because you are our only eyes and ears. we don't get to appoint a person who works for this branch to sit every day and be able to be in the critical meetings with the cabinet offer and other direct staff. isn't that true? >> i will just say from our perspective we, as you know, have a statutory responsibility

to report directly to you as well as the head of our agencies. and we carry that responsibility out, we believe it's a very important responsibility. >> that's my very question. mr. miller, you're a hero around here. you did a very good job and continue to do a very good job in your role at gsa and we want you to do that. but i want to make a point today, that was the reason for this fairly long set of questions. in the case of your recognition that there was a huge problem with the las vegas gsa party, and other problems, you determined that and informed the white house through the referrals that gsa made directly to counsel but not you doing it. it happened as a result of your reporting it to the administrator. but -- and thus to the white house liaison, the chief of staff and so on, but you didn't report it to us during that ten

months. the current statutory would have made it a requirement, wouldn't it, not the general interpretation but doesn't the current statute, miss fong f something is significant, significant enough that you are pre-warning an administration official, you are pre-warning them because you want them to deal with it immediately and it is, in fact, serious, doesn't that trigger the same requirement under current statute that you report to congress? >> i think you've put your finger on exactly what the issue is t language in the statute says keep the head of the agency and congress fully and currently informed of significant issues. as you noted, the practice is to work with the agencies on urgent issues immediately so that they can be addressed very quickly, then to work with congress as quickly as can be reasonably handled. and it does involve some discretion and judgment. >> so, if this committee were to send a letter to cigie but to

all of the igs in light of the historic interpretation, and i want to be very fair, there is a historic interpretation, then there is an interpretation that perhaps i'm going to give you today from the dais. it would be my new interpretation that anything that you choose or believe you have to tell the head, formally or informally because you believe it's significant, r triggers that requirement that you tell us. don't have a problem with caveat for things that have unique sensitivity, law enforcement sensitivity. but the basic we have a problem reporting, would it help if programs the ranking member and i made it clear, that we believe that should trigger the information on some basis to us. miss fong. or do you need new legislative language? which is always our backup.

>> we always welcome legislation. >> no you don't. all of us would prefer to work refining things without vast new laws because we always piggy back a lot on when we get to a new law. my time's run out. could you comment on that. >> i appreciate your comments. i'm aware there have been legislative proposals on this area, and you're aware of some of the concerns that the ig community has historically had. i think we should definitely have continuing dialogue with you on this and to flush out areas where you have a concern where programs you don't believe we have been as forth coming as you believe we should be. and i think we should continue that with you, your staff, the ranking member. >> i believe we have enough time for the ranking member's questions and then we're going to go do the votes and come back. the gentleman's recognized. >> thank you very much. miss fong, council of inspectors general on integrity and