joining us is representative gwen moore, democrat from wisconsin, currently in her fourth term. she's a member of the budget committee. thanks for being on the "washington journal." >> thank you for having me. >> the conversation we've been having a lot this morning is about what the president said about gay marriage yesterday to robin roberts. if we can get your comments on that. >> you know, i can really, really appreciate the -- his sort of confession that this has been an evolution over time, because i think he is speaking not only for himself but for many americans. >> and we'll leave "washington journal" at this point. you can see this discussion on our website. go to c-span.org. heading back now live to capitol hill for that hearing on vacant inspector general posts.

>> one indicator of effecti effectiveness is the number of quantitative metrics, all of which are reported to congress on a semiannual or quarterly basis. do you have any statistics that bear the output of permanent i.g.s to active i.g.s? >> let me go ahend and comment on that question. we -- when we compile our statistics, we compile them for the whole community of i.g.s. now, i believe that we could break it out for -- on a fiscal-year basis, the

statistics for organizations headed by permanent i.g.s versus organizations headed by acting i.g.s. but we do not currently have those statistics. >> all right. i'm sure you would agree that active i.g.s often perform very vital services in conducting audits, inspections, and investigations. that would be correct? >> yes. i would very much agree with that. >> the active i.g. for the department of interior conducted the investigation into the deepwater horizon spill. is that correct? >> i believe that's correct. >> i asked my staff to pull together om stats on this. i have a big slide that we could look at that might show what i'm talking about.

for example, the department of homeland security currently has an active i.g. named charles edwards, and, in fact, he testified before us yesterday. before he assumed his post, recovered funds were $3.7 million in fines, savings and administrative cost savings were $6.5 million. after he assumed his post, these amounts increased to $19.9 million and $20.5 million respectfully. my point is not that he's doing something substantially different than his predecessor, although that may be true. my point is that the i.g. offices are made up of thousands and thousands of dedicated workers who devote their professional careers to this. would you agree that there are these individuals who are are,

indeed, professionals? >> yes. the offices of inspector general have many very dedicated and very professional and experienced people. >> if wee look at the active i.g. trend, there were proposed only four recent suspensions. most recently, 40 suspensions were proposed or debarments. is similarly, at the state department before the head was in charge, the i.g.'s office recovered $715,000 in funds and opened 14 investigations. active leadership recovered funds to $10.7 million. open is increase to 49. i guess when simply pointed out

is the fact that these individuals provide very effective services and that we are in good stead oftentimes when they are placed in those offices although they have not permanently placed. and i guess it does help, though, to try and speed up the permanent placement so that the individuals have the security themselves of knowing what they're going to be doing, what they're going to be expected to do. and my point is simply that we should try in as many instances as possible to make these permanent placements so that the individuals are not just acting at a level of uncertainty about what their tenure is going to be in a particular office or

location. i thank y'all. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> would the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> just a question. and i'm not trying to put words in your mouth. i'm trying to understand. so one of your statements is to the greatest extent possible if we can't find someone else to put up in many cases we probably should urge the putting up of the acting i.g. who's been doing a good job and see if that isn't the consensus candidate for the senate. that's one of the solutions. >> that's certainly a position that i take. i mean, i've always been told that the proof of the pie is in the eating. there's nothing to suggest that he or she would not continue to do so, and i would certainly hope that the senate would take that into consideration when there's a need for a permanent placement. >> once again, when we talk

about the shortcoming of the senate, we're always in agreement here on the house. >> well. >> thank you. now we recognize the gentleman from indiana, the former chairman of the full committee, somebody who knows a great deal about inspector generals. mr. burton. >> wait a minute. i was the chairman emeritus. now it's the former chairman. can you tell me the difference? never mind. >> if you don't know, you've been too long there. >> i'm part of the oth gang, over the hill. >> we look at your picture. you still look great, you still look dapper. a rose by any other name, dan. the gentleman is recognized. >> are you guys enjoying all this? let me just start off, mr. chairman, by saying that

over a frlds this deficits this year and the potential for over a trillion dollars in deficit for the next decade, makes one wonder why there wouldn't be more concern about oversight. i mean, the state department is so involved and so responsible for what's going on over in the middle east i'm not soying that the acting i.g. is not doing an adequate job, but it just seems to me that one of the most important things that the president would want to do, especially in economic times like this, is get somebody in there that is responsible for looking at after the expenses in a very thorough way. i mean, afghanistan and iraq have been such a drain on our resources over the past decade. it just boggles my mind to think that the administration hasn't moved on getting a permanent i.g. and also, you know, you wonder

how many things matsch fallen through the cracks. i know mr. miller out there has worked on the problems that we talked about out in las vegas, those conferences and other things. and, you know, that sort of fell through the cracks. they didn't catch that until a lot of those things have been done and there's some question about the gentleman who was in charge of that whole operation out there, whole area might even have done something that was a criminal nature and that he might even be tried before it's all over. it seems we would want to catch those things in advance or as close to the problem as possible. you probably have already answered this question, but let me just ask you a question that you might not be able to answer, and that is can you give me an answer as to why the president hasn't made a decision on this?

that's number one. number two, are there not plenty of competent people who worked in this area of government that the president could have nominated that would have been able to ache over and do the job p? >> well, as you know, the process to fill an i.g. position is a complicated process that involves a number of players, involves extensive vetting. it's an important process. >> excuse me, miss fong. let me just interrupt real quickly. the president has had three years to make a recommendation. over three years. almost four. it just seems to me that even with -- must be the president, calling me right now. let me shut this off. nope. it's my wife. she'll have to wait. it seems to me after 3 1/2 years it would seem he could at least recommend somebody so the vet progress says could start.

but to wait for 3 1/2 years, and to know the costs that were involved and an awful lot of people said there's ban lot of waste, fraud, and abuse in iraq and afghanistan. it just seems they would have had somebody all over that instead of asking for money and spending the money without proper oversight. go ahead. >> i think we can all agree that acting i.g.s do a very, very good job, these positions should be filled as speedily as possible. i think that absolutely goes without saying. >> if you were talking to the president, i always frame my comments on the floor like this, because we can't talk to the president, but if i were talking to the president, you would say you ought to listen to mrs. fong, because this should be done and should be done very quickly. mr. miller, anybody else have any comments? listen, i'm awfully glad you folks got to see me. it's been a big thrill, i know.

>> would the gentleman yield? >> i yield. >> following up, do you believe ta legislatively we could enhance vacancies that occur under both republicans and democrats, enhance the ability to have some legitimacy and some crowd of the i.g.s by establishing procedures, perhaps under significagi, where, for e, we have a pools of i.g.s and the ability to move them without triggering a confirmation automatically for a year, if you will, in the inaction of a president within "x" amount of time, for congress to have a role in, you know, choosing the way we do for gao candidates? there's a number of ideas that have been floated around. miss fong, i know you know many of them. idea you could have no i.g. and then for whatever reason the

deputy leaving and so you end up with, in the case of some agencies, they simply grab some career person who's not even with a history in the i.g. and they throw them in as acting and that's where they sit until there's action. do you believe that congress should at least evaluate whether or not to have a role in preventing vacancies for anyone on the panel? >> my own perspective is that the process seems to work pretty well most of the time. if you look at the particular cases and how long they take, i think they take too long. the process should take time because you are vetting candidates. i think in cases like the state department, hearings like this are incredibly important because it puts pressure on those officials. but i do think examples like the state department are the exception rather than the rule, so i'm not sure that would be quite necessary to do.

>> mr. miller? >> mr. chairman, you may want to study any constitutional impediments. article 2, section 2, clause 2 is the appointments clause vests the authority to make appointments of principal officers in the president. and so it would be worth having your council study that issue. >> and i wasn't talking about a principal officer. i'm talking about the selection of an independent acting, and i gave the example of an agency that today is not headed by the previous deputy but in fact headed by a person who was never in the i.g.'s position, a senior person at that agency, without confirmation even of the commission. so if you will, some role in

those situation to create, ultimately there is the whole question of what statutory authority and constitutional authority you would have. that's a very good one. at the end of the day, if you have somebody who's been selected by a chair of an agency or commission who is not confirmed, not voted by that but simply thrown in there as the acting, you're so far removed from any constitutional leg legitimacy that you'd have to ask the question of this congress or should congress have -- or even through a process, an administrative process, be able to see somebody is selected that is not simply a "yes" person for that inteti. >> let me offer a few xheblts on that. i think this situation does occur, has occurred over the past years. the statute -- the reformat doesn't specifically address what you do when you have a vacancy, who becomes acting. so generally, within the community, i think many of us

recognize that one of the best practices for an i.g. office is to establish a very clear line of succession protocol that is public so that when an i.g. is incapacitated or gone it's very clear that the authority flows within the oig to carry out that oig's mission. and in the best-case scenarios, that is what happens when there is a vacancy. now, sometimes in offices that don't have such a protocol or in offices where the agency head may decide that they want to get involved, we have seen different ways that those situations are handled. i can think of a situation where an agency head, meaning either a board or a commission, has appointed an acting i.g. from outside the oig's office while they recruited for a permanent i.g. and in those cases, we were very fortunate, i think siggi established a good dialogue with

the acting i.g. to educate and inform on the i.g. role and how to carry out the mission, because there are some inherent questions about potential conflicts of interest dealing with audit independence and investigative independence. those issues need to really be thought through very carefully, recusals may need to be thought about. there have been other situations in the past where when there's a vacancy that arises the appointing authority, be it the agency head or the white house or whoever it is on occasion has reached out and asked for a deta detailee from another i.g. office to come in and serve as the acting i.g. while a permanent i.g. is being recruited. and again, i think that's an option that could be explored depending on the situation. it's, you know, something is that we'd be happy to dialogue on. >> we appreciate that. we recognize the gentlelady from new york, somebody who very well

knows these issues. >> thank you very much. i want to certainly welcome everyone on the panel but particularly mr. miller and congratulate you for your truly outstanding, creative, determined, results-oriented work. you have really made all of us proud of you on both sides of the aisle. and also, mr. miller, you've recently testified, i believe, before this committee on the gsa's 2010 outrageous conference in las vegas. is that right? >> that's correct. >> and during the previous administration, you also conductedconduct ed vigorous investigations relating to the former administration, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> your work at rooting out fraud seems to be just as vigorous whether there's a republican or democrat sitting in the white house.

is that correct? >> that's correct. >> let me ask you this. do you believe that you would not have been able to achieve the results is that you achieved if you were an acting i.g.? >> i don't believe that. i believe -- i would hope i would do exactly the same things. >> okay. let me ask it in a different way to make my point. you are a member of a community of exceptional i.g.s, some of who are in acting positions now, some of whom are perm negligent. and you meet with them, you consult with them, you work and participate in many endeavors together. is that right? >> that's correct. >> now, do you treat your colleagues any differently if they are a permanent or an acting i.g.? >> no, i do not. >> do you give more weight to the opinions of a permanent i.g. as opposed to an kting i.g.? >> no. >> do you not decide to cooperate with an acting i.g. on whatever their goal is any differently than a permanent?

do you treat them the same? >> i treat them the same. >> okay. during a hearing before this committee in 2009, i.g. of the pension benefit guarantee corporation rebecca bats gave a very good testimony, and she testified that the absence of a permanent i.g. is mitigated by -- and i want to quote her statement because i think they're important -- and i quote, permanent, senior, executive audit and investigative staff who remain in place throughout the transition from one np or the general to the next. so she sees the independence and the continuity of the professional staff important to the ago's office. would you agree with that? >> i would agree. >> and would you basically agree with her statement that the staff can make a difference and is a very important part of

getting the work done? >> finding well-qualified staff is extremely important. >> and mrs. fong, would you also agree with mrs. bats' statement? >> i believe she has a very good point there and i would add that her acting i.g.s by definition are part of that very qualified and experienced career staff with professional expertise. >> in closing, i think we all can agree that a perm negligent senate-confirmed i.g. is preferable. but we should not accept the idea that an acting i.g. and their staff are not capable of performing excellent, vigorous oversight and achieving results that are just as meaningful as the permanent i.g.s. thank you. >> thank you.

>> i thank the gentlelady. just in the nick of time returns the gentlelady from california, my colleague, miss spear, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i find this discussion kind of interesting and with all due respect, a little wrong-headed, and the truth is that all of us are temporary as members of congress. we have two-year terms. and to follow this line of logic, none of us can really be all that effective because we have temporary -- >> would the gentlelady yield for a moment? >> of course. >> we cannot be dismissed except for felonious behavior during that two years of period. we serve at the pleasure of no one except the next election. so mr. miller served under the bush administration, served and was in limbo, to use a term -- what? right. i'm sorry. he was appointed both teamimes.

but he found himself going from appointed to acting and waited. my point to you, and i'll give you back the time -- >> good. >> -- is part of the discussion today is if you serve as the, if you will, the whims of the cabinet officer and dismissal offensive en offends no one versus you've been vetted, put up by the senate and now a dismissal by the cabinet officer regardless of party reflects directly on those people who confirmed who typically the senators want to know why. there can be a huge difference in the dismissal perception between an acting and a permanent. the gentle lady's point is right, which is that, although i.g.s sort of have four-year terms for good behavior at most, we only have two-year terms for good behavior. i'll reset the clock. >> all right. thank you.

so i guess my bigger concern is that this discussion should be directed at the senate more so than at the president because it's the senate that oftentimes takes a long time to confirm individuals. and as i understand it with you, mr. miller, you waited 270 days before you were confirmed by the senate. but i don't believe that in any way damaged your ability to do your job, did it? >> i waited about nine months after i was first nominated in october of 2004 and then i was renominated in january of 2005. i've remained as a prosecutor and assistant united states attorney during that time until i was corn firmed and sworn in as inspector general. >> you were not acting during that time? >> i was not acting. >> i see .

let me address acting i.g. mary kendall who is presently at the department of the interior. she's been there since 2009 in an acting role and has suspended or debarred 78 firms or individuals. she's also responsible for the investigation into the department's minimal management service. so i don't think we would at any point suggest that she hasn't done a good job, in fact, a very effective job as an acting i.g. correct? >> i know plair. i think the world of mary, and i think she's done a great job. >> okay. now, what i would like to concentrate on, and i can't begin to tell you how important i think you are in the roles that you play, i want to focus on what we should be doing to make sure the recommendations you make are actually implemented, because for the top billions of dollars of potential savings that you are able to ferret out in any investigation,

unless the department willfully takes action, there is no hammer. how do we give you more teeth is one question. two, to what extent do your recommendations typically get embrac embraced? and all of you can answer. maybe mrs. fong would like to start, having been if your position for 12 years. is that right? >> you're right that the i.g. role is to make recommendations. it's the agency's role to implement changes, to accept the recommendations and move forward if they choose to do so. i recognize that this committee has taken a real interest in i.g. recommendations and i.g. actions. i think every year you ask all of us to report to you on the status of our recommendations, which ones have been accepted, implemented, and which ones remain open. i think actually in terms of what can be done to move that process along, that is a tremendous step.

by the fact that you ask us to report about it, we work within our agencies, we bring that issue up to the front, the agency head becomes aware of your interest. and we see action happening as a result of that because the agencies want to move along on those open recommendations. they want a good report. i think that's very important. >> what additional power should we give you? >> in general? >> in general. >> well, i think you all have take an huge step forward with the data act that you just passed in the house of representatives. that includes a number of provisions that would really help i.g.s in terms of computer matching, data gathering under the paper work reduction act, and reforming some of the i.g. act. we're hoping that those provisions that relate to i.g. operations will get passed in

the senate as well. those are things that we have wanted as a community for a number of years. and so we're very heartened to see progress being made on that. >> mr. miller? >> well, when i was chair of the legislation committee for the national procurement fund task force, we put together a white paper with a lot of recommendations regarding additional tools for inspectors general, and i have previously testified to other recommendati recommendations. i'd be happy to share those with you after the hearing. >> all right. and the gentleman from pogo? >> we've done a number of reports on the inspector general system, and in those reports we have a list of additional recommendations we would like to see implemented. i don't have it with you, but i can give it to you. >> my time is about to expire. mr. chairman, i actually think we spend the kind of money we do

creating offices of inspectors general, that when they make recommendations, they should be required to be implemented by the departments. when i think of the national transportation safety board and the good work they do, the really remarkable work they do, and yet all they can do is make recommend dag dagss which can or cannot be actually taken up by the industries that they are investigating. so i don't know what we can do as a committee. but i think it's a waste of taxpayer funds if all of these recommendations that are being made and the potential savings that are suggested in the $87 billion range, if we can't force these departments to take the actions that the inspector generals suggest. >> i thank the gentlelady. without objection, mr. miller and mr. weems, additional papers you referred to will be placed in the record as soon as received. additionally we will take the collated recom