been collecting for the last few years from inspectors general, making them directly available to you and include them in the record. because it has been the policy under both chairman towns and myself to collect those, catalog them, because ultimately even if they don't have the authority, we do have the authority to see that the administration adheres to them. so i'd love to work with the gently day on that. with that in closing we will go to the chairman emeritus for a quick remark. >> yeah. i just want to make it very clear that we have outstanding people working in the i.g.s offices, and i wasn't inferring that there was any complaint with that. what i was saying, and i think the gentlelady alluded to it, was that the president has a responsibility when he becomes president to make the appointments that need to be made, especially when they have to be confirmed by the senate.

to leave a position as important as the i.g. for this state department open for 3 1/2 years is not a sign that that's a responsible move by the administration. the president, you can excuse him for six mos, you can excuse him for a year or maybe even 18 months under certain circumstances. but 3 1/2 years almost to the end of his first term, assuming he has a second term, is just too long. and so i would just say one more time that whatever president, whatever party needs to be very attentive to making the selections of the various appointments as quickly as possible after his administration takes office. >> i think the gentleman. we'll now dils miss our first panel and reset for our second panel. thank you.

thank you very much for being with us today. you're comptroller for the office of omd and you're recognized for an opening statement. >> thank you, congressman burton. >> excuse me. one thing. we have to have you rise so we can swear you in. you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> i do. >> okay. >> again, thank you, congressman burton, chairman issa, ranking member cummings, and members of the committee for the invitation to discuss the status of inspector general leadership today. the i.g. community plays an integral role in enhancing financial stewardship and accountability across the federal government through audits, evaluations and inspections, the i.g. provides critical analysis and oversight

that strengthens program integrity, helps to eliminate waste, and holds our federal projects and programs account to believe the public. in this era of fiscal constraints, a role of the i.g. is more important than ever in helping agency leadership identify and address management challenges and maximize the impact of our limited federal resources. by way of background, the central role of the i.g. dates back to the passage of the inspector general act of 1978, over 3 34 years ago. the i.g. act established the offices of inspector general within federal agencies to conduct and supervise audits and investigations in agency programs and to provide leadership and coordination for activities designed to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness and prevent and detect fraud and abuse. more recently, the i.g. reformat of 2008 established the siggi, which is charged with, among other things, identifying, reviewing, and discussing areas of weakness and vulnerability in federal programs and operations with respect to fraud, waste,

and abuse, and developing plans for coordinated government-wide activities that address these areas. under the reform act, the omb deputy director for management serves as the executive chairperson of the siggi focused on facilitating the exchange of information between siggi and the agencies remitted on it. however, this role is properly limited, given the importance of preserving the independence of the i.g.s and the significant gi. that independence is one of the most central and crucial qualities of the i.g.s, allowing them to report objectively and directly to their agency heads on potential areas of concern or deficiency. critical to this is the expertise and dedication of the civil servants that support the i.g.s, armed with extensive and diverse expertise in areas such as accounting, auditing, law, management analysis, program analysis, public administration, and investigations. this administration remains

committed to supporting the work of the i.g. community while respecting its independence. beyond supporting the i.g.s, their indispensable work and safeguarding and overseeing taxpayers funds is consistent with the core commitment of this administration to make the federal government more transparent and accountable to the american people than ever before. as dedicated stewards of the taxpayer dollars, the government has a responsibility to provide information to the public on how federal funds are being spent and to work tirelessly to root out and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in federal programs. working with the i.g. community over the past three years, we have made tremendous strides towards these goals and work together to create a more efficient, effective, and accountable government and cross a number of areas. in the area of technology, the i.g. community has examined multiple facets of government-wide i.t. operations, complementing the administration's efforts to close over 1,000 data centers by the end of 2015 and in establishing the tech stat

program, which has resulted in approximately $4 billion worth of savings and cost reductions in i.t. investments. in the area of audit and financial management, this year, for the first time since the passage of the chief financial officers act over 20 years ago, 23 of the 24 applicable agencies obtained an opinion from independent auditors on their financial statements and all but two of those opinions were clean. in contracting, there were suspensions and debombardments where appropriate. armed with a new tool, the federal awardee performance and integrity information system to provide broadened access to information about the integrity of contractors, agencies are making better use of suspension and debarment authorities to make sure contractors are playing by the rules and have the integrity and business ethics to do business with the government. pz a final example, there is the area of improper payments, a leading priority in the

administration's campaign to cut waste. over the past two years the federal government has avoided $20 billion in payment errors by driving the improper payment rate down in medicare, medicaid, pell grants, tsunami, and other critical assistant programs. to complement our efforts, the i.g.s completed the first ever review of efforts to reduce improper payments. overall, i.g.s have made significant contributions in overseeing and improving the federal government's performance and accountability over the past 34 years, and i am confident they will continue to do so. in these challenging if fiscal times, the administration recognizes the importance of maintaining a strong, independent role for i.g.s and we look forward to continuing to work with the i.g. community to promote financial stewardship and accountability across the federal government. thank you and i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you very much,

mr. wuerffel. as i understand it, you and mr. zants are responsible to coordinate between various comptrollers or investigators in the government. is that correct? >> we have somewhat of a limbed role on the council of i.g.s. we play more of an administrative role under the i.g. reform act. the sweet spot for the role of omb, myself, and acting director zions, is to work with the inspector general community, to understand what they're seeing, what trends they're seeing, what findings they're leading to, to help inform omb on the right policies to issue across government to help deal with those issues. that's the primary focus of our work with the i.g.s, is to learn from one another about how we can strategize together as omb

to cross coordinate government activities, and the i.g.s can learn from us so they can focus their investigations appropriately. >> let me ask you a question. mr. zants is the acting head of omb. correct? >> that's correct. >> why hasn't the administration sent his name up for confirmation, or have they? >> at this time, i do not believe his name has been submitted for nomination. i'm unaware of the circumstances surrounding that issue. >> do you know how long it's been since his name's been submitted? >> again, i do not believe his name has been submitted. i do know that -- i believe that he became the acting director in janl of 2012. >> and the state department has an acting inspector general. >> yes. that is correct. the. >> the thing i can't understand is the president makes a

recommendation to the senate, and the senate reviews it at the proper committees, and then they either confirm the full senate or they reject them. the senate does not have the opportunity to rule on that or to make a judgment unless it's submitted to them. i just don't understand why at this point we still have these people that are in acting positions after 3 1/2 years. i'm not sure you can answer that question because you're in a coordinating capacity, as i understand it. but it just seems to me that the responsibility that is required by the constitution and the confirmation process is circumvented when the president has an acting director of any of these agencies far long period of time. do you have any idea -- and i don't know if you do or not -- do you have any idea how many acting directors we have in various agencies we have right now besides these two? >> in terms of inspector

general? >> inspectors general or omb or anything else. >> in preparing for this hearing, i was able to review the data and the information. i think as was reported on the first panel, across the entire i.g. community, made up of 73 total, federal statutory i.g.s, there are currently ten vacancies. and i believe there's an acting i.g. in each of those agencies. >> i'm sure. i'm sure that the acting i.g.s are doing a good job. it's just that the -- you know, harry truman had a sign on his desk that said "the buck stops here." and if somebody is a temporary or nonconfirmed person, it seems to me that the buck doesn't get to the top guy. once the president sends somebody up for confirmation and it's confirmed, then the responsibility for that appointment rests with the

president. and so i would -- as i said before, i would urge the president or any president to move as quickly as possible on -- moving toward the confirmation process and making the appointments as quickly as possible. i'm not sure i have any other questions for you right now oh than what i've already asked. and that is why the station has taken so long, particularly on the i.g. that deals with the state department. i mean, the amount of money, the president is asking for $8.2 billion in extraordinary and temporary funding in iraq, afghanistan, and pakistan, and this comes on top of $43.4 billion proposed for the core budget for the state department, usaid, which manages foreign aid subpoena to all this money is being requested, and we're going to have to act to make sure that those funds are there for those purposes. but i know for one i think the

chairman feels the same way. we'd like to have a permanent i.g. and other appointees as quickly as possible and not wait 3 1/2 years. i'm not just saying this because of president obama. i'm saying this for any other president. there have been other presidents that have delayed and they shouldn't do that. does the gentlelady have any questions? >> i do, mr. chairman. i guess, mr. wuerffel, i'm kind of confused, the office of management and budget, what role do they have in terms of appointing inspectors general? >> congresswoman, we do not have a role in that process. omb -- there is a process that was described in first panel in which the siggi, or the council of inspector generals, has a committee that submits its names for consideration to the appointing official, which in this case is the president. omb does not precipitate on that committee. once those names are submitted,

they're submitted into a personnel process within the white house again, a process that omb does not participate in. we, as i've mentioned, play a substantive role in helping both coordinate inspector general activities and working together in terms of analyzing both patterns and trends across government and how to work collectively to root out fraud, error, and waste. but in the specific narrow point of the hiring and the appointments process for that omb does not play a role. >> so the purpose of this hearing is is to discuss the appointments process and why it's taking too long in certain departments. so you have no role, your office has no role in that. >> that is correct. >> so why do you think you're here? >> i think i'm here because the way the inspector general reform act operates, there is -- >> you done have to answer that question. >> okay. >> it was more rhetorical than anything else.

let me ask you, though, since you are here, you are -- you are confirmed by the senate as comptroller for the office of management and budget. >> right. >> for a period of time, you were acting comptroller. >> that is correct. >> did you feel that you were doing any less of a job because you were acting during part of that time? >> no, i do not. >> were your -- was your authority at all diminished? >> from my personal experience, no. >> now, as acting comptroller, you helped the administration achieve record levels of openness and accountability throughout the federal government. so how successful would you say the administration has been at fostering openness and transparency in the federal government? >> i think it's been a remarkable set of accomplishments that i don't think get sufficient attention. you point to something like the

recovery act. that law was enacted and demanded a set of accountability and transparency that the government had not seen before. it required information to be reported out to the public on spending of taxpayer dollars at a timeliness and level of detail that hn been seen before. and it would require us to in very quick order develop i.t. solutions, data definitions, coordinator across multiple stake holders, both grantees, contractors, and all host of recipients to make those very, very tough demands that both congress and the president put on the federal government to make the recovery act the most transparent bill that's ever been enacted. it was a historic effort and really set a new bar for the manner in which the public has transparency into where federal dollars are going. >> now, i like the majority.

i'm troubled that the i.g. has not yet been appointed in state. and i hope that that appointment is made soon. but i think it's important to state for the record that the work of the i.g.s' office continues unabed, and in fact, if i'm not mistaken, the budget of the i.g.s office in state has more than doubled from $31 million during bush administration's term to $65 million under president obama's term. so would you say that the office has the resources it needs to get the job done? >> congresswoman, i'm glad you raised the question. from my vantage point where i sit atomb and my work with the inspector general -- and i have a very close working relationship with miss fong -- there are a variety of different

areas where omb is in a position to help the i.g. community succeed. one of them is to work with them to better understand the resources need of the inspector general community and to work with them to develop justifications that can survive congressional scrutiny for the levels that the president requests for the i.g.s. i would note as a global matter that, while the president working with congress has cut essentially a trillion dollars in discretionary resources in the budget, the i.g. community funding level has remained constant, has been across the i.g.s and has been somewhat protected from the other discretionary cults that we're seeing. specific to the state department, the state department's level in 2011 was $59 million. in '12 that went up to $62 million. and the president's budget request for 2013 is $66 million. this is the place where omb can

step in and assist an i.g. in being as successful as possible in understanding what that resource calibration needs to be. i will add as final point from where i sit, and i think that the inspector general community is as healthy and as strong as i've of seen it in my 15-year career. at the office of management and budget. and i have not detected in any way, shape or form any dim munation of those rules or responsibilities or impact when there's an acting ig in place. >> thank you. my time has expired. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. let me -- oh. my colleague, would you have any questions? >> i do. thank you, mr. chairman. and i'd ask for the full statement be entered into the record at this point. >> without objection i. thank the chair. welcome, mr. werfel. how long have you been in government, mr. werfel? >> 15 years. >> 15 years.

do you -- do you think we've made public service more and more attractive by the day? >> it's a challenging time to be a federal employee. i think -- i have two reactions to that question. on the one hand, i feel that the challenges our country faces have never been -- never been more critical and never been more important. when i go to sleep at night, you know, i think about the immense challenge that the federal workforce has before it and how important that work is and it's energizing and motivating that when you're serving your country by serving the federal government that that has real meaning and purpose, and it can be a truly motivating factor. at the same time, it's important that we, that we are investing in our people effectively and by doing that recognizing the great work that they're doing.

recognizing the important role that they play, and -- you know, there are circumstances in which sometimes the federal employee can be the punching bag. >> well, let me just ask about that. i mean, do you think that an unrelenting verbal assault in the form of disparagement about the value of pun liblic servicet federal employee dos about the federal workplace itself coupled with a two-year pay freeze and the proposal of an additional three-year pay freeze and changing the terms of pension making it less attractive by requiring more up-front payment and fewer benefits at the other end for perspective employees to fund an unrelated piece of legislation, in this case unemployment insurance, and then asks another one for current

employees, same thing. to fund an unrelated piece of legislation, transit funding. and now this committee just the other day marked up its piece of the reconciliation, which will cost federal employees something of the order of magnitude of $78 billion, $79 billion. that combined with hearings sometimed entitles the government too big and bloated, our federal workers infirnlt and incompetent, doesn't gsa's recent excess in a western division conference sort of characterize what we're saying that all federal employee, kind of like that? might that have anything to do with morale and our ability to recruit and retain skilled workers, such as, oh, i don't know. igs, for example? >> congressman, i think -- i think a couple of reactions. the president has asked the federal workforce to join others

around the country in tightening their belts and making certain sacrifices. given the economic challenges that we have, and time and ag n again, the federal workforce s has -- has reacted and absorbed that belt tightening in a manner that i think we can all be proud of. in terms of still staying focused and passionate about what we do. i think the president wants to make sure that any approach we have is balanced. any approach we take towards deficit reduction is balanced, and that we're not riding the entire cost on the backs of one segment of the country. with respect to your question about morale, it is really, really important for a healthy and sustainable federal government, federal workforce, and carrying out all the critical services that we do to make sure that we are recruiting effectively and attracting talented and effective people into the federal workforce.

so i -- i understand your questions, and i appreciate them. i agree that it's very important that we -- that we recognize federal workers for their contributions and that we don't disparage them unnecessarily. in particular if there's an isolated incident that raises the type of concerns that are yours. >> i have one more question i'm going to sneak in as a follow-up to something the chairman said in this statement with which i agree and that what do with maybe highlights the dysfunction on the senate as part of the problem here. we had one ig who was totally uncontra verbal, michael horvitz, at doj and it took eight months to get this confirmation through. in looking at the record through, roughly the number of vacant ig vacancies are comparable to those in 2004 as president bush was gearing up for his re-election, and i think that, perhaps, suts something

about how onerous and difficult the senate process has become, as the chairman suggested. if the chairman will indulge i just want to give the witness an opportunity to answer that, and i'm done. >> do you have any comments, disparaging the senate? >> i don't have any comments. on a personal level, they confirmed me pretty quickly. so i'm very appreciative of the senate. the only thing i would remark, i would go back to ms. fong's remarks in the first panel in which she talked about the complexity of the process of bringing an ig onboard. there's obviously the senate process. there's the desire to find highly qualified individuals, and so there's -- it's a complex terrain, and one in which probably should be evaluated over time. >> thank you. i recognize myself for more or less one question. >> please. >> first panel to my pleasure congratulated ed for passing o

bipartisan basis the data act. the data act is fairly extensive. om b has not been the greatest proponent of it. under your predecessor. do you have concerns you want to share today? obviously, senator mark warner in the senate is the lead sponsor of an identical bill. the vice president has been supportive and a part of it at every point. chairman devaney has been part of it. i want to put you on the spot a little. i think mr. connolly did a good job of going completely off the first panel's discussion brilliantly and i'd like to do that bu i think the data act deserves an understanding if you're prepared to make comments on challenges you see, if any, that need to be addressed. >> thank you, chairman. i will make a couple of remarks about that in response to your question. i'd like to caveat my remarks saying we're reviewing the bill. the process involves getting

input from every agency and from a diverse segment within each agency including lawyers and accountants. >> are you going to let the accountants and lawyers worry me? >> well, we're evaluating, and we will certainly be able to present to you a comprehensive reaction of both what we find s as -- as promising and -- in areas where we think more work is needed. let me also emphasize up front before i go into specifics that the president and the administration are in complete agreement with the objective of advancing transparency and accountability. the president played a critical role in that when he served in congress on the senate and co-sponsored the transparency act. a bill that really is, had a monumental impact in thinking about federal transparency and one in which we're continuing to execute on today.

i raise that, because there's a variety of different other bills we're executing on today that the president has signed and supported, like the modernization bill, i mentioned. i already mentioned the recovery act earlier. we continue to execute on these various transparencies and in doing so are investing in technologies, in new solutions in growing our federal workforce to understand better how to raise their game in terms of transparency and all of those activities are in going and i want to make sure that people understand that we're not starting from scratch. we're starting with a very important foundation that has been built in advancing transparencyy. there's more information out there on websites like usa spending dot gov and recovery dot gov and where our dollars are going than ever in history and that's an important starting.. with respect to the data act. >> by the way, we would agree particularly as to recovery, which is really the only site i know of that has recipient reporting in