ask unanimous consent that two letters from congressman chaffitz, 21 president obama dated february 9th, 2012, and one also to president obama dated may 17th, 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 vacancy. that's what i meant because it creates that opportunity. >> 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 branch? >> 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 reported -- 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 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 officer 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 statute would have made it a requirement, wouldn't it, not the general interpretation but doesn't the current statute, miss fong, if 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. the 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, and then to work with congress as quickly as can be reasonably

handled. and it does involve some discretion and some judgment. >> so, if this committee were to send a letter to cigi but to all of the igs in light of the historic interpretation, and i want to be very fair. there is an historic interpretation, and 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, triggers that requirement that you also tell us in due course. 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 perhaps 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 piggyback a lot on when we get to a new law. my time's run out. could you comment on that. >> sure. 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 flesh out areas where you have a concern where perhaps you don't believe we have been as forthcoming 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 efficiency issues annual reports on activities and accomplishments of the federal igs. each year your report includes data on governmentwide potential savings and total savings to the government from all ig audit recommendations. can you explain the difference between potential and total savings? i think we have a chart here somewhere. somebody put the chart up? there we go. can you explain the difference between potential and total savings? >> let me just take a step back. my understanding of the data -- and this is based on the data that each ig office compiles in response to ig act requirements, and the data categories talk about potential savings because it is very difficult to measure actual savings.

so my understanding of the data that we're providing is that we give a number for potential savings from audits, and another number for potential savings from investigations. we add that up and have a total number of potential savings overall. >> okay. >> it is very difficult to track actuals because of the nature of the criminal justice system, for example. >> so, but you do this report, right? it comes out of your office, right? >> yes. the council does the report. >> so your annual reports for the last five fiscal years, 2006 to 2010 show a promising trend, is that fair to say? >> i think you're right. i've looked at the results for the last three years, not the last five because i didn't do that. but the last three do look as if we're on a very upward trend. i will note that a large portion

of the recoveries in the last few years have been due to the postal service ig and some of the work on pensions and ibt. >> let me show you the stats. the graph up here shows that the potential savings for all ig recommendations and the actual savings to the government have steadily increased dramatically over the years. and i understand it's hard to get the actual number. so i guess these are pretty close estimates. no matter how you look at it, in fiscal year 2006 potential savings only $9.9 billion and the total savings, $16.7 billion. by fiscal year 2008, the potential savings were $14.2 billion, and the total savings went up to $18.6 billion. by fiscal year 2010, potential savings shot up to $80.2 billion and the total savings went up to

$87.2 billion. does this appear to be accurate to you? >> i appreciate your asking me this question. this is the first we've seen the chart, and i would be very happy to take the chart and analyze it in light of the data we have and provide you some comments on it for the record. >> i guess what i'm -- i think that one of the things we find is that in government today there is a lot of talk about federal employees and, you know, what they don't do and what they don't accomplish. and agencies that don't accomplish certain things. and this committee being concerned about savings seems like this would be something that would be at the top of effective at. because that's something that we all are interested in. but you're not that familiar

with these charts. is that what you're saying? >> yes. i think generally the numbers appear to me to be accurate, but i would like to take a closer look. >> based upon what you see, there is a positive trend going forward? >> yes, there is a positive trend. >> can you generally comment on why that might be? without even knowing all of the numbers. is there something happening that we don't know about? >> well, i would like to say that as the ig community matures and gets more experience that we are getting better at identifying the issues that really require oversight and that's showing some payoff in terms of dollar recoveries as well as recommendations to improve programs. i would like to say that. >> just say it. >> i will say that. >> all right. you said it. to me it looks like potential and total savings increased dramatically under this administration. what does this say overall about the community of inspectors general under the

administration? can you comment on the effectiveness and some of whom are acting. in other words, we have concerns about vacancies and whatever but, obviously, the actings and the people in the permanent positions, apparently they are doing something significant because that's a big jump from a few years ago to now. >> well, just to comment on the jump, again, i want to reiterate a large portion is due to the postal service ig's accomplishments. to get to your larger point about the acting igs and their organizations, i have spoken to many of them recently, all of them have told me, the ones i have spoken with, that they are going after their mission full speed ahead. they are very proud of the accomplishments of their offices. they feel they have issued hard-hitting reports with real dollar recoveries, and they feel that their offices continue to

operate at a high professional level. >> as i close, i would agree with that and i want to publicly thank them for what they do. i think it would be almost impossible for us on this panel, in this committee, to effectively and efficiently do our jobs without you. and without the igs. with that, i'll yield back. >> on that agreement we'll stand in recess until just a few minutes after the second of two votes which means about 15 minutes. thank you.

this meeting will come to order. now recognize the gentleman from oregon, mr. davis, for five minutes. [ inaudible ] >> one indicator of effective sentence the amount of recovered funds or the number of suspensions and debarments, other quantitative metrics, all of which igs report to congress on a semiannual or quarterly basis. do you have any statistics that compare the output of permanent

igs to acting igs? >> let me go ahead and comment on that question. we -- when we compile our statistics, we compile them for the whole community of igs. now, i believe that we could break it out for -- on a fiscal-year basis, the statistics for organizations headed by permanent igs versus organizations headed by acting igs. but we do not currently have those statistics. >> all right. i'm sure you would agree that acting igs often perform very valuable services in conducting audits, inspections and investigations. would that be correct? >> yes, i would very much agree with that. >> the acting ig at 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 some stats on this. i think we have a slide that we could look at that might show what i'm talking about. for example, the department of homeland security currently has an acting ig 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 ig 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, indeed, professionals? >> yes. the offices of inspector general have many very dedicated and very professional and experienced people. >> if we take a look at cigir and the active ig trend, they proposed only four suspensions or debarments. most recently acting ig office proposed only 40 suspensions or debarments. similarly, at the state department, before acting iggeisel was in charge, the ig's

office recovered $715,000 in funds and opened 14 investigations. under the acting ig's leadership, recovered funds increased to $10.7 million. and the number of investigations opened has increased to 49. i guess what i'm really just simply pointing out is the fact that these individuals do, in fact, provide very effective services and that we are in good stead oftentimes when they are placed in those offices, although they have not been 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. and so i thank you 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 ig 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. and if a person is doing a good job, there's nothing to suggest 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 have to know then you've been too long not the chairman. >> 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 trillion dollars in deficits this year and the potential for over $1 trillion in deficits every we're 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 saying 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 after the expenses in a

very thorough way. i mean, afghanistan and iraq have been just 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 may have 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 instead of way after the fact or if not in advance 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 take over and do the job? >> 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. [ laughter ] 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 vetting process 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 been a 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 while 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 i 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, i 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 that legislatively we could enhance vacancies that occur under both republicans and democrats, enhance the ability to have some legitimacy and some clout of the i.g.s by establishing procedures, perhaps under siggi, where, for example, we have a pool 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. the 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 you 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 overall number of 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 situations to create an acting, 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 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 entity. >> let me offer a few comments 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.