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

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 conducted vigorous investigations relating to the former administrator, 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 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 whom are in acting positions now, some of whom are perm -- permanent. 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 acting 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, the 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 inspector general to the next.

so she sees the independence and the continuity of the professional staff important to the ig'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 that she has a very good point there and i would add that our 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 permanent 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 of the matter 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 for example served under the bush administration, served and was in limbo, to use a catholic term until -- what? right. i'm sorry. he was appointed both times. 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 offends no one in the senate because they didn't confirm you 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 gentlelady'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 probably 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 confirmed 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 mary. 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 embraced? and all of you can answer. maybe mrs. fong would like to start, having been in your position for 10 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 on 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

taken 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 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 detailed list of additional recommendations we would like to see implemented. i don't have it with me, 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 recommendations 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. wiens, additional papers you referred to will be placed in the record as soon as received. additionally we will take the collated recommendations we've 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 gentlylady 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 months, 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 thank the gentleman. we'll now dismiss our first panel and reset for our second panel. thank you. thank you very much for being with us today. you're a comptroller for the

office of omb 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 with you today. the i.g. community plays an integral role in enhancing financial stewardship and accountability across the federal government. through audits, evaluations and investigations 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 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 siggi. 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 across 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 debarments where appropriate. agencies have done the same. 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 ensure contractors are playing by the rules and have the integrity and business ethics to do business with the government. as 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, s.n.a.p., 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 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. werfel. 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 limited 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 coordinate cross-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.

right? >> 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 january of 2012. >> and the state department has an acting inspector general. >> yes. that is correct. >> 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 for a 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, there are 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 towards 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 administration 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 and so 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. werfel, 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 the 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 participate 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 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 don't 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