implemented? >> that's very important. that's a critical -- that's one of the reasons actually we put i.t. acquisitions and operations on the list, is in order to elevate attention to make sure that the bill is implemented effectively. but if it doesn't have attention -- i'm also concerned because we're coming to the last two years of this administration, it's got to be sustained in the next administration. having the statutory underpinning is critically important and it gives us and the congress means to hold people accountable over time. so it's absolutely critical to rectifying this problem that we've identified. >> and there are real potential savings if we can make this work. is that not correct? >> oh, yes, absolutely. absolutely. in the billions. >> yeah. in the billions. >> yes. >> mr. chairman. so i know we're going to work on a bipartisan basis to actually have oversight hearings on

implementation to goad and exhort and encourage. i think that's really good. with respect to the whole subject, you are familiar with the document issued december 10. >> yes, i'm familiar with it. >> i assume that you and your i.t. expert -- let me not assume assume. was that a helpful document in terms of laying out goals and objectives? >> yes. >> you concur. >> it set the foundation for key initiatives going forward. >> and for example when -- it talks about we ought to approve funding of major i.t. programs only when it meets three basic criteria. right? have a dedicated manager parnd a fully staffed integrated program team, use a modular approach with usable functionality delivered every six months.

i think they mean by that, break up huge multi-year complex systems integration contracts so that they're easier to manage. and thirdly, use specialized i.t. acquisition professionals. are those -- do you think those are three helpful criteria whether we are looking at issuing a major procurement? >> i did. absolutely. >> and did we follow that advice from the white house itself when the website for the health care roll-out was occurring? >> no, we did not. >> we did not. so hopefully our bill but even also the guidance that was issued for the white house going four years ago, plus, might have spared us some of the grief and embarrassment that in fact occurred. >> we've issued nine factors that are critical to successful efforts that have been put in

place. there's guidance, best practice. the basic problem that i've seen over the years is there is a lack of discipline to follow good practices. we get off the rails and nobody's held accountable during that period of time. modular development incremental development, cios was one of the basic tenets of the 1996 legislation that i helped congress work on passing. it just hasn't been implemented so i commend this committee for your recent legislation. i look forward to working with you to make sure it is successfully implemented but it will require congressional oversight and i look forward to that. >> and i will point out as the chairman knows and ranking member knows, when we put together this bill it was a bipartisan bill and we -- a lot of what we did was codify recommendations that came out of the white house itself. it was not a hostile bill. and so hopefully it will be seen that way as a useful management

tool and we look forward to working with you as we follow and monitor and as i said exhort the implementation because there are enormous savings to be had and some very significant efficiencies. yes. >> and better services to the public. >> yes. thank you, mr. chairman. >> gentleman yields back. now recognize the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan, for five minutes. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman. i will take just a moment. i just want to say i think you do a very good job and i appreciate the work the gao does. you've been very helpful to me on this committee. i've been here 26 years. when i tell these newer members this they look at me like i'm from out of space. mine main committee's always been the transportation and infrastructure committee. i've heard dr. dillingham testify more than probably any other witness. he seems like a good man. >> he is. >> i just want to say i think the gao does a great job and i appreciate what you all do. that's all i wanted. >> thank you very much, mr.

duncan. >> gentleman yields back. >> mr. chairman? i know that there are other witnesses who want to know what mr. dodaro's magic is that he got that kind of -- >> will now recognize the gentle woman from the virgin islands for five minutes. >> yes, thank you mr. chairman. good afternoon sir. >> good afternoon. >> i really wanted to thank you for all of the work that your agency does and to talk to you about the -- one of the primary things that you all do is uncovering waste and fraud and abuse and identification of the risk of integrity of the federal programs. we know, however that there is also best practices that your agency tries top identify, not only for the private -- for the public sector, but for the private as well. we understand now that the cyber attacks are not just on the federal agencies, but also on private. we know we've heard about home depot and the compromise of

about 56 million companies and the credit card and debit card information, as well as anthem the nation's second-largest health insurance company with more than 80 million records that may have been compromised. i seen that one of your colleagues are coming over to assist you. >> he's our cyber expert. >> great. >> we sent the -- sense the cyber question. >> you sense very well. one thing i wanted to talk to you about is this notion of segregating duties. if you could briefly explain for us what that concept is and how it works. >> yes. that's been one of the major problems that we've identified over the years. greg can explain the importance of it. >> it's vitally important to assure that systems and information are adequately protected from unauthorized modification alteration. and basically it relates that the activities of one individual or group are countered by the

activities or overseen if you will, by the activities of another group. so one group does not have full control of a transaction or of a process in which it can then perform unauthorized activities without detection. within the sign he realml seen -- cyber realm that often involves having software developers where real live actual dayta is being processed because they can potentially make undetected changes to the software processing that data and you don't want that to happen. so software developers in this case should be confined to a development environment. >> okay. so my understanding -- and you know i'm not -- my children will tell you, i have no -- i have no technological knowledge. but kind of like a submarine where when there is a leak in one area you can close off that section, and then another area where the leak occurs doesn't

affect the other areas with the segregation of duties. is that occurring now in the federal agencies with the i.t.? >> yes. in several agencies there are instances where they have weaknesses. i think it is about 14 agencies that have weaknesses in segregation of duty controls. and the example you highlighted actually also speaks to the defense and the atecy should put layer upon layer of security controls so in the event one layer is circumvented or penetrated, other controls help protect the data and systems at hand. >> one of the reasons i mentioned home depot and anthem, we know that this has occurred in other private sector areas is what is the relationship that you all have with trying to assist those private sector individuals in best practices? because at the end of the day all of these systems connect

with one another. >> yes. actually, it is the department of homeland security that has an overriding role within the federal government for helping in assisting with critical infrastructure industries and protecting their information and their systems. in addition, for certain retail companies like this, it may also be the federal trade commission that would also provide assistance and guidance to those entities. >> we've been encouraging and exhorting for years more dialogue and information sharing between the public sector and the private sector. both have been reticent for different reasons to share information. but that's really the only way that this problem is eventually going to be solved. congress has made some overtures in this area with that legislation. we believe more legislation could be helpful in that regard. >> ima he hopeful this body will continue to assist you in making sure that that happens and i yield the balance of my time. >> thank the gentle woman. will now recognize the gentleman

from massachusetts, mr. lynch, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member. mr. dodaro good to see you again and all your cohorts. i agree that this may not be the most sexy hearing of the year but -- >> objection. >> -- i think it may reflect best core mission of this committee, however. i do notice in your list of areas of concern you've got a list of the 2015 high-risk list that the va health is on that list for the first time. i know it is 1 of the 2 new areas. this designation comes in light of the long-standing and systemic witnesses -- weaknesses -- excuse me -- in accessibility and quality of

care. we saw the problems that we had down at the phoenix va. terrible situation there. we also have, quite frankly a huge increase in the number of veterans that are now for the first time in their lives relying on the va for their health care. we went from 6.8 million veterans in 2002 to 9.4 million enrollees in 2015. so it's put a huge amount of pressure on the system, including 1.4 million veterans from -- mindful most of the veterans did multiple tours. i was in kandahar province not long ago and i asked how many folks were on their first tour, their second tour. i got all the way up to seven tours of duty before i ran out of marines. most of them had been there

three or four tours of duty. so that repeated cycle of deployments does a lot of damage, i think, to the psychiatry of serving among our young men and women. i think that we're going to see reverberations in the health care system as a result of those multiple deployments. but i am looking forward -- i'm actually the ranking democrat on the national security subcommittee that is going to address those and i look forward to your good work continuing in that area. especially with some of the new implementations that we've had -- allowing veterans to be treated at non-va facilities if we do have a back-up in appointment time. that's been a constant problem for us, not just in the northeast, but all across america. i know florida's all backed up because of the number of retirees down there. they've had a very long backlog

there. some of the areas in texas as well. virginia my friend mr. connelly, luge number ofveterans in his district as well. we also have another provision that allows them to go to non-va facilities where their travel to a va facility is more than 40 miles. it all builds up to a greater reliance on our ability to conduct oversight of the va health care system. i look forward to working with you. you've got a great staff. you have a good co-lort ofhort of people behind you that have worked tirelessly over the years. i'm looking forward -- we've got no shortage of issues to work on, and i just appreciate the work that you do every single day. thank you. i'll yield back. >> i would ask my friend to yield for a question? >> yeah, sure. >> mr. lynch, how many times

have you been to afghanistan and/or iraq? >> i would say iraq, about 14 times. and i would say afghanistan about 12 times. oftentimes with folks from -- that mr. dodaro works with, special inspector generals of iraq construction or afghanistan reconstruction as well. >> well i just want to say from me, you have been a model of oversight commitment to the work in both countries. at personal risk and peril to yourself and i honor you for that. thank you. >> well, thank you. >> i would just say, in terms of the picture that you paint, not only have we had more veterans coming back with multiple tours but they're going to be living longer, thanks to modern medicine. but this problem will occur over decades. and we need to get a handle on it right now. there will be more veterans even coming back.

so this is a really very significant long-term issue and that's one of the reasons we put it on the high-risk list. >> the gentleman yields back. now recognize the gentle woman from new york, miss maloney, for five minutes. >> -- late to the committee because i was at a meeting on cyber security which is really one of the biggest challenges we face as a nation. i believe it is an area that we will in a bipartisan way work together and address. so i want to mention the assessments that you have found for dealing with cyber attacks. and your report found that many agencies had and i quote, inconsistently implemented policies and procedures for responding to a data breach involving p11. can you explain for the committee those areas in which it was found that agencies were inconsistent in their implementation of policies for responding to data breaches and what do we do about it.

>> yes. greg will address that. he's our expert in the area. >> yes. we conducted a review at several federal agencies over their procedures and policies for responding to security incidents involving personally identifiable information. one thing we identified is that agencies did not consistently identify the risk to the affected individuals and the harm that could occur, the impact that could occur to those individuals. in addition they were inconsistent at what point do they provide additional services to those individuals. for example whether or not to provide credit monitoring services or other types of services in order to help those that have bsh whose-- whose information has been compromised. >> to the point, what can congress do to assist you, gao, to advocate that they're being consistent in responding to these breaches?

>> we bereave that the privacy act originally passed in 1974 needs to be updated and congress should take that upon their responsibilities. the agencies are collecting more information than was contemplated in the privacy act because the privacy act deals with records of information. but now through social media and other means more information is being collected that wasn't contemplated when the act was passed. the definitions in the act are very broad which leads to inconsistent applications. there's not enough notice that's made to the public. typically in those days it was through the federal register but there are more available tools now to notify the public and make things available. so the congress needs to update the privacy act. we'd be happy to work with this committee or other committees to do so. >> okay. and finally you state and i quote, gao's report. agencies may not be consistently taking action to limit the risk to individuals from p11-related

data breaches. so in gao's assessment, what are specific actions agencies can take right now to improve their ability to respond to data breaches? on top of rewriting the privacy act. >> one of the actions that they can take is making sure that they have appropriate policies and procedures in place before incidents occur so they know how to act once an incident will occur. and indeed our work has shown that the number of incidents involving p11 and federal agencies is climbing and every agency is affected by that. that can include having a dedicated team available that has the roles and responsibilities previously identified and trained in those roles and responsibilities in order to act appropriately and timely when incidents occur. >> finally how can congress be most useful in ensuring that this is fulfilled that agencies consistently take all the necessary actions needed? >> well, one is the comptroller

general update the privacy and personal information act. the other is holding hearings and holding agencies accountable and make sure they properly identify parts of personal information that may be compromised. >> thank you. >> if no other member has a question for this panel, we'd like to thank the gao. i would ask that the clerk change the table. i'd actually like to mention something. as we do this in the essence of time. again, thank you. you are excused. make the change. i want to talk about the artwork that you see in here. i'd like to make a bit of a statement, and again, there will be a little commotion here as we change out the names and, please, if you're on the second panel, please come take a seat.

when i became the chairman we made some alterations to the artwork here. part of what i was trying to do was i felt it would be best to highlight the people that we serve rather than the past committee chairmen. i feel strongly that we should be inspired by those who -- by the american people and that's who we serve. they have done great things over generations of time and those are the types of people that we should be inspired by. so i'd like to introduce these pieces of art as again we get this next panel ready. you will tell you that they are all real photography and real photos. i'd like to start here with this one. it's of the ben franklin bridge in the philadelphia skyline. it was taken by a photographer by the name of charlie lanch. the ben franklin bridge that spans the delaware river connecting philadelphia with camden new jersey.

contrasting the urban setting we have this new photo that was taken actually in my congressional district in utah. it does look like a painting but it is an actual photograph that was takenen in january. it was taken along the provo river with the mountain there in the distance. we live in a very beautiful setting and i think it the contrast between the urban setting and a more rural setting is part of what i wanted to highlight. going here on this side, this is a photo that was taken -- it was first pub accomplished in march of 1966. warren laffler was a photographer for u.s. news"u.s. news & world report". the image of u.s. postal workers loading mail into bags for delivery. a good number of people for decades, generations, have been doing good work in the postal service and one of ourf ourof our couriers of responsibility. this back photo is of utah copper miners. we've had people who have been in the mining industry across this nation whether it is coal,

copper or whatnot. this was first published back in 1942. they're using a rock drill machine at the bingham mine in the bingham canyon in utah. this next photo was taken in afghanistan. the american flag capturing the morning's first rays of sublightnlight as it is hoisted from one of the peaks of the cowtail mountain on the outskirts of kabul afghanistan in honor of veterans day. it was shot on november 11, 2010. i'm not a professional photographer but that's one of the most beautiful patriotic shots i've ever seen. really appreciate the service that paul bing didham offered his country. we have had thousands and thousands of americans serve overseas and in afghanistan and we honor them and should be thinking of them regularly. this next photo at the back of the room is actually a civil

rights protesters in 1 of 3 marches from selma to montgomery alabama. this photo was first published in 1965, they tell me it is a good reminder that people have gone through a lot of hardship but we've also made a lot of progress. i love the patriotic nature of the carrying of theflags. the next one is of the golden spike. golden spike actually happened in utah. it was taken on may 10 1869. by joining the central pacific and union pacific lines on may 10, 1860. the golden spike was the ceremonial last spike driven in to join these rails to form the first transcontinental railroad across the united states bridging the east and the west together. the next photo is really the only portrait that i would

consider here but interesting itly enough, this was first published in 2006. it is from the library of congress. the lincoln memorial is obviously one of the best sights we have in this country, certainly in the united states. but when he was congressman lincoln, he served on the post office and post roads committee and the expenditures and department of war committee, two committees that preceded the modern day oversight and government reform committee. so interesting to me that abraham lincoln when he served in the house of representatives served on what is now known as the oversight and government reform committee. an inspiration to a lot of people. moving over here we've got two more. this photo was taken -- comes from the library of congress. we're not sure hot photographer was. it was published some time between 1914 and 1918. it's of women making and crimping fiber powder containers for three-inch guns during world war i. it was taken at the w.c. richey

and company facility in chicago, illinois. been, again, a great deal of sacrifice that's gone on in this country. i love the patriotic nature of that one as well. finally, look closely at this photo if you have a chance. this is a steel worker on the framework of the empire state building high above the city with the chrysler building prominently displayed in the back. ironworker. ironworker. my apologies. the photographer was lewis hine. first published in 1930. comes to us from the national archives. not exactly osha compliant back then. that gentleman is sitting on the precipice of death working hard to build this country without a hard harness, without the types of things that ironworkers have now but a good deal of people have made these kind of dedications and sacrifices. i'm glad they captured a photo

of it. these are the types of people i think should be inspired by this committee, rather than just the committee chairmen of past. we made those changes. i hope the committee appreciates that. i'm honored to have these photos in here. i thank the members for my indulgence. we now would like to recognize our second panel of witnesses -- oh. pardon me. i'd like to yield to the ranking member, mr. cummings, for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, when you told me that you were going to select some photographs i didn't know what you were going to do. but, i must tell you -- and all of those who had anything to do with selecting these photographs -- that they are absolutely beautiful. you know i used to say that my father, who only had a second grade education, but who educated all seven of his kids,

i used to say that i was inspired by his aspirations. and when we look at these pictures the ones of hard-working americans, in the pursuit of happiness in building our country, i believe that their stories -- i mean just looking at them -- should inspire all of us to be the very best that we can and to lift up their lives and people like them, their lives. and then, you know, you look at the other ones that show our environment. i think it should be a reminder that we do have a sacred duty to pass on to our children an environment which is just as good as, or better than the one

that we inherited. you know it's said that we do not inherit our environment from our ancestors but we borrow it from our children. i'd say the same thing about our democracy. and so -- and last but not least, mr. chairman, you, you know you really did a hell of a job when you put the selma one right there. because it just reminds me every time i look at it, four years before that, in baltimore it reminds me of us marching. little kids, we were marching trying to integrate a pool called riverside pool. and it was all-white pool. we were beaten. but yet and still we marched in the pursuit of happiness. and so i'm -- i say all that to

say that, i am hoping that this will be -- these photos will be an aspiration, will be an inspiration, because of the aspirations of these folks who made america what it is. thank you very much. >> thank you. i appreciate those comments. now back to the business before us. i think the five gentlemen who have joined us -- i'd like to recognize this panel of witnesses. i'm pleased to recognize the commissioner of the internal revenue service. the honorable estevez, secretary of under defense for acquisition of technology and logistics at the united states department of defense. mr. john mcwilliams senior advisor to the united states department of energy. and then shauntinu aguwuld is

the deputy administrator and director of the center of program integrity at the centers for medicare and medicaid services. mr. robert m. lightfoot jr., associate administrator at the national aeronautics and space administration. we thank you for your patience. it's been a while to get to this panel but we do appreciate you here. pursuant to committee rules, if you could all please rise and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. thank you. let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. you may be seated. we will start with you. your full statement will be introduced into the record but we'd ask that you please limit your testimony to five minutes and we'll go from there. >> thank you chairman.

ranking member and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the government accountable office's high-risk list as it pertains to irs operations. i'm delighted to note that one of our programs, business systems modernization, was removed from the list in 2013 after being on the list since 1995. its removal came about because of the advances the irs has made over many years and addressing weaknesses in information technology and financial management capabilities. turning now to tax enforcement, the gao has identified this as a high-risk area because of the size of the tax gap and difficulty over time in narrowing that gap. the most recent irs study of the tax gap released in 2012 found that the tax gap was $385 billion for tax year 2006. the irs is preparing a new study of the tax gap that covers tax year 2010 and will be based on audits done between 2008 and

2010. we expect this report to be released in the first quarter of 2016. one of the key findings from our ongoing research on the tax gap has been that the compliance rate is very high for income that is subject to information reporting. income subject to third-party reporting is underreported only about 8% of the time. that number jumps to 56% for income that is not subject to any third party reporting or withholding. another thing we've learned from our research is that the biggest portion of the tax gap involves the underreporting of business income by individual taxpayers which totalled $122 billion in 2006. the evidence is clear that the lack of reliable and comprehensive reporting and with loeld holding on this type of income is the main reason for such a high level of underreporting. a good example of our recent efforts to improve compliance in this area involves the legislative requirement for electronic payment processors,

credit card companies, to send us inferring from business credit card receipts on a new form 1099k. the first 1099ks were filed in 2012 for transactions in 2011. i am pleased to report we are beginning to see positive impacts on compliance from this new program provided by the congress. programs such as 1099-k reporting are useful not only because they help the irs to collect the correct amount of tax, but also because they encourage voluntary compliance. and the importance of voluntary compliance cannot be overstated. a 1% increase in the level of voluntary compliance brings in about $30 billion and actually in tax receipts. even with these and other efforts, i would note that it is not possible poto eliminate the tax gap completely. getting to 1 00% tax compliance would require a huge increase in audits and significantly greater third party reporting and withholding than we have now.

realistically that wouldn't work because the strain on workers and resources would be far too great. our budget situation represents a very serious challenge to our ability to keep making progress on this front. in order to absorb required reductions this year, the irs has taken a number of difficult steps, including the loss through attrition, of about 1,800 key enforcement personnel. that translates into fewer audit and collection cases and we estimate the government will lose $2 billion in revenue that otherwise would have been collected. additionally, reductions in our funding have forced us to make cuts in taxpayer service. this is also troublesome because if we can't provide the services taxpayers need to fulfill their tax obligations voluntary compliance will suffer. this concludes my statements and i would be happy to take your questions. >> thank you. >> thank you, chairman ranking member and members of the committee. appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss couple of the areas of high risk identified by gao specifically

supply chain management and weapons acquisition. the department of defense has made measurable progress in addressing these areas as well as areas of contract management and infrastructure. the department is dedicated towards improving our supply chain and acquisition processes to ensure effective support for our war fighters and value to the american taxpayer. supply chain management and weapons system acquisition are complex areas that by their nature entail some level of risk. we develop and field the best weapons systems in the world and our capability is unparalleled as demonstrated in the last 13 years of war. however, due to the scale and complex imtity of these functions inside the department of defense, there will be some deficiencies. therefore we must continually strive to improve. today the dod supply chain is simultaneously sustaining forces in afghanistan supporting the war on isil and completing the mission to control ebola. at the height of operations in

afghanistan we provided 1.1 million gallons of fuel and 435,000 meals a day, delivered medical supplies construction materials and spare parts to sustain our combat power at record levels of readiness. dod manages over 5 million items valued at over $90 billion. our actions to improving inventory performance while maintaining overarching focus of reducing risk to our war fighters have produced substantial results that have been acknowledged by gao. since 2010, dod has been implementing our xree lensive inventory management improvement plan. since 2012 we've reduced government managed inventory by $14.4 billion. the first redid ux in government inventory since the '90s. implementing a new forecasting methodology which is producing improved material availability decreased back orders and reduced procurements. with that said, there's more work to be done on improving our supply chain performance and we remain focused on doing so.

second area of high risk that i want to address is weapons system acquisition. it is important to recognize that the weapons system acquisition process has provided the united states with dominant military capabilities. the rise of foreign capability, coupled with our ongoing combat operations, global commitments and reduced budgets is jeopardizing our technological superior or the. our weapons system acquisition process must deliver needed combat capability to our war fighters as effectively as possible. our program for continuous process improvement in this area that we call better buying power or bbp is focused on that goal. gao has their own concern as what okay significance area will cost in schedule and growth. under bbp the department sets and enforces affordability caps on all major weapons systems. we are trashgcking performance to track compliance. bbp drives active engagement between the acquisition and

requirements leadership that would be the operator that uses the weapons system, during weapons systems development to ensure that requirements associated with program address the war fighter needs in a cost-effective, affordable way. we revised our principal acquisition policy which formally institutionalizes bbp and the improvements resulting from the weapons system acquisition reform act. including emphasis on systems engineering, cost analysis and testing. in addition to the actions already mentions we are formally measuring our own performance. the first two annual reports on the performance of the defense acquisition issue system have provided data that the department is using to increase the performance of the acquisition process and gao is also using those reports. in summary, dod will continue to work with the gao to address the underlying root causes that have resulted in our high-risk designation. we are, and continue to be

focused on removing ourselves from these lists by correcting our deficiencies. for the benefit of our war fighters and the taxpayer. thank you for the opportunity and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. mr. mcwilliams. >> thank you, chairman. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the department of energy's efforts at improving our management of our capital asset projects. this is a topic of great importance to secretary moniz. dod manages some of the largest most complex and technically challenging projects in either the public or private sector due to its diverse mission. the portfolio of large projects undertaken by d.o.e. is unique not only from other projects in the public and private sectors but each d.o.e project is unique from other d.o.e. projects. these projects are truly one of a kind with uncommon challenges

such as handling radioactive conditions or producing extremely bright x-rays for nanoscience. in light of these challenges, d.o.e. has historically struggled with project and contract management and we have been on the gao's high-risk list since the list inception in 1990. we have made some important progress, however, that has been recognized by gao and others. in 2009 we were removed -- the gao removed the office of science from the high-risk list. and in 2013 gao again narrowed its d.o.e. focus to projects over $750 million in the department's office of environmental management and the national nuclear security administration. the department remains very focused on getting off this list entirely. to meet this challenge the secretary is instituting changes to improve departmental

performance on major projects. one of the first actions he took when he became secretary was to create an undersecretary for management and performance to focus specifically on improving project management and providing direct supervision of many of d.o.e.'s most challenging projects. in august 2013, the secretary also established a working group which he asked me to lead to conduct an in-depth analysis of project management. this working group was comprised of d.o.e.'s senior-most project management experts. we took a very comprehensive look at the challenges that d.o. 0689 o.e. opinions. the working group's findings were issued in a report which was released in december. that report you can find on our website at the departments of energy.

the report led to several recent implementation of several efforts to improve project management. first we strengthened the energy systems acquisition advisory board. we will now review all projects with an estimated cost of $100 million and up. used to be we only looked at $750 million and up. and the board which is chaired by the deputy secretary and comprised of the senior-most departmental officials will now meet at least quarterly and will focus on projects that are deemed to be at risk of not meeting their performance base lines. second we've established a new committee, the project management risk committee. this is comprised of the senior project managers who are the same folks that wrote the report that i just referenced. and that is providing risk assessment and advice to the department's senior leadership reviewing and analyzing projects before all critical decisions and baseline change proposals and providing peer reviews and

in-house consulting to projects across the department. finally, the secretary's taken a series of actions aimed at improving lines of responsibility and improving our peer review process. the department is improving accountability by ensuring that for each project, the appropriate undersecretary must now designate a clear owner whose budgetary and problematic responsibility. there must be a clear line of responsibility that extends from the undersecretary to the project owner to the federal project director. in addition where it doesn't exist already, each undersecretary is now establishing a project assessment office. the reforms and processes that we are instituting at d.o.e. with respect to project managements are critical steps to meet our solemn responsibility to be responsible storers of taxpayer dollars. we are encouraged by the work that's been done over the last year which has been focused on

affecting permanent structural and cultural change in the way that the department manages its projects. thank you. i would be pleased to answer your questions. >> thank you. members should be advised there is a vote on the floor. we have three votes. the intention is to have the next two gentlemen give their opening statements but we will not get to questions until after votes. so we anticipate that that will happy no sooner than 5:15. each of you two gentlemen have up to five minutes, but please be swift and your full statements will be entered into the record. doctor. >> thank you. thank you for the invitation to discuss the centers for medicare and medicaid services operation of these programs. we share this committee's commitment to protecting beneficiaries and taxpayer dollars and to preserving these programs for generations to come. cms appreciates the work of the gao. medicare is a large and complex program serving 54 million

beneficiaries and working with over 1.5 million providers. we pay over 1 billion claims per year from these providers. while the gao continues to classify medicare as a high-risk program, there is good news to report. the last two years saw the slowest growth in real per capita national health care expenditures on record. the 2014 medicare trustees report projects that the trust fund which finances medicare's hospital insurance coverage will remain solvent until 2030. four years beyond what was projected just last year. there are also promising improvements in the quality of care furnished to beneficiaries. initiatives have contributed to an estimated 50,000 fewer patients deaths in hospitals and 1.3 million fewer hospital acquired conditions. medical review strategies have resulted in over $5 billion of savingings in the last fiscal year. cms is working to transform medicare into a high-value payer

with payments based on quality not just volume. we remain focused on preventing waste and fraud before it occurs. these issues are not merely about cost. they threaten bushry health through substandard care dangerous prescribing as a host of other problems. since 2011 cms has used its fraud prevention system to apply advanced analytics in all medicare fee for service claims. the system also incorporates beneficiary complaints made through 1-800 medicare and works with numerous other inpitsuts to prioritize leads for investigation. as we recently reported to congress, our advanced analytic system has already generated a 5-1 return on investment. another component of our efforts is to strengthen provider enrollment by verifying legitimacy of new or existing medicare providers through a risk-based approach. we are screening those that pose highest risk to the program

using routine data checks of licensure and criminal records scheduled and unscheduled site visits and fingerprinting. as a result we have removed over 450,000 medicare enrollments since 2010 and, importantly, denied thousands of enrollment applications which means that these providers never gained the ability or lose the ability to bill the medicare program. these unprecedented examples of success have been positively acknowledged by gao. additionally we are engageing with the private sector in new ways to better share information and transform insights into action. the health care fraud prevent partnership is currently made up of 38 private, federal and state members and continues to gain membership. the partnership has completed studies that led partners to take substantive actions. the president's fy 16 budget cloedz a proposal to allow both public and private partners to support this partnership by providing funds. beyond the partnership, cms has made important project in

integrating proven private sector tools in our operations, including prior authorization and the use of automated prepayment claims ed ditz. these initiatives net hundreds of millions of dollars in savings every year. finally cms is focused on moving the medicare program away from the misaligned incentives like paying for the number of the tests performed instead of paying for are quality and outcomes. cms is testing different payment models where providers have financial incentives to coordinate care for their patients. for the first time hhs has also set explicit goals for this work. cms has a goal of tying 30% of fee for service medicare payments to quality alternative payment model through 2016 and tying 50% by 2018. as a physician myself i ultimately care most about the health of patients which i am reblinded of daily as i work with cms colleagues to improve

the delivery of health care services. our system should deliver the highest quality and most appropriate health care possible. i look forward to answering this committee's questions. thank you for the time. >> thank you. mr. lightfoot recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. appreciate the opportunity to appear today to discuss nasa's efforts to improve acquisition management. nasa develops missions and capabilities to expand frontiers of knowledge, capability and opportunities in space and here on earth. by the very flatnature of our mission, nasa's activities are inherently of high risk. at the same time we realize critical importance of managing our projects as effective stewards of taxpayer dollars. this means managing our projects to deliver them on cost, on schedule and identifying risk as quickly as possible to implement appropriate corrective action. we've made significant improvements both in managing our projects and preparing our management. these improvements are already yielding results particularly with our small and medium class missions. we have seen a significant reduction in the number of

projects that exceed their baselines. in fact, several projects recently lost within their baselines, including juneau and and two weeks ago the soil moisture active passive mission or smap. our larger projects typically involve the development of significant new technologies which present greater technical risk. even the james webb space telescope which was originally confirmed in our old cost policy and exceed t its original baseline has benefitted from the improved process. the telescope has remained on track to meet the new cost in accordance with the new policy three years ago. nas kah cost policies have evolved over time. this joint confidence level analysis enables nasa to estimate the probability of completing a the project within a certain life cycle cost and

schedule base on the project technical and parameteric characteristics. a key benefit to the joint confident level policy is the added rigger to the process driving analysis, of cost and technical risk. nasa also takes step to enhance the earn value magnet capenagement capabilities. nasa routinely review t at formal regular recurring meetings at the project the center the mission and agency level as well as in ad hoc meetings should issues arrive. the knowledge we gain with each new process in order to improve project management praktds and introduces new tools to ensure projects are on schedule. i would like to thank the gao for their hard work and insights. we appreciate the open dialogue we've had with them over the last few years as we've worked to improve and refine our project management capabilities.

as a result and while i think there is a lot of work do i'm confident we're on the right track to improving program management in nasa. thank you for opportunity. look forward o your questions. >> thank you yeah with the vote on the floor. the committee will stand in recess. when votes conclude we'll continue. and thank you again for all your patience.

>> the house over site and government reform committee holding an afternoon on government waste and assessing the high risk list that has been released. the committee now in a break as the house is in a series of votes on the floor. the house voting on a procedural

measure ahead of a final passage vote on the keystone xl oil pipeline. the senate measure approving the construction of that oil pipeline. while we wait for the hearing to resume we'll get -- learn more about the keystone xl oil pipeline. we spoke to capitol hill reporter for a look at where that issue heads next. >> manuel has been covering it. it's back in the house. what changes we are made in the u.s. senate? >> they added several amendments including energy efficiency provisions that have been floating around capitol hill for the past couple years. and added language encouraging lawmakers, not mandating, to close a loophole that does require oil sands producers to play into the 2 trust fund. and also added that climate

change is real and not a host. the senate did not agree to amendments saying that climate was man made. but they added the small change that caused some controversy but it doesn't appear to be causing controversy over here in the house. instead of going to a conference committee t house just decided to take the senate language, approve it and send it onto the president. the goal really is to send it to the president as soon as they can. >> and it was passed handily in the house last time, correct. >> oh yeah. almost 30 democrats agreed to it in the house last tienl. and it looks like the numbers are going to say relatively the same. it doesn't seem like they have lost any republican support. and it also doesn't seem like the amendments they passed in the senate will add any new democrats over here. it will be pretty much the same. >> congressman mike kelly from pennsylvania tweeted the bipartisan bill to build the keystone pipeline will soon be sent to prosecuteesident obama's desk.

the president has issued a veto threat. assuming he follows through what is the word on the house and senate will vote on overriding it. >> there seemz to be almost no chance the president will not carry out his veto threat. at fist he was ambiguous about it. but then the white house and its messages were strong the would veto it. so it's expected just days after congress sends to it him he will veto it. the question has been asked whether congress has enough votes to override and there was some talk of it. but it doesn't seem they are going to have the supermagenta supermajorities to override it. so a possibility is that supporters have talked about is including it in another must pass bill down the road. >> you were writing in an piece in environment and energy daily about where the administration is on this. so they have moved through with the state department environmental review. that's been done. what is left to do on the administration side? >> it seems the administration has been taking years on this and now we're at the point where

they are really, really apparently speeding up to finish the review. the agency, different agencies in the administration had until last week i believe to comment on the final environmental documents and to say whether they agreed or disagreed with the state department approving the pipeline. now that they have those comments in it is for the state department to issue a recommendation. and then ultimately president obama has said he'll make up his mind as to whether or not to permit keystone. some were expecting the decision within weeks. but the state department gave news it east really in no thour make up t is mind. >> manuel kinon nrkskquinonez. thank you for update. >> thanks. >> and the house is now in a

series of votes on final passage on the senate measure approving construction of the keystone xl oil pipeline. back live here in the raburn house office building where the house over sooigt and government reform committee taking a sbreek members can go to vote for the keystone xl pipeline. the government accountability earlier today presented the high risk list and the committee heard from the gao's comptroller general. and when the committee resumes work this afternoon, members will begin questions the irs commissioners. nasa's associated administrator and others regarding waste and inefficiencies. again, our live coverage will continue here on c-span3.

>> the president gave statement to congress sent a request to congress to authorize military force against islamic state militants. also virginia senator tim kane and adam schiff spoke are reporters about the president's request for the authorization to use military force. senator kane calling the president's action long overdue. as this break in the hearing continues we'll show you their briefing with reporters. >> the president's submission to congress of the draft authorization today makes me basically have three things to tell you before i introduce adam schiff. point one, thank goodness final. thank goodness finally. six plus months into a war against isil. a war that is necessary against isil for their brutality. thousands of air strikes into the war. sizable expenditure of american dollars. three deaths of service members

in support of this operation. long after any timelines under the war powers resolution of 1973 have expired. finally we're at the point where congress is going to take seriously its most solemn obligation. we don't do anything more serious than engage in war. and the most somber and grave responsibility congress has is having to debate on authorizing it. so those who serve know that they are serving with the support of america's political leadership. and so finally here we are today. finally trying to put the horse before the cart. i'm sad that it's taken us so long. i'm still a little mystified but it is very good we're here and i this thank the white house for sending this proposal to congress as it indicated it would. as the president indicated he could in the state of the union speech. two, i see things in the proposal i like. congressman schiff and i both introduced resolutions in september shortly after the president spoke to the nation on the evening of september 10th

proposing this authorization knowing that congress needed to play this critical role. my september resolution, a version of which was passed by the foreign relations committee in the senate in december included a sunset. that is a really important piece. i think we've learned a lesson from the authorizations of '01 and 2 that 23 you do something like this and you don't put a time limit it can drift forever and be used in circumstances probably beyond what congress originally intended. i also really appreciate the president in this draft repealing the 2002 aumf. in my view the cites of the earlier one seemed way too much of a stretch and they suggest authorizations that are not repealed can float around in space and be grabbed on to and used in ways probably not within the contemplation of the congresses when they were

passed. so i think the repeal of the 2002 iraq aumf is very appropriate and i appreciate the president putting that in. so i thank the white house sending this to us. i see some things i like. i also have some concerns. not surprisingly. and concerns that will be hashed out in the committee process. i serve on the foreign relations committee in the senate and i'm sure everybodyoncerns. some about the draftsmanship but some more particularly about the very complicated ma nature of the megs mission. and we'll use the procedure to get at those concerns. i'm concerned about the breadth and the vagueness of the ground troop language. the limitation against enduring offensive ground combat operations suggesting that all defensive ground combat operations are okay. since everybody works for the department of defense allowing defensive actions without any additional explanation is pretty broad. and enduring is also a term that

is not defined. so that raises some concerns for me. the fact that the language is different than the language the president used on september 10th and during the state of the union. we just need to dig into why that is and we need to ask questions about it and provide some clarification. and i think we will work to do that within the committee. second this is a very complicated military mission. as complicated as it is on the iraq side of the border it is even more complicated on the syria side. and i think all acknowledge that. the president and everybody. i suspect you will see real significant discussion about the phasing of the mission and the different challenges that arise in iraq and syria. we'll get into that with administration witnesses. and finally a concern. not a draftsman shich concern but a concern about the mission. what are the roles that regionally partners are playing in this battle. i returned recently with a visit to a number of senators to the

saudi arabia qatar and israeli where we really probed into what our regional partners doing. last week we had a really sad visit with king abdullah. he was here and just happened to be here on the day where the jordanian pilot was burned. and such a horrible thing which demonstrated along with so many other instances why isil is a threat we have to take seriously to the point of using military action. king abdullah was very blunt. he said this is not primarily your fight. it is ours. it is a terrorism born and bred in this region. a terrorism that is justified by mooem people who are not practicing zloom but claim it as the mantle. and it is up to us who do believe in this religion to speak out strongly. and if we're all in for it, then rust yes the u.s. should help and help vigorously.

but it is not the u.s.'s fight and you have a right to expect the regional nations most directly effected by isil are not just saying ner part of a coalition but demonstrating to the fullest extent they can that they are going to battle this terrorist threat within the region to defeat it. and i think you will see a lot of us in the hearings exploring. after six months, you know, whose participating in vigorous wayis. and who to be true to their problem populations and protestations should be asked do a lot more. because we can provide vigorous military assistance to a regional effort to police the threat. but with we can't police a region that won't police himself. let me introduce adam schiff. now the ranking democrat on the house intelligence committee and his leadership on this in the house has been critical to getting to this state. but he has also offered me at lot of good advice along the

way. if and for that i thank him. >> this is something we've been pushing for half a year. long overdue but we're happy this moment has come. for a long time we felt her in the wilderness. now we're no longer in the wilderness but we still have a very hard job ahead of us. still i'm grateful to the white house that the white house took the time to propose text to us. we're in the long dilemma where the leadership wanted the president to go first. the president can'ted congress to go first. it's our institutionalable responsibility to declare war, to authorize or not authorize warfare. and in the absence of the congressional action we set a pres sent for future administrations that they can move without congress. in terms of war making role a historical anak in anak nism.

anachronism. i appreciate some of the language in the authorization. tracks what we've been working on in terms of the three year statute of limitations that take it beyond this presidency, give the next president a year. if we're still in conflict with isil. i hope we won't be. but if we are that will give the new administration a responsible period of time to determine what it wants to ask for from the congress. but on that regard this is i think a very significant omission from this draft. and that is there is no limitation, no statute of limitations, on the original 2001 authorization. and i think that is a key problem. because in the absence of that, then when the new authorization expires three years from now, the next president will simply fall back in reliance on the old 2001 authorization. and in that respect the new sunset date will have very little impact. because the next president can rightly say i'm going to rely on

2001 just as president obama did. gives me every authority i need. i know that is not the administration's intention. it is this administration's intention this new authorization should serve not to broaden authority but as a limiting force. but the reality is without a sunset on the old authorization, it doesn't limit the -- this administration or the next in any appreciable manner. so i think that is a key issue. it is a key issue i think in the democratic caucus in the house. judging from the conversation we all had this morning. the other major issue is the language pertaining to ground troops, whichs very broad. very ambiguous. none office know what enduring offensive combat operations means. and deliberately, i think drafted to be ambiguous. for one thing, i guess the only thing we can safely assume is that whatever mission might be authorized in the future it won't be called "enduring freedom" or enduring anything. but that is not a religious. as a practical matter a

president could decide to surge 100,000 troops into syria for a period say of 18s months and claim this is not endureing because i put a time limit it on the. so it doesn't put much constraint on the administration. and the other thing is this authorization won't be the end of the word in terms of the president's responsibility or congress. if it turns out conditions change, if for example -- and one other issue is there is no geographic limit in this resolution. if the president should decide that we need to go after isil in libya or we need to go after boko haram there is nothing preventing this president or the next from coming back to congress. and i think there is more risk associated with an overly broad authorization than one that is too narrow since nothing precludes the president from coming back to us. so these i think are the key issues narrowing the language on

ground forces. and i think the good news on that front is when the president describes. of the administration describes what they want the thord to do we want to be able to do search and rescue. we want to be anyone to go after downed pilots. we want to be able to provide intelligence support. those are things that the congress on a bipartisan basis i think all support. so if we're able to draft it in a way that provides the president with the authority he wants but doesn't open the door to either this president or the next doing things wholly unintended, then i think we can find the common ground we need to. and the last thing i would say is what puts this in context for us is how these old authorizations have been interpreted. they have been interpreted very broadly. and so i think many of us are very conscience of wanting to make sure that this new authorization doesn't take on a life of its own the way the old ones have. and that will guide i think a lot of o our thinks in ermgs the of the policy debate that follows. >> please. >> i believe in the authorization that you sort of

crafted earlier in the year did not have a repeal for 2001? that is right? it just repealed 2002. so could you support an authorization that does not repeal 2001 and then sort of subsequently take care of that? >> adam and i are in complete agreement that we need to work on a significant revision of the 2001 aumf. but you are correct. the version i introduced in september and the version i voted for in the foreign relations committee -- i'm sorry. the version i introduced in september did not include the provision. the version i voted for in committee in december did include that provision. i strongly support the notion that we've got to do an additional refinement of the aumf. the president called for it in may f 2013. there's been some consultation about that. but we need to approach it with the sense of urgency. so whether that is expressed by including it in the authorization ray isil or

whether it's expressed by really ramping up the effort to revise that authorization. we need do one of those two things. i could -- >> you could see your yourself voting for an authorization that does not necessarily include -- >> yes. but i think this is something the president should do before the end of his term. >> you said that he said thank goodness, finally this has happened. how much time has been lost here do you think over these past six months in terms of the realization of something getting through this congress when you are saying it is too vague and too broad and senator mccain is saying that this ties the commander in chief's hands. realistically how long of a debate do you think we're looking at here? and is there a spirit of urgency that is needed? >> well i think there is now a spirit of urgency. more than speed, getting it right is important. so i want to do it asap.

but it is important to have the committee processes to air concerns and try to find common ground. i mean the good news is the white house no knows they have ab overwhelming bipartisan consensus that we need to be engaged in military action against isil. the death of kayla mueller and i can recite the atrocities in reverse order. since september it's even become more apparent we need to do it. now we need to approach it with a sense of urgency but put a premium on getting it right. i regret that its's taken us this long. the right way to do this is for congress to have the debate up front. absent imminent threat for the united states the right way is for president to present it to congress and have the debate up front. this is not the first time this has happened. in fact whether it's democrats republicans, wigs or federalists, we've seemed to allow presidents to over reach and congresses to abdicate.

but i come down to it's not just constitutional but a value proposition. if we're going to ask people to risk their lives and they're risking them every day then we augment to do our job. to make people risk their lives because we'd rather not be controversial. so now we're not ducking it. we're on it and it's really important. >> i'd add on that too. congress is the branch that's really lost over the last six months in not participating in. this now that the president has put before a very specific proposal, there is no excuse anymore for congressional inaction. so i would hope he'd bring all urgency to this. i think as a practical matter we're talking weeks. i hope we're not talking months. but congress can no longer shirk its responsibility. we have a draft before us. it is incoupleincumbent for us to

work on it. >> to that end in terms of congress' responsibility to act now the aumf has been sent. the political consequences in iraq are inmistakable. obama didn't vote for it. hillary did. it's shock waves even now. so how -- what is going to prevent your colleagues from doing what you don't want to do which is shirk on a real policy when they are going to have political concerns if this war on isis goes wrong? and they don't want to have been those who voted for it. and the second part is more substantive. so many of your republican colleagues think this is not far enough. if there is not an aspect that confronts assad that he will kill all the rebel wes train. where is the consensus on that? >> sure. there are still going to be

member that would rather not have to vote on this for the very reason you mention. these are the most kroerl controversial decisions we make. and i'm counting on the country holding our feet to the fire. it ought to be an issue for any office holder not just how they vote but whether they are willing to vote and call for objection on this. i think the dye is cast. i think we are going to take up a vote on this. and all of us are going to have to live with that final language. which is why we are going to give it great care and why particularly when it comes to issues like ground forces we are going to be very careful about what we're prepared to authorize. the only other point i would want to make on the language is that these are discrete issues geographic limitation, ground troops, associated forces. but -- sunsets. but there is an overlap to the issues.

in the sense that if you get a geographic limitation you might be more comfortable with a broader description of the ground forces, if you know that doesn't authorize ground forces in other nations for example. if you get a limitation on some of the old aumf, that may give you more comfort as well on some of the other issues. so there are enough variables here where we should be able to get to agreement. and i think the pressure is going to be simply too great on the congress to punt any further. >> yeah please right here. >> how do you manage the pressure from the administration to pass something like the one they sent up today? and consider what republicans are already saying which is this does not go far enough. this is tying the administration's hands. this is giving the enemy an idea of what our battle plan is. how do you manage the pressure from the administration and liberal democrats and

conservative republicans want? >> i still have faith the process is going to lead us to the right place. there are going all kind of the things the first day the administration is up here. and people are going to talk about the thing they don't like about it. and when we get into these hearings, i saw it in the syria debate in the foreign relations committee in august 2013. we really dig in to it. we ask penetrating questions of the administration witnesses both classified and unclassified settings. and then we find our way to an outcome. in that instance it was 2kw50i8ds a divided vote but not partisan. and what we voted on was different than the white house propose edd we did adjustments and amendments. i think the white house is expecting that. we got service men and women risking their lives every day and we hoip we feel it is that pressure that is on our shoulders as we address that. >> -- congress to leave ab imprint. ill seems we could be stuck for

a while at least on the house side of the passage of the 2u 18. interesting bedfellows between -- >> i think that is exactly right. there are going to be very strange bedfellows on this. i think there are a substantial number of more libertarian and whob uncomfortable with a broad authorization. i find it ironic to begin with that some of the same house and senate members who are so critical of this so called imperial president are read to make him one when it comes to war making and happy to give him carte blanche. i want to address one other point you make. and that is the argument that by defining when we use ground forces we are somehow telling the enemy what we are prepared to do. the reality is we have already expressed what our strategy is. what military operations weed undertake. what we want iraqi forces to do when he expect the peshmerga to

do. and providing language in authorization does change that. what i'd be more concerned about frankly is having either this president or the next embark on a campaign that has not achieved the buy in of the american people through the congress using an authorization for purpose that was wholly undend intend unintended and that is the greaters risk. >> i will say one thing on the ground troop issue. it's connected to my concern about are the regional partners really all in? if it ends up we have to put a lot of ground troops in what that tells me is the regionality partners who have ground forces and equipment. i know the u.s. has sold a lot of equipment. if we're all in it is because they are not standing up against the threat in their own region. and we have to be wary of that.

please. first row -- yeah. >> i have a question regarding, what is their to guarantee that given how difficult it's been for congress to get anything done at all, now that we're talking about as you say one of the gravest duties the congress has, talking about authorization for the use of the military force. what is there to guarantee anything will be passed particularly that the white house has a fallback measure in particular the 2001 aumf that they have been relying on all along? so they don't necessarily need congress to pass anything at a all. and why do you think the white house has left that in there? is it for a fail safe. >> there is no guarantee. but the white house had the vote in september. one thing that puzzled me about all of this is is the votes were there in september to authorize this military action. i know that because we did cast a vote on the hardest piece of it. which was the syria side of it.

in a resolution that we did in september before the midterm recess. and that is the you haveoughest piece of this. it was wrapped as part of a larger spending bill. so possibly people would say well that vote didn't mean anything. but i was watching people con front in notion in september. and the bipartisan support was there then and if anything the events in september have demonstrated to all of us even more the danger of isil unchecked and the ability of the united states to make a difference. we made a difference with the air strike campaign, particularly in iraq. so that would be my sense. there is no guarantee. but the votes were there and i think they are still is there. in the back row. and i'll come back over here. >> >>. [speaking foreign language] >> >>.

[speaking foreign language] [speaking foreign language] >> did you say anything to him that you didn't say to us?

>> it's funny. >> i wanted to follow up on an earlier question. of you talks yesterday with administration officials. how much sense did you get that there is a give and take here? how far is the administration, you know, willing to go when you talk about adding restrictions adding parameters, adding can bes to-- conditions to any authorization? >> i think there is a real willingness on the white house part to negotiate this. they strongly want an authorization. and this gets to their part too. the administration feels and quite rightly that it's important that congress have a buy-in. that the american people similarly have a buy-in through congress. right now this restes on the president's shoulders and shoulders alone. i think they want authorization. and trying to gauge what can navigate through this process. one thing i think the administration doesn't want -- and i'm sympathetic to this. they don't want an authorization so narrowly drawn that if they

find it necessary to gou outside the confines tofr authorization and rely on the article two power or the old authorization, they don't want to be seen as acting ununlawfully or even have that debate. and that is a legitimate concern for the administration. so they are going to want to be bound by what we come up with here vis-a-vis isil. where i have a little less sympathy for the white house is i don't feel this is constraining as it's written. i think it's quite carte blanche in terms of geography, offensive forces, etc. and there are i think we're going to have to have a lot of work on that. but the other part is that, you know, i think they want this to be broadly bipartisan. i don't think they would like to see a resolution that has prapsz overwhelmingly gop support with a smattering of democrats. and they are not likely to get the opposite in a congress controlled by the gop so i think

they do want broad support. >> senator you have been asking for this on the heavy siefd of the six months. clearly the administration didn't come to this quickly. what do they tell you about what's changed now? what's different now than back when you started asking? >> you know that is a question to ask the white house. dy do know this. i wrote my first op ed of this in june of 2013. isil was moving a across big chunks of syria and iraq as well. and there was a meeting at the white house where they came out and went to the mic and said democrat republican house senates. mr. president you have all the authority you need. you don't need to bother to come to us. and that frankly offended my sensibilities. in lukeooking a 01/02 aum fsfs i was hoot nowhere. i look at the words that congress passed and i didn't

think either authorization justified this. so i wrote, you know, at that point in june. and i said if you are going to do this, and it looks like we'll have, come to us. so, you know, as i look at why it took so long, i'm frankly kind of where adam is. i think more of the timing delay goes congress's shoulders than the administration. >> you can watch all of this a on our website. now back live to the hill where the committee is continuing on government waste and inefficiencies. live coverage. >> mr. meadows for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you each of you for being incredibly flexible today. really i guess the underlying concern that i have is as we have -- are celebrating the 25th anniversary is we've got to figure a way to get off of the high risk list. it is not a very high benchmark. you know, really if you look at

the components of that it is just making a real concerted effort. and so i'm looking forward to each one of you putting together a plan to make sure that we can do that. doctor, let me come to you. i sent you a text. and i want to complement you -- actually sent you an e-mail. i want to compliment you on the fact that on a weekend you responded via e-mail. which was shockingly, surprisingly -- surprising. and i just want to say thank you. do you have the automatic reenrollment numbers that i've been requesting from cms? have they given those to to. >> thanks for the question. and happy to be accessible whenever you need. the answer is i think we're still working on it. you know, that is part of the agency obviously that i don't have direct over sooigt over. my understanding is you have had numerous concentration conversations with the ceo of the marketplace. and they are working on those

numbers. i think obviously as you know our focus is getting the numbers out to you and the public but making sure they are accurate when we do. >> what you are saying is you have not seen the numbers for the automatic reenrolt. you have never seen any totals? >> i have not. enrollment en >> it is my understanding we don't have those numbers and we've been trying 60 days. any reason why it would take that long? >> it's just confirming the numbers are numbers we can stand behind making sure they are good numbers that ought to be released. again i believe staff at cms are in touch with your staff and -- >> we've been in touch. they have not really been in touch from a follow-up. it is amazing to me that we can have the response time for those that -- and we down to the

second or tenth of a second. and we can't get numbers from cms. when can we expect them? >> i don't have a time line. >> all right. let me go on further. let's look at medicare. you're going from 14,000 liendsnes of code to 68,000 -- >> talking about icd 10. >> nine to ten. so we're going to different codes. so doctors and hospitals putting in the wrong code will come out as an improper payment or fraud is that correct? >> not necessarily. >> or improper payment. >> it may. >> why would we go from 14,000 codes to 68000 codes? how could that make it more efficient. >> >> well first let me say the agency is adopting these codes that are actually established

out of agency processes and with the input of the provider community. in fact it was really the provider community searching for specificity in the ability to really define exactly what they were seeing in the -- >> so they get the payments they wanted. >> that they could get perfectly reimbursed. >> let me ask you. i went through and looked at your codes. we've codes now that one in particular says if you unexpectedly are missing your big toe. unexpectedly missing a big toe gets a code. there are six different codes for squirrels. i mean so if a squirrel bites you. if it is a first time or second time. if it scratches you. do you not see that we've got unbelievable lines of codes that more codes will not make it more efficient? >> i -- >> there is one code in here for spending too much time in a freezer. i mean, it is incredibly ridiculous. and loo let me tell you.

the physicians that i talked to in the hospitals i talked to are spending millions of dollars in compliance trying to figure out your codes. and yet we're going to increase those four fold? yold you why would you do that. >> and i believe there is a code for a orca attack as well. i don't imagine -- >> is a mouse a rodent? >> pardon me? >> is a mouse a rodent. >> i assume it is. >> but you have a different code for a rodent than a mouse. and what i'm saying it is so complicated. you make it so complicated that nobody can comply. >> i think to be clear though the agency is a recipient of the icd 10 just as other agencies -- >> but you are in control of that, are you not? on implementing that? your program integrity? >> no there are numerous parts of the agency. we are actually required to implement icd 10.

i realize the congress has delayed plejs of delayed implementation of that requirement. at some point we are required to implement icd 10. and the code design itself is not something cms is engaged in. it is designed to improve epidemiological information of the administrative data to make sure it reflects what is going on in the world. i don't necessarily disagree with your point. but i think we are as much recipient of icd 10 as other agencies implementing it across the world. >> my time's expired. i yield back. >> thank the gentlemen. recognize mr. cummings for five minutes. >> doctor, thank you for appearing today. they have taken a number of new nicheinitiatives to reduce fraud and

improper payments. i'm concerned how they work. the aca requires increased scrutiny of providers and suppliers who have historically posed a higher risk of fraud or abuse. this heightened screening process applies to providers and suppliers that are attempting to either newly enroll in the medicare program or revalidate their participation. can you describe the different risk-based screening level designations and the various requirements that providers and suppliers in each category are subject to? >> sure. so provider categories by provider type essentially are subdivided among three risk categories:limited, medium and high. and as you go up the chain of risk more screening strategies and approaches are implemented to screen providers, again, whether they are newly enroll or revalidating. at the highest level of risk, say a newly enrolling company or

home health agency, there are automated background checks performed. that really are performed for all provider types to ensure adequate licensure lack of relevant criminal background or felony record that would keep a provider out of program. but in addition the highest risk providers face site visits, fingerprint based background checks. so a multitude of different screening approaches for the highest risk providers. and that also includes providers who are attempting to reenroll after having a program integrity action taken against them in the past. the result of all of this work -- and to date we have revalidated over a million of the million and a half providers and suppliers enrolled in medicare. and the totality of all of this work on both newly enrolling and revalidation is that we have removed the billing privileges of over 450,000 enrollments in medicare to date. and i can tell you that these new enrollment requirements are also allowing us to deny more

applications at the front end so providers actually never make it into the program because they do not qualify. >> that is what i was about to ask you. so opposed to chasing money you do some preventive things is that right? >> i they athink a lot of our work solidly lands in the preventive category. it really is designed to keep folks out of the program that don't belong. so if we conduct a site visit and determine a you are non operational provider you never make it into the program. or if we check your record and licensure and determine you are not appropriately licensed are have a felony conviction that would keep you out of the program, then indeed we deny your enrollment application. >> let me ask about the agency's demonstration program on power mobility devices. how does the agency's prior authorization demonstration for power mobility devices complement cms's program

integrate efforts? >> one of the central challenges in the improper payment rate is that there is a disconnect between the medical record documentation that underlies a medical service or, you know indicates what happened over the course of that medical interaction. and then the claim that comes into cms. essentially the bill for that interaction. what prior authorization does is allows us to ensure medical necessity requirements and documentation requirements are met on the front end before the service is even offered to the beneficiary. the general understanding is to take a very risk-based approach. the demonstration was implemented around power mobility devices first. we are actually -- we put out a proposed rule that would look to expand that to other high cost splice. and there are elements that look to expand it to things like hyperbaric oxygen and scheduled ambulance transportations. but all of it is the same

principle which the private sector uses every day of evaluating the service before it's even provides, determining it's okay and then the beneficiary gets the service and the provider gets paid. >> is the beneficiary adversely effected? >> i think that is a really important aspect of this. by checking on the front end before the service is provided that the documentation is appropriate and that medical appropriateness and necessity are there, it prevents the beneficiary from unnecessarily or potentially being on the hook for a denied claim. so the service was never provided. that way neither the provider is on the hook for a service they provided but then not getting paid for and the beneficiary is not on the hook for having received a service the provider is not going to then get paid for. >> thank you. >> thank you. gentlemen yields back and we recognize the gentlemen from tn tb. >> thank you. mr. chairman. just today the hill newspaper says in an article "before

signing on to increase pentagon spending to highest level every r ever congress should insist on serious effort to identify and address wasteful spend beingty pentagon. among major agencies the pentagon is the only one never to smith letsubmit o are let alone pass a full audit. leaders have requested to step up production of the f-35 proven to be a massive drain on resources with no end in sight. .7.5 sunk in if fiscal 2014 alone with massive cost over runs and egregious acquisition failures." over the years i've read so many articles about waste at the pentagon. and i sometimes wonder if there are any fiscal conservatives at the pentagon. but what do you say -- how much -- do you have any estimate as ho how much we've spend on the f-35 so far?

and are you concerned about this article that the in the hill today that talks about wasteful spending by the pentagon? >> thank you for the question congressman. first we're always concerned about any wasteful spending at the pentagon. and we have a number of processes in place to address spending in general. including looking at our over head functions and acquisition processes. let me address the f-35. i don't have the number total spent to date. costs per plane is gone down blow estimations since it was rebaselined in 20u102010. it's actually producing a pretty good airplane. and i think the f-35 is stuck on old news. >> you are the principal deputy for acquisition. and do you have any rough guess as to how much we've spent on the f-35 thus far?

a wild rough guess? i'm going to have to get you that for the record. >> you don't know. >> it goes back to 2004, congressman. >> right. all right. dr. agrawal i met last week with hospitals from east tennessee. and they told me many hospitals in tennessee are either going to have to close or about to go under or probably end up being sold to some big out of state kompgss s corporations because of the unfairness in their medicare wage index. and they said that the system that cms has now rewards very expensive inefficient hospitals and penalizes hospitals that have held their costs down or that have continually lowered their costs. have you looked into this? the difference between what hospitals are being paid say in san francisco or in comparison

to tennessee or mississippi or places like that it is just almost unbelievable. these hospitals are being paid twice as much for some of -- mostly the same type of work. what can you tell me about that? are you -- is cms looking into this? or concerned about these huge discrepancies at all? >> yeah, i appreciate the question. we do have processes for hospitals and other providers to engage us in terms of wage discrepancies like that. i can tell you that we have a very proactive approach to, say the misvalued codes with i know exist and reevaluating those codes, ensuring that our coding approach and reimbursement approach is really paying for valuable services that taxpayers expect, that we all want the program to provide. so there is i think the core message is there is a process for doing that. and we're happy to engage with hospitals and other providers on these kind of questions. >> well i'll tell you this. i don't have much time left.

but years ago a hospital administrator in a small town in tennessee told me. he said if you don't have hospitals, you don't get doctors. and if you don't get doctors you don't get people. and there are many rural hospitals that are really struggling in this country today because of these discrepancies between what they are getting in comparison to some of the very wasteful very inefficient big city hospitals. and i think that is something that you really need to take a look at. because it is very unfair. and i could give you all kinds of statistics about that i won't bother with that today but it is going to be a very serious problem in my state. thank you very much mr. chairman. >> we're recognizing members based on seniorita when ed ond on seniorfyty when we gavelled in. mr. mull vainy next. >> thank you mr. chairman. this is my first hearing. and when i sat down to do the research only the gao report i

already got sidetracked and i want to talk to you about other things. one of the things i found in the research was the report that i think just came about today in fact it's just being reported today that your agency is reporting that the tax refund fraud will be $21 billion this year. that is up about 300% from just a couple years ago. and that number stunned me. just out of curiosity i think it is more than we spend on the entire department of agriculture. you can run the treasury, judiciary, the sec, the spa and your irs with that money. and still have a couple of billion dollars leftover. mr. estevez i could by 140 f-35s on just about what we're going to lose this year in tax refund fraud. you can run south carolina for three years on that. and that is just the tax refund fraud. that research led to the research i want to ask you about. which is your testimony last

week before the senate. where mr. grassley. senator grassley asked you questions about the impact within the internal revenue code and within your department of what the president has done on executive amnesty. i think you went back and forth with senator grassley and he asked you about people who are benefitting from the amnesty, claiming the earned income tax credit in arrears for up to three years. you remember that testimony with senator grassley? >> i do. >> and i don't know if we established what that would cost? have you had a chance to figure what the total cost of that program would be? >> i have not. but before i get there i don't know where the 31 billion in refund fraud came? >> 21 billion. >> as gao testified, we stopped last year about 16 billion with the refund fraud and only 5 billion is our estimate which went through. which is still a big number and we're worry abdomen butout. but it isn't $21 billion going

out the door. now with the question you asked earlier, to be eligible for the earned income tax credit you have to work. it is in earned income tax credit. >> correct. >> to be able to apply you have to have a social security number. >> okay. >> so if you are there are there are we have about 700,000 out there illegal immigrants who are paying taxes but not eligible to apply. >> but several million of them will get social security numbers under the new program. >> and if you get one and you work you will be eligible. you will get an amount depending on your situation. if you are an individual working and applying the maximum you can get will depend -- it's been the range of 5 or $600. >> let's drill down on this a little. because there was apparent lack of clarity in the interpretation of what you said in the senate. i want to clear this up. is the earned income tax credit

only going to be available to illegal immigrants who filed taxes privacy lytax s previously or available to all who received new social security numbers under the new program. >> there was a lack of clarity about that. if you get as social security number you can then file. and if you earned three years before that you will be eligible. and if you did not file you would have to file a return and demonstrate with the same information everybody else that you were in there and were eligible. there was some assumption that you would get the earned income tax credit automatically whether you were working or not. >> so so it will be available to everyone working even if they didn't file in the previous three years. >> that is my understanding yes. >> and you have no idea how much this is going to cost. >> i don't know home people are going to get social security -- >> did white house not ask you the estimate that? >> i haven't talked to to the white house about this at all.

>> did anyone at the white house ever consult with your office before they issued the executive orders that gave rise to the executive amnesty. >> they didn't consult with me and to my knowledge anyone else. i'm not aware of any consultation. >> are you aware that if if we were to do what the president did by legislation, that he did by executive order, that we would have to get an estimate of what exactly what you are and i are talking about here today. >> from the joint committee -- >> or cbo. >> yes sir. >> so if we did the same we would have to know the answer to that question. but the president doesn't have to know the answer before. >> he may know the answer. he wouldn't necessarily come to us the get the answer. he would go to omb. >> did he ask for about any increase in the risk of fraud? >> we had no conversations with the white house i'm aware of. i certainly personally have not talked -- i've never talked to the white house about any of this. >> thank you mr. koskinen. i appreciate that. >> we now recognize the

gentlemen from ohio mr. jordan. five minutes. >> i thank the chairman. and wanted to talk about the irs targeting of conservative groups and frankly the pattern of deception and delay we've seen in this administration. and would just remind you don't take my word for it. just yesterday in the "the hill." front page. feds won't release irs documents. take the editor of the hill's word. talking about the deception and delay from this administration. i think it is important we remember the whole saga here. february 2012, louis lerner told this staff there was no targeting going on. turbid out turned out to be a lie. march --. then told the ways and means he can give assurance there is no targeting going on. also a false statement. may 2013 when lois lerner went from front of the bar association here in d.c. with a planted question. unprecedented. went before the inspector general, released a report.

and talked about the targeting by the irs of conservative groups. and i quote from -- remember she talked to treasury and the white house about cusack's article yesterday. and i quote then chief of staff mark pedderson talked about disclosing the targeting so the white house wouldn't be surprised by the news. pointed question, before the inspector general's report comes out, she discloses that, and the white house and the treasury already knew it was going on. then, of course we have miss lerner talking about cincinnati was a problem, and not washington. that was false. then the white house said it's a phony scandal no corruption, not even a smidgen. february 14th of last year, we subpoenaed you for all of lois lerner's e-mails. put up slide number one. just a few weeks later march 26th in this committee room the chairman of the committee mr. chafits asked this question,

yes, we'll do it. do you remember that conversation? >> you reminded me of it a couple of times. >> june 13th, you sent a letter saying, we lost lois lerner's e-mails, and the hard drive was destroyed and the tapes are destroyed. do you remember that? >> i do remember that. >> ten days after that letter was sent you came back to the committee room and i asked you specifically, what date did you learn you couldn't get all her e-mails? do you remember that conversation? >> i remember that conversation. >> and your response was, i learned in april. so my question to you is today will you admit that you misled this committee the u.s. congress, and more importantly, the american people just like miss lerner was doing will you

admit you misled the congress and american people? >> absolutely not. >> you don't think you misled them? >> no. you told mr. chafeits, and you learn in april -- that was in march. in april you learned you can't. and you wait two months to tell us and you don't think that's misleading the american people? >> i do not. we waited six weeks to tell you and we waited those times to find as many e-mails as we could. >> did you send the chairman a letter on march 26th yes, we will get you all of lois learnerer's e-mails. did you say, what i told you on march 26th is not true? >> i know we had several hearings. we said we would give you all the lois lerner e-mails and we gave you all we had. as i told you once before, we couldn't make up the e-mails. we gave you all the e-mails that we had. >> and then you write a letter

to the senate finance saying you lost them. you destroyed them. have you done anything to correct the record? >> actually we didn't lose them and destroy them they were lost in the period of time, in 2012 and when we testified in june, i testified that we waited the six weeks while we tried to provide you as much e-mails as we could. >> put up slide four. this is the letter you sent. you said you can confirm that no backup tapes existed. so you confirmed that you couldn't get us all her e-mails and you've done nothing to correct the record when you said you would give all of them to us. you waited two months before you ever told us that you lost them. >> we waited six weeks so we could provide you all the e-mails we could find. we provided you 24,000 e-mails from the time of her hard drive crash. they did not exist because they were re-recorded over. >> i have one more question, mr.

chairman. just in the last ten seconds, if i could. have you withdrawn the letter understanding that now we've been told that the e-mails are recoverable on the backup tapes, have you withdrawn the letter that you sent to senate finance where you confirmed that those tapes weren't there. and i bring this up, mr. chairman, because this committee has some experience with letters being withdrawn. and in 2011 the justice department, after making inaccurate statements regarding fast and furious, sent a letter to then chairman issa and said this. facts have come to light during the course of this investigation, that indicate the letter -- the february 4th letter contained inaccuracies. because of this, the department now formally withdraws the february 4th letter. so wa i want to know is, when are you going to be square with the american people and withdraw false and misleading statements you sent this committee, and more importantly the letter you

sent to the senate finance? are you going to withdraw that letter? >> absolutely 23409. we could have this argument a long time. we have spent untold amounts of money to try to extract the e-mails from the backup tapes. >> you said they didn't exist. >> if you go through my records -- >> will you withdraw the letter that had falsehoods in it, that's what i'm asking? >> there's no reason to withdraw that letter, i stand by that letter. >> the gentleman's time is expired. i now recognize the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. kaskanin tuesday of this week i did two town halls in my district. the same story came out in the "washington post" with the headline irs rehired hundreds of ex-employees troubled records,

came up. it came up from my constituents saying, why can we not get away with the same things that are recorded there? in the article, it indicated that between 2010 january and september 2013 the irs rehired 7,000 employees. a great jobs program. we're always delighted when people are employed. but the question comes from my people as to why over 800 of those 7,000 rehired irs employees were rehired with prior substantial employment issues. including 11 individuals who engaged in unauthorized access to taxpayer information. and that really discourages and frustrates my citizens. that these people, 11 of them who engaged in unauthorized access to taxpayer information, which is a crime, as we

understand it, were rehired. why? >> i'm sorry, the bulk of those employees are temporaries or seasonal hired for four to six, eight months a year, depending on the time. they should not be rehired. >> even though they committed a crime, why were they rehired? >> because the process at that point in time in 2009 to 2011 into 2012 followed the opm rules and regulations which in fact would have allowed those people who be rehired. we consolidated in 2012 all of those hiring issues into our personal security division. and i've made sure that if you have violated a section called 12 oh 2-b if you worked for the irs and violated that section, you will not be rehired. >> it still remains a concern, irs hired individuals with prior significant irs substantiated conduct and performance issues.

what are you doing -- i mean, this was subsequent to that. >> yes, sir. the ig in that report said that was all pursuant what the ig said, we should make sure that we make sure before we hire someone we've actually reviewed all of this. we now do that. we took the ig's recommendation. and i have talked with our personnel people since the ig started raising this issue, which i think is an important issue, in december, and to make sure that in this consolidation with the perm security people if you have violated 1203-b, which is willful violation of taxes, or access to taxpayer information, you won't be hired. >> let me proceed further then. i hope this is a general trend. the audit identified 141 individuals that were rehired that had a prior tax issue. with five of them having been found by irs management to have willfully not filed their taxes.

how many of these employees are still working? >> they're all seasonal employees, so i don't know a lot of them don't come back the next year. so i don't know how many of those there were. the 141 we take the requirement of irs employees to be tax compliant very seriously. our compliance rate is over 99%. we hold people accountable, even if their mistakes are inadvertent. even modest mistakes we count as not compliance. the five employees you mentioned to have found willfully not pay their taxes and violate the tax laws, those people are subject to termination. >> can you give information to this committee of the people we're referring to here, that are still employed? >> i will find the information. it's 141, if you had a minor attempt -- minor mistake, those you would get cited for, but those aren't basis for termination. the five you mentioned that had a willful violation finding, i will find the information and get it back to you. >> i appreciate that.

what about those, not the tax issue, but had substantial prior employment issues attendance issues, misrepresentation of what they were doing, if they were on the job. >> again as i say, the consolidation now, we have a personal security department that reviews every offer before it is made to make sure we've gone over all of that. some of that some personal activities are you didn't show up for work for two days. others are, you had a significant problem. we distinguish between those. and the opm rules are very clear about that that just because you had a performance issue in your file doesn't mean you can never work again for the irs. it depends on the nature and duration of the affair. but it's important for people, even though 80% of these people are temporaries and seasonals who don't necessarily work even for half the year. it is importan