recommendations to the congress where they could eliminate payments that are made by the disability program and where people can also collect unemployment insurance at the same time so they're getting double benefits and we don't think that that's prudent to be able to do that. there's also legislation -- >> let me stop you there because i got the sense you could go on long before i -- long beyond my five minutes. >> it's could. >> it's a target-rich environment. >> right, right. >> all those things i think could agree, all the members. >> in other words, there are no savings to be had. >> right, right. so is there a way, the way i read your report, it's sort of like when i was in local government, a civil grand jury, you know, how many of these recommendations have you actually implemented? so since that's our measurement, i just wonder, this is just an open-ended question, perhaps you could respond to at your leisure to me or the chair, is there a better measurement to get us

what we need to do in a friendly manner? because for instance, you give us partial credit for passing a bill, even though it doesn't become effectuated and signed into law. so just strikes me these measurements when you look at the executive branch is pretty clear, they have or have not or partially. with us, you get big advantages you say, so is there another way we can measure that more clearly so we in the general public can understand it? thank you, mr. chairman. >> i'll take a look at that. >> i thank the gentleman. the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. blum, for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman meadows. i would like to also thank the panel for being here today. appreciate it very much. mr. dodaro, nice to see you again. and i would like to commend you on the work that you do and the work that the gao does. it's very impressive. i'm a career businessman from the private sector. and i, for one, can appreciate what your department does. many times unsung, many times reports probably not read.

but i share mr. palmer's zest for reading your reports and i think it's extremely important to the taxpayers in this country, the job that you do. so, thank you very much. >> thank you for those comments. >> i'd like to as opposed to digging into the details today, if you and i could just go to the 60,000-foot level, i would appreciate that. i'd like to ask you a couple questions. i'm very interested. and i think my constituents are interested in your answers and the taxpayers are as well. first question, has the federal government, in your estimation, your opinion, grown so large, so big, that it cannot effectively, that's the key word, be managed any longer? because as a businessman, i see this time and time again. and i'm coming to the conclusion it's so large it can't be managed. what's your opinion of that? >> there are definitely challenges in this regard. some of the federal entities are

very large entities. department of defense, for example. irs is a large agency. hhs is huge. all three agencies represented today. but in my view there are good management practices that could be taken to effectively manage these departments and agencies but there are not consistently applied management practices that should be made that are made. and as a result, you don't have as good of effective management as you should to be able to do this. >> great point, great point. what needs to change? what needs to happen so that we apply management practices to this huge bureaucracy that we have here? what needs to change, in your estimation? >> yeah, no -- >> that's a very good point you raise. >> it's a fair question. i think part of the issue is there needs to be stronger congressional oversight over the process. you know when you think about it, the executive branch agencies, we're about ready to have this happen again.

every change in administration, you take out your top 3,000 political appointees and put all new people in there. in these agencies. there are vacancies that occur over time. nobody in the private sector would take your top-tier management all at once and move them out. >> correct. >> but that's part of our democracy and part of what happens. but congress has a role for continuity purposes, for confirming new people to lead these agencies. i think there has to be more attention by the executive branch on management capabilities and experiences of people who are put into these positions to manage them. that they have the right qualifications. they have the right experience. and that there needs to be proper oversight and stewardship by the congress to ensure that they effectively carry out their responsibilities. and the president needs to pay attention to management issues as well as policy matters when they come in to place. so this whole notion of

manageme management often gets a second-class status compared to policy orientations. and that's a fundamental problem that plagues a lot of agencies. >> we're going to spend nearly $4 trillion of our citizens' money next 12 months. what percentage do you think is ineffectively spent or is wasted due to things like duplication of services, due to waste, fraud, abuse? because strong america now estimates it's as high as 30%. in the federal government. what's your estimation? because you're here every day. you see it every day. you're in the belly of the beast, so to speak. >> yeah. right, right. it's hard to give you a good g figu figure, but here's the way i look at it, all right? the way i look at it is we have the latest estimates of improper payments was $137 billion for '15. since improper payments have been required to be reported by the congress, it's over $1 trillion in improper payments. so you have a lot of money going out the door that perhaps shouldn't be going out the door.

most of that is overpayments, not underpayments. you have the tax gap we talked about briefly earlier. $385 billion net tax gap according to the irs' last estimate. i'm anxious to see what the new figure will be when it's released. that's a lot of money that should be coming in the door that's not coming in the door. and the duplication, tens of billions of dollars in additional money could be saved. >> a billion here and there adds up, doesn't it? >> fast. >> and my last question to you is what do we need to do as a congress, as a government to help make gao, which i think is outstanding, by the way, more effective? >> well, we need -- >> what can we do? >> well, we need your support to implement our recommendations. i do that number one. most people in my position would say, give me more money. but i say implement our recommendations and work with us more. congress is a great partner with us. we don't have any enforcement authority at the gao. we can't compel people to implement our recommendations, but congress can. that's our enforcement approach.

>> my time is up. once again, i'd like to commend you on the great job that your organization does. and i yield back the time i don't have, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentleman. the chair recognizes the gentleman from president 11th district of virginia, my good friend, mr. connolly. >> thank you, mr. chairman and just picking up on your last point. my colleague from iowa, gene, i don't want to you miss the opportunity, yes, of course we ought to implement your recommendations, but every dollar we invest in gao has what return on it? >> $134 back for every dollar invested. >> so to your point, i know it's not always a great idea, the conservative side of the aisle, but this one has a return and so investing in gao is very smart investment. >> and i join the gentleman in supporting his notion there that we need to invest more in gao. >> i thank the chair. hear that, gene? run with it.

for god's sake, it's a special moment here. any rate, by the way, to mr. blum's questioning, too, this committee in the past has done i think some very thoughtful hearings on both the issue of improper payments, the largest single chunk of which identifiable chunk is medicare fraud. and the second is money left on the table that irs could not collect, did not collect but is owed. those two categories, if we actually could bring it down theoretically to zero, would be an enormous dent on the debt. over ten years. i mean it would be in the trillions of dollars. and it's something we ought to take a look at. as a congress. because that's low-hanging fruit. i know it involves making the irs more efficient. and more effective.

but it also has a return on it. and right now we need it. thank you, mr. dodaro for your thoughtful work again. i want to talk, mr. dairymple, about about identity theft. diversion of refunds, has become almost epidemic, has it not? >> that's true. >> that's true. and if i were to ask about identity theft at irs, say, eight or ten years ago, it would have been a small part offolio would it not? >> it would have been -- >> if you can speak into the mike so we can hear you. >> it would have been primarily ten years ago, unrelated to refund fraud. >> right. and today, best estimate, how many americans are affected by

refund fraud? >> i don't have estimates on how many people at this point. but i can tell you that -- >> well number of returns, then. >> 1.4 million returns in '15. equated to about $8.7 billion in refunds. >> and ten years ago it would have been negligible? >> yes. >> here's the other problem, is it not, it's virtually a cost-free crime. the chances of us identifying you for illegally diverting somebody's refund and prosecuting you and convicting you and even punishing you, are pretty nil, are they not? >> well we have prosecuted -- >> i didn't ask that question. >> we've prosecuted a lot of people. >> a lot? >> 2,000 folks, but it pales in comparison with the number of folks that are doing it. >> that's an improvement. but still a drop in the bucket. and again, i think congress has to provide resources to beef up that effort and to help restore american confidence.

i mean, here i am in the transaction with a federal agency trusting, of course, that that transaction will be protected and as a matter of fact, it's not going to be for a lot of americans. mr. dodaro, to what extent is this problem irs is experiencing a function of antiquated i.d.? >> i.t. is definitely a solution to this issue. >> is it also part of the problem? >> well, there are benefits and risks associated with any information technology initiative. and the idea is to maximize your benefit, minimize your risk. here i would give congress very good credit for acting on our recommendation. for example, we found there was one of the problems that they had was irs did not have the w-2 information from employers until april. and so the crooks were filing early and irs didn't have the

w-2 to match. congress fixed that. in the last year. and now irs will be getting the w-2 information at the end of january. so it's put them in a better position to identify this area. we think also congress ought to lower the threshold for electronic filing of employers from 250, to 5 to 10, to give more data. now the issue, though, is can irs change its processes and systems to now take advantage of this electronic information that's available? and also, irs needs to do a better job of authenticating people before they're using their systems. and in the approach. so there are ways and techniques to do this. so if managed properly, i.t. can be a big help here. even though it's causing the problem to occur. >> well, i hope at some point we have a chance to talk more in-depth about this. mr. chairman, we've talked about

it collaboratively, but so much of the i.t. at irs is legacy systems, answer watiquated syst multiple systems incompatible with each other and often not suitable for encryption. to wonder we have a growing problem. thank you very much. sk . >> i would note to the irs, that's code word you need to come up with a plan to address it. we're willing to work in a bipartisan way to help you address that problem. >> we appreciate that. >> all right. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. carter, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we appreciate your presence today. this is very important. mr. dodaro, i want to start with you and speak specifically on a project that is listed in your list of fragmentation and duplication and that is the u.s. embassy in kabul.

it's my understanding they tnt have a strategic plan or follow their own cost containment and risk mitigation project policies, i should say. is that true? is that the way you understand? >> i'm going to ask mr. hurd who led the project. >> sorry, your name? >> mr. hurd. >> that is correct. >> you're telling me they didn't have a strategic facilities plan, didn't follow their cost containment and own risk mitigation policies? >> right, that's what we reported last year to this committee. >> so what does this say about the state department? what does this say about their construction planning in general? am i to take from this that it's not very good at all? >> i think in this case the conditions on the ground in kabul are really challenging. we think there's a plan, two to five-year period that will be updated periodically would really help orient folk that come or go.

many people are serving one-year tours there. to your point about kabul, it does not look good there. we also have a large embassy construction program under way now. >> so am i to understand all these developments and how dangerous of a place it became while it was under construction, they didn't plan for that, when they were planning they didn't know that in advance? >> they would have known something. the idea of an over arching plan was not in place which would have been very helpful to them. >> would you say that the state department's failure to follow cost containment and follow their own cost mitigation policies is a good stewardship of taxpayers' money whenever we're talking about a project of the magnitude of $2.17 billion? >> no, i would not. >> mr. dodaro or mr. hurd, in your may 2015 report, the one you referenced earlier, you stated the state department's failures to follow its cost

containment risk mitigation procedures likely contributed to the fact the cost of the projects increased 27% and that the project will finish three years later than it was planned. is that correct? >> yes. >> so would i be correct in saying that when we're talking about a project of this magnitude, and the state department is not only not following their own policies on this, what are we to expect for smaller projects? i mean, we're talking about a $2.17 billion project. that's big. even by our standards. >> i agree. >> so i can only take from that that when we talk about smaller projects that they are not doing that either and they're wasting money. let me get to the point. i've belabored the point too long. here's what's bothering me, okay? i have the federal law enforcement training center in my district in glynco, georgia, okay, full disclosure. here is the state department needs to build a new training facility or says they need to

build a new training facility for embassy personnel and i understand that and, listen, all of us understand what happened in benghazi, we don't want it to ever happen again. we want to be prepared as we can be. initially in the report comparing where they're going to build it now at ft. picket, it came in at $965 whatever million dollars. then they went back and you even compared both sites, gao did, as did the state department. in six different factors the site at fletsi came out ahead on four of the six. only one favored ft. picket yet they went back and said, okay, let's review it one more time then they came back and said it's not going to be $965 million to do it at ft. picket, it's only going to be $465 million. we got it down that much. duh. come on.

i was born at night but it wasn't last night. seriously. so what did they do? they decide we're going to build it in ft. picket because that's where it needs to go. here we are duplicating -- it's one thing for us to come here and talk about where we've wasted money in the past but my problem is i can't let this go. it is with me. i've only been here for 15 months now and i just can't let it go because i see us wasting money. why are we doing -- what can i do? tell me. this is keeping me up at night. i want to sleep. tell me what i can do. >> well, with regard -- i mean, congress has the power of the purse and they need to use it when they don't believe that the agencies are taking appropriate actions. i mean, you have the authority to be able to -- nobody can spend money without congress' authority and they can only spend it on what you tell them to spend it on. >> i hope you can understand my frustration with this. this is very, very frustrating.

i guarantee you, i bet you every penny i got in my pocket that when it's finished at ft. pikt that it will be closer to $965 million than to $465 million. you know that, i know that an they know that. you see why i'm frustrated? you see why the american people are frustrated? >> i look at this across government every day, so i share your frustration. >> how can i get used to it because i've got to get some sleep. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> mr. chairman, i need to know how i can get to sleep at night. >> my advice to you, i've never gotten used to it, okay? you just have to work where you can to make improvements and make it better. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i apologize. >> i thank the gentleman and the chair recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, mr. cummings, the gentleman from maryland, for five minutes. >> thank you very much. mr. dodaro, the defense department has 79 major weapons system programs with a total estimated acquisition cost of

over $1.4 trillion. in august of 2015, gao released a report on d.o.d.'s process for buying weapons systems. that report said, and i quote, "d.o.d. and the military plan to acquire more weapons than they can afford given anticipated levels of funding." are you familiar with that report, mr. dodaro? >> yes, i'm familiar with it and i have the author here with me. >> okay. and gao also found that dod makes decisions to invest in weapons on a piecemeal basis with each individual service making its own decisions about spending. according to gao, and if d.o.d. managed its investments as a department-wide portfolio rather than using this piecemeal approach, it would ensure that these investments are, and i quote, "strategy driven,

affordable and balanced near and long-term needs." but d.o.d. is not doing that, are they? >> not to the extent we think they should. >> and according to the congressional budget office, d.o.d.'s projected costs for weapons and other major equipment is going to increase by 21% by 2019 to a whopping $541 billion. that's an enormous investment of taxpayer dollars. do you believe the d.o.d. could save money if it used a portfolio approach rather than the piecemeal approach it's currently using? >> yes. i will ask mr. francis to explain why. >> all right. >> yes, mr. cummings, we think they can save money. what you can do with portfolio management is look at what is the right mix of weapons for a given level of funding. if you don't do that to the extent that's possible, you end

up optimizing for individual systems and then you'll pay as much as you can to get those systems in. now, the department has taken some efforts and i'm sure mr. tillotson will have some comments on that, but d.o.d. does look at portfolios, but each organization looks at them differently, defines them differently, and they can't integrate the budgeting and acquisition requirements processes. so you're right on the numbers, cdo estimates in the outyears for procurement. if you look at the navy, the na navy's going to need about 30%, 32% more money to bring the programs in that it already had under way. and we have joint strike fighter that's going to start hitting peak years of $15 billion a year. so there's real questions about how we're going to manage all of that and what you don't want to do is do that system-by-system because you'll give everything a haircut.

>> mr. tillotson, i was surprised to see that d.o.d. does not agree with most of gao's recommendations, like, for example, according to the gao, and i quote, "dvm o.d. does not plan to designate the deputy secretary of defense on an appropriate delegate responsibility for overseeing portfolio management as we recommend it." why is d.o.d. not planning to implement gao's recommendation? >> so the department actually agrees with the gao on the intent to move in the direction of the strategic portfolio management and to do a better job of it. so, in fact, we're not in disagreement with the direction gao is suggesting. in fact, i would also state that over the last three years the deputy secretary of defense and the vice chairman have conducted strategic portfolio reviews across families of weapon

systems with this very outcome in mind that the gao is suggesting of, how do i make a more rational investment decision? i think the key here has been that the department recognizes that the military departments tend to bring forward individual piece parts and as a result we needed to integrate this at a department-wide level. that's been taking place now consistently for the last -- we've actually executed it the last two years. there's a third round in process. that's something the deputy secretary brought on board when he came and took the job. so we're moving in the direction that the gao suggests. >> gao also said, and i quote, "d.o.d. does not plan to require annual enterprise-level portfolio reviews that integrate key portfolio review elements from the requirements, acquisition and budget processes as we recommended." why not? >> i think the disagreement with more over the specifics of how

to do it than it is over the intent. we think that the requirements process needs to be scrubbed at a portfolio level. the actual management of programs is a management of programs issue, we don't want to make that the centerpiece of the decision. but then the actual decision of what resources do we apply against what programs is the place where the portfolio process comes back into being. we're actually in agreement, again, with the intent of the gao, i think the differences are in implementation. >> i see my time has run out. thank you. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. dalrymple, how long have you been at the irs? >> sorry. i've been at the irs for a total of about 33 1/2 years. i had a stint there, retired, then i've come back. >> two tours. and what are your responsibilities exactly? >> my responsibilities include all of the enforcement activities at the irs,

examination, collection, criminal investigation, all of the customer service activities including telephone services, submission processing. >> do you deal with the tax exempt division? >> the tax exempt division is a part of -- >> in your two tours did you have any overlap with ms. lerner? >> actually i think i overlapped with ms. lerner for three months. >> and you report directly to the commissioner? >> i do. >> you report directly to the commissioner. okay. my understanding of mr. dodaro's report there is that $385 billion tax gap. is that accurate? do you agree with that, what they concluded? >> we are going to put out a new tax gap report -- >> you disagree? >> -- now at the end of the year and that figure is going to be -- will be adjusted based on new information we have but it's not going to change dramatically. >> so he's close? >> yes. >> all right. and then he has 112 recommendations, right? i understand there are 112 recommendations for treasury to implement to help deal with that fact we are not collecting $385

billion. >> i'm not certain how many of the recommendations are exactly on point with the tax gap, but -- >> overall recommendations that they recommend that treasury and irs implement. >> actually, i believe that there's -- >> how many are there, mr. dodaro? >> i believe it's 112 figures, correct. >> 112, okay. is it true, mr. dalrymple, you only implemented about 50? 70 remain un -- you know, you haven't dealt with them, haven't implemented them, unimplemented? >> we have unimplemented or partially addressed actions without question. >> mr. dodaro, how many have they put in place? >> there's still about 63% that need to be implemented. >> so less than half. they've implemented less than half to deal with this huge tax gap. changing subjects somewhat, so you're in charge of enforcement. do you know anything, mr.

dalrymple, about the stingray technology? >> i know about the -- i know the technology exists. i know that we have employed it in certain circumstances. >> how many times has the irs used this technology that mimics a cellphone tower, grabs up everyone in that particular areas's cellphone data and gives the irs, the same irs that targeted people, access to people in that geographic location, the irs knows where they're at and their cell number and cell information? how many times has the irs used that technology? >> i would have to come back with the exact number. i think it's about 37 times. >> 37 times. and in those 37 times do you know if the irs got a warrant to use that technology? >> in every instance we would have had some sort of court -- >> not what i asked. >> did you get a warrant? probable cause warrant? >> again, i would have to come back to you on that. >> can you get back to me? >> certainly. >> does the irs have a

nondisclosure with the fbi, not disclosing that it's actually -- when you employed it and you supposedly grabbed somebody who's not paid their taxes or whoever you're trying to get, did you disclose to them that you used stingray technology to get them? >> disclose it to the fbi? >> no, do you have -- do you have an agreement with the fbi that says you will not disclose to the individual that you're using the technology to, i assume, get information from or maybe get that individual, not disclose to them or their counsel? >> again, i would have to answer that for the record. i'm not certain. >> okay. we would appreciate that as well. and do you know if the irs has received the jones memo that the justice department put together outlining how you will deal with stingray, how federal agencies will deal with stingray technology as we move forward? >> i'm not familiar with the jones memorandum. again, i'd have to get back to you. >> okay. those four things, how many times you've used it, did you get a warrant, probable cause warrant, not just something else

or whatever that irs says that may be sufficient or based on what courts have said is not sufficient. do you have a nondisclosure with the fbi, and have you received the jones memo? >> we'll get back to you on all four of those. >> appreciate it. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentleman. and i want to add one thing to that in terms of stingray technology. since you're answering the gentleman back, i'd like to ask if you've ever bifurcated the information, i.e., if you didn't get a warrant, if you are following them into their personal household and like you do respond to that as well. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new mexico, miss lujan grisham. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and i'm going to kind of go off topic and i apologize kind of except that i think that generally speaking as dr. conway as the chief medical officer,

and while i absolutely appreciate your discussion about ways to improve quality and when we really do that, those investments, in fact, save money in the health care system and i really want to talk about some issues that i'm sure you're aware and if you weren't, this is a great -- this is a great place to make you aware. but i've talked about it in nearly every context as i can as a member of congress that given the situation in our states, our governor determined that all 100% of our behavioral health providers were engaged in billing practices that rose to the level of a credible allegation of fraud and so suspended payments to all 15. now, i disagree with that effort, but be that as it may, that's a decision that the executive makes and has full power to make that. here is the issue for me given that three years later the

companies that came in are largely now gone, that there is no behavioral health, and let me repeat that, there is no behavioral health information. that there was no continuity of care. there was no transition plan requirement. there's been no requirement by the federal government for there could be accurate credible -- i want to use that word on purpose -- credible data from the state of new mexico which hhs and cms have both agreed are completely missing in this design. we have the worst public health outcomes in the country including the second highest overdose deaths related by and large to a very fragile, very complex behavioral health population in the state of new mexico. it would seem to me that as a chief medical officer is one rule is we know that hospitalizations, overdose, incarcerati incarcerations, acute institutional care is not the right investment for both cost savings or quality in terms of

treating these patients and i would guess you probably are also very aware that when you've got a highly complex patient, say, someone with schizophrenia, who's developed a relationship with a provider who is now successfully on a medication management which is very hard for many of these patients to achieve, and then that is completely taken away and if you can get in, you see a different psychiatrist or psychologist every single time you try to get access. wouldn't you agree that this would not be the kind of investment or sound practices that any state or any medicaid environment should be engaged in? >> so, congresswoman, thanks for your question, and i -- i am very aware of the issue and do

agree that appropriate mental health and behavioral health treatment is critical to medicaid beneficiaries. we, cms, have been working with the state, as you said, since 2013 on this issue and recently in march responded in a letter summarizing some of that work. that we're currently working to improve their behavioral health workforce. >> can you talk about that a little because i should also mention to the committee and for the record that all 15 have been cleared by the attorney general. it's taken us three years to get this administration to require the human services department to repay these providers the millions of dollars that they are -- that they're defunct. so what exact workforce investments are occurring in our state because i'm really aware of very little. >> so we are directly working with the state, assuring that the state is currently following cms payment suspension tool kit guidance with respect -- >> but how does that get us a

new workforce and behavioral health system up? >> so on the medicaid side we are working directly with the state on access of care issues, on ensuring proper networks. we both from the program integrity side have put in place guidance and are working directly with the state on these issues moving forward. on the medicaid side -- >> given that three years has gone by, and i apologize for being so -- interrupting you, but this, as a physician, i was a cabinet secretary for health, this is untenable. can you provide something to this committee in writing that would talk about ways in which, god forbid, this ever occurs in any other state anywhere ever again what cms ought to be doing to assure that you didn't spend the kind of acute care dollars and, in fact, mr. chairman, people lost their lives in my

state and continue to do so. so i would appreciate that response in writing to this committee, if i may, mr. chairman. >> i agree with the principle of quality and safety and access to care being paramount and we will provide a response. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i yield back my time. thank you, sir. >> i thank the gentlewoman. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. grothman, for five minutes. >> we will do a follow-up on mr. jordan's questions to mr. dalrymple. can you explain what that stingray technology is a little bit for our listening audience? >> as i understand it is technology that allows law enforcement to capture cellphone information. >> okay. >> basically. >> you said you didn't know if you were getting a warrant. you said you used it 37 times. do you think you should be getting a warrant? >> i'm not certain we didn't get a warrant, so --

>> the question is do you think you should have. if it turns out you didn't get a warrant, are you going to say that's an oversight, we screwed up or are you going to say we didn't need a warrant? what is your attitude of the irs on this. >> i'm not certain what the requirements are for use of this technology, whether it's required to have a warrant or not. so i will respond to that question when we've sent a response back. >> okay. you said you've used it 37 times -- >> i said i think we've used it about 37 times and i'd get back to the committee on exactly how many times it's been used. >> could be 36 or 38. why did you use it? >> i'm sorry? >> why did you use it? >> we used it in the course of a tax investigation. >> like what sort of crisis was there that you kind of had to know where people are? i would think that would be kind of a really major thing. what -- can you give me, like, a hypothetical or even real fact situation that caused you to have to use this stuff?

>> well, we used it in drug cases, we use it in counterterrorism work that we do, we use -- i mean, we use it across a broad spectrum of activities that we have responsibility for. >> those would be things that would be beyond just the irs' purview, right, terrorism and drugs? >> it's things that we have responsibility for but not exclusively, yes. >> like how do you mean responsibility? just somebody not reporting income? >> i'm sorry? >> how do you mean responsibility? >> i mean, we do a lot of counterterrorism work around anti-money laundering, drug cases that we're involved in that affect tax administration. so, yeah, we -- we have responsibilities there. >> are all the times you use it things for like terrorism related or drug related? >> as i said earlier i'd have to get back to the committee on exactly when we used it and how. >> okay.

well, we will go on to mr. dodaro. okay. i want to ask you a little bit about disability benefits, what you're doing on that sort of thing. i'd like to ask you what do you do about overpayment on disability benefits? getting them back. could you give us kind of an overview of what you're doing there? >> yes. we've issued a report on that. we feel that the social security administration could do a much better job not only in preventing overpayments, but also they're concerned -- they waived -- permanently waived repayment of about -- over 2 billion, i think, over a ten-year period of time. we think that they're not properly processing work requirements. when people start working they're supposed to report that to social security and then they're supposed to take action, but they weren't effectively

processing the returns very quickly for the work requirements because then they should take them off the disability rolls and cut off their payments. >> i want to ask you a general question here on this disability. i, like i'm sure just about every congressman up here, get constant complaints of people who are on disability and nobody can figure out why they are disabled. what are you doing about that and what can you do about it? can you comment on your position on that problem? >> yes. we do always have audits under way to look at the processes for the initial disability claims, what they're doing on continuing disability reviews. they're supposed to continue to evaluate these people. we made lots of recommendations to improve the process over there. some of them have been implemented, some of them have not been implemented. some require legislative action. >> how often do you check somebody? if i'm on disability for a bad back today, how often am i going to be checked or see if it's on

the up and up? >> it's depends on -- we've made recommendations that they target better criteria on that sort of thing. there's supposed to be reviews on a regular basis. i can provide for the record what that schedule is, but there is a schedule. they're behind in meeting the schedule. they don't -- they have backlogs of cases. >> okay. i'm out of time but i'll talk to you later off the camera. >> i thank the gentleman. the chair recognizes himself for a series of questions. i want to thank all of you for your input today and the informative dialogue that we have had. additionally i would be remiss if i didn't thank our staff here. it certainly is just a unbelievable herculean job that our staff does on a regular basis to not only prepare the members of congress but to really look in detail at the reports. mr. dodaro, that you provide.

so i want to just acknowledge them. additionally i'd like to recognize a previous colleague, dr. coburn. obviously this was part of his brain trust and the fact that we have duplicative services so long past him leaving the upper chamber. we continue to see the fruits of his vision and so i want to acknowledge that as well. mr. dodaro, i want to come to you and certainly thank you and your staff. and really for the other witnesses just to let you know if gao ain't happy, i'm not happy. and i'll just put it very bluntly, we're reading what they have and i think in a bipartisan way we're willing to attack it. there may be some idealogically differing views on what we should attack first, but as much as i've tried to make gao be a

political instrument, they won't do that. they keep it in a nonpartisan -- in fact, there are times when i want them to be outraged and you get the calm, cool gene dodaro there going, well, we need to address this and address that and i can't -- you know, i can't evoke emotion out of him. so i would say that because it's of benefit, i really believe, to the three of you who are here today because you've been asked to testify because the implementation of those recommendations have really fallen short of where most of us believe that it should. and i say that in a kind way. but when you don't implement the majority, words like we're making progress really are like nails on a chalkboard to me because what i want to do is see a matrix of what you're going to get done, when you're going to get it done. so that's what i would ask you. mr. dodaro, one of the things that has been shared with me is about shared services and so

we've had john come in a couple of times and talking about the benefits of potentially using shared services. we've had ms. cobair, beth come in and talk about some of the shared services that she is looking at. now, there's some challenges in terms of, you know, whose fault, you know, if they don't provide and who's ultimately responsible. but are you looking at that, can you look at that further and perhaps maybe not across our entire federal government but across some of those duplicative services how we can save some money, where you have one agency using services that perhaps we don't have to create individual departments. i'll let you respond to that. >> yes. i mean, one classic good example

of where there's been a lot of benefit, years ago there used to be a proliferation of payroll systems across government. a lot of consolidation has taken place there through shared services operations even with the gao. we use shared service providers. >> right. >> i use them. so i think there's a lot of potential there. we've looked at it principally in the area of financial management services because that's common in terms of payroll processing and other things. so that's an area i'd like, quite frankly, if we had additional resources to do more in but we haven't done a whole lot beyond the financial management area. >> if you would see if there is a couple of area that we could address there more on making that official work less today perhaps we look in the i.t. area, there's certainly some i.t. services that might be able to be shared. i see some of our experts here from this particular field. but if you will look at it and get that back to the committee.

yes? sir. >> mr. chaffetz, the irs sent a letter back to mr. chaffetz in november of last year. and at the bottom of page 2, top of page 3 at the end of the letter it says until july 2015 irs had one cell sight stimulater, one stingray which was acquired in 2011. in july 2015 you began the process to procure another cellphone simulator. do you know if the irs has received a second stingray? >> i'm not certain whether we have it or not. again, i will get back to you on that. >> but the process was started according to the letter. >> right. >> you know that? >> that part i do know. >> you don't know if you got the second one or not? >> i'm not certain at this point. >> we need that information, too. mr. dodaro, there are 112 recommendations that the georgia made to the irs to deal with the tax gap. were any of those recommendations for the irs to

procure another stingray? >> no, i have not heard of stingray before this hearing. >> so you gave 112 things, good ideas to do to deal with a $385 billion tax gap and they've implemented less than 50%, 37% according to what you said, of the recommendations you gave them and yet they're using stingray technology and potentially purchasing a second unit to potentially infringe upon americans' 4th amendment liberties. mr. dalrymple, that's why mr. grothman and i raised the questions we did. why don't you start the 112 recommendations of mr. dodaro's recommendations, why aren't we collecting the money we are supposed to collect in light of the $19 trillion debt and

everything else, instead of buying stingray technology and potentially infringing upon the liberties of tax paying americans? >> i thank the gentleman. reclaiming my time. let me -- dr. conway, i saw you shaking your head yes when gene dodaro talked about the fact that we needed to make sure that hospitals and private physicians in terms of the amount of money that we are actually paying them back. i saw you shaking your head and i don't want to put words in your mouth, but it is not linear or fair. is that correct? >> there's -- in the president's budget there is a recommendation around site neutral payments which would equalize payments for services across hospital outpatient physician, and as you know, congress passed legislation starting in janry -- >> right. >> so dr. conway, can we get to this committee within the next

120 days a plan on how cms plans to address that particular recommendation? >> we will work to get back to you with that information, yes, sir. >> all right. so in 120 days we'll have >> what time frame would be reasonable, dr. conway? i see the person that is doing the work said you could make the 120 days. that is correct. all right. thank you. and my final question, then i'm going to recognize the ranking member for his closing remarks, mr. till itson, let me share a concern that i have. we have -- we want to always give our fighting men and women the resources that they need. and yet what i heard today was a less than robust implementation of some of the gao reports as it relates to your particular area. i also heard you saying, well

we're making progress and all of that. what i don't want to do is see that 40% of what you implement, really have no impact -- substantial impact in terms of the bottom line getting implemented year and year and the 60% that would actually make very systemic changes continue to get rolled over. and that is what i'm seeing. that is what i'm reading. is that we're making limited progress as it relates to that. and what happens is, it makes it very difficult on someone who is trying to make those appropriation decisions on giving you the tools that you need and yet we hear about gross inefficiency. so it is incumbent upon you to help prioritize the recommendations that gao is making on an annual basis and say, we're going to implement these. these are the most significant -- will you be able to report back to this committee within 120 days on the top

recommendations for gao that have yet to be implemented and how you're going to implement those? >> mr. chairman, we'll report back, thank you. >> within 120 days? >> yes, sir. >> thank you. with that, i'm recognize the ranking member for his closing remarks. >> i just want to go back to mr. jordan's questions. and in talking about -- i guess not only about recommendations that may have been made with regard to the irs, but to other agencies, but let's zero in on the irs. how much -- i mean, you take into consideration budget cuts, right? >> yes. >> and the ability to get these things done? >> yes. yes, we make sure that our recommendations are going to be cost-effective recommendations. now typically, when we make a recommendation, the agency has flexibility in how to implement

it. we don't tell them exactly how they need to implement the recommendation. so they have flexibility in order to do that. but we take that into account and we believe our recommendations, if implemented, will be cost effective. some of them require perhaps an upfront investment to implement the recommendations but we believe that the benefits will exceed the cost of implementing our recommendations. when i report to you and t rest of the members of congress that our recommendations that were implemented last year in over $70 billion net of cost, that is a net figure. so that is what we track. >> we could do a lot better, can't we? >> yes. >> is dod spending too big to count? >> well they haven't been able to account for it, let me put it that way. they are the only major federal agency that has not been able to pass the test of an independent

audit. they have -- just in the last year alone they've scaled back the audit requirements. they don't prepare a full set of financial statements. they only do a one-year budget data and they couldn't get a opinion on one-year budget data so i'm concerned, as mr. tillisson mentioned, i have meetings with dod and i have another one this afternoon to focus on the areas where they need to make improvements. they are not fixing the underlying problems satisfactorily and they said they would present a comprehensive action plan for making the changes necessary to do it. but right now, there is not proper accounting for the money that is being spent and there is not proper oversight over the assets that dod has, the property plant and equipment issues that they have. and they're in need of significant improvement. >> uh-huh. and of course, everything you

just said opens the door for all kinds of mischief, for lack of a more stronger word. >> what we say is control problems. >> all right. and in that fashion. >> all right. thank you all very much, i appreciate it. >> i thank the gentleman. again, i want to thank each of you. let me tell you why this -- not only this hearing is important, but it sets a bench mark every year for us to look at, whether it's a high water mark or a low water mark, we'll leave that up for debate for another day. but in doing that, we need to set that standard for each one of you. what i would encourage each one of you, i would hope that next year that it is not the same three agencies that are here that have yet to implement it. and let me tell you the reason why. is because along with that, improper payments of which we'll have a hearing in the coming

weeks, those improper payments go right across the same groups. when we look at improper payments, whether it is medicaid, medicare or any of those, certainly it is hhs and cms having a role in that. there is a headline today, or in the last few hours, the irs admits that it encourages illegals to steal social security numbers for taxes. you can't control what is in the press. it is all about the earned income tax credit. and if there is something not allowing the irs to go after those improper payments, because this is not the first hearing, i've been in four or five where we continue to have this problem, enough is enough. it is time that we address that problem. and if there is something from a statute standpoint that doesn't allow you to share the social

security numbers so that you could do the proper vetting that you need to do, let us know. we'll work about that in a bipartisan way to address it. but i hope that this is the last hearing where we're not addressing that particular problem. from a dod standpoint, there is too many stories out there in terms of what we're spending and the fact that you can't pass an independent audit where you have the most responsible, hardest working people willing to put their lives on the line for the freedom of our country and yet from an accounting standpoint, we can't do it. it's time that we get our house in order and so i encourage all of you to work with the gao for implementing those. i thank you. if there is no other business before the committee, the committee stands adjourned. [ hearing adjourned ]

[ hearing adjourned ] [ hearing adjourned ]

the president of somalia has asked the u.n. security council to lift the arms embargo against his country that has been in place since the 1990s. president hassan sheikh muhammed's remarks are next on c-span. and then the hearing of the looting and selling of

antiquities in the middle east by the military group isis. later, a confirmation hearing for carla hayden to be the next librarian of congress. president obama will attend his final white house correspondent's dinner at the end of the month. comedy central's larry wilmore will be the featured entertainer for this live event. we'll have live coverage on saturday april 30th starting at 6:30 p.m. on c-span. c-span washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up thursday morning, alex izen stat reporter for politico will join us by phone to discuss the spring meeting in hollywood, florida, where they address the roles for the rnc convention taking place in cleveland in july. and also ryan costello