enthusiasm for the affordable care act on the other side of the aisle, but let's try to improve it rather than try to destroy it. i noted with a bit of a chuckle the assault on the massachusetts law. the fact is the governor of massachusetts came here and said the law is working. i am wondering if governor romney will run on his front implementation of that in the republican primaries when he runs for president. what are the most dangerous things in the republican providing health care for americans and all the other things. what do you see as the most draconian? how would it affect the health of the american people? >> the president feels strongly

that education, and innovation, are building blocks for the future. it paid some -- it pays huge dividends down the line. the infrastructure for public health delivery with funding is jeopardized without having adequate funding in the future. the centers for medicare and medicaid are looking at increased in of this series and a very restricted budget. >> what i see in terms of the republican plan is that we need

to balance our budget. i find it odd we are giving these huge tax breaks to wealthy people. it is an intent to get rid of all the programs that republicans haven't liked and to try to tie aid in -- try to tie it in. we see it on a state level and all of them -- and all over the country. he complained he did not like the affordable health care act. he would agree to a grant. do you think the people of mississippi would be better off? >> i do not know a lot of the details. i know they have a population

that qualifies them for the highest math. one of the challenges is if you would look at the recent economic downturn when millions more americans qualified because they lost their jobs or their incomes to a drastic downturn. no state would have any help from the government in response to that. it is not have a federal partnership moving forward. >> the revenue number of criticisms from the insurance programs. there was concern over where there will not be enough money for all the people that enroll. very few have been rolled. how many people have enrolled ?

they asserted they were unable to run the program. were states given the opportunity? could they have run its? it was a touted feature in the republican proposal. i wonder if he could comment on those things. >> there are approximately 12,000 people across this country who are enrolled in their state or the high risk pool. enrollment increase by about 50%. many states fire may have it set up. they are doing excess of out reached. you have to be uninsured for six months.

it is still not been expensive for coverage. for the first time ever, we will have insurance available without regard to the pre-existing health conditions. >> time has expired. >> welcome. we have been waiting to visit with you. it is funny to mention that. they had tax credit. i would not expect them to be in opposition. you were governor of a state.

had you been governing -- under your governorship, was budget passed? was the chambers held by democrats in the senate and house? >> never. >> nt past budgets? -- and you passed budgets? >> the house passed a budget. >> and to have a democratic president? like we do. >> and we did not pass a budget? >> i think the house. >> the democratic attack on the cr is because of their failure to pass a budget.

they can position all they want. we are in the majority because they cannot pass the budget. we are in the majority because they pass this bill. we are in this majority because of cap and trade. the last time he visited this was february 4, 2010. this was not even the law of the land. i became a ranking member of the committee after that vote. i asked chairman waxman and greg malone 19 times to ask you to come visit us. you never came. why? why didn't you come to help us

understand the provisions and implementations of this log? >> i responded to the requests i got. >> you save we never requested due to come back? >> ps. >> sharon waxman did not ask you to come back? >> will the gentleman yield? >> i will not. i will not. will you answer the question? >> i will go back. i need to look at the record. >> will you submit the answer to the record in writing? thank you very much. there are so many particular problems. we have not had a chance to talk to you. and that the new report, a 2010 hearing, i asked you a question. it was the same way.

you admitted the 5 runner billion dollars medicare cuts -- $500 billion medicare cuts. >> that is not correct. >> i am reclaiming my time. i will read it if you want me to. the president supports that think-your billion dollars in medicare, a yes or no? -- supports cutting $500 million in medicare, a yes or no? there is a commissioner on the budget. you cannot count.

if they are attacking medicare when their bill is $500 billion. then he using the save $500 billion. your actuary says you cannot do both. what are the cuts for? preserving medicare or funding the log? which is it? >> it represents a slowdown in the growth rate and medicare. >> is a medicare? are they using it to fund health care reform? >> was one -- which one? >> both >> she should not be

asking the secretary about whether we invited her. we did not invite your after the health care bill passed. you can address that to us. the answer is in no. we did not invite her. >> thank you. thank you for your testimony. i want to support the issues that were supported. he answered how much the current secretary is supporting it as well.

it cuts 40 a in a half million dollars. these are tight times. the president called on their nation to come together. i think they are in a strong position to help us. i'm concerned about strengthening the work force. as a move into implementation, we will need a more robust health care forest. we are creating a commission to help guide that. it provides a pay increase for both medicare and medicaid and enough funding to more than tripled the national health service. we need to support these programs. would cut themt

by about $145 million from the fiscal years 2000 a programs. we have a nursing shortage. last year 50,000 returned from nursing school. you understand this. the budget provided an increase in the same programs. canny discussed the steps taken? -- can you discuss the steps taken? >> beer is no doubt the president shares your concern about the work force of the future. he has made it a focus each year. i think the act focused on work force enhancements.

in the budget would include support to train about 10,600 national health service corps providers and train 4000 primary-care providers over the next five years. the prevention in help fund allocations would also increase the number of nurse practitioners. 600 nurse practitioners would be trained as a new physician assistants. there are a whole series of the enhancements that would be jeopardized.

>> it would cut it by more than half. i think this will devastate our workforce. i hope you will agree with me. thank you. >> i share their concern. the key is right in front of us. it still hamper efforts to fill the gap today. these are the $4 billion in waste, fraud, and did use. $4 billion was saved for americans taxpayers. when i am home, i am meeting with my seniors.

this is how they can be active participants. we want them to continue. can you expand upon this? there are ways we can increase this. >> the budget has requested additional resources. this is an enormous payoff. we are building new systems that can allow us the spot. we would like to expand them. they have been enormously helpful. local attorneys general and states have been enormously affected. we hope to expand that outreach.

>> the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> thank you. they both deserve to be in the final four periods -- final four period. this committee worked very hard. it passed the house to allow doctors to volunteer. the number to are huge. using the federal claim act and only those numbers, i think the cost was 30 million. i am asking if your department could work with us in coming up with more to allow the doctors to volunteer. what would the cost savings be.

is the something you can help us? >> that will be extremely helpful. we have huge rate of vacancies for jobs. that would be very helpful. will you help them? we do not try to put pressure on them. >> the national challenge. it is funded their mental health. it seems like the administration -- there were some cuts to the program. they cut the funding to 10 million.

some things were homeless. you know that with regard to homelessness there is a high cartelization between homelessness and this. there is a higher risk of people would posttraumatic stress disorder and homelessness. i think he has the 0.7 in homeless grants. i believe the b.a. -- va should be handling some of this.

to revisit that -- >> out the glad to have that discussion. she is absolutely committed to being the most productive. >> there are 14 homeless initiatives. i do want to support them. we will do well to help prevent some of these problems. these programs were designed in 1965. none of us are driving a 1965 car. if we were, we would put in a

lot of time. if he were to design medicare today, would it look like anything of the medicare of 1965? could you tell us what major initiatives you have in mind for some of the major entities decks >> -- entities? >> it includes a major direction for them to be redesigned. their strategy is we know.

the incentives rainout are blind to buy them. we are in the process for providers. >> they have stated the protocol. i hope you will look to that. >> thank you. >> the time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. >> welcome. i do want to address it, and that was made by a fellow texan about the uncertainty out there regarding the constitutionality of the mandate.

he is wondering what he has to do. i have a suggestion as to what they would be doing in the meantime. they could come up with a solution to make healthcare insurance affordable for texans. they have affordable insurance available to them. so do not leave the nation in the uninsured. that is just a suggestion. we have heard the american people want us to balance the budget. we agree. the budget places us in a good place to accomplish that. i do not think the american

people said what you are doing this expose us to dangers drugs. it is not provide accessible coverage. i join me in the ministrations. we may have different plans on how to get them. nothing was done until we passed the affordable care act paid it is ongoing. still be a continued debate. we hear so much about market forces.

i think we agree with that to a point. until the market still not deliver what is necessary without the instances in the direction sometimes. it is mostly a collaborative effort. when it comes to the fda, why not let an industry polices itself? why do not let them do that? >> we have seen the results of a lack of regulation and way too many areas. i think the fda is seeking to make sure whether our food

supply is safe and secure. in many cases, the industry is very supportive of those efforts. the industry and older only takes the economic tip from an unsafe product. there is a huge ripple of fact that penalizes the food industry. they are able to do this. >> everyone has irresponsibility. this is what we are hard to do. i am very concerned about this.

they are all democrats and republicans. what is going to happen to replace that. why is this so necessary? why did we allow the private sector to make this funds available to our universities? >> it is biomedical research. it has been an important partnership it goes on to universities. the president has released this.

we are making sure we continue this breakthroughs that happening. >> thank you. . thank you. plessy before being with us. i found your opening statement curious. immense and is used irresponsibility to give every went to be there. the american people do not want to be dependent on the federal government for their cars and their loans. they are like to see the regulations reduced.

do you have any data that shows that businesses are action getting relief on the cost of the insurance their pain every year? do you have any data that is verified this says this is lower in cost? we are being shown bills and estimates for that. >> if you are talking about dad said, what we have seen is that there are a number of states that actually had to use this new tools to lower the impact. >> could you supply that? >> i know tennessee had to come to you.

let me ask you about the waivers. when you grant a waiver, it seems you are doing more. does that take the elected officials in the state out of the decision making? is that waved to the governors office? that is the way it was done. we were taken out of the equation. >> the traditional waiver was a dialogue. the affordable care act changes that position. there are public hearing requirement. the process actually has been amended to include more transparency. >> it talks about some them

saying privately to your liberal interests that this is a way to increase state base public option for single payer. and he is on the record having said that when you look at the way it works that he is beginning to favor a single payer. this is not what the american people want. they cannot attend to the items that are on their plate. it is a concern. >> we do not design any waiver.

>> we respect and understand that. >> we have a hearing on this this week. are you able to quantify the fraud that is there? >> no. a way to quantify what the problem is? >> we do not know. >> what percentage of your energy is going to address that? >> >> toomey year organized crime getting there, by the bishop costas all. so if you could let us know your resources. >> your request is 890 billion. we love to return to those numbers.

you mentioned you have cut 24 programs. u.s. for that you cut. -- you left some that you cut. >> >it is a point of personal privilege. the time has expired. do you wish to add additional response? he may continue to respond in writing if you feel like it. the chair recognizes mrs. baldwin.

>> thank you for being here. i wanted to start by reacting to some of the other comments that were made. he noted that we switched sides. it was because of this law. i disagreed. i think the last election was about jobs. instead of focusing on jobs, the new majority has made it their first order of business to repeal the affordable care act. that is one of the first votes we took. that is already providing life- saving coverage to many who did not have it. instead focusing on jobs, the new majority has attempted to deny funding and implementing

the affordable care act. the new majority has offered house resolution 1. they said it would be to the loss of 700,000 jobs. instead of focusing on jobs, they are presenting budgets embedded with policies that have medicaid and showed the implementation. wisconsin used to have a reputation as being a leader in health care. i do not envy you.

you are working to implement these reforms. so many are working so hard to see it. i brought an amendment to the floor. my amendment was fully paid for. i've been a blight to hear from you on how you go about implementing that. how does this impact the constituents that i rely on?

they provide services in my area. i heard this will emprise coverage to probably 11 million americans. it will result in job losses enclosure. if you were forced to implement such draconian cuts, how would you go about it? what would we see? >> i share your view that the health center footprint is incredibly important both with the recovery act and the affordable care act. it is serving closer to 40 million people. we are ready seeing that.

they are in the most underserved areas. they are providing a host of community services. the effort to deny care and to restrict access in the most urban communities to affordable availability health care will put it is still burgeons on already strapped budgets. they will come through the doors of the emergency rooms and larger numbers. they will be an able to take care of their kids. i think this has a serious impact on the prosperity of the nation.

>> the chair recognizes you. >> thank you. in testimony, if he knew -- as a teenager who had. a authority to some live -- to some of this into final role without asking for comments. he testified that the secretary has the authority over her roles. dg make the decision to publish this rate -- did you make the decision to publish this without allowing for comment? >> yes. >> i appreciate your forthrightness. i do. it flies in the face of a comment.

he described how it works between the departments in calling for more oversight. would you agree that in the future that there may be time for public comments that would be appropriate? >> the rule followed the alkaline that restricted in the affordable care at in terms of provisions for a visit. we look at the original welcome to medicare business. >> if you could respond yes or no to that.

>> in the president's fiscal year budget, your department requested money to sign american workers of for the class act. this is the same program he does recently told a committee that it was unsustainable. those are your words. to you believe it is appropriate for the demonstration to solicit money for programs that are unsustainable? >> my comment was that it was unstainable as it was crafted. we are in the process of making the changes that will meet the criteria. >> thank you. given the current budget crisis

that we have we have a tremendous budget crisis. you are asking for money to sign people up for a program they use a is unsustainable. it is truly sustainable before the administration. thank you. the last thing i wanted to address, and this is a follow- on to chairman dingell's line of questioning earlier. t ask you a number of guests are no questions. it would hurt this program and that program and the other

program. do you believe that we need to restorer fiscal sanity to our budget? >> yes paid to you believe the $61 billion in cuts contained in it will help the government reduced the current budgetary deficit? >> i believe the president has put irresponsible budget forward. >> i am talking about the $61 billion worth of cuts that he was attacking. >> i support the notion. >> the gentleman's time is

expired. welcome. the assets to testify last year. you we ask you to testify last year. you are welcome. no government has had to spend so much time slicing it away. let me run through some things we can cover. this notion that if you give people an incentive to purchase health insurance somehow they will not want it, you might not be aware. the number of people in massachusetts that chose not to sign up after they got the

subsidy was 0.65%. when he offered them a better health care, and they take it. maybe 1% of people would be impacted. we understand you can clear it up for us. when they need health care costs, it belongs to the rest of society. would be subsidies disappeared?

>> yes. >> thank you. is it not true that they are not going to be as for under the bill? it provides no additional cost until the year 2017. is that correct? >> yes. if the number of poor people in the state go down, more people are working. those costs can go down. >> i assume all of us -- the economy will keep getting better.

the only go if you are a crummy governor. is that correct? >> thank you. this is a trampling of rights. is it not true that the exchange to be run through the state? >> there is a decision made by the people who wrote did not to trample on state rights. >> they have the ability to hold it down.

this notion of a centralizing power, we did not good direction i would have liked. these waivers that you have been given -- each one is saying that we will be collected for what is going on in the state. as long as you get to the outcome we aspire to,, they make the point that there is not this flexible model. it is going on between states and businesses to make sure we get the outcomes we all want. >> states no day at the

laboratories of innovation. >> in five minutes we did nine lies told by republicans. imagine if we had more time. >> thank you. there to things i am interested them. they have the initiative. it encourages some to take irresponsibility is the date take responsibilities for their

children. what encourages me are we going to be offer them? >> it refers to working with it. there is a connection that they have. >> let me follow up with that. i chaired the senate judiciary community. we have a large built by sponsor.

there about 18 and 19 hearings. it came down to this. there is a parental responsibility. do we have any current program models that this will lead to? >> >> do we have any other models of their? do we have anything out there that will show its will work? >> this is part of the tanf umbrella. we are trying to improve this effort to make child-support is

not only effectively administered but that more of the dollars will actually go to the children cannot be siphons along the way. -- and not be siphoned off along the way. >> @ as one gentleman if he wanted to go to joe for non paying it. >> i was there was a law that you get past. add a minimum, i think we can be affected in terms of making sure children are not penalized by a

father who would walk away. it also includes fatherhood engagement. he is less likely to be a financial provider. i think it looks at the overall package. the budget is limited to children's hospitals and graduate education. they are coming in from children's hospitals. and not getting this dollar.

>> i do not think this is an easy cut. the guarantee of we have four resources this would not be a perfect third cut. many dollars have been redirected to those of have an exclusive focus. we will need additionally primary care doctors. >> i yield back. >> thank you.

i want to thank you for being here. we ask you to lead a historic effort. i cannot think of anyone better able to do that as a leader and a governor. we are as you go in and out of this. many seem more interested in arranging your office structure in rooting out those abuses. they have attracted the size. the positions that you have requested is the equivalent of about 16 offices.

i know we were to really hard. we have tasked them was setting up the new standards. we heard from the other side of the aisle this notion that all americans want is for the government to get out of the way when it comes to their health care. that is not my impression in the least. we do not mean more evidence on the popularity of medicare. is it your sense that what the american people want is to reject help for the government to cover their health care? >> medicare is enormously

popular periods probably the second most popular insurance program may be the children's health program they deliver vital services to millions of americans. it is important to stay that far from being a government takeover that the affordable care act should not be this way. it relies on the private company. this is a private sector plan that we are doing. let me ask you a few questions. if you were denied funding to implement the healthcare act,

will help insurance purchasers know that 80% of the dollar's will be done with a medicare purchasers? will we have any guarantee that it will have been? >> adobe difficult to implement. >> without any rate reproval requirements, how would rates that are out of line be enforced? >> it would be one of the requirements. we have to identify excessive rates so consumers have some way out. that will not be available to consumers. >> i think we would get some help. without it, we are at the mercy of the insurance company. what does it mean for people

with disabilities who are counting on the phase out of the doughnut hole. >> those benefits include wellness visits. there is preventive screenings and health. this would cease to be a medicare benefits. >> they disappear. processes have been attacked. how have they adopted the rules that deal with the 80% ratio? >> we follow this very

carefully. we are asking for their infant and devise. what element should be included in the medical portion of the 80%. they made a unanimous recommendation. we adopted 100% of what they recommended.

. 

programs. this is two hours and ten minutes. >> good morning. the committee meeting will come to order. >> as is the new tradition of this committee, we will begin by reading the oversight mission statement. we exist to secure to fundamental principles. first, americans have a right to know their money washington spends and takes is well spent and second, americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them. our duty on the oversight and government reform committee is to protect these rights. our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to tax payers because taxpayers have a right to know what they

get from their government. we will work tigers tirelessly with citizen watchdogs to deliver the facts to the american people and bring genuine reform to the federal bureaucracy. this is the mission of the oversight and government reform committee to read today's hearing is the second time this committee has met in two weeks to consider the effect of wasteful spending have on the federal government, the economy and the taxpayers. this week's gao report exposes serious government breakdowns in effective and efficient use of taxpayers' dollars by conservative estimates the duplication and fragmentation highlighted the gao report represents over 100 billion in annual losses. yet there was great consternation and 90 hours of hard debate in order to propose

$62 billion in cuts the gao report, unlike the cuts, is not about eliminating services. it's about standardizing, combining and eliminating duplicative services that cost the american people money without serving an additional use, meaning if we cut the bureaucracy, if we cut so many of these programs that repeat each of them having high paid and a high-ranking individuals and i.t. groups and separate publishing and if you will advertising campaigns, we can even in the cost without the american people suffering one loss of the essentials service is believed to be done by these programs. i'm sure in future times we will have additional hearings on programs that should simply go away with it is one or 100 within government.

but today we are going to meet with 33 talented and very educated individuals who are going to help us understand should be a win-win for the american people. when when because we aren't talking about cuts, we are talking about cuts in bureaucracy, cuts in bureaucracy of money while delivering a better product to the taxpayers. with that i would like to yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from florida for his comments. >> thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate hearing today and i look forward to hearing from our witnesses. something strikes me as odd, and that is we've heard the president say over and over again, and let me just quote he's going to conduct an exhaustive line by line review of the federal budget and seek to eliminate government programs that are not performing. well, that's something we can

all agree with and we seemed no action on the president's words. we have a hearing today where we invite the director of omb, which is a presidential appointee and he refuses to show of. so is the president serious about doing a line by line review? is the director of the omb is he trying to hide the questions? it's outrageous that we find ourselves at a hearing we have the opportunity to do something good for the american people, and that is cut spending and cut this budget and get rid of waste. mr. chairman, you talked up the duplication and the $100 billion the director of omb won't show up to give us an opportunity to ask questions and find out what we can do to cut this $100 billion to find another hundred billion dollars to cut

to try to bring this budget in line? i think it's outrageous that the director doesn't show up. i think issues in this regard to the legislative branch and the separation of powers. it says to me that the administration and the director of omb is more interested in talking a good game now in the public but doesn't really want to get to the hard work. so, mr. chairman, i look forward to this panel. i look forward to your leadership but i am extremely disappointed the director didn't show up and by not sure this administration is serious about cutting spending if they can't even send the director. i thank the director and reclaiming my time. >> our invitation to the office of management but will remain open. i now recognize the distinguished ranking member for his opening. >> thank you mr. chairman and for calling this hearing today.

i just want to go immediately to what the congressman just said. i don't think the president is hiding or the omb is hiding anything. the fact is the president in his state of the union made it clear he is about the business of addressing these issues and omb is carrying in the process of conducting his own analysis of effective ways of streamlining the government services and to cut unnecessary cost. this is critical to ensure federal programs are working as effectively as possible and that is why i signed a letter with the chairman requesting from going updates as a when the tax on this monumental task as my understanding the water will be going out and as soon as we get the signatures up to senator collins and lieberman might think it is, but i want to make it clear, and i do believe that again, one of the things about this chairman i know he likes to do things effectively and efficiently, so i would think

that omb there will come a time they will appear before us and we will be in the best position to provide some testimony would be helpful. now, mr. chairman, it is certainly good to see all of our witnesses here today. to truman davis it is a pleasure to see you again. your name has been evoked quite favorably around here and so it's good to see you. and mr. de alexander it's good to see you again. today we will hear the results of a report issued by the government accountability office on duplicative programs and major opportunities to enhance federal revenues. first, the gao report demonstrates there are real opportunities to streamline federal programs come save taxpayers' dollars and deliver services more effectively and efficiently. flexible, gao identified at

least 31 entities within the defense department is supposed to address the urgent needs of war fighters. the gao reported there are challenges with the department's fragmented guidance and raised concern about the numbers and the rules of the various entities involved. solving these problems will take a vacation, by partisanship but it will help both american troops and taxpayers. the gao report also describes numerous areas where we can recover hundreds of billions of dollars of federal revenues. for example, ga0 highlights the united states is essentially giving away up to $53 billion to all companies that are not paying royalties on certain leases to extract oil and gas from federal lands. that is our money. a lot has been said about the tax payers said during the last election. one of the things these it is they don't want to be cheated of their own money. congress passed legislation in 95 to give oil companies

so-called relief. the goal of the legislation is to encourage production by exempting the companies by paying royalties to the federal government. the legislation was supposed to require governments to start paying royalties when they recoup their investment and began making a profit. but the legislation was poorly drafted and when the companies to alleged in court the successfully avoided paying any royalties at all. in its report the gao reported it could result in $21 billion in lost revenue to the federal government. this is going to an industry that is making staggering process despite the worst economic downturn since the great depression. mr. chairman, you need significant work, we need to do sycophant work on this, and you have to be you've been a leader in this area and as a matter of fact in 2009 you issued a report about what would happen if these companies on their lawsuit.

any company that entered a similar lease between 1996 and 2000 could be skipped paying royalties. that is when you said. you also said the fifth circuit decision may force the federal government to reimburse companies who have already attended royalty payments. depending upon the market price of oil and natural gas the total cost of the for all royalties totaled nearly $80 billion, and of quote. mr. chairman, you warned about this problem and i commend you, i really do. but now we need to fix it. and it's coming to take a bipartisan effort. we just had a vote in the house where we had an opportunity to fix it, and we were not able to. and so, i think as mr. davis has said many times, this is one where we can come together as democrats and republicans. it is a win-win situation, but it's not a win just for republicans, not just for democrat, but most importantly it is a win for the american people and i don't just want to be sitting here ten years from

now saying the same things having lost even more money so i look forward to the hearing mr. chairman and i think you. with that, i yield back. >> i thank the ranking member and all members will have seven legislative days to submit their opening statements for the record. i now go to the distinguished panel. the honorable thomas davis iii. former chairman of this committee as the ranking member said he looks down on us every day. now the director of the federal government affairs and the man who issued the subpoena to the oil companies on my behalf in order to begin the process of doing the oversight on the flawed contracts that would cost the american people tens of billions of dollars and i want to thank you for that today publicly. the honorable gene dodaro as the comptroller of the united states appearing for writing the second time as the confirmed

comptroller versus the many times that you appear before us graciously as the acting. your work as a legislative branch employees spanning both the executive and the legislative branch providing more than 3,000 people who give us the nonpartisan reports and fact-finding that we absolutely rely on. and mr. ryan alexander, president of the taxpayers for common sense and often contributor. welcome back. pursuant to the committee's rules all witnesses are asked to be sworn in before they testify before this committee. if you please raise your right hands. do you solemnly swear or affirm the the testimony you are about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but truth? let the record reflect all witnesses have answered in the affirmative. thank you. please, be seated. in order to allow time for

discussion, and as my predecessor would say a longstanding tradition is that you will have five minutes, there will be a green light for as long as you may talk freely, there will be a yellow light to warn you your time is elapsing, and i will be understanding for you to complete your sentence, but not much more once it turns red, and that will allow a healthy dialogue afterwards. the chair recognizes mr. davis for his opening statement. >> thank you chairman issa and colleagues. thanks for the opportunity to testify for you today and i'm doing so in my capacity as the former member of the house and specifically chairman of the committee and i want to thank gene dodaro for putting together an outstanding report on the basis of today's hearing. i'm hoping we can engage a wendi before the system because we are in this, democrats, republicans, the house, senate, exit to this

branch. we all cause the problem, and i think we need to be there to solve it as we look forward to this and at this point they are not here today in the future we need to make sure they are engaged and doing some things we need to hear about. >> during my tenure i examine how the government could operate more efficiently, focusing on the government issues, procurement, i.t. policies possible service, government organizations. in this process of one said the weaker to extract savings from the federal government is to simply cut off fingers and toes rather than the one after the fact that smolder throughout the body politics. as we see in the gao report issued earlier this week sometimes uncle sam does indeed have too many digits in some surgery may well be in order. so where does the blame on? as i noted there's plenty of blame to go around. a lot of places to point the finger and let me start with congress. duplicative and overlapping programs frequently exist because the way that we in

congress legislate. indeed one of the earliest enduring lessons i learned, the election of the house was the jurisdiction trumps all. while different members believe there may be need for a given federal service it will surely right the authorizing legislation for their individual committees in mind. for example if a member of the education work force committee wants to enact a job-training program they will write the legislation to ensure it falls under an agency that committee's purview. this thing would be true of a member of the veterans administration. the financial services might like job training to low-income people in such a program to cut. john transnet of three different agencies. under this arrangement there off a bit differently, measured differently and administered differently. common sense suggests they should be combined to get the economies of scale or to make it easier for the citizens to know where the programs exist. we can blame the bureaucracy in many ways congress created the monster we bemoan and attempt to

protect the larger risk products. another plant that should be examined in the quest to crawl duplicative or overlapping programs or to implement broad personnel reforms we need to implement government wide solutions as often discussed. but while the executive branch has the ability to affect such efforts to a certain degree the compartmentalization approach that congress takes often prevents the type of all listed action required. this is especially true of the appropriations process in which all the subcommittees would have to every for an initiative a task we can't ask to take a back. finally on necessary ramifications of the state and local levels congress should examine the marion reporting requirements of the federal programs, human service programs, educational programs and transportation programs to see where we can make better use of consolidated systems. with existing technology it seems unnecessary to have every statement in its own reporting system for if a given program

essentially the same information is required from everybody. government-wide and the executive branch culture exists. too many agencies have pipes for the delivery services, personal rules and internal protocols. the result is the seamless communications and information sharing our rear between the government departments. information gets lost, analysis becomes disjointed and offered ability becomes and it is an effective catalyst for establishing cooperation and communication between agencies which could in turn lead to an exponential increase in efficiency. had the authority of the mandate to do so. unfortunately the administrations of both parties the office of management and budget said the becomes the office of budget. the concentration calls on the budgetary aspects of the agency's and a management review to deal with much more long term savings. the key to success is focusing how the services are delivered and how the services are procuring and how the information is gathered and

analyzed the zearing is the executive branch seems to be deficient. the a solutions of the redundant programs are not government skill sets. it often tends to reorganize afforded by inadequate time constraints, unwilling employee participants in the federal managers to know that a slow roll or weighted approach will trump the most ambitious change efforts. what did congress do and omb to avoid the situation? from the congressional standpoint it completely structures the committee system is unlikely. a first step to avoiding the program duplication and efficiency might be a cbo review of newly proposed programs for consideration. in closing there are good dedicated people working in government but upon examination of how the employees some of them are doing tasks they don't need to be doing under the regulations that didn't need to be written. today's hearing marks the start of an effort and a sustained effort to address these issues. again, i appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts and look for to questions and

ask that my statement put in the record. >> members of the committee, i am very pleased to be here today to talk about the gao report which outlines opportunities to tackle overlap and duplication, reduce cost and enhanced revenue collections. the report discusses 34 different areas of overlap and duplication and fragmentation and it out lines a number of specific activities that need to be reviewed. i will highlight a couple categories this morning. one, there are multiple programs and specific areas that have developed over the years and that need to be tackled pittard for example there are over 40 programs and employment and training areas. there are over 80 programs trying at least in part to

improve teacher quality. there are 80 programs intended to improve economic development. surface transportation has a multiple program as well. these programs have developed over the years and in some cases decades and in many cases there is really not a lot of empirical evidence to show the outcomes of the programs or that they are operating effectively. this is a perfect opportunity for the congress and the administration to look at these portfolio programs that we outlined in our reports and to begin to rationalize the programs, prioritize what the role of the federal government should be, and to give clear directions as to what is to be accomplished through the programs on how to measure the results and how to streamline the delivery systems and also reduce administrative costs. i think there's a lot of opportunities here. we also outlined in the defense area opportunities there and

medical commands comer urgent needs as was mentioned in the opening comments and there are other areas where the dod can leverage the purchasing power for example and purchasing of drugs and also pursuing a parallel paths and developing electronic medical records and there are opportunities to conserve and resources and get better results for less cost we believe. in addition to the over less fragmentation of the duplication we also outlined a number of opportunities for cost savings and enhance revenues 47 areas are outlined in the reaper. many of the opportunities go to the nuts and bolts of the government and how it operates. germany was outlined as the need to make sure there's more competition in contracting the there are fewer contract in people's to reduce the cost and

we are paying to maintain an unneeded federal property and we are paying through improper payments for services that either aren't rendered or are not well documented, that we have confidence that they are being saved or appropriately paid. and in the revenue area there is a gap at the tax level between texas at the collective $290 billion there are areas the we believe through prudent use of increasing the electronic filing using third-party data to identify potential non-followers and other activities that need to be looked at. now, one of the things we are going to continue to do since this report is the first report that meets our statutory requirement to annually produce these reports we will be looking at other opportunities going forward.

tax expenditures, flexible, and how they might duplicate other things for the simple in this report we mentioned the tax credit in the at the mall area, duplication, the renewable fuel standards that are in place and that congress should take a look at the need to continue this ethanol tax credit which is billions of dollars a year a foregone revenue. there is overlap between the tax credits, loan programs and other federal spending so we will be looking at these areas in the future, and we already have work underway for the next year's report and we look forward to working with the congress to help streamline the federal government activities to make sure that its operating more effectively, more efficiently, and then tax payers best interest. so mr. chairman, that concludes my opening statement. i would be happy to answer questions at the appropriate time. >> thank you. the gentleman yields back 14 seconds. [laughter]

>> ms. alexander, please. >> good morning, trice, a ranking member cummings and members of the committee, think you for inviting me to testify today. our mission for common sense is to achieve a government that spends taxpayer dollars responsibly and operates within its means. all of our work reflects the belief that no one, no matter where they fall on the political spectrum wants to see their money wasted. to that end we have worked with the left and right to achieve the victories on stopping the bridge to nowhere, getting the car-mart moratorium enacted, cutting funding for an alternate engine for the joint strike fighter and creating an inspector general for the iraq war. we testified before the committee several times with proven results for american taxpayers. we test for the cost overrun problems the of 22 rafters and the program was stopped. when mr. davis was on that night would testify on crop insurance, based printing the agricultural committee to take action and working with you, churn and i said, we testified on the army corps of engineers issues and the committee regarding lost royalty revenues from offshore oil and gas both of which are in the gao report we are discussing

today. in addition to might as the money i would like to enter the record the detailed recommended budget cuts. in the more than 15 year history, we've worked on many of the programs and issues highlighted in the gao report. we hope to increased scrutiny generated by the report, the current political will to tame the deficit and good work the committee will need to meaningful elimination of many of these programs. obviously there is much too much to tackle in this report in five minutes or even 50, i will just highlight a few issues. across the government gao found samples of duplication. reference to the acquisition process the from and why it could yield significant savings. this is particularly true in the pentagon for the rest of duplication across the surface as our high. evers requirement weapons like the eagles should be coordinated across the services, encouraging competition in the interagency contracting to help drive down cost by as much as 500 billion by the gao estimate and has mr. dodaro mentioned courtenay and from the dod and electronic of record systems for the

purchasing. they also have enormous possible savings but from disposing of billions of dollars worth of unnecessary federal property, but perfect vehicle management and better cost analysis of purchasing and leasing decisions. in addition to opportunities to reduce spending the gao report highlighted ways to enhance revenue, another critical element of reducing the deficit. give away the state oil and gas industry to the royalty management and collection systems have been highlighted by the report, gao numerous times and added to the high risk list this year. chairman as you know all too well from your work on these problems, the result of the royalty relief in the mid-1990s to oil and gas companies operating in the gulf of mexico problems stemming from the relief act including a portfolio of these holders to pay no royalties for oil and gas from the federal waters will cost taxpayers three and a 50 billion in the next five years. the gao report notes almost 1 trillion federal revenues forgone in fiscal year 2009 due to the tax expenditures but the commission called tax earmarks.

the 173 tax expenditures are similar to spending programs that can be the same magnitude or larger than related federal spending exit without the oversight. we believe this is an area this committee could play a critical role on increasing accountability, examining effectiveness and saving taxpayers' dollars. in the recent report the gao says reductions of revenue losses from eliminating in effect and text could be substantial. tax expenditure performance is in every it would benefit from the congressional scrutiny as the congress considers ways to address the long-term fiscal the balance. last year forcible the gao recommended congress modify the research tax credit to reduce wind falls for the taxpayers research spending they would have done any way and this report suggests changes to the tax credit as well as reviewing the toxics and status of bonds. these text extenders for effectiveness and fallujah and eliminating the largest corporate tax loopholes would pave the way for the corporate tax structure learning over all breeds and establishing an important level of different business communities. other tax expenditures such as

the mortgage interest deduction or deductions for the sales tax shall also be considered. reforming federal law activities related to the corn ethanol would be a double whammy eliminating redundant programs and enhancing revenue. the use of ethanol is mandated, protected from foreign competition and subsidized. any one of these redundant market distorting policy options might be proposed to help emerging industry that is indefensible but the mature corn ethanol industry continues to benefit from the decades of responsible tax credit to blend ethanol at a cost of the taxpayers more than 5 billion per year. clearly the gao has given the congress ought to think about coming eliminating duplication and waste of government and revenue are the critical first step to addressing the $1.65 trillion budget deficit. >> i thank the gentlelady. you feel it back 18 seconds. this is probably a record for any committee. i now yield myself five minutes. mr. davis, the work you did when

you were here continues on that as you can see, there is more to do. when we start looking at duplicative programs, from your experience on this side of the desk, do you recommend if the committee offers legislation that we use a carrot or stick or both? for example we could look at these programs and simply say through appropriations we are only going to fund x amount now you have to figured out how to combine these rather than eliminating them when you run out of money, period or do we create legislative authority for pools of savings being combined and thus create an opportunity in which there's a carrot for agencies that come together such as the electronic medical records if in fact the dod and our previously serving members

often known as veterans can simply come together and realize they're dealing with the same people and get stovepiped with different systems. how do you view those two options? >> i like the kid a better simply because when you try to start a budget they look within their budget, they don't look how they can share savings with another agency. it's just not in the nature of the beast. if you can then synthesize groups that work together in those kind of shared savings environment you could do much better. organizations or -- you have to look healthy or incentivized. they're hesitant to give up the control because they don't know what authority they may lose over the long haul so when it comes to the shared savings we are not getting the sustainability that we need. i would do something like mandating agencies to look at two or three lines of businesses with the nea each one they could share some of these instead of putting them into stovepipes but it doesn't intend buys them to work with other agencies.

it's not the nature. >> i appreciate that, mr. dodaro. >> i think the and said -- >> he's not chairman any more. you don't have to agree. [laughter] >> in this case, i mean it. [laughter] i think there are disincentives in the budget process, for a simple, and the way that the money is there. it's difficult to collaborate across agencies and i think there could be more flexibility that way. also, the idea is you positive there i think are also true at the state and local level in dealing with federal agencies on grants like for example we recommended that the federal agencies look at incentives for states to combine and the in plymouth in the training area. a lot of these programs are delivered to state and local lead ministry destructors and a lot of times to have to set up separate structures in order to

deliver multiple programs. so i think there's a lot of opportunities for incentives and flexibility. >> a quick follow-up on that. >> since so much of what is delivered in programs like that is in fact presidential earmarks often called grants and competitive grants and so on, should we require that the executive branch do that consolidation, recognize that if you're going to get five pots of money to do substantially the same thing for the executive branch and all many of them on a formula that in fact they become blind. do you think that is a wise piece of legislative or should we try to work if you will combined with the administration and their own best interest or last, should we give the states authority to easily come by grants so that no matter where they come from the can merge them which is something governor barbara talked about where he gets different pools of money with different strings.

how do you view those options to try to get the efficiencies? >> - all the options are very valid ideas. at the federal level i think there are opportunities to consolidate the various programs. for civil we understand in the administration's proposal for three of the rising and the education area, actually 38 programs we have identified our proposed and consolidated into five. there are thoughts on the surface transportation, clearly that. i do think that the state's should have some flexibility to show, and they can do it in a way to help reduce some of their own cost as you know they're struggling with their own fiscal stress and give them some flexibility as long as there is a proper accountability in place. one of the things we've said is there's not enough tracking of the and obligated balance and grant programs. so i think that all of those could work. >> i appreciate that. mr. alexander, just a quick one. you're opening statement, when

you took on one of the hardest pillars to take on, the ethanol subsidy, and i appreciate that, how do you propose we begin the process of dealing -- doing away with one of the obvious not a fossil fuel waste in government? do you suggest that we in fact take that 5 billion simply force it to be put into renewable fuels more broadly so that they can be competition from what most would call the more promising fossil fuels or do you have an alternate suggestion? >> our preference would be to have the savings the go to deficit reductions and not just in terms of the elimination for several years. i think in many ways, you know, it just can expire. it's done at the end of this year. we don't see anything replacing it. there are lots of efforts to look at new and more promising

fuels' but i don't think they need to be tight. that is a failed policy. >> thank you. i recognize the ranking member for his questions. >> thank you. mr. dodaro, one of the things i found interesting about the report is in the report it said dod made major revisions to the acquisition policies and he went on to say more emphasis is placed on the knowledge about the requirements, the technology and the designs. as the chairman of the coast guard subcommittee what we discovered when we were dealing with the deep water project by the $25 billion worth of hardware over 25 years and boats that didn't flow, part of the problem, literally, literally, part of the problem of acquisitions process. in other words, they didn't have people who knew what they were

doing with regard to specifications, putting together contracts, but the determining, you know, when something, performance was done. they even had the contractors determining when bonuses would be given. and so i'm just trying to dig deep with this dod because we see a lot of money going out the door there. how far have they gotten with that acquisitions that they've made some movements? what do you, i mean, what do you see that -- how much progress have they made and do you see other things that can be done in that regard? >> i think basically, for example the weapons system acquisition they put in place as a result of the congressional laws of the weapons systems acquisition reform act as 2,009 the put good policies and practices in their regulations and manuals but the need to implement them more consistently across the department.

>> how can we get them to do that? that's the question. >> there's no substitute for regular congressional oversight. >> and chairman davis, you said you talked earlier to me privately about it has to be a sustained effort. how do we sustain? i know if the coast guard we kept bringing them back over and over and over again and we got things done and we saved a few billion dollars in a very few years. but i'm trying to figure out how did we keep that sustained effort, chairman davis? >> two things. one is the difficulty in sustaining this in government is you have people who are replaced a free period of time. they have a lot of other priorities. i liken it to mergers and acquisitions. in the private sector cost. you have to take those out and stay competitive. you have a strict time lines, management oversight from of. many times in government you have costs that look good at the

front and on paper but by the time they are translated two or three years it sometimes and said costing you because you have this atmosphere. one other thing on the procurement, we don't have enough procurement officers. there's a policy of broken up officers of the pentagon and the need to hire and train more people in these areas. it saves money in the long term to have good people behind them. >> mr. dodaro, i only have a few minutes left, two minutes left, your report says the united states is giving the oil companies at $53 billion because back in 1995, congress exempted them from paying royalties on the leases in the government of mexico. there are some oil companies today that pay no royalties to the american taxpayers on certain leases. as part of the so-called royalty relief primm these companies are removing the oil and gas which belongs to the american people, selling it and making a record profits. and so, i'm just trying to

figure this is our money is and it? >> there hasn't been a comprehensive look in 25 years of what the federal government is charging for these leases, and when they are ranked, u.s. government's ranked against other countries and even some states we rank below what we are asking for the regular basis for the return of the release for the land. interiors finally agreed to do the comprehensive assessment. it's supposed to be completed this year. i would encourage the congress to review that study and make sure that there are proper incentives. we've also said, mr. cummings, that there's not enough verification of production that is occurring on the land is in order to make sure the government is getting its fair return. as bernanke put this on your hi list risk is that right? why was that?

>> we believe there wasn't reasonable assurance that the federal government was getting the revenue that they were due as a result of the leases for two of the reasons i mentioned before. >> in other words they were being cheated? >> i think that it's not clear we have reasonable assurance. we are getting everything we should -- >> but the fact is it's money that is due to the american people on our land and we are not getting it will let me tell you something, if that happened anywhere people were being cheated, folks would be going to jail in my district. as a matter of fact someone steals a $300 bike they go to jail. so, here we have billions drifting away into the same time we are trying to find money to make sure that kids can go to school and have teachers and all that kind of thing, but this has to be a priority. and i know the chairman has made -- this is a big issue for the chairman and i looking for to working with you as we tackle this problem. thank you, mr. chairman.

we now recognize the gentleman from florida. >> thank you mr. chairman. a quick note on the ethanol, count me in on finding the savings and on a personal issue at all has been screwing up my boat motor. so count me in the. a minute ago the ranking member said that the omb was sent here partly because the planning and doing, you know, but wouldn't it have been a great way to plan to actually come to the hearing and get some input and share their thoughts? and the ranking member also said one of the ways they were able to get some savings and be effective in another committee dealing with the coast guard was keep bringing them back but i would like the wendi to show up for the first time so we can keep bringing them back and

figuring out ways to save some money. and i'm going to -- let me start with this. mr. dodaro, has the administration had any reaction to your report so far? >> i've not talked to them about the report. we have -- there are some areas in the high risk list that we have made a number of attempts omb is on high-risk list and we are engaged in regular discussions on that and i do believe the announcement yesterday they were proposing a commission to deal with the federal property issue was in response to this report as well. i do plan to follow-up with them and to try to create dialogue to make sure all these issues are addressed. >> the haven't had a reaction. >> would be nice of the director of omb was here so we could ask

him that question. >> my understanding is the director said that they are on the same page as we are. >> mr. davis, good to see you again. isn't this really -- i mean, i remember my first term here when we were in the majority, weren't there reports -- did in the president, president bush at the time, didn't they come up with programs that were duplicative and in the nature that could be done away with? so this is a real problem. this isn't just the first report were the first time we've learned the federal government is wasting money by having duplicative programs. >> unfortunately it's a soap opera. mr. dodaro would agree that. things that have been in that high risk list for a generation, and it takes a sustained effort

on the part of republicans and democrats working with the administration to get these done and the promise is keeping your eye on the ball with everything that goes on and when you cut budgets and go through this er these are the kind of things that fall through the cracks. you still have the pentagon but the books aren't able to be audited so how do you know where you are on these kind of things? so yes it's a soap opera. >> mr. dodaro, can you give us any recommendations on what might be some of the low hanging fruit? i mean, do know, mr. chairman, if we could move on any of these, if you would be a sign of moving in the right direction. so is there any kind of low hanging fruit, things that are either so ridiculous in nature that by not acting it's kind of a shame? >> my recommendation would be to

build of where there is good consensus about the need to streamline, like for it simple, in the areas i mentioned with the multiple programs there are recommendations flexible on the employment and training area to reduce and consolidate some of the programs and surface transportation there is agreement, the quality and improving those consolidated and there's common agreements there semis just would be to build off where there's a consensus as a starting point. and these areas where mr. davis mentioned on the high risk list we've seen progress. i would say the real point though we took two areas off the list and both of those areas have more than a dozen congressional hearings. it requires top-level attention, metrics on progress, but there's a lot of opportunities to do

this. also opportunities in the property area that isn't needed if it needs to be disposed of. we are spending by the latest estimates over $1.6 billion a year to maintain property this underutilized. it doesn't make sense. there should be more competition in contracting. about one-third of the contracts that were put in place had either no competition or one better on the competition. there is also $640 million sitting in a customs collection account for a number of years that there haven't been decisions on how to use. that could be an easy and quick wit and. there is also a lot of money going out the door of the improper payments that i think could be stopped. that is going to take time and effort. we talked about the use of technology but i think that that's another area where the

latest estimate and all of the programs have been estimated yet. the latest estimates are about $125 billion so there are plenty of targets of opportunity and would be happy to work with congress and the administration to get results. >> thank you very much. >> i thank the giblin. >> i recognize the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich for five minutes. >> thank you very much, ms. alexandre i would like to ask you as the president of the tax payers for common sense, you're take on the american people giving the most profitable industry in the world is $53 billion gift. i'd like to break this down in layman's terms, and if i have any misperceptions about this media can help me with it. due to a flaw in the 1995 our continental shelf deep water fact, numerous companies are drilling in mexico in federal land and paying no royalties to

the federal government. is that correct? and as we have heard, the gao -- could you see that louder? >> my microphone was not long. i'm sorry, that's right. no royalties right now that the interior and the structure of the deep water royalty case. >> as we heard the reports u.s. taxpayers could lose as much as $53 billion as a result of this and it's already begun and fiscal year 2011 the bureau the ocean energy management regulation and enforcement estimates we will lose $1.4 billion. in contrast, the oil industry is making stuttering profits. for example, the top five oil companies reported profits of $485 billion in 2005 to 2009. exxonmobil, the largest american oil company reported a 53%

increase in its fourth quarter profits. chevron, the number to american oil company reported fourth quarter earnings 72% higher than the preceding years. the third largest, conocophillips, reported quarterly profit climbed 46%. now ms. alexander, is this an industry that needs billion dollar giveaways? >> tax payers for common sense has worked on this a long time and our position is perfectly clear we do not think the oil companies need the subsidies or any others so we think this is an issue that is right for the congress to address and in some ways it is so outrageous problems in the deep water royalty relief is that there should be bipartisan agreement on these are taxpayers' assets people are taking and if any of us all those oil reserves and said yes, just take it. people would think we were a little crazy. >> back into those of life on the wheel was about $55 a barrel

president bush addressed the society newspaper editors i want to quote what he said. quote, i will tell you which 55-dollar oil. we don't need incentives to the oil companies and gas companies to explore. there are plenty of incentives. we need to put a strategy in place to help the country over time become less dependent. ms. alexandre, would you agree with that statement by president bush? >> i would come in and with the last check about $98 a barrel it seems like it's still less. >> so it makes more sense now? recently, john hofmeister retired in 2008 and runs the citizens for affordable energy told the national journal that big oil companies don't need government help. would you agree? >> i would agree it doesn't need government help. >> how can we modify the subsidy structure to encourage the transition of what say clean renewable energy sources? >> our position has always been

we know what we don't need and we can get rid of it. congress can come together, develop a solution to the problem of the royalty relief leases and some of the bigger tax expenditures have significant benefits for oil and gas companies. there are subsidies for the gas companies in the tax code and for different spending programs that there's a big opportunity for there to be bipartisan action for the reform that will help close the deficit in just one step and what a mature industry stand on its own 2 feet. many of the subsidies the royalty relief program isn't 100-years-old but some are as much as 100-years-old and the industry doesn't need that anymore. >> and the handles don't do anything to help the american economy is that right? >> we think that the handle torian very profitable companies. >> with the gentleman yield his remaining time for a follow-up question?

>> sure. stat ms. alexander, i think it's important for everyone that wasn't here when german davis had about our investigation it's the leases of called, not necessarily the wall. isn't that correct? the lease is didn't trigger when the oil prices and natural gas prices reached the threshold to trigger the royalties. >> my understanding is there's a set of leases issued between 1996 and 2000 that were false, there was an era in the drafting than that because they didn't have the threshold and subsequently the court ruled all of the structure language in the leases and that period that contained them was flawed and so all of those or extend from the royalties right now. it is a complex problem, but it's not -- >> i do think was bipartisan support, still, to try to fix that. thank you. >> i'm sorry. mr. langford of oklahoma.

>> thank you. and thanks all for coming. we talked earlier about incentives for agencies to look reduplicate waste. obviously everyone wants to have more staff and do more things and everyone sees problems and they want to help solve it. one incentives specifically do you see that you think okayed this is an incentive to help the cause honestly i talked with several people that are federal workers. they see it as well. they see the waste about them and i can't believe we felt this form and we do this. someone else does this. they see it. how do we create incentives in the agency to that specific employees to say when you see it here is a way to be able to help us get out of it. >> i will give a couple of samples. why was that of the fairfax i went to my agency heads and a budget time and asked for the budget and they came up with nothing. we said look, what you can find you can spend some of this your own way within certain guidelines and they came up with a lot more. his interest in coaching to be cutting their budget or is it is

going to the, quote, deficit. it's not in the nature of the way things work. so that is one thing you could do. another is we could bring the agencies and ask them to take certain lines of business and look for ways to share the savings and report back. just two or three lines of business her agency. right now they can work together. the best example of that is the record between the va and the dod. there's no reason you have to do the different sets of health records. i will give you one other if i can just take a second. right now for the state governments spending a lot of money on just being able to authenticate the communications with the federal and from it. security standards exist to authenticate users to access data and federally funded systems posted by the state. each federal agency interprets the standards differently so the states have to meet each federal agency standards replicating a different process to various programs that cost a lot of money. social security uses technology for verification, department of

justice will use a certain procedure and protocol on that. have you do different things you ought to have one standard and cost for these things. >> that's terrific, mr. dodaro. >> mr. davis talked within each agency, and i do agree with his suggestions in terms of forcing people to come up with recommendations. but many things we point out in our report or multiple agencies involved in the same area and we believe the only way this is going to get assault despite high levels within the administration. owen b. needs to play a very critical role in this endeavor and the congress does as well to provide the right type of incentives. for example, one of the areas that's not mention what we are going to work on it, it's in our high-risk list is the disabilities programs. it is about 200 different disabilities programs, and because of our insistence working with omb on the high risk set of meetings i talked about before, it brought

together all the agencies involved in that process. it was one of the first time as they ever met to be able to discuss that. so i think there is ways to build incentives and deal with disincentives. another area we recommended before is leasing versus buying. there is, you know, a sort of a bye yes in the roles that we have recommended that be changed as well. >> what me ask you a specific question. you mentioned about contacting vehicles and two are recommending to were contracting. he compiled a list you say these should be seriously looked at? >> yes, these are contracts that are interagency contracts and what we have said is there are really not a list. the list of to be compiled by the executive branch and need physical and people should make sure -- -- we have a multitude of contracts and systems for procurement. you don't have at this point a list to secure the different contracting vehicles waiting are inherently inefficient. >> we have the types of vehicles

that are inefficient or pose more risk to the federal government. i would be happy to provide that. >> i would like that list as well. graybill to reach these different agencies to be given to research and in a way most cannot. what would you perceive as the need for individuals to the devil to reach in and be able to search the data city agencies can get out their employment, their strategies, the program philosophies to be able to go through the cut and search it not just a pds on the web site but actual searchable data is there a need for that and is that possible to pilaf? >> there is definitely the need for it. there's not enough of it and it is possible. estimates that one of the areas you have the opportunity to do that but there are people at home the would like to search that and research that would be journalists or individuals and that is something i would like to see us continue to push on as has been mentioned before and continue to find ways to do that. one last thought on the sunset programs. is there a particular plan that you seem to say this is a great way to sunset these out?

>> i can't there needs to be regular reauthorization of programs. there are too many programs that are created that don't have a regular review and process in place. i do think the government needs to invest more in the program evaluations. one of the things we find and we talk about here a lot of the programs have been operating for years and it's really not a lot of empirical evidence of what the returns are, whether they are being effective. so i think the federal government has in the past shortchanged the program evaluation, and i think it needs to be put in place on a regular basis. >> thank you. i yield back. >> i now recognize mr. connolly. >> thank you. our former chairman and my predecessor in this seat in virginia, my good friend tom davis. welcome back, tom. in fact perhaps congressman davis we could begin with you. you talked up the fact it would be a wise investment to expand

the number of acquisition procurement personnel within the federal government so that we are looking for a efficiencies and cost savings. could you expand on that just a little bit? because one of the things that certainly has struck a number of people is federal contracting increased enormously in the 1990's but procurement and acquisition personnel within the federal government didn't keep up with that. >> and cemetery as it declined. it cut budgets and in fact many times to go to a procurement meeting and what you have is a lot of contractors running the procurement. that's not all bad that you need a cadre inside of the government to understand the tool box that they have to figure out what is the best value for their government and that needs constant training and all of those kinds of things. what's happened many times is the end of losing good personal to the private sector and yet that's where you get your cost overrun. that's where you get contracts that aren't performing well

because you don't have the appropriate oversight. . more than doubles over the past several years and the workforce grew more than 1%. in their efforts not to try to bolster that workforce, with proper trainingen and oversight it is a good vem. >> sometimes we get carried away with things like spending rotects dollars. is that not correct, mr. dodaro? >> that's true. you need to look at outlook but make sure you have the proper oversight. contracting is a particularly important aero. >> congressman davis, just

knowing you are in the technology side here, right now the administration is looking at several data centers and trying to consolidate as a corporation of those federal data centers. what's your sense of prime suspect for achieving more efficient the protection of data and cost savings of tax tears? >> you have over 2100 data centers right now for 24 different agent fees. and the. i think you can save $700.00 billion a year. you need to look at the security is due to those kinds of things. but in so many areas were not sharing david demers to 18. mr. dodaro, there's so many ways we can work across asia needs to store these things come you get the economies of scales and this, you can gain along the way if we would learn between agencies to share these things.

and it's just not been a culture. >> mr. dodaro, going back to the subject and ms. alexander, in response to the chairman's question, he said the problem is that the royalty agreement, not with the law. i thought he heard to say actually there was a change of law perhaps been a lot written in 1995 that has the effect, i've pretty much exempting offshore oil drilling from anywhere at all. >> is my understanding there was a flaw in the execution of the interior in the 90s. whether or not there's a flaw in the lot is a little more of an opinion matter, but it is the fact that there were errors in addressing the lease agreement of interior in the 90s that we think are probably subsequently in the court decision with all price threshold.

>> gas, but with respect to this change in the comment that is something obviously within the purview of congress. q-quebec well, this is something congress can come together and we hope that you do. >> finally, mr. dodaro, any estimate on the loss of revenue in terms of the factory or 93rd out of 104 countries of royalties exact from the oil industry? >> i don't think we have a current estimate in that regard, but i do think as i mentioned earlier we don't have reasonable assurance that were collecting as much as we should. >> thank you. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. kelley of pennsylvania for five minutes. with the gemini for just a moment? be not pay well. >> thank you. >> i think mr. conley made a very good point in his chairman, mr. lang spared that this is one of the only areas to take on a

new procurement reform of the together because i do believe this is an example where these kinds of questions and answers here we can provide the subcommittee some of the history so you could work on procurement reform to make clear we never write a lot again that could be misinterpreted by a interior, written correctly and ultimately not surviving the court. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. dodaro, good to see you again. one of my questions and from where i am, we do a lot of touring and i've been to a lot of deepak plants. maybe you can understand me. we started talking about duplication and how many people we have in different places, taking different names. a lot of the same time is maybe coming up with some type of the lead. the usda has every day, is that not true? >> i believe so.

>> again, my question then comes when we have the folks every day. we have a plan that has been on for the critical control point and considered in appearing scientific application of the state-of-the-art systems. every meat plant designs their own system in accordance with the usda requirements must operate successfully. we do not need an inspector at every plant everyday. we operate the same whether instructors are present or not. i would say from an attendant lifetime, with a lot more important from snapshots time to time. we have folks in the plant everyday come usda inspectors watching what these people do. in addition to that, we send in another group that comes into go over what they already have gone over. and i would that happens, these aren't large meat processors. small place that may be 4050

employees. they've got to stop what they're doing and spend a week going over the plan, which has gone over every day with the usda inspector. i'm just trying to understand if they go through this and see the duplication of this and the cost to taxpayers and the cost benefit analysis, wherein the end of the taxpayer and could you shed any light on this? >> we have learned out for a number of years that the food safety system is completely fragmented. it's really not operating effectively. there is a need to go to risk based approach and i think that is worth your pointing out the real need to do that. we'd recommend it that there be a congress commission studied with the national academy to redesign this. a lot of her food now it's coming from foreign is them are so on domestic reduction a lot. so we set the system right now can be a lot better and there needs to be real look at the

risk based approach is really the way to go. >> i wonder about this. i just keep wondering why we keep shooting ourselves in the foot and wonder why we haven't been. we have these diminished and we keep going over and over again and everybody comes up at the same answer. there's too many regulations and too much overlap. when does it stop? when we face it? >> i think you just have to figure out which priority is congress wants to pursue and stick with it. i mean, i think there is not a lot of substantive focusing on these areas and results. they are our cultures and incentives that will keep things in place until they're broken and the only way they'll be broken is through sustained efforts by the congress and the administration in order to do

it. otherwise it won't change material. >> i'm looking forward to working with you in to write the same conclusions to get things faced. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the >> we now recognize mr. tierney for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you know, it's interesting, mr. dodaro. i heard my colleagues say they would like to solve the problems having to do with the lease of the noncollection royalties. your report that government retain oil and gas produced by federal leases. seems like a very commonsense recommendations. everyone on the panel says they agree with it, but interestingly these royalty issues the lease continue. and you agree we're not getting it. >> there's not reasonable insurance we are. >> with the report by mr. issa and his colleagues phyllis thatcher during may go beyond

1998, 1998 bases and culminated depending upon the market price of oil and natural gas off work on royalties for a total of nearly $80 billion. in fact, your report says that between $21,000,000,053,000,000,000, jumping from his oil companies into their pockets instead of playing down debt. we have shell and bp and exxon mobil, 485 profit in the last 10,200 jobs. so this is a situation and they talk about understanding the history. everybody knows that the problem is. everybody knows what the consequences are and i just want to make sure everybody knows there's a solution out there. my massachusetts colleague, ed markey has proposed a way to address the problem. first he recognizes he can go back and what the list is bogus and litigation. his resolutions are an alternative to that. they would