benefiting from no royalty leases. those companies have the choice to either keep your no oil leases or begin a fair price and get releases eventually on the deceptive man. now my colleague has worked very closely with the congressional research service to make sure there were no constitutional issues. my question to you, ms. alexander is do you support legislation? >> we work with representative markey. we just want to see this fixed. but that would work coming out. >> now with a history of everybody saying they want to reserve the problem. and yet as a result, let me tell you the last week -- last friday mr. markey offered that legislation on the house floor. not a single one of our colleagues from the other side voted for it. all the people on our side did. it was off the floor again this week and again not what i want

her colleagues voted for it and everyone that people on the side of the aisle voted for it. last year and the year before -- this is not a new idea. this is something he's repeatedly brought to the floor. so if we think we'll understand the problem, if we know the history and if we all say we ought to fix it, it always takes these can make things happen. i hear a lot of words. so ms. alexander, we can offer this over and over, but until her friends on the republican side of the aisle want to put these behind their words, we will get much action. what you say to convince my republican colleagues over here were blocking this change, what would you say they have in mind when mr. markey reaches the floor? >> as they say, our position is to just fix it. the markey bill does fix it comes up that's one way to do it. come up with another solution. >> taught him by the markey amendment works and why you support it.

>> we supported because it is a constitutional approach based on what we've read to putting the lease holders of the no royalty is in a position where they have an incentive to renegotiate. simply put, we just want to not continue to give away, so really cannot let the different options. >> when you say to my republican colleagues. we understand the problem. we share you say. it's your intention to resolve it and we provided you with a perfectly legitimate way to resolve it. let's work on it and next time it comes, maybe he'll vote on it to get the matter resolved. $53 billion back to where people. so when i'm running around cutting money from teachers and reduce in pell grants for students can't afford college, wracking job ratings. let's get serious and descending for real. >> of the gentleman yield? >> i will yield. >> mr. alexander, one of the things the report says was that in some instances information is being provided by the oil companies around the sleep in

their results reporting and in some instances there is no reporting what the weather. >> could you comment on that, please? >> the issue of self reporting is basically an honor system. here is our oil, take us, tell us how much you've taken. if you don't think that's the right way to do business, congress and the administration is treating taxpayers if they have a fiduciary responsibility to manage assets. we do support the markey fix, but we also worked ghostly with mr. chairman issa. i think there's a real potential for a bipartisan solution on this and from the taxpayers do this to the over. >> thank you. >> i think the gentleman. >> for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for the presentations from the entire board. mr. dodaro, i didn't know for

sure, but i was listening to the language and i thought he picked up the pittsburgh and i'm glad to see -- is jim dodaro your brother clerics okay, it's the pittsburgh and the boys. listen, thank you for your presentation today. i come to this committee with a background that includes time as united states attorney and in that capacity came in just after september 11 when we were dealing with issues of terrorism. we share responsibilities and other committees as well. one of those committees on which i served as homeland security. and as a result i think as each of us went to your theory comprehensive assessment of government spending in various capacities, but also the duplication is really struck for two reasons, one with respect to the bureaucratic overlay of so many agencies, but also what's at stake with the issue of bioterrorism. so i take a minute to read from

your report at least five departments, agencies and more than two dozen presidential appointees overseas, $6.4 billion related to bioterrorism. on the front end of this, we are saying there is no broad integrated national strategy that accomplishes all the stakeholders have bio defense responsibilities to identify the risk systematically, access resources that are needed to do it and to prioritize and allocate the investment across the spectrum. so that's on the front end to prevent an incident. then you conclude there is no national plan to coordinate federal, state and local efforts following the bioterror attack. the united states? the technical and operational capabilities required for an adequate response. this could be katrina all over again. we're really on the front end of a remarkable challenge for my work on homeland security

council, bioterrorism is the very real threat. can you take a minute to comment on this very, very important aspect of this report? >> if they would commit thank you. following september 11, there is a lot of focus on protect in the transportation system, particularly the airline industries. what we were trying to focus on and i think the 9/11 commission was whether the other potential risk for the country? what are other avenues that could be pursued? for example, smuggling information or threats over the border physically. other modes of transportation. but the bio defense areas where we fell for a number of years wasn't getting enough attention and understanding that the threats were for having an appropriate plan in place to be able to do it is like a number of areas that really requires multiple agencies to be involved and they really haven't been a

means to coordinate a year and we try elevate this with the homeland security council and the national security council which are well poshard. we have in.net much responses i would like in this to provide for proper leadership. so i do think this is an area where congressional oversight is foreign to and from my would be very welcome some of the very important things that could be done to make sure we position to detect and prevent something, not only in a position to be reacting after-the-fact. >> mr. davis. >> let me just say if you think that's tough, what about cybersecurity, or you can tell, dhs, dod and every agency doing a different approach? i think it will be even more alarming. >> i only have 50 seconds, but i'm going to ask both of you in response to this, would you tell

me how we look at creating the kind of mechanism where there is a national strategy focal point worth a single point of response to be both prepared on the front end and coordinate these assets and that's important in the event that we have been in demand to be able to respond effectively on the backend. we have asked for attention to be paid. if i understand, maybe you can tell me the history here. what is the solution? what works best in terms of how we organize and then seek accountability? >> i'll take a quick stab. one of the problems that the executive branch level is jurisdiction in terms of who is going to be involved. this is going to take engagement from the congress, both parties that the administration and figure datapath in moving ahead. we have a deprivation since

2002. long overdue, but i think will take a lot of dialogue and a lot of bipartisan cooperation to decide, but it has to be done. >> i agree with that completely. i think this needs upper-level congressional and mustered support to be able to do it. you can't work with the agencies on a peer level and expect they are going to create this type of mechanism. this fundamental problem. >> and i just said, two of my kids but these were not college. >> they are obviously bright children. ending on the high note, the gentleman's time is expired. we now recognize the gentleman from vermont for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. dodaro, that is a great report. i really want to thank you florida. i thought among other things it was terrific that it looked at the whole problem, not just the loss from duplication, but also the loss from inappropriate tax subsidies, improper payments

come in the air raid in our payments. so it was quite comprehensive and extremely helpful. mr. chairman, went to thank you thank you, too. the focus of this inquiry is very important, mr. ranking member, really appreciated. a little bit about the oil subsidies is an easy target for us, but if it isn't taking care of, your report indicated $53 billion could be saved by taxpayers if we eliminated the oil subsidies for royalty-free drilling at a time of $100 a barrel oil. so you fully support eliminating that subsidy for the oil companies so they can save money for the taxpayers? >> we were asked to calculate what it would be if that would have been in place. >> i would ask you what it was for. it would be $53 billion. >> i believe that is the high-end of our estimate. but what we are trying to focus

on -- >> let me just go on. ms. alexander, you indicated again i applaud you because you're taking a comprehensive approach her, looking at all the elements of how the taxpayers getting hammered unnecessarily. but the oil subsidies and a bespoke about as well that we should get rid of the oil companies disagree in a spent about $340 million in the past year saw been to retain this tax payer health. >> the oil companies jobs to make company drilling oil. it's congress' job to have the fiduciary role and take care taxpayer dollars. we think there's room for a fix. >> is a curfew if they are going to taxpayer subsidies, and that is an expense to every taxpayer in the country, but the intention is to create jobs but that subsidy should go to emerging technologies and industries, not mature and profitable industries.

>> we took a skeptical look at all subsidies and certainly as a starting point we want to know what would make getting for attack dollars. to put a dollar and 20 street, we want to know why we are doing it and what our goals are. if were trying to get jobs and are not coming to an effective subsidy. if it's mature and should be allowed to take care of itself, should need subsidies. we'll be skeptical about subsidies to an emerging technology that is very high performance standards and a reason in that timeframe. >> that skepticism is appropriate and should be applied to a tax expenditure, which cost the taxpayer money as it should be applied to any line item expenditure in the budget, correct? >> we see it that way, yes. >> mr. davis, some people say you're real smart politician. i want to ask you really for some advice. >> i'm a reformed politician. >> you know, in this room was that the democrats attempt to hammer away on what we see as

tax giveaways and a lot of times the other side of the aisle is focusing on duplication. my view, we are both right. whether his duplication, we had to eliminate. or there is a freebie tax subsidy we had to eliminate that. but we are sort of berates an opposite kind the line here and now the chairman make you never want to save taxpayers money. as the ultimate goal. i wonder what you think about is trying prepare areas. mr. langford is doing good work in a subcommittee. you mention, for instance, duplication and makes those vents. why don't we have one set of medical records? would've prepared that getting rid of the ethanol subsidy were there does seem to be some bipartisan port and you're doing them together. or another might be no purpose in costing taxpayers $53 billion in repair that with following

your advice on the worry of different federal agencies requiring the states to accommodate each one of their different standards for verification. it makes absolutely no sense. so how do we -- my frustration here at times of namesake of the political impediment that inhibits us from taking appropriate action that can make real progress. in your testimony, you suggested we look in the mirror and frankly i think that's pretty good advice. and michael here with e. to save taxpayers money. for the duplication we can agree on not be eliminated, but to avoid there is a tax expenditure that's just a rip off from the perspective of the taxpayer. with eliminated. moving ahead, making progress, the chairman make you never want to accomplish here. do you think that makes sense?

>> in him only makes sense, it's essential. you're the democratic administration and need the administration by them. a congress that is divided. and when it comes to race, one man pork is another man's state, but a lot of these efficiency issues i think we have to deal to come together on this committee, sit down. we're not going to agree on everything, but there enough things we agree not to put together the report and then you have to drive it. you have to go to the administration, go to the floor. let's face it. this interest group that set committee room to want to weigh in on subsidies and if he's each talk in the vacuum. these are the numbers. when you get outside, it becomes more difficult. this committee could play a very vital role in coming together with a strong bipartisan report and pushing not come a holding hearings. i think it getting everybody back again with get some agreement on this and trying to drive it. the frustration i felt it. 14 years in the house is there is no sustainability.

u.k. report come at the hearing, get momentum and we forget about it and move on to the new thing. but this is something this committee was empowered to do when it was formed back in the 50s. and i think it is something we're not going to agree in everything, but there enough things we agreed to put together a juicy report and save taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. i think it's a good suggestion. >> i would give you more time if i possibly could because you are on all the right methods and i think the gentlemen. we now recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania. we are very pennsylvania oriented. mr. platts for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i certainly think all three of the witnesses. great to have all of you. mr. davis, with all respect, i want to say mr. chairman, great to have you back as well. >> whetted out. keep letting it out. >> your insights are certainly very helpful to us and i want to

commend senator coburn are having sponsored legislation to result in this report in the important work of the gao and now following through on the assignment. and really what i see is the beginning of the process, the first of what will be opiate daylight between gao, this committee and support work. and tom come you touched on a perfect sustainability that we all just talked about these things, but then we follow through. and when you are chairman and now chairman ice, had the privilege of chairing the subcommittee on government organization efficiency and the nature of management. i assure you we will do our best as a subcommittee to sustain this effort from the legislative side and working with all the parties. on a specific issue, when you think about within the report, what is highlighted in the inefficiency and duplication, the waste of resources, teacher quality, education of kids come

employment training, especially with unemployment for a most ears, dod, homeland security committees are all top priorities for our country and for citizens, yet we know we can do a lot better with resources we are putting into them. the 21st questions rtu and this will probably in follow-up hearings with fewer staff on the subcommittee level. as he looked at some of the duplication, such as 4 billion on teacher -- teacher quality, is there any ability to give even a testament of saving, administrative savings if we took 82 different programs into even half that number? any ability to give a testament and how much could we likely save from eliminating the duplication? >> i'll go back and take a look, but i don't think we were able to do it because there is a lot

of limitations on the amount of information that's available, on what it costs to administer some of these programs, particularly those in the case that administered to the state and local level. we do believe there's plenty of opportunity to consolidate programs. as i mentioned earlier in the administration's proposal for education reform, they are already proposing consolidating these programs in 12 of them. i think there's a lot of opportunities. i don't have a process i wish i did. >> that is a positive sign here come the reference to secretary duncan, though looking at trying to be proactive in the consolidation effort, to be more efficient if they follow on any similar answer that shall have the ability to edit detail at at this point. and that is when you look at the teacher quality, teacher preparation, those 82 programs i don't think probably have the data available to you right now to do a cost-benefit analysis and a are we happy these two

programs -- these i have over here we can show it done a great job. these other 77 are struggling, so when we look to consolidate consolidate -- is that accurate at this point you don't have the data orient the ticket to the detail of the cost benefit analysis? >> that's correct, especially for the smaller programs. we do mention the reported number of the smaller programs are so small it's hard to evaluate them. >> under 50 million number of administrative costs them with the savings would be. and looking ahead to the hearing process, i've got to tell you, temptation is to try to make a point about the duplication to invite one representative from a 82 i'm just teacher education. we feel the room. i wouldn't be any seats left to make the point that your report does. we need to do a lot better here. additional questions that we try to squeeze in here and proper

payment is a huge issue. you reference 125 william and probably the low end. as we know or think we know about how much is really out there. any specific recommendations? when we think of how to balance the budget and deficit reduction, you know, it's entitlement reform into the biggest areas are medicaid and medicare. any specific areas you want to point us towards with them is the two programs? >> the first thing i would say in the medicare area or needs to be an estimate for the prescription drug component. right now there is of the the estimate is incomplete. there are opportunities to use more information to elegy up front to help attack and we are looking at and evaluating opportunities right now. we talked about the high risk the chairman ice and we're looking at that issue. i think the improper payments elimination and reporting act was passed by congress last year

at the very important vehicle that lowers the threshold, requires accountability, requires regular reporting, setting a target in follow-up entrained spirits and reporting. so i do think this is a really important area that we sustained attention, that can make a lot of progress. >> hopefully we can sustain that effort with you and chairman davis -- >> i would just say i'm improper payments i think has been constantly solvable for government and the legislation helps. there is so many great software items out there in front detection that are being utilized. i think you need to continue to push that from here. and i just said, sharing savings contracts or something the government needs to look at in these areas here that is basically don't see anything amiss to get to 93% are not and is negotiated down. they are legal under the fire, but rarely used. it is a great way to get

something out there quickly. it doesn't come out of budget, producing that government. >> i think the gentleman. >> the gentlelady from the district of columbia, is burned for five minutes. >> thank you very much. i have a question for mr. dodaro and mr. davis, my regional neighbor, but i'm going to give you a pat on the sentencing to sure. i'm not going to ask about oil subsidies. in fact, i'm going to ask you about a subsidy with the surface. our ranking members chaired a committee that has to do with property and property disposal. i note mr. dodaro, that you identified as i'd like you to elaborate upon it because it's

dated improving cost analysis to make federal facility decisions could save tens of millions of dollars. just give an example, we just built a beautiful department of transportation just a few years ago. it was huge, state-of-the-art. guess where? we built the department of transportation and will always be there as the headquarters building. we built it, give it a 15 -- it's built by a developer. we have a 15 year lease on it. when that leases the outcome would show a bought the building. and we will start buying the building again. i believe this has a lot to do with scoring. what changes do you think should be made into should make it? we want to came to this humongous boss if not tens of millions, but billions of dollars because we don't do real estate the way the private sector does.

how should we change the scoring? who should do a quick visit administrative? >> we recommend that the omb, but proposal to be what to do with this issue. that's not been done yet, but it's a combination of action by omb work in the cbo in the budget committees they really would have to make a change in the rolls. i think it's appropriate. there needs to be flexibility. it's not always one way or the other, but there needs but there needs to be a good cost-benefit study and the government and taxpayers would benefit. >> on asking for is the federal government should not have one way of doing real estate transaction with the rest of the country does it another way. first thing you got to look at its widest everybody else do it that way? why do you buy a home with a mortgage and put the money straight down? why is that better for the taxpayer? mr. davis, i was interested.

mib. -- this is so davis lake, when approach to things, this notion of trying to find ways to work together. i noted that in properties, we signed a letter with the chairman in which we were asking dsa to access to their database on excess profiting. now the president has a hold that the on excess property going on and now you see her committee well. so you see the administration can you see this committee and you see the appropriate committee all going at the same issue, all seen that there are dollars there. were all, mr. davis, having been chairman of the committee do you think the committee should play now that there's been so many interested in this low-hanging

fruit? >> the administrator of gsa has just put this together her own advisory committee on the subject, too, doing away with the surplus properties. you have a lot of cooks in the kitchen right now. this committee meets driving outcome. they think you need to hold the seat to the fire, for some time limits on this. this has been around a long time. before i came to congress, trying to dispose of property are useless to property and away we can rehabilitate and use them to share the private sector. what we need to do here at the subcommittee level is continue to hold hearings and tried to keep their feet to the fire. you got the time limits on this before the clock runs out. i think mr. dodaro's report shows a lot of savings and we can get it right. just add one little thing in the scoring. i hate to mention this, but you get frustrated and congress can direct scoring you don't get any action. >> which we direct scoring? >> you can read the rules for scoring. we've done it with some

frequency. >> i yield back. thank you. >> the generally deals back in another former chairman of the committee, mr. burgess, recognize for five minutes. >> time, it's good seeing you again. i understand you're in the private sector making lots of money. good to see you. he's blushing -- >> out this morning, but -- >> anyhow, welcome back. it's good to see you. this picture simply doesn't do you justice. but anyhow, i'd like to make a brief comment about mr. tierney's remarks. i wish he was still here. we checked on the issue that he raised on the eternal motion in the reason the re-committal motion filled with because they were an aside -- i don't like to use the term blackmailing, but black checking the oil companies into renegotiating leases that it darty been agreed to in order

to get a new lease. and that is some end i think most people would agree is a violation of law. there was the case and i'm saving all this for the record. there was a case in 2007 that went to court, where they try to force the renegotiation of the contract in one because the contract was valid in the government had no right to go back and insist on changing that, simply because they wanted to get more back from the company. now, i think there is a baby can do this in the future and we talked about that. and then as we can encourage them would renegotiate leases, not threatening the old thesis, but when we've renegotiate leases to create a better way to get those funds back that would help bring women into the treasury and reduce the debt. now i'd like to go into this a

little further. this is not the subject at hand, but i think it's extremely important. we've been talking about this i notice on the news the last few days there's more and more commentators and experts, quote unquote talking about it. and that is, our dependence on foreign energy and it plays into what we're talking about in an unusual way. we import about 63% of our energy back in 1972 when we had the oil embargo about 25% or 26%. the more than doubled our dependency on middle eastern oil, oil coming from mexico canada and venezuela, communist dictator down there, shouted your rear in a situation where these oil supplies were in jeopardy. we could see the cost of oil per barrel go through the roof and the cost of gasoline and other things we use oil for us or his

energy is concerned go through the roof. right now i've got some gasoline last night, which may not be of interest to anybody, but reykjavík castling to cost me $3.57 a gallon and that was the lowest i could find on the entire george washington parkway. so the cost is higher than that in d.c. and is going to. some people say there's disruption of the oil supplies coming in from the middle east alone if we had blockage of the suez canal for the persian gulf, that we'd see oil and gas costs go through the roof here you can see $5 from $6 a gallon gas. now, we deliver in this country a great deal of our resources by truck. pickens was inducing a week or two without any told me of the converted or got all of the 18 wheelers use natural gas, we could cut our dependence on foreign oil by 50% within the next decade.

that's one thing and yet we're not drilling or doing anything to explore for energy in this country. we can't get oil leases, new oil leases aggregating all kinds of environmental issues raised that say we can't drill here, and drill there. we've got trillions of gallons of coal shale to be converted to gas, to oil. we've got oil all over this country come in the end were enough the continental shelf and in the gulf of mexico. we've got trillions of cubic feet of natural gas and we're not doing any thing. and so we are in effect creating a greater dependency on foreign energy than we ever have in the history of this country. we've gone from 25% to 60% dependent on foreign energy since we had the oil embargo, where people were bucking for bucks to get a can of gas to get to her. and so just give me another 30

seconds, mr. chairman. i think it's extremely important than a novice this is off the subject and i appreciate you being tolerant of my comments. it's important when we are talking about renegotiating or negotiating oil or whatever were talking about, do we realize we have a huge dependency on foreign energy in this country from an economic standpoint and a defense standpoint could be in a terrible situation if we don't move towards energy independence. i think all of us, regardless of whether were democrat or republican ought to be talking about ways we can move in this direction as quickly as possible. because if we don't do things go south in the middle east or in venezuela or elsewhere, we could really see problems. my thoughts, castling through the roof, cost of all the good things service is going through the roof and inflationary spiral that could kill this country. without coming thank you very very much, mr. chairman.

>> mr. burton, can i react to that? i think you're on, but you've got to remember the stone age didn't and because they ran out of stones. our dependency on oil. they will be alternative fuels developed and i think that continues to be long-term strategy. the most frustrating if congress is in ability and i was part of this, to come to grips with some kind of defined energy policy that has more domestic production. as you noted, more research and incentives into alternative fuels, which we started to do. and more conservation. it's a three-pronged deal in the party should be able to come together on this for exactly what you say is going to happen. >> ester chairman, let me make one brief comment. and that is the thing for mr. a lot of the things we are talking about is going to take time, five, 10, 15 years. we don't have the luxury of time that we need to get moving on energy independence right now. thank you very much.

he met the gentleman yield back. how could i not agree? you make great points. its economic security, national security. they are all intertwined. so with that, i yield five minutes to the gentleman of missouri, mr. clay. >> thank you, mr. chairman. on the first welcome mr. davis back in mr. orton certainly looks good in this freshly painted hearing room. let me start my question with mr. dodaro. thank you for your testimony and recommendations on ways we can make the federal government more efficient to save taxpayer dollars. i would like to focus on the earth in defense. i am concerned about dod's

pattern of negative appearances in gao report. as we continue to increase dod budget, the agency continues to be plagued by an efficient tea, duplicative programs, waste and in some cases fraud. in your report, you identified dod's military health system is an area of concern for duplication and redundancy. the reports state that the dod military health system has no central command authority or single entity accountable for minimizing cost in achieving efficiency. and that's very troubling, given its mission. can you share with the committee the annual cost of dod military health system and what are the project could cost increases through 2015? >> it's about $50 billion.

>> 50 billion for the health care. rate. we point out in the report to the health care cost the dod, just like they are in other parts of our economy growing. in the area that we mentioned in terms of the military health care command is something that's been studied by the science board and others, recommendations within dod to do it and they pursued a strategy that has minimal changes involved. and we think if they pursue a broader strategy, it would be very important. also in the health care area, congressmen, the cost of prescription drugs is fast growing part in component of health care. we think it could yield some benefits by leveraging their purchasing and they've agreed to start revisiting that issue. >> thank you for that response.

and what impact do you think the systems redundancy and command structure issues have on those costs? >> the estimates that were made at the time, savings can be achieved between 250 million over $400 million a year, depending on the nature of the consolidation. >> okay, so that was kind of hope saved the taxpayer if they took the recommendations that implemented them. >> that's correct. >> right now they are pretty much ignoring them. we might is made a minimal changes in that regard, but we think they could do more. >> okay, me and you have recommended alternative concepts that have been on the table for a while in addition to your report. the naval analysis did one in

2006. you also report the dod officials generally agree with the facts and findings that with rising costs in the billions, with dod's health system and clear and efficiency, that you think dod is doing enough right now to make improvement. >> i think they could ignore as we pointed out in her report. and we encourage them to do so. we'll continue to do studies, basically outlining some of the options would be for a single military command is an option. there are other options that could be pursued, but this is a case where there is a cultural stove piping that the services and their new to be some broader leadership brought to bear. i think it is warranted given the fast rising health care costs. >> thank you for that response. mr. davis, going back to the

inefficient energy policy and one argument we hear is that eliminating subsidies will cost jobs. i note that from 05209, top five oil companies have reduced the u.s. workforce by more than 10,000. would have been if we shifted these subsidies to win or other to mr., would not spur job creation in this country? >> i'm just not an expert on these areas. we let the marketplace instead of the centers. we start to incentivize when none of these other areas have an effect not just in job creation, but reposition us for the future in the global economy. >> i think gentleman. before i recognize dr. kosar, we've had a request from two members to had to leave today that there be unanimous and for

the general to revise and extend your report. i understand there's additional detail is then requested figure people said they could give the supplemental for this report. is that amenable to you that with the record open for you to supplement with any additional details, for example, agencies, naming them, those sort of things? we realize that's not easily put together in one day. >> i'm sorry. >> dr. kosar is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. davis, and currently cosponsoring resolution x 06, which establishes a bipartisan, presidentially appointed sunset commission identifies field programs and those that achieving their goals to review them and subject them for termination. i suspect the commission would refuse this committee's work. with your experience, what are your thoughts on this at the legislation were enacted into law?

>> if i were in congress, a cosponsor. that's a good place to start. for the things you have to members to remember is if you start talking about programs that don't work, their are a lot of interest groups out there that we don't care about efficient the time they push members and they have theirs in this or the time it's over. that's great whether gao or commission that can call the ball strikes. then it gets harder for somebody to defend some of the subsidies and programs that may not. i think it's a wonderful idea and another starting point on this. the only point i would make assault is, the sustainability is keeping the momentum going. it's easier to make government work more efficiently and take off to cut programs. and that's where focusing to be. >> ms. alexander, which you see that taxpayers could get behind? >> we've reported different forms in the past is something we look at the resolution and certainly we're open to idea.

>> mr. dodaro, you mentioned real property owned and maintained by the government that are unnecessary and not being used. in your view, what is the best method to get the agencies to private property is sold to the private sector? what our next steps to make this happen? >> we have recommended a would be chair with a real property counsel at this point in time. i think congress should require regular report on a quarterly basis from a wimpy about what the plans are to dispose of property. right now there are over 45,000 buildings underutilized. but it's grown over the past year by 1800 buildings. the cost to maintain underutilized properties is up $1.6 billion a year. so i think there needs to be a plan. the administration has goals to try to dispose of property by the end of 2012, but it ain't

part of congress' responsibility is to hold them accountable for what progress they are making towards achieving those goals. >> thank you very much. i get the balance my time. >> would the gentleman yield? thank you. mr. dodaro, have you looked at some of the excess property in sufficient details to look at things. for example, said moffett field and we discovered that not that was utilizing the relatively small portion of its profitability and the minimum amount of it for non-core business that was important to the community. have a look at those things and whether or not agencies hold them and that is not technically underutilized, but being utilized. did you look at any of those sort of items? >> i'd have to go back and i'll

provide you an answer for the record, mr. chairman i'm not. the one additional one is you talk in terms of the other side was asking questions and i think this. eyeful. you are almost saying we needed a second goldwater, that we need to go further merging the command structures of the military from the standpoint of spending. is that pretty much of the sustained part of your report? >> i think there needs to be some outside intervention in order to break some of the stovepipes that the movie. >> chairman davis, you've certainly seen this then you are here for the process. would you say that's one of the things the committee should look at us learned when they no longer belong to the military, yet they are still costing the taxpayers? >> the mckinney act was passed to think with the greatest of intentions, but at the end of the day i think the priority has shifted from how do we use this

to happen we put this back on the taxco and hungry get money back for the federal government? for borrowing 40 cents on the dollar. it's not attainable. we have to start looking at cost. i agree. >> thank you your one last question to follow up is you've been very supportive. i remember your organization and several others were supported about us that the course of the ability to make the decision that the unfortunately named behemoth the oil leases that were flawed. and i know we agree to disagree on whether or not mr. markey states will be held constitutional, whether it is punitive, but more probably, have you looked at what can be gained by congress taking all of the dairy subsidies, oil is being one of them, and other energy subsidies and requiring them to be brought together,

something that follows we been talking about today. >> we haven't specifically looked at how to package all of the energy subsidies together. we tend to look at individual subsidies, but we recommend energy policy and look at whether or not each dollar is going towards a common goal. it is something we be happy to work with the committee on. we've looked at energy subsidies and they try to look at them together, but we understand the difficulty of looking at the mall side-by-side. we certainly don't think that we have apples to apples comparison coming out of the administration asked congress would like. >> i look forward to working together. i recognize the gentlelady from new york for five minutes. >> first i would like to welcome my former colleague, tom davis who did an extraordinary job was chairman of the committee. he was always a good fighter for the part of the cause, but also

reasonable and listen to the minority in work together on a not good bills. it's good to see you. we miss you, tom. welcome back. i want to thank mr. dodaro for your report. it's very helpful and the chairman for focusing on it because this is a time when he to look at ways to protect taxpayers dollars and start reducing the deficit and debt. ..

may have withheld 117 million in uncollected or royalties. that is a staggering amount, and your report indicates one reason this may be happening is because we rely on oil companies to self report. >> there needs to be more verification by the interior department of the data to make sure that the federal government is getting -- reasonable assurance they're getting the revenues that are there and so there is a set schedule with the department was behind in maintaining that schedule. why in the world don't we have the royalties reported by the agency or at least a third party? why in the world are we relying on the oil and gas industry that

isn't reporting accurately according to your own study after study after study? >> our recommendation is there is more verification that needs to be done by them. >> you're still letting the companies verify, correct? >> no. interior needs to verify. >> having sold reported information can work if it is verification by the department of the checks and balances rather than go out and have people independently measuring it, so it can work, but the department has to do their part to protect the taxpayers and that's what you're saying and we said in our recommendations. >> also in the recommendation your report proposes the federal government use independent third-party data to assurances accurately paid. it's to have interior do a job fair fighting. islamic interior needs to do better job of verifying if the can use their own verification

they can use other third-party to cooperate as well. that's what we did in our audits and verifications. you should use everything available to a watergate data to make sure that reporting is complete as possible and we're getting the revenue that we deserve. >> how do you estimate we would able to keep them if they verify inappropriate way? >> we don't have an estimate right now. >> why is it taking so long? are they fair fighting in a better way? have a stake in to be taken the steps to respond to the recommendations? >> we are going to be following up and staying on this and will provide regular reports to this committee. >> you think it's important maybe we need to legislate that they verify cracks to make sure it happens? what do we do to make sure this happens? >> i think i would explain what they're doing and the importance of doing it. i think the regular oversight is

important. we have done work and the inspector inspector general has done work. we continue doing our part and so i think that it's good to have sustained follow-up with of the department that responsible for handling these matters. >> i regret there was an amendment i offered in another committee and the debate went on just until now so i missed a great deal of your testimony and the 21 seconds left i would like to ask you in your report with other area in government can we manage better and save funds? obviously the oil and gas has historically been an area of tremendous abuse on the oil extracted from federal the owned land but what other category in government do you think if we manage it better we would be given to save taxpayer dollars and make up a dent in the terrible deficit we have? >> i think the report discusses opportunities virtually across government. the department of defense is an opportunity there i think for

significant savings. and i also mentioned the need to focus on the revenue collection and away we are not cutting we're actually getting more that we are owed from the revenue standpoint beyond the interior issue i think the irs can and should implement a number of our recommendations to take that area on. i think we also recommended the tax expenditures be brought under regular review. that's almost as much a discretionary spending in a year in revenue forgone so i think all of those are really good opportunities to be able to save money and be more efficient. deficits have to go beyond just these programs and to entitlement spending as well. >> my time is expired. thank you. >> i thank the gentlelady. mr. davis? >> mr. kysa asked a question where he talked about something similar.

there's a lot of savings between agencies where they can start sharing services and i know that they diluted that in the report it wasn't just the focus of this report, but agencies can share services. right now it's very stovepiped in terms of the way they look at it and our budget and they are reluctant to do that, but they literally, billions of dollars probably tens of billions they could share services between agencies as we talk about the best illustration being medical records between the va and the dod is no reason to separate lists the that is the kind of thing the collaboration between the agencies it's not really existing now that could save a lot. >> i thank the gentleman and enclosing for the gentlelady's edification, too, because i think the mr. dodaro did a very well in claiming something to us. this third-party data we want to explore further with the gao, the idea when an oil company takes over oil they put it on to

a tanker that weighed and measured and the offload it and its metered. this is third-party data that if we gathered it all it would be impossible not to see any discrepancies between what is reported and so on and this is early hear what they said about the irs. the fact is if somebody says i don't have any money and yet you see credit card receipts saying you're spending money, if that data is compared in the internal revenue service the third-party corroboration, remember the irs voluntarily reported too some people don't quite report accurately as they discovered when people were saying what they lost in louisiana didn't match anything that the ever declared so i look for to working with the gentle lady on that and in closing, particularly for mr. dodaro, our intention of the committees to have you back on the roughly quarterly basis. i hope that either you or designated representative would be able to do that so we can continue this dialogue in a way to stay on top of what you're

doing and of course on what the administration is agreeing to do. additionally, i want to again, repeat for the record that the commitment to go after a number of areas you covered here today including natural gas and oil and constitutional ways to keep from losing the money that we are losing and particularly we are going to have the new agency, the ocean energy management, the old mms. we intend to have them back and out of deference to the organization that was announced by interior we are trying to get a reasonable amount of time, but we are going to have them in specifically as we did when chairman davis had them in repeatedly. so i want to thank the witnesses today and i would like to have you all back i suspect because of your expertise we will have you back and the committee stands adjourned. >> sorry, and unanimous consent that your statement and all

statements may be placed into the record for of to seven legislative days and all of you by unanimous consent may revise that same period of time. we stand adjourned. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

. .

that group includes professional organizations for asian and hispanic realtors. our coverage on c-span3 begins at 9:00 a.m. eastern. in a few moments, today's headlines and your calls, live on "washington journal" and at 10:00 a.m. eastern, the congressional oversight panel looking into t.a.r.p. respectability. we will hear from the treasury department and the federal reserve. and in about 45 minutes, we will talk with tom mcclusky of the talk with tom mcclusky of the set -- of the family