[Senate Report 114-171]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 305
114th Congress } { Report
1st Session } SENATE { 114-171
_______________________________________________________________________
.
INSPECTOR GENERAL MANDATES REPORTING ACT OF 2015
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
to accompany
S. 2128
TO REQUIRE THE COUNCIL OF INSPECTORS GENERAL ON
INTEGRITY AND EFFICIENCY TO SUBMIT TO CONGRESS A REPORT ON INSPECTOR
GENERAL MANDATES
November 30, 2015.--Ordered to be printed
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2015
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
RAND PAUL, Kentucky JON TESTER, Montana
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
JONI ERNST, Iowa GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
BEN SASSE, Nebraska
Keith B. Ashdown, Staff Director
Christopher R. Hixon, Chief Counsel
Patrick J. Bailey, Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs
Gabrielle D'Adamo Singer, Deputy Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs
Gabrielle A. Batkin, Minority Staff Director
John P. Kilvington, Minority Deputy Staff Director
Mary Beth Schultz, Minority Chief Counsel
Katherine C. Sybenga, Minority Senior Counsel
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
Calendar No. 305
114th Congress } { Report
1st Session } SENATE { 114-171
======================================================================
INSPECTOR GENERAL MANDATES REPORTING
ACT OF 2015
_______
November 30, 2015.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Johnson, from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 2128]
The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, to which was referred the bill (S. 2128), to require
the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency
to submit to Congress a report on Inspector General mandates,
having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an
amendment and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Purpose and Summary..............................................1
II. Background and Need for the Legislation..........................2
III. Legislative History..............................................3
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis......................................3
V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact..................................4
VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................4
VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............5
I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
The purpose of S. 2128, the Inspector General Mandates
Reporting Act of 2015, is to require a one-time report to
Congress on the mandatory reporting requirements imposed by
Congress upon individual Offices of Inspectors General (OIG).
The Committee anticipates using this report to inform its
future lawmaking and determine whether any of those
requirements can be reduced, modified, or eliminated. This will
help ensure that OIGs have sufficient time and resources to
perform the discretionary work they deem necessary.
II. BACKGROUND AND THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION
OIGs were created to ``promote economy, efficiency, and
effectiveness'' of the government's operations and ``prevent
and detect fraud and abuse'' within those programs.\1\ While
their work is varied and often-times performed at the
discretion of the inspector general, a significant portion of
the OIG workload is dictated by Congress through directives for
the OIG to perform particular audits. Some of these mandates
are contained in the Inspector General Act of 1978, while
others have been added over time through various laws passed by
Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\5 U.S.C. App. Sec. 2 (Pub. L. No. 95-452).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS)
OIG, [t]he average OIG has approximately thirty percent of its
workload mandated.''\2\ The DHS OIG reported to the Committee
last year that it had a Congressionally-mandated workload that
is more than double that amount.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\S. Rep. No. 113-261 (2014).
\3\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Committee has long been concerned with ensuring that
Congressionally-mandated reports are not outdated, unnecessary,
or duplicative. In 2014, Congress passed two bills to reduce
the mandatory reporting burden on government agencies and
inspectors general after those bills were reported favorably by
the Committee. The DHS OIG Mandates Revision Act of 2014,
introduced by then-Ranking Member Tom Coburn and cosponsored by
then-Chairman Tom Carper, reduced the mandatory reporting
requirements for the DHS OIG.\4\ The Government Reports
Elimination Act of 2014, building on similar laws passed in
1995\5\ and 1998,\6\ eliminated outdated and unnecessary
reporting requirements across federal agencies.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Pub. L. No. 113-284.
\5\Pub. L. No. 104-66.
\6\Pub. L. No. 105-362.
\7\Pub. L. No. 113-188. Additionally, the Committee in 2015
unanimously passed S. 579, the Inspector General Empowerment Act of
2015, indicating its desire to ensure inspectors general have all the
tools necessary to efficiently and effectively perform their work. The
substitute amendment approved by the cosponsors of the bill further
streamlines the reporting requirements of the Inspector General Act
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While existing law requires agencies to annually report to
OMB on any outdated or duplicative reporting requirements that
they believe should be eliminated,\8\ the Committee is not
aware of any comprehensive list of OIG reporting mandates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010,
Pub. L. No. 111-352.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The work OIGs perform is essential to keep the Federal
government accountable. OIGs perform a wide range of
responsibilities, including reviewing whistleblower
allegations, helping to ensure the effectiveness of federal
cybersecurity programs, and investigating fraud and abuse. In
the past few years, for example, inspectors general have
uncovered significant weaknesses in airport security,\9\
inappropriate review of tax-exempt applications and ineffective
management within the Internal Revenue Service,\10\ waste and
fraud associated with operations during the Iraq and
Afghanistan wars,\11\ as well as improper payments within many
federal agencies, including the Department of Defense\12\ and
the Social Security Administration.\13\ In fiscal year 2014,
the work of the 72 federal OIGs identified $13.8 billion in
potential savings from audit recommendations and another $32.7
billion that the government could potentially recover (for
example, through settlements, civil monetary penalties, or
criminal restitution).\14\ Given how valuable their work is to
Congress, the Committee wants to ensure inspectors general have
adequate time and resources, and are not bogged down by
unnecessary, dated, or duplicative Congressionally-mandated
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\DHS OIG Highlights, Covert Testing of the Transportation
Security Administrations Passenger Screening Technologies and Processes
at Airport Security Checkpoints (Sept. 22, 2015), available at https://
www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2015/OIG-15-150-Sep15.pdf.
\10\Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration,
Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications
for Review (May 14, 2013), available at https://www.treasury.gov/tigta/
auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdf.
\11\Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction,
Quarterly Report (Oct. 30, 2015), available at https://www.sigar.mil/
pdf/quarterlyreports/2015-10-30qr.pdf.
\12\DOD Inspector General, DOD Methodologies to Identify Improper
Payments in the Military Health Benefits and Commercial Pay Programs
Need Improvement (Jan. 14, 2015), available at http://www.dodig.mil/
pubs/documents/DODIG-2015-068.pdf.
\13\Social Security Administration Office of Inspector General,
Overpayments in the Social Security Administration's Disability
Programs--A 10-Year Study (June 2015), available at http://oig.ssa.gov/
sites/default/files/audit/full/pdf/A-01-14-24114.pdf.
\14\Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency,
Progress Report to the President, Fiscal Year 2014, available at
https://www.ignet.gov/sites/default/files/files/FY14-Progress-Report-
to-the-President.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. 2128 would enable Congress to make a comprehensive
review of Congressionally-mandated OIG work. The bill would
require OIGs to provide Congress with a comprehensive list of
their required work, and, if the OIG so chooses, recommending
those audits and investigations that should be modified or
eliminated. Each OIG would provide its report to the Council of
the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE), and
CIGIE would then provide the aggregated information to
Congress. Congress can use this information to examine the
requirements and determine whether reduction, modification, or
elimination of any requirement is warranted.
III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Senator Ben Sasse introduced S. 2128 with Senator Claire
McCaskill on October 5, 2015. The bill was referred to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
The Committee considered S. 2128 at a business meeting on
October 7, 2015. The Committee ordered the bill reported
favorably by voice vote en bloc. Senators present for the vote
on the bill were Senators Johnson, Portman, Lankford, Enzi,
Ernst, Sasse, Carper, McCaskill, Baldwin, Heitkamp, and Booker.
Consistent with the Committee's unanimous consent agreement
on technical and conforming changes at the business meeting,
the Committee reports the bill with a technical amendment by
mutual agreement of the full Committee majority and minority
staff.
IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE BILL, AS REPORTED
Section 1. Short title
This section provides the bill's short title, the
``Inspector General Mandates Reporting Act of 2015.''
Section 2. Reporting requirements of Inspectors General
This section requires each OIG, within 60 days of enactment
of the bill, to submit to CIGIE a report with a list of each
report that the OIG is required to complete under the Inspector
General Act of 1978 or any other provision of law. The report
may also include the OIG's recommendations of any reporting
requirements that the office believes should be modified or
repealed.
Sixty days after receiving the required reports from each
OIG, CIGIE is required to aggregate the reports and then report
to Congress on what requirements were common to more than one
OIG and what requirements were unique to each OIG. CIGIE's
report to Congress may also include recommendations for
requirements that should be modified or repealed.
The section also clarifies that the reports to Congress
shall be in unclassified form, but may include a classified
annex.
V. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY IMPACT
Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule
XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has
considered the regulatory impact of this bill and determined
that the bill will have no regulatory impact within the meaning
of the rules. The Committee agrees with the Congressional
Budget Office's statement that the bill contains no
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no costs
on state, local, or tribal governments.
VI. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE
November 4, 2015.
Hon. Ron Johnson,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2128, the Inspector
General Mandates Reporting Act of 2015.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew
Pickford.
Sincerely,
Keith Hall.
Enclosure.
S. 2128--Inspector General Mandates Reporting Act of 2015
S. 2128 would amend the Inspector General Act of 1978 to
require that inspectors general (IG) create lists of reports
that they are required to give the Congress along with any
recommendations for eliminating or modifying reports. Each IG
would have 60 days to identify all reports they are required to
produce. The bill also would require the Council of Inspectors
General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) to review all the
lists for common and unique reports and to provide
recommendations to the Congress on eliminating or modifying
reports.
There are more than 70 IGs who spend about $2.5 billion a
year to detect and deter fraud, waste, and abuse. On average,
IGs produce more than 7,500 audits, inspections, and evaluation
reports annually. CIGIE expects that some larger IGs would need
60 days to comply with the bill's requirements. Based on that
information, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would
cost about $1 million in 2016, less than $14,000 per IG. Any
such spending would be subject to the availability of
appropriated funds.
Enacting S. 2128 could affect direct spending by some
agencies (such as the Tennessee Valley Authority) because they
are authorized to use receipts from the sale of goods, fees,
and other collections to cover their operating costs.
Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. Because most of
those agencies can make adjustments to the amounts collected as
operating costs change, CBO estimates that any net changes in
direct spending by those agencies would not be significant.
Enacting the bill would not affect revenues.
CBO estimates that enacting S. 2128 would not increase net
direct spending or on-budget deficits by more than $5 billion
in any four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2026.
S. 2128 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal
governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew
Pickford. The estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss,
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
VII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
Because this legislation would not repeal or amend any
provision of current law, it would make no changes in existing
law within the meaning of clauses (a) and (b) of paragraph 12
of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate.