tv Hearing on Independence of Inspectors General CSPAN October 21, 2021 10:55am-12:02pm EDT
situation woul us but the whole i.g. community in situations where we face a government shutdown. >> fromra trains continue to run during a government shutdown. as you've seen in the newspapers this is a very important national function to run a railroad but there are safety considerations at bay so to shut down an of inspect÷r general while the trains are running is inconsistent in my view of good government. >> thank you sir. as a frequent rider of amtrak, thank you, sir. next question pertaining to prevent political interference and this would be a question to start off, if could with ms. winters on you on this, you could be our leadoff but the inspector general's act of 1978 established the office ofinspector federibes those offices
independent and that are charged withating promoting much needed accountability. as this commander -- as this committee considers legislative refo the inspector jennings that each of you share what you believe is the most important form that we in the congress may t learned under previous administrations, the important reform we in congress may want to consider. why don't you lead us >> in terms of the present bill, the reforms in there, i think the vacancies and replacement i.g.'s that are leaving government, take a reason, a president removes an i.g., that is a critical juncture in terms of making sure thatriate reform to
ensure the next i.g. going in is truly independent. the othern the bill are equally important but that's the one to me that strikes me as mr. carper: thank you, sir. ms. lerner, what is the most important division? ms. lerner: i have to double down on mr. winters' statement as far as ensuring acting i.g.'s have the independence to do rk. when you look at the lengths of the number of vacancies we've years and the lengths of those vacancies, you find acting officials in position for years. f the wo to continue and to provide value to congress and the american public that you have someone who can lead that work and independence would not be questioned. mr. the chair recognizes the gentleman frommer: most important reform we in the congress may want to consider in
this regard. mr. horowitz: i think the vacancy act is the most important for the reasons previously mr. winters and ms. learner. on the testament of think it's critical from the public's standpoint in particular. i think it's ve hard to be in where we're bei asked to investigate alleged wrongdoing, for example like the mass are matter, and when the public wantanswer to what happened, we, unfortunately, often h give the answer sure, we don't know because the empl contractor who has allegedly retaliated won't talk to us. leaves significant dissatisfactionur work if we can't answer the most basic questions, we can't get the evidence we need. mr. the chair recognizes the gentleman frommer: chair? i'm not sure who is chairing right now. i'd like to take 20 seconds.
according to nominated eight, could each of you please for the record take time to discuss ways to incentivize why might individuals consider serving as i.g.'s and what do you believe are the essential of a effective inspector general for the record, please. thank you all. chairman has an: we'll start with ms. lerneer. chairman has sean: could i submit you submit that for the mr. carper: that's what i asked to do. chairman hassan: you are submitting it for the record? chairman hassan: senator johnson, if you are ready. you are ready i'll recognize you for your round of questns.n: t0vnk you for your service. welcome, everyone.
inspector horowitz, we had this conversaefe think is a pretty accurate analogy to independent auditors that are appointed by the board oftentimes selected by the meant to provide information to the board of directors who report to the shareholders. is everything on the up and up in the corporation. i kind of look at the inspector generals the exact same way. and when i hear independent independent who? who should inspector generals be independent of? mr. horowitz: we had this discussion and from our discussion i'm in private practice represented and worked with audit committees and independent nd think the answ independent of the agency leadership from being able to take personnel action against set up. and i'm about presidential appointed i.g.'s
like in my position p. the setup congress created was allow me to operate without fear that the agency leadership can respond in ourse be removed at will by the president, and that's entirely appropriate. and none of this legislation changes that. mr. johnson: it's independent of the agencies butgenerals report to the president and serve at his pleasure, correct? mr. horowitz: that's correct. mr. johnson: unfortunately over the years, and i'veis firsthand as chairman of this committee trying to undertake investigations, issuing subpoenas, for example to the f.b.i. they were largely ignored congressional oversight has been because we have no enforcement mechanisms. it seems like we've outsourced our oversight the people's oversight, the people's direct oversight into these agenciess. i am concerned inspector generals when they take a look at that independent moniker they're thinking it's
independent of everybody. the president of the united states is held a voters. if he dismisses a inspector general, the voters will hold the president accountable. so i am concerned about the thrust of all the requirements imposed congress.dc again, we've relied on inspector generals and i've appreciated the work and worked with inspector generals, tried to, that were corrupt and had to leave. and i think our other witnesses are awarthat as well. the inspections they're having to do on inspector generals. so i think this is important to keep in mind that the insct president. they don't report to congress. we use them but my solution would be to beef up, reclaim congressionaer allowed to lapse and we've outsourced that inspector general. do you understand that assessment not that you agree or disagree but do you understand where i'm coming from
there? mr. horowitz: i understand what the congressional oversights are and how they've been executed. i will say this legislation changes nothing about the presid there's no for cause provision here.the and to your point, as chair one of the things, and i know nelson has continued this as chair, i talk about it all the t i.g.'s, we're not free range actors, i agree with you completely. we're in a constitutional system and follow the i.g. act, we follow the law. what i think the legislation does, though particularly with the act it doesn't limit the president's ability to remove. thpresident can remove whoever the president wants. mr. johnson: it puts reporting requirements on them. mr. horowitz: it d!: mr. john issues. one glaring example in terms of the weakening of congressional oversight is, for example, under floor requests, overf provide group.sthe
redippingses of that information, again, they were forced to give to an outside grou us on this committee, using a law that says you shall turn over the documents. we're just asking for the 4,000 pages unredacted. we haven't gotten them unredacted. we're getting them in little bits and pages at a time in camera. i think that's wrong. i do of time here, though, because i haven't been able to talk to you about this, since i was chair and since you issued the advisory report. in the report you talk about body of the report how bill presap told you, quote, the f.b.i. didn't have any indication whatsoever by may 2017 russians were running a disinformation campaign through the election reporting. your report, correct? mr. horowitz: i trust your -- mr. johnson: it was it. it took us months in a battleredactérary
to that. and i don't want to take time to quote that but that's in the public record and you're aware of these footnotes. mr. horowitz: yep. mr. johnson: the question i have for you nothing in the footnotes that should have been classified or subject to redaction? mr. horowitz: i'd have to go back to specific footnotes and i'm working on memory but from this and all other reports ey ultimately make out information th say is classified, obviously, and risk cuted for doing that. mr. johnson: i want to point is further cover-up by the f.b.i. and department of justice want dogma sure that it wasn't in knew that people -- the resource of the steel dossier had contact with russian intelligence services, they knew this as early asct and januy of 2016 and yet, and yet the f.b.i. and the
investigation continued to prod forward and put thishitical turmoil of the mueller investigation and they knew the source document that prompted the corrupt investigation was likely a product or certainly a part of a product of russian disinformation that's an accurate assessment, isn't it? mr. horowitz: i'll add there are many reasons as we detail in the report there should have been greater follow-up and skepticism reporting. so i -- mr.every step of the way in my investigation i was frustrated by members of this by f.b.i. director write that it not ican public was kept in the dark about this. i think, and my final congressional oversight capability must be beefed up, as important as i.g. reforms aredependently and uncover corruptionithin report to the president
congress needs the to the american public. mr. horowitz: i do thinking it's relevant toyth members know who were here in myrs and senator johnson chaired i think some of these hearings we taed my inability to get records. and at the time, just to one of the areas offlimits to me÷1 supposedly was pfizer records back in the day r is because this committee senator grassley, and the house moved i.g. impairment act legislation in 2016 thathe opinion and the f.b.i.'s position and gave us access to that. if we didn't have access to the records, you wouldn't even have our 600 page report about pfizer because i couldn't have done it and why the refor herare so to do. mr. johnson: thank you mr. horowitz. senator hassan for your questions. chairman hassan: i want to thank you and the members for holding
this hearing and thank our witnesses forny and service as inspector general and it's incre i'm very grateful for you and your families for the services you provide. mp fraud and abuse of ollars and improves the delivery of services to the american people. i want to start with a question to you inspector general lerner, and i would lto fwollo need of the testimonial subpoena authority because for more than 40 years inspectors general have been able to issue subpoenas to advance their oversight work. earlier this yr i introduced the iority act with senator grassley to expand the subpoena authority and allow the i.g. commuel in person system from -- testimony fromho refuse to co. about that already this morning. inspector general lerner how do inspectors general use theho the subpoena authority build on the ms. lerner: thank for you your and senator grassley's support for subpoena authority. in terms of how i.g.'s use
subpoena authority, i think they used it very successfully over 40 years we've had that authority. as i indicated earlier, most ng process built around ensuring the appropriateness of thexubpoenas being put out and ensuring they are within the jurisdiction of the office and that they are not overly broad or unduly burdensome. we know in asking people to provide us with documents that that is a burden on them but it needs to be outweighed by the benefit that's coming in, think as court cases have shown in situations i.g.'s have issued subpoenas, there's been very few cases where an i.g. subpoena has not been upheld. i can think of one and that was a situation where the subpoena was not related to a matter within the i.g.'s jurisdiction. but i think we have a strong
process of appropriately using our docume subpoena and wey handle testimonial subpoenas. chairman hassan: cue use the paters and to oversee the documentary subpoena process so it wouldn't be abused, you have a system in place? on them and with a we're asking about here it takes us atep beyond documentary and has a greater impact on people. chairman hassan: you referenced it a bit but if concerns are raised about an documentary ow are those concerns addressed? ms. lerner: a couple different avenues, if there's any question of political or partisan reasons behind a subpoena, that's a matter that can go to the integrity committee but i also imagine if we're given this authority we'd build steps in our peer review process to examine the use of th ensure they have appropriate procedures in place and, you know factor that in to the
ultimate assessment that happens periodically of all mr. horowitz: can i add senator? chairman: briefly. mr. horowitz: the other mechanism is it someone receive as subpoena thinks it's improper they go to court. we can't enforce it and we have to go to court to get a judge to do that. chairman hassan: i wanted to go on something deeper you mentioned, and ask inspectors horowitz and winters to reply to this. it's important to note the testimonial authority, subpoena authority isn't new because the department of defense office had the document subpoena authority over a decade. mr. horowitz you mentioned in your testimony the department of defense i.g. used the testimonial # subpoena authority sparingly since it received the authority in 2009. how can the d.o.g.'s use serve as a model for how other i.g.'s can use the testi
authority in a judicious and thoughtfulmr. horowitz: excellent question. it's important to use as a model because it worked so well now for a dozen years. what i would expect to happen and understand is has happened at the defense department i.g. is before an i.g. sign as subpoena for testimony, they engage counsel or thetand what the concer any issues or problems with testimony. thankly, we do that now at the voluntary arena and we try to get people to speak to us voluntarily. they dot same i understand fromhe dey issued so few is they've been able to reach accommodations with witnesses that avoided the need to issue the subpna and find th parameters of a acceptable volu chairman hassan: i wanted to confirm inspector general winters, you mentioned earlier your integrity committee of sayingy can prevent abuse testimonial authority as well. mr. horowitz: abuse of the authority is directly in our
jurisdictional realm. chairman: ms. lerneri i approved your work to congress, the reports seem to streamline the reports to make them more access toil congress and the public and place greater emphasis on the agency's response to i.g. recommendations to rout out waste, fraught, and abuse.ms help the inspector general community and are you comfort that agencies and congress will still receive the important oversight information that these reports are intended to provide? ms. lerner: i'm absolutely confident these reforms would not interfere with the transparency that congress deserves from inspectors general. in since those requirements were enacted i.g.'s have made tremendous gains and in being transparent we all have websites and places li oversight. gov. these reforms will allow us to more efficiently produce the semi annual reports and leverage
those existing resources and that will ensure the most important clearly visible and transparent and that the time and energy we used to put into doing things that were of lesser interest can redirected and produce better outcomes for our offic the people who depend on our work. chairman hassan: thank you very much and thank you, mr. chair, for all your witnesses and thank for you yr work >> nor langford? senator langford: we appreciate your work and would like you to stay on it and bring your issues. inspectors general deals with waste and fraud and makescommendations andrings up ideas of greater efficiency, so inspectors general that are actually leaning in to an agency, developing those relationships and proposing ideas helal us 's an expectation of that work and let me to say to you lean in, we need you working well. i have a whole litany of issues and to walk through and try and be able to
address. we talked about several things but what by hear most from people at home and they out inspectors general and issues they see in government is why does it seem no one is held to account. we all know z]at's not correctheld to account but it becomes a big deal when we see someone like andrew mccabe who you found researched, walked through the interviews and found he clearly lied and was fired and pensions is recovered and back pay is being paid back tom and there's a inspector general report that came out saying this pergon it. what we can do is bring you testimonial authority and to get recommendations is of great benefit to just restoring trust into the government and theprocess. i'll drill down on a couple of these. mr. horowitz, you've been through investigations before that crossed jurisdiction. you walked throun simpson and jonathan winter a state department issue where you're over on the
department of justice and they retire and make it harder. can we talk through when you get in an investigation that may include people from quote unquote, jurisdictions from other agencies and then when they retire how hard it is to get tcnial evidence? mr. horowitz: very hard and if the employee were at the state department i'd reach out to the state i.g. and they'd facilitate my being able to speak to tcall me. once the employee is gone, the employee is gone and i have no authority over them. the only one that would is the defense department i.g. and i obviously do o[úr into that realm very much. mr. lankford: subpoena power to obtain testimony is arranges it will for the ongoing work, be numerous examples of people under investigation with the inspector then it becomes an issue if they retire with benefits everyone knows there was activity there, there was fraud and abuse and something whistle blowers call out but just retire and leave anleave with full benefits. mr. horowitz: how do you explain
to the complain anti-was sexually assaulted and i report swe need toe. mr. lankford: we need to get that to you and it was handled judiciously over the decade the department of justice we believe that can mr. horowitz, you did a very thorough examination on the woods producer in the fisa. and we'll look at it and when you have an opportunity to take a look at it. you were looking to see that the standards set for a fisa application process were follow. that's a pretty straightforward issue. when i pulled through this you sampled 29 fisa applications and foundp noncompliance with the wood procedures and then it got worse and went through 7,000 fisa applications that had been authorized the last five years and 179 which was listed from your document was missing, destroyed or incomplete. i want to drill down on a couple
of those things. missing and incomplete is one thing, destroyed is something total differ act. do you have evidence that some of these woods procedures were destroyed? mr. horowitz: we have evidence some of the files were destroyed. the problem was the f.b.i., even though they put in place this requirement of creating a woodse on what to do with it afterwards. we had a situation where our investigators, lawyers went in and found a stack of documents in a kerner and that was we were to comprised the woods file. so you can't have a effective procedure to try and make sure fisa is scrupulously accurate through a woods procedure and no woods procedures are being followed. mr. lankford: you tions and five of them they responded to and five they have not. do you have an update they're following through on the recommendations? mr. horowitz: they told us lar processthe andn r re 60-90 days they'll owe us a report and we'll continue to update that. we've been doing this, by the
way, some in our other reports with the f.b.i. for years and years because wefollow to have independent we close them, not the agency. mr. lankford: mr. winters, i want to drill down on something here. the allegat general from a whistle blower, whoever it may be, sometimes they are factual and sometimes not sometimes it's harassment from an employee that found a effective way to be able to harass individuals and keep them tied inspector general has a process for determining whether an allegation has merit at the beginning. i call it like a little mini grand jury, you can call it what you want to at that point but you have to make a decision to have merit. can you walkough that proces is a legitimate investigation and sometimes it's harassment and how do you evaluate this and what do you pass on to other inspectors generals. mr. horowitz: mr. winters: every inspector general faces that and the integrity committee as well in terms of the weaponnization of complaints. we have a process for it and particularly in the pandemic we have a lot of complaints coming in. soat basically is this
a valid complaint that alleges some form of wrongdoing that's actionable and from a committee's perspective, whether or not there's person. for a typical complaint that comes in, say, for example, to nasa when i was there or amtrak, we have a specific section that does that, that has a sifting process that assesses the facts versus the criteria of whether something is actionable or not. : we want get your testimony of subpoena power to make sure no one can just retire and avoid a pursuit on this. we talked about trying to get to succession is it we need to get inspector we've spoken frequently about how to get more inspectors general, that they just don't appoint a inspector general and leave it open for a long time and becomeseems don't know about and would be willing to talk about because i never wa theú inspectors general's
office to be used as a weapon against somebody unjustly especial if someone is in their personal capacity and having to hire their own personal process or someone just mad because after decision they made and chooses and discourages people from stepping into government when they there's a federal employee that can weaponnize this process and drive them out. mr. winters: as an inspector general, we take an oath. i took my first oath in august of 1972 to support and defend the constitution. what that means is adherence to the rule of law, not ty endeavor of course to follow the the facts in terms mr. chairmanpi you. >> n the legislation and particularly your work this testimony subpoena issue which is a difficult one to navigate but a very important one. so thanks for y we have a number of people on virtually. # senator as off, i bel you're nex with us.
>> thanknd general for your service and dilig for joining us i also want to drill down couple specificwithin your respective responsibi identif possible targets for reform legislation or change of practice in thechin mr. horowitz, thraboration an developed bipartisansh ca systems in bureau of prisonsac the senate last night. you have made recommendions with respect to single cell confinement for incarcerated persons with mentalwú! respect to pharceutical services byof outside medical care. could you briefly outline those recommendationtainly important on the prison camerays single celling we identified significant concer im at the b.o.p., policies for how interruptive. this is what it involved and involved individuals who were disruptive and the b.o. put in special housing u mr. horowitz: andinglllm is someth does not look to do an not put individuals
in we identified nurred and. as i sit here are, i don't know the status of those but can you on at. on the pharmaceutical sideying howaken the steps it could take touce some of so it can save monreas that it the pharmaceutical side. for instance, what we found floor agencies that receive what's called the pricing, favorable pricing on pharmaceuticals but the b.o.b., even though it has one of the largest health care systems, if you will take care of the 150,000 or so federal get that preferred we also made the recommendation the department that it er coming to congress to seek legislation to also be able ton whichave tens of millionsfo b.o.p. >> thank you mr. horowitz. discu subpoena powere stimony from personnel whoe in advance of an investigation. uld you comment, la
personnel amides investigation how that the investigative process and the implications for their personnelec r ml5 in the same federal agency. mr. horowitz: absolutely senator. it is an issue we've been issued a specifically h the f.b.i.ations of employeesho we tired or resigned it goes the f.b.i. investigatesisconduc to the f.b.i.'s office of responsibility for or disc regularly, with limited exception, closes its adjudication if resigns or retires. and018 th occurred in more than 10% cases. that's concerning because as you is what many instances&/cá employees or retire and get either hired as because they're another government enforcemnforcement. it's important tha department and frankly across the entire federal government,when individuals leave who have been engaged in
misconduct that the findings be included in their e the indi to have commi 10% of the cases i mentioned, o.i.g. found the individual didn't engage in the misconduct but yet weren't forr wasn't adjudicated. mr. ossof: the bipartisanship leginate earlier this year included some significant investment in passenger rail. i'm a expal states, particularly in thest to connect macon, atlantahville additional options for rural and urban communities ac state of georgia. you made recommendations alarmingo f amtrak's train control systems. could you in my repaining time the observations and recommendatns mrrowitz: in this public setting i can't go int on it and would be happy to meet with you privately regarding some of those particular details on that. i'll ss that amtrak is not alone problems with travel security. is
c very aggressive that spa. mr. ossof: thank you mr. wenters. my staff will reach out to yours for a mified foretowel get into detail for that.ce diligent work an senator portman. this do. "been up here two years and nine months and really preciate the i.g.'s because i believe thecommittee and congress is really impo guy and like interim audits make sure we knew exactly what was going on. one of the questions i have is how important is the subpoena itessary and do you guys -- if each of you couldess if you've seed situations wheinvestigation is beinghey're not able to compel a person to submit to if we could start with mr. horowitz.o, b the way. ap mr. horo has the largest i.g. system in the countru8and a very impressive one. mr. scott: they're rr. mr. horowitz: we worked with the
i.g.'s the and they'ven in a subpoena authority, i caná0l highlight profiles like in theo gymnastics refused a second interview to see if there was a conflict of intergstisa review we couldn had left as as others who were never govert but had highly relevant u.s. rather than speaking -- or quit and would routine day-to-day ones thatn' you know we do all theime. authority over f.b.i. whistwe bloweretire and i contractors stealingng gave us authority toat work ofoncern and making sure oversee of wrongdoing. if we can'tubpoena belong government employees, even if they work with the can't compel them to talk to me. a employee but one contractors. if they leave the contractors it's harder to get that person to sexual harase on the employee to me.
mr. scott: you have the information, i guess?re there times kid pursue it through other mechanisms? sure but it takes us longer in se like the fisa one and clinton email peopleak waited until veryd3 and so it delays ou even in t where you see us actually hearing from people, it could tak of time to get them to us. so it's a v i very i mentioned, the committee has built in place protections because there should be safeguards. it shouldn't be something that around and are able s three i.g.'s that have to review it and i'll ha review of just scrutiny and it won't go on to the three i.g.'s unless i've put a l ov it. i think it's critical tool for us. and foe, for the public, they want to know what happened. they don to think this is with a happed but can't definitivel can't get the >> mr. winters? serving at nafta for several years and running their investigations and amtrak and the integrity
recarefully decide whether or not to investigate a matter. there's a reason year doing just some whim, that there's a real public interesinding out frus at nafta and amtrak and now the integrity committee that we can't really ge that. so we appreciate your help in that regard. want to und of theaff, we looking into a small that allegedly defrauded n.s.f.d fabricated the time sheets we were given to support time, and that ended the voluntary coeration from all of the people at the recipient we we hay with the peopleo could give u in closure. it's extremely demoralizing investigative staff when those matt benefit from this authority and somere internal into our own offices. >> you think there's enough safeguards that it won't get abused? mr. horowitz: iguat's clearly a very reasonable, legitimate concern. there's going to be a three i.g. panel, i.g.'s will have
abusing the authority they c have to nvince the justice departmentsion to defend the that layer of protection án well. you have to convince me, you i.g.'s if a somethicourt, have to convince the civil division at the justice department and they h so i defense depa i.g.'s this authority for 12 years now and they used it very rarely, a handful of cases. they've not a case that way. you'veiven it to me as chair pandemic response committeehp and $5 trillion and gave ipreviouslyrect of9 none of those instances has it been abused. i think there's a track record as well which is why i'm talked about thesun set issue think that trh concerns that i.g.lerner mentioned earlier i think should be used appropriately. going to notify the attorney general, byat you said? all of us i.g.'s will be the ones signing those authorities. we,o know what'swe know our will be
scrutinizeder we stay on the right side of the law here. >> thank you >> thank thank you senator scott.illa, you're recognized for your qu mr. padilla: thank you mr. chairman. i want toses as several colleagues have recognized, and i want to associate myself with their co inspector general play a key our democracy independently and objectively working tobuse. again, also acknowledged earlier in passed the inspector general watergate scandal as a way of ensuri accountability in the executive branching and for years congress has relied on o general to speak truth to power and inrs included shedding light on the inhumane treatment of immigrants, including federal detention our pandemic administrations have some gaps and undermine the efficacy of the inspectorsxx general andppe =1 the issue.
now, as considering legislation that grants inspectors general the authority to subpoena witne neity to compel testi ny from certain categories of individuals includin and former deral employees. so my first question is forpl mr. horowitz, you've headed numerous investigations, the lack of testimonial subhampered your work. you referenced in particular the investigation regarding the formerinistratioñ+'s family in earning 4,000 family separations. using that as that in a good way how would testimonial subpoena poweraded of the family separation policy? mr. horowitz: thank you senator, andreviews that we've ne and investigations that done that warrant our ability to have this authority. i think it's fair forn we're looking at a policy implementation to be able to those responsible rfo policy. announced snd justice department and employees at the department and if some employees but we
attorney general sessions who was obviously to that discussion and our inability to do that meant there were certain items or discussions he was a part we weren't able to get his recollection of events. th few notso our diminished from our ability to fullysppreciate you sharing that. that onthere are folks who say any also cabe ms. lerner andlation we're considering has the a checks to ensure that ms. lerner: i'll start. and certainly i think that requiring notification to the attorney general and utilizing an@+yond whatwe very strong fohat we have in place for our use of subpoenas. we will -- by addingal requirements of consultation with the attogene approval of a three-person i.g. panel and stepped up reporting requiremen, i think the
evidence will be theres know,tivize properly.t incentive is necessary, as i mentioned earlier, all of us i.g.'siz granted authority and are committed to exercising it wisely but i apprecieour interest in common not kevin?wierers: i agree those siggy integrity committee designed by congress is anoth lla: i appreciatat also for mr. winters but i will tee up the quest government security posture and agreenumerous breaches of and critical infrastructure has inspired a significant push to ensure that our agencies have the info effectively guard their systems. are complying with the existing cybersecurity requirements. so the role do inrs general play in enhancing the the federal agencies and how have the reformsn the ms. lerner: most inspectors general are required by law to
the audits of the agency's information systems sees modernizatio.2act or f eyes examining the agency'stems that is laid out by nist and of homeland security so you have eyes usingd standards and there's a grea and in many instance there's part of that process and so that adds the agencies' formation systems. kevin? with@ ms. lerner's commentary on thosegy we have a separate committee called the tech of oversi critical san franciscorequirements.nk you bothv for your responses and thanks again for your work. thank you. senator regn senator rosen: thank you for holding the committees for to have this session about something really important.
know, reforming how inspectors the federal governmqt, i.g.'s ma government more better for the american people and ensure agencies are good taxpayer dollars.nt watdogs the federal agencies carry out their publich ms. lerner's testimony the work of tof $53 fy-2020,nd. >> youch the rest of the senate inspe website c-span. org. we'll leav the house will debate and on a resolution to hold stevngress for with the subpoena from the select committee investigating the january 6 attack capitol. now live coverage of the