Conflict. Later a look at housing challenges caused by an increase in the aging population. Next, the inspectors general for the peace corps, Justice Department and epa discuss the challenges they face in conducting investigations. The igs testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee about a dx let signed by 47 igs, outlining their concerns. This is two hours. 5d the committee will come to order. Without o, the chair is authorized to have a recess at any time. The oversight committees First Americans have a right to know that the money washington takes from them is well spent. And second, americans deserve an official, effective government that works for them. Our duty on the oversight and Government Reform Committee is to protect these rights, our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers. Because taxpayers have a right to know that the money washington takes from them is well spent. Its our job to work tirelessly in partnership, as citizen watch dogs and, yes, the ig watch dogs to deliver the facts to the American People and bring genuine reform to the federal bureaucracy, this is our mission statement. On august 5, 47 inspectors general, 2 3 of the ig community sent an unprecedented letter to Congress Describing serious limitations on access to records, that have recently impeded the work of the inspectors general. Section 6a1 requires agencies to provitd and i quote, full and timely access to Agency Records to their respective Inspector General. Anything less than full corporation of course is unacceptable. These Government Watch dogs play a key role in improving the governments efficiency, honesty and accountability. They conduct oversight and investigations and audits to prevent and detect waste, fraud and mismanagement within government agencies. Their work often protects life of federal workers and the American People. Al they help congress shape legislation and target our oversight and investigative activi activities, but let there be no doubt, they are executive branch employees who in fact were created by an acts of congress and signed by a president so that the tools that they provide are available to the president of the United States to run our government better. The igs have proven to be one of congresss and the American Peoples best investments. In the last fiscal year, the ig community used their 2. 7 billion budget to identify potential cost savings to taxpayers totaling about 46 billion. That means that for every dollar in the total ig budget, they identified approximately 17 in savings. Access is key to that kind of savings. But i make it very clear, many of the investigations including some you will hear today are not about money. Theyre far more valuable. Theyre about liberty. Theyre about your government not trampling on your rights. So when agencies withhold information and their records from these watch dogs, it impedes their ability to conduct their work thoroughly, independently and most of all timely. It runs up the cost to both sides of the ledger, the inspectors general spent many, many, many millions of dollars temperatu simply trying to get access, what your government spends millions and millions of dollars trying to impede. This is one of the greatest wastes we can possibly have. When agencies refuse or deny access to the agencys records, it undermines the intent of congress and the igs abilities to oversee these respected agencies. Today were going to hear from three widely respected igs who have experienced challenges accessing the necessary records to what they do in their work. At the Justice Department, the inspect general cannot gain access to grand jury documents or National Security related documents without approval from the deputy general of the federal courts. Requiring such permission compromise s and impedes igs investigations. At the chemical safety board, they have denied the epa Inspector General, mr. Elkins, access to certain documents on the basis of attorneyclient privilege. But who is the attorney and what is the privilege . Mr. Elkins is in fact the same entity that is in fact the client. He is in fact part of the defined client, which of course is the epa. Further, several offices within the epa itself, including the epa office of Homeland Security have interfered with the oigs investigations themselves. And perhaps most disturbing to me personally, and i spoke to the Vice President last night and i believe he was equally disturbed. At the peace corps, they have refused to provide the Inspector General, ms. Fuller, access to information related to Sexual Assaults on peace corps volunteers absent a memorandum of understanding. Lets understand, last night, we honored and celebrated the 20th anniversary of the enactment of violence against women, designed to do just the act opposite, to ask women to come forward and report their assaults. If in fact the ig cannot oversee a possible pattern of failure to protect women, then we need to ask women to come forward with the record of their assaults. But in all instances, it is the committees position, that these agencies should and must cooperate with the inspectors generals request for information. During the 113th congress, the committee has investigated several instances including the ones facing these watch dogs in which Agency Leadership undermined the effectiveness of the inspectors general. The committee has held several hearings on this issue and facing these Inspector Generals over the past year. The committee has also conducted a deposition of the peace corps general consul to address the access issued the access issue at the peace corps. It has not been resolved. And quite frankly, i look forward to the departure of the General Council as part of the problem. Neither this committee nor the ig community should be wasting time and resources attempting to gain access to records, which the igs have not just a legal entitlealment to but a sworn obligation under the igf. For nearly six years we have seen this administration make unprescedents efforts, it says o fight transparency and block investigations by journalists, congress, but thats not what were here for today. Were not here because the press washl wants to snoop. Were not here because article one, the congress, is trying to look over the shoulder of the president and his administration. Were here because the more or less 12,000 men and women who work for these igs and the others not here today, part of this president s team for efficiency, transparency and an Honorable Service by all has not been getting what they wanted. It is my intention upon the end of this hearing, to write with my Ranking Member, if at all possible, a letter to the president urging him to use his executive order capability to resolve this question once and for all. Notwithstanding that, i want to thank our three witnesses here today. And i want to assure you of one thing, after you testify here today, and for all 47 igs who wrote, i will be looking, i know my Ranking Member will be looking to make sure that in fact no retribution, no punishment is allowed for your coming forward and expressing your concerns under your importa responsibility under the ig act. We do have a response from the executive in response to my letter and ill place it into the record at this time without objection, so ordered and we recognize the Ranking Member for his Opening Statement. I want to thank our witnesses for testifying here today, i want to also thanning mr. Chairman for calling this hearing. Let me start off by saying, what the chairman said with regard to retribution, i agree with, you have come, you do a phenomenal job, a very important job. And every member of this committee, both sides of the aisle, if we hear about any repercussions from you being here, we will be on it. And deal with it effectively and efficiently. Regarding waste, fraud and abuse is a central tenant of this committee, and we take this mission very seriously. Im a staunch defender of the igs and the authorities. For example in 2013, i sent a bipartisan letter to the president. I was joined by chairman issa, and the Ranking Member of the National Security subcommittee. In that letter, we pressed the president to finally nominate an Inspector General at the state department, a position that had remained vacant for five years. I have also supported legislation to help igs do their job for effectively and efficiently. Such as the ig reform act of 2008. Last month after receiving the letter from 47 igs, i cosigned a letter with chairman carpenter and Ranking Member coburn and in the Government Affairs committee. And chairman is a, we expressed our concern about access issues raised by three igs testifying here today from the peace corps, the department of justice, and the Environmental Protection agency. When Congress Passed the Inspector General act in 1978, section 6 of that legislation authorized igs to have very broad access to Agency Records. This provision was intended to give igs wide latitude to conduct their audits and investigations. Congress in addition some contend that other federal laws make conflict with this broad random authority and that that is also a concern that we will be discussing today. First we have the peace corps, in 2011, Congress Passed and the president signed the volunteer protection act. This law requires the peace corps to establish a confidential system for volunteers to report Sexual Assault crimes. When the ig sought access to this data in order to prepare a report, also mandated by congress. The peace corps raised a question about providing the personal identifiable information of Sexual Assault victims which was supposed to be confidential. The Agency Signed a memorandum of understanding, provitding the ig with access to all information, except personally identifiable information and explicit details of the Sexual Assaults. I understand that this agreement does not address all the igs access concerns. But i believe it is a very good start when we have two potentially conflicting factors like this. Next the department of justice and Inspector General has expressed concern that when he seeks access to sensitive Law Enforcement information, such as grand jury and wiretap information, he must go through a lengthy approval process at the highest levels of the department. The igs testimony for today says the department has granted access to the records in every case. But it contends that the lengthy delays erodes his independence. According to the department, several other statutes restrict the release of Sensitive Information such as grand jury and wiretap material. So they must be carefully analyzed and we have to look at that. My understanding is that the department has now asked the office of Legal Council to review the issue. I applaud the ig for working through this process with the agency and i look forward to olcs review. Finally the Environmental Protection agency ig has raised two concerns. The ig reports that the epas office of Homeland Security has been denying the ig access to classified threat material. And failing to recognize the igs Statutory Authority over trugss into epa computer networks. Democratic staff has been working with both sides to mediate this issue and on june 19, epa administrator mccarthy proposed a frame work for better cooperation. At this point, my understanding is that the ig still has issues with the proposal. So i hope we can spend some time today hearing about those concerns. Lastly, the dispute between the epa ig and the chemical safety board seems to me the most problemat problematic, the ig has been trying to obtain documents from the csb chairman, but the csb still has not furnished all the requested documents. All throw the csb had compiled substantially with requests, documents still remain outstand. I hope we can work with you closely on a bipartisan basis, to solve 24 issue. Let me close by making one observation. As we have seen, many of these issues involve several laws that appear to conflict. And some have raised the possibility of legislative fixes. I believe this idea should be considered very carefully. I will not hesitate to pursue statutory clarification if necessary, the last thing the igs need is for legislation to be introduced and fail which could have the unintended effect of diluting their authority. For these reasons mr. Chairman, i appreciate your commitment to work with me and my staff in developing bipartisan and widely supported legislative reform proposals, my staff and i have done a to try to solve the challenges constructively and with that i yield back. I think the Ranking Member, all members will have seven days to submit Opening Statements for the record. We now welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses, the honorable michael b. Horowitz is the Inspector General of the u. S. Department of justice. The honorable arthur a. Elkins jr. Is the Inspector General of the u. S. Environmental protection agency. And the honorable ms. Kathy a. Fuller is the Inspector General of the peace corps. Lady and gentlemen, pursuant to the committee rules, would you please rise to take the oath. Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you will give today will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth . Please be seated. Let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. Since youre all skilled professionals, and mr. Horowitz, since youre less than 24 hours from a similar event, you know that we would like you to keep your Opening Statements to five minutes, summarize in any way you can and that your entire Opening Statement will be placed into the record without objection. With that, mr. Horowitz, youre up. Thank you, mr. Chairman, congressman cummings, members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify today at this very important hearing. Goes to the heart of our mission to provide independent and nonpartisan oversight. That is why 47 inspectors general signed a later late last month to congress expressing their concerns about this issue. I wants to thank the members of this committee for their bipartisan support in response to that letter. The ig act adopted by congress in 1978 is crystal clear, section 6a of the act says that inspectors general must be given complete and timely access to all rorz. By some agencies have not read section 6a and therefore have refused our request during our reviews for relevant grand jury, wiretap and other information, a number of our reviews have been significantly impeded. In response to these legal objectations, the Department Attorney general granted us permission to access the records by finding that our reviews were in future audits and reviews. However there are several significant concerns with this process. First and foremost, the process is inconsistent with the clear mandate of section 6a of the ig act. The attorney general should not have to Order Department components to provide us with access to record records that congress has made clear we have a right to review. Second, requiring the Inspector General to obtain permission from Department Leadership seriously compromises our independence. The oig should be deciding which documents it needs access to. Not the leadership of the agency that is being overseen. Third, while current Department Leadership has supported our ability to access records, Agency Leadership changes over time and our access to records should not turn on the views of the departments leadership. Further we understand that other Department Components that exercise oversight over departments programs and person nell, koochbt to be given access to these same materials without objection. This december per rat treatment is unjustifiable and results in the department being less willing to provide material to the oig presumably because the oig is staff forly independent and lack of independence from the departments leadership, which can only be addressed by granting the statutorily independent oig to investigate all the alleged misconduct at the department. Indeed, the independent made the same recommendation in a report in march of this year and Bipartisan Legislation introduced in the senate would do just that this past may the department of leadership asked this council to address an opinion addressing the legal objections raised by the fbi and other Department Components. It is imperative that the olc issue its decision promptly because the existing practice at the department seriously impairs our independence every stay we do our work. More over, in the absence of a resolution, our struggle to access information in a timely manner continues to seriously delay our work. It also has a substantial impact on the morale of the oigs auditors, analysts, agents and lawyers who work extraordinarily hard every day. Far too often they face challenges getting timely access to information. Including even with routine requests. For example in two ongoing audits, we had trouble getting organizational charts in a timely manner. We remain hopeful that olc will issue an opinion promptly saying that oig however, should an olc opinion conclude otherwise and interpret the ig act in a manner that results in limits on our ability to access information, we will request a prompt legislative remedy. For the past 25 years, my office has demonstrated that effective oversight saves the department money and improves the departments operations. Access to information have substantial consequences for our work and lead to incomplete, inaccurate or significantly delayed findings oreck men dayses. I cannot emphasize enough how critical it is to get these pending access issues row solved promptly. Hopefully olc will issue shortly an opinion finding that 6a of theng what it says. This concludes my prepared statement and i will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you and youll yield back the one second. Ill yield backs the one second zblvm good morning, chairman issa, i an arrethur elkins. Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I would like to take this opportunity to publicly commend the office of Inspector General staff across the federal government who work hard each day to carry out our important mission. As the committee is aware, for more than a year, this oig was con fronted with the denial of access by the csb. The csbs leadership asserted that the denial is based on attorneyclient privilege. We countered that Inspector General act. With that impairment of my offices ability to provide oversight of the csb continued. We resorted to the rarely invoked sevenday letter. This Committee Held a hearing on the sevenday letter and related issues on june 19 at which you stated the csb to turn over the documents to the oig within a week. The csp has since sent several documents to the oig. The csp has not fully there are aadditional documents within the scope of our request, that csb officials have not provided. In addition to the csb matter. The epa office of Homeland Security continues to impede the investigations of this oig. We provided testimony on that subject before this committee on may 7. While there are multiple facets to this problem, the crux is this. The epa asserts a belief that there is a catory of activity that is defined as quote unquote intelligence to only if the epa determines the oig access is permitted. This impairment by the epa was ongoing when i arrived four years ago and it is still not resolved. I wouldlike to discuss how well the ig act is accomplishing goals that congress set in passing it more than 35 years ago. On august 5, i joined with 46 other igs in sending a letter to this committee as well as other congressional members discussing the troubling push back many of us have been experiencing from our respective agencies wen we seek mandated access to employees and records. We asked congress for a strong reaffirmation of the original and still existing intent of the oig act, that igs have unfettered access to information that assist us in obtaining kplomt and questions about whether the ig act is accomplishing congresss goals and whether the act needs strengthening or clarification are not hypothetical to me. They are questions with real world impact on my ability to carry out my mandated functions. You might think therefore that i would say without reservation that the ig act requires some enhancements on access and Agency Cooperation. However, i want all of us, igs and congress included to be very careful about what i am saying and what i am not saying on this issue. The act as written is quite strong and quite clear. It provides access to all Agency Information and all agency employees. There are no exceptions. Not for material that an Agency Asserts can not be further released outside of the oig once the oig does receive it and not for some piece of activity that might happen to involve classified information. No courts, no congressional committees and no opinions from the department of justices office of Legal Council have given any cause for concern that the requirement for access to all information means anything other than all. Any attempt to clarify or strengthen that authority suggests that its not already strong and fullably encompassing, the ig act hinges on the cooperation of its agents with an ig. If there is not prompt and complete cooperation, the work of the oig is stifled. In there regard, the ig can be compared to a house of cards, if you pull out the Agency Cooperation card, the entire thing collapses. Access and cooperation already required. The ig act is fine as wring. The agencys ability to ignore the act without consequence is the problem. This oig will be happy to work with your staff on solutions to address or address concerns. I believe that congress can send a strong and needed missaj through legislative enhancements that such impairment will not be tolerated. Mr. Chairman this concludes my prepared statement and i will be pleased to answer any yeses you or the committee may have. Thank you and you yield back four seconds . Yes, i will, thank you. Ms. Fuller. Chairman issa, Ranking Member cummings, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to be here before you today and allowing me to give my prepare statement. I testified about this issue before your committee on january 15. And while progress has been made, thanks in part to your efforts, some challenges remain. Our access issues stem from the peace corpss interpretation of the volunteer protection act of 2011 which congress enacted after serious reports that the agency failed to adequately respond to volunteer victims of Sexual Assault. So enhance the peace corpss response to Sexual Assaults, the act mandates the creation of a stricter reporting mechanism so volunteers can confidentially disclose the details of they assault and get the treatment they need. Without offering any personal information. Peace corpss General Council has written a legal opinion saying that their causing the agency to establish policies and procedures that deny oig access to information. In the case of restricted reports, the agency argues that the act prehints the agency from disclosing to oig any details of a Sexual Assault or the victims pii. However the act authorizes disclosure when required by law and the law mandates an extensive oversight role to my office. Ma in may, my office on take some information from restricted reports f agreement can be terminated by either party at any time. But we signed it so that we could get some information while continuing to seek agency or congressional action. Although the agreement improves our access, i am concerned about my office having to enter into an agreement to get information we are entitle to by law and that we need to do our job. I am also concerned that the agencys legal opinion authorizing it to withhold information from the oig remains in place. This legal opinion sets a dangerous precedent whereby an agency may interpret a law as overriding the ig act, forcing its ig to spend its limited resources and time wrangling with the agency to on take information. Many have squd why we need full access to restricted reports. The answer is simple. Without full access we cannot properly inform the agency or congress whether the agency complying with the act and whether the agencys response to swaumts is Getting Better or worse. Further more the act mandates that my office conduct a case review of a statistically significant number of cases without full access to information, its very difficult for us to complete this review and ensure that volunteers a ss receiving the services that they need. On august 5, 47 igs signed a letter to congress expressing concern over our access issues, recognizing the implication of agencies refusing, restricting oar delaying access to igs access to documents. Peace corps told the washington post, it is, quote, committed to working with the Inspector General to ensure rigorous oversight while protecting the confidentiality and privacy of volunteers who are Sexual Assaulted, end quote, suggesting that privacy and oversight are mutually exclusive, theyre not. My office is bound by the same confidentiality rules as the agency. It is trained and experienced in handling Sensitive Information and there is no cited reported of my office ever handing such information. The agency has also suggested that fewer volunteerings would report Sexual Assaults if oig had access to the information. But when pressed for a factual basis for this assertion, the agency had none. As a daily beast reported, quote, its hard to imagine a case where volunteers decline to report Sexual Assault because the agencies internal watch dog will be provided information to determine there is no negligence or wrong doing, end quote. The agency argues its policies and procedures are victims seng trick. But what could be more victim centric than provooitding independent oversight of victims care . We ask that congress reaffirm what is said in the ig act, the ig act we also believe is very plain on its face and the legislative effort also strengthens that intent. But there are individuals like our General Council who have taken it upon themselves to introduce another piece of legislation to overr50id that act. We request that congress and this committee take a look at reaffirming what the igf says, and make sure that everybody is on the same page. Thank you for asking me to testify before you and im prepared to answer any question. And you yielded back 12 seconds, so i have never had a more professional panel. I commend you all. We do a lot of hearings here that are partisan. As you know, this isnt one of them. So one of the challenges here is asking the first and most difficult question, which is from each of your experiences, when did this begin and what do you think the source is . And to the extent that you can say time and date and if you will, accountable individual, who you think is the Decision Maker or the impediment, i would like that answer as sus fingtly as possible. In my case i think its very easy to pinpoint the time and the person. The passage of the act mandating the restricted reporting, the person was the general counsel. Basically hes taken the opportunity to interpret the act to impede our access. Mr. Elkins . In my case, i have two agencies that i overski, the csb and the environmental protechation agency. In both cases i have to say that issues relative to access starts at the top. With a clear message from the top that access will be granted, it will be granted. To the extent that theres a mudled message for the message is not clear, you end up in situations that we have here today. Some of the on the csb side of the house, the issues started back in 2010, 2011. On the epa side of the house, some of the issues that were dealing with today actually started before i even came on board. So this has been an ongoing sort of matter. But to answer your question directly. It starts at the top. Clear message from the top, what the expectations are, thats the way the rest of the troops will march. Thank you mr. Horowitz. Our issue started in 2010, it started in 2010 with the fbi, raising objections, other components have now joined in and theres a long list of them that have stayed me too in interpreting that section 6a doesnt mean what it says. So with the fbi, thinkings they can beat your oversight, but with any infection, youre being shut out systematically . If theres a way to do that, thats what happen. We were over with the judiciary along with other members. I think you testified that on six occasions, the attorney general or the Deputy Attorney general has intervened when you have been denied and 8multimat allowed use to get some of the information . Yes, sir. So in your case, its delay and impeding and in fact some of the benefits of an expedient investigation more than outright denial, is that correct . Thats correct, it also compromises our independence. Mr. Elkins, in your case, you continue as i understand, in spite of the Ranking Member and his staffs efforts to not get information and that is a decision being made by the agency head, is that right . Well, its i cant say emphatically that its coming from the agency head. I should say the agency head has not intervened in some of these letters, ask her to do so, thats what i was saying. And i theys a fair characterization. But ultimately, thats the person who could intervene . Absolutely, absolutely. Mr. Fuller, in your case, you cite the general counsel, but the general counsel is a referral point, theres an agency head that also has not intervened . Yes. And if i can take mr. Elkins and ms. Fuller, and bring your two statements together which i think are important for mr. Cummings and myself both. You cautioned us not to attempt to clarify if you will and maybe some up short and diminish what already is the law. While ms. Fuller, you clearly said this review which is also going on at justice, begs the whole question of is 6a, does notwithstanding other laws mean what it means . Mr. Elkins, im coming back to you for that reason. If either through executive action of the office of the president or through congressional action, if we say, because we believe that notwithstanding other laws, 6a and the ig act means what it says it means, does that both meet your test of not writing new law on top of already good law, but at the same time, clarify the question so that theyre not the endless review by agency ads, general counsels and referrals to legal review . Yes, i think that would be i think that would be quite helpful. That message, clearly, without any wiggle room, coming from the president , would help. Absolutely. Thank you, and with that, i used 12 seconds, i yield to the Ranking Member. Go back to what the gentle n gentleman chairman was just asking. Ms. Fuller, as i listen to you and i ahead your testimony and i thought about the issue here, the personally identifiable information, it just seems like we should be able to work that out some way, have you gotten any further than the memorandum of understanding . We have the memorandum of understanding in place and we are hopeful that we can continue to do our work with that memorandum of understanding. But there is we with the legal opinion thats still in place, if theres another dispute that comes up, regardinc details of the Sexual Assault is, were going to be right back where we started going back and forth with the general counsels office trying to figure out that. Mr. Elkins, during your tenure as inspect general, you have identified ways that the agency can improve its management. For example your Office Released three reports in the past month suggesting ways that epa is save money by improving its contracting oversight, is that right . That is correct. And your recommendations have led to many stuck sessionful reforms, for example on july 22, 2014, your office reported that the epa implemented corrective action on the nationwide Monitoring System that protects us from exposure to radiation, is that right . Thats correct, sir. Congress has also charged with you overseeing the chemical safety board, which i want to ask you about. You discuss in your testimony a longterm dispute with the csb. You also identified, in june, testified before the committee in june, about that issue. Your office is investigating the use of personal email accounts by senior csb officials to conduct official business. Is that right . That is correct, sir. On september 5, 2013, you sent a sevenpage letter to the csb seeking email records but the csb refused to provide. But this is the only sevenday letter you have issued in your tenure as Inspector General, a is that right . Thats correct. How long have you been Inspector General . Over four years now. The epa provided some documents, but on july 8, you informed the committee, the csb still had not fully complied with your request. You said the document, you said the documents they provided were not fully responsive, the attachments were not provided and some documents were redacted, is that right . That is correct. More recently, csb has provided additional documents including unredacted copies and on september 8, 2014, you sent a letter to the committee and i quote, oig concludes that the csb has substantially complied with our document request, however, the evidence that we have gathered demonstrates that there are additional documents within the scope of our request which csb officials have not provided to the oig. End of quote. It sounds like the csb improvings its cooperation following the committees hearing in june, but even that was like pulling teeth, is that a fair statement . Thats a very fair statement. I got to tell you, i think this is totally unacceptable. Can you tell us now specifically how you know the csb is withholding documents . I would like to think i got a crack team of investigators that ask good questions and we track the documents, we track the questions and its really just matching it up. We ask certain questions, we look to see if we get a response and if the response is not there, theres a void. Thats pretty much what we have got. Can you identify categories of documents that you believe are being with held for the record so that we can follow up directly . I can give you somewhat of a characterization of, for instance, there was of course the instance of using, you know, email thats not government email to conduct agency business. At one point in the process, it was conveyed to us that there was a directive to csb staff not to do that. And then subsequently, we found emails that suggest that after that date, it was still going on. So in our mind, that suggests that theres a disconnect there. So thats one example. Last question, in the letter you sent on tuesday, you said you will bei issuing a report o investigation in the near future. What will the scope of that be and when do you expect to issue it . Well, it will be a compilation of what we have determined, you know, based on the facts. Of the case. At this point, it appears to us that the csb leadership was using means other than federal communication means to subject agency business. X 0 so thats where the report is, its likely to hit. In terms of when that report is going to be issued, i cant give you an exact date, but i would say very shortly, maybe within the next 90 days or so. Thank you very much and we will follow up. Ranking member, to clarify, ms. Fuller, did you ever ask on this personally identifiable information and the details of these Sexual Assaults, did you ever ask for in camera review for your people to look at the document without receiving them . No that wouldnt have been permitted dinner general counsels legal provision. Did you skrks did you attempt to have something that you would respect the fact that you wouldnt take possession but you at least would review them. No, we did not. Just to follow up. You know, as i listen to your testimony, one of the key when i think about the conflict, the and you said that your agency has been used to handing very Sensitive Information and keeping it confidential. Im sure you made those same arguments to the peace corps. Yes. And what was the response . I mean because we have got government Public Servants who want to do the right thing, and the last thing your agency would be doing would be going against United States by revealing information identifying somebody who may have been Sexual Assaulted. So im just wondering, what happened there . Do you follow me . Is it that theres distrust . The way that the act is drafted, there are two exceptions on the disclosure, one is for one of the exceptions that is enumerated and the other is that if the person files a restrictive report, it wont automatically trigger an investigative process. Our general counsel basically interpreted the receipt from my office as doing that, automatically triggering an investigative process even though we assured him that we are required to follow the law, that if we got any restricted reported information, we would not use it to trigger an investigation. It didnt seem to make an impact on him. And he is the object person who has concluded that the two laws conflict. When you read the two laws, theres a way to interpret them that they dont. Very well. Thank you very much. Thank you, mr. Micah . Thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing and i appreciate the Inspector Generals testifying. I guess with being the Senior Member of the committee and having gone through almost all the half a dozen or so chairman and hundreds of member who is have been on the panel, you get a little bit of institutional insight. I have never seen an instance in my 21plus years, 47 Inspector Generals coming together, and saying that theyre oversight was being obstructed. Mr. Horowitz, do you know of any instance similar to this . I dont. Mr. Elkins . This is the first of my recollection. Ms. Fuller . I dont recall any. Each of the instances which youve come here to cite before us have different parameters. Some of them, you know what, there could be questions and ive seen your some of your recommendations for possible changes in legislation, and that would be one way to resolve some of the issues. I think mr. Horowicz, you have some recommendations about some exemptions that are currently allowed that should be excluded. I think you, ms. Buller . Just answer yes, ms. Buller . Yes. Mr. Elkins, with the epa, it appears that the action taken by epa in really ignoring you and allowing whistle blowers and others to be intimidated, this has undermind your position as Inspector General to conduct your legitimate investigative oversight responsibilities. Would that be a fair statement . Yeah, that would be a fair statement. The other thing that would concern me is using some language or exceptions that are in the law and the case of justice and the peace corps to obstruct the investigation or even worse, to cover up, particularly concerned about the sexual abuse instances. Now, some of these cases staff have told me may be like peace corps worker on peace corps worker or some locals on peace corps volunteers, is that the case . Yes. And, again, it appears that it is sort of a blatant coverup of sexual abuse cases that some might embarrass the agency. I guess you expose yourself when you send people to foreign lands or on any mission to locals or foreign nationals taking advantage of american personnel, but i think how prevalent is the case of problems with peace corps workers being involved in these instances . Usually its a Host Country National involved in the assaults. From what we gathered, the information we gathered, its usually volunteer on volunteer or staff on volunteer in 4 of the cases. In how many . 4 . Not huge but its very embarrassing, i would imagine, to the agency. You know, again, i think we have a particular position of responsibility to deal with that kind of action. And also i think you should have that authority to again uncover whats going on and expose it. A couple of questions because the Inspector Generals have been under attack for a number of years now. Several ways of attacking, and one, get rid of them. We went through that in the beginning. I remember gerald walpin, and he was removed. I think the committee let it be known that that was not going to be tolerated, although they did get away with that particular instance. Then not appointing attorney generals. Im told there is a 13 vacancies, 7 president ially appointed, about 15, 20 of the Inspector General positions are vacant. Is that about right, mr. Horowicz . I think thats correct. You think . Mr. Elkins . I dont have statistics. Again, these are the numbers that i have. You dont appoint them, you try to get rid of them. And then you dont cooperate them, you obstruct them. I appreciate you bringing the matter to the committee. Ill have further questions later on. The gentleman yields back. Well go to the gentleman from virginia, mr. Conley. Thank you for holding this hearing. I find myself in firm agreement with yourself and with the Ranking Member in your Opening Statements. Ms. Buller, in my other committee, the House Foreign Affairs committee, we had some legislation dealing with the peace corps and a whole issue of Sexual Assaults and how best to handle that. There were a series of investigations and investigative stories really than highlighted how poorly historically the peace corps had heretofore frankly managed cases of Sexual Assault among volunteers. We introduced legislation to try to address that, so im particularly concerned to find that today on the subject at the peace corps there isnt full cooperation with your office. So thats the context in which i i look at particularly the peace corps issue and the and the role of the i. G. In january you testified before this committee and raised concerns about access to peace corps information, is that correct . Yes. What was the nature of that testimony . It was allot it was the same issue. Could you speak into the microphone . Thank you so much. It was the same issue that i am testifying about today, its the lack of access to restricted reported information. Specifically, in 2011 we passed the kate paluzzi volunteer protection act to which i just referred requiring the peace corps requiring restricted information to report Sexual Assaults on a confidential basis. Under this theyre required to conduct a case review of a number of Sexual Assaults to evaluate the effectiveness of that policy and a provider report to congress, is that true . Yes. Due to the peace corps intags of that act, the agency, however, withheld from the i. G. Certain personal information about victims as well as sexually explicit details about sexual crimes, is that correct . Yes. On may 22nd you and the Agency Signed a memorandum of understanding. Under that agreement the agency agreed to provide you with access to all information related to restricted reports other than clearly defined personally identifiable information and explicit details of Sexual Assault, is that correct . Zble sinyes. Since that mou has been in effect, has your office requested any Sexual Assault case information under the mou from the Peace Corps Agency . We have requested crime incident reports for Program Evaluation that we were going to did you say five . No, two. Well, we had one Program Evaluation and we requested all of the crime incident reports, including restricted reports, for that country before we went into evaluation. There were two reports. We did get both reports with redactions. So with the appropriate redactions. Yes. From your point of view . According to the mou, yes. Right. So since that mou has been put into effect you have had requests and you have had full compliance of the agency . Yes. Is it your expectation that the case information that you did receive is useful to the work youre undertaking . Its useful to the particular Program Evaluation were doing at this particular point in time. The problem that we have is when we are going to do our case review for the puzzi mandated work, it requires a statistic sampling to do that, and the case the peace corps has no Case Management system so that everything is compiled in one place. We have records in medical, we have records in the Victim Advocate office, we have records all over the place and we dont have any way to track how a volunteer is treated after theyve been assaulted because theres no Case Management system. Even now . Even now, yes. And would that Case Management rubric also include legal actions . So, for example, if somebodys been sexually assaulted, presumably theres a legal case pending in the host countries. If there is, it should be included in the records, yes. But its part of the Case Management problem, i assume . Thats also somewhere else. If the case was actually taken into court, it would no longer be a restricted report and we should have access to that information. Do you . Yes, we do have access to noon restricted reports. The problem is the default position for peace corps is every report of Sexual Assault that is filed is automatically restricted until a volunteer determines to make it otherwise. So the universal restricted reports is quite large. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, i just want to end by saying, this is a particularly troubling case since congress on a bipartisan basis actually addressed this topic, the peace corps and the incidence and management of Sexual Assaults of volunteers abroad, and to find three years after passing that act that were still finding problems internally with the peace corps that directly affect the victims because their cases arent being managed sufficiently and properly and sympathetically and the i. G. Has not had until the mou full cooperation from the agency is troubling, indeed. To me, circumvents both the letter as well as the spirit of the law Congress Passed to try to address a very sensitive but real issue affecting our peace corps volunteers. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Your comments. I now turn and recognize the gentleman from utah, mr. Chafis. I thank the chairman, and thank you, the three of you, for being here. You play a vital role in the checks and balances and just good government, and i thank you for your time and your dedication for you and your staff. Id ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the letter dated august 25th, 2014. This is a letter to chairman issa, Ranking Members cummings, senators carper and coburn from the 47 i. G. S. Hearing no objection, it will be entered. I want to read just three sentences from this letter. The undersigned federal inspectors general write regarding the serious limitations on access to records that have recently impeded the work of inspectors general of the peace corps, the Environmental Protection agency and department of justice. Moreover, the issues facing the d. O. J. , o. I. G. And the peace corps o. Impt g. Are not unique. Other inspectors general have faced similar Inspector Generals on a claim that some other law or principle trumps the i. G. Act or by agent the burden and administrative access. The inspectors general have issued this letter but id like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from the director from the office of management and budget directed october 29th, 2014. Let me read a sentence here from that response from the director of the o. M. B. And then id like each of you to respond to it. They dont think theres a problem. The letter, last sentence says, overall the numbers reported by the i. G. S demonstrate that federal departments and agencies in this administration valued the work of i. G. Offices and are almost uniformly successful in getting them the information they need to perform their responsibilities, end quote. This letter if you were to read this letter, the office of management and budget issuing a letter a full month after 47 i. G. S, they dont think theres a problem. How do you respond to that . Start with you. I can only speak from experience what ive heard from other i. G. S which is we have faced roadblocks in several of our reviews, untimely access where we have gotten it, it has taken a fair amount of time. I think the other i. G. S have had their experiences and i know from conversations with fellow i. G. S where they havent had lawyers come forward saying we cant legally give it to you, theyve had issues with getting materials in a timely manner. That is a very significant issue for us. So when it says almost uniformly successful, how would you characterize what youre able to access and get right now, particularly from the fbi . It has been an extraordinarily difficult issue for us for now several years to get prompt, timely access to materials. Mr. Elkin . I think theres a disconnect, and i think that statement that you just read capsulizes the disconnect. On the one hand i think what we have seen here is that we hear from time to time that, well, you know, there is substantial cooperation with the o. I. G. I mean, weve you know, 80 , 90 of the time theres no problems. You know, you get what you ask for, but that assumes that the other 10 to 20 of the time that were not getting what we ask for is okay, and that suggests that its a moving target, and thats a very slippery slope. And that is exactly, i think, why were here today in talking about these issues, because there is this assumption that most of the time we cooperate, and thats where the focus is at, but the real issue here is what about that 10 of the time that there is no cooperation, and that seems to just keep jumping around and jumping around. Thats the problem, and i think that message says that its a broad problem with o. M. B. And a lot of agencies. Thank you, mr. Elkin. Ms. Bueller. I agree with my esteem colleague. From our perspective, weve had an agency issue opinions or issue policies and procedures specifically stating that we cant have access to something, so its very difficult for me to understand how its not a problem. And i think the fact that 47 other i. G. S have at one time or another, maybe not all the time, but one time or another had problems should be an indicator that there is a problem. Well, thank you. Again, i appreciate the great work that we do and look forward to hearing from you further. Yield back