inFOCUS Quarterly: Good morning, Senator. You were keyed into some of the federal spending problems before DOGE came to town. You secured a requirement to have the GSA sell the Wilbur J. Cohen Federal Building, the Social Security building, that had a 2 percent occupancy in DC. That must have felt good.
Sen. Joni Ernst: It did, Shoshana. Thank you so much. And yes, I have worked on a number of what are now called DOGE projects, but for me, these were my “Squeal Efforts” – making Washington, DC squeal and saving taxpayer dollars. So much of this started 10 years ago, but now that we see DOGE in place, we actually have an outlet for a lot of our ideas and legislation.
Selling vacant or rarely used office space is very important. Getting employees back to work is also important. There are so many areas that we have focused on through the years, and those are just a couple examples.
iF: I want to focus first on spending that leaves our country, money that goes out through USAID. You sent a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and said the Agency had obstructed your oversight efforts in the past, and you want to have a full and independent analysis of recipients of USAID money. Isn’t it a requirement? Aren’t we taxpayers supposed to know where all that money goes?
Sen. Ernst: You would think that was true, but there are so many loopholes in the system. What I ran into in my own investigation, when my team and I were trying to get information from USAID, was that they stonewalled us at every opportunity, and they hid behind what is known as the Economic Espionage Act.
They said, “If we release information on these contracts to you and somehow that information gets into the wrong hands, you could be charged with economic espionage.” It was just stonewalling.
We emphasized to them that I was exercising congressional oversight. We got a little bit farther down the road. What we were scrutinizing the Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreements (NICRAs). And we found out that so many of these organizations, the NGOs that are working with USAID, have extreme overhead rates, anywhere from 50 to 60 percent, sometimes as much as 70 percent. What do you think taxpayers would say if they knew only $3 out of every $10 was actually going to humanitarian aid?
We started uncovering a lot of really ill-conceived spending within USAID – things that didn’t necessarily further our American values or American interest. So yes, we have been on this for years. I compiled all of that information and sent it on to Secretary Rubio, so he would have a basis as well to go into the Agency and scrutinize what they were doing.
iF: I hope they’re going to scrutinize money to Russia and China, because on your website, it says that 1.3 billion US tax dollars went to those two countries since 2017.
Sen. Ernst: This is something that most folks don’t realize either – that their hard-earned dollars, which are paid as taxes to the federal government, have ended up going to China and Russia. It can be, for example, through USAID, which, especially when it comes to the Ukraine-Russia War, was not able to process the contracts necessary, so they just handed the brunt of the money over to the UN. And we know that dollars from the UN really cannot be tracked the way we would track them through an organization directly under our federal government.
We also found examples through NIH where dollars were going to a subcontractor and then another subcontractor eventually ending up in the hands of EcoHealth Alliance at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, doing coronavirus studies. Our American taxpayer dollars actually could have fueled the fire behind COVID-19. We see example after example. But even in the Department of Defense, we have seen dollars that will funnel off to China or to Russia, and this should never ever happen.
In order to scrutinize those dollars going into foreign entities, I have once again put up my TRACKS Act, which would require us to follow dollars, and then of course we would be able to see if those dollars are going to foreign entities, and in particular, our adversaries. It is very important that the federal government knows where the money goes and how to respond to pull those dollars back if necessary.
iF: What’s the current status of the TRACKS Act?
Sen. Ernst: We have introduced it, but it will have to go through the committee process. Then, I hope it will get a floor vote or go through another moving piece of legislation. We will need to have a companion in the House as well. It is common sense legislation, and I’m hoping that many of my colleagues will see that as well, and that we will get a hearing on it and quick passage.
iF: This leads us to the other great thing that you have there, which is called the bipartisan Stop Secret Spending Act, which makes me want to pull my hair out, frankly, because there shouldn’t be any secret spending.
The Stop Secret Spending Act means everything would have to be on the USASpending.gov website, so that these things can’t be hidden from us.
Sen. Ernst: It is another common sense bill. The great thing with DOGE being a quasi-department within the federal government is that we do have a platform, and we’re getting much more notice. Whether it is the TRACKS Act or the Stop Secret Spending Act, the public is watching this and are more excited about the work that I have been doing. They can see these bills and they can call their members of Congress and really push for them to get over the finish line.
For far too long, a number of our agencies have been able to get away with transaction agreements in which they don’t have to spell out the details. They just list it as an OTA, and they don’t have to itemize or show where those dollars are going and what activities they are supporting. It is another loophole they exploit within the system, and we want to expose those dollars.
We all need more transparency. If there’s more transparency, people will actually say, “Okay, maybe this spending is not so great, maybe we shouldn’t do it.”
iF: DOGE gives you a little bit of push in the public eye and people can see what you’re doing. Do you find that members on the other side of the aisle are looking at this and saying, “You know what, maybe we need to get on this”?
Sen. Ernst: DOGE has really raised awareness, and I’m thankful for that. We do have members across the aisle that are interested in DOGE. The odd dynamic is that many of them will not want to actually put their name as a caucus member, but they want to participate and be part of some of these efforts. I think it is good.
I chair the Senate DOGE caucus; I’m the founder and chairperson. It is an extraordinary group of senators that really want to do better for our taxpayers and create efficiencies within the federal government. We have Democratic members who want to be involved. I am willing to work with whoever really wants to make a difference for our taxpayers, and make sure that our federal government is focusing on what the federal government should do and should not do.
iF: When it comes to foreign spending, what keeps you awake at night? Ukraine? Wuhan? How about money to the Taliban after we withdrew? And in the Middle East, we’ve put a lot of money into things that really don’t seem to serve American interests, like the Lebanese Armed Forces, or money that went to Hamas for a cement factory, or the Palestinian Authority and to pay for terror against Israel.
Sen. Ernst: When we do talk about money going abroad, our goal is to further American interests. I do believe that we need to be engaged globally. And I do think there are many great projects and efforts that we can engage in.
But there are many activities that we should not be sending our dollars to. And where those dollars have the ability to be siphoned away for nefarious activities, especially if it comes to terrorist proxies working on behalf of Iran, those activities that will destabilize a region. We should be pulling those dollars back.
American citizens work far too hard to have their dollars going to entities that will threaten American lives and livelihoods or our friends and allies abroad. We do have to scrutinize those dollars. That’s why so many of these efforts are really, really important. But it does disturb me so much that in the past number of years, and this has been going on for decades, we have had dollars flowing into the wrong hands because they have been intercepted and siphoned away. That’s absolutely inappropriate spending.
iF: What remains of USAID is now under the State Department under Secretary Rubio. There is a lot of good work that goes on. Do you have a good feeling about where we’re going with USAID back in the State Department?
Sen. Ernst: I have a very good feeling about this. But I’ve told everybody, buckle up because it is going to be a bumpy ride. There are so many different contracts and programs out there, and we do have to go through and scrutinize all of them.
I know they’re actively engaging in that every single day at the State Department as they work through USAID. And I do think that they will have a good accounting of those dollars by the end of the next month or so. Then, we will start that rebuilding process: What are those programs where we really got a lot of bang for our buck and really did promote our interests as Americans abroad? While it may be a rough ride here initially, in the end, we will have brought it back to the center, the core of what our mission should be as we spend dollars abroad.
And again, furthering American interest, supporting our friends and allies.
Domestic Spending
iF: In some ways, domestic spending control may be a little bit easier. First, tell us about the Squeal Awards. I read through your website. Some of them are funny; you have to laugh at them. But really, they’re not funny. None of them are funny. That’s my money. That’s your money.
Sen. Ernst: Exactly. Thank you. Only a small fraction of the work is actually posted up on our website under my Squeal Awards, but going back a decade we’ve sent out these monthly “awards” for waste, fraud, and abuse within the federal government. We have found so many egregious examples. I compiled a 40-plus-page out-of-office report four years after the end of COVID-19, and it was astounding because we still pay a lot of federal government workers to work from their homes. I could spend an entire day lecturing on this, but I’ll just give you a few small examples.
We had a federal worker who claimed to be on their own time; they had actually started their very own small business. So, they were working full time in their small business activity while they were teleworking and just doing federal government work on the side whenever they had a moment.
A VA employee was actually doing a Zoom call from his bathtub, in a bubble bath, and he posted an Instagram picture of him actually taking a bath during work hours on a Zoom call. He got turned in by another employee at that organization. But these were the workers that were supposed to be answering VA suicide hotline calls.
We had another employee that was serving jail time, and still was collecting pay, full pay and benefits. Her supervisor didn’t even know that she was serving time in jail. It is out of control.
I highlight a number of those examples through my Squeal Awards. Many federal workers who moved away from Washington DC still are claiming DC for the locality pay, which is higher than if they lived somewhere else. They’re actually committing fraud against the federal government.
And on and on and on. And it’s just a little bit of the waste. The way some, not all, federal government workers have taken advantage in this situation is outrageous. This in itself was just one 40-plus-page report. There are many, many other examples of funding that have gone through other agencies – the National Institutes of Health and other agencies that have funded outrageous projects that really had no tangible value for American citizens. There is a lot of waste out there, which is why I think DOGE is so important today.
How the Process Works
iF: I think COVID spending was kind of a kick in the pants for people. But you’ve been doing this for much longer than that. Is this a flaw in the legislative process? When there is a continuing resolution, spending that was previously in the bill doesn’t get cut out.
Are we just piling all of this up? Do we need to go back to individual spending bills?
Sen. Ernst: Yes. I will always agree, night and day, that regular order is the best order, and that would be when we move individual appropriations bills through the Appropriations Committee process, then process each individual bill on the floor, whether it’s the Senate or the House. That allows us the time to scrutinize what our taxpayer dollars are funding.
But what happens, whether it’s a continuing resolution or whether it’s a giant omnibus bill at the end of the year, so much can get piled into it that there is not nearly enough time to scrutinize all of the spending.
Another way the system is really damaged is that we have such a bloated bureaucracy, and such an overwhelmingly bloated federal budget. It is hard, very hard to do a deep dive, a timely deep dive, where you can go in and force programs to be accountable.
Through probably the last 50 years or so, we’ve seen this enormous growth in the federal budgeting process, federal appropriations, growth in our agencies. Now is the appropriate time to scale back on these agencies. Let’s focus on what the federal government should do, and maybe what the federal government shouldn’t do, and push those things down to state and local government.
iF: What about earmarks?
Sen. Ernst: I don’t believe in earmarks. I think that we should have a competitive process and make sure that if our states do have good projects, that they are willing to stand up and fight for those projects, have certain metrics that must be met for those projects. Certainly, we have seen dollars that will go to economic development, but what is the value for the greater population? We have to be able to explain that. And in many cases, with earmarks, you’re not able to do that. They’re just certain pet projects for a senator or a House member and probably not a great expenditure of our taxpayer dollars.
iF: Any possibility that there will be a ban on earmarks?
Sen. Ernst: I don’t see it happening.
I would love to see earmarks go away, but there are too many members that participate in the earmark process, and hey, you’re bringing the bacon home for your taxpayers in your districts. I get that. I would love to see it go away.
Again, metrics, standards, competitive process, more transparency, I think that’s all very, very good.
iF: Is it more likely that we could see individual spending bills?
Sen. Ernst: There is a strong possibility on individual spending bills. Susan Collins of Maine is the chair of the Appropriations Committee. She has worked very hard on this for a number of years to really get individual appropriations bills done. She and Patty Murray – now the ranking member, but the Democratic chair last year – actually did a really admirable job. They moved every single one of those bills out of the Appropriations Committee only to languish off and not be brought to the floor of the Senate.
We’ve got some incredible leaders that really do want to do the right thing. Unfortunately, you have to have other leaders that are willing to support those efforts. I would love to see it, if we can do it. I know that Susan will be the one to do it.
Information Management
iF: You’ve said that implementing basic management systems, updated computer systems and data systems, could save taxpayers $688 billion off of our $6.75 trillion government spending. Do you see those management systems moving into the 21st century?
Sen. Ernst: When people think about DOGE, they just think of the cost-cutting. But sometimes you do have to spend some money to see greater efficiencies and cost savings in the long run. And by updating our systems, making sure that there is crosstalk between various agencies, making sure that we can query different expenditures, make sure that we can track those dollars. All of that is the right way to do things.
I think about our VA system, which is really important to me. There’s a lot of information that’s housed in veterans’ records – their health records, and benefits records and so forth – but it is very siloed, and you can’t cross-query any of that. It’s very difficult to share that information with other entities.
If we were able to modernize our systems so they could communicate, we might be able to find better ways of serving veterans and offer them different program opportunities. But because that information is so locked away in an antiquated system, some of it still exists only in paper documents, it’s very hard to do.
We really do have to modernize, move forward, and make sure that all of our systems are integrated and creating efficiencies that will benefit us in the long term.
iF: I’m going to ask you to close on a high note if you can. You want to be honest with us, the people. “We the People” want you to be honest with us. How do you feel about our chances? Could this be the beginning of something interesting for us?
Sen. Ernst: I am extremely optimistic on this point, and while a number of us have had our different efforts through the years, whether it’s my Squeal Awards (a dear friend, Senator James Lankford, has Federal Fumbles), we all have our own following. But right now, at this particular juncture in time, we see that the American public is really having a moment where they are very concerned about federal government spending, so they want more transparency.
And what our constituents are asking for, we want to deliver. I do think taxpayers will hold us accountable. This is a great opportunity for those of us that have put so much of our time and our careers into being the watchdogs for the American people. We’re finally – maybe – seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. Even when DOGE has come and gone from the administration, our intention is to continue with the DOGE work and make sure transparency is still there long after this administration, long after the next administration, well into the future.
iF: That’s a great answer. I want to say on behalf of the readers of inFOCUS Quarterly magazine and the members of the Jewish Policy Center, We look forward to lots more of this. Thank you very much, Senator Joni Ernst.
