    [House Hearing, 106 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

       H.R. 3137, A BILL TO AMEND THE PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION ACT OF 1963

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,
                          INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY

                                     of the

                         COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       ON

                                   H.R. 3137

        TO AMEND THE PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION ACT OF 1963 TO PROVIDE FOR
       TRAINING OF INDIVIDUALS A PRESIDENT-ELECT INTENDS TO NOMINATE AS
    DEPARTMENT HEADS OR APPOINT TO KEY POSITIONS IN THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF
                                 THE PRESIDENT

                                   __________

                                OCTOBER 13, 1999

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 106-119

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

                                   __________

      Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
                          http://www.house.gov/reform
                                     ______

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    64-650                     WASHINGTON : 2000

                         COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

                         DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
    BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York         HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
    CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland       TOM LANTOS, California
    CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut       ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
    ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
    JOHN M. McHUGH, New York             EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
    STEPHEN HORN, California             PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
    THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia            CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
    DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana           ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
    MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana                  DC
    JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida             CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
    STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio           ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South     DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
        Carolina                         ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
    BOB BARR, Georgia                    DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
    DAN MILLER, Florida                  JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
    ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas             JIM TURNER, Texas
    LEE TERRY, Nebraska                  THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
    JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois               HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon                  JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    DOUG OSE, California                             ------
    PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin                 BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho                   (Independent)
    DAVID VITTER, Louisiana

                          Kevin Binger, Staff Director
                     Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
               David A. Kass, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian
                          Carla J. Martin, Chief Clerk
                     Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director

       Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology

                       STEPHEN HORN, California, Chairman
    JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois               JIM TURNER, Texas
    THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia            PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon                  MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
    DOUG OSE, California                 PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
    PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin                 CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

                                   Ex Officio

    DAN BURTON, Indiana                  HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
              J. Russell George, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
       Bonnie Heald, Director of Communications/Professional Staff Member
                              Chip Ahlswede, Clerk
                        Trey Henderson, Minority Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on October 30, 1999.................................     1
        Text of H.R. 3137............................................     7
    Statement of:
        Ink, Dwight, former Assistant Director, Office of Management
          and Budget; Paul Light, director, Center for Public
          Service, Brookings Institution; and Norman J. Ornstein,
          resident scholar, American Enterprise Institute for Policy
          Research...................................................    26
        Richardson, Elliot, attorney general to President Nixon; and
          Lee White, former assistant counsel to President Kennedy
          and counsel to President Johnson...........................    11
    Letters, statements, et cetera, submitted for the record by:
        Horn, Hon. Stephen, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of California:
            Letter dated October 7, 1999.............................    61
            Prepared statement of....................................     9
            Presidential Transition Act of 1963......................     2
            Task Force Reports to the National Commision on the
              Public Service.........................................    16
        Ink, Dwight, former Assistant Director, Office of Management
          and Budget, prepared statement of..........................    28
        Light, Paul, director, Center for Public Service, Brookings
          Institution, prepared statement of.........................    43
        Ornstein, Norman J., resident scholar, American Enterprise
          Institute for Policy Research, prepared statement of.......    54
        Turner, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Texas, prepared statement of............................    67

       H.R. 3137, A BILL TO AMEND THE PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION ACT OF 1963

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1999

                      House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Government Management, Information,
                                        and Technology,
                                Committee on Government Reform,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
    room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Stephen Horn
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Horn, Ose, and Turner.
        Staff present: Russell George, staff director/ chief
    counsel; Matthew Ebert, policy advisor; Bonnie Heald, director
    of communications/professional staff member; Chip Ahlswede,
    clerk; P.J. Caceres and Deborah Oppenheim, interns; Trey
    Henderson, minority counsel; and Jean Gosa, minority staff
    assistant.
        Mr. Horn. A quorum being present, this hearing of the
    Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and
    Technology will come to order.
        Until 1963, the primary source of funding for Presidential
    transitions was the incoming President's political party and
    the contributions of volunteer staff. The Presidential
    Transition Act of 1963 was enacted to authorize Federal funding
    and assistance for incoming Presidents. It also provided the
    authority for the outgoing President and Vice President to use
    the funds for their transition into private life for up to 6
    months. The act authorized the appropriation of $900,000 to be
    divided equally between the incoming and outgoing
    administrations.
        In 1976, Congress amended the Presidential Transition Act
    of 1963 to increase the funding provided in the 1963 act.
        In 1988, Congress passed the Presidential Transition
    Effectiveness Act, which again raised the funding for
    Presidential transitions, and included a provision that calls
    for annual adjustments for inflation. In addition, the 1988 act
    required that all preelection transition funds must be acquired
    privately, and the names of all transition personnel and
    private contributors are publicly disclosed.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.005

        Mr. Horn. Over the years, there have been many examples of
    missteps and outright errors made by newly appointed officials
    in the White House. However capable and well-intentioned, new
    and unseasoned appointees are especially susceptible to
    misjudgments that, at a minimum, can be politically
    embarrassing, but can also have serious consequences on the
    administration's credibility.
        As we have seen, sometimes the errors tumble out in
    misstatements or ill-advised recommendations; other times, they
    have resulted in ethical lapses by an appointee who was unaware
    of the ethical standards required by Federal law. These errors
    could have been avoided if these appointees had properly
    understood the scope of their responsibilities, or, I might
    add, if they thought what this action would look like on the
    front page of the Washington Post or any major paper before you
    do it.
        Accordingly, I am introducing a bill that would amend the
    Presidential Transition Act of 1963 to authorize the use of
    Presidential transition funds for a formal orientation process
    for incoming appointees to top White House positions, including
    Cabinet members. This bill would encourage the orientations to
    take place between the general election and 30 days after the
    inauguration. By establishing this timeframe for top appointee
    orientations, this bill would increase the likelihood that a
    greater number of lower-level appointees might also receive
    White House orientations earlier in the new administration.
        [The text of H.R. 3137 follows:]

    106th CONGRESS
    1st Session
                                   H. R. 3137

        To amend the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 to provide for
       training of individuals a President-elect intends to nominate as
    department heads or appoint to key positions in the Executive Office of
                                 the President.

                                     ______

                        IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                October 25, 1999

      Mr. Horn (for himself, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Kanjorski, and
      Mrs. Maloney of New York) introduced the following bill; which was
                 referred to the Committee on Government Reform

                                     ______

                                     A BILL

        To amend the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 to provide for
       training of individuals a President-elect intends to nominate as
    department heads or appoint to key positions in the Executive Office of
                                 the President.

        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
    United States of America in Congress assembled,

    SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION ACT OF 1963.

        Section 3(a) of the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 (3 U.S.C.
    102 note) is amended--
                (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking
            ``including--'' and inserting ``including the following:'';
                (2) in each of paragraphs (1) through (6) by striking the
            semicolon at the end and inserting a period; and
                (3) by adding at the end the following:
                ``(8)(A) Payment of expenses during the transition for
            briefings, workshops, or other activities to acquaint key
            prospective Presidential appointees with the types of problems
            and challenges that most typically confront new political
            appointees when they make the transition from campaign and
            other prior activities to assuming the responsibility for
            governance after inauguration, including interchange with
            individuals who held similar leadership roles in prior
            administrations, agency or department experts from the Office
            of Management and Budget or an Office of Inspector General of
            an agency or department, and relevant staff from the General
            Accounting Office.''.
                ``(B) Activities funded under this paragraph shall be
            conducted primarily for individuals the President-elect intends
            to nominate as department heads or appoint to key positions in
            the Executive Office of the President.''.

                                       -

        Mr. Horn. This bill is an important step toward restoring
    confidence in the ability of the Executive Office of the
    President to run its affairs in a responsible manner.
        At today's hearing, we will hear from a group of
    distinguished witnesses. On our first panel, we have two
    gentlemen who hold a unique perspective on the Presidency. We
    welcome Mr. Lee White, who was assistant counsel to President
    John F. Kennedy and counsel to President Lyndon B. Johnson; and
    Mr. Elliot Richardson, former Attorney General for President
    Richard Nixon and a holder of at least four other Cabinet
    positions, including Defense.
        On panel two, we have Mr. Dwight Ink, former Assistant
    Director of the Office of Management and Budget; Mr. Paul
    Light, Director of the Center for Public Service at the
    Brookings Institute; and Mr. Norman J. Ornstein, a resident
    scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Policy
    Research.
        We welcome each of you and look forward to your testimony.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Stephen Horn follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.007

        Mr. Horn. I now yield to the subcommittee's ranking member,
    Mr. James Turner of Texas, for a statement.
        Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I commend you on the
    legislation you have brought forward. It seems to me a very
    good idea, and you have brought together a very distinguished
    panel to discuss it. Obviously anything that we can do to
    assist the transition of a newly elected President and his
    appointees and Cabinet members to make the transition smoother,
    we ought to do it. There have been plenty of examples, as the
    chairman mentioned, of cases where new appointees showed some
    indication that they were not quite ready for the new job that
    they had assumed. I think your idea here of providing an
    opportunity for briefings and workshops and other activities
    for key prospective appointees is a very good one.
        I would like to thank the two panels who have come to
    discuss the issues with us today.
        Mr. Horn. I thank the gentleman.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Horn. We will now proceed with panel one and begin with
    a very distinguished public servant who a lot of us have known
    for 20 and 30 years. The Honorable Elliot Richardson was
    Attorney General to President Nixon. He was Under Secretary of
    State, Secretary of HEW, and then Secretary of Commerce and
    Secretary of Defense.
        Mr. Richardson, it is all yours.

    STATEMENTS OF ELLIOT RICHARDSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL TO PRESIDENT
      NIXON; AND LEE WHITE, FORMER ASSISTANT COUNSEL TO PRESIDENT
                KENNEDY AND COUNSEL TO PRESIDENT JOHNSON

        Mr. Richardson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
    members of the subcommittee. I feel not only privileged to have
    the opportunity to lead off the testimony in this hearing, but
    I also believe that it probably is one of the more important
    hearings that will be held in the Congress this year. It is
    fair to say that one would be aware of its importance only with
    the kind of experience one acquires through seeing the process
    whereby people are coming from their roles in the private
    sector, going to their new assignments in government, and the
    need for supplementation of their knowledge by as rapid as
    possible an exposure to the very integral kind of environment
    they are coming into. It is different, of course, in a whole
    lot of ways that I don't need to enumerate, but one is in the
    controversiality of many of the issues that they will address,
    the degree of public attention focused on them, and not the
    least the necessity of dealing with the legislative branch of
    the government, which at the end of the day has power and
    responsibility to dispose of the issues that are addressed by
    the executive branch.
        There is also the relationship between the new Presidential
    appointees and the career services and their members who were
    there before the Presidential appointees arrived and will be
    there after they are gone.
        I think these are among the reasons for the legislation
    that you have before you.
        I was pleased to have the opportunity to read the testimony
    of Dwight Ink, at least the statement that he prepared, and I
    think that is a very comprehensive and persuasive presentation
    of the kinds of considerations that I have briefly touched on,
    and a range of other considerations which are also relevant to
    this legislation. I strongly support everything he has said.
        I would also suggest, however, that beyond the problem
    which, I take it, has to be addressed through legislation for
    appointees of an incoming President before he takes office in
    order to meet the expenditures thereby entailed, that we should
    not lose sight of the need for the orientation and briefing of
    new Presidential appointees who come into office after the
    administration has taken over. The same considerations that
    apply to them due to the appointees before the administration
    takes office apply to the new Presidential appointees who are
    recruited who come in after the administration is already in
    place. That may not need legislation, but the considerations
    that do require legislation should be recognized as having
    continued importance, and perhaps the committee in its own
    report, I hope, recommending legislation for adoption with
    whatever modifications it may see fit to make will call
    attention to this second point.
        The testimony of Dwight Ink, which is the only statement
    that I have seen, touched on a great many of the considerations
    which bear on the needs for this legislation. I want to stress
    one of them; and to that end, Mr. Chairman, I have brought with
    me, which I have submitted to the committee staff, a copy of a
    recommendation of a task force of the so-called Volcker
    Commission, more formally known as the National Commission on
    the Public Service, on which I sat in 1998. My task force
    addresses the relations between political appointees and career
    executives.
        It is fair to say that not only is considerable time lost
    in development of a clear understanding by new appointees of
    the importance of this relationship, but also there is a good
    deal of unnecessary strain that arises out of the
    misunderstandings and misperceptions brought to their new posts
    by Presidential, which is to say political, appointees to the
    government insofar as their relationships with public servants
    of the executive branch agencies are concerned.
        The word, ``bureaucrat,'' as we all know, carries many
    negative connotations. It need not have negative connotations.
    I would advise to pretend that it doesn't deserve any negative
    connotations. I will emphasize, however, that a bureaucracy is
    any large organization requiring staff and addressing several
    important purposes. AT&T is a bureaucracy. IBM is a
    bureaucracy, and so on.
        I personally regard myself as, first of all, a politician,
    although I seldom, I think, have been recognized as such, but I
    have long believed that John B. Fisher, then editor of Harvard
    Magazine was right when I heard him tell a Harvard audience
    that politics is the most difficult of the arts and the noblest
    of the professions. I wish not only that more members of the
    general public understood and believed that, but also wished
    that more politicians understood and believed it.
        I presently do believe it, even though I think I am
    seldom--let me restate that. I am not often enough thought of
    as a politician.
        Second, I regard myself as a bureaucrat with equal pride.
    To be a good bureaucrat, particularly as a Presidential
    appointee, requires that you undertake a very complex and
    demanding administrative job fraught also with the necessity
    for addressing difficult and controversial public issues. You
    are the head of an organization which is responsible to the
    policy leadership of the President under whom you serve, but
    also accountable to the general public through, in the first
    instance, contact and accountability to the Congress of the
    United States, but also to the general public via media, via
    all kinds of organizations around national and regional and
    local through whom the policy and purposes that you serve are
    communicated to the American people.
        You need--in order to be able to achieve any of the public
    purposes of the public organizations in which you serve, and
    especially for those who head the organizations, you need to
    understand that everything you do depends at the end of the day
    on the people who are permanent members of the organizations of
    which you are a part. And you need to know that the great
    majority of them are people who would not be there if they were
    not genuinely dedicated to serving the public interest in the
    post that they hold. You need to presume that and proceed on
    that assumption, and only qualify it to the extent that in your
    relationships with a given individual over time, you find that
    assumption may not be entirely warranted.
        I want to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, my first Presidential
    appointment was by President Eisenhower. I was Assistant
    Secretary for Legislation. I dealt with every committee and
    subcommittee of the Congress of the United States that dealt
    with any legislation involving health or education or welfare.
    There were only about five Presidential appointees in HEW in
    those days, maybe seven. I was No. 3 in rank order, you might
    say, and I served for substantial periods as Acting Under
    Secretary and Acting Secretary of HEW under President
    Eisenhower. As you pointed out, I headed four Cabinet
    departments and served as No. 2 in State.
        I think I speak with not only firsthand knowledge, but
    complete realism toward the necessity for constructive
    relationships between Presidential appointees and media, the
    very real potential for those relationships. This is undercut
    if the Presidential appointee is a smart aleck and a cynic and
    stupid enough to suppose that you have to be a businessman or a
    Republican or a Democrat of your own basic orientation in order
    to be devoted to the best interests of the United States.
        Presidential appointees, I am sorry to have to say, in most
    cases need to be made aware of that. They are becoming, you
    might say, officers in an institution in which there are people
    ready to be led who know that they need leadership in the
    resolution of political issues that it is not their job, they
    know it is not their job, to have to resolve, but who are quite
    ready to follow that leadership, especially if it is
    intelligent and articulate, and especially if the political
    appointees take the trouble to engage them in a process which
    communicates understanding of those policy decisions.
        I would like to give one example going back to the
    Eisenhower administration which I think is very telling in this
    respect. There was a bill which had been introduced at that
    time by a senior Member of Congress from Rhode Island whose
    name eludes me at the moment, but it was the first piece of
    legislation proposing the establishment of what we now call
    Medicare.
        I believed that the Eisenhower administration needed to
    have its own initiative in addressing health care needs and the
    financing of those needs for the elderly, so I put together a
    small group. There were hardly any political people in the
    Department at that time. We relied on career people to develop
    the Eisenhower administration's counterpart with a Republican
    slant and perspective on how to vote. This group came forward
    with what I thought was a not very coherent or convincing
    approach, and I met with them and we talked about it, and they
    came back with a new version which wasn't much better. And then
    it struck me their problem was not that they were trying to
    impose something that reflected their own political biases, the
    problem was that I had not made clear enough what were the
    fundamental political decisions and policies that we, the
    Eisenhower administration, saw as necessary to approaching that
    problem.
        I had to do the work of singling out what these were, and
    the approach that I came up with was one which essentially gave
    in a different context we now call vouchers with which the
    Social Security beneficiary could buy health insurance
    coverage. That is enough for present purposes.
        The point is that when I gave them a clear idea of what the
    political objectives were, then they could begin to apply it
    intelligently.
        I came into the Nixon administration as what we now call
    Deputy Secretary of State. I had never had a foreign policy job
    before. I never worked with the Foreign Service. But one thing
    I learned very early on, when I saw somebody smile or look at
    another member of the Foreign Service around the table when we
    were discussing some issue with a wink, or sort of a smirk, I
    knew that I should ask that person a question, and if I asked a
    question about what they thought about what I had been saying
    up to that point and the direction of policy, they gave me a
    straight answer drawing on their knowledge and experience of
    the issue. They had been kicked around by enough political
    appointees so they didn't necessarily volunteer the answer, but
    if I got any clue to whatever didn't seem to be going across
    and asked, I got one.
        The relationship between political appointees in the
    Department of State is very much like the relationship between
    political appointees and the military services. I think there
    is something about the uniform and the stature of the military
    from day one ready to speak up, but I found in those early
    weeks that these people were dedicated, competent professionals
    and very ready to take political leadership.
        Now, I emphasize these things, Mr. Chairman, because the
    United States and the public are damaged by the wrong
    assumptions brought by political appointees to their positions.
    This is by no means the only reason why there needs to be an
    orientation at a transition stage, not only before an
    administration comes in, but for new appointees after the
    administration comes in.
        Other reasons are spelled out in Mr. Ink's testimony, which
    is the only statement that I have seen. But, Mr. Chairman, I
    want to emphasize the point that I have emphasized because in
    the first place I think I have almost a unique background for
    having acquired the point of view I have expressed, but also
    because I think it is a consideration that is far too little
    recognized, and it is important to the success of political
    issues. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Horn. I am going to put in the record without objection
    the task force reports to the National Commission on the Public
    Service which was chaired by Mr. Volcker and the Task Force on
    the Relations Between Political Appointees and Career
    Executives which was chaired by our witness Mr. Richardson. It
    is a very worthwhile document, and I will put it at this point
    into the record.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.011

        Mr. Horn. We deeply appreciate your sharing those
    experiences with us. You might be interested to know that when
    one of your successors, the current incumbent, as Attorney
    General was testifying before us in this room, I asked if she
    recalled Attorney General Richardson's courageous retirement
    when he didn't believe it was possible for him to be persuaded
    by the White House and interfered with by the White House and
    what he did. I suggested that she might want to think about
    that experience when the White House was pressuring her, which
    they have.
        You have been a courageous, honest, and dedicated public
    servant, and our Nation is very much in your debt in this.
    You've been a role model for many of us, and we thank you for
    sharing those ideas. If you like, we are going to have Mr.
    White, and then we might ask a few questions. I know that you
    probably have a schedule of your own.
        We will ask Mr. White, who has had a long experience on
    Capitol Hill, and who is quite knowledgeable about White House
    work of quite different types.
        Mr. White. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Turner. Frankly
    this is a pretty easy assignment. I would have expected that
    this is already part of the law, and if it isn't, it ought to
    be. I certainly believe that I could work for 3 or 4 days and
    not find anybody who would not think that it is a good idea. It
    should be done, and I certainly support the concept and the
    legislative proposal that I have seen.
        One thought that may be worth mentioning is in the language
    of other activities in ``briefings, workshops and other
    activities,'' either in the committee report language or--I am
    not much on micromanaging in the bill. I should think that we
    should authorize development of a handbook or pamphlet or memo
    or whatever. One of general character for those people across
    the board, especially those who are going to face confirmation,
    but perhaps a specialized one for those people who are going
    into the departments and the agencies and who should know
    something about the problems that are there.
        I was very fortunate to be part of the transition team from
    President Eisenhower to President Kennedy, and as you said, the
    statute that you are attempting to amend was adopted in 1963.
    In the fall of 1960, there were--I am not kidding you, there
    were six people working with the Eisenhower administration from
    the Kennedy group. There were others involved in recruiting
    important players, but the actual substantive involvement was a
    group of only six. Happily, President Eisenhower had made it
    clear to everybody in his administration that cooperation was
    required, and we got it, especially from what was then the
    Bureau of the Budget. Since those days things have grown as
    things do grow in government and elsewhere, and I can tell you
    that the notion of trying to have an opportunity to explore
    with and explain to Presidential appointees some of the
    pitfalls, some of the requirements and some of the ideas that
    they should bear in mind as they go into these new jobs is
    absolutely essential.
        In the Kennedy White House, although the President didn't
    ever put it this way, we tried to make sure if anybody was
    ignorant, he also wasn't arrogant, because that is a terrible
    combination. In the White House, I will tell you, even if you
    are not at the top tier, just in the middle, the kids who knew
    you in grade school are going to call you. I remember going
    home and telling my wife I must have gotten terribly, terribly
    bright overnight because before nobody gave a damn what I said,
    and now everybody wants to know what my views are. I said I
    wonder if it works in reverse when you leave, and the answer is
    yes, it does work in reverse. But it is heady stuff, and I
    think not only the Cabinet officers, but the White House staff
    has to have instruction.
        It would be a good idea, if the President were so minded,
    to make sure that his designated Chief of Staff was the one who
    made this happen and that he himself could partake of it.
        The pitfalls are many: ethical questions, financial
    disclosure. You know, that is a very important thing, but I
    would also urge that we go back a step and that the recruiters
    know some of these issues so they are not blindsiding the
    person who is flattered to be considered for a high position.
        President Kennedy had intended to appoint a fellow to the
    D.C. Board of Commissioners. It was going to be a very
    significant one. He was going to be the first black
    Commissioner in the District of Columbia, Frank Reeves.
    Unfortunately, it came out later that Frank had forgotten to
    pay his income tax. Nobody had asked him if he had paid his
    income tax.
        Now there is a checklist, I am sure, and those are the
    types of issues, but also you have to try to inculcate in them,
    especially the White House staff, what their relations are to
    the Cabinet. Cabinet officers get very, very testy, I can
    promise you, when some White House staff guy calls him up and
    says, the President says--he is thinking, why didn't the
    President call me?
        That is another part of the necessary skills and judgment,
    and hopefully you don't make too many mistakes. We can't kid
    ourselves, you cannot legislate or mandate common sense and
    good judgment in people. What you can do is tell them some of
    the basic rules that you want as President, that you want
    followed, and hope that it will take.
        One of the benefits of mankind is to profit by other
    people's mistakes, and so anybody who is part of this teaching
    team is going to be able to find a whole host of mistakes which
    have been made by others in the past to illustrate the point of
    how difficult it can be. Everybody is busy. Everybody is
    flattered. There are receptions around town, and you can hardly
    believe your good fortune to be part of a brand new
    administration. But people have to understand that if the
    President wants it, don't forget, we are here recommending that
    the President in his transition, the President-elect in his
    transition do certain things, and hopefully he will, and if it
    is institutionalized, there is a better chance of it happening
    that way.
        And without wanting to beat a dead horse to death, I want
    to say that I do support the idea, the concept and the
    legislative proposal. And as I said at the outset, please let
    me know if anybody is opposed to it. I would like to talk to
    them.
        Mr. Horn. You remind me of a few experiences in that point
    in time. I was administrative assistant to Secretary of Labor
    Mitchell under President Eisenhower the last year and a half,
    and we were involved in some of what the President wanted done
    in the transition, such as preservation of papers, where do
    they go, and so forth and so on.
        I think one of the problems that I have observed in both
    Republican and Democratic White Houses is the younger members
    of the staff who go in like they are still running a campaign
    in both parties. I have seen it, and I think it is pathetic,
    shall we say. I remember one young Kennedy aide who got a
    lesson in executive legislative relations when he left a note
    on the door of a southern Congressman. He said, the President
    wants you to vote this way. Needless to say, Larry O'Brien
    heard about that and educated the young man, since Larry was
    one of the greatest Ambassadors from the White House to
    Congress in probably this century.
        Mr. White. He did not require a checklist of things to do.
    The gentleman was innately a gentleman, and crafty and smart
    and very obliging. I remember he called a Congressman from
    Nebraska and with tears in his eyes told him that they were
    going to close the Veterans' Administration Hospital in
    Lincoln, and the guy was so pleased that Larry had called him
    ahead of time that he almost was grateful. Can you believe
    that?
        Mr. Horn. That is true. Courtesies are important, but I
    don't think that we can just worry about the high-level
    Presidential appointees, we need to get down into the grass
    roots of some of the red-hots on the campaign trail who feel
    that they have personally elected the President alone, and I
    have run into that type in both Democratic and Republican
    administrations.
        Mr. White. That may be why a little booklet would be
    helpful.
        Mr. Horn. Plus a good talking to by people who have had
    positions in other administrations. I think that helps.
        I want to yield time to the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
    Turner, the ranking member, to open with questions. It is all
    yours.
        Mr. Turner. I think Mr. White said it all. If this is not
    in the law, it should be. I found it fascinating to hear
    Secretary Richardson recount some of his experiences. Both of
    you have a wealth of knowledge in government, and I appreciate
    very much Secretary Richardson's reference to the fact that we
    need to be careful how we use the word ``bureaucrat'' because
    it is the people who have committed their entire lives to
    government service that really hold this place together. If we
    understand that partnership between the political appointees
    and the career public servant, I think this place can function
    to the benefit of the American people.
        Mr. White, listening to your comments, it made me wonder if
    there are not some other things that we should be thinking
    about putting in this legislation. The period of time between a
    November election and the inauguration is really very short,
    and some of the stories that I have heard in my period of
    public service oftentimes shock me. I heard one story related
    to me by an appointee who was recounting how he was shocked to
    learn that he was actually the appointee to a major head of an
    agency of our government. The announcement came at a press
    conference, and he had only a brief conversation with the
    President about the possibility of serving. Those kinds of
    stories do remind us that a President-elect and transition is a
    very hectic time and difficult time.
        As the chairman said, oftentimes those who run the campaign
    are not those who you would select to run the Presidency. Yet
    it is those people who were involved in the campaign that
    oftentimes are making many of the decisions.
        So perhaps there are some other ideas that we should
    consider in this legislation, and if there are, we have a
    distinguished panel here, and we would certainly welcome your
    suggestions. I know that the chairman would.
        But I really have no questions, Mr. Chairman. I have just
    enjoyed the depth of experience that has been shared with us.
        Mr. Horn. Thank you very much.
        I now yield to Mr. Ose, the gentleman from California.
        Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find myself somewhat in
    awe. There is not a person alive of my generation who does not
    know of Secretary Richardson, and I am pleased to have the
    opportunity to visit with Mr. White.
        I think the thing that troubles me on this whole issue of
    transition is when I got here in January as a new Member,
    having come straight from business, I kind of felt like I was
    on the wrong end of a fire hose, and in that regard I find
    great merit in this transitional training idea between the
    November election and the January swearing in. And I am curious
    as to the specific criteria at the level that you both served
    that you find most critical to impart to the new appointees.
        Mr. Richardson. The most----
        Mr. Ose. The most critical--when someone comes into one of
    these agencies, there is a whole bunch of stuff that they have
    to learn, and they only have 60 days roughly to learn it. What
    are the most critical things that those new appointees need to
    learn?
        Mr. Richardson. I think that is a good question, and I
    think I have an almost unique background for answering it,
    having had to deal with many new jobs. I ended up with 10
    Presidential appointments. Some of them I held very briefly,
    but invariably in a new job the first thing that I came to
    understand is that you need to come to know as fast as you can
    the people you are going to be working with, including the
    other Presidential appointees in your department.
        At the outset you may not have had a whole lot to say about
    it. In time you do have. But also the key thing is the career
    positions.
        The second thing you need to know is what are the
    significant issues or problems that have to be addressed and
    what are the relative priorities in time. What do you have to
    resolve first, and what do you have to know in order to be able
    to reach either a decision or to give a recommendation to the
    President. And then as time permits, what are the new
    undertakings or recommendations or changes of direction that
    you may want to initiate as time goes on. That, I think, is the
    sequence that is relevant to any new Presidential appointment.
        Once you get outside the walls of the organization to which
    the new appointee--in which the new appointee will be serving,
    you then need to look at the relationships, starting with the
    Congress and the committees that have most to do with the
    initiatives, the budget and so on, of that governmental entity.
    You try to make the most of the first round of contacts with
    the most senior people, and liaison as you can. Beyond them are
    the national organizations which have the greatest interest and
    influence on the issues you address, and whose support or
    opposition may be important.
        And then you have to be thinking in terms of the media, the
    press, television and radio, both the general ones and the more
    specialized people who address parts of what you do.
        I would like to add, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    subcommittee, that I am reminded by Mr. White when he talked
    about the relationship between new appointees and the Congress,
    with respect to all of these relationships, I learned one thing
    which I would want to emphasize to anyone coming into
    government. That is that you've got to understand that the
    person you are dealing with in a position where there is a
    strained relationship, even hostility perhaps, further down the
    road is by and large somebody like yourself but with a
    different job than you.
        I think one of the best, most important lessons that I
    learned when I became the legislative assistance to the then
    senior Senator from Massachusetts, who was also Majority whip
    and chairman of Armed Services, it is amazing to think that--
    this was in 1953--he had only one legislative assistant. He had
    a chief of the office staff and one other political person on
    his staff, but I was the one, it turned out, who dealt with the
    press. One of the people that I dealt with is still around
    town, Rollie Evans, who later came to Congress. He was the AP
    reporter who covered us, and there were a number of others.
        Mr. Ose. Mr. Attorney General, if I may, I wrote down those
    five things, the people who were also similarly appointed to
    yourself, for instance, in this transition; what are the
    significant issues or problems; what are the congressional
    committees with jurisdiction; what are the nongovernmental
    groups who have interest; and who in the media cover this
    issue.
        Mr. White, do you share that analysis?
        Mr. Richardson. One quick point. Bearing in mind what I
    said about the press is, I assumed and found out that these
    guys had their own job to do, and if I simply understood that,
    as it turned out, there would be no problem. That is a very
    simple point that applies to all of these relationships. If you
    understand well enough, use your imagination well enough to
    recognize these other functions and their demands, it becomes a
    hell of a lot simpler.
        Mr. Ose. Thank you. Mr. White.
        Mr. White. I would only add a couple of things. Of course I
    would agree with everything. I should point out that when I
    first met Elliot Richardson, he was administrative assistant to
    the senior Senator from Massachusetts. I was a legislative
    assistant to the junior Senator from Massachusetts, John F.
    Kennedy, so that is how far we go back. Elliot was always
    erudite then and, as you said, an icon of the way a public
    servant should conduct himself, and he has always been that
    way.
        What I would add to his list, I think you have to get a
    good hold on who are the interest groups that you are going to
    meet because you are sure going to meet them. They will be
    there, you can bet on that.
        Next, I think you ought to get to the--what is now the OMB,
    the old Bureau of the Budget. Those folks, I don't know if it
    is politicized these days, but it didn't used to be. You could
    really get the low-down on what is going on in any particular
    department and agency. So I think you ought to make that stop.
        And then if you are skillful, I would think that you would
    find that particular character in the White House staff who you
    want to be your entree and establish as good a relationship as
    you can.
        Obviously not everybody, every Cabinet or agency head is
    going to be able to get to the President on every issue. They
    have to call their shots, unless, of course--I would exclude
    some of the more important ones, in my view, State, Defense,
    the Attorney General, probably Treasury, but the Secretary of
    HUD doesn't normally go right smack into the President, so he
    ought to be able to identify who in that staff is his person.
        Above all, I think you have to shake yourself a little bit.
    As Elliot said, this is a temporary assignment. Political
    appointees come and go, but the people in the agencies for the
    most part will be there when you get there, and they will be
    there when you leave, and it is very important that you know
    who the key people are. One of the ways to get a fix on that is
    to talk to your predecessor who held that job, so I would add
    that.
        Mr. Richardson. I think those are important additions. I
    left them out, but I totally endorse what Mr. White said.
        Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Horn. If I might add a few things to what Mr. White has
    said as a fellow legislative assistant just a few years after
    you two gentlemen, besides going to the budget examiner, which
    I think is what Mr. White is referring to, I regret to say that
    function has been politicized. In other words, Roosevelt,
    Truman and Eisenhower had career people, and you kept them
    between administrations, and they gave you a lot of good
    advice. I think we ought to get back to a lot of that, but that
    is another story. But the budget examiner is certainly one.
        The people that come to see me that are Presidential
    appointees, I say, look, go over to GAO. There is an expert
    over there in that department. Take a look and they will give
    you a lot of studies and so forth, and then go to the Inspector
    General, you are going to have to deal with that person, and
    find out what are the key problems that everybody has shoved
    under the rug, and you will find that.
        So I would think those are a few of the things that you
    might want to tack onto the list here.
        Are there any questions that the gentleman has?
        I thank you both for coming. We appreciate it very much,
    and any thoughts you have on what we can add to this bill. It
    is simply a draft bill. It hasn't been put in yet. I hope our
    Democrat colleagues and Republican colleagues will go on it. It
    might sound a little small, but that is OK, we make progress
    step by step.
        I thank both of you for coming. It is a great experience to
    see both of you again, and we will go to panel two now.
        We have Mr. Ink, Mr. Light, and Mr. Ornstein.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Horn. We will start with Mr. Ink, former Assistant
    Director, Office of Management and Budget in charge of General
    Services Administration and all sorts of things in a very
    valuable career in government.
        We hope to get you all out of here by noon, so I think we
    are in pretty good shape. You have sent us very fine papers
    here. If you could just summarize it and don't read it.
        Mr. Ink.

    STATEMENTS OF DWIGHT INK, FORMER ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
    MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET; PAUL LIGHT, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR PUBLIC
        SERVICE, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION; AND NORMAN J. ORNSTEIN,
      RESIDENT SCHOLAR, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE FOR POLICY
                                RESEARCH

        Mr. Ink. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    committee. It is always a pleasure to have the opportunity to
    testify before this committee and particularly today on behalf
    of this Presidential Transition Act bill which you plan to
    introduce.
        I believe it can improve government in two important ways.
    First, it can reduce costly missteps by well intentioned
    incoming political appointees. Second, it can improve the
    performance of appointees on whom a new President will have to
    rely in launching his or her administration. I have worked with
    scores of Presidential assistants over the years, and their
    performance certainly varies from outstanding to just plain
    awful.
        An incoming administration brings in a number of new
    political appointees, as you have said, who are very able
    people with impressive backgrounds, but except for those who
    have had prior experience, almost none of them realize what
    awaits them in Washington. The pressures from all sides, the
    intrusive scrutiny that characterizes Washington, are a shock
    for which they are not prepared, and they find they are
    expected to develop new programs and legislative proposals that
    have to be advanced through a maze of processes and procedures
    with which they are not familiar. Yet time is of the essence in
    the first days of an administration when the opportunities are
    greatest.
        The steep learning curve needed for these officials to get
    on top of their job is made more difficult because so many of
    them have been immersed in campaigns that are very negative
    toward Washington. They arrive, therefore, loathe to take
    advice from anyone in Washington, neither the Washington
    bureaucrats nor outgoing political leaders whom they feel have
    been captured by inside-the-Beltway creatures who have lost
    touch with the real America.
        As a result, these new political figures, no matter how
    capable, are in real danger of stumbling during these first
    crucial weeks, not so much from what they are striving to do as
    from how they are functioning and their lack of familiarity
    with the techniques that are most likely to get things done in
    this complex Washington environment. These mistakes produce
    headlines and grist for the TV programs, and they reinforce the
    negative view that the public has of government.
        Further, ignorance of the techniques and approaches that
    can best transform policy objectives into actions weakens the
    ability of an administration to advance the agenda on which the
    voters have placed it in office.
        This bill would help meet the critical need for more
    transition attention to how incoming political leaders can
    manage the challenging processes of governing.
        What type of subject matter to include? The bill, I think,
    properly leaves flexibility to a President-elect, but my
    written testimony does list several critical areas in which I
    think orientations could be especially helpful. Approaches to
    working effectively with Congress, for example, should be an
    important subject. Some incoming appointees have never read the
    Constitution and look down upon the Congress as simply a
    problem institution to deal with as little as possible, rather
    than as a partner in government.
        Confusion over the roles of White House staff and their
    relationship to departments, mentioned in the prior panel, is
    another area in which new administrations tend to flounder at
    first and another subject to be included.
        An area that is perhaps least understood by new political
    appointees is one which Elliot Richardson talked about at some
    length. That is the value of the career service and how to
    provide it with positive leadership, a gap in knowledge that
    can be very costly. The career leadership is a tremendous and
    indispensable resource of incoming political appointees, but it
    needs to have positive leadership.
        Although orientations are not going to reduce the
    conflicting pressures, the number of pressure groups, or the
    incessant scrutiny that characterizes Washington, they can be
    of great help in preparing new appointees to cope with these
    circumstances.
        Finally, as to style, I would certainly hope that the
    orientations authorized by this bill would be organized much
    more as informal discussions and workshops with particular
    emphasis on involving those who have served in these kinds of
    positions in prior administrations, and not as lectures or
    briefings.
        In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I think there are many things
    that can be done to help improve the Presidency. I think the
    work that Norm Ornstein and his organization are doing and that
    of Paul Light and the Center for the Study of the Presidency
    may provide grist for this committee to consider other
    legislative suggestions.
        I think this bill deserves strong bipartisan support as one
    of those steps that can make the American Presidency more
    effective in the 21st century. Thank you.
        Mr. Horn. Thank you very much. That is a very thorough
    document that you have presented, and we appreciate it.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Ink follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.023

        Mr. Horn. Next is one of my favorite authors, Dr. Paul
    Light, and I urge anyone who thinks that we don't have problems
    to read Thickening Government. Those in the Eisenhower
    administration, as a number of us were in this room, it is just
    unbelievable the royal titles that have been added on,
    Councilor to the Secretary, it is like Bismarck had been
    reincarnated in America. I must say, the legislative assistant
    is bad enough. It is now called the legislative director, and
    there are numerous legislative assistants, and I think we got
    just as much done in those days as they are getting done now
    with five more people.
        Mr. Light. It is a pleasure to testify before one of my
    favorite readers; one of my few readers, I might add.
        The last time I was here, we were talking about raising the
    President's salary, and a particularly nasty conversation with
    a colleague from another perspective, but you got that done,
    and congratulations to this subcommittee for being the engine
    of a rather significant amount of reform in these past years.
    It is rather quite remarkable what the chairman and the members
    of this committee have been able to accomplish. I look now on
    this subcommittee as a real treasure for actually producing
    meaningful reform in relatively small bites, but you show the
    value of making those small steps, and they add up.
        Mr. Horn. We had good bipartisan support.
        Mr. Light. I wish I could have given your e-mail address
    rather than mine in the wake of raising the President's salary
    because I got a ton of e-mail from people who thought that was
    not necessarily the best idea of all time. It was a good idea,
    and I am glad that you were able to do it. I mean, I am
    obligated whenever I testify with Dwight Ink to endorse
    whatever Dwight Ink says. It is part of the obligation that I
    have, and this is an easy one to do. The National Academy of
    Public Administration has long supported this idea. The Volcker
    Commission has supported it. Al Gore and National Performance
    Review had buried in one of their appendices in their first
    report in 1993 an endorsement of this idea. They didn't do
    anything about it even though the vice president could have, I
    suspect, persuaded the President to institute an orientation
    program. It was not done. The Council for Excellence in
    Government does do orientations now. They have some private
    funding to do so, and the Pew Charitable Trust, which has
    funded Norm Ornstein's project and mine, did include in our
    grant some funds to do orientation. We would be delighted to
    have the orientation adopted as an ongoing responsibility of
    government.
        As you know, in the statement I can't resist an opportunity
    to expand an idea, no matter how good. My concern about this
    bill is simply that if you are going to open up the
    Presidential Transition Act of 1963, perhaps we can add one or
    two ideas to that legislation that would address other issues
    that I think we have broad general agreement need to be fixed.
        My general point in the statement is that the Presidential
    appointments process as it is currently operating today is
    teetering on the edge, if not completely broken. We are not
    generating appointments in a timely fashion. We have more
    vacancies now in this administration than I daresay existed in
    Disney World during Hurricane Floyd. We are in a situation now
    where we do not make timely appointments. The Senate is unable
    to discharge its responsibilities in a timely fashion, and I
    think it is fair to argue that no matter how good the
    orientation program might be that this subcommittee would
    design and produce, and no matter how good it would be actually
    implemented, we are now in a situation where there are serious
    problems with the appointments process. No appointees equals no
    value from an orientation program.
        I summarize the role of citizen service by invoking Thomas
    Jefferson's tremendous commitment to the notion that all
    citizens are obligated to serve, but in reality we are seeing
    increases in vacancy rates, increases in delays, increases in
    refusals to accept appointment, and an increase in departures.
    There is no question that the thickening of government has
    something to do with it, a small piece to do with it. Pay has
    something to do with it. The general climate in this country
    toward service has something to do with it.
        We are working now as part of the Presidential Service
    Initiative at Brookings in collaboration with other
    organizations and in partnership with others who are working on
    this issue to generate meaningful pragmatic bipartisan ideas
    for reform, and we will be bringing those forward in the
    future.
        However, I cannot resist remembering being in this room in
    1988 when the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee and the
    House Government Operations Committee were debating the 1988
    Presidential Transitions Effectiveness Act. As you know, most
    of these kinds of conferences are staff-driven, but a gentleman
    who is remembered through this painting to my left and your
    right entered this room through that door to argue against, and
    reasonably argue against, the notion of providing a little bit
    of preelection transition planning support for the two major
    party committees, and we dropped that provision.
        It had bipartisan unanimous support from the Senate. We
    could not make the case here in this Chamber. Certainly it was
    a thin reed on which to make the case that giving the parties
    $250,000 each to do a little bit of advance planning in the
    preelection period might improve the odds that they could get
    their appointees in place in time so they could take advantage
    of this wonderful idea for an orientation program that this
    subcommittee is now considering.
        I strongly urge the subcommittee to take another look at
    that provision. It is a tiny amount of money, a mere pile of
    balloons that we could easily take out of the funding that we
    are giving the two national party committees to host their
    conventions next summer. It is a nice little idea. I haven't
    asked Dwight how he feels about it.
        Mr. Ink. I support the idea. I think there are a number of
    things that can be done in addition to this. I just--this is
    one that I thought would have bipartisan support that we could
    probably get passed rather easily.
        Mr. Light. These are good little ideas for improving the
    odds that the next administration, be it Democrat or
    Republican, will hit the ground running, and we have examples
    from past history of administrations that have hit the ground
    going backward and that have hit the ground going forwards. And
    I think the model transition is the 1980 Reagan administration,
    which is clearly a product of thoughtful preelection transition
    planning and the courage of a Presidential candidate that said,
    I am going to be governing if I am elected, and I need to start
    planning today. Whether this subcommittee needs to get in the
    business of telling candidates to do that is a judgment call,
    but I would be remiss if I didn't take advantage of this
    opportunity to thicken the legislative agenda.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Light follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.032

        Mr. Horn. I might add that the gentleman up there that you
    pointed to, when I went from the Hill down to the Brookings
    Institution as a senior fellow, I had a big dinner for a lot of
    leaders from the Hill and key staff people on bringing
    computers to Congress, which I had started in the Senate.
        At the end of the dinner the individual to whom you
    referred said, ``You're going to get that done over my dead
    body.'' So, when I came here, I introduced myself again to the
    chairman. He wasn't chairman of Government Operations at that
    time. And I said, Mr. Chairman, I am just curious. A mutual
    friend of yours and mine in Texas told me the story that when
    you first ran for office, you didn't like what your opponent
    was saying about you, it was a Democratic primary fight, and
    you put a .45 on the podium and said, if my opponent says in
    this debate what he said the last time, I am going to blow his
    brains out. And he paused on that and chomped on his cigar and
    said, ``My opponent didn't have any brains,'' a colorful Member
    of the House.
        Mr. Ornstein.
        Mr. Light. He was a great chairman.
        Mr. Ornstein. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to be
    testifying with this group of four individuals. I had the
    wonderful honor of serving on the National Commission of Public
    Service with Elliot Richardson and working closely with him, as
    I did with Paul.
        I did not have the privilege, I am thankful to say, of
    testifying in favor of the Presidential pay raise. I say it
    thankfully because I was out front the last time in 1988 and
    1989, and I remember especially the only time I did Crossfire,
    I don't like to do a screaming shows, but I felt a public
    service commitment, and I got ganged up on by Pat Buchanan and
    Ralph Nader, which I continue to view today as a badge of great
    honor.
        Mr. Horn. Saint Peter will pass you through.
        Mr. Ose. Were you able to tell which one was which?
        Mr. Ornstein. I couldn't then, and I can't now, as a matter
    of fact. They merge into Ross Perot, I'm afraid.
        I, of course, am very supportive of this piece of
    legislation, and I thank Dwight Ink for not only his decades of
    public service, but for continuing to champion some of these
    goals. Like Paul, I believe this is a small, essential step. We
    need to clarify the law in this regard, even though it could be
    done as the law is today. I also believe that the subcommittee
    should use this opportunity to broaden its focus into a number
    of other areas.
        I very strongly endorse the notion of committing some money
    for preelection transition planning as a part of a broader
    effort, it seems to me, to move away from the notion that
    candidates have that it is presumptuous of them to even think
    of the notion of governing before the election. What happens is
    that after the election, they are exhausted. The winner is
    triumphant and needs some time to catch his breath. Everything
    that a new President-elect does is viewed by the press as
    wonderful, building them up before they tear them down, and
    there is no focus of preparing oneself or one's team generally.
    We drift through until the inauguration and then stumble along.
        Steps that we can take now suggest that it is appropriate
    and necessary to think ahead so you can actually be prepared to
    govern, and that governing itself is something to be considered
    during the campaign by everybody.
        At the same time it seems to me we have an ideal
    opportunity with an open Presidential contest, neither side
    seeing the strong need to tear down the other to keep things
    from working well afterwards, to really rethink or think
    through the whole gamut of issues surrounding the transition
    and the governing process. And I would like you look at the
    layering of political appointees, something that we dealt with
    very directly, that Elliot and I did in the Volcker Commission.
    The appropriate level of financial disclosure of political
    appointees. The desirability of reducing and standardizing the
    clearly confusing and overlapping forms that appointees must
    fill out, and rethinking the number and nature of nominees who
    require full FBI background checks.
        The amount of time at every layer of this process and every
    level when you begin to think about making appointments is
    expanding. It is discouraging people from getting in, and it is
    keeping them from moving in when they take the jobs.
        I would also like to see this as an opportunity to step
    back and see if we can take some small steps for a larger goal.
    I think of the broken window thesis of James Wilson that would
    send a signal that we want to change a culture that says if you
    come into public service, you are guilty until proven innocent,
    and begin to reestablish the notion that it is not such a bad
    thing to serve a period of time for your country.
        As for the orientations themselves, for the last couple of
    decades I have been very active in a variety of the orientation
    programs that AEI and Brookings have done for new Members of
    Congress and that the Kennedy School does up at Harvard. Every
    Member who has been through those orientations knows when you
    come to Congress, it is a very different experience, whether
    you come from the business world or a legislative body. That is
    at least as true if not more so of top political appointees or
    lower-level political appointees, and it clearly is something
    that ought to be done and we ought to do now.
        Let me just note, finally, Mr. Chairman, that I am heading
    up, along with Tom Mann at Brookings, and we are working very
    closely with Paul Light on a project that we call the
    Transition to Governing Project, and we are doing a variety of
    things to try to assist along this way. All of us want to work
    carefully with you.
        One of the things that we are doing in conjunction with
    Martha Kumar, who is here today, is we are trying to prepare a
    piece of software that we hope will be the functional
    equivalent of turbo tax maybe crossed with the college
    applications software for appointees to make it easier to fill
    out those forms which now are a daunting task and probably
    discourage a number of people from serving at all. We really
    ought to rethink what goes into them in the first place.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Ornstein follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.038

        Mr. Horn. We thank you all. Given the situation on the
    floor and the voting schedule, I want to thank all of you as
    witnesses. If you don't mind, we would like to send you some
    questions that we might insert at this point in the record.
        I should add to this that we have testimony not only from
    our witnesses today, but General Andrew J. Goodpaster, who I
    knew as Staff Secretary to President Eisenhower, the first time
    the White House had such a position, when he was a young major,
    and he will give us some documents, and then so will Pendleton
    James, Assistant to the President for Presidential Personnel
    during the Reagan administration, and he has submitted an item
    for the record. These are two very distinguished gentlemen who
    have a unique perspective on the Presidency and the transition
    process, and we welcome their process.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.043

        Mr. Horn. The hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks
    for additional insertions.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Jim Turner follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4650.045

        Mr. Horn. I want to thank the staff that prepared this
    hearing on both sides, Mr. George, the staff director and chief
    counsel for the subcommittee; Mr. Ebert on my left, policy
    advisor; Bonnie Heald, director of communications. She is in
    the back, seated back there; and Chip Ahlswede, our clerk; and
    P.J. Caceres, intern; and Deborah Oppenheim, intern.
        And for minority we have Trey Henderson, counsel, and Jean
    Gosa, minority staff assistant; and we have our faithful court
    reporter Doreen Dotzler. Thank you very much.
        With that, we will adjourn this session and go and vote.
        [Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]