    [House Hearing, 108 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

           TOWARD A LOGICAL GOVERNING STRUCTURE: RESTORING EXECUTIVE
                            REORGANIZATION AUTHORITY

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                               GOVERNMENT REFORM

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 3, 2003

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 108-33

                                   __________

           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
                                WASHINGTON : 2003
    88-502 PDF

    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
    Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

                         COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

                         TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
    DAN BURTON, Indiana                  HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
    CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut       TOM LANTOS, California
    ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
    JOHN M. McHUGH, New York             EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
    MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana              CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
    STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio           ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    DOUG OSE, California                 DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
    RON LEWIS, Kentucky                  DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
    JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia               JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
    TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania    WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
    CHRIS CANNON, Utah                   DIANE E. WATSON, California
    ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida              STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
    EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia          CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
    JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma              C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
    NATHAN DEAL, Georgia                     Maryland
    CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan          ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania                 Columbia
    MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio              JIM COOPER, Tennessee
    JOHN R. CARTER, Texas                CHRIS BELL, Texas
    WILLIAM J. JANKLOW, South Dakota                 ------
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
                                             (Independent)

                           Peter Sirh, Staff Director
                     Melissa Wojciak, Deputy Staff Director
                          Rob Borden, Parliamentarian
                           Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
                  Philip M. Schiliro, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on April 3, 2003....................................     1
    Statement of:
        DeLay, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Texas...................................................    17
        Dorn, Nancy, Deputy Director, Office of Management and
          Budget; and David M. Walker, Comptroller General, U.S.
          General Accounting Office..................................    21
        Ink, Dwight, president emeritus, Institute of Public
          Administration; Paul C. Light, director, center for public
          service, the Brookings Institution; Colleen M. Kelley,
          president, National Treasury Employees Union; and Mark D.
          Roth, general counsel, American Federation of Government
          Employees..................................................    82
    Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
        Clay, Hon. Wm. Lacy, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Missouri, prepared statement of...................    15
        Davis, Chairman Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Virginia, prepared statement of...................     3
        Davis, Hon. Danny K., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Illinois, prepared statement of...................    10
        Davis, Hon. JoAnn, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Virginia, followup questions and answers..........    63
        DeLay, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Texas, prepared statement of............................    19
        Dorn, Nancy, Deputy Director, Office of Management and
          Budget, prepared statement of..............................    25
        Ink, Dwight, president emeritus, Institute of Public
          Administration, prepared statement of......................    85
        Kelley, Colleen M., president, National Treasury Employees
          Union, prepared statement of...............................    98
        Light, Paul C., director, center for public service, the
          Brookings Institution, prepared statement of...............    91
        Roth, Mark D., general counsel, American Federation of
          Government Employees, prepared statement of................   106
        Walker, David M., Comptroller General, U.S. General
          Accounting Office, prepared statement of...................    35
        Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of California, prepared statement of.................     6

           TOWARD A LOGICAL GOVERNING STRUCTURE: RESTORING EXECUTIVE
                            REORGANIZATION AUTHORITY

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2003

                              House of Representatives,
                                Committee on Government Reform,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room
    2157, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tom Davis of Virginia
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Tom Davis of Virginia, Shays, Mrs.
    Davis of Virginia, Platts, Duncan, Miller, Waxman, Maloney,
    Cummings, Tierney, Clay, Watson, Van Hollen, and Ruppersberger.
        Staff present: Peter Sirh, staff director; Melissa Wojciak,
    deputy staff director; Keith Ausbrook, chief counsel; Ellen B.
    Brown, legislative director and senior policy counsel; David
    Marin, director of communications; Scott Kopple, deputy
    director of communications; Mason Alinger, professional staff
    member; Teresa Austin, chief clerk; Joshua E. Gillespie, deputy
    clerk; Corinne Zaccagnini, chief information officer; Brien
    Beattie, staff assistant; Anne Marie Turner and John Hunter,
    counsels; Phil Barnett, minority chief counsel; Michelle Ash,
    minority counsel; Tania Shand, minority professional staff
    member; Earley Green, minority chief clerk; Jean Gosa, minority
    assistant clerk.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Good morning. Thank you all for coming.
    The purpose of today's hearing is to discuss the
    reauthorization of the Executive reorganization authority which
    grants the President the authority to initiate organizational
    changes within the executive branch.
        Executive reorganization authority was first enacted as
    part of the Economy Act of 1932 under President Herbert Hoover
    and periodically reauthorized under Presidents Roosevelt,
    Truman, Carter, and Reagan until it lapsed in 1984. Since then,
    despite interest in reauthorization authority in both the
    executive branch and in Congress as a way to encourage the
    President to take the initiative in organizational management
    issues, momentum has not built up behind the authority until
    recently.
        In the President's management agenda, which was included as
    part of the fiscal year 2003 budget proposal, President Bush
    stated the following: ``The administration will seek to
    reinstitute permanent reorganization authority for the
    President through expedited legislative approval of plans to
    reorganize the executive branch.''
        The management initiatives in the President's management
    agenda offered an unprecedented focus on improving the
    management practices of the Federal Government. Unfortunately,
    the unforeseen debate over the creation of a new Department of
    Homeland Security trumped any serious discussions in the last
    session of Congress regarding Executive reorganization
    authority or the other initiatives included in the management
    agenda.
        In the wake of the long and arduous debate on the creation
    of a new department, one thing is clear: given our current
    organizational structure in Congress, it is exceedingly
    difficult for Congress to undertake even the simplest
    reorganization of the executive branch. For example, for
    Congress to even consider a restructuring of the dozen Federal
    offices involved in food safety, over 30 committees and
    subcommittees in Congress would be involved. I can't imagine
    what it would take to get all 30 committees and subcommittees
    to come to agreement over how to reorganize the structure of
    Federal food safety oversight.
        In an attempt to address this issue of congressional
    stalemate over reorganizations, the National Commission on the
    Public Service, also known as the Volcker Commission, came to
    the same conclusion that the President did in his management
    agenda: Congress should reauthorize the Executive
    reorganization authority. We heard testimony here from Chairman
    Volcker and Donna Shalala and others of calling for Congress to
    do exactly that.
        I agree with the President and with the Volcker Commission
    that Executive reorganization authority may be the only way
    that we can realistically improve the efficiency and
    effectiveness of Government operations, but it is essential for
    this committee to include sufficient safeguards in the
    legislation that will address some of the biggest concerns
    raised by affected parties, especially those concerns made by
    the Federal work force, who will be directly impacted by any
    Government reorganization.
        I hope that today's discussion of Executive reorganization
    authority is a thoughtful and fruitful one. I am well aware
    that there is a reluctance in some groups to granting the
    President additional authority to make changes to the Federal
    Government; however, I hope that we can all come to the
    conclusion that certain operational restructurings that have a
    minimal impact on Federal policy may best be initiated and
    developed by the experts in the executive branch rather than by
    the generalists in Congress.
        We've gathered today an outstanding group of witnesses
    before us today who will provide members of this committee with
    perspectives from all sides on the issue as we move forward. I
    look forward to working with both the witnesses and the Members
    as we consider this important legislation. I welcome all the
    witnesses in today's hearing. I look forward to their
    testimony.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Tom Davis follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.002

        Chairman Tom Davis. I would now like to recognize Mr.
    Waxman, the ranking Democratic member of the committee.
        Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to commend
    you for holding this hearing today.
        Executive branch reorganization is an important issue that
    this committee should consider carefully. Within the executive
    branch there are certainly areas of jurisdictional overlap. For
    example, as you pointed out, 12 different agencies are
    responsible for administering food safety laws. Similar
    overlaps exist with job training, teen pregnancy, and homeless
    programs, to name a few. These overlaps are ripe for review.
        In addition, some agency programs were created to respond
    to problems that may not even exist today, and new problems of
    today may not properly be addressed by the current Federal
    Government structure. In 1995, GAO testified as new challenges
    arose or new needs were identified, new programs and
    responsibilities were added to departments and agencies with
    insufficient regard to their effect on overall delivery of
    service to the public.
        Thus, I believe it is appropriate for Congress and this
    committee in particular to examine how the executive branch is
    organized. One question we will have to address is how Congress
    should consider reorganization proposals. I know that there are
    those who favor transferring most of the responsibility for
    Executive reorganization from the Congress to the White House.
    This may not be the wisest course. Ultimately, any successful
    reorganization effort depends on the President and the Congress
    working together and doing so on a bipartisan basis.
        There is one other point I want to stress. As we focus on
    making Government work more effectively and efficiently, we
    cannot overlook the importance of our Federal civil service.
    Federal employees are the heart and soul of our Government.
    Unfortunately, the White House has a terrible track record on
    civil service issues. It has worked to strip away collective
    bargaining rights, reduce Federal pay, and reinstate bonuses to
    political appointees. As a result, there are many who believe
    that the call for more reorganization is simply a code word for
    another assault on Federal employees. I know that this is not
    the chairman's intent, but this perception is a legacy of past
    administration actions. We will have to find ways to address
    the genuine concerns of Federal employees as we consider any
    future reorganization proposals.
        I look forward to hearing from the witnesses on the
    important issue before us today.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Henry A. Waxman follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.005

        Chairman Tom Davis. Any other opening statements? Mrs.
    Davis, chairwoman of the Civil Service Subcommittee.
        Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
    Chairman, I want to say thank you for calling this hearing on
    reorganization authority. You know, when you take a step back
    and look at the current organization of the Federal Government,
    you find that in many cases there is absolutely no rhyme or
    reason to the Government structure. Agencies performing similar
    missions are often located within different Cabinet
    departments. This problem was underscored during the creation
    of the Homeland Security Department, as we've heard this
    morning, when Congress and the President took 22 agencies with
    a similar mission, protecting our Nation's borders and guarding
    against terrorism, and put them in the same department. Imagine
    that--one department, 22 agencies, but the same basic mission.
    There is a logic there that is too often lacking in the rest of
    the executive branch.
        The Volcker Commission spelled this out quite clearly in
    its recent report. It noted, for example, that there are 90
    early childhood programs scattered among 11 agencies in 20
    offices, 342 economic development programs administered by 13
    of the 14 Cabinet departments, and 50 homeless assistance
    programs spread out over 8 agencies. Lack of coordination among
    these agencies is certainly a concern, not to mention that,
    given the structure, the Government probably has redundant
    operations.
        Mr. Chairman, it seems impossible to have a highly
    efficient Government without a logical governmental structure.
    An inefficient, ineffective Government is bad for the
    employees, bad for the Government, and bad for the citizens.
    Congress and the President ought to reexamine the present
    structure of Government to determine if there are places to
    achieve better cohesion of functions.
        I look forward to hearing the views of our distinguished
    guests today on this matter of restoring fast track
    reorganization authority to the President.
        I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
        The Chair will suspend any other opening statements at this
    point.
        We are pleased to have with us today the majority leader,
    the gentleman from Texas, who has shown a constant interest in
    reorganization authority.
        Tom, we are very happy to have you here today, and we'll
    move right to your testimony.
        Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, may I ask unanimous consent that
    all Members' opening statements be entered in the record? I
    know that Danny Davis has a statement he'd like to have
    entered.
        Chairman Tom Davis. If there is no objection, so ordered.
    Thank you.
        [The prepared statements of Hon. Danny K. Davis and Hon.
    Wm. Lacy Clay follow:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.007

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.008

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.009

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.010

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.011

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.012

    STATEMENT OF HON. TOM DELAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
                           THE STATE OF TEXAS

        Mr. DeLay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Waxman, other
    members of the committee. It is an honor to be with you today
    to discuss the reauthorization of the President's Executive
    reorganization authority. To me, there's no greater management
    challenge to the Federal Government than its antiquated
    organizational structure.
        In order to meet the needs of the American people, the
    Government must modernize, just as every successful school,
    business, and nonprofit group has in recent years. The
    President's management agenda is designed to establish a
    Government fit to meet the needs of a 21st century nation. A
    vital component of this agenda is the restoration of Executive
    reorganization authority to the President, which expired in
    1984 and now requires congressional action. This authority was
    held and successfully employed by Presidents from both parties
    for more than 50 years. It is ironic that the President's
    authority to reorganize the Government expired in 1984, the
    very year the personal computer revolution launched two decades
    of efficiencies and reforms in the way people work.
        The Federal Government has lagged behind that revolution,
    clinging to an organizational model developed between the
    1930's and the 1970's. Failing to exploit the benefits of a
    modernized organization, a mistake that would bankrupt any
    business in our competitive economy, has riddled Federal
    programs with expensive and inefficient bureaucracies.
        Now, this model has led to the proliferation of wasteful,
    overlapping programs across the Federal Government. One can
    find such programs in almost any agency and department. For
    instance, the Department of Health and Human Services manages
    27 individual programs to support teen pregnancy prevention at
    an annual cost of some $200 million. Each has its own standards
    and its own goals. Each is targeted at a different audience.
    HHS also manages seven separate agencies that fund programs to
    prevent child abuse. The Department of Justice houses two more.
    In the Department of Energy, 45 different offices awarded
    separate contracts for the same computer data base program, and
    24 offices awarded separate contracts for the same Internet
    security program.
        Now, I don't mean to single out these program agencies or
    programs. They are merely symptoms of an overall problem in the
    Federal bureaucracy that has ignored the modernizing
    efficiencies embraced by the rest of the world. And this isn't
    about reorganizing for its own sake. There is no doubt the
    Federal Government expends a tremendous amount of effort and
    resources through these agencies to provide vital services to
    the people who need them, but duplicative programs and agencies
    too often only contribute to the very problems they are
    designed to solve. These problems are real, they affect real
    Americans every day, and they need to be solved.
        We spend a great deal of energy and money to solve them,
    but the evidence suggests we are not spending that energy and
    money wisely. Meanwhile, the problems persist, and for too many
    they are getting worse. The staggering array of Government
    programs today is confusing and inefficient, but in a modern
    and innovative society they don't have to be. Successful
    businesses in the last 20 years have demonstrated agility,
    responsiveness to shifting demands, and a commitment to
    consumer service.
        By contrast, the culture of the Federal bureaucracy, laden
    for decades with layer upon layer of new programs, produces
    sluggishness, a resistance to change, and confusion among its
    workers and intended beneficiaries, alike. The American people
    pay for these programs. They have a right to expect them to
    work.
        To make the necessary reforms, the President needs the
    freedom to shape and manage a 21st century government that is
    responsive and accountable to its constituents. Mr. Chairman,
    restoring Executive reorganizational authority to the President
    will help him do just that, and I urge this committee to mark
    up this bill and get it out as soon as possible.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. DeLay follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.014

        Chairman Tom Davis. That's quite a charge you have given
    us. This has lingered around now almost 20 years without
    Presidents having that authority, and you can see, with the
    fiasco that we went through last year with Homeland Security,
    this still involves Congress in the process but I think allows
    the job to get done.
        I know you have other places you need to go, Mr. Leader,
    but I appreciate your being here.
        Mr. DeLay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for the
    time of the committee.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
        I think we are ready to call our first panel, if we could
    have our first panel, if the clerks would get the name tags
    here. We have Nancy Dorn and Dave Walker.
        If you would rise with me, it is the policy of the
    committee we swear all witnesses.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Dorn, why don't we start with you and then Mr. Walker,
    and then we'll open it for questions. And thank you very much
    for being here with us today.
        Please proceed.

    STATEMENTS OF NANCY DORN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
      AND BUDGET; AND DAVID M. WALKER, COMPTROLLER GENERAL, U.S.
                       GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

        Ms. Dorn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, members of
    the committee, I am happy to be with you today as you begin to
    consider reauthorization of the Reorganization Act which
    expired in 1984, as you pointed out.
        The Bush administration strongly supports reauthorization
    of the Reorganization Act. Reorganization authority would give
    this President, as it has for others dating back to 1932, the
    power to propose organizational changes to Federal agencies and
    require Congress to disapprove or approve the action without
    lengthy delays. If enacted, this authority would be another
    powerful tool for this President to use to improve the
    management of the executive branch of the Federal Government.
        Between 1953 and 1980 when reorganization authority was in
    effect, 65 reorganization plans were submitted to the Congress.
    Only eight of those plans were rejected. But what has happened
    since 1980, from expanding globalization to advances in
    technology, in addition to the growth in Government, make the
    need for reorganization authority now more important than ever.
        The reasons for wanting reorganization authority--the
    ability to bring sense to the chaos that is the Federal
    Government--are very clear. As Congressman DeLay pointed out,
    the number of Federal agencies has grown substantially. Many of
    the existing departments and agencies were created in response
    to the crisis of the moment, and as a result many of the
    Government's important missions are accomplished today by
    multiple organizations within the executive branch.
        You pointed out a few examples, and I have a few others
    here, such as 342 economic development programs in 13 different
    agencies, 17 Federal departments and agencies operate 515
    research and development labs, and numerous agencies are
    involved in trade and export promotion.
        In some cases, coordination among agencies is exemplary,
    but clearly that is not always the case. Consequently,
    duplication and fragmentation abound. Overlap and duplication
    often result in waste and inefficiency, which this
    administration is committed to reducing. More importantly, such
    duplication often hampers the Government's ability to achieve
    clear results. Reorganization authority would allow the
    executive branch increased flexibility in working to achieve
    improved management practices and more streamlined
    organization.
        The National Commission on the Public Service came to
    similar conclusions in its recently released report, ``Urgent
    Business for America: Revitalizing the Federal Government for
    the 21st Century.'' Charged to examine the state of the Federal
    public service, the Commission came to the thoughtful
    conclusion that our public servants could serve more
    effectively if the Federal Government's chaotic organization
    was simplified.
        There is a quote from the report that I thought was
    particularly interesting. It said, ``The current organization
    of the Federal Government in the operation of public programs
    are not good enough. They're not good enough for the American
    people, not good enough to meet the extraordinary challenges of
    the century just beginning, and not good enough for the
    hundreds and thousands of talented Federal workers who hate the
    constraints to keep them from serving their country with the
    full measure of their talents and energy. We must do better,
    much better, and soon.''
        You are, I'm sure, well aware of the recommendations of the
    Commission related to Government reorganization. In short, they
    recommended that the Federal Government should be reorganized
    into a limited number of mission-related Executive departments,
    the President should be given expedited authority to recommend
    structural reorganization of Federal agencies and departments,
    and the House and Senate should realign their committee
    oversight to match the mission-driven reorganization of the
    executive branch. These are three of the numerous
    recommendations that they made, but certainly among the more
    significant ones and the subjects of today's hearing.
        This administration's recent experience with the Department
    of Homeland Security suggests that reorganization authority
    would give us a running start to achieve substantial progress
    in addressing overlap and duplication in the Federal
    Government. In the case of the Department of Homeland Security,
    the President's proposal to create a new department came out of
    one of the greatest crises in our Nation's history. This event
    laid bare the fact that our homeland security apparatus needed
    to be rationalized and strengthened, and soon.
        The President proposed and the Congress endorsed bringing
    together 22 agencies into a new Department of Homeland
    Security, but as the Volcker Commission suggests, creating the
    Department of Homeland Security was daunting, requiring
    extensive and excruciating political negotiations. It was worth
    it. Americans will be safer because of it. But the Federal
    Government should not have to engage in a divisive and time-
    consuming fight like the one to create the Department of
    Homeland Security just to bring greater order to a specific
    Government mission, nor should we wait for a crisis to focus
    our attention on strengthening and rationalizing Government
    functions. The authorization of the Reorganization Act would
    allow this and future administrations the opportunity to avoid
    such difficulties in responding to future challenges.
        Many in Congress are clamoring for some device to address
    the Government's seeming inability to rationalize its own size
    and scope. Congressman Kevin Brady has proposed legislation
    that would establish a Federal commission to examine the
    performance and purpose of Government agencies. The 2004 Senate
    budget resolution included a Sense of the Senate amendment
    offered by Senator Brownback which endorsed the creation of a
    commission to review Federal domestic agencies and programs
    within such agencies, with the express purpose of providing
    Congress with recommendations, and legislation to implement
    those recommendations.
        These initiatives are aimed at streamlining the process by
    which the Congress and the administration consider improvements
    to Government reorganization. The Reorganization Act has the
    benefit of a long history and a precedent.
        I want to note for the benefit of the committee, as it
    considers this idea, that without the integration of other
    managerial flexibilities outlined in the President's 2004
    budget and the President's management agenda, that the benefits
    of reorganization authority would be largely illusory. The
    Federal Government needs modern asset and personnel management
    flexibilities, and a human capital performance fund would give
    the agencies a critical tool in promoting pay for performance
    for Federal employees.
        I don't want to leave the committee with the idea that
    without reorganization authority we cannot make substantial
    progress in improving Government management. We are continuing
    to focus on a number of key areas in the context of the
    President's management agenda, such as: strategic management of
    human capital, competitive sourcing, improved financial
    performance, expanded electronic government, and budget and
    performance integration. Congress and others have consistently
    supported the need for immediate management attention in these
    areas. We are also pursuing a number of management changes
    through the traditional method of piece-by-piece, agency-by-
    agency, program-by-program rationalization in the context of
    the annual budget and authorizing legislation.
        In the face of a massive looming retirement wave, the U.S.
    Government is hiring and retaining the right people with the
    right skills and holding them accountable for serving the
    American public. We are improving our business processes and
    ensuring that only the most effective and efficient source is
    providing Government services.
        Because of the management agenda, the Government is
    improving the quality and timeliness of financial information
    so it can be used to manage Federal programs and prevent waste,
    fraud, and abuse. We're providing enhanced services directly to
    citizens over the Internet and improving the management of
    information technology.
        We'll continue our drive to improve the performance and
    management of the executive branch, but, as so many experts in
    the management of government have suggested, reorganization
    authority is another tool that can greatly enhance the prospect
    that Government can be better structured to meet the challenges
    of the 21st century.
        I applaud this committee for considering this important
    proposal and look forward to working with you.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Dorn follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.022

        Chairman Tom Davis. We will now hear from the Comptroller
    General of the U.S. General Accounting Office, David Walker.
    Thank you for being with us, Mr. Walker.
        Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. It is a
    pleasure to be here. I've got an extensive statement that I
    would like to be included into the record, if that's all right,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Fine.
        Mr. Walker. And I will now move to summarize the key
    points.
        Given current trends facing the United States and its
    position in the world, as well as our growing fiscal
    challenges, there is a clear and compelling need to conduct a
    fundamental review and reassessment of what the Federal
    Government should do and how the Federal Government should do
    business in the 21st century. Looking at the organization of
    the Federal Government is an important part, but only a part of
    this overall effort. Executive reorganizational authority is a
    tool that has been available to many Presidents in the past--in
    fact, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, from 1932 until 1984. It
    has been used to varying degrees by different Presidents with
    mixed results. This authority lapsed in 1984 when President
    Ronald Reagan did not seek to reauthorize it.
        In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, the time has come to consider
    such a reauthorization. In doing so, Congress should consider
    past reorganization experiences and recent proposals by this
    administration dealing with management and other reforms.
    Congress should consider the nature and scope of any proposed
    reorganization proposal in determining how much of its
    authority it wishes to give up and how many of its procedures
    it is willing to modify--such things as timeframes, the amount
    of debate, and whether or not amendments would be appropriate.
        Clear differences may be appropriate in connection with
    policy-driven versus operationally motivated proposals. There
    needs to be a balance between reasonable flexibility to assure
    expedited action and appropriate safeguards to make sure that
    the Congress has an opportunity to engage in reasonable debate
    and deliberation.
        Irrespective of the authority granted to the President,
    however, determining the appropriate process and players to be
    included in making specific recommendations to the Congress for
    its consideration will be of critical importance. In this
    regard, the first Hoover Commission was arguably the most
    successful. It involved a bipartisan commission comprised of
    members of both the Executive and the legislative branch, as
    well as representatives from the private sector.
        Furthermore, even if a reorganization proposal is enacted
    into law, its successful implementation is far from assured
    based upon past history. In this regard, Congress should
    consider establishing chief operating officers in selected
    agencies to focus on planning, implementing, and integrating
    key management initiatives both within and between
    administrations.
        Importantly, recent history shows that how any
    reorganization or management-related legislative proposal is
    designed and presented to the Congress makes a big difference
    in its likely outcome. For example, last year the
    administration presented two proposals. One was the Freedom to
    Manage Act, which was very broad, asked for expedited
    consideration, placed severe limits on the ability of the
    Congress to consider the proposals or adopt amendments, was
    non-specific in nature, and it went nowhere.
        Alternatively, the Managerial Flexibility Act was very
    specific, ironically went through the normal legislative
    process, and was largely incorporated into the Department of
    Homeland Security bill.
        Nonetheless, I do believe that some reorganization
    authority is appropriate for the reasons that I talked about
    previously. It is finding that reasonable balance, and I think
    part of that has to do with not only the nature and scope of
    the legislation, but the process that is employed to make
    specific recommendations once that legislation is enacted into
    law and for consideration by the Congress.
        Finally, GAO has already restructured itself. In light of
    its new strategic plan, which was done in connection with the
    Congress, we have streamlined our organization with very
    positive results and, quite frankly, our experiences are
    positive ones that could be shared with others, which we are
    willing to do.
        In the final analysis, not only does the executive branch
    need to be restructured, but so does the legislative branch.
    But, from a practical standpoint, the executive branch must
    come first.
        Furthermore, I would respectfully suggest, Mr. Chairman,
    that the executive branch needs a Government-wide strategic
    plan and performance plan and accountability plan, which it
    does not have right now. From an intellectual standpoint, you
    need something as a basis for conducting such a reorganization.
    We had that at GAO. Ultimately I think the executive branch is
    going to need that as well.
        But in the final analysis, Mr. Chairman, we believe the
    time has come to work on reauthorizing some type of expedited
    reorganization authority to the President. We at GAO are here
    to help, and I would be happy to answer any questions that you
    may have. Thank you.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Walker follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.044

        Chairman Tom Davis. Let me start the questioning.
        Ms. Dorn, let me talk to you as a representative of the
    administration. I strongly support this legislation. The
    previous administration supported this, too. They could never
    get it through. Congress has been a stumbling block because it
    is perceived we give up some of our authority, what we give the
    executive branch, but this is basically a fast track for
    reorganization. That's what this legislation is.
        One of the difficulties we have--I represent a District
    with a number of Federal employees, Mrs. Davis does, and some
    other Members do--is because of the pay component that came
    forward this year, because of the reorganization authority, we
    have some employee groups who are very nervous about giving
    this administration authority to reorganize. It seems to me we
    have to put in appropriate safeguards. And the key, of course,
    is how you write these.
        I'm a strong supporter of doing this legislation or we
    wouldn't be holding this hearing, and we are going to find a
    way to try to move this through, but what kind of safeguards
    would you envision that we could put in that would protect
    employees' rights that they currently have? There is a fear
    that as you reorganize they may lose rights. There's a
    secondary fear that if you reorganize you'll lose jobs, and
    that, of course, can happen. But we can't concern ourselves
    with that. Our job here isn't to protect jobs, it is to make
    Government run more efficiently. But the people that are there,
    we don't want them to lose their rights and stuff and use this
    as a carte blanche to start changing the rules from under them.
    If we get into that, we'll never get this legislation through
    and no one will be able to. That's kind of the quandary we are
    in as we look at this.
        Any thoughts? And you can get back to us if you don't want
    to say anything now, but that's something we have got to
    address.
        Ms. Dorn. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think if you look back over
    the 2\1/2\ years now of this administration and the President's
    interest in management and in assuring that the Government
    delivers results, it has not been couched in specific budget
    savings or specific employee cuts. I think our focus has been,
    as it was in the creation of the Department of Homeland
    Security, ensuring that the Government delivers to the public
    the services and the benefits as efficiently as possible.
        We recognize that this is a significant issue for many to
    give the executive branch broad authority to propose
    legislation and have it considered. In and of itself, it
    doesn't get you anything.
        Chairman Tom Davis. That's right.
        Ms. Dorn. So I guess the----
        Chairman Tom Davis. It's a procedure.
        Ms. Dorn. It is a procedure in order to get proposals
    before the Congress and considered as in an expeditious
    fashion.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Well, let me just say this. I mean, it
    is going to be our goal as we move this through to make sure
    there are adequate protections for Federal workers and Federal
    employees. That's appropriate. This is--the idea of this is not
    to try to change the rules out from under them and change that.
    We can do that separately if we want to do that, but this
    legislation is not that tool. This will just allow you to
    organize like you did Homeland Security and work more
    efficiently, and we'd like to work with you to kind of craft
    that language.
        What this legislation really does, in my opinion, is it
    protects Congress from itself and all the many turf battles
    that we go through. Every time you try to reorganize something
    every committee wants to make sure they have their piece and
    stand up. You can't deal with that kind of inflexibility, and
    that's our goal. Do you agree with that?
        Ms. Dorn. I certainly do. We have had numerous experiences
    of trying to do this in a piecemeal fashion, and in a piecemeal
    fashion to try to achieve a very modest benefit in a particular
    area in a particular department. You fight a sometimes lengthy
    and in the end unsuccessful battle. If one person on one
    committee in one chamber of the Congress wishes to stop that,
    they can certainly hamper what would seem to the majority to be
    a very good idea.
        So if there is a way to work with the Congress in order to
    get some generic authority that would allow us to propose both
    reorganizations big and small, I think when you look at this
    broad authority it comes to you very quickly that this could be
    about the reorganization of an entire department or it could be
    as narrow as streamlining something inside of a department or
    moving a function of a department to another one.
        Chairman Tom Davis. I also envision some language in here
    where there is consultation written in here between--obviously,
    if you don't consult at the end of the day you may end up with
    eight proposals that were dumped in under the previous
    legislation and wouldn't move through. But we want to make
    everybody comfortable with this. But the concept is a very
    clear one. You've got to constantly reorganize, retool,
    reengineer your organization to get it done, and if you have to
    come to Congress and go through the committee structure that we
    have here today, it just takes forever and a day. You just
    never get it done. And the old adage there's nothing closer to
    eternal life than a Federal agency once it is created--that's
    not where we're trying to go.
        I think at the end of the day we could be a lot more
    productive, we can save money, employees' rights can be
    enhanced if we do this correctly.
        Let me ask Mr. Walker, in your testimony you said there's a
    difference between using an Executive reorganization authority
    to effect changes in policy such as eliminating Federal
    functions or activity and using the authority to improve the
    operations and management of the Federal Government, such as
    combining together offices that perform the same function. Is
    there a way to make a distinction in this legislation?
        Mr. Walker. I think there is, Mr. Chairman. I think there
    are a couple of things that I would offer for you. Depending
    upon the nature of the proposal that would be coming forth--in
    other words, is it primarily for operational efficiency or is
    it for program elimination? The first is obviously a management
    issue. It is an operational issue and clearly ought to be able
    to be considered on a fast track. On the other hand, to the
    extent that you're talking about eliminating a program, that's
    obviously a policy matter. It seems to me that you may want to
    consider differentiation between what the track would be and
    what Congress' role would be in that regard.
        The other thing that I believe is absolutely critical, Mr.
    Chairman, is, irrespective of what authority ultimately the
    Congress decides to grant to the President, should it decide to
    do so, the process and the players that will be employed in
    making specific proposals to the Congress for expedited
    consideration I believe will be of critical importance.
        The most successful model in the past was the bipartisan
    executive, legislative branch representatives with some private
    sector representation, the Hoover Commission One approach. That
    was by far the most successful, so I think we need to be
    thinking beyond just how the legislation would be structured,
    but that could be an important safeguard, as well. That could
    be an important safeguard to try to make sure that there is a
    reasonable balance and that increases the likelihood of
    ultimate enactment into law, because if you have the authority
    but you don't get anything enacted, it really doesn't make much
    difference.
        Chairman Tom Davis. That's correct. OK. Well, as I said,
    this isn't just a procedure that we think makes reorganization
    more likely. It incentivizes the executive branch to do that.
    What I've found is that when we try to decree these things from
    the legislative branch, without the cooperation from the
    executive branch it doesn't work. This is a partnership, we
    think a procedure that will hold administrations accountable
    basically for waste in Government. Instead of complaining about
    the system, then the onus moves to them to try to change it. I
    think, from our perspective, that ought to be a good thing. And
    they can propose what they want and we can vote it up or down
    and the political chips can fall where they may.
        Thank you for being here. As I said, we heard from Chairman
    Volcker and Secretary Shalala last time. There was a pretty
    good bipartisan consensus of people who had served in
    Republican and Democratic administrations that this is an
    essential tool, but the devil is always in the details. If
    you'll work with us, hopefully we can come up with something.
        I now yield to the gentleman from Maryland--we have two
    gentlemen from Maryland here. Whichever. The two gentlemen over
    there, I'll let you decide.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Ruppersberger, thank you for being
    with us.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. First, I think your testimony was
    excellent. I agree that we need to move forward with this
    reauthorization. One question: why did it take so long to get
    to where we are now, and why did the previous--what President
    was it 20 years ago? Why was this authority taken away?
        Mr. Walker. It wasn't taken away. It had to be reauthorized
    and President Reagan did not seek reauthorization. I don't know
    why he didn't seek reauthorization, but it is something that
    existed in the law from 1932 to 1984 but had to be periodically
    reauthorized, it is my understanding it is now on the table,
    whether or not to reauthorize it.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, you know, whatever party we're in,
    the President of the United States is really responsible for
    the operation of the Government, and it is important. I think
    you made the comment that the delivery of services to our
    citizens, our constituents is part of--really, most of what we
    do, whether it is military, whatever, education, whatever issue
    is there.
        I think--and I agree--well, there's only two other
    Democrats here, but I agree with Majority Leader DeLay that we
    need to move and we need to move quickly, but because we move
    quickly doesn't mean we have to do it the wrong way. I think
    that it is very important that we still maintain our check and
    balances. That's important. That's our system of government and
    it works.
        The question I have, moving as quickly as we can--because
    if we study anything too long in this body, it will just be put
    on the shelf and it is gone, and time is to act now. I think
    what really needs to be done, though--and it is an issue that I
    know that we've discussed and we've had testimony on--when
    you're talking to the employees, your employees are the front
    line and they're the ones that are executing, and it's just not
    about pay, it is about the employees motivating--management and
    leadership motivating the employees, letting the employees feel
    they are a part of the operation, they are shareholders of this
    operation.
        With that said, what do you think the oversight would be of
    Congress? If we were to move quickly, if we were able to get
    what we need to move this bill quickly, what would you see the
    role and the oversight of Congress without interfering with
    what we're trying to accomplish here?
        Ms. Dorn. Congressman, I think that the broad authority
    here would be the prelude to the actual use of this. If we got
    this kind of authority in law, the administration would then be
    empowered to start to deal with some of these issues that
    currently many managers don't have the heart and the stomach to
    take on in an individual effort. Basically, we would have to--
    we would sort of move this to the top of the agenda. As we put
    forward specific plans, it would be my thought that the
    administration would be crazy not to consult with the Congress
    before those specific plans were put forward. If we got this
    authority and the first three uses of it were unsuccessful, I
    think that certainly would set us back.
        As the chairman pointed out, I think this is a partnership
    between the executive and the legislative branches to move the
    Government into the modern age. It shouldn't be used as a brash
    use of unilateral authority, in my judgment. It wouldn't be
    successful and it probably would be taken away.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. But if you don't have the guidelines, if
    you don't have the checks and balances, if, in fact, Congress
    feels that the President might be going too far as it relates
    to employees, as an example, as it relates to your workers as
    an example, I think you have to have something in writing,
    guidelines that are there, because this bill--this
    reauthorization would involve generations to come, too, and if
    it is done the right way, we're going to get where we need to
    be.
        Mr. Walker.
        Mr. Walker. I think Government needs to make more decisions
    differentiating between what is done based upon the value and
    the risk associated with a potential proposal. In this regard,
    I think that you could end up having expedited procedures that
    could differ, depending upon what the nature of the proposal
    would be. For certain types of proposals, you may have very
    fast track with, you know, limited debate and no authorized
    amendments and may not require, you know, advance--it may not
    require to go through a bipartisan and executive-legislative-
    branch-comprised commission.
        For other types of things that are more substantive and
    more comprehensive and more sweeping, you may decide you want
    different timeframes or different debate times or different
    abilities to amend, but limited amendment, because I think it
    is critical that you do that, and you may want it to go through
    some type of a commission proposal.
        So I think we need to be thinking more about what are we
    trying to accomplish. One size doesn't fit all, and how can you
    establish reasonable safeguards and appropriate mechanisms to
    hopefully achieve the desired outcome, which is to get things
    enacted into law that will improve the economy, efficiency, and
    effectiveness and responsiveness of the Federal Government for
    the benefit of the American people.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. In closing, I think the Volcker
    Commission--I was very impressed with their testimony. I think
    I was impressed with the fact it was a bipartisan issue to move
    forward, taking into consideration, you know, our workers. But
    again I say this, and agree with Majority Leader DeLay--the
    time is right now. Efficiencies will benefit our constituents
    and will benefit our workers, and I would hope we can move this
    as quickly as possible.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
        Mrs. Davis.
        Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you, Mr. Walker and Ms. Dorn, for being here.
        Mr. Walker, you said it several times, something that I
    firmly believe in, and that's the process is the critical,
    important part of this, I think. In my opinion, all players
    need to be brought to the table so that everybody is treated
    fairly.
        You spoke about the--I think it was the Hoover Commission
    that President Truman used in his last reorganization. Would
    you envision that's something that the administration would do
    in this case? And that may be a question for you, Ms. Dorn.
        Mr. Walker. Well, obviously, I can't speak for the
    administration since I am not part of the administration. I
    just think that it would be prudent for both this President and
    future Presidents, as well as the Congress, to learn from the
    lessons of the past. In the past, two key differences--two key
    factors have made the difference between success and failure.
    One is the nature and scope of the proposal, and second the
    process and players who are involved in making that proposal to
    the Congress. The first Hoover Commission was by far the most
    successful. I personally believe there's a lot that needs to be
    done here, some of which is low-hanging fruit but some of which
    is very substantive and very comprehensive, and I think it is
    probably going to take a commission like that in order to get
    that part done.
        Ms. Dorn. I think I would make the point that if this
    authority was in place to get proposals considered and/or some
    sort of expedited consideration in the Congress, that the
    question of what to do has been studied by I think every
    administration since the Nixon administration. I know that the
    earlier Bush administration had a task force headed up by the
    Vice President to look at potential competitive--the
    Competitiveness Council looked at potential ways to make the
    Government more competitive. The Clinton administration--again,
    Vice President Gore looked at ways to make the Government more
    efficient. We have, I think, stacks of bipartisan proposals
    that exist on how to make the Government more efficient. The
    difficulty is how to get that done.
        We have not been able to have a delivery mechanism to take
    a lot of good ideas that have been generated over the last 5,
    10, 15 years and actually get those in place.
        It may be desirable to have another look. My only concern
    is that you can have stacks of studies that, if you have no
    mechanism to turn those into action, it turns and sometimes is
    not a good use of time.
        So I think we are open to suggestions in that regard, but
    we would also probably look to this committee and other
    committees of the Congress that in their oversight have made
    lots of good suggestions about how Government could perform
    better and efficiencies that could be achieved.
        Mrs. Davis of Virginia. I agree with my chairman that the
    process we have right now, when you have to go through 30
    committees you can't get anything changed because everybody has
    their own idea. But even in saying that I would want to--as the
    chairman said, I have a lot of Federal workers in my District
    and they're good, good people and they do a good job, and most
    of the ones that I talk to, they want an efficient Government.
    They want a good reputation. They don't want to be seen as the
    cause of our inefficiencies, and I think they would be willing
    to and would want a place at the table to be able to sit down
    with you and possibly give you some suggestions of what should
    be done, and I would hope that we would take all that into
    consideration. But I agree, we do need to change the process;
    otherwise, nothing will happen.
        Mr. Chairman, I have to apologize. I have a markup in
    another committee, so I need to go. I would like to
    respectfully ask that I be able to submit questions for the
    record for the second panel.
        Chairman Tom Davis. That would be fine. Thank you very
    much.
        Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The information referred to follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.053

        Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Van Hollen.
        Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all
    for your testimony.
        Let me just say at the outset--and the chairman alluded to
    this issue--there's obviously a lot of unease among Federal
    employees with respect to handing over this kind of authority
    without the kind of oversight that we have today setting out
    this kind of fast track system, and it is aggravated in part, I
    think, because I think everyone would like to see the
    Government made more efficient, that they would like us to
    organize the Government in a way that could deliver the
    services in the best way possible. So the question is not up-
    sizing or down-sizing, it's whether we want to get to the right
    size and with the right functions.
        There is concern, as the chairman mentioned, that this kind
    of authority could lead to arbitrary downsizing, and that kind
    of fear is always exacerbated when you see the type of budget
    resolution that was passed, which asked this committee, the
    Government Reform Committee, to make $38 billion cuts over the
    next 10 years, and the chairman of this committee had a major
    victory to protect the rights of Federal employees and took off
    the table, at least in part, retirement benefits.
        But if we as a committee want to get that kind of savings
    over 10 years, it could mean a drive to downsize just for the
    sake of downsizing, not for the sake of organizing the
    Government in the most efficient way. So I just want to put
    that out there as an understandable concern of lots of people,
    when you look at the budget resolution passed, the charge given
    to this committee in the context of this proposal to allow a
    fast track process.
        I want to get a hand on the scope of the problem, because
    it is true when reorganization legislation comes down here it
    gets sent to lots of committees, but I'm interested in, for
    example, this administration. How many proposals for
    reorganization do you have currently pending before the
    Congress and what is the status?
        Ms. Dorn. Congressman, I probably would have to provide the
    exact number for the record because I don't have it on the top
    of my head, but in preparation for this hearing I went back
    through the last two budgets and looked at kind of the
    highlights of what we had recommended and what had happened to
    a number of those proposals. There's a little chart in last
    year's budget that talks about, again, some pretty rational
    program changes like, for example, in Homeland Security we
    talked about moving State and local terrorism programs from
    Justice to FEMA. That actually occurred in the bigger
    transition. But there were about 10 others that ranged from
    moving C grant programs from Commerce to the National Science
    Foundation; toxic substances, hydrology programs from Interior
    to the National Science Foundation; basically moving some of
    the science programs from the different agencies to NSF, where
    I think most people would agree there's a lot of expertise.
        You know what happened to those proposals? None except for
    the Homeland Security reorganizations, which happened in the
    larger context, actually occurred, because when it came down to
    it there was some, I think, very limited resistance, but in the
    end fairly compelling.
        There weren't any--there were no personnel implications to
    those, there were no giant over-reaching policy concerns with
    those, but they just don't happen.
        I think it makes--doing these sort of one at a time in very
    small slices requires a lot of fortitude and a lot of
    perseverance. Frankly, Federal managers have a lot to do. If
    they think that there's little to no chance that it's going to
    be successful, they just don't have the time to spend on it.
        Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you.
        Ms. Dorn. I can provide the----
        Mr. Van Hollen. That would be helpful to me as a new
    Member, just to get a handle. I mean, the problem is stated
    generally in a lot of the comments. It would be nice to have
    some specifics.
        Mr. Walker, do you have any comments?
        Mr. Walker. Just to follow up very quickly. I think these
    are several examples of exactly how fast track authority can be
    helpful. When you have situations where you are identifying
    certain functions or certain activities that you're not
    proposing to eliminate, you're proposing to transfer them and
    to put them in an area where they are more mainstream with
    regard to mission and where you can integrate activities rather
    than coordinate activities, I think those are examples of
    things that, if you had fast track authority, it is much more
    likely that these proposals would come forward and that some of
    them would ultimately be enacted into law. And that would be
    one that I would say clearly makes sense.
        When you're talking about eliminating things, then you may
    want to consider still some fast track authority, but maybe
    different than what the authority would be where it is
    primarily for efficiency and synergy reasons.
        Mr. Van Hollen. So you are suggesting, just so I
    understand, suggesting maybe different standards applied to the
    kind of review that different proposals get, depending on
    whether it is just for transferring function as opposed to
    eliminating function?
        Mr. Walker. Exactly. You look at the value, look at the
    nature of the proposal, the relative value and risk, and how
    does that affect the fast track authority, the role that
    Congress plays, and what role, if any, a commission might play
    in the process.
        Mr. Van Hollen. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Duncan.
        Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Have either of you read the 1983 Supreme Court decision
    that ruled this Presidential reorganization authority
    unconstitutional? I'm just wondering, was that a very narrowly
    drawn decision, or did they express--what did they express as
    the problems or the objections at that time?
        Mr. Walker. I have not read it. I have been briefed on it
    by my general counsel. My understanding, the Chadha decision
    basically stated that under the Constitution that both houses
    of Congress needed to affirmatively act in a positive manner in
    order to affirm any proposed action in this regard, rather than
    previously it's my understanding the way that it worked was it
    was presumptive unless one house of Congress basically vetoed
    it. And the Supreme Court said no, there needs to be an
    affirmative step by both houses of Congress under the
    Constitution. That's my understanding.
        Ms. Dorn. That's consistent with my understanding. I don't
    think that it pertained particularly to this reorganization
    authority, but broadly to a one-house veto.
        Mr. Duncan. This sounds like it might be a pretty good
    thing to do, but I'm wondering how either of you would respond
    to somebody who might say that there have been concerns for
    many years that the executive branch has been acquiring too
    much power at the expense of the Congress, and now Congress has
    given the President fast track trade authority, and now we're
    talking about giving fast track reorganizational authority, and
    that we might want to do this to an administration that we
    like, but we might not want to give this authority to the
    administration that we didn't like, but you're doing it anyway.
    I mean, the administration changes sometimes. So how would you
    respond to somebody who expressed that concern to you?
        Ms. Dorn. I think the Volcker Commission, which is composed
    of people of both parties, all who served at the highest levels
    of both parties--served at the highest levels of the executive
    branch when both parties were in control, supported this kind
    of authority for one very good reason, and that is that the
    state of the Federal Government is becoming a--if not a crisis,
    it is becoming a broadly recognized concern that if the Federal
    Government cannot figure out a way to cut through the stasis
    that has built up over time, that we are going to have a
    Federal Government that the people have lost confidence in,
    that is enormously expensive, and is not delivering the
    products and the services that the American people expect. I
    think it is consistent with what was recognized by the Congress
    in the area of trade--that without fast track authority on the
    trade side, that the United States was at a significant
    disadvantage to compete in the world.
        So it is not that--in my view, and I have served in both
    the legislative and the executive branches--I don't think that
    this is a continuing series of assaults on the powers of the
    legislative branch, but a recognition of the priorities that
    our country has to confront in a kind of a priority here.
        Mr. Duncan. Yes. Mr. Walker.
        Mr. Walker. Well, I work for the Congress so I am an
    Article I person, but I do believe that every President needs
    some type of authority like this, and that there is a
    compelling need, for the reasons that I articulated in my
    opening statement, that the time is right to move some
    reauthorization authority.
        I think in the final analysis you have to get comfortable
    and the Congress has to get comfortable to try to achieve the
    balance that Chairman Davis talked about--reasonable
    flexibility with adequate safeguards. And you have to be
    comfortable that when whatever you pass as far as this
    authority, that you would feel comfortable with it no matter
    who the President of the United States is and no matter what
    party they represent. You have to look at it that way. It
    shouldn't be any different because otherwise I think you might
    second guess it down the road.
        But the other thing is it has to be reauthorized. At least
    historically that has been the case. That's another way that
    you can do it to manage risk. You can set it up, since you give
    this authority and provide for periodic reauthorization, which
    was the case from 1932 to 1984.
        Mr. Duncan. Well, I can tell you I think most people think
    that the Federal Government has gotten so big and bureaucratic
    that it is just almost out of control and something needs to be
    done, but the Government keeps getting bigger almost no matter
    who is in power. So I'm a little bit skeptical as to whether
    this is going to do what we need done, but at least it seems to
    be better than doing nothing, so thank you very much.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Tierney.
        Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I have to join Mr. Duncan in my skepticism. I tell you, I
    have difficulty with the concept that just after the budget
    proposes such huge cuts and throws it over to this committee
    for $1 billion in next year and $40 billion over 10 years, all
    of a sudden everybody is out here proposing now that we have
    this reorganization fast track. And I can understand people's
    concern on that, and I'm not sure that your testimonies have
    allayed that fear at all.
        I'm also concerned with the fact that this Congress has a
    responsibility to do the things that you're talking about
    having done. I suspect that we need just find the will and
    proceed with business.
        What do you say about the fact that during the last
    administration the National Performance Review with some
    duplication or whatever is purported to have eliminated over
    250 programs and agencies, and that was without the existence
    of any kind of a fast track?
        Ms. Dorn. Well, Congressman, I would say that both
    Republican and Democratic administrations wrestle with this all
    the time, and if you look at what the Clinton administration
    did in 8 years, they may well have taken this on at various
    levels and wrestled some of it to the ground. They didn't have
    the authority. You can make progress, sometimes slow, sometimes
    arduous, but you can make progress through the regular
    legislative process.
        Mr. Tierney. Well, isn't that what the regular legislative
    process is--a deliberative process where we bring in all of the
    key individuals and give them an opportunity to be heard? I
    think what bothers me is that this seems to be a step outside
    of that. I mean, this is say ingredients we don't want to make
    sure that all the key players are heard, we don't want to make
    sure that 435 people in the House and 100 in the Senate that
    represent all these constituencies actually have a voice, and
    we're going to fast track this and throw something on the table
    and have it voted on in a certain amount of time without any
    amendments, and we're out of here. I mean, it seems to me
    you're working directly opposed to the interest of people in
    this country who expect that there is going to be a concerted
    review of this and people are going to have to make some hard
    decisions and be held accountable for them.
        I'm particularly stunned by the fact that here you are with
    one party in the majority of the House, one party in the
    majority of the Senate, same party in the White House, and now
    is when you choose to say that we can't get anything done?
        Ms. Dorn. Well, Congressman----
        Mr. Tierney. I mean, this seems--if you're going to get
    something done, get it done. Go through the regular legislative
    process and see if the weight of your arguments has enough
    merit to pass.
        I suspect what it is is in theory getting rid of billions
    of dollars so you can give tax breaks to people is one really
    good idea to some people, but when it starts identifying where
    that money is coming from, our conviction and our will may fade
    away a little bit. And that's just one person's review of this,
    but it seems somewhat obvious from this perspective.
        Ms. Dorn. For the record, the Bush administration did
    propose that this authority be extended not 2 months ago in
    February when the 2004 budget was proposed, but a year ago last
    February.
        Mr. Tierney. When the 2001 cuts were proposed so----
        Ms. Dorn. Well, I think----
        Mr. Tierney [continuing]. Cuts.
        Ms. Dorn [continuing]. The point is that the Bush
    administration has had a commitment to management reform that I
    think is serious and that is manifest both in this and----
        Mr. Tierney. So if that's the case, my question to you
    would be then, with a majority in the House and majority in the
    Senate and the White House, if you think your ideas are so good
    why don't you present them and let them go through the regular
    legislative process and we'll see if they carry the weight of
    day.
        Ms. Dorn. And we have, and we will continue to propose
    changes through the regular process until the process is
    changed. The only point that I would make is that it is
    difficult, it is sometimes not productive, and, as I said----
        Mr. Tierney. Well, let me interrupt you only because we
    have a short time. I don't mean to be rude. But ``not
    productive'' I think as you're defining it is you don't always
    get your way. That doesn't mean it's not productive. It means
    that you made a proposal, it went through the regular
    legislative process, and it didn't win the argument. I mean, I
    think that when that happens the idea to say, ``Well, we're
    going to change the system so we can jam things through,''
    isn't necessarily the best way for everybody to be looking at
    this thing.
        You have all the majorities. You have the White House. You
    think you have great ideas. Float them, you know. But why take
    away the prerogative of this body, whose responsibility it is
    to look at these things, to deliberate, and hear testimony from
    all the interested parties who have a stake in this, and then
    make some decisions? I think the American people are smart
    enough, if this body doesn't have the will to proceed the way
    they want it to, they'll take whatever action they think is
    appropriate. But I think the only message I have here is that
    it seems to me that this is an end run. If we can't get things
    done one way, we're going to try to jam it through another way
    by changing the process, and an invitation to some Members of
    Congress to avoid the responsibility of making difficult
    decisions.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Tom Davis. First of all, let me just say I like
    the point when you said one party controls the Presidency and
    the House. I'd like you to keep saying that. It has been 50
    years since we've had that opportunity.
        The other thing is that some of the fights aren't partisan
    fights, they are jurisdictional fights. That's what makes any
    of this really difficult to organize that we're trying to get
    to. But I think the comments from the gentleman, I think we're
    going to hear a lot of skepticism in terms of what the
    motivation is back and forth, and these are real issues that we
    are going to have to address as we move this legislation
    forward. So I appreciate your comments. And it's a bigger issue
    than just a partisan issue, but----
        Mr. Tierney. Well, it goes beyond the partisan issue, Mr.
    Chairman, and is more important than the partisan issue. The
    only reason I raise the partisan issue is if you've got the
    majorities, then put your proposals out there and let them fly.
    This is a uniquely extraordinarily time for you to be making
    this proposal when you have all the chips. But the other part
    of it I think is one of the prerogatives of this house.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Yes.
        Mr. Tierney. You know, this is our responsibility. Why we
    are trying to find some way to pass the buck just escapes me.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Because I think we recognize our own
    limitations. But I hear you.
        Mr. Tierney. Well, shame on us.
        Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman, if I can, as you know,
    Congressman, the GAO has a reputation of being professional,
    objective, and nonpartisan. I can tell you, in my opinion as
    Comptroller General of the United States, irrespective of who
    the President is, whether a Democrat, a Republican, and no
    matter what their name is, there is conceptual merit to having
    some type of expedited reorganization authority, but I think--
    --
        Mr. Tierney. But even you in your testimony made it very
    clear that you think that there has to be some provision made
    for people----
        Mr. Walker. Absolutely. Absolutely. And let me state that.
    I think you need to look at the value and risk, the nature of
    the proposal. You need to have adequate safeguards. And there
    are ways I think that this could be accomplished where you have
    a reasonable balance of interest between the executive branch
    and the legislative branch, but I think some type of expedited
    authority is clearly called for, irrespective of who the
    President of the United States is and irrespective of who
    controls the Senate and House of Representatives.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you. And, of course, you need 60
    votes in the Senate, so nobody controls--no party controls the
    Senate. One party presides over the Senate. There is a whole
    different issue.
        Mrs. Miller, thank you for bearing with us. You are
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've enjoyed the
    testimony certainly and the conversation from my colleagues, as
    well. And I would agree that this is certainly a tool that the
    President needs. In fact, as a new Member of Congress, quite
    frankly, learning a little bit more about the Federal
    Government, I have to say I'm completely astounded that the
    President does not have the same types of management tools that
    every Governor in the Nation, whether they are a Democrat or a
    Republican, and most county executives have, as well.
    Certainly, there are two Members on this panel, including our
    chairman, who have had those kinds of experiences previously in
    their former lives where they have had those kind of management
    tools. Nor do I believe the concept of seamless government, of
    customer service, of delivering a cost-effective, efficient
    government is a partisan concept, and it certainly should not
    be a novel concept for the Federal Government, as well. So I do
    strongly support this legislation. I think the President,
    whoever the President is, is in a position of appointing
    Cabinet officers, members, and then not again having the
    resources or the tools to do what needs to be done. I think the
    citizens certainly are looking to the Federal Government to
    deliver better services.
        The current structure seems to me to certainly stifle
    creativity amongst some excellent Federal employees who, as one
    of my colleagues mentioned a little bit earlier, would like to
    have some input. I mean, these are people who are on the front
    line every single day and just are in the trenches, so to
    speak, certainly would have some excellent recommendations, I'm
    sure.
        And perhaps my question has already been answered. Ms.
    Dorn, you were mentioning a little bit previously that you have
    stacks and stacks of previous recommendations about what could
    happen here, but could you perhaps give me a specific example
    of where this administration may go first if this kind of
    legislation were to be delivered?
        Ms. Dorn. We've made a number of proposals in the regular
    submission of our budgets in 2002, 2003, and 2004 that speak to
    need for reorganization of certain elements of the Government.
    They range from fairly small things. Governor Thompson over at
    HHS has had an ongoing effort to try to streamline various
    entities within the HHS empire. They have 65,000 employees, and
    when he arrived they had multiple personnel shops, multiple
    public affairs shops, all of whom were sort of operating
    independently and without coordination or any kind of
    efficiency. He has made an effort to try--he started with the
    personnel shops and has rationalized those. He's working his
    way through the public affairs shops. But it is an attempt to
    again make people's work more valuable, make people's time more
    useful.
        There are other examples that are great in the area of
    Homeland Security where we have gone through the traditional
    process at a very high level, great amount of consultation with
    the Congress to get the Department of Homeland Security set up.
    And I would point out that the creation of the Department of
    Homeland Security is not the last word. The Congress did do
    what the Volcker Commission suggested. They rationalized their
    committee structure. The oversight for DHHS is still going to
    be, I suspect, fulsome. Nobody expects to reorganize Government
    and then have Congress give up its oversight authority and its
    power over the purse and all the other tools that the
    Constitution and 200 years of statutory law give them. But we
    have a number of proposals which I think we're very
    aggressively pursuing.
        It is a question of how much you really can expect to
    accomplish, how much time you invest in this area of management
    of the Federal Government, knowing what the cost is and what
    the chances are that you might succeed.
        Mrs. Miller. Thank you, and I appreciate your example of
    Secretary previously Governor Thompson. He has certainly been a
    role model nationally and a leading edge in so many different
    kinds of things--welfare to work, economic development, etc.
    And then for a Governor, who is used to having Executive order
    privileges, to be able to reorganize and delivered excellent
    services in the State of Wisconsin to come to the Federal
    Government and be so hamstrung has certainly got to be very
    frustrating for him and for his entire agency, as well.
        Thank you so much.
        Ms. Dorn. Yes.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
        Let me get Mr. Shays.
        Mr. Shays. Since this is my first pass, I want to
    congratulate the chairman for doing what this committee clearly
    needs to be doing, and that is to deal with the management
    challenges that face any President, any chief executive,
    Republican or Democrat.
        I plead ignorance to the fact that I did not know that we
    have not given the President the reauthorization since 1984.
        Let me ask you, Mr. Walker, what is the significance of
    this in terms of dollars. What could a President do with this
    kind of power that would impact dollars?
        Mr. Walker. Well, there's no question that, depending upon
    the nature of what the proposals would be, that there could be
    significant economy, efficiency and effectiveness, improvements
    achieved as a result of making reorganizations happen that
    otherwise might not happen.
        To put a number on it is virtually impossible because I
    have no idea exactly what the administration is going to
    propose and I also don't know what the Congress is going to
    choose to pass or to authorize in that regard, but it is
    considerable.
        Mr. Shays. It is considerable. The GAO has--I could have
    big stacks of reports at GAO that have recommended changes to
    Government and so on that would be accomplished by simply
    giving the President this power?
        Mr. Walker. There is no question that there would be a much
    greater likelihood that they would be accomplished if some type
    of expedited consideration was given.
        Mr. Shays. Ms. Dorn, do you care to respond?
        Ms. Dorn. Well, Congressman, before you came in I think
    that I--in looking back over the last 2 years of the Bush
    administration, this administration and this President, in
    particular, has been very interested in the management side of
    the Government, and we've spent a lot of time putting forward a
    management agenda and pushing through a number of performance
    and budget integration initiatives. They haven't been aimed
    necessarily at either reducing the numbers of Federal employees
    or in harvesting dollars out of it. Obviously, there are some
    things that could be achieved in that regard. That hasn't been
    the primary motivation.
        The primary motivation is actually to get more value out of
    the people and the agencies of Government than we're getting
    right now.
        Mr. Shays. And I'm trying to get this report that I
    remember reading, but there was a comparison between the
    Federal Government and the private sector, and the Federal
    Government--there were 11 Government employees that had a say
    in a decision whereas in the private sector--who could make a
    decision. They all had to sign off, and they all had to sign
    off in order for it to happen, and in the private sector there
    were three.
        The point that was being made in the report is that we need
    to empower Federal employees to be able to make decisions, to
    be able to do the same that we would do in the private sector,
    and tremendous efficiencies would happen.
        The argument in this report was that workers' satisfaction
    would climb significantly because they would have a role in the
    process of making decisions.
        Mr. Walker.
        Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman, effectuating a reorganization
    does not in and of itself mean that there is going to be a loss
    of jobs. There could be some circumstances where that would
    occur, but let me just mention, as I mentioned in my testimony,
    the GAO has already done this. GAO created a strategic plan. We
    realigned our organization based upon that strategic plan. We
    have not conducted any RIFs. We've made tremendous progress on
    succession planning and revitalizing our work force, and our
    results have almost doubled in 4 years.
        Mr. Shays. So your output increased, your employees have
    greater satisfaction because they are involved in something
    more productive, and we got a lot more bang for the dollar that
    we spent?
        Mr. Walker. Right, but it is more than just the
    organization. It is empowering employees and doing a bunch of
    other things. I mean, all too frequently people see Federal
    workers as part of the problem. They are part of the solution
    here. Federal workers are part of the solution as to how to
    make us more economical, efficient, and effective, and we need
    to treat them that way.
        Mr. Shays. And there's nothing that says in reorganization
    that Federal employees wouldn't be part of the process of how
    you reorganize in any decision made by a President.
        Mr. Walker. It would be prudent to somehow get their input.
        Mr. Shays. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Yes. Mr. Ruppersberger.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. First, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I'm listening to the testimony and we're attempting to try
    to get efficiencies, and this is important that we move forward
    with this, and I think we should do it, as I said before, right
    away.
        I think what a lot of the problems are--and if we could
    resolve this issue-is the issue of the perception of our
    Federal employees. You know, we have a Republican President and
    both houses control, and Congressman Tierney raised that issue.
    I, as a former county executive, I went through this
    reorganization, and at first I didn't have the confidence of
    our county employees. Eventually, after working with our
    administration, after seeing that efficiencies in the end were
    in the best interest of the employees, that eventually the
    programs that were put in place, like a gain-sharing program, a
    group incentive based on performance, and seeing in the end
    that efficiencies bring more money in the end to give back to
    the employees, then the confidence level started to occur.
        I think most Government employees probably at this point,
    when they hear this type of exercise and what we are looking
    at, think that it is a downsizing issue. That was something I
    had to overcome. It wasn't about downsizing at all. In fact,
    really there was no downsizing other than through attrition.
    There is a lot of things that happen in all governments, a lot
    of duplication of effort, a lot of wasted money, a lot of
    wasted performance, and that's where we're trying to get to.
        But I asked the question, and I think it is going to have
    to be answered in more specificity. We need to make sure that
    Congress does retain its check and balance. That would be part
    of a process. It shouldn't be interfering with what is
    happening. Whether you're a Democrat or Republican, the
    President is so-called the ``president of the corporation,''
    and I see Congress as the board of directors, but we are the
    check and balance and we must have input, and that's why we
    will be there to look after the employees' issues, try to make
    sure that we are holding people accountable for performance,
    including the President.
        So I think, Mr. Chairman, that credibility started with you
    when you were told that you had to downsize or you had to cut a
    certain amount of money and you did not, so I think if we look
    at this from a bipartisan point of view, our employees have to
    be a part of the process, and if we can let it be known--again,
    leadership has to do this--that it's not a downsizing exercise,
    it is an efficiency exercise which in the end will benefit all
    employees and all citizens of this country.
        Mr. Walker. I think it is important to note that the
    Congress has recently provided the executive branch with
    significant authorities dealing with voluntary early outs and
    voluntary buyouts, which would be an incredibly valuable tool
    that could be used by the executive branch in order to
    effectuate and implement any related reorganizations that
    Congress might approve. We've used those authorities. Congress,
    fortunately, gave us those authorities in the year 2000. We
    were kind of the beta, the test, if you will, for this concept,
    and it helped us tremendously to implement our strategic plan,
    to realign without any RIFs.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. That's one other point, and I'll stop.
    It's also the issue of privatization, too. And I have found
    that if you give the employees the resources to do the job,
    they will be able to compete with the outside sector if you
    give them the resources and the leadership where they need to
    move, so that's another thing that we must look at in this
    whole process is the issue of out-sourcing.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you, Mr. Ruppersberger. I think
    you are going to be a great member of the committee. I
    appreciate your interest and your questions. I think he has hit
    kind of the nub of the matter as we deal with this.
        Any other questions for this panel?
        [No response.]
        Chairman Tom Davis. If not, I will excuse you.
        Nancy, congratulations on your new assignment. I understand
    you are leaving OMB. We've enjoyed working with you.
        Mr. Walker, thank you, as always, for being up here. We
    look forward to your continued input on this and a number of
    other issues.
        Ms. Dorn. Thank you.
        Chairman Tom Davis. We have a couple of votes on the House
    floor. I'm going to basically recess the meeting right now.
    We'll come back right after those votes and go with our next
    panel, but I suspect it will be at least 15 minutes, so if you
    want to take a break and wander around, get back in about 15
    minutes. Thank you very much.
        [Recess.]
        Chairman Tom Davis. Our second panel is here. We have Mr.
    Dwight Ink, president emeritus of the Institute of Public
    Administration; Dr. Paul Light, director of the Center for
    Public Service at Brookings; Colleen Kelley, president of the
    National Treasury Employees Union; and Mark Roth, general
    counsel of the American Federation of Government Employees.
        As you know, it is the policy of this committee to swear
    all witnesses, if you would just rise with me and raise your
    right hands.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. We'll proceed. Mr.
    Ink, we'll start with you and just work straight down the line.
    Thank you for being with us.

      STATEMENTS OF DWIGHT INK, PRESIDENT EMERITUS, INSTITUTE OF
      PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION; PAUL C. LIGHT, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
     PUBLIC SERVICE, THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION; COLLEEN M. KELLEY,
    PRESIDENT, NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION; AND MARK D. ROTH,
      GENERAL COUNSEL, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

        Mr. Ink. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
    opportunity to testify at these hearings on Government
    reorganization. I am pleased that the management agenda of
    President Bush does include a request that the Congress restore
    Presidential authority for submitting reorganization plans, a
    step that I think can be of help in managing the Federal
    Government.
        I am a fellow of the National Academy of Public
    Administration, a member of its standing panel of Executive
    Organization Management, but my testimony today reflects my
    personal views and not necessarily those of the Academy. These
    comments grow out of management experience in a number of
    Federal agencies, including my role as Assistant Director for
    executive management in both VOB and OMB, where I had
    responsibility for Presidential reorganization plans. In that
    role I and my staff handled seven plans, each of which resulted
    in significant reorganizations, including the establishment of
    OMB and EPA.
        I concur fully with your statement about the amount of
    overlapping and duplicative programs. Not only is this
    wasteful, but it creates problems for the people and
    organizations served by these programs. Splintering of
    functions also blurs accountability because responsibilities
    are diffused among several different departments, none of which
    can be held accountable for more than a portion of a given
    function.
        Accountability is further blurred because of structural
    fragmentation resulting and issues gravitating to the White
    House that do not warrant Presidential attention. There they
    either clutter the President's desk and steal time that should
    be devoted to more critical issues or they are handled by White
    House staff. These staff members are usually very bright
    people, but they seldom have the needed in-depth background on
    all these issues or ready access to the needed expertise
    available in the departments. Further, they are not as
    accountable to the public or to the Congress as department
    officials. Restoration of Presidential reorganization authority
    if properly used could be a useful tool in reducing the problem
    of structural fragmentation.
        My experience with these plans dates back to a period when
    the process was reasonably straightforward. Since then, of
    course, the Chadha Supreme Court case has prevented use of the
    earlier method by which reorganization plans would become
    effective unless disapproved by Congress, but I do not believe
    the scope of what can be accomplished under reorganization plan
    authority was reduced by that decision.
        At the same time, the authority did accumulate barnacles,
    and I would agree that it is best to simplify the law and the
    process of reauthorization.
        I support the concept of restoring reorganization plan
    authority if it provides assurance that a vote will be taken
    after a specified period of time and if the authority limits or
    precludes amendments.
        I would add, however, that passing the legislation will not
    necessarily accomplish anything unless other steps are also
    taken.
        First, within the Executive Office of the President there
    is a need to restore a measure of professional competence in
    the field of departmental and inter-departmental organization
    to assure good drafting of reorganization proposals and
    effective implementation. This expertise has been missing for a
    number of years. By 1981 the GAO criticism of reorganization
    plan implementation led Congress to require that detailed
    implementation plans accompany each proposed reorganization in
    an effort to compensate for this lack of executive branch
    performance, and the problem continues.
        Time after time we see departmental and agency
    organizations and reorganizations that muddle rather than
    clarify headquarters, field arrangements. Working arrangements
    among various field offices concerned with the same clients are
    often ad hoc and transitory. The relationship between the
    Secretary's office and the major operating elements of a
    department is seldom well thought through and is surprisingly
    ineptly managed in many departments today.
        Departmental management leadership is fragmented by a
    series of laws, a deficiency President Bush has sought to avoid
    in the new Department of Homeland Security through the Under
    Secretary of Management, a highly desirable feature.
        These and other issues can best be addressed by men and
    women with experience and expertise in organizing and managing
    large organizations, not by legal or budget experts, as is the
    case today.
        A second ingredient for success with the reorganization
    plans is the need for cooperative working arrangements between
    the executive and legislative branches. Meaningful consultation
    with the relevant committees before sending a reorganization
    plan to Congress has been essential to the success of most
    Presidential reorganization plans.
        Mr. Chairman, I would argue that the reason this authority
    has been permitted to expire in the past has often been due
    largely to the lack of executive branch consultation with the
    Congress before the plans go up. This is a very, very
    important, and I think essential feature.
        And to be effective--and I think Mr. Walker alluded to
    this--executive branch consultation requires a maximum of
    bipartisanship on the part of the committees.
        In response to several of the questions that have been
    raised, I believe that it is important that reorganization
    plans not be used or permitted to be used to add or reduce or
    eliminate programs. These plans should be focused on how to
    make Government work better and not what Government does.
        I think there do need to be protections for employees. In
    each of the plans that we set forward, all of which succeeded,
    we had a statement and a commitment, and I'll read one of them.
    ``All movements of functions and jobs will be governed by
    current law and Civil Service Commission--'' this was when we
    still had the Civil Service Commission--``regulations with full
    employee protections and appeal rights. From an other
    standpoint, the reorganization can--'' well, that's not
    relevant.
        But one other statement. ``Full consideration is also given
    to avoiding adverse impact of reorganization on the existence
    of Union recognition and agreements.''
        There have been questions about why you can't do this
    through regular legislation, which is certainly a valid
    question. When we were concerned about getting some kind of an
    organization in place to deal with the environmental protection
    problems, we couldn't get anywhere through regular legislation.
    There were just too many competing factions. The Congress was
    very pleased when we then came forward with a reorganization
    plan, and that's what resulted in the existence of the EPA
    today. Same thing was true of the Consumer Product Protection
    Commission.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Ink, your red light has been on, if
    you can try to--we have your whole statements in the record, if
    you could try to----
        Mr. Ink. All right. Then let me just say, in addition to
    the restoring of reorganization plan authority, it is very
    important I think to view with great care the Volcker
    Commission recommendations that the Federal Government be
    reorganized in a limited number of mission-oriented
    departments, and that you would not handle through a
    reorganization plan authority.
        Chairman Tom Davis. OK. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Ink follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.057

        Chairman Tom Davis. Dr. Light, thank you for being with us.
        Mr. Light. Thank you very much for having me. I commend you
    and the committee for its work on this issue on both sides of
    the recruitment crisis, both how we get workers into Government
    and how we give them meaningful work that will keep them around
    for a while.
        I commend to you the research report written by my
    colleague at CRS that summarizes the history of reorganization.
    It is a terrific report. There's nobody in America who knows
    more about reorganization.
        I raised two questions in my testimony, the first being
    whether reorganization is a useful approach to solving some of
    the problems today. Simply asked, if reorganization is the
    answer, what is the question? I think there is a very strong
    defense to be made here for reorganization as one of the ways
    of improving Government performance.
        Let me note, in response to some of the testimony that I
    have read, that reorganization is not a tool for downsizing.
    The term ``reorganization'' is not in any thesaurus that I know
    alongside ``downsizing.'' In fact, my hope would be that
    reorganization authority would produce significant de-layering
    at the upper and middle levels of the Federal hierarchy that
    would allow resources to flow down toward the lower levels
    where the services get delivered.
        A one-third cut in the number of Presidential appointees
    would score $100 million in savings for this committee on a
    yearly basis. A one-third cut in the number of Federal managers
    would score another $2.8 billion, more or less. If you're
    looking for dollar savings, the savings are to be found at the
    middle and upper levels of the hierarchy, not at the bottom.
        But the real value of reorganization is through its impact
    on performance. I have compared the Federal organization chart
    to the mouth of the Elongabora River at low tide as it
    struggled to confront Humphrey Bogart in ``The African Queen.''
    It is a mess. It's a nightmare of duplication and overlap. It
    hampers Federal employees' ability to get their jobs done. It
    undermines mission. It is time to do something about it.
        You can do something about it through commission. In 1988,
    under the Department of Veterans Affairs Act, the Senate and
    the House, both held by Democrats at that point in time, passed
    legislation creating a National Commission on Government
    Restructuring that was actually rejected by the first President
    Bush as being too intrusive and not particularly helpful to his
    management agenda at that point in time.
        I would say that the reinventing government campaign did
    include restoration of reorganization as one of their top
    priorities, but they could not get that through Congress at
    that point in time.
        My testimony contains a strong endorsement of
    reorganization authority properly limited so that Congress has
    the opportunity to weigh in on difficult issues, so that
    Congress can restrain their reorganization authority to a fixed
    point in time. We're not talking here, I think, and the Volcker
    Commission I do not believe favored the creation of permanent
    reorganization authority but rather limited reorganization
    authority that could be used to clean up the very significant
    problems in the Federal organizational hierarchy.
        Now, on the Constitutional questions, I agree with my
    colleagues that there is a proper and important role that the
    U.S. Congress plays in reorganization. I am an Article I
    person, as well. My service has all been on Capitol Hill, both
    for the House and the Senate, but the founding fathers did not
    intend the legislative process to be a nightmare of endless
    delay. That's why they gave Congress authority to create extra
    Constitutional devices such as the Conference Committee to
    speed the legislative process.
        I remind the committee of Alexander Hamilton's statement
    that a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory,
    is a bad government. To the extent that we do not improve and
    address the significant problems in the organization of the
    Federal Government, we will continue to diffuse accountability,
    we will continue to undermine performance, and ultimately we
    will continue to erode the public's confidence in the Federal
    Government's ability to perform.
        I'm open for any questions that you may have.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Light follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.060

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.061

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.062

        Chairman Tom Davis. Ms. Kelley, thanks for being with us.
        Ms. Kelley. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Davis,
    members of the committee. As the national president of NTEU, I
    appreciate the opportunity to be here on behalf of the 150,000
    employees. Thank you. It is my pleasure to be here on behalf of
    the 150,000 employees in 29 agencies who are represented by
    NTEU.
        The issue for today's hearing is what authority the
    President should have to reorganize the Federal Government. The
    question here goes to the fundamental basis of our Government.
    The founding fathers of our Nation developed a Constitution
    with careful checks and balances among the powers and
    authorities of the various branches of the Government. It is
    something not to be lightly changed or put out of balance.
        The President, as Chief Executive, has wide and broad
    authority over the executive branch. He appoints key personnel.
    He directs the policy and the functions of executive branch
    agencies. By Exhibit order he can direct inter-agency
    collaboration and set certain personnel policies.
        Our American system of checks and balances exists to
    restrain one branch from seeking to centralize power at the
    expense of the others. With each branch dependent on the others
    in various ways, the system encourages cooperation and
    accommodation, frequently by negotiation, by bargaining, and by
    compromise. Congressional action is required to create
    executive branch departments, to fund them, to determine their
    nature and the scope of their duties, and to confirm the
    appointment of their top leaders. One would hope that Congress
    would not lightly give away these rightful prerogatives.
        Fast track style schemes eliminate all opportunities for
    meaningful dialog and review by Congress. Moreover, it is the
    legislative process where the public is able to comment. You
    have called me and the other witnesses here today this morning,
    I assume because you and your colleagues see congressional
    hearings and the questioning of witnesses, including
    administrative witnesses, as something that is worthwhile and
    beneficial. Reorganization plans presented to Congress that are
    fully developed and unamendable leave no room for input from
    the public.
        Many parties are affected by reorganizations--agency
    managers, front line employees, customers of the agency,
    entities regulated by the agency. None of these has the right
    to expect their own particular interest should obstruct a wise
    and needed reorganization, but none of these communities should
    be denied the opportunity to have their legitimate input into
    the dialog and discussion that develop such a proposal.
        My own Union's recent experience with the Homeland Security
    legislation confirms my opposition to this proposal. There were
    important and positive changes made to the Homeland Security
    legislation as it moved through Congress, and some of those
    changes were authored by you, Mr. Chairman. Would the people
    really have been better served if a massive reorganization like
    Homeland Security was unamendable?
        The President's original proposal did not contain
    whistleblower protection for employees. It did not require
    merit principles. It did not ensure that non-Homeland defense
    functions of merged agencies would be maintained. While NTEU
    did not support all of the changes made to the legislation, it
    would be shocking if such a monumental reorganization would be
    unamendable subject only to a single up or down vote by each
    house of Congress.
        And while I understand, Mr. Chairman, that you and I may
    have some different views on the process that developed the
    Department of Homeland Security legislation, I think that the
    Homeland Security legislation is an example of Congress being
    able to produce change when it feels it is important. However,
    NTEU can only oppose any legislation that would have prevented
    important employee rights such as whistleblower protection,
    collective bargaining rights, and employment based on merit
    principles rather than on favoritism from being added to the
    Homeland Security legislation or to any future reorganization
    proposal.
        Some have proposed giving the President this authority as a
    way to achieve the spending cuts assigned to this committee by
    the House-passed budget resolution. That resolution calls for
    $1.1 billion in 2004 and nearly $40 billion over 10 years to be
    cut from programs under this committee's jurisdiction to pay
    for hundreds of millions of dollars in tax reductions for
    wealthy dividend holders and others. Federal employees should
    not be made to sacrifice their health care or their retirement
    security to finance tax cuts for the wealthy, nor should agency
    budgets already cut to the bone be used for this purpose.
    Asking this committee such obligations will mean that Federal
    workers will end up financing these tax giveaways to high-
    income persons. This is wrong and NTEU strongly objects to it.
        Chairman Davis, as always I appreciate the opportunity to
    testify before you and will be happy to answer any questions
    you or the committee might have.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Kelley follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.063

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.064

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.065

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.066

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.067

        Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Roth, thanks for being with us.
        Mr. Roth. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, on
    behalf of the American Federation of Government Employees,
    which represents 600,000 Federal workers, I thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today on efforts to provide the
    executive branch expanded authority to downsize, consolidate,
    or reorganize the Federal Government. I note for Professor
    Light's acknowledgement, the current 901 does say ``abolition
    of functions,'' so it is not just transfers or consolidations.
        AFGE strongly opposes an expansion of this authority
    because the traditional legislative process already allows
    lawmakers and policymakers sufficient opportunities to downsize
    the Federal Government. Moreover, allowing the executive branch
    expanded authority to downsize would deprive the legislative
    branch of its crucial obligation to carefully scrutinize any
    downsizing proposals.
        The expanded downsizing authority contemplated in 5 U.S.
    Code 901 essentially allows officials of the executive branch
    to submit proposals to consolidate and abolish agencies and
    functions they believe ``may not be necessary for the efficient
    conduct of the Government.'' The proposals are automatically
    introduced as resolutions and referred to the House Government
    Reform and Senate Governmental Affairs Committees. Failure of a
    committee to report a resolution within 75 days automatically
    places a resolution on the calendar. Any Member may move to
    proceed to consideration of the resolution. That motion may not
    be debated, postponed, or reconsidered. Debate is limited to no
    more than 10 hours. A motion to limit debate is in order and
    not debatable; however, a motion to postpone, proceed to other
    business, recommit, or reconsider is not in order. Moreover,
    the resolution cannot be amended.
        In the area of the Department of Homeland Security, this
    would have been, in my opinion, unthinkable. In effect, the
    process is a total abrogation by Congress of its role to
    carefully design and monitor the functionality of the executive
    branch. It is ironic that the renewed interest in expanding the
    executive branch's authority to downsize the Federal
    Government, at the expense of the legislative branch
    responsibility to carefully review and scrutinize such
    proposals, should be the subject of renewed interest at a time
    when one party controls the House of Representatives, the
    Senate, and the White House, and it is no longer possible to
    contend that the dreaded gridlock of partisanship prevents fair
    consideration of truly meritorious downsizing measures.
        If agency X is clearly performing a function that agency Y
    is also performing and agency X is not performing it in a
    supplementary or complementary fashion, why is there a need for
    expanded downsizing authority? Lawmakers and their allies in
    the executive branch who believe that agency X is clearly
    superfluous should hold hearings, introduce the necessary
    abolition legislation, make common cause with similarly minded
    authorizers and appropriators, and simply get on with their
    work. In fact, such downsizing proposals, if they are as
    meritorious as advertised, could even be passed in the House
    under suspension.
        If downsizing proposals have merit, why do they need to be
    placed on an accelerated fast track that guarantees them floor
    time regardless of their content? Why must debate on downsizing
    proposals be limited through onerous time constraints? And why
    is it that the downsizing proposals cannot even be amended?
    There is, in our view, no valid rationale.
        Interestingly, the Heritage Foundation and the Clinton
    administration--not two natural allies, I might point out--
    agree that during the 104th Congress, which was a particularly
    partisan period of our Nation's history, at least 250 separate
    progress, offices, agencies, projects, and divisions were
    eliminated completely either through legislation or
    administrative fiat. It must be acknowledged that these
    documented efforts were completed through the traditional
    legislative or administrative process and not as a result of
    expanded authority. If the divided 104th Congress and the
    Clinton administration could downsize the Federal Government,
    what is stopping the united 108th Congress and the hard-
    charging Bush administration from enacting into law rational
    downsizing proposals through the customary legislative process?
    The answer is nothing.
        The traditional legislative process fosters deliberation,
    close scrutiny, and compromise. These are good things.
        Just several additional points in closing.
        Federal employees and their unions know all too well how
    easy it is already to downsize the Federal Government without
    resorting to expanded authority. The Federal work force has
    already been arbitrarily hacked and whacked unilaterally by the
    executive branch by hundreds of thousands of employees since
    1993. The result of this indiscriminate downsizing is a self-
    inflicted human capital crisis, with agencies experiencing
    severe shortages of Federal employees in key occupational
    category after category.
        This proposal you are considering would simply ensure even
    less deliberation and compromise and more inappropriate
    politicization of Government.
        In addition, in the last decade or so massive
    reorganizations and streamlining of Government has occurred and
    is still occurring through the natural processes. Through
    legislation, the Social Security Administration became an
    independent agency and the IRS was transformed. Parts of 22
    agencies just recently were consolidated into the Department of
    Homeland Security. And, Chairman Davis, it may not have been a
    pretty or easy process, but needed compromises were arrived at
    and a better product ultimately was achieved.
        Through administrative action since the 1990's, 78,000
    duplicative management positions were eliminated, 2,000
    obsolete field offices were closed, and over 200 programs and
    agencies like the Tea Tasters Board and mohair subsidies were
    eliminated. In Department of Defense, on its own initiative,
    the Defense Logistics Agency consolidated all service logistics
    functions, reduced to two regions, and went from 90,000
    employees to 40,000. DOD consolidated and streamlined finance
    functions into DFAS, commissary functions into DECA, and
    printing functions into DPS, all without legislation.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Roth, your total statement is in
    the record.
        Mr. Roth. OK. Let me just say that massive streamlining is
    going on today as we speak. AFGE has partnered in those
    proposals that are rational. And, as always, we stand ready to
    work with you, Mr. Chairman, on a variety of measures that
    would result in savings for taxpayers, including the
    reestablishment of labor/management partnerships, and improved
    administration of service contracts.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Roth follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.068

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.069

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.070

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.071

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.072

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.073

        Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. I appreciate
    everybody's perspective on this. Obviously, people come at this
    from different perspectives. It is important for us to
    understand all of them.
        I think what is important to understand is we heard in Mr.
    Ink's testimony the issue for us is how the Government performs
    something, not whether we perform it or not. That's a huge
    issue. This is not a downsizing issue, in my judgment.
        And let me just ask you, Mr. Roth and Ms. Kelley, if we
    could, as a part of this, ensure that you wouldn't be
    eliminating employee jobs, that you'd have whistleblower
    protections, collective bargaining rights, that you'd have
    merit, not favoritism, could you support under those
    circumstances and allow at least an alignment of duties to go
    under the executive branch and allow them to do it without
    coming up to our different committees and have it picked apart
    for petty jurisdictional reasons?
        Ms. Kelley. I am more than willing--NTEU is more than
    willing to talk about anything that would be added that would
    provide those kinds of things, Mr. Chairman. The concern,
    however, continues to be the inability to question or amend if
    all of those things that were important not just to employees
    but to the agency to be able to function and to the taxpayers
    who they are trying to serve. But I would be more than willing
    to look at anything you were willing----
        Chairman Tom Davis. That's a fair answer, and I think--I
    mean, one of the difficulties is that many times what has
    stymied the ability of administrations, both Republican and
    Democrat, to realign is Congress, is petty jurisdictional
    issues that, frankly, hold up much greater ways to save and be
    efficient and do things, and that's what we're trying to get
    at. This is not an effort to try to downsize and eliminate, and
    certainly on contracting out we could put safeguard language
    where you could use this authority if that's what you want to
    do. I don't have any problem with doing those kind of things.
    If that's the agenda then they ought to come up here
    separately. If you want to eliminate the Mohair Board or
    something, that's fine. They could come up here and do that and
    they would not--this procedure would not be usable for them.
        But when you start having all of the different child care
    agencies working under different authorities and try to
    consolidate that, you also shouldn't have to go through the
    House and the Senate and the jurisdictional issues that you
    reach with each subcommittee who doesn't want to lose a piece
    of it, too. And that's really the goal in trying to get at
    this.
        I know it is difficult to understand that at its face
    value, given the records of administrations, this one and other
    administrations in terms of their treatment of employees, and I
    understand that. I am sympathetic to you on those issues. But
    that's not my goal and I don't think it is the goal of Mr. Ink
    or Dr. Light, as we testified, but there are huge issues right
    now with an executive branch who we give--we give them a job to
    do, we give them programs--in terms of how they best align
    those programs.
        I'd also note that after we went through all of this with
    the Department of Homeland Security, neither one of your
    organizations were supportive of it at the end of the day. I
    think, from your perspective, there is an improved product. I
    think history will tell whether it was. I think we are going to
    be continuing--this is a--Homeland Security is, in my opinion,
    a continuing work in progress as we try to get it right and
    come back here, and it probably could have been done more
    efficiently, but on some of the employee rights issues that has
    got to be an underpinning to this whole issue. You've got to
    have appropriate safeguards or they can use another procedure.
    I think that's very clear.
        Mr. Roth. I agree with president Kelley. I also have a
    problem with the possibility of politicization if there is no
    ability to amend and you have a fast track. I am sympathetic
    and think that perhaps part of the reorganization authority
    should direct these proposals to one committee. That would deal
    with your problem that they go to, 30 to 40 committees because
    each one has a piece. I think we would support that part of the
    process.
        But let me give you an example. You had the BRAC process,
    which found that a number of DOD depots and facilities were
    under-utilized, and we realized that. There had to be a
    cutback. The cold war was over. They said to close McClellan,
    where we represented employees, close Kelly, and use the under-
    utilized capabilities at Hill, Warner-Robbins, and Tinker. And
    right on the eve of a Presidential election President Clinton
    decided Texas is an important State; California is an important
    State. He tried unsuccessfully to issue something called
    ``privatization in place,'' ignore the under-capabilities at
    these other facilities, and just privatize in place at Kelly to
    keep the jobs at Kelly and McClellan. That would have been in
    our interest short term to do but it was bad Government. It was
    bad for Government. Yet, under your proposal he could do
    something like that, a President could do that.
        Chairman Tom Davis. But he'd have to come back to the
    Congress to vote on it, and when you play that kind of
    politics, particularly in the Senate where each State gets two
    votes, it is unlikely to pass. That would be my counter-
    argument to that.
        Mr. Roth. Well, my counter to that would be that they could
    put four programs in a bill that clearly are absurd or
    duplicative, that the public would resent knowing that we get
    into, and yet four that are crucial, and you would not have an
    ability to amend. You would vote against it because it had four
    crucial programs, and then the President could campaign against
    you for not eliminating the Mohair subsidy, you know.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Well, you get that now. I mean, you
    have that now in a lot of these----
        Mr. Roth. It's not a good thing.
        Chairman Tom Davis. I mean, nothing is perfect in a
    democracy. Nothing is perfect procedurally. I think--where I
    come to a conclusion and maybe where I differ with you is I
    think it has gotten--that we are tripping over ourselves
    sometimes in Government with duplication. I don't think there
    is a lot of fraud and abuse, but there is a lot of waste in
    Government. And the tragedy is it is not on the part of your
    members.
        Mr. Roth. Absolutely not.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Your members are out there working
    hard, coming in Fridays, Saturday, staying late to get the job
    done, but they're working under rules that we write sometimes
    that don't make any sense, requirements that we put on them
    that shouldn't have to be there, and it's sometimes working
    under an agency matrix that doesn't--that could be operated a
    lot more efficiently where they would feel better about their
    jobs, we'd feel better about the product. And that's what we're
    trying to get at. I mean, it's not fair to them, either. You
    know, how do you get to that conclusion.
        Mr. Roth. I think we----
        Chairman Tom Davis. Let me just finish and then I'll let
    you respond.
        Mr. Roth. Sure. I apologize.
        Chairman Tom Davis. What we have found is when you go
    through the congressional process there are so many ways to
    kill these issues it becomes very, very--you know, almost an
    impossible job. We had not had a major reorganization since
    FEMA before the Homeland Security, and part of that is because
    we had lost the reorganization authority and administrations
    float little things up here and they get knocked down. They
    ought to have more authority.
        Now, what ought to be in that underlying authority, what
    are the protections, at least in my judgment that's where I
    come down.
        And we had Donna Shalala and Bill Bradley and a number of
    people who have taken leadership roles in previous Democratic
    administrations who agree with this conceptually. To them the
    issue comes down to what are the appropriate safeguards and the
    devil being in the details.
        So I'd like to pursue this on their bipartisan
    recommendations, and I think our goal here isn't to try to
    preserve jobs at the Federal level, but I don't think our goal
    ought to be to eliminate them, either. And if they want to talk
    about downsizing, we'll make them go a different route. That's
    not the purpose of this, to try to somehow use some end run to
    try to get rid of jobs, to try to lose employee rights and try
    to manipulate the Federal work force. I think that is a loser
    if that's what we try to do. But we don't need people doing--
    you know, five people doing the same kind of thing, trying to
    deliver the same kind of service running across each other.
    Experience has shown we have been singularly unsuccessful in
    eliminating those under the current Government formats that we
    have, and that's the purpose of it.
        I understand your concerns. I think it is very, very
    important that we take that into account as we construct this.
    And even if we end up with a product here that we don't like, I
    want to make sure that we understand every one of your concerns
    and try to address them along the way. You may institutionally
    not be able to support that for various reasons. I understand,
    Ms. Kelley, you don't like the tax cuts, and that you feel--
    institutionally. A lot of your members get dividends. Of the
    beneficiaries of the dividends, 50 percent make under $50,000--
    of the dividend tax cut. I'm in a District where 82 percent of
    my constituents are vested in the market. A lot of them are
    your members and your retirees. But we can have an honest--but
    that's not what this is about ultimately. This is ultimately
    about trying to make Government more efficient.
        I'm not trying to use--I think we will save money in the
    process, clearly, but, more importantly, I think that the
    people we're trying to deliver service to will get it delivered
    in a more timely fashion. That's our goal. So this is just the
    start of that dialog, but I want to be very clear, at least
    from my perspective and I think from the initiators of this
    perspective, that we want to try to bring as many adequate
    safeguards as we can to try to convince you what our goal is,
    and it is not to hurt you or your members.
        Ms. Kelley. If I could just add, Mr. Chairman----
        Chairman Tom Davis. Yes. Please.
        Ms. Kelley. I think--and there has been a lot of discussion
    about this today--that there are different kinds of
    reorganizations, and, while I am open to discussing anything
    and really to try to solve whatever the problems are, I have a
    hard time envisioning something the size of Homeland Security
    as a reorganization that could ever be on a fast track without
    the ability to question, debate, discuss, and amend. And then
    there are, of course, very small ones. If you're talking about
    moving 20 scientists from one agency to another, that's a very
    different kind. And then there are tons in the middle.
        Chairman Tom Davis. What if I told you I agreed with you?
    And if you look at previous----
        Ms. Kelley. I'd say that's great.
        Chairman Tom Davis. If you look at the previous
    reorganization authority, new Cabinet agencies were not subject
    to that. They would have to go a separate route. So I would
    agree with you on that.
        Ms. Kelley. Good.
        Chairman Tom Davis. If we could put that aside.
        Ms. Kelley. Great.
        Chairman Tom Davis. But there are a lot of little things in
    there--and, again, we just refer to the duplication over and
    over--that any executive ought to have the ability to come up
    here in a fairly quick manner, after consultation with
    Congress, to try to realign those responsibilities
    appropriately.
        Ms. Kelley. But that's the other point I'd just like to
    make on the issue of efficiencies. Within existing
    organizations, there are inefficiencies and things that could
    be done better and differently without----
        Chairman Tom Davis. Including this Congress.
        Ms. Kelley [continuing]. Reorganizing them.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Including Congress.
        Ms. Kelley. But in the 29 agencies. And we are missing huge
    opportunities within the existing agencies of tapping into the
    people who have a lot of information and ideas about how to do
    that, and that's the front line employees. And if we can't do
    it within the current structures, to then create larger
    structures where their voice will never be heard, the process
    will never work because it doesn't today. So I would like to
    also ask for help and support and emphasis on the agencies as
    they exist to build efficiencies into them.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Well, my experience as a county
    executive shows that--let me just make one other point. If you
    took a look at our allocations under the budget agreement, in
    my opinion the big savings are in contracting out, not that we
    save money in contracting out, which you do sometimes and you
    don't sometimes, but in the fact that many of these large-scale
    contracts have not been basically managed very well and we have
    wasted tens of billions of dollars. That's not going after
    Federal employees. In fact, as you know from my statements, I
    feel that we need a stronger in-house cadre in many cases to be
    able to keep these in house. Competitive sourcing shouldn't
    just be going from in to out, but we ought to be able to look
    at taking things in, but that also keeps the private sector
    honest, so to speak, or keeps them competitive, as well.
        I think that is all a part of this. I think there's a lot
    of savings in these areas. We're not just trying to pick on
    reorganization to do the bulk of this. In fact, I think that is
    a fairly small component of it, if that gives you a sense of
    what I'm thinking about.
        Mr. Ink.
        Mr. Ink. Mr. Chairman, I would argue that our goal ought
    not to be efficiency, anyway. I think it should be
    effectiveness. One of the problems with the A-76 out-sourcing
    is that it is driven almost exclusively by dollars. It doesn't
    take into account whether the operation is more or less
    effective, whether it is serving the public better or less
    good. I think we ought to have a broader concept of what we are
    after.
        Chairman Tom Davis. I think that is fair. I mean,
    efficiency is a piece of effectiveness.
        Mr. Ink. A piece of it. That's right.
        Chairman Tom Davis. But effectiveness is the bottom line.
        Mr. Ink. That's right.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Bottom line is the taxpayers that we
    take money out of their checks, Federal workers and non-
    Federal, whoever pays, they ought to be able to get their
    dollar's worth in a most effective manner, and the people that
    we're trying to serve ought to be served as effectively as
    possible.
        Mr. Ink. Unfortunately, with A-76 there's not even a good
    measure of the dollars.
        Chairman Tom Davis. You get no argument from anybody here.
        Mr. Ink. But the objective I think ought to be
    effectiveness, not efficiency.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Correct. All right. Thank you. Those
    are my--I think those are my questions at this point.
        Mr. Van Hollen, do you have any questions?
        Mr. Van Hollen. Just a comment. Again, thank you, Mr.
    Chairman, for holding these hearings. I guess--and I've looked
    through some of the testimony. I was away for a little part of
    it. Dr. Light, I'm afraid I missed part of your testimony. But
    as a new Member, you know, having watched the Homeland Security
    Department process from afar, it clearly indicated where there
    was a priority on the part of the administration and the
    Congress to get something done. You might not have agreed with
    the final result and the shape of the department, but where
    there was a will and a determination to do it, it got through
    the Congress, and it got through relatively quickly, given the
    kind of organization that we are creating, this huge
    organization.
        So it seems to me the burden is on those who want to change
    the system to come up with concrete examples of where an
    administration had made a determined effort, they said, ``This
    is really an important thing. We want to make this change,''
    and had failed to get it done. So I would be interested if you
    have some specific examples of where the system has really,
    really failed in terms of the--not necessarily the outcome, but
    the failure to give the issue the attention it deserves. I
    mean, there may be many cases where someone submitted a
    proposal where the Congress has looked at it and said, you
    know, ``We disagree.''
        The suggestion here is that it gets just bogged down in
    committees and there is no action, not because there is
    disagreement or agreement but just because nothing happens, so
    I would be very interested in sort of specific examples of
    where an administration had said, ``We think this is important.
    The Congress just hadn't moved at all.''
        Mr. Ink. I would be happy to provide a couple of examples.
        Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you.
        Mr. Light. It is nice to see you up there. I'm one of your
    constituents.
        Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Light. We could have a cup of coffee somewhere in the
    District.
        Mr. Van Hollen. I'd like to do that.
        Mr. Light. I think the examples given by my colleague from
    AFGE about DFAS and Defense Logistics and all the savings and
    achievements of DOD are intimately linked to the development of
    a fast track methodology for closing bases. It just was
    something that, even as an Article I person, you know, I've
    worked in both chambers--that you just were never going to get
    those bases closed through the ordinary legislative process. It
    just was rife with District and State interest.
        So I'm not saying that we're headed toward a Defense base-
    closing kind of mechanism here. That's not what this
    reorganization authority would provide the President. You'd
    have to go some length in addition to that to get that kind of
    a restructuring kind of proposal through, as envisioned, for
    example, by the Government in the 21st Century Act that Senator
    Thompson had introduced over the last few Congresses.
        But we could give you plenty of examples of things that
    didn't get approved or where Congress said, ``No way. We're not
    going to do what you're suggesting.'' And I think that you have
    that capacity here.
        Mr. Van Hollen. Right. Well, I would be interested in that.
    In the base closures, you know, the administrations--past
    administrations, Democrat and Republican, had come up with a
    list and said, you know, ``We'd like to close these.''
    Congress, for the reasons you said, said no. I'm not aware
    anywhere of, for example, this administration with that kind of
    list of changes that it wants to make to the Federal Government
    that we're sitting on down there. I mean, I'm sure there are a
    few minor ones, but in terms of things that really change the
    effectiveness and the delivery of services, I'm just not aware
    of anything the administration is--this administration has said
    that, ``This is a priority, we want to get it done'' that
    Congress is not moving on. And so it seems to me, before we
    change the process, we need to be really persuaded that it is
    broken, and I'm just looking for the evidence.
        Mr. Light. Good.
        Mr. Shays [assuming Chair]. Thank you.
        The Chair would be happy to recognize Mr. Cummings.
        Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any questions.
        Mr. Shays. Let me say that this is a ``twofer'' for me,
    because yesterday I had someone from the Sterns School, where I
    went to get my graduate degree, and now I have someone from the
    Wagner school, where I got my other graduate degree.
        If my colleague doesn't want to have coffee with you, I
    would be happy to.
        Mr. Light. Very nice.
        Mr. Shays. To me it seems like this kind of classic debate,
    so I understand and appreciate where those who are representing
    Federal employees would be coming from. You don't want
    something done arbitrarily. You have your members you are
    concerned with. And then the other side of it is that we do
    know that any organization needs to be reorganized, and it
    needs to happen more often now than in the past, and we have a
    group of incredible people who are involved with the 21st
    century, including people like Donna Shalala and Senator
    Bradley I think was part of it, and recommendation three was
    that the President should be given expedited authority to
    recommend structural reorganization of Federal agencies and
    departments. I mean, they were looking at the Government, and
    that's what they said.
        Then, when Donna Shalala was here, she said this is the
    most important but it is going to be the most difficult. Now,
    she said some other things. She said there should be less
    political appointees and more professionals. There needs to be
    more continuity. I haven't yet asked my question because I just
    want to say, based on the 9-years that I have been chairing a
    committee and a subcommittee, one of the things that is so
    clear to me is the fact that we don't use our employees well
    enough, and the other is that we have a lot of waste that we
    shouldn't have.
        I'd like both you, Ms. Kelley, and Mr. Roth to respond to
    the recommendation of the ``Urgent Business for America:
    Revitalizing the Federal Government for the 21st Century,'' the
    report of the National Commission on the Public Service. Would
    you tell me--they think it is the most important item. Do you
    agree with them? And is it just a matter of process? Or don't
    you not even agree?
        Ms. Kelley. I do not agree that that is the most important
    issue facing the Federal Government. I believe it is finding a
    way to recruit and retain the Federal work force that we have
    today and that we need for tomorrow, and that Federal pay is
    the No. 1 priority that is stopping that from happening. Last
    year I would have said it was No. 1 alone. Today I say it is
    tied with the threat of privatization of the work that Federal
    employees do, which is serving as a major deterrent to those
    who are considering a Federal career, wondering whether or not
    their position will even be done by a Federal employee next
    year or the year after it, and whether or not they can afford
    to raise a family and to have a lifestyle that they work very
    hard for in the county or the State or the city that they work
    when Federal pay is so far below what their counterparts are in
    the private sector. So I think those are the two most important
    issues facing the Federal agencies.
        Mr. Shays. Thank you, Ms. Kelley.
        Mr. Roth. I would agree with that. The human capital crisis
    and the insufficient pay are problems. I think the management
    systems are ineffectual and employees have no faith in the
    management systems. That has been proven out by a recent study
    by OPM that finds that people like their jobs but have no
    confidence in their supervision, yet these highest-level
    executives keep getting bonuses as their agencies are
    demonstrated to be failing. There's something off there.
        What I would want to finally add is the revitalization of
    labor/management partnership. For whatever reason, within a
    month of his Presidency, President Bush came in and rescinded
    labor/management partnership. Maybe it was too tied to the
    Clinton administration, but to the Unions it was not partisan.
        I'll just hold up an example, an award-winning partnership.
    One VA medical center saved $2,300,000. They are being honored
    this year. I could give you probably hundreds of examples where
    labor/management partnerships tackled massive overtime
    problems--Rock Island Army Base--that management, alone, could
    not deal with. Employees came in, redesigned their own
    schedules through partnership work teams, and there was then no
    more overtime, after previously having thousands of hours of
    overtime. At the Mint they saved millions of dollars by
    changing how they do work. This is in agency after agency.
        To their credit, the VA has been probably one of the best
    examples of an agency that has listened to front-line workers.
    I never thought they would. I thought they were the most
    pathetic agency in the 1970's and 1980's. I have been around
    that long, unfortunately. But in the 1990's they started having
    labor/management partnership councils, and in VA medical center
    after medical center they either integrated functions or they
    closed some hospitals, but it was all done in partnership.
    People didn't have to lose their jobs. Their talents were used
    in other ways. But they saved money, they cut down on patient
    waiting time. They totally revitalized the VA by any objective
    measure. They went to 22 VIZNS after they had hundreds of
    medical centers having independent authority. They were all----
        Mr. Shays. Ms. Kelley is beginning to think that maybe she
    should have taken more time to also talk about the all the
    great things that her folks are doing.
        Mr. Roth. And they have. They have done great things at IRS
    and Customs.
        Mr. Shays. So, for the record----
        Mr. Roth. I'll yield back to her, too, but I wanted to give
    you concrete examples----
        Mr. Shays. You don't control the time.
        Mr. Roth. I wanted to give you concrete examples----
        Mr. Shays. Yes, I hear you.
        Mr. Roth [continuing]. Of what we do every day.
        Mr. Shays. Let me just tell you, I----
        Mr. Roth. And we want to do more.
        Mr. Shays. I was trying to make Ms. Kelley smile, and she
    did, so for the record we'll note that. And just to say that I
    will tell you in my schooling theoretically the system is
    supposed to work that way, that we're supposed to involve the
    workers and management and you ultimately come up with the best
    decisions. The sad thing is, because there is such a lack of
    trust of the administration, a good concept that I think is a
    good concept--that any President should have the power to
    reorganize--and I think subject to what was done after the law,
    the court case where there was basically--had to be a
    concurrence of both the House and Senate, but an up or down,
    not being able to micro-manage the bill to me is just a
    tremendous powerful tool for a President and Congress, with the
    protection to employees that Congress can simply vote it down.
        But I understand, given the track record of the
    administration, that you don't even want to go down that road,
    but unfortunately, in terms of theory, it's supposed to work
    quite well that way.
        I'd love, Mr. Ink, for you and then Dr. Light for you to
    comment on anything I said in opening, or Ms. Kelley or Mr.
    Roth. Is this a classic kind of debate that takes place between
    labor and those who want to provide for some executive
    authority?
        Mr. Ink. No. It is today, but that's not been true in
    earlier times.
        Mr. Shays. What happened in earlier times?
        Mr. Ink. Well, when I was involved we had a very good
    relationship with the Unions, and, as a matter of fact, in the
    reorganizations that I have been associated with or in charge
    of, I always had the Union member representative as a member of
    my steering group.
        Mr. Shays. But they always knew, didn't they, that you had
    the authority to do the reorganization?
        Mr. Ink. What's that?
        Mr. Shays. They always knew you had the authority to do the
    reorganization.
        Mr. Ink. Yes.
        Mr. Shays. And that's a particular powerful tool.
        Mr. Ink. Yes.
        Mr. Shays. If you didn't have that authority, you might not
    have them at the table.
        Mr. Ink. Well, if we hadn't had the authority a number of
    these would have never emerged. I mentioned the Environmental
    Protection Agency.
        Mr. Shays. Right.
        Mr. Ink. There was tremendous concern across this country
    about the need for some kind of--for greater emphasis, greater
    attention, greater priority to environmental problems, but
    there are so many different interest groups that it was very,
    very difficult to even develop a piece of legislation that
    could be introduced, much less get a vote on it. And both the
    Republicans and Democrat leadership agreed it was impossible,
    but through the reorganization authority we were able to
    develop a compromise before the bill ever came up to Congress.
    We had extensive consultations with the different interest
    groups, with the Unions, and with the leadership, both
    Republican and Democrat, on the Hill. So when we came forward
    with the bill not everyone had agreed, but we had a
    surprisingly broad consensus and we were able to set up an
    Environmental Protection Agency which was certainly in the
    interest of the public.
        The same thing was true with the Consumer Product Safety
    Commission. So many different interest groups, but through the
    reorganization authority we were able to do what we could not
    have done through the regular legislation, and this is in the
    interest of the public.
        And I think we have to keep in mind that, important as we
    feel we are in the Government, it is the public that we serve
    and that should be our final and most important objective.
        Mr. Shays. Dr. Light, thank you for your patience.
        Mr. Light. You and I first met over in the House when I
    came with Mondale and Nancy Kassebaum Baker to talk about
    campaign finance reform when I was at Pugh, and all of our work
    at Pugh on campaign finance reform was driven by empirical
    research. I agree with organized labor on the vast majority of
    issues concerning the Federal work force. My main concern about
    recruitment right now is that I don't think it is a money issue
    primarily. I think it is partly about the money, but when we
    talk to young Americans about the choice between going
    nonprofit, where the vast majority of the Wagner School
    students go, at a much lower pay than they could have gotten in
    the Federal Government--to get a Wagner student to try for
    PMI--and we've got one this year, one Wagner student who is
    taking a PMI--Presidential management internship. When we talk
    to them about why they aren't interested in the Federal
    Government, the answer is it's the jobs. They don't want to be
    in these over-stacked, densely layered agencies where they
    cannot make a difference through their work. That's where I
    think organized labor and I are in agreement about de-layering
    these agencies and pushing authority and resources down to the
    bottom where employees want to make a difference. They just
    can't, given the thicket of obstacles that they face.
        For the young people that I deal with, it is not ``Show me
    the money,'' it's ``Show me the job.'' And reorganization
    authority is one tool in improving the attractiveness of
    Federal employment. It cannot be a tool that is abused, and I'm
    afraid that both Democratic Presidents and Republican
    Presidents over the last 12 years have given Federal employees
    and potential employees lots of reasons to worry about who
    their bosses are. But, you know, properly circumscribed,
    properly limited through potent and robust conversation with
    labor and others, I think that reorganization authority could
    be part of a tool kit for making the jobs much more attractive
    to all our students.
        How we got you into politics is a good instructive case as
    to what we need to do with our other publicly oriented
    students.
        Mr. Shays. I don't want you getting all your students
    running against me now. That's not----
        Mr. Light. We'll keep them in other Districts. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Shays. You know, I am so proud of the Federal
    employees. I notice that when I want to go home at 6 p.m., the
    roads are full. It is hard to leave. People come early and they
    stay late. I would hope--I would just tell you I hope we can
    find a solution to this. It would be I think a huge
    accomplishment for this committee to do something that hasn't
    been reauthorized since 1984. It is the right thing to do. The
    question is how do we do it. And if anyone can do it, it would
    be this chairman working with other members of this committee
    who live in the area, who you have coffee with sometimes, and
    others who obviously are going to make sure that Federal
    employees are not overlooked in this process. So I think in a
    sense it will be a test of this committee of how we involve
    your organizations and others in accomplishing this, but it
    really needs to happen. I think we'll just have to figure out
    how we provide some protections, how we have a process that
    involves the workers even in the legislation.
        I don't have any further comments. I would be happy to--is
    there anything that you might have stayed up last night
    thinking about that you wanted to put on the record? Usually
    those are the best comments, frankly. Is there anything before
    we close that you want to put on the record?
        Mr. Roth. I wanted to--I don't know if you were here for
    Mr. Ink's testimony. He mentioned in the previous
    reorganization acts there were specific labor protections and
    bargaining unit certification continuation provisions.
    Obviously, that takes a lot of concern off the mind of the
    union when you look at what happened at Homeland Security, and
    when you look at what happened at Transportation Security
    Administration where employees are basically at will, which I
    think will probably come back to haunt the Congress and TSA.
    The fact that Mr. Ink had the labor protections and the built-
    in process of labor union involvement was probably a key to
    success.
        That's all I had to say.
        Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Roth.
        Ms. Kelley, any comment?
        Ms. Kelley. No, thank you.
        Mr. Shays. Dr. Light.
        Mr. Light. None.
        Mr. Shays. Mr. Ink, any?
        Mr. Ink. Only this: The legislation I think is important. I
    give it strong support. But by itself it won't accomplish much
    and we do have to find ways of redeveloping a sense of trust
    which does not exist today. This is not just trust between
    labor and management, but trust between the executive branch
    and the Congress. This consultation is absolutely essential.
    And to think that you have to rely upon amendments after it has
    come up before Congress I think is a mistake because we need to
    find ways to reach agreement, we need to find ways to find
    common ground before the legislation even comes forward.
        In some instances, we won't be able to do that, but in most
    instances, at least it has been my experience--and I've
    represented the President in a number of these cases--in most
    instances it has been possible, provided we had a willingness
    in the executive branch to really consult genuinely with the
    Congress, and the Congress would approach it from a bipartisan
    vantage point.
        Mr. Shays. Thank you. I think that's a nice way to close.
        There are no more questions, so I would just say that the
    record will remain open for 2 weeks so that the witnesses may
    insert any additional information they wish into the record.
        I'd like to thank everyone for attending. I know the
    chairman wanted to convey the fact that he thinks this has been
    a very pro-
    ductive hearing. You know him well enough to know that he will
    be working with you to see where common ground can be had so
    that we can move forward with this legislation.
        I thank you all very much. With that, the hearing is
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:12 p.m, the committee was adjourned, to
    reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

                                       -