[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.]
-