[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PASSING THE BATON: PREPARING FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,
ORGANIZATION, AND PROCUREMENT
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 24, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-154
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.oversight.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
49-494 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York TOM DAVIS, Virginia
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania DAN BURTON, Indiana
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio JOHN L. MICA, Florida
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri CHRIS CANNON, Utah
DIANE E. WATSON, California JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York DARRELL E. ISSA, California
JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky KENNY MARCHANT, Texas
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
Columbia VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
JIM COOPER, Tennessee BILL SALI, Idaho
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland JIM JORDAN, Ohio
PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
PETER WELCH, Vermont
JACKIE SPEIER, California
Phil Schiliro, Chief of Staff
Phil Barnett, Staff Director
Earley Green, Chief Clerk
David Marin, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Government Management, Organization, and Procurement
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania,
PETER WELCH, Vermont JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
Michael McCarthy, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 24, 2008............................... 1
Statement of:
Johnson, Clay, Deputy Director for Management, Office of
Management and Budget; Gene L. Dodaro, Acting Comptroller
General of the United States, Government Accountability
Office; and Gail Lovelace, Chief Human Capital Officer,
General Services Administration............................ 6
Dodaro, Gene L........................................... 20
Johnson, Clay............................................ 6
Lovelace, Gail........................................... 48
Kumar, Martha, professor, Department of Political Science,
Towson University; Doris Hausser, panel member for the
Department of Homeland Security President Transition Study,
the National Academy of Public Administration; Don Kettl,
professor, FELS Institute of Government, University of
Pennsylvania; and Patricia McGinnis, president and CEO, the
Council for Excellence in Government....................... 68
Hausser, Doris........................................... 77
Kettl, Don............................................... 249
Kumar, Martha............................................ 68
McGinnis, Patricia....................................... 214
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Dodaro, Gene L., Acting Comptroller General of the United
States, Government Accountability Office, prepared
statement of............................................... 22
Hausser, Doris, panel member for the Department of Homeland
Security President Transition Study, the National Academy
of Public Administration:
Prepared statement of.................................... 208
Report entitled, ``Addressing the 2009 Presidential
Transition at the Department of Homeland Security,''... 78
Johnson, Clay, Deputy Director for Management, Office of
Management and Budget, prepared statement of............... 8
Kettl, Don, professor, FELS Institute of Government,
University of Pennsylvania, prepared statement of.......... 251
Kumar, Martha, professor, Department of Political Science,
Towson University, prepared statement of................... 72
Lovelace, Gail, Chief Human Capital Officer, General Services
Administration, prepared statement of...................... 50
McGinnis, Patricia, president and CEO, the Council for
Excellence in Government, prepared statement of............ 217
Towns, Hon. Edolphus, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York, prepared statement of................... 3
PASSING THE BATON: PREPARING FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2008
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Government Management,
Organization, and Procurement,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:16 p.m., in
room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edolphus Towns
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Towns, Bilbray, and Platts.
Staff present: Mike McCarthy, staff director; Jason Powell,
counsel; Bill Jusino, professional staff member; Robert
Burdsal, detailee; Kwane Drabo, clerk; and Mark Marin, minority
professional staff member.
Mr. Towns. The committee will come to order.
Welcome to today's oversight hearing on the upcoming
Presidential transition. Today we will examine a huge
management challenge that we face between now and January 20:
the Presidential transition.
Last month, we watched our U.S. track athletes compete in
the Olympics in Beijing. You may remember that both the men's
and women's sprint relays didn't even make the finals, because
they dropped the baton passing from one runner to another. It
showed us that as talented and as hard-working as those
athletes are, without working together, all may be lost. I hope
the current administration and the new administration keep this
example in mind and make sure that the hand-off of government
is not fumbled or dropped.
I will be candid with you. I want Barack Obama to be the
next President. That's on the side. I know my friend
Congressman Bilbray wants John McCain to be the next President.
But that is not what today's hearing is about. It is about
making sure that the government isn't in limbo for any period
of time, because the challenges we face will not take a break
while things are getting organized.
This transition will have unique challenges. Much has
changed since the last transition 8 years ago. Congress is
working on a plan that would give the Secretary of the Treasury
a huge amount of additional authority, $700 billion--that's
``b'' as in boy--to bail out Wall Street and to fix the largest
financial failure we have seen since the Great Depression.
I'm skeptical about this plan, but it is clear that the
next President and his Treasury Secretary are going to have to
clean up this mess. The candidates have to start working on
that right away--right now, by following the situation closely
and by finding the most qualified person possible to be the
Treasury secretary on January 20. It might even be a good idea
for each candidate's economic advisers to sit in on discussions
with Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke and Secretary Paulson to
make sure that they will be completely ready to take the lead
next year. That isn't presumptuous. It's good leadership.
Another concern I have is a problem that has come up
before, where political appointees seek career positions to
``burrow into'' the executive branch. These career positions
are supposed to be open to the public. They are based on merit.
If a political appointee is the person most qualified for the
position, then so be it. But we will not allow members of the
current administration to use their position to get jobs they
do not deserve and stick around into the next administration.
I would like to thank Ranking Member Bilbray, who has been
working very closely with me over the years on so many issues
in terms of this committee. I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses who can tell us a lot about what exactly needs to
happen in the next few months for the most effective transition
possible.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Edolphus Towns follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Towns. Of course, what I would like to do now is to
swear in the witnesses. We always swear in our witnesses here.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Towns. Let the record reflect that all the witnesses
answered in the affirmative.
You may be seated.
Let me introduce our witnesses. Mr. Clay Johnson is Deputy
Director of Management with the Office of Management and
Budget. Welcome. He was the Executive Director of the 2000
Presidential transition and has a lot of experience with
transitions.
Mr. Gene Dodaro is the Acting Comptroller General of the
United States and the head of the Government Accountability
Office, Congress' investigative and auditing agency. We welcome
you as well.
And Ms. Gail Lovelace is the Chief Human Capital Officer of
the General Services Administration, the Federal Government's
main support agency and is leading GSA's transition planning.
We welcome you, as well.
I would ask the witnesses to summarize their testimony in 5
minutes. The procedure is when you start out the light is on
green; and when it gets to the final minute, it becomes yellow,
caution; and then at the end it's red. Red means stop. Now, we
have had some witnesses here that did not know what red meant.
So why don't we start with you, Mr. Johnson.
STATEMENTS OF CLAY JOHNSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT,
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET; GENE L. DODARO, ACTING
COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; AND GAIL LOVELACE, CHIEF HUMAN CAPITAL
OFFICER, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
STATEMENT OF CLAY JOHNSON
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
this hearing.
Let me just make a few brief remarks here at the beginning.
A lot of effort is being expended, a lot of intelligence
being applied to make sure that the things you are concerned
about don't happen. There are really two related transition
preparation activities going on. One of them involves the White
House; and they are working with both candidates, the
transition teams, to do everything we know how to do to
prepare, to advise both candidates to do the work they need to
do now and then during the transition to put their team on the
field faster than anybody previously thought possible.
Neither candidate is pretending like they aren't prepared
to govern. They understand they need to be working on it now,
and my understanding is that they are working diligently on it.
And the White House is reaching out and working equally with
both candidates, which I think might be a first, that the
incoming--I mean, that the outgoing administration is working
with both candidates of the major parties.
The second thing which Gail Lovelace and I are involved in
heading up is we want--this is working with agencies to ensure
that the continuity of public services during the transition is
consistent as if there is no transfer of leadership taking
place. Our definition of success is that a customer of Labor or
a citizen dealing with Homeland Security, whatever, should not
recognize or should not be getting any different level of
service during the transition than they had when all the
political leaders were there in the previous administration and
when all the political leaders will be there in the new
administration.
So we had, for instance, a 3, 2\1/2\ hour meeting today
with the career, senior transition leads for every agency. I'm
sure it's the first of what will be many meetings to talk about
our goals, answer questions, plan on future activities, be
really specific about the kind of input they need and so forth.
With that goal in mind and that services will not be
interrupted, the solution for that for the Treasury Department
is going to be different than the solution to that for Homeland
Security, which is going to be different for the solution for
that for the Department of Agriculture. But the goal remains
the same, which is if we're implementing some new program run
by the Treasury Department, we needed to find this fall what
that involves, what the outgoing and incoming administrations
need to do aggressively and intelligently with each other and
that the necessary preparation is made and the necessary
interaction during the transition period takes place and that
no balls are dropped, no baton is dropped.
I'm highly confident that's going to happen, because I have
every reason to believe that both candidates' transition
activities are very results oriented. They know how serious
this is. They know how the risk of dropping the baton during
the transition is very real. And I know this outgoing
administration from firsthand experience is equally results
oriented and committed to doing this. So I'm highly confident
that this baton is going to get passed. And, again, the way it
gets passed successfully, Treasury, Homeland Security,
whatever, it's going to be different, but it will get passed,
as we say, seamlessly so it will not be even noticed by the
customer.
So, with that, thank you again for having the hearing; and
I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Towns. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Towns. Mr. Dodaro.
STATEMENT OF GENE L. DODARO
Mr. Dodaro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon to you, Congressman Bilbray, Congressman
Platts. I'm pleased to be here to talk about GAO's efforts and
plans to assist the upcoming transitions.
As you well know, GAO has a long tradition and experience
in providing assistance to each new Congress, and we have
efforts under way to do that for the 111th Congress. But GAO is
also cited in the Presidential Transition Act specifically as a
reference, a source that new administrations are encouraged to
come to to learn about their upcoming management challenges and
risk as they make the leap from campaigning to governing.
Now, our transition work has several key objectives. One,
we want to provide insight into pressing national issues that
the incoming administration will need to deal with from day
one. These include the oversight of financial markets and
institutions, a range of national security and homeland
security areas to include U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Second, we want to underscore the range of challenges that
a new administration will face in establishing partnerships
with State and local governments, nonprofits, the private
sector to deal with issues that need innovative, integrated
solutions, such as financing our Nation's surface
transportation system. We saw examples of that this year in
shortfalls in the highway trust fund activities. Also, critical
infrastructure protection, a national response plan and other
issues.
Third, we want to point out targeted opportunities to
reduce waste and to conserve resources that could be applied to
new priorities. There is over $55 billion in improper payments
that are being made in a range of Federal programs. The Defense
Department weapons systems have had cost overruns of our last
estimate of $295 billion. There's a $290 billion tax gap. These
are all areas where I think there are opportunities; and we're
certainly, given the long-term fiscal outlook of the Federal
Government and some of the pressing short-term needs, are going
to need attention and could free up resources to help in some
of these other areas.
Fourth, there is a real capacity challenge in all the
departments and agencies that's really going to need to be met
and if not confronted directly is going to affect
implementation of any policy initiatives a new administration
will try to put in place. They are going to need to pick senior
leaders as part of the management team. They have experience
running large enterprises and achieving results across the
Federal Government. The Federal Government has become more
dependent on contractors, and it's very important to get a
handle quickly on the contracts that are under way and also to
build the capacity to better oversee and manage those
contractors going forward.
Also, one-third of the Federal Government's work force will
be eligible to retire on this next administration's watch, so
there's a succession planning challenge there as well as
getting the new team to be implemented going forward.
Last, we also believe it's very important for the new
administration to build on some of the successes and efforts
that have been established by Clay Johnson, OMB, and this
administration on the high-risk programs and lists that GAO
lists every year for the Congress that are in need of
transformation and are fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement.
GAO's high-risk list, which we update with every new Congress,
has really provided the foundation for the management
improvement agendas of both the recent Bush administration and
the Clinton administration before then; and we think that some
solid foundations have been laid to make progress and that we
think it's very important for that progress to continue to
yield results.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, with two wars ongoing, with a
first transition for the new Department of Homeland Security,
with turmoil in our financial markets, this is shaping up to be
no ordinary transition effort; and GAO stands ready to help
returning policymakers as well as new ones deal with all the
challenges facing our Federal Government. So I will be happy to
answer questions later.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dodaro follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Towns. Ms. Lovelace.
STATEMENT OF GAIL LOVELACE
Ms. Lovelace. Good afternoon, Chairman Towns, Congressman
Bilbray and Congressman Platts. Thank you for the opportunity
to appear before you on behalf of the General Services
Administration.
Presidential transition is the top priority for GSA as
stated by our Acting Administrator, Mr. Jim Williams, during
his confirmation hearing. Jim has made it quite clear to all of
us at GSA that we will be and are fully committed to a
successful and smooth transition from the current
administration to the next.
I believe that the transition is an exciting time for us in
the government. I'm honored to be able to play a role in
ensuring a smooth transition as envisioned by Presidential
Transition Act of 1963.
At GSA, we deliver superior workplaces, quality acquisition
services, and expert business solutions to our Federal
customers. Our responsibility during Presidential transition is
to provide many of those same services to the President-elect,
Vice President-elect and members of the Presidential transition
team.
We started early and have good teams in place. We have
secured space in Washington, DC, for the Presidential
transition team and are currently well positioned to provide
furniture, parking, office equipment, supplies,
telecommunications, mail management, travel, financial
management, vehicles, information technology, human resources
management, contracting, and other logistical support as
necessary and appropriate.
We are partnering with the Secret Service and the Federal
Protective Service, both part of the Department of Homeland
Security, as they provide security for the President-elect and
Vice President-elect. We recognize that a transition can be
perceived as a time of vulnerability for our country, and we
have identified alternate locations and workplace solutions for
the Presidential transition team in the event of an emergency.
GSA provides space, services and logistical support to the
Presidential Inaugural Committee and the teams that plan and
stage the various events that make up the Presidential
inauguration. GSA provides similar logistical support services
to President Bush and to Vice President Cheney to help them
establish their offices when they depart the White House. GSA
assists in establishing the former President's office, as we do
for all former Presidents.
The Presidential Transition Act of 2000 expanded our role
in transitions specifically in two areas: We now prepare a
transition directory in conjunction with the National Archives
and Records Administration, and we assist the incoming
administration with appointee orientation.
The President's fiscal year 2009 budget requested $8.5
million to support Presidential transition. In the event of a
continuing resolution, GSA will need to make sure that funds
are available for obligation by the incoming administration.
This will require a special provision in the continuing
resolution.
Looking inside Federal agencies, I've had the pleasure of
meeting with many agencies individually and in groups to
explain GSA's unique role with them and to share some ideas
about getting ready. We've created a special Web site, a
section on our Web site, to share information about transition.
As Clay mentioned, just this morning we held a meeting with
agency transition directors. This session reinforced transition
guidance that was recently issued by the executive office of
the President.
Like all other agencies, GSA is diligently working to
ensure a smooth transition within our agency. We have created
teams and empowered them to ensure that we have a successful
transition as well. As an agency, I believe we are well
positioned to do our part to ensure a smooth transition.
In closing, Chairman Towns and members of the subcommittee,
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to address you
this afternoon; and I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lovelace follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Towns. Let me thank all of you for your testimony.
I'd just like to deviate for a moment and allow opening
statements.
Ranking Member Mr. Bilbray.
Mr. Bilbray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it, and
I will ask unanimous consent to introduce a written statement
in my opening statement.
Mr. Towns. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Bilbray. And, let me just paraphrase. As somebody who
has done transitions in many different ways, from when I was a
young mayor in my 20's to chairman of a county of 3 million,
the transition from one administration to the other is very
important; and I think sometimes we forget that there's a trust
and a responsibility given to us by the voters in every
administration, be it a Member of Congress, be it some--a long-
haired mayor in a beach community or if it be a chairman of a
county of--larger than 20 States in the Union.
The responsibility does not end when someone else is
elected. The responsibility continues to the last moment when
the baton is passed, as this hearing has pointed out.
We are an example, Mr. Chairman, of how not to do it; and I
will say that regardless of my party affiliation. I think
everybody agrees that if we really look back at what happened 8
years ago, that is an example of how not to have a transition,
when we saw the kind of abuses and the problems we had with the
White House. There was equipment--questions about where it
went, damage, records missing, and everything else.
And, I say that with no happy heart. I just remember this
happening; and it was a time that I was doing transition and
turning over my office to another Member of Congress, a new
Member of Congress. This is personal for me. I've had the
displeasure of taking over an office from a Member of Congress
who basically used the last days of her administrative--her
time in office to trash everything so that it was the worst
possible, in violation of the oath of serving and protecting
the people under the guidance of the Constitution.
And, one of things I said to my staff when I lost the
election in 2000 was we're going to do just the opposite of our
predecessors. We're going to show our predecessor exactly how
somebody is responsible. And I hope, I hope, that is the kind
of attitude that this administration takes in the transition,
of setting an example of how it should be done. Because, to be
very blunt, I think we've had an example of how it shouldn't be
done; and, hopefully, that will be a challenge that Republicans
and Democrats can work together in this next transition.
So I appreciate the chance to be here today, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much.
I now yield to Congressman Platts.
Mr. Platts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have no opening statement other than to thank the
witnesses for being here but, most importantly, for the work
you're doing to ensure we do have that type of transition that
the ranking member just discussed. Thank you.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much.
Let me begin with the questions.
Let me start with you, Ms. Lovelace. What services do you
believe will be the most important for the incoming
administration?
Ms. Lovelace. As we work with both campaigns, we're working
through to make sure that we are providing them all of the
services that they need so that when they walk through the
door, hopefully, the day after election, they are ready to
begin their work immediately. So I believe it is the whole
suite of services that we provide.
The IT, of course, will be important. The furniture--I
mean, it sounds rather trivial, but ensuring that they have
everything they need as they walk through the door. I think
it's the whole suite of services that we provide that will be
credible.
Mr. Towns. Mr. Johnson, let me go to you with the same
question.
Mr. Johnson. I agree with what Gail says. The transition is
such an intense time that if the environment is something you
don't notice, if it's just there, the things you need, the
space, the lights, the paper, the computers, the phones or
whatever are there, then you can deal with the intensity and
deal with what you've been planning to deal with without being
distracted by no lights, no air conditioning, whatever. And so,
it's that everything works but yet you don't pay attention to
the fact that it works because you're so focused on everything
else. I think that's probably the definition of success for
GSA, and I'll bet you they'll do a good job of it.
Mr. Towns. Right. Let me ask, now, these political
appointees, as it comes to the end, they now take jobs in an
administration. Is anybody looking at this? Because, I'm
concerned about it. Because, I think that if a person is highly
qualified and it should be based on merits, rather than
political ties or political connections for the next
administration to have to deal with. Is anybody looking at
this? Because, it happens all the time.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. I think it was in June or July that
then the head of OPM, Linda Springer, put out some very
comprehensive guidance on transition-related personnel matters;
and one of them was the potential that you raised of political
appointees burrowing in. So, what she defined is all the
transition-related matters that the chief human capital
community has to deal with, and so defined it very clearly,
what's permitted, what's not, what laws allow, what laws don't
allow. And so, the chief human capital community is intently
focusing on getting the Federal Government to adhere and abide
by those policies, just like the CFO Council is working on what
their transition-related challenges are and the CIO Council and
so forth.
So, it's been raised as an issue, as something that's
particularly sensitive during a transition; and it's something
that's going to be actively managed. So, yes, people are paying
attention to it.
Mr. Towns. Mr. Dodaro.
Mr. Dodaro. Mr. Chairman, if I might add, GAO, as it has
been for the past 20 years during transitions, asked to monitor
this conversion process across the Federal Government's
activity. So we have efforts under way to do this.
During the 2001-2005 timeframe when we last looked at this,
there were about 130 positions that we questioned--we reviewed
that--where transitions had occurred. About 18 we had some
questions, and we referred them all to OPM. They followed up
and took appropriate action. So we're on the case again this
time at the request of Congress, and we'll be looking at that
process as well.
Mr. Towns. Mr. Johnson, you offered many general
suggestions for what the incoming administration should do to
prepare to govern, but what specifically should they do to
prepare to take on the financial crisis?
Mr. Johnson. Well, I think I--the primary message I tried
to deliver in that article, that I was asked to write was you
have to have really clear goals about what you want to
accomplish in a transition. So my answer is sort of an offshoot
of that.
If the goal is, as I suggested it should be, that the
outgoing administration and the incoming administration manage
the transition at Treasury such that the American people, on
all that's being debated within Congress now, never----
Mr. Bilbray. Or not debated.
Mr. Johnson. Or not debated. Never see--never get a sense
that leadership is changing hands. That what needs to be taking
place at the Treasury Department, Agriculture Department,
Homeland Security, whatever, at the border, whatever, there
will be no apparent change in political leadership taking place
where the work is being done.
So, what I'm confident is going to happen--I don't know
what the specific answer is for the Treasury Department,
because, first of all, what has to be done hasn't been defined.
But I'm confident, as purposeful and results oriented as I
understand both candidates are, whoever is elected to be
President and this outgoing administration are going to clearly
define what it means to be implementing what's been agreed to
or not implementing what isn't agreed to and decide who needs
to be brought up to what level of expertise and knowledge by
what date. And, they'll decide who needs to be sitting in on
what meetings and how quickly the--isn't the Secretary of the
Treasury the first one that has to be confirmed, etc., and that
will all get done.
But it will all be driven by the commitment to the goal,
which is that the most important things that have to happen in
the Federal Government--and the one you talked about will be
one of the most important if something is agreed to--is
addressed and that the new administration is fully prepared and
the outgoing administration is doing all the things they can do
to get them up to speed, prepared to take that baton and pass--
not drop it.
Mr. Towns. Right.
I yield to the ranking member, Mr. Bilbray. Thank you.
Mr. Bilbray. Let's keep on my ranting and raving and say
this: What are we doing to try to avoid the problem we had 8
years ago and what can we do with the executive basically going
in transition? Is it something that we're going to need law
enforcement into, of watching, and basically try to warn
administrative members that they will be held accountable, if
we have another incident like this where equipment, files,
data, and everything else, the kind of abuses we've seen in the
past? Do we have the ability to be proactive here and say,
don't even think about it?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. I think, again starting with the
goal, a seamless transition, no baton is dropped, the new
administration comes in prepared, a new White House comes in
prepared to begin to be effective and govern day one. Then what
happens is the facilities people sit down and the
communications people sit down and the mail delivery people sit
down and say, what does that mean for them? And, that means
those offices are spick and span, the computers are working,
there is no trash, this, that or so forth, and so then they're
held accountable. And, I know how this White House is run, and
I know that will be the way this is managed.
The keys being missing from some of the computers and the
screens and initials being carved, that did occur. It was not
ubiquitous. It was a handful of people, very--I bet very junior
people. It was not systematic. It was--for the people whose
offices were affected, it was a nuisance, but it was not a
widespread phenomenon as reported in the paper.
I wish it hadn't happened. I'll bet you those that were the
perpetrators wish it hadn't happened. Now that they're 8 years
older, I bet you they don't look fondly back on those days.
But I have, again, every reason to believe that this
administration is going to make sure that the definition of
success for the outgoing administration is going to be made
really clear.
Mr. Bilbray. Well, I think we've just got to recognize that
there are two sides of passion, and one is a passion for the
people you work for or whatever. And, when elections don't work
out the way you want, those can turn very negative. And, that's
one of the threats you've got in there. And, you really do have
an environment where passions can run very high, especially
when elections don't turn out the way you want.
And so, you basically think that it was a small enough
problem that we don't have to really make a proactive----
Mr. Johnson. Well, yes. I don't think it's--we have to
respond to make sure that occurrence doesn't reoccur. I just
know that, in general, this administration, from the facilities
people to the--whatever, are going to have--to make sure that
all the environmental things, the computers, the phone
equipment, the spaces and so forth will be spick and span,
clean, ready to go, just like Gail is planning on having it be
the case at the transition offices.
Mr. Bilbray. Mr. Johnson, we need to do it now while people
are cool and calm, because elections can--once the emotions
start flying, all the systems and logic go aside and you end up
with that kind of situation.
Mr. Johnson. Right. One of the two deputy chiefs of staff's
primary job is transition and particularly how the executive
office, the President, does its--performs its role during the
transition. So, facilities being prepared for the next
administration is a primary responsibility of this person and
is the primary thing that this deputy chief of staff in the
White House is focusing on.
Ms. Lovelace. And, if I could add to that, we are working
very closely with the people Clay is talking about at the White
House, to make sure that everything is in alignment. We are
ready to make sure that, just as we are preparing for the
Presidential transition team coming in to make sure we're
supporting them through the logistical support and facilities
management of the White House complex to make sure that there
aren't any issues. We've had many meetings on this topic and
will continue to do that to make sure that there aren't any
issues.
Mr. Bilbray. Ms. Lovelace, if I was a manager on this
staff, I'd be telling my staffers, look, if the election
doesn't work out the way we want, you're going to have people
coming here looking for things to blame on you, looking for it.
So, you've got to make sure everything is taken care of,
because they're going to be looking at stuff to be able to drag
you over the carpet on.
Ms. Lovelace. And, we work on it every day to try to make
sure we don't have those kinds of issues.
Mr. Dodaro. And, Congressman Bilbray, we at GAO were asked
to go look at the circumstances in the White House during the
last transition; and it was--as Clay articulated it--and it was
documented along the lines of what he talked about.
Now, one of the lessons learned there, though, too, there's
a need to keep, you know, better records during this kind of
transition process. So I think, while it wasn't a widespread
issue, that prudence would dictate that it would be good to
have reminders sent out to all the departments and agencies,
records be kept appropriate. In case there are instances, then
you'd be able to figure it out more efficiently.
We had to spend a lot of time trying to reconstruct what
either happened or didn't happen during that period of time.
But, at end of the day, it wasn't a pervasive issue. It was
very unfortunate, but I think reminders sent out among the
executive branch to the key people would be a good idea.
Mr. Bilbray. In fact, Mr. Chairman, because of my
experience, it's maybe one of the issues that we've got to
remember. It's not just the executive branch. It's every Member
of Congress that's leaving and a new one coming in. I literally
experienced a situation with computers being trashed and data
banks being destroyed and a lot of stuff going on. So, it's not
just an executive branch problem. This is a legislative
problem, too.
Mr. Johnson. Somebody was--in our meeting this morning with
the career transition director, somebody was telling the story
that they'd heard about back in--maybe when Nixon came into
office in the White House. And, there was a fellow that was
working in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. So the new
person came in, and the outgoing guy who was in charge of the
facility had a big ring of about 30 keys and threw him the set
of keys and said, ``It's all yours.'' That was the extent of
the transition, the hand-off to the incoming administration.
And, so our sights are set way higher than that.
Mr. Bilbray. Thank you.
Mr. Towns. I'm happy to hear it, too.
Mr. Bilbray. Pretty ambitious.
Mr. Towns. Thank you, Congressman Bilbray.
I understand that GSA will manage a budget of $8.5 million
to support transition activities. Should any additional funds
be necessary, where that would that money come from? Would it
come from the winning candidate?
Ms. Lovelace. There is the opportunity when the--once there
is a President-elect, they are able to continue to get funds
from private citizens. There are some rules that are around
those funds, and it's our experience that most incoming
Presidents actually do get funds during that point in time.
And, there are rules around what they can and cannot spend that
money on and how much money they can take in. But, yes, there
is a source of funding for them, likely.
Mr. Towns. So, if your $8.5 million is not enough, you just
say, that's it, we're not going to do any more, they now have
to assume the responsibility?
Ms. Lovelace. Well, we believe that we will manage the $8.5
million effectively so it will take us through the whole
point--a period of time between the election and the inaugural.
So we will be working with the office of the President-elect to
make sure that we are spending that money wisely and making
sure that they are getting their priorities taken care of as a
result of that money, but they can bring other money in to use
during transition period.
Mr. Towns. Yes, Mr. Dodaro.
Mr. Dodaro. Mr. Chairman, the act allows for contributions
up to $5,000, as Ms. Lovelace is pointing out; and those have
to be disclosed both at GSA and GAO; and we have potential
audit responsibilities over that money as well.
However, your main point, though, goes back to the need--
and one of the other things that we're doing during this
transition is to try to record lessons learned and identify
opportunities for further refinements. Years ago, when the act
was first passed in 1963, there was just an amount set. It
wasn't indexed for future inflation costs or whatever, and I
worked on an effort with the Congress in the past to have that
amount indexed.
But, we're talking about a government nowadays that's a lot
different than the governments that have come before it in
terms of the responsibilities and the requirements, and I think
in a post-9/11 environment we need to sort of take a look as a
Nation as to whether or not Presidential Transition Act is
properly funded--well configured enough to allow for these type
of transitions going forward. I think the current
administration is doing a good job getting things ready, but I
think it needs a good examination and lessons learned that can
be documented and then reflected on.
Mr. Towns. Right, because the last time we didn't have
Homeland Security.
Mr. Dodaro. Right, exactly.
Mr. Towns. So did you look at that in terms of whether that
would require extra money to help out in terms of the
transition there as well?
Ms. Lovelace. Well, with the Department of Homeland
Security standing up, I mean, there are some security
requirements that we have to meet for the incoming Presidential
transition team. We are currently working with both the Secret
Service and the Federal Protective Service as well as different
members over in the White House to make sure that we are
meeting those security requirements. So, whether we'll have
enough money to take care of that, we will figure out a way to
help manage through that. But, yes, there are some new security
requirements.
Mr. Johnson. But, if the Department of Homeland Security is
scheduling some extra practices or tabletop exercises or
whatever, this money does not go to that. This money goes to
the President-elect's transition activities; and any moneys
that are related to transition that are particular to
individual agencies, that's supposed to be in their whatever-
fiscal-year-it-is budget.
Mr. Towns. But, the question is, is it enough? That's the
question.
Mr. Johnson. What--the answer is going to be simply you
can't do anything about--if their appropriations bills are
passed by the beginning of the administration of the new fiscal
year, it will be enough money. But, with the likelihood of a
CR, there could be some agencies that have to move some money
around.
Mr. Towns. Mr. Dodaro, you warned that about one-third of
the Federal work force will be eligible to retire at the end of
2008. We're going to need to replace them with the most highly
qualified people we can find, and we don't pay as well as the
private sector, as you know. This is going to be a tough
problem for the incoming administration. Do you have any
suggestions as to what they might be able to do?
Mr. Dodaro. I think the first thing is to focus on the
career senior executives in those departments and agencies.
Their retirement rates are a lot higher than for the general
work force at large, and these are the people that have the
institutional experience and are going to be the main
interfaces with the political leadership that are going to come
in at the departments and agencies.
There are retention provisions that could be exercised at
those departments, to try to hang on to some of these people a
little bit later. There's efforts that could be made to bring
back retired individuals who have particular expertise in these
areas and waive the disincentive which is built into the system
to have their annuity offset by whatever new money they're
going to make. I think in some of these extraordinary
circumstances that are occurring there ought to be some
creative ways to try to both retain some of these very talented
career senior executive service personnel. And then, while
you're building the cadre of people underneath them, I am very
concerned, very concerned about the ability to oversee
contractors in this Federal Government in a lot of activities.
And, if Treasury's plan is approved the way it is, they're
going to be relying heavily on contractors; and they're going
to have a big job, a big challenge overseeing those contractors
which already would be dealing with very complex financial, you
know, transactions, financial portfolios. So--and the number of
career executives at the Treasury Department that are eligible
to retire currently at the SCS level is almost 40 percent.
So, I think this is a really important issue, and the new
leadership team coming in really needs to focus on this both to
solidify their relationship with the career civil servants and
then to be very creative on attracting and retaining talent.
And, succession planning has not been as much as it needs to be
a priority in this government and having the capacity to govern
and oversee these very difficult operations.
So those are some of my initial thoughts.
Mr. Towns. Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. One thing that agencies--for this very reason,
one thing that agencies have been held accountable for is to
have succession plans in place and critical skills gaps. If you
anticipate 2 years from now, 3 years from now, 4 years from
now, where do you anticipate having critical skills gaps,
management, technical expertise and so forth? So, every agency
is held accountable for having a plan to fill this with--train
junior people to take on more senior responsibilities, hire
additional people, retain--and retain people who might be
retiring otherwise.
So, agencies are paying a lot of attention to how they're
going to have the number of critically skilled people they
need, including management people where they need them and when
they need them, and it's not 100 percent perfect. Some agencies
aren't where OPM would like them to be or GAO would like them
to be, but this has been a specific activity that all Federal
agencies have been accountable for. And, the majority of them
are in very good shape--in terms of knowing what they're going
to do to make sure they've got the right people on the job when
they need them.
Mr. Towns. Thank you. I yield.
Mr. Bilbray. I have no further questions.
Mr. Towns. Ms. Lovelace, let me just ask you one very quick
question before you go. How is GSA using its lessons learned?
In other words, looking back in terms of what has happened--I'm
thinking in terms of what my colleague just said--in terms of
some of the transitions that he's been involved in. I must
admit that I have not had his experiences, but I could imagine
what would happen in some transitions. Are you using your
lessons learned to be able to deal with what's coming up?
Ms. Lovelace. One of the nice things that we've done in GSA
for actually the last several transitions is have the Director
of Transition write after-action reports. So we have quite
detailed reports on every aspect of the logistical support that
we provide to the transition teams. So we have pretty
significant insight into what happened previously, so that we
can share those lessons learned across several changes of
administration.
We have also tapped into some of the resources who actually
worked on previous transitions, so that they are there in
support and advisory capacity to us so--you know, you can't put
everything on a piece of paper--so they are sharing with us
verbally some of their lessons learned and are there as
advisors to us, to help make sure we can learn from what
happened before and hopefully not make some of the same
mistakes.
Mr. Towns. Right.
Let me just close with this. Mr. Johnson, you've stated
that OMB has already distributed transition guidance and goals
to the agencies. We understand that you held a big meeting you
said this morning, which I think is good. But as we reviewed
your guidance, we're pleased to note how you tied the
accomplishments of the transition goals directly to the
performance appraisal of agencies and, of course, senior
executives. Please let us know how that works out.
And you also indicated that the agencies will establish
their fiscal year 2009 programs and management practice goals
in a timely manner to support the transition in an appropriate
manner, which is also good.
I guess the question is, when will Members of Congress get
their notice?
Mr. Johnson. When will they get their notice?
Mr. Towns. Yes. When will we get the information that you
shared with us?
Mr. Johnson. You mean about how the transition went?
Mr. Towns. Well, when will your goals be made publicly is
what I'm saying. Your goals, when they will be made publicly?
Mr. Johnson. There was an agency--general guidance to the
agencies on July 18th, and that's public.
Mr. Towns. It is? Do you have one?
Mr. Johnson. I mean, we can distribute it.
Mr. Towns. I'd like----
Mr. Johnson. It's a public document. Well, really, it's
attached to my testimony; so that makes it public.
Mr. Towns. Yes, but I would like to have a copy of it.
Mr. Johnson. Fine, sir.
Mr. Towns. That would really make it public.
Mr. Johnson. OK. I sent you a copy with my testimony, but I
will send you another copy.
Mr. Towns. OK. Thank you very much.
Let me thank all of you for your testimony. And I really
feel that, working together, we can bring about a smooth
transition. I think that's very, very important; and we all
want to see that happen. We don't want to drop the baton, as
has been described early on, and just try to make it as smooth
as we possibly can.
And, I would like to sort of put the GAO study into the
record in terms of the Clinton transition. I would like to make
that part of the record.
So thank you very, very much for your testimony; and I look
forward to working with you in the days and months ahead.
Mr. Dodaro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Congressman
Bilbray.
Mr. Towns. Will our second panel come forward.
I would like to welcome our second panel. As with the first
panel, it is our committee policy that all witnesses are sworn
in. So please rise and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Towns. Let the record reflect that all the witnesses
have answered in the affirmative.
You may be seated.
Let me welcome all of you here.
Our first witness, of course, Dr. Martha Kumar, is a
political science professor at Towson University. Her research
focuses on the White House; and she is director of the White
House Transition Project, a nonpartisan effort by presidency
scholars to provide transition information to the incoming
administration.
Ms. Doris Hausser is an academy fellow with the National
Academy of Public Administration. She was a panel member for
NAPA recent report on the transition of the Department of
Homeland Security, and she retired from the Federal Government
last year, as Senior Policy Advisor to the Director of Office
of Personnel Management. Welcome.
Dr. Don Kettl is the director of the Fels Institute of
Government at the University of Pennsylvania. His research is
focused on public policy and public administration, and he
testified before Congress on management issues many times
before. And, we're delighted to have you back again. And, maybe
we can keep bringing you until we get it right.
Ms. Patricia McGinnis is the president and CEO of the
Council for Excellence in Government. Her organization is
offering its help to the incoming administration with
orientation sessions, briefings on management challenges, and
it lists the profiles of the most difficult management jobs in
the government. Welcome.
Your entire statements will be placed in the record. And as
we went through it before, the green light means go. The yellow
light means prepare to stop. The red light means stop.
As I indicated earlier on, some people get that mixed up.
They think the red light means start. So we just want to make
certain that we have the rules down pat.
So why don't we start with you, Dr. Martha Kumar.
STATEMENTS OF MARTHA KUMAR, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL
SCIENCE, TOWSON UNIVERSITY; DORIS HAUSSER, PANEL MEMBER FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENT TRANSITION STUDY, THE
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION; DON KETTL,
PROFESSOR, FELS INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENT, UNIVERSITY OF
PENNSYLVANIA; AND PATRICIA McGINNIS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, THE
COUNCIL FOR EXCELLENCE IN GOVERNMENT
STATEMENT OF MARTHA KUMAR
Ms. Kumar. Thank you very much, Chairman Towns, Congressman
Bilbray. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss Presidential
transitions and their importance to an effective start of a new
administration. It's something in which we all have a stake.
With the Nation at war and a fragile economy, a smooth transfer
of power is not an option, it's a necessity.
One of the points that distinguishes our political system
from many others is our history of peaceful transfers of power
from one administration to another. And we've experienced
orderly transfers but they've been--there's been a difference
in how they've played out. A smooth and effective transition
comes about only through the work and coordination of many
people and institutions in our political system.
Mr. Johnson said the administration has as a primary goal
to do a better job than it's ever done before to help the new
administration prepare to govern. That means a great deal,
because the efforts of the President, White House staff,
departments and agency staff, contribute mightily to a smooth
transition. The work of others in the Washington community is
important as well, including the contributions of the Congress.
In looking at what kinds of support and priorities seem to
be important and have been important in transitions past, there
are several.
First, a climate of support for transition work by the two
candidates. Successful transitions begin early and are viewed
as a legitimate aspect of a Presidential campaign. Internally
in government there is and has been support throughout the year
for the notion of early transition planning. Outside of
government, however, there's not been the same supportive
climate, particularly in the press. With a Presidential
campaign that seemed to have created so much media interest and
attention in 2008, there was little interest in looking, on the
part of news organizations, in looking at the preparations for
holding office. News organizations have published occasional
op-ed pieces calling for early transition planning. But, one
Washington Post reporter wrote, at the end of July, about the
reports that Presidential candidate Barack Obama was assigning
transition planning to a team. He suggested perhaps that they
create a hubris watch. In reality, by the summer nominating
conventions, every President coming into office since President
Carter has had a transition operation in place, gathering
information on appointments in past transitions.
In spring 1999, Clay Johnson began gathering information
and names of people to appoint and talk to people from past
transitions. In the Reagan years, Pendleton James who worked on
appointments began in the spring of 19--in 1980, and
coordinated with Ed Meese who was then the chief of staff. That
was done well before the Republican Convention.
Second, providing funding support that a transition
requires. Whoever comes in as President next January faces a
difficult situation where the budget is concerned. Living as we
are on continuing resolutions rather than a fiscal year 2009
budget, it will be difficult for a President-Elect to prepare
for a budget of his own when there's none in place.
The incoming President will need to introduce his budget
within approximately 3 weeks of coming into office. That will
mean, he will need to have his budget officials in place and
ready to go shortly after the election.
For the transition, the two teams cannot plan at this point
on government funding when the $8.52 million transition funds
request contained in the fiscal year 2009 budget proposal has
not been passed. With--at this point with no funds committed,
both the candidates must anticipate creating a fundraising
operation capable of raising substantial sums. In the case of
the incoming Bush administration, they were able to do that
before they were declared the winners, but only because they
had planned ahead so early, one of the kinds of priorities
that's important here.
And third is that White House staff comes first; that a
President needs to have an orderly decisionmaking process in
place, personnel director, and a counsel who's responsible for
vetting and for creating ethics orders very early in the
process before they ever select a Cabinet. With around 1,200
administrative positions requiring Senate confirmation, a White
House team needs to be in place to establish which of those
positions to focus on.
Recent experience calls for a new President to choose
approximately 100 key positions, as the vetting and
confirmation process has not been able to handle many more than
that in the first 100 days. With their emphasis on economic
issues, the Reagan transition team isolated 87 positions
related to the economy and gave priority to filling those.
Congress and the administration have made efforts to speed
up the national security clearance process for the 2009
transition by allowing clearance of officials to begin after
the transition team--after the conventions and by working on
the efficiency of the clearance process itself.
The candidates, too, have a role here through what they say
and what they promise. Candidates have sometimes limited
themselves by making promises such as cutting the White House
staff by 25 percent, which they then have to live with, and how
very difficult and sorry they had ever said.
Also, early promises about strong ethics rules have
sometimes been a problem as they were in the Clinton
administration. And in the end he had to rescind the order, the
ethics order that he had.
Identifying government resources. There are so many
agencies, as we've heard today, that are interested in helping
the transition teams early. And there's things that they can
work on. Such, for example, a transition team can establish how
it's going to capture and maintain its records. Both the
Clinton and George W. Bush administrations experienced
difficulties with records issues, which are something an
incoming administration can avoid by working through with the
Archives the capacities of possible record systems,
particularly e-mail ones.
The current administration could provide a smooth records
process by reaching agreement on the status of the records of
the Office of Administration in the Executive Office of the
President as well as those of the Vice President.
Otherwise a new administration will begin with unsettled
rules for retaining records in both offices. The executive
actions can limit and aid an administration. Many Presidents
leave office with a blizzard of executive orders, proclamations
and regulations, responding to requests by those in the
administration and key constituents.
In early May, White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten sent
out a memorandum to executive branch personnel calling for a
principled approach to regulation as we sprint to the finish,
and resist the historical tendencies of administrations to
increase regulatory activities in their final months. Though
diminished, their remaining pressures----
Mr. Towns. Could you summarize? We're going to have a
series of votes.
Ms. Kumar. In addition, the administration--sitting
administration--can help by clearing out political appointees,
by firing those that are political appointees so that the next
Chief Executive doesn't have to do that, because it's hard when
he comes in to do it.
So in sum, there are people in place inside and outside of
government ready to assist the transfer, and many positive
actions have taken place to smooth the transfer.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kumar follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Towns. Ms. Hausser.
STATEMENT OF DORIS HAUSSER
Ms. Hausser. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Did that go on? Can
you hear me, sir?
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
inviting the National Academy of Public Administration to
testify on the best practices for the 2009 Presidential
transition. As an NAPA Fellow, I served as panel member for the
Academy's 2008 report that assessed the Department of Homeland
Security's executive profile, its transition training, and the
Department's plans for the 2009 Presidential transition.
Many of the issues and recommendations outlined in that
report apply to other departments and agencies as well as DHS,
and especially those with national or homeland security
responsibilities.
The Presidential transition of 2009 is the first major
transition since 9/11. As we point out in our report, recent
history demonstrates that political transitions present an
opportunity for terrorists to take advantage of real or
perceived weaknesses in a nation's ability to detect, deter,
prevent or respond to attacks. The final report of the 9/11
Commission raised concerns about the impact of future
transitions on the government's ability to deal with terrorism.
Owing in part to the delayed resolution of the 2000
election, the incoming Bush administration did not have its
deputy Cabinet officials in place until spring 2001 or its sub-
Cabinet officials in place until that summer.
Historically, getting the Presidential team in position has
been a slow process. The Commission strongly pushed for changes
to the process so that the Nation is not left vulnerable to
these types of delays in a post-9/11 world. During the
transition, DHS must retain the ability to respond quickly to
most man-made and natural disasters.
In light of these issues, Congress and DHS asked the
Academy to assess DHS's executive profile, study its transition
training, and review its plans for the 2009 Presidential
transition.
Our June report was the result of that request, and I
request on behalf of NAPA that it be entered into the record,
the full report, as my testimony is limited to this oral
statement.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Hausser. The lessons learned from this work can be
applied to other Federal departments and agencies. For example,
the Academy panel assessed DHS's allocation of executives
between career and political appointees and compared it with
other departments. Overall, about 13 percent of DHS executives
are political appointees, about average for all Federal
departments. The percentage of all executive appointees who are
political appointees ranged from 9 percent at the Veterans
Administration to 35 percent at the Department of State. But
the Academy panel also noted that 30 of the top 54 executive
positions, or 56 percent at DHS, are filled by political
appointees.
Large percentages of other departments' top executives are
also political. This includes 49 percent at Treasury, 59
percent at Justice and Defense, and 66 percent at the
Department of State.
Overall, the Academy panel believes that efforts need to be
made to reduce the number of political appointees, specifically
in the DHS security and national disaster environment, so that
these positions can be filled with career executives who will
learn the job over time versus a noncareer appointee with a
much shorter tenure. At DHS the Academy panel recommended that
noncareer headquarters deputy officials, FEMA regional
administrators, and other professionals be career executives.
Another part of the Academy's DHS study compared their
transition training programs with those of similarly structured
Cabinet-level agencies. The Academy panel concluded that DHS's
transition training and development efforts are consistent with
executive development programs in most Federal agencies, and it
has a balanced set of transition-specific training programs
underway. If implemented, these should help executives prepare
to meet their homeland security responsibilities during
transition.
DHS is well along with its--in its transition training,
especially given that it is a young agency with a critical
national mission going through its first Presidential
transition. The panel believes other departments could benefit
from learning about DHS's transition training.
Finally, we looked at their transition planning and the
report laid out a series of actions that were tailored to
Presidential transition timeframes. Specifically, before the
national party conventions, DHS was to have completed, updated,
and executed its transition plans, identified key operational
executive positions, ensured that training and joint exercises
had begun, and filled vacant executive positions.
Between the conventions and the elections, consistent with
the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and sense of the
Senate provisions, the panel recommended DHS should work with
executive branch agencies and Congress to reach out to
Presidential candidates to identify potential homeland security
transition team members and help them obtain security
clearances by Election Day.
Between the election and the inauguration, DHS should work
with the incoming administration, the executive branch, and
Congress to ensure that the new Secretary of Homeland Security
is sworn in on Inauguration Day, that key executives are
identified and voted on by the Senate as quickly as possible,
recognizing that any day a critical position is vacant is a gap
in our homeland security coverage and that transition training
and joint exercises are provided to executive appointees and
nominees.
Following Inauguration Day, training of new appointees,
nominees, and careerists should continue to build trust and
operational performance. Within the first 6 months there should
be a capstone scenario exercise to evaluate the effectiveness
of transition planning. We want to--are happy to report that in
June the DHS appointed retired Coast Guard Admiral John Acton
to a full-time transition director who reports directly to the
Deputy Under Secretary for Management, and they have completed
a comprehensive plan for all facets of transition that focus on
particularly critical issues.
In addition, they are collaborating with relevant
departments within the Federal Government, with State and local
governments, and with the private industry. And joint training
and exercise opportunities are being actively coordinated.
Many of the Academy panel recommendations for DHS do also
apply to other Federal departments such as the appointment of a
transition director, development of a comprehensive plan,
identification of critical noncareer positions and transition
training. The report notes that to the greatest extent
possible, incoming DHS leadership, including the Secretary and
key staff, must be in place on Inauguration Day or shortly
thereafter. This will require the support and cooperation of
Congress, and certainly Federal agencies with background checks
and clearance responsibilities.
The Academy panel believes all Federal departments and
agencies need to begin immediately to address the issues that
are appropriate--that are presented in our DHS report.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. Thank you again
for inviting the Academy to this hearing and I would be happy
to respond to any questions.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hausser follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Towns. As you know, the bells just sounded, which means
that we have votes. How many votes do we have? I would say 10
minutes after the last vote we resume.
Mr. Bilbray. I'll try to make it back. At 4 I have----
Mr. Towns. OK. Well, I can't say what time because we have
three votes. But as soon as we finish.
Mr. Bilbray. As soon as the Chair is back.
Mr. Towns. Ten minutes after the last vote we'll be back.
OK. So the committee is in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Towns. Ms. McGinnis.
STATEMENT OF PATRICIA McGINNIS
Ms. McGinnis. There we go. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman, for inviting me to be part of this discussion. The
Council for Excellence in Government, as I'm sure you know, is
a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization made up of private sector
leaders who work together to improve performance. And we've
been involved in--actively in past Presidential transitions in
several ways.
One, we publish a quadrennial ``prune book.'' I don't know
whether you've heard of it it or seen it. It is not the ``plum
book,'' which is the list of 7,000 political appointees. But
instead we choose a smaller number of prunes, the top appointed
tough management jobs. And then we profile them in terms of
qualifications and what it takes to succeed. So we say that a
prune is a plum, seasoned by experience and wisdom and with a
much thicker skin. So the metaphor has sort of taken on a life
of its own.
We also produce a survivor's guide for Presidential
nominees, which helps people navigate the very complicated
process and helps those who are reporting about it or
overseeing it understand it. And we're taking all of this
online this year in an interactive Web resource related to
transition.
We also have been asked by the George W. Bush White House
and the Clinton White House to organize and help with
orientation leadership programs for new top Presidential
appointees and White House staff. So that has been a privilege
to do. And we have worked closely with steering committees in
the White House to structure those programs in ways that work
best for each President and each administration. But they
focused on managing for results and managing in the context of
the Federal Government and the Washington context and the
national context.
This year we were also asked by the Department of Homeland
Security and Congress to focus on DHS transition. And we're
helping them assure continuity by working first with the acting
career officials to make sure they're prepared to respond to a
major emergency, and then the transition leaders, and then the
new appointees as they come in. So we have thoughts about an
effective Presidential transition that I'll share a few with
you, and there are more in my testimony.
Of course, looking back to the past to see what's worked
and what hasn't makes a lot of sense. But this year more than
any transition I can think of, it's just as important, maybe
more important, to look to the future and the kinds of
challenges that we're facing. We know that this is a historic
transition. We have Presidential and Vice Presidential
candidates, none of whom have worked in the executive branch of
the Federal Government before. We're at war. Our economy is
facing unprecedented risk. And 83 percent of Americans think
that things in our country are off on the wrong track. The
public's priorities are understandably the economy, the war in
Iraq, health care reform, and terrorism. And those really
defined the context for the Presidential campaign. And
transition. Campaigns usually focus on ideas and policies and
what needs to change. But success in governing depends as much
or more on the ability to implement and execute those ideas
well. And the same goes for a Presidential transition. So
organization and management and results really matter.
In my testimony I laid out the key indicators of a
successful Presidential transition, and I won't go through them
all. But it's really about the quality and experience of the
people who are appointed to the leadership roles and, equally
important, getting them in place early so that we do have
continuity on January 20th or as closely as possible for the
Cabinet and the top sub-Cabinet officials. And then, of course,
having the White House organized and a decisionmaking process
in place, a lot of consultation and outreach with other
government officials and stakeholders and the public and being
ready to lay out the agenda through the President's Budget, the
Inaugural Address, the first address to a joint session of
Congress.
The things that I want to say in terms of our advice, or to
the transition leaders and to the Congress, the transition
leaders should take advantage of the provisions in the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, which allow
them to submit--today they could submit 100 names to begin the
security clearance process for transition advisors. It's my
understanding that very few names have been submitted at this
point. And then the day after the election, they can begin to
submit names for prospective nominees. The goal should be to
have the Cabinet confirmed on January 20th, the White House
staff in place. The White House chief of staff should be named
as soon after the election as possible. And if you're going to
have 50 to 100 sub-Cabinet appointees in key departments like
Treasury, Homeland Security, national security agencies, you
have to start early with the Cabinet. It probably means that
the Cabinet needs to be selected soon after the election in
order to have them--or at least the most critical Cabinet
members involved in the selection of the sub-Cabinet
appointees.
The other piece of this puzzle for the executive branch in
the Bush administration is to make sure that you can move these
clearances and move the appointments process, the nomination
process, as rapidly as possible. Clay Johnson has said that
they are prepared to have 100 people in place by April 1. And
we say that's not good enough. You have to have people in place
sooner than that. And the way to do that, given the way the
process works--and it has been streamlined and expedited--is to
have more investigators. If you can get the Cabinet in place on
Inauguration Day, or the week after, with enough investigative
capacity you can get 50 or more sub-Cabinet critical appointees
in place within 30 days of inauguration.
I want to commend Clay Johnson and his work as Deputy
Director for Management because I think it really has been
outstanding. But again, we think that this should go faster.
And if you sort of map out the process, I think we could all
figure out how to do that, and expanding the capacity is
important.
The final piece of the puzzle is that the Senate should be
prepared to confirm nominees within a reasonable period of
time. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Protection Act
suggests 30 days. We think that's right. And we have just--
along with the heads of a number of organizations, including
the National Academy of Public Administration--sent a letter to
both candidates saying that they should not only get their
names forwarded but implore their Senate colleagues to agree on
a timeframe for considering and approving these--voting on
these nominees and perhaps changing the rules about holds to
prevent votes and any other process changes that would make
sense to try to get those in place before the election and
before we have a winner and loser. All of those ingredients
together.
If the transition teams, the FBI, and OPM investigative
capacity is expanded and the confirmation process can go
rapidly, I think that we could have a strong team in place and
really ensure continuity in this challenging time.
Thank you very much. And I look forward to the discussion.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McGinnis follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Towns. Mr. Kettl.
STATEMENT OF DON KETTL
Mr. Kettl. Mr. Chairman, thanks very much, and not only for
the opportunity for the chance to testify before the
subcommittee today, but also for the subcommittee's leadership
in taking on this absolutely critical and important issue. We
already knew this was going to be an important transition. We
knew that with the issues of homeland security, we're facing
challenges unlike any we've seen before. But what we've seen in
the last week with the issues of financial security, we now
know that we have challenges that are multiplied. We have big
problems that emphasize all the more the importance of
leadership and that emphasize even more fundamentally the
importance of confidence in the system to be able to drive
things forward. And that's the most important thing that we can
accomplish in the transition that's coming, of creating
capacity to ensure both competence and confidence in the
American government.
The challenges are huge, in part because the problems are
so dynamic and changing, in part because the pace at which the
decisions are being made is so fast, in part because any
decision that we make has implications that spill over
internationally, not only within our own hemisphere but around
the world. We have institutions that we are in the process of
creating, recreating, and transforming in the process. And we
have big issues for which there's no clear roadmap. And so it's
all the more important that we establish principles to guide
our actions instead of running the risk of stumbling through on
an ad hoc basis, dealing with one problem as it comes up after
the other, which can only serve to undermine the ability of the
system to create confidence to begin with.
We have homeland security, which is already important. We
have financial security, which has become even more important.
We have other issues that are out there, including management
of the census, the care for our wounded warriors returning from
wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have a need to try to manage
the war in a productive kind of way. And in short, we have a
whole set of issues that demand the highest levels of both
confidence and competence in our system.
Let me suggest five things, Mr. Chairman, that we might be
able to do to ensure that the transition gives the American
people what it is that they deserve.
The first is to make the obvious point that some of the
others today have made as well, which is the essential
importance of beginning now. And in fact beginning now is
already too late. We need to have transition processes in place
long before now so that when Election Day comes, the new team
is ready to begin that process of transition into executive
decisionmaking and responsibility.
To even talk about this out loud is so often seen as
hubris. But one of the most important things this committee can
do and, in fact, that all those who care about this issue can
accomplish, is to make it possible and politically safe for
people to talk about what it is that needs to happen, because
it is is irresponsible not to. One of the things that we are
electing is the Chief Executive of the United States, and we
need to make sure that the President's in the position to
ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.
The second thing is fast track confirmation. As many of my
colleagues today have talked about, we need to be able to make
sure that, first, the new administration is in a position to
identify the mission-critical positions; that the security
clearances and background checks are done expeditiously; that
the Senate confirms them quickly; and that we can get the key
people in the key positions ready to act, so that we are not in
a position, as we might well have been in in the middle of a
financial crisis, without the key people in place, confirmed by
the Senate, in the position to exercise legal authority. At
this point there is simply no alternative but to ensure that we
have fast track confirmation for those key mission-critical
positions if we're going to have a government that works.
Third thing is preparing the team to lead. We need not only
orientation programs for the top political appointees, but we
need a kind of rolling process to ensure that as others come
onboard after the first 100 days, the first 200 days, given the
pace of clearance and the way in which these positions are
filled, we need an ongoing orientation program and we need a
program on top of that to provide ongoing support.
We did a project not too long ago with Danish senior civil
servants and Danish political appointees who told us that one
of the hardest things that was hardest about their jobs was a
sense of loneliness and the lack of support. Having people in a
position to provide guidance on some of these key issues is
absolutely critical to ensuring that the kind of executive
experience we need is in place. This requires, in some cases, a
small bit of budget support; but to do otherwise is to risk
leaving the country unprepared.
Fourth is to build the budget. If the President doesn't
have the priorities in place when the new budget's submitted,
then in many cases it may be a year and a half until there's
another crack at trying to attack those issues. It's absolutely
critical that the administration has the capacity in place to
make those decisions quickly.
Finally, if there's anything that's become clear about this
election is it's an election about change. One of the things we
have not heard, though, is how the candidates propose to
translate that change into results. The new President needs to
be in a position quickly to ensure that the rhetoric of change
is translated into results that matter; that we need to have a
system for management for results. We need, as the Comptroller
General suggested earlier, far better contract management and,
in particular, an attack on the high-risk programs that
especially expose the government to fraud, waste and abuse.
And finally, we have a looming human resources crisis that
will require continuing effort to make sure that we have in
place the people who are equipped to be able to do the jobs
that need to be done.
In short, Mr. Chairman, we need a government that can not
only provide competence but also confidence, and that's why
this transition is so absolutely critical.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very, very, very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kettl follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Towns. There's one thing that sort of went through--
almost every one of you said it, that people must be confirmed
quickly. I know Ms. McGinnis indicated 30 days the process
should take. Could I get from the rest of you, in terms of time
that you think that a person should be confirmed, within how
many days?
Mr. Kettl. Mr. Chairman, if I could take just a quick stab
at that. It would be hard to have an absolute standard for
everyone. There are some positions that are most critical. And
one of the things that Mr. Johnson has put together is a list
of the mission-critical positions, not only the White House
staff but also in Cabinet agencies. What we need to do is
figure out who needs to be ready to act and decide at noon on
January 20th, limit that to perhaps the first 50, maybe even 75
percent, then work backward to figure out what it is we need to
do, when to get it done, and then work through the rest of the
processes.
We just have no alternative but to make sure that we have a
financial security team in place on January 20. Some positions
are going to take much longer. There are some that we just
don't have the luxury of being able to deal with that. And the
thing to do is to figure out what it is we need to have done
when, and backup to make sure that what we need to do can get
done, so that decisions are made and the clearances and the
background checks are done in the meantime.
Mr. Towns. Time limit?
Ms. Kumar. I think if people start putting in--the
candidates start putting in names now, which is something
that's not been done before--of their transition team people,
they can put people on there who they want to have in their
administration when they come in. So this is an opportunity
that they should take advantage of. And I think that way
they'll be able to increase their capacity.
And I think Ms. McGinnis's suggestion about increasing the
number of people involved in the confirmation--in going through
the nominee's background--is a critical way of doing it too.
But the candidates themselves are going to have to decide who
they're going to focus on, what positions.
Like, for example, Reagan, when he knew that the economy
was the big issue, and so he chose the 87 positions. He did
that--he was able to do that right after the election because
they had--they had chosen their chief of staff and they had a
team in place that could make--make the choices and start
sifting through.
Ms. Hausser. Mr. Chairman, I do know that NAPA has
supported the 30-day deadline, although I agree with Professor
Kettl that probably, it being a hard standard, is a little bit
more than we could hope for. But 30 days seems reasonable.
There is the need to have the vetting. We know the Senate
committees like to do a lot of vetting. And that's--they're
taking their role seriously. But I think are committed--a sense
of commitment to expeditious confirmation is something we
should--they could also commit to.
Ms. McGinnis. Could I just add--and I hope you'll have a
chance to look at this letter that was signed by the President
of the Center for the Study of the Presidency and the National
Academy of Sciences, the Partnership for Public Service and the
Carnegie Institution for Science, as well as I signed it and
other leading scholars. And what we called for was to have the
Senate consider and vote on the 50 most critical sub-Cabinet
nominees within 30 days of inauguration. And after that, the
standard we suggested would be 45 days.
I think it's important to set a goal and have a deadline.
And that's why we joined with these leaders to suggest that.
The process is--it has two parts. It's the nomination process,
which the President-Elect in the transition will control, and
then the confirmation process. To say that confirmation should
happen within 30 days is perfectly reasonable. And the
nomination process should be able to be completed within 30
days as well.
Mr. Towns. You know, I know that sometimes you have
circumstances that can develop and then might slow down the
process. But I think that the key here is that we do not do
enough up front. I mean, the point is that one of these guys
are going to be President of the United States. And of course,
I think the process can start, you know, now, because you
know--and of course--and by the time the process is over, by
the time we find out who the winner is, then we'll be in a
position to move forward.
I think that we need to try to eliminate this long delay.
And, of course, I think that if we do that, then I think that
then we would be able to put people in place in a very timely
fashion.
Ms. Kumar, what do you think is the best way to get ready
to address the problem? Should the campaign's economic advisors
be briefed before the election, especially during this
atmosphere and climate that we have today? They are asking for
$700 billion over there. I just left.
Ms. Kumar. Yeah. There's certainly--there's a great deal of
information that's already out there. And I think the
candidates have been working with the White House, and their
transition teams have been working with the White House. And I
think the White House has tried to be flexible in what it's
providing to candidates. So I think if they want certain kinds
of information, I think that they'll probably get it.
Mr. Towns. Right. You know, my colleague Congressman
Bilbray, you know, mentioned something that I think that, you
know, that he said that the lower staff members, in terms of
people not at the top but down below, that are now being put
out, looking for jobs, that could create problems. You know,
what could we do to sort of prevent that sort of thing from
happening? I mean, he talked about--I mean, he gave some
examples of some experiences that he's had at the lower level.
But the point is that he felt that we might have it as well at
the level in terms of the Presidency. You know, when you have a
situation where you run for office and then somebody loses,
then the people that's in know now they have to go. And then
they begin to create all kinds of problems. And he gave some
examples which I thought were interesting.
Ms. Kumar. I think that in the end, they didn't turn out to
be very big issues. That there weren't as many, you know, w's
taken from the computer keyboards and the rest of the things
that were--that had been listed early on that had happened in
the White House. Most of that, in fact, did not take place.
I think the real problem in coming into a White House is
not that kind of thing. It's the fact that there's no
institutional memory. That if--when you come into the Office of
Chief of Staff, one person was telling me when he came into his
office as staff secretary, that all he had was a desk, a
computer and there was no hard drive. This is in the Clinton
administration when they came in. And they had no hard drive,
because the courts had ordered that they be taken.
The Presidential Records Act provides that everything from
a White House goes with the President. So, when somebody comes
in, there's no manual of how to do their job. And, there is--
and there are not records left behind except some in the
counsel's--and the NSC has records. That's a real problem when
somebody comes into the White House.
Mr. Towns. How can the Congress help? We see it's a
problem. You know, what can we do to be helpful? Right down the
line.
Ms. McGinnis. I think this is a leadership issue. And so,
you know, speaking out and making it a high priority to get
excellent people in place and have continuity of leadership on
the Senate side; a leadership commitment to expedite the
consideration of nominees, particularly the critical top 50 to
100. And overall, we would certainly suggest that in the next
Congress, legislation be considered to reform the Presidential
appointments process. There's a lot in that process that needs
to be changed, and some of it will require legislation.
There have been proposals in the past which have not been
enacted. And that might be a place to start. But, you know,
really look seriously at improving the process and perhaps
reducing the number of people who have to be confirmed.
We who think about the prune jobs, you know, feel that
these top management jobs, people who are running agencies, are
really important in terms of accountability and confirmation.
But, I'm not sure that every single assistant secretary or
other sort of staff function around a secretary needs to go
through the whole confirmation process. So overall reform would
be my suggestion.
Mr. Kettl. Mr. Chairman, let suggest three quick things.
One is to echo what Ms. McGinnis said about streamlining the
appointments process, some of which will require some
legislative action, some of which can simply be done to try to
at least ensure that everybody makes a promise not to change
the forms in the meantime, so at least there is an ability to
be able to note what it is that you've got to supply.
Second thing is, relatively modest appropriations to ensure
the political appointees in particular have ongoing support
through the course of their jobs. We're not talking about very
much money, but we're talking about critical money that can
make a difference.
And the third, and probably most importantly, is attention,
like this hearing, to try to make it safe for people to talk
about these issues. The overriding--in some ways--terrible fact
about this is that it's a problem that insiders know about, but
it's very difficult to talk about it publicly on the outside,
outside these Chambers, because otherwise candidates are
accused of hubris. They're accused of sticking their neck way
out. They're accused of celebrating before the game is over.
And, it's absolutely irresponsible not to think about how
to do the job, if you get it, as the process of trying to
convince people that ought to earn it. And, unfortunately it is
just impossible to be able to have frank, honest discussions
and to be able to use this as a criteria for selecting the
President. And, one of the most important things that Congress
can do is to make the discussion safe, including discussions
like this, and including shining a bright light on the
campaigns and asking them what it is that they were doing and
what is it they're planning and how they would do the job if
they got it.
Mr. Towns. Right. Because you're right. Most of the time,
they'd feel as if they're being criticized for being
presumptuous by taking on transition work. I mean, they were
being criticized.
So, I was wondering, if maybe in terms of--you know,
statements were not made by Members of Congress to say that
this process should be moved forward. I think that might be
something that needs to be done. Because you know, being a
candidate a few times myself, people, you know, you're
concerned about the perception or criticism that you might get.
And, this is a very serious issue that I think that needs to be
dealt with. And, of course, I think that maybe, you know,
that's something that we can make statements about. It's an
important time to encourage that process to move forward.
Mr. Kettl. Congressman, I would even consider making a
small appropriation available for transition planning to the
candidates, with the requirement that the candidates name a
transition director as of July 1st, for example. Just a small
amount of money in exchange for at least making it public and
therefore making it safe to talk about it might make some
difference.
Ms. McGinnis. Even a resolution to this effect I think
would be enormously helpful. A House resolution, a Senate
resolution. It gives a lot of cover to the campaigns who are--
they do have transition planning teams in place, but no
director has been publicly announced. And, it's all being done
sort of below the radar. And, that is--it's really kind of
silly when you think about all the steps that need to be taken
even before the election. So a bipartisan resolution or
statement would be excellent.
Mr. Towns. Right. Ms. Kumar, what do you think we can do
right now to help with this? And, what should the transition
team be doing at this moment?
Ms. Kumar. Well, I think one of the things that's important
is the transition budget. They need to have--know how much
money they're getting. The problems that are going to result
from dealing with continuing resolutions are great because when
they--when you do have a winner, they're going to have to deal
with a new budget, prepare for a budget 3 weeks after they come
in. And here there is no budget in place and they don't have--
the funds, I assume, are going to come forth for the
transition. But they have to figure out how much private money
that they're going to be raising.
I think right now the--in the transition, the transition
teams would be focusing on getting--gathering names for
appointments and focusing on what are the key issues that the
candidates are talking about themselves.
One of the reasons that the Reagan and George W. Bush
transitions were so effective was that the candidates spoke
about five issues. And, so when they came into office, they
were able to take their five campaign issues and make their
governing issues. So when Bush, for example, came in, he took
his five issues and he spent the first week on education. Then
he did faith-based initiatives, tax cuts, and went down the
list of what he had already talked about.
So, one of the things the candidates can do for themselves
is focus on just what they're going to do when they're
governing. And then that allows their transition teams to focus
on bringing people in place for those particular issues.
But, we know that national security is crucial, as is
financial security. And, those are going to be the areas that
they're going to have to focus their efforts on on recruitment.
Mr. Towns. Yeah. We have to get SEC, SEC, we have to get
FDIC. We have to get all this. And, with the crisis that we
have, I mean, we need to make certain that we get some good
people.
Ms. Kumar. And, there are many vacancies on--a lot of
boards are suffering from having vacancies, too. And they have
to make sure that they can fill those on crucial--spots that
are crucial to those issues.
Mr. Towns. Right. I guess, Ms. Hausser, what's preventing
the implementation of the rest of the NAPA recommendations?
What's stopping it?
Ms. Hausser. I don't know that I can say that they're
stopped. I think there's--until the appointment of Admiral
Acton, I think there was some inertia; that his appointment has
really changed things in terms of their focusing. And with
respect to some of the executive appointment recommendations,
they're making progress. That, by its nature, is a process that
you have to go into thoughtfully. Although it can be expedited
and should be expedited, it still is--making crucial
appointment decisions is--especially at this time in an
administration--is its own challenge.
I think there is a renewed--particularly since the
appointment of the Admiral--there's a renewed focus on the
transition and making sure the training is taking place. That
had a little bit of a slow start, but now efforts are panning
out. And, there--I think there's been an acceleration in
momentum.
So, given where their things were in June with respect to
our making recommendations that things happened, of the first
12 recommendations, at least 10 are completed to some degree.
So it's coming along. And, I'm--I think the--what you hope for
is that there's nothing that occurs that would reverse that
momentum, because it has accelerated.
Mr. Towns. This committee--Ranking Member Bilbray and I--
we're not a finger-pointing committee. I mean, we recognize
that we have a role as well to play in trying to fix whatever
the problems might be. So we talk to you to try to find out in
terms of our role, in terms of what we might need to do to be
able to sort of make things work, you know, much more
effectively. So, if you have any suggestions or recommendations
to us, you know, and we call to talk to you, because you've had
so much experience with it, and we think that we need to have
that, because if we don't have it, then we're not sure as to
what we might do on this side. So, we need to have that
information.
So, if you have any suggestions or recommendations to us,
you know, as to how we might make this transition much more
effective or smoothly, you know, please share.
Ms. Hausser. Well, again, with respect to Homeland Security
in particular, I think there had been so much turmoil in that
Department with its major reorganizations, with the high degree
of turnover, the dust took so long to settle--and it arguably
hasn't settled completely--that the--it's important to
recognize the progress, but I do believe that congressional
leadership--acknowledging it and then making it very clear that
it's expected to continue, particularly with respect to prompt
appointment of key executives.
There was a little bit of--when the Department was asked to
identify its critical executive positions, that actually
started a while ago and there was an effort made to do that. It
turned out the criteria were a little bit confusing. And, when
they redid the list, or when they reexamined the list, there
was a particular slant on transition. It helped focus the
effort. So, the first effort was somewhat successful, but a
little bit disappointing in some respects, in that there didn't
seem to be a lot of consistency in how people approached the
task. But, they took it as a learning experience.
And, with the oncoming transition, they focused it again,
particular emphasis on transition. And, I think they're very--
they're satisfied with the way they've identified their
critical positions. So, now they have much better focus with
respect to during a transition, immediately after, where do
they really have to make sure they've got good acting career
people or career deputies in place and where will the initial
appointments need to be made. So, it's--they've done--there's
been a lot of organizational learning at Homeland Security,
muddled by the major reorganizations along the way.
Mr. Towns. Yes.
Ms. McGinnis. At the beginning of the hearing, Mr.
Chairman, you mentioned that you were for Barack Obama and Mr.
Bilbray is for John McCain.
Mr. Towns. Yes.
Ms. McGinnis. And, that's not what we're here to talk
about. But, I think it could be very effective to reach out to
the candidates individually and convey, you know, the points
that you've raised and confirmed about the importance of
beginning that personnel--identifying people, making sure that
they can be prepared to send the names of well-qualified people
for these most critical positions before the inauguration, so
that we can have, you know, the full team on the field on day
one.
Mr. Towns. Uh-huh. Any other comments?
Let me thank you for your testimony. You've been very
helpful. And, I think that dialogs must take place and, of
course, we might even be talking with you again, you know, as
we move forward, because we want to make certain that we have a
smooth transition. And, I am concerned because Homeland
Security is-- that was not a part of any other transition. And,
of course, you know, you have to be, you know, concerned about
that. Also concerned about the fact that our financial
situation is really, really in flux. And of course, it's
important that we get to keep people in there that's going to
stabilize it to make certain that stays strong.
So, your input is very, very important. So I want to thank
you again for your testimony. Thank you very, very much. And,
this committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Note.--The Government Accountability Report entitled,
``The White House, Allegations of Damage During the 2001
Presidential Transition,'' can be found in subcommittee files.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]