[Senate Hearing 110-847]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-847
MANAGING THE CHALLENGES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TRANSITION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,
THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 10, 2008
__________
Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
45-574 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TED STEVENS, Alaska
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
BARACK OBAMA, Illinois PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHN WARNER, Virginia
JON TESTER, Montana JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director
Brandon L. Milhorn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk
OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware TED STEVENS, Alaska
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JOHN WARNER, Virginia
Richard J. Kessler, Staff Director
Evan W. Cash, Professional Staff Member
Jennifer A. Hemingway, Minority Staff Director
Jessica K. Nagasako, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Akaka................................................ 1
Senator Voinovich............................................ 3
WITNESSES
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Gene L. Dodaro, Acting Comptroller General, U.S. Government
Accountability Office.......................................... 5
Hon. Clay Johnson III, Deputy Director for Management, Office of
Management and Budget.......................................... 6
Hon. Robert I. Cusick, Director, Office of Government Ethics..... 8
Gail T. Lovelace, Chief Human Capital Officer, U.S. General
Services Administration........................................ 9
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Cusick, Hon. Robert I.:
Testimony.................................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 56
Dodaro, Gene L.:
Testimony.................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Johnson, Hon. Clay III:
Testimony.................................................... 6
Prepared statement with attachments.......................... 44
Lovelace, Gail T.:
Testimony.................................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 61
MANAGING THE CHALLENGES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TRANSITION
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management, the Federal Workforce,
and the District of Columbia,
of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K.
Akaka, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Akaka and Voinovich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA
Senator Akaka. Good afternoon, everyone. This hearing of
the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the
Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia is called to
order.
Today's hearing will discuss the important task of
transitioning the Federal Government to a new Administration.
Every 4 or 8 years, the Executive Branch of our government
changes hands to a new leader through a peaceful transfer of
power not possible in many countries around the world. However,
with this peaceful change comes many challenges for both the
incoming and the outgoing Administrations.
On January 20, 2009, we face the certainty of having an
entirely new Administration, one in which neither the sitting
President nor Vice President will be taking the oath of office.
With both major parties' political conventions over, now is a
good time to focus on the looming challenges ahead. As is the
case before almost every general election, both candidates no
doubt have already begun laying groundwork for a potential move
into the White House.
The issue of especially great importance for this
Subcommittee is bridging the gap between January 19 and January
21, 2009, to ensure there is continuity in leadership and
management at all Federal agencies. Now, Presidential
appointees must be acted upon quickly. They should be ready to
lead when they assume their new positions.
Going back to the first transition between George
Washington and John Adams, no two transitions have ever been
the same. While every single one is different, many share the
same potential barriers to success. Probably the most difficult
problem for us to face is that of the Presidential appointment
and nomination processes. The Senate has a direct role in this,
but cannot act until the Administration has done its job.
Previous Administrations typically have not filled critical
positions for up to 6 months, or longer, after taking office.
Unfortunately, much of the delay can come from the tedious
vetting process that is used to get appointees confirmed. The
White House can take its time selecting a nominee. Then the
nominee can take his or her time filling out the paperwork
required by both the Senate and Executive Branch before any
hearings are scheduled. Even after that information is
submitted, getting final security clearance determinations and
ethics sign-off for certain positions can take a very long
time.
Another one of the biggest challenges to a successful
transition lies in the transfer of knowledge from one
Administration to the next. I know that Director Johnson has
been aggressive in getting agencies ready for January. I want
to thank him for his long service to our country and to this
Subcommittee. This is likely the last time he will testify
before us, and I want him to know that I do appreciate his
leadership and his willingness to work with us over the years.
One of his top priorities has been making sure that career
civil servants are in place to bridge the gap until
Presidential appointees are confirmed, and I strongly support
that effort. I suspect that he holds the record for appearing
before this Subcommittee, and I think, if I heard it correctly,
you appeared before this Subcommittee more than half a dozen
times. And he has been a very valuable witness before us.
Unfortunately, the Federal Government is already facing a
human capital crisis. Agencies will rely on career individuals
to continue the critical needs of agency management, not the
least of which is continuing to recruit, train, and retain an
outstanding Federal workforce. This will be especially
important at agencies with non-career chief human capital
officers. I hope the President-elect will even consider keeping
some of these political appointees in their positions.
There is also a new issue for the incoming Administration.
Unlike the past, especially since the creation of the
Department of Homeland Security, there has been an explosion of
contractors doing government work. Tremendous numbers of
contract staff work side by side with Federal employees across
the government. The next Administration will need to make
oversight of contracts and contractors a high priority. With
fewer and fewer career employees at agencies and more and more
contractors, it is important to fill leadership positions
quickly to ensure proper oversight.
In closing, I want to especially thank Senator Voinovich
for his partnership on this issue and his continued work on the
important management issues that this transition will
highlight. It is a testament to the bipartisan nature of our
job here which is to make sure that the government works and
continues to work under a new Administration. For our part, we
will be working closely with the outgoing and incoming
Administrations over the next 5 months. While the Senate likely
will wind down for the year in the next few weeks, I can assure
you that this Subcommittee and our staff will continue to
conduct rigorous oversight of these issues.
Let me now call on Senator Voinovich for his opening
statement. Senator Voinovich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator Akaka, for calling
today's hearing to examine the Administration transition. I
would also like to acknowledge the partnership that I have had
with you. We have been at this at least 8 to 10 years. The two
of us have tried conscientiously to provide legislation that
will make it easier for the Federal Government to recruit and
to retain and to reward individuals, and hopefully this
Administration and the one coming in will benefit from that
effort.
I know that we are very familiar with the transition
progress of certain agencies, and I think that it is fair to
say that the creation of a chief management officer whose
statutory duties include transition planning is one of the
reasons DHS continues to lead by example in this area. I had
met Secretary Mike Chertoff in Cleveland and congratulated him
on the wonderful transition plan that he has put together. He
is conscientiously trying to make sure that when he hands off
the baton, it is not going to be dropped. And I think that is
pretty important, particularly in that agency.
With just over 4 months before inauguration, I look forward
to hearing our witnesses discuss our general level of readiness
for the transition. I also hope we will use this time to take a
fresh look at the Presidential Appointments Improvement Act and
determine whether additional reform is needed. Since 1937, when
the Brownlow committee issued the first report on improving the
appointments process, Congress has enacted incremental changes,
including most recently the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act. As the sponsor of the last comprehensive
Presidential appointment reforms bill before the full
Committee, I believe our transition process could benefit from
further reform, including streamlining the financial disclosure
process and reducing the time it takes for individuals to be
nominated and subsequently confirmed. And we will probably be
hearing from you about some of your ideas on that.
The management challenges of GAO's high-risk list should
serve as a reminder that all leaders, regardless of the
position to which they are nominated, will face unique
challenges critical to the effective functioning of our
government. Thus, the quality of each Presidential nominee must
be carefully scrutinized to ensure our next class of leaders
has the capacity to identify plans for and implement reform. It
is my hope that my colleagues in the Senate will use the
questions being developed by GAO to assess the management
experience and capabilities for nominees to leadership
positions. The Senate needs to send a clear and consistent
message that a nominee's management qualifications will be an
important consideration in their appointment.
And, by the way, it is disappointing to me that one of the
first impressions of government for the new class of political
appointees will be the antiquated security clearance system.
And I know, Mr. Johnson, you are working on that.
As qualified leaders begin their new roles, they must also
dismiss the rhetoric and bias against individuals who have
chosen to serve the public as members of the civil and
uniformed services. The next team of political leaders must
find ways to better engage these individuals, who often bring
the institutional knowledge and a valid perspective to the task
at hand. And based on my observation, it seems too often that
these capable men and women selected on the merits are ignored
when new political leadership takes hold.
Last, agency management will be hindered by Congress'
inability to pass appropriations bills, and I intend to spend
some time on the floor of the Senate. We have been working on
that for over a year, and I think, Mr. Dodaro, you have been
helping us, and the Congressional Research Service. It is just
unacceptable that we continue to pass continuing resolutions
and omnibus appropriation bills. The impact that this has on
the management of government is just horrendous. And then you
cascade that down to State and county government.
The new Presidential team will begin on an uneven playing
field, with agencies trying to meet their program needs under a
continuing resolution while preparing for their first budget of
the new Administration, scheduled for release less than 20 days
after the inauguration. The fiscal health of our Nation will
require tough choices at every agency, an unenviable but
necessary task.
Mr. Chairman, before I conclude, I would like to take a
moment to thank Mr. Johnson for his dedicated service. I think
the Chairman of the Subcommittee has laid out pretty clearly
that you have been around here quite often.
Mr. Johnson. A usual suspect.
Senator Voinovich. Yes. I suspect you have spent more time
here than any of your predecessors. And I know that you have
had a very difficult job. When I came here, my goal was to
reinsert the ``M'' into OMB, and I think that when you leave,
you can say, ``I was responsible for putting the `M' back into
OMB.'' I really appreciate your service. Senator Akaka and I
also appreciate the strategic plans that you have put forward
to address the management challenges of agencies that are on
the high-risk list. We are going to take all of that material
and build on it.
So, again, sharing what Senator Akaka said, you can be
assured, all of you, particularly you, Mr. Johnson, that we are
going to take the work that you have done, and we are going to
continue to stay on top of it and build on what you have been
able to achieve during your time in the Administration. We
really appreciate the fact that you are sticking around until
the end and not tipping your hat and leaving. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. Well, thank you very much, Senator
Voinovich, and I always appreciate your strong interest in
oversight of the Administration transition.
It is now my pleasure to welcome our witnesses here today.
Gene Dodaro is the Acting Comptroller General at the Government
Accountability Office.
Clay Johnson is the Deputy Director for Management at the
Office of Management and Budget. Mr. Johnson also led the
transition team for President Bush in 2001.
Robert Cusick is the Director of the Office of Government
Ethics.
Gail Lovelace is the Chief Human Capital Officer at the
General Services Administration.
As you know, it is the custom of this Subcommittee to swear
in all witnesses, so I ask all of you to stand and raise your
right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are
about to give this Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
Mr. Dodaro. I do.
Mr. Johnson. I do.
Mr. Cusick. I do.
Ms. Lovelace. I do.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much. Let the record note
that our witnesses responded in the affirmative.
Thank you, and I look forward to this hearing, and I would
like to ask Mr. Dodaro to please proceed with your statement.
TESTIMONY OF GENE L. DODARO,\1\ ACTING COMPTROLLER GENERAL,
U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Dodaro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Senator
Voinovich. We are very pleased to have this opportunity to talk
about GAO's planning for the upcoming transitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Dodaro appears in the Appendix on
page 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you well know, we have a long tradition of helping each
new Congress get its agenda together and begin its progress.
But there were amendments made to the Presidential Transition
Act in the year 2000 that also cite GAO as a resource for
incoming Administrations to tap to learn about their management
challenges and risks. And so we take these responsibilities
very seriously and are planning our efforts to support these
transitions with several objectives in mind.
First, we want to provide our insights based on work we
have done, our institutional knowledge, and to pressing
national issues. Some examples include the oversight of the
housing and financial institutions and markets, including
recent developments regarding Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, as
well as the status of the Bank Insurance Fund, and a range of
national security and homeland security issues, including U.S.
efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Second, we want to underscore the need for the incoming
Administration to realize there is a growing need to not only
organize within departments and agencies, but more issues
require collaborations and partnerships at different
governmental levels and with other countries and with the
nonprofit sector. Some examples here that we will highlight are
financing challenges associated with modernizing our
transportation infrastructure, food safety issues, a range of
planning efforts for health care, emergencies as well as the
National Response Plan for both potential manmade and natural
disasters.
Third, given the pressing budget challenges that we have,
we are going to highlight and target areas where resources
could be conserved to help support new initiatives. There are
improper payments being made right now, over $55 billion a
year. Efforts have been made to try to bring that down, but
that can be a source of additional savings, as well as trying
to bring the cost growth of DOD weapons systems under control.
Our last report showed that the cost growth had been $295
billion over a few years, and so that is another area.
We also have a tax gap that IRS estimates, a net tax gap of
$290 billion. And so there are ways to really begin with
concerted efforts to try to tackle these areas. They will not
be easy, but with concerted efforts, we think they could yield
substantial benefits.
Also, we want to highlight the capacity-building efforts
that are required within individual departments and agencies.
If these capacity-building efforts are not attended to, they
are going to affect the policy implementation of whatever
agenda the new Administration is going to pursue. Over one-
third of the Federal workforce will be eligible to retire on
the next Administration's watch. As has been pointed out here
today, we are going to emphasize the need to fill some of the
senior leadership teams in those departments with experienced
managers.
We also agree with statements that have been made, Senator
Akaka, by you and Senator Voinovich that there is an increasing
reliance on contractors to carry out activities, and the new
Administration needs to approach their management
responsibilities with that recognition as well as bringing
poor-performing information technology projects into line going
forward.
Also, we are going to continue to emphasize the need to
maintain the momentum on the high-risk efforts. This
Subcommittee is to be commended for the attention that it has
given to that area. I would like to acknowledge the commitment
that Mr. Johnson has made, and OMB, to that area. The high-risk
area really has helped serve as a management improvement
agenda, not only for the Bush Administration but for the
Clinton Administration before then. And I think that great
progress has been made, but attention needs to be continued on
these efforts, and we are going to emphasize that going
forward.
Last, I would say we are going to evaluate how this
Presidential transition unfolds. A lot of things have changed
since the Presidential Transition Act provisions were put in
place, and there may be a need in a post-September 11, 2001
environment to look at other legislative provisions that could
be modernized to help provide better transitions in the future.
We hope that our efforts support both new leaders as well
as returning leaders, and we look forward to working with the
Congress and the new Administration on these challenges facing
our country.
I would be happy to answer questions when we get to that
stage.
Senator Akaka. Thank you for your statement, Mr. Dodaro.
Now we will hear from Mr. Johnson.
TESTIMONY OF HON. CLAY JOHNSON III,\1\ DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR
MANAGEMENT, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Mr. Johnson. Senator Akaka, Senator Voinovich, thank you
very much. Let me in my opening remarks talk about the specific
issue about what we are doing, what all agencies are doing to
maximize the chance and the probability that the next
Administration will come in and take up where this
Administration left off in terms of working to cause the
Federal Government to better spend, more effectively spend the
taxpayers' money, and more effectively every year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson with attachments appears
in the Appendix on page 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We cannot mandate what the next Administration is going to
do on any management front, but the one thing we are doing is
making sure that every Federal program, every management area,
procurement, financial management, IT management, people
management, program management, for every GAO high-risk list
item, for security clearance reform, for national security
professional development, for every do-it-better initiative,
that by the end of the year there is a very clear definition of
success; what the definition of success is for financial
management at DOD and by what approximate time frame. Weapons
system acquisition, what is the definition of success for
weapons system acquisition at DOD by what general time frame?
Make sure that this is a definition of success that GAO is in
agreement with, that anybody relevant to this issue in the
Senate or the House is comfortable with and OMB is comfortable
with and the people in the agencies are comfortable with; that
they agree with the time frame, they agree for the
implementation plan to get there; it is clearly defined who is
accountable; and all of this is made very transparent and very
public. It is made available on every agency's home page on
their website, you are aware of it, GAO is aware of it, all the
interest groups are aware of it, all constituent groups are
aware of it, and employees are aware of it. And all SES who
work on these GAO high-risk list items or on the programs or on
financial management, whatever it is, those 2009 activities
that are involved in getting to where we want to be on all
these matters are built into the senior executives' formal
performance goals for fiscal year 2009.
This is something that would not have been possible 8 years
ago because we were not able to hold--we did not have
legislation that allowed us to hold senior executives
accountable for performance. They were held accountable for
having certain levels of competencies. Now they can be held
accountable for the performance. And I believe you were
integrally involved in passing that legislation. But that is a
very valuable tool that we have now.
But the definitions of success, what we are trying to
accomplish, how we are trying to accomplish it, and who is
accountable will be very clearly defined to everybody's mutual
satisfaction, and it will be very apparent, very public, and
very transparent.
The next Administration, when they come in and they are
trying to sort out what their priorities are, will inherit a
lot of purposefulness, a lot of do-it-better, a lot of spend-
the-money-more-effectively purposefulness. They will come in
and almost certainly seek to install different priorities. But
they will inherit a lot of purposefulness, and they will
benefit from the capability that agencies have now, the greater
capability that agencies have now to spend taxpayers' money
more effectively. Every agency can more effectively spend
taxpayers' money today than they could 8 years ago. So that
will benefit this next Administration and all subsequent
Administrations. They will not inherit an empty blackboard.
They will inherit a blackboard full of lots of clear goals,
lots of accountability, lots of specific ways forward. They can
replace that. They can choose to go faster. They can choose to
go slower. But they will inherit a lot of way forward, and I am
confident that GAO and you and your counterparts in the House
will ensure that the next Administration continues to place the
priority on spending the taxpayers' money effectively that this
Administration has placed on it.
I look forward to your questions, and anything else between
now and the end of the year you want to engage in.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson.
And now we will hear from Mr. Cusick and your statement.
TESTIMONY OF HON. ROBERT I. CUSICK,\1\ DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
GOVERNMENT ETHICS
Mr. Cusick. Thank you, Chairman Akaka, Senator Voinovich,
for inviting me here today to talk about the role of the Office
of Government Ethics (OGE) in the Presidential transition. I
welcome the opportunity to share with you some of what has gone
on to prepare for this important task. Even though the
transition will be peaceful, it will be difficult nevertheless.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Cusick appears in the Appendix on
page 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our role as the leader within the Executive Branch in
ethics is never more important than during a Presidential
transition. Since I became Director over 2\1/2\ years ago, I
learned and OGE has learned the lessons from past transitions
and has prepared diligently for this one.
There are over 1,100 presidentially appointed, Senate-
confirmed positions in the Executive Branch. As the Director of
OGE, it is my responsibility under the law to certify that a
nominee's financial interests do not conflict with his or her
prospective government duties.
This is not an easy process because the financial
disclosure reports are like snowflakes. No two are alike, and
the duties and issues that may pertain to a nominee will vary
from agency to agency. Additionally, the complexity of
investments and financial instruments is boundless and
continues to expand.
Frequently, a nominee will need to take certain steps in
order to avoid conflicts of interest. These may include the
sale of stock or other financial interests, and working with
the White House and the agency where the individual will serve,
we develop ethics agreements to memorialize what a nominee must
do, or refrain from doing, in order to avoid conflicts. I
understand fully the need for the President to have critical
members of the national security team and others in place as
soon as possible. And OGE is prepared to do its part to meet
this challenge.
My written testimony, which I ask be made part of the
record, gives more detail about what OGE has done to prepare
for the transition. But I do want to give the Subcommittee some
brief examples.
We have met with Mr. Johnson to discuss a number of
possible actions that will speed up the financial disclosure
vetting process. We have also had meetings with appropriate
officials of the Department of State and have scheduled
meetings with the Department of Defense and the Department of
Homeland Security in order to discuss what we see as possible
improvements to the process. We have contacted representatives
of both Presidential campaigns to offer briefings at their
earliest convenience concerning OGE's role and
responsibilities.
As the leader in Executive Branch ethics training, OGE
trained over 250 ethics officials last February here in
Washington. They were from more than 70 departments and
agencies, and the training referred specifically to nominee
financial disclosure. That training was very well received.
We have issued written guidance to help agencies deal with
complex financial instruments. Next week, OGE will conduct the
16th National Government Ethics Conference. This is a week-long
training event for over 600 Executive Branch agency ethics
officials, and the entire theme of this year's conference is
transition. We are producing a short video presentation
introducing the financial disclosure process and conflicts-of-
interest analysis for PAS appointees to assist them in this
process and help them understand it.
After the election and before the inauguration, we will
work intensively to review financial disclosure reports of
potential nominees. We will ensure clear channels of
communication between the transition teams. And we will make
OGE personnel available to brief members of the new
Administration. These steps will ensure, we believe,
expeditious clearance and certification of financial
disclosure.
It is an honor to be here today. It is an honor to lead the
Office of Government Ethics, and I welcome any questions you
may have.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Cusick.
And now we will hear the statement from Ms. Lovelace.
TESTIMONY OF GAIL T. LOVELACE,\1\ CHIEF HUMAN CAPITAL OFFICER,
U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Ms. Lovelace. Good afternoon, Chairman Akaka and Senator
Voinovich. I am pleased to be with you here this afternoon on
behalf of the General Services Administration. Presidential
transition is the top priority for GSA, as stated by our Acting
Administrator, Jim Williams, during his confirmation hearing
before the full Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Committee. Acting Administrator Williams, and all of us at GSA,
are fully committed to a successful and smooth transition from
the current Administration to the next.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Lovelace appears in the Appendix
on page 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that the transition from one Administration to
the next is an exciting time for government. I am honored to be
able to play a role in ensuring the smooth transition as
envisioned by the Presidential Transition Act of 1963. Part of
GSA's mission is to leverage the buying power of the Federal
Government to acquire best value for taxpayers and our Federal
customers. We deliver superior workplaces, quality acquisition
services, and expert business solutions.
Our responsibility during Presidential transitions is to
provide many of these same services to the President-elect,
Vice President-elect, and members of their President transition
team. We have 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 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 team that plans and
stages the various events that make up a Presidential
inauguration. GSA similar logistical support services to
President Bush and 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 GSA's role
in transition 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 the 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. We have notified the Appropriations Committee, and
we are hopeful that Congress will ensure that these funds are
in place.
Looking inside Federal agencies, I have 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 for transition. We have created a special
section on our gsa.gov website to share information across
agencies and with the public. We are actively working with Mr.
Johnson to bring all agency transition directors together for a
special session focused on transition. This session will
reinforce the recently transition guidance that was issued by
the Executive Office of the President.
Like all other agencies, GSA is diligently working to
ensure smooth transition within our agency. As part of our
internal efforts, GSA has created four teams to plan for a
successful transition. These teams are focused on: One, support
to current political appointees leaving; two, continuity of GSA
programs, operations, and services; three, logistical support
to Presidential transition team members that may come into GSA;
and, four, preparing a new team of appointees. As an agency, I
believe we are well positioned to do our part to ensure a
smooth transition.
In closing, Chairman Akaka and Senator Voinovich, I want to
thank you again for the opportunity to address you this
afternoon. I will be happy to answer any questions you may
have.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Ms. Lovelace.
My first question is to Mr. Dodaro. As you know, this
Subcommittee has worked closely with GAO over the years to
improve management at all agencies. Many of the issues you
bring up in your testimony speak to the importance of
management issues for the next Administration. Unfortunately,
new Administrations often do not recognize this importance
early enough. GAO, along with the Congress, has made it a point
to educate Administrations about management, but often the
information is just lost in the blizzard of other issues.
What can we all do to focus incoming policymakers on
management issues?
Mr. Dodaro. Mr. Chairman, I think, first, what we are
trying to focus on is to distill down very precisely what the
biggest challenges are. So, in other words, prioritizing what
those challenges are, I think, is pivotal.
Second, I think illustrating and underscoring the effect
that unless those challenges are made, they are going to
implement whatever policy agenda is being pursued.
I have been in a number of transitions over a number of
years with different Administrations, and I would say my one
observation consistently is that people underestimate the
implementation challenges associated with any new policies they
want to put into effect. And unless they understand that and we
can communicate that to them, I think there is a tendency not
to take some of these management challenges as seriously as
possible.
Third, unless the challenges are addressed, they can
sometimes consume attention if management problems all of a
sudden reach the point of a public story about waste or
inefficiencies, or whatever, that divert their attention from
other issues that they want to spend their time on and that are
important for the country for them to spend their time on.
So I am planning in my current capacity to try to outreach
to new leaders as they are put in place and to underscore these
basic points, which I think are very important and I think are
going to become even more important given the serious budgetary
and fiscal constraints that our government is going to face
going forward.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson, you suggest that for a successful 2008
transition the new Administration will need to work closely
with Congress very early on. Given your experience leading the
2000 transition for President Bush, what should the new
Administration do differently in working with Congress?
Mr. Johnson. To get its new team on the field or to work on
management matters, or both?
Senator Akaka. Yes, both.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Let me talk about the management
challenges first.
I know the next Administration is going to come in and
inherit a lot of goals--goals that you think are important,
that GAO thinks are important, and that career employees think
are important--in terms of how to do their business, how to
spend this amount of money to teach illiterate adults how to
read. They are going to inherit a policy on this issue or that
issue. And they can change those priorities. They could decide
to do it faster or slower, but they are going to have to do
that in the light of day, and I bet you they have to do it with
your agreement and GAO's maybe editorial comment.
So if you are inclined to encourage them to pay as much
attention to management or even more attention to management
matters than we did, I bet you will be able to communicate that
to them, and they will have little choice but to take what they
inherit and build from there. I cannot imagine that they can in
the middle of the night simply walk away from the whole
challenge of working to make the Federal Government more
effective.
So I personally am confident that the stage has been set
primarily by the work of this Subcommittee and comparable
committees in the House and by the continued good work with GAO
and a little assistance from OMB and agencies and, most
importantly, the Federal employees and agencies understand all
this work is good for them. It is good for their agencies. It
helps their agencies be more effective. It makes them better
places to work. And they would make it very difficult for a new
Administration to come in and say, we really do not care about
this anymore.
So I think you emphasizing, as you can do very effectively,
to the next Administration how important these things are, and
if they decide to change the priorities, that you ask why. Why
are you choosing to go slow? Or why are you choosing to place
less emphasis on this than in previous Administrations if that
is the case? So you can bring a lot of pressure to bear on
their continued attention to management matters?
In terms of working with the Senate, getting the new team
on the field, the biggest responsibility is on the new
Administration to do the work they need to do before the
election and during the transition and then in the early part
of the new Administration to identify qualified people that
they want to nominate to you and load up the Senate with lots
of nominations. The thing that drives the Senate primarily in
terms of the timeliness of their confirmation process is having
a big stack of nominees that they have to process. They do not
like it being said by the press that they are not doing a good
job of helping the new Administration get their team in place.
So it is their responsibility to put a lot of pressure by
doing a lot of their work quickly, to put pressure on the
Senate to do their work quickly. And when they are ready--so
they need to prepare you for the kind of volumes that they are
hoping to bring forward to the Senate. If they expand the
capacity or change the ability to clear people more quickly,
they need to make sure they do that in partnership with you
because you look at the same clearance information that the
White House looks at, and it has to be clearance information
that you are satisfied with and that you can make a proper
confirmation determination from.
So when this Administration, the current Administration, is
ready to suggest possible changes for the new Administration,
they will come up and talk to the appropriate leaders up here.
But all this will be done with the Senate, and it is supposed
to be and it will continue to be.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Ms. Lovelace, let me ask you to
put your CHCO hat on for a moment. Can you discuss how human
capital leaders in career positions at agencies such as
yourself prepare for new political leadership at their agency?
Ms. Lovelace. Senator Akaka, I would be happy to answer
that question. The Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCO) Council
have spent much time talking about preparedness for the
upcoming transition. We have spent much time talking about
ensuring that there are no gaps behind the political leaders
who will likely be walking out during the time of transition
and right after the inauguration. I believe that we are all
well positioned or well on our way to be positioned to ensuring
that there are people ready to step up and take those
positions, those critical positions. After all, we are there to
ensure that agencies continue to be able to carry out their
mission, which does require that we have people in senior
leadership positions and in other roles within our agencies.
I can assure you that through the Chief Human Capital
Officer Council and some other venues, we are actively
discussing exactly those issues at the CHCO Council.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Johnson, I would again like to congratulate you on
identifying individuals in each department to handle
transition. I understand it takes some scheduling, post-
employment training, and documenting agency priorities and
missions for the incoming Administration.
What efforts have you made to make sure that they get the
job done?
Mr. Johnson. I knew you were going to ask that question
because we had a meeting at noon today with the President's
Management Council, and I said, ``I will bet you one of the two
Senators is going to ask me, `Are you doing what we instructed
every agency to do in that memo of July 18th?' '' And so was
anybody not aggressively doing what we instructed you to do.
And they all agreed that they were going to accomplish all
those goals at least by the date that was laid out, and most of
them are October 15 and November 1, 2008.
Most of that work had already begun before I met with the
PMC on this subject in May. As Ms. Lovelace said, the career
staff and the political leadership of agencies understand full
well what the challenges are at the end of this year, and they
did not need much whip-popping by me. It is really just a
little orchestration and facilitation. Everybody was working on
it. We just made sure everybody was working on the same thing
and had the same set of priorities.
So we are looking forward to this meeting that Ms. Lovelace
referred to on September 24, when we are bringing in all the
transition leaders, because they have approached Ms. Lovelace
with questions that they have above and beyond the kinds of
answers that I thought we provided in that July 18 memo. And
they have other more detailed questions that we will provide
them. And if the transition leads in every agency want to meet
every week, we will meet every week. We will get them together
and provide them with answers to whatever questions they have.
So there is a really strong commitment by every agency and
by the Administration to provide whatever support is called for
by both candidates for President and by the career leadership
in every agency, as we have all said, to make this as effective
a transition as there has ever been and hopefully one that can
be used as a model for years to come.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you. At the July meeting that we
had, you made reference to reforming the White House vetting
process for high-level appointees and that you were working
with Fred Fielding and the FBI on that.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.
Senator Voinovich. How are you coming on that? Is it
something that you can do from an administrative point of view
that does not require legislation?
Mr. Johnson. I think most of it can be done
administratively. Fred Fielding is working with the FBI, and
the Presidential personnel are looking at--and talking to both
campaigns to impress on both campaigns the importance of
preparing to make appointments--nominations to the Senate
faster than ever before and what kind of work has to be done
before the election and after the election and during the
transition to make that possible. And they are meeting with the
FBI to impress upon them the importance of clearing people
faster than ever before and working through what has to be done
to make that possible.
So the leadership of the transition planning is within the
White House, in the Chief of Staff's office, and work with
White House Counsel and Presidential Personnel. At an
appropriate time before you recess, they will want to come up
and make sure that the committees know, particularly the
committees that deal with Homeland Security, Defense, and
State, which will be the most important nominees to deal with
in the very month or two in the Administration, understand what
kind of volumes both candidates hope to be presenting to the
Senate so that the Senate is prepared to receive those and
quickly dispense with them and effectively dispense with them
in terms of the nomination process.
So they will be up here when they have something that
specifically they want to brief you on.
Senator Voinovich. Is there a boilerplate letter that you
send out to the candidates, Ms. Lovelace? And who sends out the
letter to the candidates saying, ``Hey, you might get elected.
Let's think about doing something, about putting your team in
place?'' Who does that?
Mr. Johnson. First of all, let me jump in here before you
violate a law. I think that is against the law to promise--not
that you would break the law, sir, but to promise the
possibility of an appointment.
Senator Voinovich. No, you misunderstand, what I am saying
is to tell them what it is that they ought to be doing in terms
of putting together some kind of task force to deal with the
transition, to get them to start thinking about it. Is that a
boilerplate letter that you send out to them and say, ``Hey,
here are things you better start thinking about in the event
that you are elected.''
Mr. Johnson. Yes. I don't know of a letter. One thing that
the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act allows is
both candidates identifying before the election people that
they want to use to advise the President-elect during the
transition, between election and inauguration, and it calls for
them to provide the names and background material of those
people that they want to serve as their adviser during the
transition to update their clearances, to provide them
clearances, so that they are able to deal with secure
information----
But my point is that will allow on the national security
front the preclearance of some number of people that will
almost certainly be considered for Cabinet and sub-Cabinet
positions. But I am not aware of a standard boilerplate letter
that is typically sent out----
Senator Voinovich. Well, having been through transitions as
mayor and then as governor, I know that in both instances, as
kind of a gift to the new Administration, I put a lot of work
into a very comprehensive document about transition and what
they should be looking for and so on and so forth.
Are you doing that, or is that something that----
Mr. Johnson. I believe the White House Office of
Presidential Personnel--I know they have engaged both
campaigns, and both campaigns are very committed to preparing
to govern. And I know that Presidential Personnel is providing
information to both major party candidates that they need to
begin to think through the people part of this now before the
election, to give them knowledge that they would be hard
pressed to get otherwise about the positions, the kind of
qualities you look for, the process, the confirmation process,
the clearance process, the timing involved, the process and so
forth.
My impression is that both major party campaigns,
candidates, are very pleased with the support that they are
getting from the White House. I also believe it is the first
time that both candidates for President have been reached out
to by the existing Administration. It is fairly customary to go
to a like party, but I believe it is the first time that an
exiting Administration has reached out to candidates from both
parties.
Ms. Lovelace. Senator Voinovich, I would like to answer
that question as well. GSA did not send a standard form letter
of any type to both campaigns, but we, much like the White
House, have reached out to both campaigns in preparation for
Presidential transition, have been actively sharing information
with them and asking questions of them to make sure that we are
making it a smooth transition for them. So we have been
actively working with them and with PPO and the Office of
Administration and Mr. Johnson to make sure that we are meeting
their needs for transition.
Senator Voinovich. Well, it sounds like a lot of
communication, but I am kind of shocked that there is not some
document that you put together for transition to the nominees.
Mr. Johnson. Right. Oh, I recall.
Senator Voinovich. When was it that we finally learned who
the President----
Mr. Johnson. December 13.
Senator Voinovich. December 13. I will never forget
President Milosevic, when I congratulated him, said, ``It took
me a shorter time to become President than your President to
get elected''--or find out who it was.
Mr. Johnson. There is one document that explains what
somebody preparing for a transition needs to think about, and
it is not an official document. It is my own personal advice on
what--it is one of the attachments that I provided you, and I
do know that both campaigns, their transition people have read
it and appreciate it and are using it to structure their
transition organizing.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Ms. Lovelace. And, Senator, if I could add to that as well,
to add to what Mr. Johnson is saying, we also have the
responsibility under the Transition Act of 2000 to create a
transition directory that pulls together a host of information
from different agencies to help the transition. We actually
pull information from the OGE, from GAO, from OPM, and other
places to pull it all together in one place for the incoming
Administration. We shared with both campaigns an outline of
that directory and some information that will be part of that
directory, in addition to Mr. Johnson's memo that he has
attached to his testimony, which I think is actually very well
written.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson, in your suggestions for a successful 2008
transition, you mentioned that the White House Personnel Office
is working to set up road maps for the next Administration to
work 100 appointees through by April 1, 2009. Is this something
that you think the next Administration will use? And is there
any coordination with GSA on these plans and how they can get
it to the transition teams?
Mr. Johnson. What the White House has recommended--and I
think very persuasively--to both candidates, and they have
agreed wholeheartedly, is that they have to nominate more
people faster to the Senate than ever before. And the most
number of people that have been confirmed by the Senate by
April 1st is 25, which is just not enough. And what we have
suggested they think about is that instead of being 25 or 30,
it be something closer to 100. It would be great if it was 200,
but it is hard to make the math work if it is 100.
They have agreed that they need to be both committed to
that, and we have provided them--the White House is in the
process of providing them information which they can use to
pick the most important 100 positions, to focus on what those
people in those positions do, what the appointment process
consists of, what the clearance process, what the confirmation
process consists of, so that the people working on this before
the election, during the transition, and after the inauguration
will be very knowledgeable about what is involved and so that
they can assemble the appropriate people to do the appropriate
work to try to do it multiple times faster than it has ever
been done before.
My impression and understanding is that both candidates are
really engaged and really eager to tackle this assignment. They
understand the importance of it. They understand that our
enemies understand that we are potentially weak at this time in
a transfer of power and that we need to be well prepared to
respond and deal with just about any national security or
homeland security matter that could arise.
Senator Akaka. What steps, Mr. Johnson, outside of relying
on the Archives will you take to get this information to the
next Administration?
Mr. Johnson. Well, the White House is in communication with
this and lawyers are involved, as they are with everything--
campaign lawyers and White House lawyers--and my understanding
is they are asking lots of questions, the candidates are, the
candidates' representatives are, and the White House is
producing answers very quickly. So there is a good
communication there. The specifics I do not know about. This is
something that the White House specifically is in charge of,
but there is lots of engagement and lots of transfer of
information back and forth.
Both candidates, my impression is, are very committed to
put their team on the field much, much faster than ever before,
primarily because they understand the need.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Mr. Cusick. Mr. Chairman, may I comment on that point?
Senator Akaka. Yes.
Mr. Cusick. I have been familiar for some time with Mr.
Johnson's proposal of 100 by April and 400 by August. We, at
OGE, are prepared for those numbers. We believe that the
financial disclosures can be completed on time, assuming they
are received at appropriate intervals, appropriately early in
the Administration, or even before inauguration.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Cusick, the Presidential Transition Act
of 2000 required that the Office of Government Ethics submit a
report to our Subcommittee with recommendations for improving
the vetting process. One of the recommendations in that report
was the simplifications of the SF-278 financial disclosure
form. After 7 years, the forms and the process have not
changed. Why is this?
Mr. Cusick. Well, Senator, we have made a legislative draft
proposal that we submitted earlier this year that would
simplify the form. We are not able to simplify it because it is
a creature of statute. But we have made proposals to simplify
it.
I agree that for the purpose of the Office of Government
Ethics in identifying and resolving conflicts, the form is
unnecessarily complex, and we would like to see it simplified
to some degree in line with our proposal submitted several
months ago.
Senator Akaka. You have given thought to this. On this can
there be other steps that can be taken without a new law?
Mr. Cusick. Not with respect to simplifying that form,
Senator. I think that requires legislation. But we would
welcome a form that was more simple in its structure and
detail.
Senator Akaka. Thank you for that.
Ms. Lovelace, GSA now provides orientation for incoming
appointees. Could you talk more about what specific orientation
GSA will be providing and how that orientation was developed?
Ms. Lovelace. Senator Akaka, the Transition Act of 2000
does give us the authority to provide for appointee
orientation. We actually work with the incoming Office of the
President-elect and the incoming transition team to determine
what will be included in that orientation, how it will be
given, who it will be given to, and when.
In the change of Administration from the Clinton
Administration to the Bush Administration, we actually worked
with Mr. Johnson in making sure that appointee orientation was,
in fact, carried out. There were specific details that were put
in place and an action plan to carry forward.
We have already provided both campaigns with preliminary
information on what is required as part of the act and are just
beginning preliminary conversations with both in terms of what
they are looking for in orientation. We more so play a
facilitator role than an actual provider role.
Senator Akaka. Well, thank you very much for that. Senator
Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. As you know, we have been very
interested in developing metrics to judge the performance of
the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Dodaro, you probably
remember that there was a difference of opinion about whether
or not DHS was complying with what GAO thought they should be.
I understand that GAO is working conscientiously with DHS to
develop this metric system so that we will have something next
year to look at to see how they are doing.
Mr. Dodaro. As a result of the hearing that you are
referring to, there was an effort made by DHS to begin to seek
our input as they put together the performance measures that
they were going to use, and we were providing informal comment
in that. And we provided correspondence to the Senate saying
that had been completed and that DHS was soon to complete their
strategic plan. I believe they have finished that, and we are
in the process of reviewing it now, Senator, going forward.
But there was, as you mentioned we had created some metrics
using some material that had been in congressional documents
and other documents to judge the performance. In many of those
areas, there were not performance measures that everybody
agreed to. So we are in the process of providing them input,
recognizing that it is their responsibility to put the metrics
in place. And GAO is not going to put itself in a position of
management, but we are providing our input and then are
critiquing their strategic plan.
Senator Voinovich. I would be interested, Mr. Johnson, in
your thoughts about the interpersonal relationship between OMB
and GAO because they are the group that comes and looks over
your shoulder at the feasibility or the opportunity that is
there in terms of getting good communication going back and
forth so that you do not run into a situation where, when it
comes time for the reporting, that there is a big difference
about what the metrics are and what people are being judged as
to.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, for sure. And that is one thing I am
planning to do is, here is the way I think you should relate to
GAO and here is the relationship you should aspire to create
and here is how to relate to the IG community and the Federal
employee community and this Subcommittee and so forth and so
on.
I think that the important thing is not that DHS adopts the
metrics that GAO recommends because there it is always
territoriality and not invented here and it is just human
nature to want to develop your own metrics. So the role I would
suggest for GAO is that they insist that metrics be developed
that can allow you and the agency, with their help, GAO's help,
to monitor performance at DHS, and performance is defined by
this and this and this, and they be challenged to come up with
the metrics to do that, and then you provide the agency with
the appropriate commentary about the adequacy of those metrics,
and they can choose to improve them or double them or
something.
But I know that Homeland Security is very measure- and
manage-oriented with a lot of prodding from you, and that Paul
Schneider is committed to the success of the transition, which
is written into law, I think the only agency that has that
written into law, and to have lots of good measures they can
use to manage performance.
Senator Voinovich. Too bad we did not get a term, but we
will keep working on it.
One of the things that I remember telling Mitch Daniels and
his successors, was that, if I were in his shoes, I would
really work on the high-risk list.
To my knowledge, the corrective action plans tied to the
high-risk list are not a part of the Government Performance and
Results Act. In other words, Mr. Dodaro, I think you said
something about the fact that if you look at the high-risk
list, it pretty well reflects some overall management problems
that need to be addressed in the Federal Government across the
board, not just one agency. But I think there are about seven
or eight of them that are agency-wide.
What about the feasibility of requiring that there be a
plan to deal with those problems that they are confronted with,
a written plan, a part of their Government Performance and
Results Act work?
Mr. Dodaro. One of the things that we have been very
supportive of over time--and, actually, the problems on the
high-risk list led to the creation of some statutory management
reforms because of the pervasive nature of the problems, for
example, the Chief Management Officer Act, the act that put in
place Chief Information Officers in Government, and in part
that led to some reforms, which information technology,
financial management technology, human capital--we put that on
the high-risk list, and there were a lot of reforms made there,
my point being, Senator, that one of the ways to guarantee
continuity between Administrations is to have some of these
management reforms in a basic statutory framework that
transcends Administrations. And certainly I would support the
possibility of that being focused on some of these areas that
we have discussed. Some of them have been on our list for a
number of years. Other ones are new and they are changing. As
you know, we just added the 2010 census to the list, and early
in the next Administration, they are going to have some
critical issues there.
So I think having a statutory underpinning for management
reforms conceptually is a good idea.
Senator Voinovich. One of the things that we have yet to do
is reach agreement on how to streamline the financial
disclosure form for Executive Branch employees. Mr. Cusick, I
believe you have some ideas on how to do that.
Mr. Cusick. Yes, Senator, we do.
Senator Voinovich. Our last attempt required agencies to
examine the number of appointed positions requiring Senate
confirmation; allowed Presidential candidates to receive a list
of appointed positions after they receive the nomination, and
required the Office of Government Ethics to review the Federal
Government's conflict-of-interest laws. We never did get this
passed, so shame on us.
Do any of you want to comment on that? Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. I have forgotten why we were asked to present
a list of potential positions that could be reclassified from
PAS to PA. But I had forgotten that there was actually
legislation that had prompted that question. And I think it was
in 2003, we submitted a list of positions that we thought it
could be argued they should not require Senate confirmation.
And I thought that number was 80-some. I think it was 150-some-
odd positions, full-time positions, and the Senate took that
list of positions and considered these positions that were not
policy positions, they were legislative affairs, government
affairs, communications positions, general counsels. We
recommended CFOs, some CIOs--not policy, not critical
operational----
Senator Voinovich. I remember that, and the people that
were charged to do that were Harry Reid, who was running for
leadership, and Mitch McConnell. With all due respect to both
those gentlemen who encouraged me to do this. And then when the
time came to look over the appointment process what happened
was they ran into the jurisdiction of some of the committee
chairmen who wanted to bring these people before them. Would
you agree we ought to revisit that? And, by the way, Senator
Akaka, I sent a letter off to them about a month ago asking
them if they might be willing to review that now that they are
both leaders.
Mr. Johnson. Well, I think the White House would welcome a
revisit of that issue.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Johnson, as I said in my opening
statement, I am concerned about maintaining effectiveness
oversight of the large numbers of contracts and contractors
during the transition. It is possible that the next
Administration may greatly scale back on contracting or have
different contract priorities than the current Administration
has now.
Has the Administration scaled back on seeking bids for new
contracts? Or has OMB given any guidance to agencies in this
area of contracting?
Mr. Johnson. The percentage of contracts that are
competitively bid has remained remarkably constant over the
last period of time, from the prior Administration into this
Administration. I could not tell you what the percentage is,
but it has moved almost not at all. So there is as much
competition in our contracting as there has always been. But
there needs to be more. There are always opportunities to buy
things better with the help of competition.
I think prompted by some hearings on this subject last
year, our Office of Federal Procurement Policy issued guidance
to agencies and suggested best practices on--creating a
competition officer, I think, in each agency to study this and
monitor this and to facilitate this. So, again, we are raising
the focus on it in response to concerns about our ability to
contract effectively. We need to be better at managing
contracts, whether competitively bid or not, but also
continuing to inject--I mean, inject even more competition into
the process.
One of the comments you made, sir, at the beginning was
that we are doing more contracting for government work. I think
it is true that the work we are contracting for is not
inherently governmental work. It is work that can be done by
Federal employees in some cases, but it is commercial in nature
work that is being contracted for. I am not aware of inherently
governmental work that we contract for.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Ms. Lovelace, GSA has an
interesting position in the transition. It manages the
transition for the President-elect and at the same time is
under the leadership of the current Administration. Do you
foresee any problems with gaining the trust of all parties
involved in these orientation programs and training for new
appointeeS?
Ms. Lovelace. Senator Akaka, I do not see any issues coming
forth in terms of working with the current Administration or
the incoming Administration. We are actively working with Mr.
Johnson, with Presidential Personnel, with the Office of
Administration at the White House, as well as both campaigns,
to make sure that we meet the spirit and intent of appointee
orientation. We are also starting to get engaged with the
Office of Government Ethics, with the Office of Personnel
Management, and other parts of the government to make sure that
we are ready to provide orientation for new appointee
orientations. I actually see no problems whatsoever.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Mr. Dodaro, your statement
generally made the point that management needs to be a priority
in the next Administration. Can you tell us any specific
management issues or projects that the next Administration
should be concerned about or what we should be concerned about?
Mr. Dodaro. I think, first, as I mentioned in my statement
and we talked about earlier, the No. 1 priority from my
perspective is to get people in these senior management
positions that have the experience of managing large
enterprises. And I think people underestimate some of the size
and in terms of the budgets and the dollars and also the
ability to manage for results, to have detailed plans,
performance measures, etc., but also to work across departments
and agencies. It is not only managing nowadays within a
department or agency, but managing with colleagues throughout
the Federal Government, throughout State and local government.
So that is No. 1, get the right people in these right positions
that are experienced and can handle the tasks ahead of them
because these are large enterprises with difficult issues.
Two, there is more reliance on contracting. You need to
have people who can effectively set requirements. Part of the
problems with the contracts is that there is not enough
management direction as to what the type of requirements are
that the government is trying to buy and trying to ensure is
put in place and that there is effective oversight over these
contracts so that they properly deliver on what the government
really needs and the government is not pursuing a contract that
is not well defined and is not adequately monitored. So there
needs to be senior people in the agencies to manage those
contracts, and that is to include information technology
contracts as well going forward.
The other issue really, I think, is the question of
capacity in the human capital area. We have put that on the
high-risk list. I think during the 1990s there was a lot of
downsizing in some management functions in departments and
agencies, and I think given what the agendas are that need to
be pursued, there really needs to be good succession planning
in identifying what are the right skills that you need to have
in the departments and agencies. It is fine to contract out for
services, but you need senior people that can manage those
contracts effectively for you to get the results.
So the right skill level, the right mix of people, and
really the people who are best positioned to do that are senior
department leaders that understand what it takes and have run
large enterprises before. So those would be the efforts.
Then one last point I would make is that there has been
progress made in a number of areas, and that progress needs to
be sustained. We now have the 24 largest departments and
agencies. At least 18 get clean opinions on their financial
statements, and there have been efforts made to improve
internal controls. That is largely due to the efforts of this
Administration and a prior Administration to implement some of
these statutory reforms, and I would encourage the next
Administration to build on the progress that has been made
because I think that is pivotal to have them have better
financial information to make good decisions.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Dodaro, what about projects? What
projects would you recommend or signal to the new
Administration to set those priorities?
Mr. Dodaro. I think, Mr. Chairman, our transition work will
highlight for every department and agency what particular
management challenges are unique to that agency and what they
need to do to focus on this.
For example, let's take NASA. They are retiring the Space
Shuttle. That to me is a huge project that needs to be focused
on because they are going to have a gap in that process going
forward.
This whole issue for the Federal Housing Finance Agency,
who is now going to be in conservatorship for Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac, that is a huge activity going forward.
It was just announced today that the Department of Defense
is deferring the contract on the tanker provision into the next
Administration. That is a very important decision that needs to
be made.
So we will highlight for every major department and agency,
we are planning to make our information available through our
website so it is electronically available, publicly available
as well, because I think that Mr. Johnson's point that
providing some transparency over these issues is really
important.
The census is another project that is terribly important to
apportionment and also to the distribution of hundreds of
billions of dollars in Federal assistance, and that needs to be
attended to.
So we will have those projects, and, of course, our high-
risk list provides a real helpful listing and prioritization as
well.
Senator Akaka. Before I call on Senator Voinovich, let me
follow up with Mr. Johnson on this same question and on
projects that he would recommend as a priority to the
Administration.
Mr. Johnson. The most important thing that I believe is
missing in the Federal Government is the proper--what we need
more of is we need clearer goals and we need more
accountability for accomplishing them. Too often, employees
will answer the question, ``What do you do?'' Well, I work on
this or I work on that. We have to get beyond that. We need to
be trying to accomplish specific goals in specific time frames,
and people really need to be held accountable for doing--that
does not mean punish them if they miss them, but that means
that the goals are real and that you and the leaders in the
Executive Branch really want them to be accomplished by the
dates that the agency leadership said they can be accomplished,
and that there be a level of purposefulness that today does not
exist in the Federal Government.
We had the beginnings of that. The first thing you have to
have is every program has to have a goal, an outcome goal. That
exists. It took 5 years to do it and then another 2 years to
improve it. But every program has outcome goals and efficiency
goals. They have a plan for accomplishing them. These are
public so that agencies can be held accountable for
accomplishing them.
If you could only ask one question of an agency head or a
program head up here, the question I would suggest you ask is:
What are you being held accountable for accomplishing this next
year? And then when the year is up, how did you perform
relative to your goals? You missed them or you did better? What
are you going to do as a result of that? That question is not
asked often enough within the Executive Branch or by Congress
of the Executive Branch.
And so the goals are not clear enough--they are not
outcome-oriented enough, they are not clear enough, and there
is not enough real accountability for it.
We have goals now--when we first started evaluating
programs 8 years ago, half the programs in the Federal
Government that we looked at could not demonstrate a result--
good or bad. Nobody had ever asked the question. That is
different now. So a foundation has been laid to go to the next
level, which is continue to improve the goals, but continue to
build more ``So what?'' into the fact that we have goals, and
we can now start holding managers, leaders, employees
accountable for accomplishing the goals. So that the level of
purposefulness to get to a desired outcome is real and
significant. To me, that is the primary--whether it is high-
risk weapons systems acquisition, adult literacy, whatever it
is. To me, that is the primary thing that we need to add to
what goes in the Federal Government that does not exist now, to
the extent to which we desire it to exist.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much for that. Senator
Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. I am interested in following up on that.
As you know, we passed legislation to strengthen pay for
performance for the Senior Executive Service, and
implementation is still a little bit uneven. But if you really
get at management, what you were just talking about, it begins
with your Senior Executive Service and the whole idea of a
performance evaluation is to sit down with an individual and
talk about the goals and what is expected of them and then
continue to have a dialogue with them.
Maybe you can answer this next question privately sometime.
I wonder how often were the Secretaries of the various Federal
agencies evaluated by anybody--you or anyone else? One of the
hardest things I had to do when I was mayor and governor, was
the evaluation of the people who ran the department. So I
started out with them about what it was that I expected of them
and held their feet to the fire and we have that.
I've introduced legislation to strengthen performance
management that includes a provision whereby if somebody's
performance was not acceptable, they would not get a pay
increase. Of course, there was a lot of noise about this
provision. But it seems to me that one of the ways you can
accomplish what you have just been talking about, Mr. Johnson,
is to follow up on that kind of a program. I would like to get
the comments here of all four of you in terms of what you think
about that.
Mr. Johnson. Well, one thing, the legislation that called
for pay for performance for SES was really important, and we
are now in the second or third year, I guess, of the
implementation of it, and the implementation quality is not
what it needs to be, but it is a priority of OPM to work with
agencies to make sure that there are meaningful distinctions
being made between the evaluation of the performance of all the
senior executives. I agree with you. If you can get those 7,000
career and 700 political SESs moving in the right direction at
the right speed, the whole government will follow.
And so we have the legislation we need now, and I think we
know what we need to do, led by OPM, to implement it more
effectively this next year than the year before.
Along the same lines, but there is no pay tied to it, every
agency for every employee by the end of fiscal year 2009 is
being held accountable by OPM to implement a--I forget the
title. It is something like an ``Effective Performance
Management System,'' so that every employee is evaluated on
their performance, a significant portion on their performance,
not just on competencies. That is a big step forward. There is
no pay tied to it, but most people would agree that the primary
value of a pay-for-performance system is the performance
management part of the pay for performance. The pay part of it
is a way to drive the seriousness of it because you have to
give someone an $800 raise versus a $600 raise, so they have to
take it really seriously and explain why they are getting $600
and not $800 or $800 and not $600. But the key is that you be
able to evaluate performance and define goals effectively and
so forth with every employee.
Every agency will be formally committed to do that by the
end of fiscal year 2009. That was a pipe dream 8, 10 years ago.
So the foundations are being put in place to do what you
are talking about, and the key going forward will be not to get
it launched, but to get it implemented and realize the full
potential of it.
Senator Voinovich. I think it would really be interesting,
too, Mr. Dodaro, if GAO looked at the TSA. I have gotten to
know a lot of these people because I have a pacemaker, and so I
just stop and say, ``How is your pay system coming along--
PASS?'' I would say about two-thirds of them think it is a good
idea, and some really complain that they do not like it, it is
arbitrary and so forth. But I would really like to know what
difference that kind of thing has made, if any. I think it has
made a difference on how we get things done.
Are there any other comments from the other two witnesses?
Mr. Cusick. Senator, we have in OGE what we refer to as the
Leadership Initiative. What we try to do is to push discussions
of ethical conduct as high in an agency as we can get it, often
with the Secretary of the agency. And we believe that the good
example of senior leaders is the single biggest driver of
ethical conduct in an organization.
With that in mind, the Interior Department has been
particularly responsive to our suggestions that performance of
employees--in particular, senior employees--include the ethical
dimension. If you have a lackadaisical approach to deadlines on
disclosures, for example, or if you are perhaps enduring or
tolerating something in your division or agency that you should
not be from an ethical point of view, in the Interior
Department, Secretary Kempthorne has made important policy
changes.
Now, it is a little difficult when you are talking about
pay for performance to take my narrower ethical scope and make
generalizations about it, but----
Senator Voinovich. I have to tell you that to me would be
maybe the No. 1 criteria. The problems we have seen in
government have been ethical breakdowns that have embarrassed
individuals and departments.
Mr. Cusick. I could not agree more, and that is why we
think the engagement of leaders--in particular, senior
leaders--is essential to the reputation of the government, its
individuals departments, its various levels of leadership. And
so we encourage the active involvement--Secretary Kempthorne
has in particular taken our suggestions and I think made them
work in the Interior Department.
I am not as well informed about other departments, but I
know that the general notion has been well received when we
have presented it.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Ms. Lovelace. Senator Voinovich, we work very actively in
GSA, and I know in other government agencies, to implement the
SES pay-for-performance system.
Senator Voinovich. Well, I know one thing, that Steve Perry
did it.
Ms. Lovelace. Yes, he did.
Senator Voinovich. Because he worked with me, my goal when
I came here, we were going to do Total Quality Management, and
it got lost somewhere. I guess we were worried about the human
capital crisis that we had. But I know at least Mr. Perry
worked on that pretty hard when he came in.
Ms. Lovelace. You may remember that Mr. Perry and I came up
and briefed you several times in terms of what we were doing.
We both talked--and Mr. Perry actually helped us design our
system within GSA when the act was first implemented for us to
implement pay for performance. The cornerstone for that system
then and the cornerstone for it now is having a really strong
performance management part of the system.
Senator Voinovich. You have cascaded it down all the way
through the department, I know, not connected with pay
increases, but just letting folks know that you like what they
are doing and you have a feeling that they belong to the
organization and are making a difference. Yes?
Ms. Lovelace. You gave my answer for me. [Laughter.]
I am thrilled that you remember that, yes, and we have
actually strengthened our goals and our measures, both at the
Senior Executive Service level and down throughout the
organization, and a very clear connection with our strategic
plan. And, clearly, as Mr. Johnson, I think, suggested, we can
all make improvements on this, but we think we have made great
strides to implement pay for performance.
Senator Voinovich. Meaning that some other agencies could
do it without legislation if they wanted to.
Ms. Lovelace. At the SES level, we needed legislation in
order to be able to do that. Below, we are cascading it down,
but it is not linked directly to compensation changes.
Mr. Johnson. They all are doing it.
Senator Voinovich. This is a question--and this will be my
last one--that I think Senator Akaka will like. At the
beginning of this Administration--first of all, in the Clinton
Administration, they had a labor-management partnership, and I
recall recommending to Mitch Daniels that they should continue
it, because my experience was when I was mayor and when I was
governor that I had--I wanted communication with my labor
unions. And as you know, we have been up and down on some of
this. Early on, I think, Senator Akaka, we were doing pretty
good. A lot of that legislation we got passed was only passed
because the labor leaders went along with it. And since that
time, I think things have kind of gotten a little bit tight.
You are on your way out. What are your thoughts about the
next Administration putting together a labor-management partner
where even the President would meet periodically with the labor
leaders to hear what they have to say to soften things up?
Because I think in many instances--I mean, I am not telling you
how you should answer this, but I think in many instances there
were real concerns that the communication really was not there.
They felt like they did not have access to the people that they
needed. And in some instances, I have to say that it was just
an excuse not to go along with something. So it is both of it.
But it would seem to me that if you have some kind of a
dialogue going on that level, that would help matters and maybe
a lot more could be accomplished because there would be a
better dialogue between management and labor.
Mr. Johnson. I have made efforts when I first went over to
OMB to reach out and establish strong lines of communication
with the heads of the two unions, and what I found it to be a
function of was not whether they had a union or not, but which
one it was. And so I found I was able to establish a strong
line of communication with one but not the other. So it is
personality driven, not subject driven, topic driven, or union/
non-union driven.
I also found that as soon as the leadership of the Congress
changed from Republican to Democrat, union leadership's
interest in communicating at all with my office went to zero.
But there are examples of it working very effectively. When
Homeland Security was developing their personnel system, when
DOD and Gordon England was developing their personnel system,
Mr. England went to great lengths to establish an effective
working relationship with union leadership, and I think did so.
And they had the difference of opinion, and agreed and
disagreed and so forth. But that would never have happened if
Mr. England had not been as effective as he was, Secretary
England, working with union leadership.
Senator Voinovich. I am familiar because I told them to
slow the thing down because they were moving too quickly on
that. And I said it will never work, it will blow up in your
face. But I still think today that had we provided in that
legislation that there would be a more robust dialogue back and
forth and that if there were differences between management and
labor and had it gone to an arbitration and let that decide, I
think both parties would have done a better job of putting
their best foot forward because there would be some downside if
they did not; and then once it was done, no one could complain
afterward that we did not have our say. And to this day, if you
talk to the labor leaders, they say they just did what they
wanted to do, in spite of the fact that for sure I know Mr.
England really worked at it conscientiously.
One last thing. I know I am taking too much time, but, Mr.
Dodaro, you did pay for performance, and Senator Akaka and I
just passed legislation dealing with some people in your shop
that were unhappy with what you did. And I think that it was
kind of a shock to your predecessor about--would you like to
comment on it?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. As a result of some of the dissatisfaction
of our employees--as you know, we have a union now at GAO. I
just had a meeting with them this afternoon. I have opened up
the dialogue. I am trying to create a constructive dialogue
with them. We have these meetings. We are in our first effort
to structure an interim collective bargaining agreement. So I
think only good can come from good constructive communications,
and that is the tenor that I am taking at the GAO as a follow-
up to the creation of a union within our organization.
I would also like to go back to your point on the SES
performance evaluation process and pay for performance. We
would be happy to take a look at that, but when we do, I think
the most important thing would be to see how that is anchored
and the clear goals and objectives of the agency from the very
beginning because if that is not there, then you are not going
to have an outcome-oriented link going forward. And I would
relate what Mr. Johnson said before, and I would agree with
him, that the single biggest problem is not clear goals and
objectives with clear outcomes to know where you are going to
be at the end of the day. If you have that, the SES pay-for-
performance system can be a powerful tool to ensure that it is
implemented and cascaded throughout the organization. That is
how we run the GAO, and it is a very effective system.
Senator Voinovich. Senator Akaka, thank you for
entertaining this long questioning, but I thought you might be
interested.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich. This
has been a great hearing for us, and I just want to mention
that I have a labor-management partnership bill that I would be
glad to have passed this year. Unfortunately, it is not the way
the schedule is set up at the present time, but I think we need
to continue to pursue that.
Let me say that your statements will be included in the
record for all of our witnesses. And at this time, Senator
Voinovich and I would like to thank all of you for appearing
here today and for your service to our country. The upcoming
transition is a critically important issue, and you are
critical players in making sure that it succeeds.
I also want to especially thank again Deputy Director
Johnson for coming before this Subcommittee many times over the
years, as well as thank you to GAO. While we have often
disagreed, it has proven that working together can achieve
results, and I hope that we can all come back a year from now
and look back on a successful transition.
At this point let me ask, Senator Voinovich, whether you
have any compelling remarks?
Senator Voinovich. No. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. Otherwise, the record of this hearing will
be open for 2 weeks for additional statements or questions
other Members may have pertaining to this hearing.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:17 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5574.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5574.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5574.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5574.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5574.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5574.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5574.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5574.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5574.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5574.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5574.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5574.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5574.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5574.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5574.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5574.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5574.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5574.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5574.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5574.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5574.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5574.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5574.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5574.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5574.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5574.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5574.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5574.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5574.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5574.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5574.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5574.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5574.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5574.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5574.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5574.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5574.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5574.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5574.039