[Senate Hearing 112-531]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-531
RETOOLING GOVERNMENT FOR THE 21ST
CENTURY: THE PRESIDENT'S REORGANIZATION
PLAN AND REDUCING DUPLICATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 21, 2012
__________
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
73-680 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
JON TESTER, Montana RAND PAUL, Kentucky
MARK BEGICH, Alaska JERRY MORAN, Kansas
Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director
Holly A. Idelson, Senior Counsel
Jonathan M. Kraden, Counsel
Jason T. Barnosky, Professional Staff Member
Nicholas A. Rossi, Minority Staff Director
J. Kathryn French, Minority Deputy Staff Director
Christopher R. MacDonald, Minority Research Assistant
Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk
Patricia R. Hogan, Publications Clerk
Laura W. Kilbride, Hearing Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Lieberman............................................ 1
Senator Collins.............................................. 2
Senator Coburn............................................... 11
Senator Carper............................................... 13
Senator Brown................................................ 15
Prepared statements:
Senator Lieberman............................................ 23
Senator Collins.............................................. 25
Senator Akaka................................................ 31
Senator Carper............................................... 32
WITNESSES
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Patricia A. Dalton, Chief Operating Officer, U.S. Government
Accountability Office.......................................... 4
Hon. Daniel I. Werfel, Controller, Office of Federal Financial
Management, Office of Management and Budget.................... 6
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Dalton, Patricia A.:
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 48
Werfel, Hon. Daniel I.:
Testimony.................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 105
APPENDIX
Charts (4) submitted by Senator Collins.......................... 27
Charts (3) submitted by Senator Brown............................ 34
Letter from Senator McCain to Hon. Leon E. Panetta, dated March
19, 2012, with an attachment................................... 37
Hon. John Engler, President, Business Roundtable, prepared
statement...................................................... 110
Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record from:
Ms. Dalton................................................... 114
Mr. Werfel................................................... 120
RETOOLING GOVERNMENT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: THE PRESIDENT'S
REORGANIZATION PLAN AND REDUCING DUPLICATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph I.
Lieberman, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Lieberman, Carper, Pryor, Collins,
Coburn, and Brown.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LIEBERMAN
Chairman Lieberman. Good morning and welcome to this
hearing.
I do not think there would be any disagreement with the
statement there is too much duplication and too little unity of
effort in our Federal Government. And, of course, that leads to
too much waste at a time when our government and our taxpayers
can least afford it.
Today's hearing is going to look at two important efforts
to identify and offer solutions to reduce waste and to increase
unity of effort and efficiency in our Nation's government.
First, the latest report of the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) on duplication in Federal agencies--which was
required by legislation first introduced by Senator Coburn.
This report identifies 32 areas of overlap, duplication, or
fragmentation that likely are wasting a large number of
taxpayer dollars.
GAO's recommendations range from better coordination of
Homeland Security grants--which is a topic of longstanding
concern to this Committee--to more centralized coordination of
the nine Federal agencies charged with protecting our food
supply from terrorist attacks or natural disasters.
Solving these problems will require concerted action by
Congress working, of course, with the Executive Branch. That is
why today we thought it would be appropriate to examine
legislation which implements the President's proposal that he
discussed in his State of the Union address this year, which is
restore to the presidency the authority to reorganize
government.
The Reforming and Consolidating Government Act of 2012,
which has been introduced by Senator Mark Warner of Virginia
and me, is based on language requested by the President. We
think it deserves a hearing. We believe it will help reduce
duplication and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the
Federal Government.
This proposal reinstates the government reorganization
authority that past Presidents relied on from 1932 to 1984. Any
plan a President proposes under this legislation must decrease
the number of executive agencies and result in cost savings.
Such presidential reorganization proposals would be put on a
fast track through Congress, with no amendments or filibusters
permitted if this legislation as introduced is adopted. The
authority given to the President under this legislation would
sunset after 2 years.
I know that some of my colleagues are concerned about how a
President might use this authority, but as the current
President said in his State of the Union speech: ``We live and
do business in the Information Age, but the last major
reorganization of the government happened in the age of black-
and-white TV.''
That is not going to get the job done. The bill we are
considering today would make an important first step in
updating and improving our government and would enable whoever
is elected President this November, if it is adopted and
enacted, to have 2 years of this extra authority and fast track
to move to reorganize our Federal Government and make it more
efficient.
So I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and
questioning them as well. Thank you. Senator Collins.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Our country has an unsustainable Federal debt of more than
$15 trillion. That amounts to $49,600 for every man, woman, and
child in this Nation. When difficult decisions must be made
even dealing with very worthwhile programs, there simply can be
no tolerance for taxpayers' dollars being wasted. That is why
the GAO's report identifying duplication, fragmentation, and
overlap of Federal programs is so important. The GAO estimates
that the reforms could save tens of billions of dollars
annually.
When the GAO released its 300-plus-page report last year,
we were presented with overwhelming, quantifiable evidence of
just how serious this problem is.
This year, GAO is not only reporting on new areas of
duplication, but also providing a report card on what action--
or lack of action--has been taken to fix the problems
identified in last year's report. It is surely disappointing
that, of the 81 areas discussed in the 2011 report, most have
had only partial or nominal remedial action taken, and, worse,
18 have not been addressed at all.
At a time when our Nation is encumbered by a huge debt,
there simply can be no excuse for this persistent waste,
duplication, and inefficiency.
Duplication and overlap serve neither the taxpayers nor the
intended beneficiaries of the programs in question. To cite
just one example, a person with a disability may have to wade
through a perplexing maze of some 50 programs providing
employment assistance spread across nine agencies.
What is the cause of such duplication? At times, the
President, seeking to put his own mark on the budget to
demonstrate his priorities, creates a new program, despite the
fact that similar ones already exist.
In other cases, it is Congress that creates the new
programs without checking to see if other programs with similar
goals already are on the books. Overlapping committee
jurisdictions may further contribute to the problem.
This is not a case of bad intentions at work. Just the
opposite. It is the proliferation of good intentions that has
created the problem, and the problem is compounded by a lack of
transparency about what programs even exist. Although various
sources released by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) produce partial lists
of various government programs, there is not an exhaustive list
of Federal programs in one, easy-to-access location.
That is why I have cosponsored Senator Coburn's bill that
would require a comprehensive list on a public Web site of
every Federal program, along with its budget and performance
information.
The duplication and overlap in green building initiatives
are a case study. Right now, there are 11 agencies running 94
initiatives trying to foster green buildings in the non-Federal
sectors. Improving the energy efficiency of buildings is surely
a worthwhile goal, but overlapping and duplicative programs are
not the best way to achieve that goal. There is no consistent
oversight, there is no accountability, and there is a virtual
certainty that millions and millions of dollars are being
wasted. Think how much overhead we are paying for each box on
the charts that we have passed out.\1\ These programs could be
streamlined and achieve the same policy goal in a measurable
way for less money. And, of course, there are many other
examples that we will talk about today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The chart referenced by Senator Collins appears in the Appendix
on page 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We often hear reports of duplicative programs, but rarely
do we see proposals to address the problem. That is why I think
it is appropriate that the Chairman has joined today's topic of
the GAO duplication report with an evaluation of the
reorganization authority the President has requested that
might--and I underline ``might''--help address some of these
problems.
Congress has surely failed more times than not in
reorganizing government in a major way. I would note, however,
that two of the most significant such reorganizations in the
past 10 years--comprehensive intelligence reform and the
creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)--have
emerged as a result of this Committee's efforts, not by
presidential fiat.
While I understand that Congress is sometimes an obstacle
to speedy reform, it is important that, in considering ways to
expedite the process, we do not undermine Congress' ability to
carefully consider and amend legislation.
In the current context, I would note that we are being
asked by the Administration to develop and vote on the fast-
track reorganization authority in the absence of the actual
reorganization proposal that we are told will be submitted for
consideration using this new authority. I believe that is a
mistake.
Nevertheless, I appreciate the serious work that has gone
into both the diagnostic efforts at GAO and the efforts by OMB
to develop some remedies, and I look forward to hearing from
our panel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Collins.
I have just been notified there is going to be a vote
around 11 a.m., so we will go as long as we can. We may have to
recess for that purpose.
If it is all right with the witnesses, I think I would like
to call on Ms. Dalton first because I know you are both going
to testify on both the GAO report and the President's proposal,
but I thought perhaps we would ask you first to describe the
report and then Mr. Werfel can respond to it on behalf of the
Administration and talk about the President's proposal.
Thanks for being here. Why don't you go first, Ms. Dalton?
TESTIMONY OF PATRICIA A. DALTON,\1\ CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER,
U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Ms. Dalton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Collins, and
Members of the Committee. We appreciate the opportunity to
discuss the need to reexamine the structures and operations of
the Federal Government. With the Federal Government
experiencing a period of profound transition and challenges, it
also faces opportunities to enhance performance, ensure
accountability, and position the Nation for the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Dalton appears in the Appendix on
page 48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GAO's reports over the past 2 years have identified
numerous areas of potential duplication, overlap, and
fragmentation across the Federal Government. For some of the
areas, restructuring, including consolidation, may be the
appropriate solution. In other instances, improved
coordination, better information on performance and costs, and
enhanced accountability may be appropriate.
Government reorganizations often, and I would say most
likely, are going to be very complex and take time to implement
properly. The President, as you know, recently requested
expedited reorganization authority. The bill introduced by you,
Mr. Chairman, and Senator Warner would renew, with some
modifications, the authority that Congress provided the
President from 1932 through 1984.
Expedited reorganization authority may facilitate
reorganizations; however, all key players should be engaged in
the discussion: The President, the Congress, and parties with a
vested interest in the restructuring, including State and local
governments and citizens. It is important to ensure consensus
on identified problems and the solutions that can actually
remedy the problems identified. Fixing the wrong problems, or
fixing the right problems poorly, can cause more harm than
good.
Prior reorganization initiatives reinforce the importance
of maintaining the balance between the Executive and
Legislative roles. Safeguards are needed to ensure
congressional input and concurrence on the goals as well as the
overall reorganization proposal.
Effective implementation is also critical to any
restructuring. This requires establishing clear mission and
strategic goals; sustained leadership; and comprehensive
implementation, planning, and execution. Importantly, S. 2129
would require an implementation plan to be submitted by the
President along with his proposal. Effective oversight
throughout the implementation process would also be critical.
Let me now turn to GAO's work on overlap, duplication, and
fragmentation in the government.
In our 2012 report, we identified 32 areas of potential
duplication, overlap, or fragmentation, as well as 19
additional areas where there is potential for cost savings or
revenue enhancement. I would just like to illustrate by a few
examples.
In the area of unmanned aircraft systems, the Department of
Defense (DOD) expects to spend over $37 billion on these
systems over the next few years. Military service-driven
requirements rather than an effective department-wide strategy
have led to overlapping capabilities. In the area of housing
assistance, in 2010 the government had obligations of over $170
billion in housing-related programs, plus numerous tax
expenditures. We identified 20 different entities administering
160 programs. Many of these programs may be justified because
of differences in products or service delivery areas and
markets. However, we did find examples where the Departments of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Agriculture (USDA) both
run programs that offer similar products and now have market
overlap.
Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
programs are programs to encourage education in the science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics areas. We reported 173
of 209 STEM education programs administered by 13 agencies
overlapped to some degree. Though these programs overlap, there
may be important differences among the programs that need to be
understood. It is also important to understand the
effectiveness of the programs, unfortunately, there is very
little that is known about the effectiveness of these programs.
In the area of military and veterans health care, DOD and
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) need to improve
integration of costs, care coordination, and case management.
There has been improvement, but there is much more that can be
done. Our wounded warriors are often enrolled in multiple
programs. They have multiple case workers that are often
working on the same issue or may even be giving some
conflicting advice to our warriors. There is more that can be
done in terms of integrating these services to our warriors and
our veterans.
Our 2012 report also identifies a number of areas of
potential financial benefits, including better management of
DOD contracts and acquisition, enhanced use of Medicare and
Medicaid fraud detection systems, and regular evaluation of
user fees, as well as many others.
As Senator Collins noted, we also followed up on our 2011
report. Of the 81 areas identified, we found four areas had
been fully addressed, 60 had been partially addressed, and the
remaining had not been addressed at all. Many of these issues
are difficult to address and will take time and sustained
leadership on the part of both the Administration and the
Congress. There are opportunities certainly for efficiency and
effectiveness, but as I said, they are going to take time and
sustained leadership and commitment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That concludes my remarks.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Ms. Dalton. That was
excellent. I must say, I find those examples you gave of
duplication to be mind-boggling--or maybe I should say
headache-inducing--in the areas that you talked about, the
unmanned aerial aircraft and the STEM programs, for instance.
So we will come back to that in the question-and-answer period.
Next we will hear from Daniel Werfel, who is Controller at
the Office of Federal Financial Management, OMB. Thanks for
being here.
TESTIMONY OF HON. DANIEL I. WERFEL,\1\ CONTROLLER, OFFICE OF
FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Mr. Werfel. Thank you, Chairman Lieberman, Senator Collins,
and Members of the Committee, for inviting me to testify on the
Reforming and Consolidating Government Act of 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Werfel appears in the Appendix on
page 105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the beginning of the Administration, the President has
focused on making government more efficient and accountable--
eliminating waste, saving money, and making government services
more responsive. For instance, when the President took office,
improper payments were on a steady rise. By taking tough new
steps to fight waste, fraud, and abuse, we have avoided over
$20 billion in improper payments over the past 2 years and
recaptured nearly $2 billion in overpayments. Furthermore, on
the real estate front, the President directed agencies to
achieve $3 billion in savings by reducing annual operating
costs, disposing assets, consolidating existing space, and
other space realignment efforts. Agencies have already achieved
$1.5 billion in savings and expect to achieve $3.5 billion in
savings by the end of fiscal year 2012.
I want to commend the Chairman, Senator Collins, and
Members of the Committee for their leadership on efforts to
improve government performance for the American people and
express my appreciation for the Committee's work with the
Administration.
Another area of common ground is the desire to have an
efficient, effective government that does not require expert
knowledge to navigate. This is why President Obama is urging
Congress to reinstate presidential authority to reform,
consolidate, and modernize the Executive Branch.
The scale of the Federal Government is vast. For decades,
we have seen agencies created in response to the crisis of the
moment. We have seen big departments broken into smaller
departments, which over time have grown into big departments of
their own. As the Members of this Committee well know, we have
rarely seen departments or agencies downsized, much less
eliminated.
The GAO recently confirmed this by identifying 32 areas of
duplication, overlap, or fragmentation among Federal programs.
If we were starting from scratch today, we would all agree that
we would wind up with a different mix of agencies and
departments.
In these times, government must be as efficient as possible
in spending scarce dollars. Each program comes with its own
associated overhead and related expenses, driving total
spending needlessly upward. But overlap and duplication have
more than just financial cost. They also make it more difficult
for the American public, our customers, to access the programs
and service they need. Over the past year, we spoke to hundreds
of businesses to find out what is working and what is not
working when they deal with the Federal Government. They told
us there were too many agencies doing the same thing, that they
were getting different answers to the same question, and that
the export system was set up only for big businesses who could
afford to hire someone to deal with all the paperwork.
They identified a series of straightforward issues a
business owner might have such as: How can I identify
international buyers? What financing and assistance programs
are available to me from the government? In each case, the
business owners confront a host of overlapping agencies,
bureaus, and programs, all organized to help, but many
operating autonomously of other programs addressing the same
set of challenges. These examples exist across government and
beg for a mechanism to consolidate key areas of overlap and
duplication, make it easier for Americans to access government
services, and save money.
That is why the President submitted the Reforming and
Consolidating Government Act of 2012, which would reinstate the
reorganization authority that Presidents have had for the
better part of 50 years. For most of 1932 through 1984,
Presidents had the authority to submit proposals to Congress to
reorganize the Executive Branch via a fast-track procedure. The
Act would reinstate the 1984 executive reorganization authority
with a key modification. It would require that any plan either
reduce the number of agencies or result in lower costs.
In addition, the Act would provide up to a 60-day window
for congressional feedback and presidential modification of the
plan. It would maintain the 1984 procedures with an expedited
process for an up-or-down vote by Congress on specific
consolidation proposals. This would ensure that a proposal
cannot take effect without congressional approval. And the Act
would sunset the authority after 2 years, allowing Congress to
reconsider its authorization.
The proposed legislation enables the government to deliver
the productivity growth we need, reduce program duplication and
overlap, rationalize overhead and expenses, and improve
customer services beyond the level that exist today. The
President has said that if Congress reinstates reorganization
authority, the first proposal he would make is to consolidate
six business-focused agencies into one. This would save
billions by eliminating duplication and overhead costs, and for
the first time enable businesses to reach out to just one
department in order to access the core government services that
will help them compete, grow, and hire.
We all want a government that is efficient, effective, and
offers Americans the services they deserve. Providing the
President with a means to propose consolidations to save money
and reduce government waste, subject to an up-or-down vote by
both Houses of Congress, is an important step to accomplish
these shared goals.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Mr. Werfel.
We are going to do 5-minute rounds of questions, so we can
see if we can get as many of the Members in before the vote.
Let me ask you, Ms. Dalton, first: In this progress report
on the problems identified in last year's duplication report,
GAO found that about 80 percent of the problems identified in
which GAO recommended possible Executive Branch action, those
were addressed, about 80 percent of them in some way, not all
fully. Unfortunately, Congress did not fare as well. GAO found
that Congress has addressed less than 40 percent of last year's
recommendations.
So I wanted to ask you to spend a minute, if you would,
indicating what you think are some of the more important of the
unaddressed recommendations that GAO made to Congress last year
to avoid duplication.
Ms. Dalton. I think, Mr. Chairman, there are a number of
them that Congress is considering in various legislation that I
think could certainly help remove some of the duplication. For
example, in the area of surface transportation, we have over
100 surface transportation programs. The surface transportation
reauthorization bill is currently being considered, and there
is some consideration of reducing the number of those programs.
In the area of employment and training, we have over 40
programs. Again, there are some opportunities, I believe, to
streamline the number of programs.
I think anywhere that we identify numerous programs where
they are legislatively authorized, there is an opportunity upon
reauthorization to give a hard look at these programs to see
whether or not we really need them all. Is there a way to
consolidate some of them? We do need to have good data as to
what the effectiveness of each of these programs is.
Chairman Lieberman. Right.
Ms. Dalton. So, in many cases, it is both that Congress
needs to take action and that the Administration does too,
because Congress needs the information to make informed
decisions on what programs should be continued or not.
Chairman Lieberman. And the information necessarily will
come from the Executive Branch.
Ms. Dalton. Yes.
Chairman Lieberman. So the point here is that these are
areas of duplication that the Executive Branch cannot itself
deal with because they are legislatively mandated or created.
Ms. Dalton. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lieberman. So we have to adopt legislation. Thanks
for that detail.
Mr. Werfel, the Administration has argued that the
President's proposal, which is embraced in the legislation
before us, the Reforming and Consolidating Government Act, will
make it easier to eliminate wasteful duplication. So I wanted
to ask you if you would elaborate on why this authority is so
important to achieving that goal and why you think it is
responsive to the GAO reports on duplication, which really
represent an indictment.
Mr. Werfel. We absolutely believe it is responsive in
numerous ways. The bottom line is that in today's budget
climate and today's economic climate, we need to do more with
less, and we need the opportunity for bold transformation to
reshape the Federal Government in meaningful ways that both cut
costs and serve the American people better. And what the
President has put forward is a mechanism to help achieve that.
It establishes a process by which Congress and the American
people will expect the Administration to tackle some of the key
issues that are causing duplication and fragmentation, some of
which are covered in the GAO report, and to put together bold
transformations and changes that we can advance to Congress and
have an open dialogue about the potential benefit, savings, and
opportunities for improving government.
Without this mechanism, we are concerned that the types of
transformations that we can achieve together will come up
short.
Chairman Lieberman. Let me ask you--I have about a half-
minute left on my time--for a quick answer. Congress always
resists or is at least skeptical of fast-track authority. Why
does the President think that is important for reorganization
proposals?
Mr. Werfel. Well, first, I would mention that we are basing
the framework off of the framework that existed in 1984. We do
not see a need to reinvent the wheel. We want to go back and
figure out what was happening before.
I think what we have tried to do is put together a balanced
approach that enables things to move quickly and not get bogged
down, but at the same time empowers Congress to prevent
proposals going forward that Congress believes are unwise in
serving the American people. So you have a situation where our
framework would, for example, limit debate and limit amendment
but provide the President opportunity to change the proposal in
response to congressional feedback.
Chairman Lieberman. Right.
Mr. Werfel. And, obviously, if we are looking to get the
proposal passed, we know that Congress could stop it in two
ways--they can either enact a joint resolution to stop it or
take no action. Under the President's proposal, if no action is
taken within 90 days, the proposal will not go forward.
Chairman Lieberman. Then it is dead.
Mr. Werfel. So it is the balance between helping the
process move forward quickly without getting bogged down, at
the same time creating a feedback loop. But at the end of the
day, the proposal will not go forward without a recognition
from Congress that it is smart.
Chairman Lieberman. OK. In that sense, obviously, it is
different from the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) system,
which requires a negative action.
My time is up. Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Werfel, we have just heard again today that there is a
lack of information about what programs are even out there, and
this is an area where Senator Coburn has done a great deal of
work. Why doesn't OMB just issue a directive to every Federal
agency and department requiring them to list all of the
programs that they have and what the purpose of the program is
on their Web sites? You do not need legislation. Why don't you
just take that so that then when we are considering proposals
for new programs, we could go to the Web site of that agency
and look?
Mr. Werfel. Senator Collins, first of all, I agree, it is
frustrating--and I can imagine everyone's frustration--that the
Federal Government today cannot quickly and efficiently produce
a comprehensive inventory of all the Federal programs. That is
why Congress enacted the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) Modernization Act, which was passed last year and signed
by the President, to require the Federal Government to do just
that. And so OMB has initiated a process to create this
inventory.
Unfortunately, it is not something that we can do
overnight. It is something that we have to work with the
Federal agencies to evaluate the systems and information flows
that they have, and the different definitions of programs and
activities. Our program systems and our budgetary accounting
systems have grown up over time in a way that is not fully
rationalized to answer some of these basic questions, and GPRA
Modernization is intended to fix that, and we are looking at
ways to do so.
So we have initiated a pilot to start a comprehensive
review with nine agencies, and based on what we learn in terms
of how they fix their systems and do their information capture
to get this list of programs, we will take that across the rest
of government and produce that list.
Senator Collins. I just do not think that it is that
complicated. A couple of departments have done it, and it seems
to me that it reflects perhaps an alarming lack of information
within the department about its own programs. I think OMB needs
to be much tougher and lead in this area, or else I for one am
going to continue to support a legislative mandate.
Ms. Dalton, I want to switch to you to talk about the
Administration's reorganization proposal. You in your written
testimony go into this in much greater detail than you had time
to do in your oral presentation. You caution us that care
should be taken regarding Congress deciding to limit its own
powers and roles in government reorganizations. And I must say
that I find it ironic that some of my colleagues who are most
upset about the Senate shutting down the free and open
amendment process are prepared to support this bill, which
basically cuts Congress out of the process except for an
initial consultation.
You also say in your statement that lessons can be learned
from prior approaches to granting reorganization authority of
this nature to the President.
Could you share with us some cautions that we should look
at and some lessons of where the reorganization authority was
used in a way that raised questions?
Ms. Dalton. Well, I think I would like to start off first
with an example where it worked, and I think the best example
goes to the middle of the last century and the Hoover
Commission. In that instance, there was significant
consultation with the Congress before a proposal was submitted
and before the reorganization authority was asked to be used.
Congress elected to set up a commission to work with the
Administration to fully analyze and vet the proposal, and then
it was presented to the Congress for a vote.
So that in using that authority, there was significant
consultation with the Congress. There was information going
back and forth so that there could be agreement on the goals
that were trying to be achieved and that the solutions made
sense.
In other cases where there was not that type of
consultation, the reorganization authority often could not be
used because Congress did not buy into the proposals and said
no. And so I think it is important, as I mentioned in my
statement, to ensure that there is that adequate consultation
with the Congress, that the views of Congress are incorporated
in the development of the proposals, and that Congress has
adequate time to consider what is being proposed.
Oftentimes in other cases where it has been used
successfully, it has been--you have to look at the scale of the
proposal and the reorganization. If it is a fairly small
reorganization, that might be something that Congress may want
to consider saying, yes, the expedited authority may be more
appropriate. Where it is very large scale, creating a new
department, for example, I think there needs to be much more
consultation.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Collins. Senator
Coburn.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN
Senator Coburn. Well, first of all, thank you all for being
here. My first question is just a statement of thanks to GAO
for all the hard work they have done. I know this has been a
struggle.
Just for history for the record, when we first asked for
this, GAO told us it was impossible. The Congressional Research
Service (CRS) told us it was impossible. And what we found is
we are actually starting to know something about two-thirds of
the government.
My question for Mr. Werfel is: How is it that the
Department of Education can give us a list every year of their
programs and the rest of the departments cannot?
Mr. Werfel. Senator, I am glad you asked because I want to
go back to my earlier answer. Right now, we produce the
President's budget and a variety of different mechanisms that
provide long lists of programs and tables that show you what
the dollars are. The issue is validating that the list is fully
comprehensive, accurate, clear, and does not cause confusion.
And what happens is that we have a combination of factors,
including definitional issues in terms of whether these
activities amount to a single program, do they amount to
multiple programs, and what we want to do is make sure that we
provide the correct list, and that is what is going to take a
little bit of time, is the validation of----
Senator Coburn. Well, quite frankly, we do not have time to
wait. You know, your first answer, if any American was
listening to that, they did not believe a word of it. And if
that is the fact, we are in a whole lot more trouble than any
American thinks we are in, because what you are saying is we
cannot tell you what we are doing today. That is what you are
saying. And the fact is that is just an absence of leadership
both in the Bush Administration and in this one.
The fact is it has not been a priority. If the Department
of Education can put out a book this thick every year with all
their programs, every other agency can do that. The question is
that nobody has demanded it. There has not been an Executive
Order issued that said you will by this time report to us every
program. And if there is a problem with a definition, footnote
it and say this may or may not be a separate program. But the
excuse of not having it is ridiculous for the taxpayers in this
country.
You know, Mr. Chairman, the GAO has given us 403 specific
recommendations to eliminate duplication. There has not been
one bill or one amendment that has passed that addresses any of
that in terms of their specific recommendations. So it is not
just OMB, and it is not just Congress. It is both. And what we
are hearing today is we have an excuse why we cannot get there.
And what every business person and every college graduate knows
and everybody that manages people is if you cannot measure what
you are doing, you cannot manage it. And you come from the
Office of Management and Budget.
I think we need a better answer. I am fully supporting the
President's idea to reorganize. I am going to help on this
bill. It has to be cleaned up some, but I am going to help. We
have to do that. And I fully intend to be engaged to make sure
that gets through here if it is possible. But we have to do the
other steps as well, and we cannot wait.
Mr. Werfel. Can I just respond? One of the historical
lessons here that I think you will know and be familiar with is
when you passed the Federal Funding Accountability and
Transparency Act, which launched USAspending.gov, which you
cosponsored with then-Senator Obama. You set out a time frame,
and at that time I think you felt it was ridiculous that we
cannot tell the American people where Federal dollars are going
and who receives them, what grantee, what contractor, and you
were right. And it took time for us to build up the necessary
systems. You gave us deadlines, and we have worked hard to meet
those deadlines. And we are not meeting all of them, but we are
meeting a lot of them, and there is much more information out
there today that is really enabling a change in the way
government is happening. People are calling up inspector
general (IG) hotlines and saying, ``I just saw on
USAspending.gov''--or Recovery.gov or other of these Web sites
are that are doing this--``that this entity down the street
from me is receiving funds, and this does not look like an
entity that should be receiving Federal dollars.'' And that
helps us do our fraud and oversight work.
With this program list--and, admittedly, it intuitively is
a potentially easier proposition than what you asked us to do
under USAspending.gov--the same thing occurred. Debate and
dialogue occurred between the Administration and Congress, and
the GPRA Modernization bill, which sets a line in the sand and
asks us to list every program, establishes a statutory
deadline, which we intend to meet. And I agree with your
frustration. It is a tough answer to give. I would be
frustrated if I was sitting at home. And we are working on it,
and we are taking it seriously. And so the line has been drawn
in the sand, and we will get it done.
Senator Coburn. All right. Thank you. I am out of time.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Coburn. Thanks for your
leadership on this, really your passionate and understandably
impatient leadership. We owe it to you to try to do better than
we have at responding to it.
I am also really grateful for your statement that you want
to work together on a reorganization proposal. I think when the
President introducted it in the State of the Union, maybe most
people just thought it was another State of the Union proposal
and it was going to go nowhere. But I think it would be a great
thing for us at this moment in our government's history, with
so much waste, so much debt, so much public exasperation, that
if we could work together to get this done and then enact it,
whoever is elected President then will have extraordinary
authority for 2 years to challenge Congress to make the Federal
Government work better and eliminate the duplication.
Senator Coburn. If the Chairman would just yield for a
minute, the frustration I have is we had an amendment that said
before we pass a new bill, the CRS would tell us whether or not
we are duplicating. Our colleagues voted that down. The
American people are probably nauseous about that if they knew
it, that we do not want to know whether we are creating a new
duplicative program. That is what 50 Senators said: ``We do not
want to know.'' And that tells you how sick Washington is, that
we will not even put forth the tools to discipline ourselves to
make good decisions. And several Members of this Committee
voted against that.
Chairman Lieberman. You know, for the record, when Senator
Coburn uses terms like ``nauseous'' and ``sick,'' he is a
doctor. [Laughter.]
So it has special weight. Senator Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Senator Carper. There is probably an opportunity for me to
explore fee-for-service as opposed to treating the patient and
using prevention and wellness here.
Senator Coburn. We are treating the symptoms, not the
disease.
Senator Carper. Yes. Let us just pursue that just for a
little bit, if we could.
First of all, thank you both for being here and for your
efforts. You have heard me talk about trying to change the
culture of the Federal Government. It is something that Dr.
Coburn and I, along with others on this Committee, have worked
on to try to move away from a culture of spendthrift, more
toward a culture of thrift. Would you just help explain for us
how what the Administration is proposing fits into that
cultural change that we have called for for some time?
Mr. Werfel. Absolutely, Senator Carper. Thank you for the
question. We think we need different solutions to reshape
government in a way that has it not only streamlined, not only
saving money, not only addressing a lot of the issues that GAO
raises in its duplication report, but to meet 21st Century
realities, 21st Century demands, and we want to be bold and
transformative.
I mentioned in my opening remarks that we spent a lot of
time talking to hundreds of businesses, over 100 small and
medium-sized businesses, asking them their reflections on
government services that they rely on to build their
businesses, to compete in international markets. And there was
a common theme that emerged from those discussions, and that
common theme was that government programs in this critically
important area of enabling business growth, enabling these
businesses to thrive and compete and hire, are too fragmented
and too complex. They were not getting a straight answer, they
wanted a one-stop shop. They wanted the opportunity to work and
interface with one Web site, one program, rather than having to
hire a lot of additional subject matter experts to figure out
how to navigate all this and build these road maps.
And so really there is a choice that is presented there, we
think. One is that we can use administrative tools and smaller
bite-sized steps to try to map these things out and help
businesses figure out where all these points are and build
tools that way, and we will do that. As long as we are around
and we do not have the ability or the authority to reorganize
government, we are going to do everything we can to help
businesses. That is more of a bite-sized approach.
The more transformative approach is to actually change the
way the Federal Government is structured so that rather than
needing a complex road map of where all these services and the
answers to all these questions are, the road map is much more
simple because the organizations are together. And by bringing
the organizations together in many ways, depending if you do it
right--and we want to work with Congress to make sure we get it
right--multiple benefits emerge, not just from the customer
perspective but from sharing infrastructure, sharing financial
and human resource systems, because you are under the same roof
and in a shared organization. You are leveraging each other's
resources. They enforce; we enforce. They have lawyers; we have
lawyers. Now you are working together and building that
capacity.
And so it is really a choice, and what the Administration
is saying is that we need the reorganization authority to
enable broader, more transformative change, and we think that
fits right in to what Congress is trying to do, which is to
streamline, eliminate duplication, address the issues in the
GAO report, and build a government for the 21st Century.
Senator Carper. My colleagues have heard me talk about a
Finance Committee hearing that took place last fall, and it was
a hearing that had about five or six people before us, and the
people were pretty smart, and they had some ideas on how to
reduce our budget deficits. One of the people who testified was
a fellow named Alan Blinder. He used to be a Vice Chairman of
the Federal Reserve when Alan Greenspan was the Chair. And in
his testimony, he said that the 800-pound gorilla in the room
on deficit reduction was health care costs, and he mentioned
that the Japanese spend half as much as we do for health care,
they get better results, and they cover everybody. He said,
``They cannot be that smart; we cannot be that dumb.''
He finished his testimony, and the others finished their
testimony, and it came back to the rest of us to ask questions.
And I said to him, ``You said that health care costs are the
800-pound gorilla in the room. If we do not do something about
reining those in, we are doomed, on Medicare and Medicaid and
so forth.'' I said, ``What would be your advice for us?'' And
he thought for a moment, and he said, ``I am not an expert, I
am not a health care economist, and I am none of those things.
Here is what I would suggest.'' He said, ``Find out what works.
Do more of that.''
That is all he said. ``Find out what works, and do more of
that.''
Sometimes I think a guiding principle like that, even with
a big government like this--and those of us who are running
this government, those of us who serve on this side, the idea
should be for us to think every day about what works and do
more of that. And I said to him in response, ``You mean like
find out what does not work and do less of that?'' And he said,
``Yes.''
I would just ask that you keep that thought in mind as we
go forth, and we want to be supportive of what you are
proposing, but I would like for you to keep that in mind.
Thank you very much.
Senator Collins [presiding]. Senator Brown.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BROWN
Senator Brown. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Werfel, I just want to note something that the Ranking
Member said. I do not understand how these various departments
do not know what programs they are controlling and how it is
not easy to actually put these on a Web site. It makes no sense
to me. And I concur with what you were saying about being a
little bit more forceful to get that information out. That is
just a comment.
And while we are talking about duplication and waste, let
us talk about, if we could, the dollar bill and dollar coins.
As you know, President Obama made the very wise decision to
curtail the wasteful production of dollar coins, which,
frankly, has been a flop since it was first introduced about 40
years ago. I wrote legislation to fix the dollar coin which
Senator John Kerry helped me introduce. I was very pleased to
see that the President, in fact, adopted a similar position
shortly thereafter. If you will bear with me, there is a lot of
spin and misinformation out there, and I really want to set the
record straight.
If you look at the first chart,\1\ you can see the dollar
bill is incredibly popular. I have never heard a complaint
about it, and look at the approval ratings. It is actually 97
percent of people who say that it is more convenient; 83
percent oppose the elimination; and 81 percent want Congress to
do more important work. I agree with that one wholeheartedly.
And you cannot get much greener than the dollar bill,
obviously, because it is made from recycled cotton, which is
extremely light and, thus, greener to transport than the heavy
coins. And no wonder they have never had to run ads asking
people to use the dollar bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The first chart referenced by Senator Brown appears in the
Appendix on page 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, if we could go to the next chart,\2\
there is the dollar coin. Now, that is a real loser in the
marketplace. It is always more expensive to make it than the
dollar bill. There are no savings associated with it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The second chart referenced by Senator Brown appears in the
Appendix on page 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me repeat: According to GAO, the dollar coin is not
less expensive over its 30-year life span than printing a
succession of dollar bills.\3\ And there is an attempt to say
that the coin is cheaper, and that is just fiction. One of the
companies, as a matter of fact, that makes the coin metal has
received loans from a foreign government that basically amount
to foreign subsidies, and I still cannot get a straight answer
from the U.S. Mint on how a foreign-owned company is getting
picked to help produce American currency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The third chart referenced by Senator Brown appears in the
Appendix on page 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Public Radio has done some great work on this
issue, and they found that there are about $1.3 billion coins
in storage at the Federal Reserve banks. The Fed says these
coins are actually more commonly redeposited to banks than
actually used in commerce. Americans get them at the bank or at
the store, and they really cannot wait to get rid of them. And
small businesses are often burdened with getting these coins
back to the banks.
If you can see it, here is actually a vault with all these
dollar coins just sitting there. We are paying money not only
to store them, but obviously to produce them.
And I want to acknowledge President Obama's leadership on
this issue, but I would also like to know whether OMB supports
a permanent legislative fix to the broken dollar coin program.
Do you support a more permanent legislative fix to that
situation?
Mr. Werfel. Senator Brown, I think it would be premature
for me to answer that question for a variety of different
reasons. One, I think there is a better set of experts at the
Treasury Department on all issues currency that can speak
better to this issue and the right things to do. And, second,
on any particular legislative amendment or direction that we
take on currency, I think there is a lot of analysis that we
want to go over with you and your team to figure out exactly
what the right answer is.
I will say that what we found with the commemorative dollar
coins that were being produced by Treasury is that there was
not a demand for them. And they were starting to stack up in
our vaults without citizens asking for them. And it started to
be a very clear disconnect, and we were about to spend tens of
millions of dollars to produce these coins where there was not
a clear demand for them.
Senator Brown. Not only the coins, but the vaults--we were
actually building new vaults to store them. A complete waste of
money, and I already know the answer because the information is
already out there, but I wanted to obviously just reiterate
this fact of another duplicative and wasteful government
program, and we need to do it better.
I would like to shift gears, if I could, to the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and merging NOAA
with the Fish and Wildlife Service. In the last two State of
the Union addresses, the President has asked for authority to
reorganize, as we have talked about, and I found that the
American fishing industry is bizarrely overregulated with a
scheme that is just out of whack with other regulated
industries. Fishermen can encounter Coast Guard inspectors,
NOAA inspectors, Fish and Wildlife inspectors all in one day,
and it is easier to smuggle something across the border than to
catch an extra fish in this country, it seems. And the abuses
NOAA committed towards our fishermen, the shredding of files by
the top cop, the $300,000 luxury yacht which we all know about
that is being used for party cruises and booze cruises, the
millions of mismanaged fishermen's fines and the other
scandals, there has been no accountability that I can see.
Can you make a commitment today that your transfer of NOAA
to the Department of the Interior will take into account the
many improvements that need to be made in our fisheries and how
they are regulated?
Mr. Werfel. Absolutely we can make a commitment that the
goal in the President's framework that he outlined on business
and trade and on the transfer of NOAA to the Department of the
Interior is all about improved effectiveness and improved
performance.
I would say that because of our goal to create an
organization or a department that was laser focused on business
and trade and competitiveness, it made sense to find a place
where NOAA could work in concert with another entity that has
stewardship responsibilities for natural resources, earth
science, etc. And so the Department of the Interior was the
logical home. But that does not mean that just moving them
together is the answer. There has to be planning, there has to
be an understanding of exactly what the opportunities for
improved performance are, and we should set an expectation with
both you and the public that any element of a reorganization is
going to enhance productivity, accountability, and integrity of
Federal programs.
Senator Brown. And, also, more importantly, re-establishing
the trust between the fishermen and the Federal Government and
NOAA. Thank you.
Senator Collins. Senator Pryor, you are welcome to proceed
if you wish. I am going to leave to go vote.
We will take a 10-minute recess. I think that Senator
Lieberman is on his way back, but the rest of us have to go
vote. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Chairman Lieberman [presiding]. The hearing will reconvene.
I hope and believe that some of my colleagues will return. If
not, I am going to proceed for a bit with some questions. I
thank the witnesses and everyone here for their understanding.
My staff was just having a discussion about how inefficient it
is to force us to walk back and forth and interrupt the
hearing, and that at some point--it is probably not near--we
are going to reach the stage where electronically we will be
able to prove our identity, as we do every day in other forms
of electronic communication, and cast our vote from afar. But
then we would miss the schmoozing in the well of the Senate.
[Laughter.]
Let me proceed. When this Committee was considering the
creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the primary
motivation was to build a governmental agency capable of taking
on the new security challenges. Obviously, part of this was in
part to avoid the duplication, but also the lack of
coordination. The metaphor we were fond of using was that
nobody was putting the dots on the same board so that they
could have seen the plot that became 9/11 unfolding.
But I think there was also another aspect to that response
to 9/11, which was that we were undertaking a new mission and a
new security environment, and that probably would require more
resources in addition to the elimination of duplication and
forcing of coordination.
Now I will move to the President's proposed reorganization
of our trade and commercial agencies, and I know from his
statement that his purpose is to spur job creation and foster
economic growth, which are obviously very important goals in
their own right. But cost savings can sometimes be difficult to
achieve in reorganization, especially when consolidating or
moving around large agencies or a lot of programs.
So I wanted to ask you, Mr. Werfel, when we are considering
a reorganization proposal, what weight would you say should be
given to improving our updating the agency mission as distinct
from cost savings that may be achieved in the future?
Mr. Werfel. That is a very good question. What is happening
in my head right now is that you are mixing two key issues of a
bottom line. Because my main purpose at OMB surrounds financial
management and our financial statements and government
efficiency, I am often asked what is the government's bottom
line, and I think the government's bottom line is to meet its
mission cost-effectively. And so I do not think you can
compromise one for the other. It is a failure of government if
we cannot be cost-effective. It is a failure of government if
we cannot achieve our mission. And so I think both have to be
looked at in concert.
Right now, I think there is a clear pressing need with the
budget climate we are in to find efficiencies, and you said it
is difficult, and I agree. To be successful, you have to be
extremely relentless in your planning for how you are going to
integrate these agencies in a way that they are not going to
just be on status quo in terms of their systems and
infrastructure. There are obvious decisions that need to be
made in order to streamline the infrastructure that underlies
these organizations, things that I think with DHS, as an
example, took longer. In that case, only now are we starting to
see some of those integrations of systems and infrastructure
start to result in some savings. I think looking forward we
want to make sure that we hit the ground running with an
expectation and a design that those infrastructure leveraging
and economies of scale are achieved right away.
But if you are not comfortable that the connectivity that
you are creating in the new organization is going to further
advance mission, then I think the proposal is not smart.
Chairman Lieberman. Well, that is a good answer, because we
really aspire to both. And I take it in the specific example of
the President's proposal regarding trade and commercial
activities in agencies that you are confident that would, if
enacted, achieve both cost savings and greater mission
accomplishment.
Mr. Werfel. We are confident based on an enormous amount of
outreach that was done to businesses, former government
officials, current government officials, committees, and
Members of Congress. It is a framework, and there is more work
to be done to finalize the details and a lot more consultation
that will be done.
Senator Collins is not here, but earlier she and Ms. Dalton
talked about the importance of the congressional role. And
there is a clear intent with the President's proposal and the
program going forward to consult with Congress at every step of
the way, from the inception of a reorganization proposal to the
planning and across through the implementation.
And so right now where we are in this life cycle with the
trade and business proposal is that we have done an enormous
amount of outreach that has led us to the conclusion that we
can dually achieve better mission and achieve savings, and that
is the framework that we are operating under.
As we roll up sleeves with you and others to define the
proposal more specifically, if we were to get the
reorganization authority, I think there will be an opportunity
to delve even deeper into those questions. But there is a good
starting point here based on the analysis and the research that
we have done that this proposal will enable both mission and
cost savings improvements.
Chairman Lieberman. Yes, I can tell you that--perhaps this
is saying the obvious--if the reorganization authority had been
enacted already and the fast-track process was law, any
presidential proposal--let us take this one--would be taken
with a greater degree of seriousness. It is true in the
proposal that now Senator Warner and I have put in, if Congress
does not act within 90 days, it is gone. But the very fact that
there is that clock running will lead stakeholders, media,
etc., to put a different kind of pressure on Congress when such
a proposal is made, than, in fact, exists now with regard to
this specific proposal that the President has made.
Let me ask about the idea of results and cost savings; that
is, the bill requires any reorganization plan submitted by the
President must either decrease the number of agencies or result
in cost savings. Who is the arbiter of results and cost savings
in the contemplation of the President's proposal?
Mr. Werfel. That is an interesting question. I think OMB
has the responsibility to produce the information. The
transmittal of any proposal will include cost savings, an
explanation of the efficiencies that are achieved in the moving
pieces that we are proposing, as well as other relevant
information like the plan of action, how we are going to
implement the plan, and how it is going to be accountable going
forward. So we produce the information.
I think the arbiter is ultimately Congress in terms of the
authority that is granted to either approve or disapprove the
proposal. Obviously the President will sign the law, so it is
the dual relationship of how laws are enacted, but I would not
articulate OMB as the arbiter. I would articulate OMB as the
entity that is required to provide policymakers such as the
President and Congress the raw materials they need to determine
what is in the best interest of America for these proposals.
Chairman Lieberman. Ms. Dalton, would you like to comment
on that?
Ms. Dalton. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple things.
First of all, I would like to comment on the cost savings.
One of the things to be aware of is that it may take time
before the cost savings would be achieved, and an understanding
of that timing is critical. When the Congress created the
Department of Homeland Security, it was recognized that there
were going to be some up-front investments before you could
really achieve the results we were looking for. So that is
important.
The implementation plans need to be detailed to show what
the timing is and where those potential cost savings would be
and what would be expected to be achieved. And then there is a
basis to look at--are we getting what we expected?
Chairman Lieberman. Right. Thank you. That is helpful.
Senator Collins mentioned something--I believe it was in
her opening statement--and it is interesting, and I would
invite both of you to respond--I hope we are not thinking
narrowly here because they came out of our Committee. But the
creation of the Department of Homeland Security and then the
implementation legislatively of the 9/11 Commission's
recommendations together represented the most significant
reorganization of our national security agencies since the end
of the Second World War, necessarily because I think we were
facing such a unique challenge. But those resulted from a
legislative initiative, and in the case of the 9/11 Commission
from a commission created by the legislature.
In fact, I will tell you--which I know you know, both of
you--that it was pretty clear to me that within the Executive
Branch there was resistance to the reorganization because it
changed the status quo. And so I just wanted to ask you to
comment on that--not to speak against the legislation because I
think it is a good idea to give a President this authority, but
recent history shows that the Executive Branch has been more
hesitant to embrace significant reorganization, again, because
there were people arguing within the Executive Branch against
changing the status quo in which they had become comfortable.
Mr. Werfel. A few reactions. First, I think the important
distinguishing factor about the Department of Homeland Security
reorganization is that was in response to a crisis and a clear
emerging need that was on the national consciousness to realign
our ability to protect the homeland. That is a critically
important dynamic that I assume will continue going forward,
and nothing in the President's proposal prevents us from
responding to crises in order to deal with those types of
situations.
The issue becomes what about when we do not have an
immediate crisis of that nature but we are sitting on top of
opportunities to improve government. And how do you move past
the general inertia that sometimes exists to get enough energy
around changes to government that have pain points involved for
a variety of different constituents and stakeholders? And we do
not want any individual pain point or any individual concern to
prevent us from achieving what might be more of a global
opportunity.
And so the issue for us is: Is there a mechanism in place
right now that best positions us to reshape government in a
transformative way? The answer is no. And the fact that the DHS
reorganization came together in response to a crisis from our
standpoint is not sufficient evidence that the Executive Branch
and the Congress are ready to be transformative in government
reorganization. We think this mechanism, as you mentioned
earlier, creates an environment of expectation and it creates a
special focus for the types of proposals that we have put
forward that we do not believe would take place in the absence
of this framework.
Chairman Lieberman. That is well said. Ms. Dalton.
Ms. Dalton. A couple comments. In the formation of the
Department of Homeland Security, there were agencies scattered
throughout the government. I think there were 22 agencies that
were brought together. That clearly showed the need for a
strategic approach to how do we want to conduct our homeland
security functions. The reorganization authority and the
requirement for the President to provide that proposal, I
think, provides that framework to look more strategically and
say how do we want to focus our efforts, what are those
functions. And I think that provides that focal point for the
discussions between the Legislative and the Executive Branch,
which when you have that scattering of activities, as you said,
there is an inertia, a status quo; it is difficult to bring
that strategic thinking to bear. And by focusing on specific
proposals from the President, that would provide that strategic
thinking.
Chairman Lieberman. Good. Let me go back to the
implementation plan, the legislation Senator Warner and I have
introduced, which is S. 2129. It would renew the requirement
that the President submit an implementation plan along with any
reorganization proposal, and I think that is a good idea. But
let me just ask both of you how much detail you think should be
included in an implementation plan.
Ms. Dalton. Mr. Chairman, I think there needs to be a
considerable amount of detail, and as I mentioned earlier, like
the need to understand the timing of when things would happen,
what the costs are, and what the investments are.
Implementation, depending on the size of the reorganization, is
going to take time. It often takes years. So you need to lay
that out, lay out who needs to be involved in this process, and
get their input as part of that implementation plan.
I would not want to see it at a very high level. I think
you need to bring a level of granularity to an implementation
plan.
Chairman Lieberman. Mr. Werfel.
Mr. Werfel. I agree with that. I think you want to hit the
right balance. You want to read the implementation plan and get
a sense that the combination of the cost savings and the
mission improvement are justified and appear rational based on
what the Executive Branch is planning to do. So you want to
understand things like commitments on combining
infrastructures. You want to understand who the accountable
officials will be that will be involved, what are the critical
path elements where we can establish whether things are on
progress or not, how accountability will be there, and
measuring progress along the way. So I think a very high-level
implementation plan is not what we have in mind.
At the same time, I also do not know that you need volumes
and volumes of every last detail----
Chairman Lieberman. Yes, exactly.
Mr. Werfel [continuing]. Because I think some of that will
change as we move forward with a particular implementation. So
there is a sweet spot here, and I think when we move into a
phase of a more specific proposal and we move out of the
framework phase for the business and trade as an example, we
will work together with the right stakeholders to define that
analytical structure. That structure may look different each
time depending on the complexity and the nature of the proposal
if we get the reorganization authority and we move forward with
a variety of different proposals.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks. I mentioned we cannot vote by
electronic means, but Senator Pryor has written me by
electronic means on my BlackBerry to say he is not able to
return, so I do not myself have any more questions.
I will give each of you the opportunity to sum up if you
want in any way, if you would like.
[No response.]
I thank you very much. This has been a very helpful hearing
in both regards. Our gratitude goes to GAO for the continuing
light that you are shining on the duplication. I said before it
is headache-inducing when you think about it. All these
programs have been created with really good intentions, and,
look, in all those areas--unmanned aerial aircraft, unmanned
aircraft, STEM programs--they are general subject areas that I,
as one Member of the Senate, have supported. But it is
intolerable to have created so many programs that the
assumption is that they are not coordinating with one another.
I mean, maybe the burden of proof would be on them to prove to
us that they are. So I thank you for that.
I thank you, Mr. Werfel, for your testimony and also to say
that it was encouraging to see that at least the Executive
Branch has responded in some way to 80 percent of the proposals
from the last year's report, and also to thank you for this
proposal.
I tell you, I am encouraged by Senator Coburn's commitment
to work on the reorganization proposal, and I know it is
difficult. We are already in March of a difficult election year
session. One of the Capitol Hill newspapers said that when the
Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act passes this
week--which I am proud to say the anti-insider trading
legislation came out of this Committee also--it would be the
last bipartisan achievement of the year. Maybe we have a few
more left, and so I am hereby adding the presidential
reorganization proposal to what I normally describe as my
bucket list for this year, that is, what I would like to be
part of achieving before I kick not the bucket, generally, but
the Senate bucket, and conclude my career next January.
So maybe with Senator Coburn's support we can build
bipartisan support to get this done. As I have now said twice,
but I really think it is significant, whoever is elected in
November to be our next President will go into office with a
public demanding changes in government, elimination of waste,
and movement back to a balanced Federal budget. And this
authority would give our next President a real opportunity to
meet those public expectations. So I thank you both. My staff
is now cringing thinking about what they are going to have to
do to get that done--I did not give them a detailed
implementation plan for following through. [Laughter.]
But, anyway, the record of the hearing will stay open for
15 days for additional statements and questions. I thank you
very much for your testimony.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:23 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------