<DOC> [109 Senate Hearings] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access] [DOCID: f:21433.wais] S. Hrg. 109-159 AN ASSESSMENT OF THE PRESIDENT'S MANAGEMENT AGENDA ======================================================================= HEARING before the FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY of the COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ APRIL 21, 2005 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 21-433 WASHINGTON : 2005 _____________________________________________________________________________ For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800 Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001 COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman TED STEVENS, Alaska JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio CARL LEVIN, Michigan NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TOM COBURN, Oklahoma THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island MARK DAYTON, Minnesota ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico MARK PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia Michael D. Bopp, Staff Director and Chief Counsel Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and Counsel Amy B. Newhouse, Chief Clerk FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY TOM COBURN, Oklahoma, Chairman TED STEVENS, Alaska THOMAS CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio CARL LEVIN, Michigan LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island DANIEL AKAKA, Hawaii ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah MARK DAYTON, Minnesota PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MARK PRYOR, Arkansas Katy French, Staff Director Sean Davis, Legislative Assistant Sheila Murphy, Minority Staff Director John Kilvington, Minority Deputy Staff Director Liz Scranton, Chief Clerk C O N T E N T S ------ Opening statements: Page Senator Coburn............................................... 1 Senator Collins.............................................. 3 Senator Akaka................................................ 3 Senator Lautenberg........................................... 4 Senator Carper............................................... 6 WITNESSES Thursday, April 21, 2005 Hon. David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, U.S. Government Accountability Office.......................... 11 Hon. Clay Johnson, III, Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget.......................................... 14 Alphabetical List of Witnesses Johnson, Hon. Clay, III: Testimony.................................................... 14 Prepared statement........................................... 57 Walker, Hon. David M.: Testimony.................................................... 11 Prepared statement........................................... 27 Appendix Questions and responses for the record from: Mr. Walker................................................... 63 Mr. Johnson with an attachment............................... 73 AN ASSESSMENT OF THE PRESIDENT'S MANAGEMENT AGENDA ---------- THURSDAY, APRIL 21, 2005 U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security, of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Coburn, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. Present: Senators Coburn, Collins, Akaka, Carper, and Lautenberg. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN Senator Coburn. The Subcommittee will come to order. One the things we are going to try do with our Subcommittee is run on a timely basis. I know the Senate does not have the reputation for doing that, but we are going to lead by example. This year the Federal Government is expected to spend almost $2.5 trillion, making our Federal budget larger than the economies of Canada, Mexico, and Australia combined. Put another way, Washington will spend more than $22,000 per American household this year--$22,000. That is more than the average household income of Oklahoma. Regardless of one's politics, that is a lot of money. The American public has entrusted both Congress and the President with ensuring that those dollars are spent wisely. Therefore, this Subcommittee convened this hearing today to discuss current efforts by the Administration to strengthen the management and accountability of Federal programs. The Subcommittee Ranking Member, Senator Carper, and I, have had a long interest in ensuring that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and efficiently. While Congress has the responsibility to appropriate the funds necessary to operate the government, the Executive Branch is charged with implementing the will of Congress and managing the day-to-day activities of myriad Federal programs. Since assuming office in January 2001, President Bush has sought to make the Federal Government more effective by setting clear goals, bringing reform to entitlement programs, and focusing Federal resources on programs that are effective. In 2001, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) launched the President's Management Agenda, referred to as PMA. The PMA contains a multi-part strategy to strengthen the management of Federal programs and activities and improve government accountability. The PMA is the latest in a series of initiatives over the past 40 years designed to improve the performance and accountability of Federal agencies. Beginning with President Johnson's ``Planning Programming and Budgeting System'' in 1966, each successive initiative has been built on the foundation of its predecessors. President Nixon introduced his ``Management by Objective'' that aimed to expose redundant and ineffective programs by identifying goals and expected results for Federal programs. Later, President Carter introduced the zero-based budgeting concept in 1977 that forced each program to prove its value on an annual basis. GPRA, the Government Performance Results Act of 1993, signed by President Clinton, is the most recent legislative effort regarding budget and performance integration. GPRA directed Federal agencies to improve management, clarify program responsibility, and account for program performance through strategic and annual performance plans. The Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), which is an integral component of PMA, builds on GPRA and seeks to better align budgetary decisions with program performance. As we will hear from our witnesses, the PMA consists of five government-wide initiatives: Strategic management of human capital, competitive sourcing, improved financial performance, e-Government, and budget and performance integration. Each of these initiatives has been developed to streamline Federal programs, to improve the availability and use of important information regarding programmatic and budgetary decisions, and to help the Federal Government meet future challenges. Through today's assessment of the PMA, we hope to discuss such questions as: In what areas has the PMA been most successful and where can it be more effective? What lessons have been learned and how have those lessons been integrated and applied? We are pleased to have with us representatives from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and the Office of Management and Budget, who will offer their assessments regarding how Congress and OMB can work better together to manage this country's finances. We are privileged to have the Hon. David Walker, Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office, with us today. GAO has extensive experience with not only the PMA but also GPRA and its predecessor initiatives. Mr. Walker will shed some light on the effectiveness of the PMA and the interaction between PMA's PART process, which aims to link program performance with the budget process, and GPRA. We will also hear from the Hon. Clay Johnson III, the Deputy Director for Management at the Office of Management and Budget, who will provide us with OMB's perspective on the PMA today. I particularly look forward to hearing from Mr. Johnson regarding the budget and performance integration initiative and the PART process. I am also interested to hear more regarding how the Federal Government is matching money spent on hundreds of programs with program results. Can we achieve the desired results more efficiently, more effectively, and at a lower cost to taxpayers? I look forward to discussing with both of you ways in which the Executive and Legislative Branches can better work to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. Before I introduce our witnesses, I would like to recognize my Chairman, Senator Collins, who may wish to make an opening statement. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS Senator Collins. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to congratulate you on chairing what I think is your first Subcommittee hearing since coming to the Senate. You have been a real champion of the taxpayer, always on the watch for waste, fraud, and abuse. I am very pleased that you have chosen to join our Committee, which historically has played an important role in identifying and fighting fraud, waste, and abuse in government programs. In particular, you have accepted the daunting task of ensuring that Federal agencies are spending taxpayers' dollars wisely and efficiently through the oversight of their financial and information technology management. More and more, as our witnesses well know, financial management systems and technology play a key role in our ongoing efforts to combat waste, fraud, and abuse, and to ensure that the taxpayers get full value for their investment. Our continued success in this area, then, will depend heavily on the effectiveness of these management systems. Furthermore, the failure of several high-profile Federal IT systems, such as the FBI's Trilogy program, are among the most prominent examples of wasteful Federal spending in recent years. So, the topic you have chosen for your first hearing, the President's Management Agenda, is an important one and one that I have discussed with both of our witnesses many times. I think that this Subcommittee is going to help ensure that tax dollars are well spent, and I very much am delighted to have you here in your new capacity, and I congratulate you for your leadership. Senator Coburn. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Senator Akaka. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to recognize the presence of our Chairman, Senator Collins, and thank her for her good work as Chairman of the full Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. As the former Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, I want to wish you, Mr. Chairman, and your Ranking Member, Senator Carper, well. Our former colleague, Senator Peter Fitzgerald, and I held many hearings, and successfully sponsored legislation to increase financial transparency within the Federal Government, and draw attention to the national security needs of our country. I know you are truly committed to government efficiency and accountability, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to working with you. I also want to join you in welcoming our witnesses today, both of whom appeared before the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management 2 months ago to discuss GAO's high-risk list. At our hearing I expressed my disappointment that so many areas within the Department of Defense remain on the list. Out of the 25 high-risk area on this year's list, eight are unique to DOD, and several more are government-wide issues that directly impact DOD. These deficiencies keep DOD from getting a clean audit and result in billions of dollars in waste. As the Ranking Member of both OGM and Armed Services Readiness Subcommittees, I have worked hard to improve the efficiency of DOD programs and operations. I know the Comptroller General will discuss some of DOD's management shortfalls, and I applaud his persistent focus on the Department's financial performance and program accountability. Mr. Chairman, last week, I joined with Senator Ensign and Senator Voinovich, who are the Chairmen of the Armed Services Readiness and Oversight of Government Management Subcommittees respectively, to introduce S. 780, legislation to create a new position of Deputy Secretary of Defense for Management. Our bill is based on a recommendation made by Mr. Walker, and I invite you to cosponsor this measure that will designate one person accountable for the integration and implementation of management and defense business reforms. Another area within the President's Management Agenda is strategic management of human capital. Again, pointing to problems in DOD and a recommendation of the Comptroller General, I note that DOD has failed to develop a comprehensive, strategic workforce plan to guide its human capital efforts. These are the issues; these are the concerns that we are looking at. I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Carper and, of course, Senator Collins, and I wish all of you well. Thank you. Senator Coburn. Thank you, Senator Akaka. Senator Lautenberg. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAUTENBERG Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and my good wishes also for your first venture as Chairman, and the subject is a very important one. I am glad it is being taken up. So I thank you for convening this hearing. Mr. Chairman, I come from the business world, and I started a company with a couple of other fellows whose father, like mine, came from factory employment. I left that company 23 years ago that now employs more than 40,000 people, and we would never have gotten there if I had not run a tight ship and I knew what I expected from my program managers, and I held them accountable. But I also rewarded their successes. The result was an outstanding growth record for more than 40 years. So I understand and I applaud the President's desire to instill the best management practices in our Federal Government. We should be demanding accountability from our government programs and making sure they accomplish the goals we set out for them. Government can be and often is a great force for good in America. It provides health care for poor and the elderly and it helps kids go to college. If I had not had the GI bill to boost me along, I never would have, frankly, been able to go to college as I did. Government also helps keep our communities vital and does research to fight childhood disease and disability. Mr. Chairman, we have to make sure these programs are accomplishing their goals. It is not only a matter of spending the taxpayers' money wisely, although we must always do that. It is a matter of making sure that money we spend in government gets to the people who need it, actually doing the good work that is required out there in the country. But I learned something else in my business years, and you get what you pay for. So we may have to make sure that we are measuring the right things. We cannot allow program evaluations to look simply at expenditures without looking at the successes. And I also want to express a serious concern about one of the five key pillars of the PMA, and it is called competitive outsourcing. Now, last year, the government held 217 competitions with about 12,500 full-time jobs at stake. Federal workers competed against private contractors for their jobs. The public employees won the competition more than 90 percent of the time. And I note from my own experience that what I had by way of support when I was in the corporate sector was very efficient and well done, but I see people in government who come to work for a heck of a lot less than they would make in the private side, with as much enthusiasm and commitment as we see in the private side. So I ask my colleagues, are we spending more energy on competing jobs than its ultimately worth? Instead of having Federal employees spend time competing for their jobs, why don't we just let them do their jobs? And not without measure and not without expectations of success and commitment. I always found in my business experience that the employees were our greatest asset, because if we had good performance by our employees, the customers would come, and the same thing is true, I believe, in government. If the programs are successful, if it shows an attempt by government to improve life's conditions, then we will get the support of the people out there. So we have to maintain good and dedicated employees as part of our organization, and we have to try to keep them reasonably happy. You have to invest in them, help them plan for the future. The Federal Government hasn't done this enough, in my judgment, because very often we throw employee compensation in a basket called waste, fraud, and abuse, and that is not always the case. Indeed, GAO found that during the downsizing in the 1990's, the Federal Government did not plan well for its future in human capital needs. As a result, the Federal workforce has suffered. Mr. Chairman, we all know that we have to treat people right to get results. We hope that contracting out jobs, because the government has decided on a policy--we have to examine what it is that we get for the changes we make, and I am sure that you will do that, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Coburn. Thank you, Senator. It is a great privilege for me to have as a Ranking Member and integral, even part of this Subcommittee, Senator Carper. Of note, both of our initials are T.C., so that makes for a lot of fun at times. I want to commit to him now that this Subcommittee will be run on a bipartisan basis. It will be partisan only on issues that are important to the future of this country, and he has demonstrated his commitment through his life, his votes, and his service to care about the future of our country and to care about its economic consequences through waste. And so I could not have somebody that I am, first of all, closer to or aligned with in terms of his dedication, and I am very pleased that he is the Ranking Member on this Subcommittee. And I also know that he has an extreme interest in not only making sure we spend our money wisely but the money that is due the Federal Government from income taxes that are not collected that should be collected is something that we are going to look at, and I make that commitment to him at this hearing that we will do that. Senator Carper. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER Senator Carper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad I came just for that introduction. [Laughter.] For my colleagues and our guests, along with Senators Lamar Alexander, George Voinovich, and Mark Pryor, I asked our leaders, we asked Senators Tom Daschle and Bill Frist at the end of last year if we could put together really a school for new Senators modeled after the New Governors School within the National Governors' Association--plunk it right down in the middle of the U.S. Senate--and it gave me an opportunity to get to know then Senator-elect Coburn and his wife and all the other new Members. It was a wonderful experience for me. I don't know that it was of great help to our incoming Members, but it sure was helpful to those of us who hosted it and gave us real insights into our new colleagues. And I am delighted that we ended up--T.C. West and T.C. East--on the same Subcommittee and have the chance to work together. And he has been in the Senate now--for what?--3 or 4 months, and I think he has shown as much vigilance in trying to do something about the budget deficit as anybody around, and God knows when we are pushing $400 billion in Federal budget deficit, we need some vigilance and some leadership, and I know we have it right here to my left. I like being on your right, to the right of you. Senator Coburn. You are actually on my left to them. [Laughter.] Senator Carper. I have a statement I would like to offer, if I could, Mr. Chairman. Senator Coburn. Please do. Senator Carper. All right. First of all, let me just say to General Walker--I saw him almost as much as I saw my wife this week. This is the second hearing today that he has testified at, and I don't know how--maybe they have cloned you. I don't know. There are days I wish we could clone me. That is a scary thought. But we are glad you are here, and, Mr. Johnson, welcome, we look forward to hearing from both of you. I think it is most appropriate, Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, that at our first hearing we are going to get an update on the President's Management Agenda, and while I don't agree with every single aspect of what the President has put forward, I do applaud him and his team for working aggressively since his first days in Washington to try to make our government work a little bit better and a little bit smarter. At a time when our Federal budget deficit is not just approaching $400 billion, but I believe if you add in the supplemental, the emergency supplemental that is before us today in the Senate, if you add that in, we are going to be running a deficit that will exceed $400 billion, and we need to do all that we can to make every dollar count. The Chairman and I have already been talking about not only making sure that we are doing the right thing on the spending side and so forth, but to make sure the folks, businesses or individuals, who owe taxes, that they legally owe, that we are doing the very best job that we can to make sure we collect those dollars. Actually, frankly, we are looking forward to hearing from both of you and from the folks you lead to see how we might do that better. But I was pleased to learn that many agencies are now getting a better handle on their finances--not all, but many. Agencies are apparently getting their annual written financial statements in earlier, and I believe most of those statements are in better shape than they have been in years gone by, and I think we all agree that is real progress. I am also pleased the Administration is beginning this year to tackle the problem of improper payments, and more than $45 billion, I am told, in improper payments were made in fiscal year 2004. If that is true, if that is even close to being true, that is a huge number. Whether it is $45 or $35 or $25 billion, we need to work together to tackle this problem, because with every double payment that goes out or inappropriate payment that goes out with every individual vendor who accidentally or fraudulently receives a payment that he or she is not entitled to, a worthy program is denied resources that could be put to better use. I look forward to our hearing today about how OMB intends to meet the President's goals for reducing improper payments. I would also like to hear about what might need to be done to strengthen our agencies' internal controls to detect and prevent wasteful and unnecessary payments before they happen. That said, I do have some concerns about the way that some of the initiatives in the President's Management Agenda are being implemented. The President's initiatives to improve human capital management across the Federal Government is a good example, and some of his initiatives in this area are most worthwhile, and I think they are supported by just about all of us. It is difficult for many agencies to bring qualified personnel on board, for example, and this job will be even more difficult in the coming years as workers from my generation, the boomers, begin to retire. In addition, there is some logic to the idea that employee performance should play a bigger role in determining how an individual is paid. I believed that as a Governor, and I believe that today. If personnel reform proposals currently being implemented at the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security are indications of how we intend to address these and other human capital problems, in some respects we may want to go back to the drawing board. I don't need to remind everybody, Mr. Chairman, on this Subcommittee that the employees at the Department of Defense and the employees at the Department of Homeland Security are for the most part opposed to the new personnel systems at their departments. Some of them may be even suing to prevent the new systems from going into effect out of a concern that proposals in areas like employee appeal and union rights go much too far. Some are also concerned that the proposed pay-for- performance systems each Department will be phasing in don't provide employees with enough protection against favoritism or other potential management abuses. This is having an effect, I am told, on morale, and the two Departments could very well have an impact on recruitment and retention in the future, and we have all got to be mindful of that and attentive to it. Before we talk about exporting from the Department of Defense or Department of Homeland Security to other agencies, as the President has suggested, we just need to be mindful of these concerns and, I think, to address them. And I also have some concerns that I would like to share, Mr. Chairman, about the President's competitive sourcing initiatives. I think maybe Senator Lautenberg may have been addressing this. I am not sure. While I support the idea of increased competition for Federal work that is not inherently governmental, I am not entirely comfortable with the degree to which the revised rules governing how competitions should be run may favor private bidders in some respects and make it more difficult to be sure that the bidder who can do the best work at the lowest price always winds up with the contract. I would like to see the rules further revised so that Federal employees always have the right to reorganize themselves and to put their best bid forward, and I would also like to see Federal employees given the same right that their competitors in the private sector have to protest decisions made by an agency in a competition. I believe we need to work to refine the rules so we can always say that the winner of a public-private competition is the party that can give the best value to the taxpayers for their money. And, finally, I would also like to briefly address the President's initiatives on performance-based budgeting and the mechanism being used to enforce it, and that is the Program Assessment Rating Tool. I think it uses an acronym. I don't like to use acronyms, so I am going to try to continue to say that phrase over again: Program Assessment Rating Tool. I will never be one who will argue that a program that is ineffective or that has served its purpose and is no longer needed should continue to receive funding. I am not interested in that; neither are you. However, we need to be careful before deeming a program a failure and defunding it. And the Program Assessment Rating Tool is, I think, an interesting proposal. I have no problem looking at programs on a regular basis to determine whether or not they are accomplishing what they are intended for them to accomplish when we first created them. We need to be certain, though, that the Program Assessment Rating Tool or whatever mechanism we use to make these evaluations is separated from politics and ideology and is closely coordinated with existing mechanisms that agencies and Congress use to align budgets with program goals and outcomes. We also need to make sure that a program's intended beneficiaries outside of Washington have a say before an evaluation is completed. I am going to stop there, Mr. Chairman. I have a bit more, but I would just ask unanimous consent for it to be entered for the record. We welcome our witnesses, and thank you very much. Senator Coburn. Without objection, it will be entered. [The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to join you here today at the first hearing of the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information and International Security. Our name is long, our jurisdiction is broad and issues we'll be focusing on over the next 2 years are vitally important ones. I look forward to working with you in a bipartisan way to help our government be a better steward of taxpayer dollars and to make our Nation safer from terrorism. I think it's very appropriate, Mr. Chairman, that at our first hearing we'll be hearing an update on the President's Management Agenda. While I don't agree with every aspect of what the President has put forward, I applaud him for working aggressively since his first days in Washington to try to make government work better and smarter. At a time when our Federal budget deficit is soaring, we need to do all we can to make every dollar count. I was pleased to learn, then, that many agencies are now getting a better handle on their finances. Agencies are apparently getting their annual financial statements in earlier. And I believe most of those statements are in better shape than they have been in years past. this is real progress. I'm also pleased that the administration is beginning this year to tackle the problem of improper payments. More than $45 billion in improper payments were made in 2004. We need to work together to tackle this problem. With every double payment that goes out, with every individual or vendor or accidentally or fraudulently receives a payment he or she is not entitled to, a worthy program is denied resources that could be put to good use. I look forward to hearing today about how OMB intends to meet the President's ambitious goals for reducing improper payments. I'd also like to hear about what might need to be done to strengthen agencies' internal controls to detect and prevent wasteful and unnecessary payments before they happen. That said, I'm concerned about the way some of the initiatives in the President's Management Agenda are being implemented. The President's initiative to improve human capital management across the Federal Government is a good example. Some of the President's personnel proposals are worthwhile. It's difficult for many agencies to bring qualified personnel onboard, for example. This job will be even more difficult in the coming years as Federal workers from my generation begin to retire in the coming years. In addition, there's some logic to the idea that employee performance should play a bigger role in determining how an individual is paid. If the personnel reform proposals currently being implemented at the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security are indications of how we intend to address these and other human capital problems, however, we might need to go back to the drawing board. I don't need to remind anyone on this Subcommittee that the employees at the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security are very much opposed to the new personnel systems at their departments. Some of them are even suing to prevent the new systems from going into effect out of concern that proposals in areas like employee appeals and union rights go much too far. Some are also concerned that the proposed pay-for-performance systems each department will be phasing in don't provide employees with enough protection against favoritism and other management abuses. This is having an impact on morale in the two departments and could very well have an impact on recruitment and retention in the future. Before we talk about exporting the Defense or Homeland Security models to other agencies, as the President has suggested, we need to address some of these issues. I also have concerns about the President's competitive sourcing initiative. While I support the idea of increasing competition for Federal work that's not inherently governmental, I'm uncomfortable with the degree to which the revised rules governing how competitions should be run favor private bidders, in some respects, and make it more difficult to be sure that the bidder who can do the best work at the lowest price winds always up with the contract. I'd like to see the rules further revised so that Federal employees always have the right to reorganize themselves and put their best bid forward. I'd also like to see Federal employees given the same right that their competitors in the private sector have to protest decisions made by an agency in a competition. We need to work to refine the rules so we can always say that the winner of a public-private competition is the party that can give taxpayers the best value for their money. Finally, I'd also like to address briefly the President's initiative on performance-based budgeting and the mechanism being used to enforce it--the Program Assessment Rating Tool, or PART. I'll never be one who'd argue that a program that's ineffective or that has served its purpose and is no longer needed should continue to receive funding. However, we need to be careful before deeming a program a failure and de-funding it. PART is an interesting proposal. I have no problem looking at programs on a regular basis to determine whether or not they're accomplishing what we intended for them to accomplish when we first created them. We need to be certain, however, that PART or whatever mechanism we use to make these evaluations is separated from politics and ideology and is closely coordinated with existing mechanisms agencies and Congress use to align budgets with program goals and outcomes. We also need to make sure that a program's intended beneficiaries outside of Washington have a say before an evaluation is completed. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say something about the President's Management Agenda and its impact on the budget. The President's FY 2006 budget proposal states that the management agenda is a critical component of his plan to cut the budget deficit in half by 2009. I have doubts about that plan for a variety of reasons. It's clear to me, however, that even full and successful implementation of the management agenda won't get us there. I can help, but it won't get the job done on its own. Non-defense discretionary spending, the target of many of the spending reductions in the President's budget proposal, makes up only about 16 percent, I believe, of the total Federal budget. I'm sure we can find ways to improve the management of some of the funding in that 16 percent, or even to find and eliminate waste or inefficient use of resources. If we truly want to tackle the fiscal problems facing us right now, however, we'll need to take a look at the entire budgetary picture, on the spending and revenue side, and make some tough decisions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I look forward to working with you on these issues in the coming years. Senator Carper. And, Mr. Chairman, I just look forward to working with you and---- Senator Coburn. Well, I just wanted to let my accountant come out in me a little bit. I do have a degree in accounting, and although I am a physician---- Senator Carper. Well, you are multi---- Senator Coburn. I want for the record to note that the real deficit this year is going to be $640 billion. It is going to be a $410 billion deficit. We are going to add $80 billion on a supplemental right now, and we are going to steal $150 billion from Social Security that we are going to write an IOU for. So in terms of the debt of the country this year, the deficit is going to be at a minimum $640 billion. That is a real problem. Let me thank our witnesses for coming. A brief introduction, if I may. You are both very well known to the Senate. The first witness is Hon. David Walker, Comptroller General of the United States. He began his 15-year term as the Nation's chief accountability officer and was appointed in 1998 as head of the U.S. General Accounting Office, now referred to as the Government Accountability Office. Through his role as Comptroller General, Mr. Walker oversees GAO's work to improve the performance and accountability of the Federal Government, including measures to improve the efficient use of taxpayers' dollars. Before his appointment as Comptroller General, Mr. Walker had executive-level experience in both government and private industry. He worked for Arthur Andersen LLP between 1989 and 1998 where he was partner and global managing director for human capital services practice in Atlanta, Georgia. While a partner at Arthur Andersen, he served as a public trustee for Social Security and Medicare from 1990 to 1995. Our second witness is the Hon. Clay Johnson III, Deputy Director for Management at the Office of Management and Budget. In his role he provides government-wide leadership to Executive Branch agencies to improve agency and program performance. Prior to this position, Mr. Johnson served as Assistant to the President for Presidential Personnel and as Executive Director of the Bush-Cheney transition team. From 1995 to 2000, he also served as appointments director and chief of staff for then- Governor George Bush. Similar to Mr. Walker, prior to his government service he had an impressive career in the private sector as chief operating officer of the Dallas Museum of Art, president of Horchow and Neiman Marcus mail order divisions. I would like to thank you both for being here. In the interest of time, your full statements will be made a part of the record, and I would ask that you limit your opening statements to 5 minutes. Mr. Walker. TESTIMONY OF HON. DAVID M. WALKER,\1\ COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE Mr. Walker. Chairman Coburn, Senator Carper, and Senator Lautenberg, it is a pleasure to be back before you. Let me congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, on your assuming this chairmanship. I am very excited about the fact that you are very interested in these issues. You have a lot of enthusiasm for them. I know that Senator Carper and Senator Lautenberg and others do as well. So I look forward to a long and mutually beneficial relationship on issues of mutual interest and concern to the country. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Walker appears in the Appendix on page 27. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I will provide an executive summary of my statement in the interest of time. This hearing is about the President's Management Agenda, and let me state for the record that we believe that this has been a very positive initiative in the aggregate. The Administration's implementation of the President's Management Agenda has demonstrated its commitment to improving Federal management and performance. It has served to raise the visibility of key management challenges, increased attention to achieving outcome-based result, and reinforced the need for agencies to focus on making sustained improvements in addressing longstanding problems, including the items on GAO's high-risk list. I might note that there is a very strong correlation between the President's Management Agenda and GAO's high-risk list, and that is not an accident. In fact, we worked together in a very constructive manner to make progress on a whole range of fronts, not just limited to the high-risk list but with a special emphasis on the high-risk list. As was mentioned by Senator Akaka, 14 of 25 high-risk areas relate to the Department of Defense, directly or indirectly. DOD is clearly the biggest major challenge that we have in the business transformation effort in the Federal Government for any single agency, and yet there are a number of challenges that span a number of agencies within the Federal Government. If I can, a few words about each of the key areas on the President's Management Agenda. First, financial management. In general, there has been improvement with regard to financial management over the last several years. We are continuing to see, as compared to several years ago, a higher number of agencies that are receiving clean opinions in their financial statements. There was an agreement early in the Bush Administration between GAO, OMB, and the Treasury Department to raise the bar on what is the standard for success in financial management. It is not just a clean opinion. The standard is also no major internal control weaknesses, no major compliance problems, and timely, accurate and useful information to make informed decisions on a day-to- day basis. While we have continued to make progress with regard to clean opinions on the financial statements, less than five of the agencies have met that entire list of criteria, and DOD is the laggard for all of the Federal Government with regard to financial management. I might also note there has been an acceleration of the due date of audited financial statements and related annual reports. Specifically, last year, by November 15, the agencies had to report and then the consolidated financial statements were issued on December 15. That is 45 days after the end of the year for the agencies, 75 days after the end of the year for the Federal Government, a very impressive improvement. At the same point in time, we did see an increase in the number of agency statements that had to be restated from the prior year, which reinforces the importance of getting the systems and controls in place such that you can have not only timely but reliable financial information. With regard to the second area, eliminating improper payments, you properly pointed out, Senator Carper, there were about $45 billion in improper payments for fiscal year 2004. That is probably understated because there are still some agencies that have not reported and there are others that are refining their methodology. It is, however, important to note that improper payments do not necessarily represent fraud, waste, and abuse. Some of those improper payments may, in fact, have been bona fide items but there was not a proper documentation at the time the payment was made, and so not all of those represent fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. But clearly it is an unacceptable number, and more needs to be done in order to be able to get that number down. With regard to the strategic management of human capital, as Senator Lautenberg mentioned--I strongly agree that people are the most valuable asset in a knowledge-based enterprise, especially in a knowledge-based economy. For the most part, that is what the government is and, therefore, it is important to recognize that reality. I would respectfully suggest more progress has been made in the area of human capital in the last several years than in the last couple of decades, in large part not just efforts within the Executive Branch, but also because of actions by the Congress. But I would also agree it is not important just to give management reasonable flexibility so we could modernize our human capital policies and procedures to recognize 21st Century realities. There need to be adequate safeguards and controls to prevent abuse, and proper implementation of these authorities. Doing this at DOD and at DHS, is of critical importance. How you implement human capital reform matters, and the process that you use is just as important as the policy framework that you are employing. Another initiative on the President's management agenda is budget and performance integration. The Program Assessment Rating Tool has strong conceptual merit. It is not perfect. No tool is perfect. But the idea that you need to focus more on how to link resources to results, how you can end up making agencies accountable to focus on whether or not they are making a difference in the lives of the American people, and whether or not they are generating a positive return on investment. This clearly has strong conceptual merit. Unfortunately, it has not yet been used to a great extent in determining actual resource allocations, and in order for this tool to have a real meaningful and lasting impact, it has got to translate into budget proposal actions by the President--which it has to a certain extent, and I am sure that Clay Johnson will talk about that. However, it has to be used on Capitol Hill and incorporated into Congressional decisionmaking in order to make a real and lasting difference. Chairman Coburn, as you know, and Senator Carper and Senator Lautenberg, because all of you have gotten a copy of the report, ``21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal Government,'' never before have we had such a compelling need to understand what works and what does not work because we are on an imprudent and unsustainable fiscal path. We need to make some tough choices and we need to have solid facts in order to be able to understand what is working and what is not. The next initiative is e-Government, and I am about done, Mr. Chairman. The Administration is focusing primarily on 25 OMB-sponsored e-Government initiatives where progress is mixed, but it is an area where additional progress is being made. And last, for now, is the competitive sourcing issue. This is a complex and controversial topic. I will say that the Administration did issue a new A-76 regulation that, in large part, was consistent with the recommendations of the Commercial Activities Panel, which I chaired. I will also note that the Congress passed and we have now operationalized the authority for agency tender officials to appeal decisions under A-76 on behalf of employees to the GAO. We look forward to executing that responsibility within the statutory 100-day period. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to answering any questions you may have. Senator Coburn. Thank you, General Walker. Mr. Johnson. TESTIMONY OF HON. CLAY JOHNSON III,\1\ DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, Senators Carper and Lautenberg, I thank you for having me here today. The Federal Government is working to ensure taxpayer dollars buy more and go farther every year. The American taxpayers expect it, and if they do not expect it, they should; and the Federal Government is showing that it can deliver. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 57. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agencies are better managed and achieving greater results. They are managing their finances and investments more professionally and efficiently. They are providing better service to the American people. They are helping civilian employees be more effective and successful, all as David Walker has pointed out. I personally believe that more has been done in the last 4 years to really change the way the Federal Government works than during any comparable period in recent history. The Federal Government has shown that it can change, and it is a good thing because, as David Walker points out, we must change. We need to change. There is much still to do, but we have already defined what we want and can accomplish in the next few years, and we want to be held accountable for doing it. I have submitted a longer statement for official entry, and I refer you to that for an elaboration on those points. I look forward to your questions. Senator Coburn. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. I just want to advise members we have four votes starting at 3:45. And so what we will do is we will go through the questioning, and if there is no objection--5 minutes apiece, and then we will submit any questions that are left after that, if we might. Let me start with you, Mr. Johnson. The President's 2006 budget proposal requested or proposed the termination of almost 100 Federal programs, which would reduce spending by $8.8 billion alone in fiscal year 20006. How did OMB put this list together? How did you determine which programs were effective and ineffective? Why did the budget propose maintaining or even increasing the budgets for some of the programs that were rated ineffective? And how many of the programs proposed for termination have been on this list before? Mr. Johnson. I think I have all of those points, but let me go through and remind me if there is something I did not cover. We start off evaluating programs with the premise that we want programs to work. We are not engaging in a witch hunt by trying to get rid of things. At some point, we conclude that we have accomplished what we want to accomplish or there is no way we can make it work or there is someone--the private sector, a State, a municipality--that is better prepared to do that work, and we recommend that the program be terminated or be reduced or be combined with something else. But we start off with the premise that we want programs to work, and we cannot figure out how to make them work until we figure out what they are accomplishing now. Are there management deficiencies? Are their definitions of success accurate? Do they have good performance goals, and good output goals, good efficiency measures? Are they set up to succeed? Do they have a chance to succeed? Is the enabling legislation perhaps in need of some rethinking? So that is the primary answer why some programs that are considered to be results not demonstrated or ineffective have not been recommended for elimination or significant reductions, because our first effort is to try to get them to work. PART score is--again, someone commented, maybe you, Senator Carper--there is nothing magical about the phrase PART or Program Assessment Rating Tool, and there are 25 or 30 questions that we ask, and there is nothing magical about the questions, although the issues that they address, I think, are magical. Do you have a clear definition of success? Do you have a clear definition of at what cost do you want to achieve success? How are you performing relative to your standards? In a big percentage of the cases--by now it is 30 percent of all the programs we have assessed--we cannot demonstrate that we are producing a desired result, either because we cannot define the desired result; we can define it but we do not know how to measure it; or we know how to measure it, but we have not had the time yet to collect the measurements to tell how we are performing. Thirty percent. When we first started this program, it was 40 percent or over 40 percent. But the key is that we ask ourselves questions that get at what we are doing, what are we accomplishing. We are spending the money, but are we getting anything for it? And is what we are getting for it satisfactory? And are we getting the money we spend over here, a return on that investment compared with the spending over here? And if it is lower than this, then might we want to reconsider and put more money here and less money here and so forth? It gives us information that we would not otherwise have to have a more intelligent, more results-oriented conversation about how we are spending our money. And once we have spent it, it gives program management more information and more targets about how to spend that money to really make a difference. Senator Coburn. So last year, you had these same programs running. And in the President's proposal last year for his budget, how many programs did you recommend eliminating? Mr. Johnson. Last year I think we recommended 50 or 60 programs be reduced significantly or eliminated. Senator Coburn. How many did Congress reduce or eliminate? Mr. Johnson. I don't know, but it was less than 10. Senator Coburn. But that is an important point for us to know. Here we have management under measured guidelines saying this is ineffective. Here is why it is not. Are those 40 or so that weren't eliminated or modified last year in this list again? Mr. Johnson. Almost all of them. Senator Coburn. So what we are saying is either your evaluations of them are wrong or the political situation is such that we don't have the courage to address it. I mean, there is no question there are politically popular programs that might not be effective that we might duck in our responsibility to address. There is nothing wrong with saying that. It is the real world up here, and we need to know that. And we need to talk about the ones that are because we ought to be held accountable for it. So how do you move us based on what you have put forward-- of course, part of the purpose of this hearing is to find out why certain programs are there and what they are or are not accomplishing. How do you move us? How do you get the information to the members of this body and the House to make that happen? Mr. Johnson. In the most general sense, we have to make performance more important. We have to make performance good politics, for instance. We have to pay more attention to the performance information that we now have on programs that account for more than half the budget. It is about 60 percent of the total spending, and this year it will be 80 percent, and next year it will be 100 percent. So there is more discussion about performance now than there was 2 or 3 years ago when there was very little PART information and there was really no standard, performance information or consistently derived performance information to refer to. So it is more than there was before. But it is not enough. For instance, we have plans and are working to produce a website that will show the American people how their money is being spent. Eventually all 1,200 programs or so that we have in the Federal Government for which we spend all the money will be available in lay terms for the average citizen to see what the program is intended to do, how it is considered to be working, what its goals are, how it is performing relative to those goals, how it is performing relative to last year, and, most importantly, the plan for improving performance next year. The purpose of all this is to try to create in the Federal Government a culture that we can and we should improve performance of every program every year. Senator Coburn. Thank you. Senator Carper. Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I know you said the number, and I thought I caught it, but what did you say the budget deficit was likely to be for this fiscal year when you added in the emergency supplemental? Senator Coburn. Six hundred forty billion dollars when you consider the money we will take from Social Security and write an IOU. That does not include all the other funds out there that we will take money and write IOUs for. Senator Carper. All right. The 100 programs that the Administration I think had called for either downsizing or eliminating, what was the annualized cost for those programs? Mr. Johnson. I think it is $20-some-odd billion. Senator Carper. I heard the number $8 billion earlier. What was that? Mr. Johnson. The 150 programs that we have recommended for elimination and reduction, and I think the expenditure of that 150 is 20-some-odd, and maybe the eliminations is $8 billion. I am sorry. We will get back to you with that information. Senator Carper. Whether it is $8 or $20 billion, with a budget deficit of $600-some billion, if that is all we do, clearly it is not enough, which I think reminds us that there is not just the domestic discretionary spending but there is defense spending, there is entitlement programs, and there are revenues and whether or not we are collecting the monies that are owed. And together I think they all need to be part of reducing the budget deficit. I was Governor of my State during the 1990's so I was not following quite as closely what was going on down here, but I think part of what happened, in order to enable us to actually balance the budget and start running surpluses at the end of the last decade, one was that revenue growth was very strong, the economy was very strong. And that is always helpful. But there was, I think, a little bit of work done on both the discretionary spending side and on the entitlement side, just a little on both sides. So it takes some of all that, so have us keep that in mind. I want to come back, if I could, to the issue of improper payments for a little bit, if you will. And the number $45 billion is one that I expressed, and I just want to come back. Is that an annual number? We believe that as much as $45 million in improper payments, as you said, not fraudulent, maybe not totally wasteful payments, but $45 billion in improper payments. Give us some example of payments that may be improper, but we would say, well, that is not fraudulent or that is not really wasteful, it is improper. Can you give us some examples of that? Mr. Walker. Sure. The $45 billion, Senator, is annual, and that is the fiscal year 2004 estimate from the agencies that have reported so far. Mr. Johnson. It is $40 billion too much and $5 billion too little, so it is a net of $35 billion too much. Senator Carper. Oh, OK. Mr. Walker. Again, everybody has not reported yet, and many agencies are still refining their methodologies. One example might be where a payment was made, and it might have been a bona fide payment, but they did not have all the supporting documentation they should have had in order to make the payment. Another example is where the program paid something twice, and, by the way, under current law, if the Federal Government does not pay promptly, it has to pay interest and in some cases penalties. On the other hand, if a contractor is paid twice, not only does the contractor not have to let us know that, but they do not have to pay interest and there is no penalty even if they hold on to the money for an extended period of time. We do not have a level playing field there. So those would be two examples I would give you on each side. Senator Carper. Just based on those two examples, is there something that you would want to suggest to us that we do in response to particularly that last situation? Mr. Walker. Well, I have suggested before that Congress might want to try to take steps to create a more level playing field with regard to overpayments. Specifically whether there should be some notification requirement or whether under certain circumstances interest should accrue and penalties should be imposed. Now, in some cases, quite frankly, the government's internal controls are poor and its financial systems are so poor that the government is part of the problem. On the other hand, if the contractor is aware of it, then it is something that needs to have additional transparency, and we need to improve the related incentives. Senator Carper. OK. Well, we might want to explore that a bit further with you, if we could. One of the things that I think I heard you say, General Walker, was that you started talking about this PART program, and I noted it said not used fully, and that is as far as I got. But can you just go back and complete that paragraph for us, please? Mr. Walker. First, I think it is important to have a methodology, and the Program Assessment Rating Tool is the Administration's methodology for assessing the effectiveness of programs. I think it is important that it apply to all major programs. Nothing can really be off the table eventually, and we also need to take the same concept with regard to the tax side, including tax preferences at some point. Right now it is limited to the program side. Once the assessment is made, then there has to be a point in time where the President will then say, All right, based upon this result, we are going to end up either cutting back, merging, or eliminating programs, and that is what Mr. Johnson was talking about. The Administration does not always do it the first time that they have an ineffective result, but after a reasonable period of time, they may make such a proposal. But then what has to happen is it comes to the Congress, and then the key question is: What does the Congress do with the information? Candidly, we are currently on an imprudent and unsustainable fiscal path. The base of government, whether it be on the spending side, mandatory or discretionary, or the tax side, is unsustainable. One of the things that has to happen is a cultural change not just within the Executive Branch, but also within the Legislative Branch to understand that every dollar spent today on an item that is not effective is a dollar we will not have in the future for something that could be effective. And every additional dollar of debt today is a tax increase for our kids and grandkids in the future. That is where we are at. That is how bad our fiscal situation is. Senator Carper. Would you describe that as a debt tax? Mr. Walker. Well, you do not pay taxes--I think the taxes will come before somebody dies. Senator Carper. No. Debt, d-e-b-t. Mr. Walker. Oh, debt tax. I thought you said ``death tax.'' You could call it that, Senator. I will give you credit for that. Senator Carper. Thank you so much. Senator Coburn. Senator Lautenberg. Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Again, we are fortunate to have two such distinguished witnesses here, and it is hard for me to understand how two such intelligent and trained people can be so wrong. But other than that, why---- [Laughter.] Mr. Chairman, you raised a question in your remarks before that I think deserves some kind of a response, and that was in talking about the deficit and what is happening. And I find it a little bit mysterious to look at the low value of the dollar in trading places and to see our trade deficits continue to expand. Why? We never seem to get a satisfactory answer to that. And the other thing, Mr. Chairman, in fairness, lots of people who have made their money in business, legitimate entrepreneurs, etc., accumulated fortunes in some cases. Why, in this time of war, was it necessary to reduce our revenues? I will never understand that, and I am a beneficiary--no, I will not even describe it that way--I am a recipient of the tax breaks? But in terms of the legacy--Mr. Walker, you mentioned legacy--to our kids, I have got 10 grandchildren, and the best thing I can leave them is not more money because money in a society that is disgruntled or worse, it does not do any good. I would rather leave them a society that is operating in harmony, where everybody has a chance, where life-saving research can be conducted, and I do not have to meet with parents and families of kids who have diabetes or cerebral palsy or autism or other conditions. So when we look at our indebtedness, I think we have to look at the whole picture, really including the revenue side of things. And I would ask either one of you, is the mantra that is being followed here shrinking the size of government? Is that the principal guidepost, a principal guidepost? Let me put it that way. Mr. Johnson. No, sir, it is not. It is making the money we spend work better. Senator Lautenberg. Well, we will all agree to that, but do we find that contractors in the case of competing assignments-- I think we had 12,000 of our positions were competed last year; 91 percent of them, I understand, were won by Federal employees. Do they lose their jobs because a private contractor--as we saw, by the way, in the thousands who are employed as screeners at airports, when we had terrible output by the employees of private contractors, still with problems but vastly improved from where they used to be. How much is due to private contractors being able to pay lower wages or reduce benefits? Do we look at that side of things? Why will someone do this job for less money? How do they get to do it? Mr. Walker. Well, Senator, several things. One, first I would say that the management agenda from my standpoint is more about improving economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and responsiveness with regard to existing Federal programs. With regard to competitive sourcing, you are correct in saying that a majority of the A-76 competitions are won by Federal workers. Even in circumstances where they are not, many times those Federal workers are hired by the contractor who does win because they have knowledge, skills, and experience that are of interest to that contractor. With regard to compensation, which you touch on, there can be differences in compensation between the government and private sector. Sometimes the private sector pays more, sometimes the government pays more than private sector for positions of similar skills and knowledge. I have some directly relevant experience in seeing that. But one of the things that happens--as you know, having been one of the founders of ADP--is through leveraging technology and through improving processes, many times you can do more with fewer people and at less cost. Therefore, a lot of the efficiencies happen through improving processes and leveraging technology rather than necessarily solely based upon the people dimension. Senator Lautenberg. Have you evaluated the morale of the people who are part of the review process? Do we know what effects it has on employee morale? Mr. Walker. We have not done a specific study on that, Senator. I will tell you, there is absolutely no question that to the extent that you are going through that exercise, it is a matter of concern to employees; just as when you end up going to a market-based and performance-oriented compensation system, that is also a matter of concern to employees. That does not necessarily mean you should not do it, but it comes back to what I said before. How you do it, when you do it, on what basis you do it matters. You need to make sure that you have adequate communications and safeguards to maximize the chance of success and minimize the possibility of abuse or counterproductive consequences. Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Walker, you always talk straight, and I appreciate it. Mr. Chairman, I think this is about the first time that we have seen this country reduce taxes while we are at war, and that is also a mystifying factor for me. Thank you very much. Senator Coburn. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg. I would just put into the record that the Administration asked for slashing of 65 Federal programs in their 2005 budget; 13 ended up on the chopping block because they had received poor grades from the Administration through the PART system. Of those 13 program, Congress eliminated one. Two of them they increased the funding for, totally proven ineffective, not doing what they are supposed to do. That is why I come back to the point that I made earlier. What you all do and what you all recommend, if we are not paying attention, if we are not exposing, if we are not making sure that the members of this body understand where we are ineffective and allow your processing, observational tools and management tools to be used, then it will be for naught, because if there is no action on the basis of assessment, there is no reason to do the assessment and waste that money. Let's just take an example of one and, Mr. Johnson, maybe you can help me: Safe and drug-free schools State grants. A really important thing to a lot of people. Personally, in Oklahoma when they have been associated with those programs, but yet it comes up on the block. Why is this State grant program listed as ineffective and targeted for elimination? Can you tell me? Mr. Johnson. I do not know the particulars of that program. Senator Coburn. OK. Mr. Johnson. PART should clarify what the weaknesses of the program are, and I am sorry, but I do not have that program information here in front of me. Senator Coburn. Is part of the problem with some of the programs that Congress does not define further down what they want to achieve out of the program? Is part of our problem when we have an idea that is there to assist citizens of this country, we put the idea out but we do not define it in a clear enough and concise way so that the agencies can carry out the intent of Congress? Mr. Johnson. That is some of the problem where they define it maybe in terms of outputs instead of outcomes. Another part of the problem is they do not build enough accountability measures into the program. A lot of our money is spent, whether we give it to States or nonprofit organizations or whatever, to do the work locally, and we do not hold them accountable for getting something in return for the money. Senator Coburn. In other words, no oversight? Mr. Johnson. Well, there is oversight but just no accountability. We need to have oversight within the agencies, and Congress needs to have oversight of the Executive Branch. But then we need to have the ability--rules need to allow us, laws that authorize and the money appropriated for the programs need to allow us to hold local entities accountable for this. CDBG, for instance, is much talked about now as part of the Strengthening America's Communities Initiative. We generally allow municipalities to do pretty much whatever they want to with that money. We do not insist that money be used for creating economic vitality in low-income areas where there would not be economic vitality otherwise. That is why we are proposing that be changed. Mr. Walker. Senator, can I comment on that? Senator Coburn. Sure. Mr. Walker. Senator, I think over many years the tendency is, if you give more money to it or if you provide an additional tax preference, the assumption is that you are going to have a positive impact. That is an invalid assumption. There is a need to engage in a much more disciplined, fundamental, and periodic review not just on the spending side, but also on the tax preference side and the regulatory side about what is working and what is not working with regard to the base. In many cases there is a need to have more transparency over what kinds of activities are going on right now. I mean, you articulated numbers, but those are probably not widely known, and so there needs to be more transparency in order to facilitate more accountability both within the Executive Branch as well as within the Legislative Branch. Senator Coburn. Let me spend a minute. OMB has a scorecard rating system, and the scorecard issued December 31, 2004. Of the 24 major department agencies listed, OMB received the highest number of failing grades. Out of all these agencies listed, OMB got the highest number of failing grades, and I want to give you a chance to talk with us about that. What is the current status of OMB getting its house in order? If you are going to be assessing people, you have got to assess yourself. And when you have the poorest performance based on the number of grades, it is going to question some people's right for you to assess them. Talk with us about that, if you would. Mr. Johnson. And I am assuming here that the adage of ``Do as we say not as we do'' won't cut it? Senator Coburn. No, I don't think that is going to cut it. Mr. Johnson. OK. The most difficult part of the bad grades are that--we measure both progress and status. Progress means did the agency do what they said they are going to do in the last quarter. We had last quarter three red scores, so in three out of five cases we did not do what we said we were going to do. There is no excuse for that. There were nine in the entire Federal Government. This next quarter, I am reasonably certain that OMB will have no red scores in progress. So, Director Bolton has made it very clear: Red progress scores are unacceptable. He talked to the operating people at OMB, and we will do as we say we are going to do. On the progress scores, I think we have a non-red score in the human capital initiative. In the competitive sourcing initiative, we will move off red in competitive sourcing because we have done a study in the budget performance integration. We will move soon off red on budget performance integration because we have a strategic plan now, which was something we said we were going to do which we had not done. In some areas like IT and financial management, there is a little complication in that we are tied to the Executive Office of the President, and it is hard to audit a separate part of the Executive Office of the President. Senator Coburn. But you would admit that is an important area, the Executive Office of the President? If he is going to lead this Nation, he ought to be audited and they ought to be efficient and they ought to be doing the same things that everybody else in the government is doing. Mr. Johnson. Yes, the auditing of the Executive Office of the President is important. I don't know about the history of that. General Walker could probably talk to that but, yes, we should be held accountable. Senator Coburn. Well, it is interesting. Here is the little scorecard that we have in our packet, and I think have you seen this as well. DOD, Defense, has two reds and three yellows. OMB has four reds and a yellow. The Corps of Engineers, which I find tremendously wasteful in this country in terms of what I have seen they have done in my own State, four reds and one yellow, which means they are not--what this really says is they are not managed well. Right? Mr. Johnson. They have opportunities to manage better. Senator Coburn. Well, you can look at it that way. If we were doing it in a profit scenario in the private sector, some heads would roll in terms of management decisions, and so I wanted to give you a chance to answer that because that is going to be in this, and we need to see--and I guess I would like a commitment from you to hear from you, I would like to hear directly back to our Subcommittee, to Senator Carper and myself, what your performance rating is when you turn the next corner and send that back to---- Mr. Johnson. For OMB. Senator Coburn. Yes, sir. Mr. Johnson. All right. Senator Coburn. Send that back to us. Senator Carper. Mr. Johnson. Can I make one comment on the scores? Senator Coburn. Sure. Mr. Johnson. In the fall of 2001, when the scorecard was first utilized--and there are 130 scores there, 5 initiatives, 26 agencies--110 of them were red, bright red. Right now 40 are red, 40 are green, roughly, and 50 are yellow. The average agency now is yellow. The average agency 3\1/2\ years ago was red. And if you look in detail at what it takes to be yellow, it is a very different place. It is a very different place to be served by. It is a very different place to work. So OMB has not moved as the Federal Government in general has, but overall the Federal Government is a very different place, fiscally and as a place to work, than it was 4 years ago, and it will be better still 4 years from now. Senator Coburn. I do not mean to demean your progress. Mr. Johnson. I know. Senator Coburn. And that is not my intention. I would note for the record that the worst-performing agency is the Smithsonian, and that is something--although not a great big agency, every agency ought to be held accountable to the same standards of performance and review and evaluation of their stated goals, with the efficiency with which they get there. Senator Carper. Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I want to return, Mr. Chairman, to this notion of improper payments, and I understand, if I have got this right, $40 billion maybe of overpayments, $5 billion of underpayments, for a net of about $35 billion. My first thought is if we could just somehow cut that in half, instead of having maybe $35 billion in bad payments, we had $17 or $18 billion, that would actually come pretty close to being equal to all the those programs that the Administration had proposed that we downsize or eliminate. Mr. Johnson. Our goal is to eliminate them, not to cut them in half. Senator Carper. Good. What further steps do the Chairman here and myself and Members of this Subcommittee, Members of the Senate, what do we need to do to enable you to do that? Mr. Johnson. It varies by program. One thing General Walker talked about is how we are an information economy and an information organization, so you have this person that is making the decision about is this person unemployed, is this person eligible for this payment or that payment. And the way to help that person decide accurately whether the person is eligible or not is to give them the information they need. So one of the things we have worked with you on, and in a couple of cases successfully, is getting permission to get employment information before someone over here who is making unemployment compensation determinations or income information from over here in front of someone who is making a determination about student loan eligibility. So there are obviously concerns about privacy we have to be very sensitive about, but Congress has made it possible to provide information from one part of the government to the other part of the government to help us be more intelligent about these kinds of situations. There will be other situations like that, and in the future, openness to that and understanding the dollar impact of this and understanding and demanding that all the necessary steps be taken to protect people's privacy, but at the same time make this information available to help us reduce these costs. But again, the need is different for each program. There are about seven programs through which 90 percent of these improper payments are made. And, again, the decision to be made, the eligibility decision, is different for each one of them. Senator Carper. Any idea if any of those are out of the Department of Defense or some other particular agency, or are they across the government? Are some of them in the defense programs as well as nondefense? Mr. Walker. There would be some defense programs to consider. For example, you talk about both sides of the ledger. Part of the issue that Clay Johnson just talked about is data sharing so you can do data matching. One aspect is to ensure that you are only paying payments to people who are entitled to the payment. I would argue that since it is taxpayer money, while you have to be concerned with privacy in some circumstances, the taxpayers have a need to know and a right to know and the agencies that are responsible for administering those programs should be able to do reasonable data sharing and data matching to make sure the taxpayer money is not abused. On the revenue side, one example would be, in cases where contractors may be delinquent on their taxes. There needs to be more visibility over who we are paying tremendous taxpayer money to for contracts at the same point in time they are delinquent on their Federal income taxes? That is another example of where data sharing and data matching needs to happen. Senator Carper. I don't know if it is appropriate to ask for the record, Mr. Chairman, but, Mr. Johnson, is it possible for OMB to share with us on the Subcommittee an example of the $45 billion or the $40 billion in overpayments, or maybe just share with us by agency what they are? Mr. Johnson. Yes. Senator Carper. Could you do that, if you would, please. Mr. Johnson. Sure. Senator Carper. And let me just ask also for the record--if both of you could do that, I would appreciate it--if you could just submit for the record some specific steps that we ought to be taking to empower you to go after, as you suggest, all of those improper payments, that would be great. Let me change focus, if you could a little bit, Mr. Chairman, and to our guests, and I want us to focus a little bit on financial statements, the annual financial statements that are being submitted. I am wondering what benefits, if any, do agencies derive by turning in their annual financial statements earlier or on time? The quicker turnaround on these statements, does it lead to more errors? Does it lead to inaccurate data? Or are we just getting more timely, accurate data than maybe was the case before? Mr. Johnson. Let me give you the high-level view and then for a more detailed answer give it to General Walker. Senator Carper. What if he wants to give the high-level view? Mr. Johnson. That is why I want to jump in here and go first. [Laughter.] I was afraid you were going to ask. It requires a tremendous amount of discipline, day-in and day-out financial management discipline throughout the year, so that at the end of the year you can publish your audited financial statements in 45 days. If you have 5 months, you really don't need that day-in and day-out discipline. So the key to publishing it is what kind of day-in and day-out discipline it demands of the agencies. And everybody just has to account for their money day in and day out better in order to publish audited financial statements in 45 days. Now, that is the high-level view. Senator Carper. How about that low-level view, Mr. Walker? Mr. Walker. Well, a couple of comments. Within the last couple of weeks, I have asked virtually every group that I have spoken to, how many of you have read the financial statements of the U.S. Government? Less than a handful, and it involved hundreds of people. Part of the problem is that we do not have enough people focused on the annual performance and accountability reports of the Federal Government to understand what our true financial condition--fiscal imbalance is--and what kind of results are being delivered with the resources and authorities agencies have. But with regard to the issue directly at hand, I believe Clay Johnson is right in saying that one of the problems that we had before was by giving agencies 5 months to be able to publish audited financial statements, what was happening was many of them were doing little to nothing during the year; they were waiting until at or after the end of the year, spending a lot of time and money re-creating records, and basically trying to engage in a range of heroic activities that cost a lot of money, that took a lot of time in order to publish financial statements. So by accelerating the date, it reinforces the importance of having the right kind of controls and the right kind of systems in place so you can provide timely, accurate, and useful information on a day-to-day basis. Why, because you do not have enough time in 45 days to be able to re-create the books, engage in those heroic efforts, and have a prayer of getting a clean opinion on your financial statement. So it is really a means to an end rather than an end in and of itself. Nonetheless, as Chairman Coburn said, last year we had a $567 billion budget deficit. This year it is going to be over $600 billion. Most people do not know that. You cannot change something until you know about it and agree that it is something that needs to be changed. Senator Coburn. I think the important point is that is a tool with which to make decisions to run your agency every day, and if you do not have the numbers evaluating your agency, you really are just running it by the seat of your pants. And so putting accounting and financial controls into running the government makes them better, and we do that in every other area that is competitive in this country, and we ought to be doing in the government. I also wanted to make a couple other points, and I know we are going to have to go for a vote, and I want to thank each of you for being here. The competitive bidding process is not designed to get the government out of the business. One of the best benefits of it is it makes the government more efficient because they know they are going to have to competitively bid. And when they know that--and one of the things I want to talk to Senator Carper about is we have great response in terms of the VA regional medical office. When they let employees start really participating in making decisions to run it, what we have seen is throughput and productivity skyrocket within the VA regional medical offices off the model that was started in my home town at the VA regional Office in Muskogee, Oklahoma. And it has grown throughout the system, throughout the country. But one of the parts of good management is allowing information to flow up, and once our Federal managers really start learning that, what they are going to find is they are going to find all sorts of ideas on how we become more efficient, we accomplish our tasks, and do it more efficiently. I would like for you all to agree--we will have some additional questions that we would like it put in writing to you, if we may, Senator Carper and myself and other Members of the Subcommittee. If you would answer those in a timely fashion, we would appreciate it. Senator Carper. One last question for you, Mr. Chairman. What was your home town? Senator Coburn. Muskogee, Oklahoma. Senator Carper. So you are an Okie from Muskogee. Senator Coburn. I am an OB from Muskogee. [Laughter.] Mr. Johnson. But you forget, he does not like acronyms. [Laughter.] Senator Coburn. I would remind you this is T.C.-squared. Thank you all very much for being here. [Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X ---------- [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1433.100 <all>