<DOC>
[108th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:92124.wais]
HUMAN CAPITAL PLANNING: EXPLORING THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE PUBLIC
SERVICE'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REORGANIZING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE
AND AGENCY ORGANIZATION
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 17, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-109
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
92-124 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
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 GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DOUG OSE, California DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
RON LEWIS, Kentucky DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
CHRIS CANNON, Utah DIANE E. WATSON, California
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia Maryland
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania Columbia
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio JIM COOPER, Tennessee
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas CHRIS BELL, Texas
WILLIAM J. JANKLOW, South Dakota ------
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
(Independent)
Peter Sirh, Staff Director
Melissa Wojciak, Deputy Staff Director
Rob Borden, Parliamentarian
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Philip M. Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia, Chairwoman
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
JOHN L. MICA, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
ADAH H. PUTNAM, Florida ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia Columbia
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee JIM COOPER, Tennessee
Ex Officio
TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Ron Martinson, Staff Director
B. Chad Bungard, Deputy Staff Director and Senior Counsel
Chris Barkley, Clerk
Tania Shand, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 17, 2003............................... 1
Statement of:
Johnson, Clay, III, Deputy Director for Management, Office of
Management and Budget...................................... 41
Volcker, Paul A., chairman, National Commission on the Public
Service.................................................... 47
Walker, David M., Comptroller General, U.S. General
Accounting Office.......................................... 9
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Davis, Hon. Danny K., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois, prepared statement of................... 8
Davis, Hon. Jo Ann, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Virginia, prepared statement of................... 4
Johnson, Clay, III, Deputy Director for Management, Office of
Management and Budget, prepared statement of............... 43
Volcker, Paul A., chairman, National Commission on the Public
Service, prepared statement of............................. 49
Walker, David M., Comptroller General, U.S. General
Accounting Office, prepared statement of................... 12
HUMAN CAPITAL PLANNING: EXPLORING THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE PUBLIC
SERVICE'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REORGANIZING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2003
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency
Organization,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:13 p.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jo Ann Davis
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Davis of Virginia, Tim Murphy,
Davis of Illinois, Van Hollen, and Delegate Norton.
Staff present: Ron Martinson, staff director; B. Chad
Bungard, deputy staff director and senior counsel; Vaughn
Murphy, legislative counsel; Chris Barkley, legislative
assistant clerk; John Landers, OPM detailee; Michelle Ash,
minority counsel; Tania Shand, minority professional staff
member; and Teresa Coufal, minority assistant clerk.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. A quorum being present, the
Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization will come
to order. We are going to go ahead and start the hearing even
though our witnesses are not here yet. They are on their way.
However, we are expected to have a series of votes starting
here within the next 15 minutes, so for the sake of time, we
are going to go ahead and begin with opening statements.
I want to thank you for being here for such an important
hearing. Many of our hearings this year have touched on items
presented in the Volcker Commission report. This one is going
to look at an interesting point the Commission made that is
easily overlooked, the connection between government
reorganization and employee performance, and enhancing mission
coherence and clarifying the roles of Federal agencies
throughout the executive branch.
One of the reasons that I came to Congress was to eliminate
unnecessary spending, redundant programs, and other problems
that waste the taxpayers' money. I believe there is a great
deal of money to be saved by improving the performance of our
government. I am not anti-government. I do, after all, chair
the Civil Service Subcommittee, and I believe that my record
demonstrates my strong support for Federal employees, for
military personnel, and for retirees. But that does not mean
that I am unable to see any flaws in our government.
Something is wrong with the way the Federal Government is
organized when the Department of Agriculture is charged with
inspecting pepperoni pizzas and the Food and Drug
Administration is charged with inspecting cheese pizzas. There
are at least 12 different agencies responsible for
administering more than 35 food safety laws. Such nonsensical,
fragmented responsibility leads to gaps, inconsistencies,
ineffective Government oversight, and an unacceptable level of
protection of the public. When I read the Volcker report and
see many such examples of potentially overlapping and redundant
programs, it makes me seriously question whether our limited
resources are being used most effectively.
Such organizational chaos is the reason that I recently
introduced H.R. 2743, the Government Accountability and
Streamlining Act, which will help prevent the creation of
redundant or duplicative Federal programs by requiring the
General Accounting Office to review all legislation before a
final vote in the House or Senate to determine if new
government programs would be created by the legislation.
Today, we are going to hear from three outstanding
witnesses--and I am sorry they are not here to hear me say
that: Paul Volcker, chairman, National Commission on the Public
Service; Clay Johnson, Deputy Director of the Office of
Management and Budget; and Comptroller General David Walker.
Mr. Walker has just concluded an appearance at the National
Press Club in which he outlined many of the pressures that are
bearing down on the Federal Government's limited resources. I
see Mr. Walker's speech as a call to arms, a warning that
unless we dramatically change the way that we do business, the
Federal Government is going to be in dire straits very soon.
When we talk about reducing or eliminating redundancies, we
must also look at reorganization. The heart of the Volcker
report is its suggestion to realign the executive branch into a
limited number of mission-based departments. Very obviously,
this could result in elimination of redundant or overlapping
functions; but just as importantly, it would serve to
reinvigorate the Civil Service.
Federal human capital planning, getting the best employees
to come to work for the Federal Government, keeping them in
public service, and getting the most production out of them
begins not with any small changes to personnel practices, but
with a complete reorganization of the Government into a limited
number of mission-based departments. According to the Volcker
Commission report, reorganization is the first and most
critical step in improving the performance of Federal civil
servants.
The structure of the Federal Government is often the result
of department-level decisionmaking without governmentwide
coordination. Consequently, Federal civil servants have
difficulty in fully comprehending an agency's mission and
coordinating with other agencies. Reorganizing along mission-
oriented goals will allow the Government to get the most
productivity out of Federal civil servants and provide
employees with a greater sense of purpose.
Allow me to read a few excerpts from the Volcker Commission
report, ``the simple reality is that Federal public servants
are constrained by their organizational environment. Changes in
Federal personnel systems will have limited impact if they are
not accompanied by significant change in the operating
structure of the executive branch.''
``The reorganization we recommend here will require
significant improvements in the quality of top executives, in
the management or operating units, and in the ability of
agencies to meet their unique staffing needs. There is
extensive evidence now of duplication, overlap, and gaps in
many critical functions. This pattern consistently undermines
effective government performance.''
To facilitate reorganization, the Volcker Commission
suggested reestablishing the President's fast-track authority
to recommend structural reorganization of Federal agencies and
departments. Reorganization authority would give the President,
as it has for others dating back to 1932, the power to propose
organizational changes to Federal agencies and require Congress
to disapprove or approve the action without lengthy delays.
Between 1953 and 1980, when Presidential reorganization
authority was in effect, 65 reorganization plans were submitted
to Congress; only 8 were rejected.
We are now in a far different place since 1980. There has
been exponential growth in technology, globalization, and the
Federal Government. The need to reestablish Presidential
reorganization authority is more important now than ever.
As a nation, we simply cannot afford to continue the status
quo. The Volcker Commission made an important finding, ``the
current organization of the Federal Government is not good
enough. It is not good enough for the American people, not good
enough to meet the extraordinary challenges of the century just
beginning, and not good enough for the hundreds of thousands of
talented Federal workers who hate the constraints that keep
them from serving their country with the full measure of their
talents and energy. We must do better, much better, and soon.''
It is very clear that reorganizing the Government,
revitalizing and improving the performance of the Civil
Service, and reducing duplicative and overlapping programs are
three pieces of the same large puzzle.
Mr. Walker earlier today made a strong case as to why the
time for reorganization and improved operations is now. I look
forward to hearing the views of our distinguished guests when
they arrive today on this very important matter. I want to
thank you all for being here.
And now I would like to recognize the ranking minority
member of the subcommittee, Mr. Danny Davis, for his opening
statement. And, Danny, we are proceeding on even though our
witnesses are not here yet. They are on their way. But we are
expected for votes here very shortly.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Jo Ann Davis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.003
Mr. Davis of Illinois. All right. Well, thank you very
much, Madam Chairwoman. And let me first of all thank you for
convening this hearing on the reorganization of the executive
branch.
This hearing will be very helpful as we continue to examine
how to make the Federal Government more effective and
efficient. In April, the full committee held a hearing on
reorganizing the government. At that hearing, the Comptroller
General, David Walker, stressed that above all else ``all
segments of the public that must regularly deal with our
government--individuals, private sector organizations, States,
and local governments--must be confident that the changes that
are put in place have been thoroughly considered, and that the
decisions made today will make sense tomorrow.''
Many experts, like those who will testify before us today,
support granting the President's reorganization authority. But
what is emerging from these hearings on reforming government is
that the ``devil is indeed in the details.''
I believe that everyone would agree that overlapping and
duplicative government programs are problematic. But how much
authority should the President be given to reorganize the
Federal Government and what role should Congress have in
framing the reorganization?
There are numerous models for granting the President's
reorganization authority. In 1932, when Congress first granted
the President's reorganization authority, the President was
permitted to issue an Executive order which went into effect
unless Congress acted within 60 days.
In 1984, the last time Congress passed reorganization
authority, a joint resolution had to be issued in the House and
the Senate. If either body failed to vote on the reorganization
plan, it was considered disapproved.
We can learn a lot from the creation of the Department of
Homeland Security and the role Congress played in framing that
agency. Hopefully, the witnesses before us today will have an
opportunity to provide us with specifics on how and why
reorganization language should be drafted, and I hope that they
will do so.
Again, Madam Chairwoman, I thank you for convening this
hearing, and I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Danny K. Davis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.004
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Our witnesses have now arrived. I
will tell you, gentlemen, we started with our opening
statements because they have just rung for us to go for a
series of votes. So we will be out of here for probably 40 to
45 minutes, and I do apologize for that.
I would like to see if Mr. Cooper, if you have an opening
statement you would like to make?
Mr. Cooper. I have no opening statement, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Then I am afraid I am going to have
to recess us here for about however long it takes. We have
three votes, possibly one with a 10-minute debate. So we may be
gone 40, 45 minutes or so. I do apologize.
The hurricane is also headed right through my district and
over my house, so I am trying to get out of here as fast as I
can to go make sure my horses and my husband and my family are
all safe and sound. So if this goes too long--if it doesn't go
too long, I will love you guys; if it goes too long, I will
turn it over to someone else.
But thank you. We will be back shortly.
[Recess.]
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. I want to thank you all for being
patient and waiting. It seems to happen every time we have a
hearing.
I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative
days to submit written statements and questions for the hearing
record and that any answers to written questions provided by
the witnesses also be included in the record. Without
objection, so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that all exhibits, documents and
other materials referred to by Members and the witnesses may be
included in the hearing record and that all Members be
permitted to revise and extend their remarks. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
It is the practice of this committee to administer the oath
to all witnesses. So if you all would please stand, I will
administer the oath.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Let the record reflect that the
witnesses have answered in the affirmative and please be
seated. Our first witness on this distinguished panel is David
Walker, the U.S. Comptroller General from the General
Accounting Office. Mr. Walker just arrived from delivering a
speech at the National Press Club dealing with the same issues
we are considering here today.
The subcommittee is also very fortunate to have two other
very distinguished guests, Clay Johnson of the Office of
Management and Budget as well as Paul Volcker, chairman of the
National Commission on the Public Service. We are very glad to
have such expert witnesses here today to discuss these issues.
Mr. Walker, you are recognized first for 5 minutes and feel
free to summarize your statement. Your complete statement will
be submitted for the record.
STATEMENT OF DAVID M. WALKER, COMPTROLLER GENERAL, U.S. GENERAL
ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will summarize it
since you have got the whole statement. I am pleased to have
the opportunity to be here. As you alluded to, I just came from
the National Press Club talking about an array of challenges
that the Federal Government faces at the early stage of the
21st century. I think because of those challenges we have both
an opportunity and an obligation for the government to
fundamentally review and reassess what it's doing, how it's
organized, how it does business and in some cases who does its
business in the 21st century. I believe part of that has to
include the subject of this hearing, which is how it's
organized and how it goes about doing business, including
important human capital strategies.
On the organization front, I think as we reexamine
government's missions, functions and activities, there's an
opportunity to reduce, to consolidate, to integrate a number of
existing government functions, activities and even departments
and agencies in order to improve the flexibility,
accountability, economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the
Federal Government. My general view is that the fewer number of
entities that you have, the better. The less overhead you are
going to have and the more flexibility you're going to have,
etc.
If I can, I included in my statement a number of examples
of where we have a number of redundancies in the Federal
Government right now anywhere from meat and poultry inspection
to a number of grant programs dealing with first responders to
job training programs, etc. I won't go into that. I think that
my written statement speaks for itself. I think it's important
that as we move forward we recognize that what we're trying to
do is to create high performing organizations in government
that are focused more on results, positive outcomes for the
citizens and that hopefully are working together in partnership
to achieve those desired outcomes. Clearly part of this is
going to involve a transformation, a cultural transformation of
how agencies do business. The center of that will be how they
treat their people, what type of people they have, how they end
up measuring their performance, how they reward their
performance, etc. I have included a number of examples in my
testimony.
What we are trying to do at GAO is to lead by example in
both the organizational alignment area as well as in strategic
planning, human capital and other areas. We, for example,
developed a strategic plan in consultation with the Congress.
Based on that plan we reorganized our agency. We reduced the
layer of management. We reduced the number of organizational
entities from 35 to 13. We reduced the number of our field
offices from 16 to 11. We redeployed resources both
horizontally and focused externally, and enhanced our
partnerships within government and outside of government both
domestically and internationally with positive outcomes. Much
greater results with the same level of FTEs. And I think it can
be done in other areas of government as well.
I would also point out in my statement that there are
several things that I believe that should be considered as a
way to move the ball forward. I think your proposal for a
Government Accountability and Streamlining Act of 2003 has
conceptual merit. I think we need to look at some modifications
to target that. I have some suggestions in my testimony. We
need to relook at reinstituting budget controls given our
fiscal challenge. We need to consider additional executive
reorganization authority, special commissions, as Chairman
Volcker will be talking about, based on the great work that he
has done. In addition, enhanced congressional oversight is
going to be key. Considering selective application of a chief
operating officer or chief management official in selected
departments and agencies as well as governmentwide human
capital reforms will be important.
In the final analysis Congress has to be able to integrate
whatever it has done here in its oversight, authorization and
appropriation activities. If there are not consequences for
agencies who are not performing, who are not demonstrating
results for the resources they are given, if there aren't
consequences, then behavior is not going to change. People who
are doing the right thing need to be rewarded. People who are
not doing the right thing need to be held accountable. With
that Madam Chairwoman and Mr. Van Hollen, thank you for the
opportunity to be here. I look forward to hearing from my
colleagues and would be happy to answer any questions you may
have thereafter.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walker follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.033
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Walker. Mr. Johnson,
I will recognize you for 5 minutes. You are welcome to
summarize your statement, and your full statement will be put
in the record.
STATEMENT OF CLAY JOHNSON III, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT,
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much. I agree with Comptroller
General Walker and I am sure I will agree with Chairman
Volcker's position that we must and can significantly improve
the performance of government for the American people. However,
mine is a cautionary note here today. I suggest to members of
this committee that no matter how the Federal Government is
organized, its performance will not be enhanced, it will not be
enhanced unless our valuable human resources and employees are
managed strategically. It won't be enhanced unless we make
investments wisely and professionally in technologies to help
us accomplish our goals. It won't be enhanced unless we focus
on cost and efficiency and have timely and financial
information available to us to do that, and it won't be
enhanced unless we're asking ourselves whether individual
government programs are working and if they aren't working what
we need to do about them to get them to work.
These are areas where there is opportunity today for
historic improvements in the management and performance of the
Federal Government. Agencies and departments with a little help
from OMB are aggressively pursuing these opportunities as we
speak. This is happening today. We must continue to support and
reward these efforts and never think that reorganization per se
is the big cure for unsatisfactory performance. Reorganization
per se will not accomplish what we want to accomplish.
With my verbal comments today I want to briefly touch on
the human capital opportunities. I want to be brief so more
time can be devoted to Chairman Volcker because I know we are
interested in hearing his remarks.
Our employees are the greatest resource we have to improve
the performance of the Federal Government. Each year we spend
more than $100 billion on our almost 2 million civilian
employees. Agencies are beginning to manage this annual
investment and their employees more strategically, focusing
more on results and evaluating employee performance based on
the achievement of measurable goals. Inventories of the skills
we need to perform our mission are being prepared. Skills gaps
are being addressed and succession plans are being put in
place, which is particularly important given the large
percentage of Federal employees who are eligible for retirement
in the next few years.
Hopefully, if Congress adopts the administration's proposed
human capital performance fund and we move away from a complete
reliance on automatic across-the-board pay raises, Federal
employees can receive pay based on their performance and not
just their longevity. As an example of what agencies are doing
today, not a year from now but what they are doing today, to
more strategically place the human capital, HHS has developed
and implemented SES performance based employment contracts that
link to program outputs and outcomes. EPA has implemented an
SES mobility program which fosters the development of cross-
agency skills and succession planning. Interior has completed a
comprehensive work force plan for all its bureaus to guide a
department-wide recruiting strategy as well as performance-
based contracts for members of the Senior Executive Service.
The Department of Transportation has implemented a department-
wide leadership succession planning strategy and piloted a
mentoring program for emerging leaders. And GSA has implemented
an agency-wide leadership institute to ensure that current and
future leaders are effective.
That is all happening today. It's not all that needs to be
done, but it is very significant because none of that was
happening 2, 3 years ago. Agencies and departments are working
on these significant management opportunities and others like
them that are realistically possible today. It is important and
necessary that we make these changes no matter how the Federal
Government is organized. Any reorganization without these
changes will have minimum impact on government performance.
Currently, the administration is not studying any possible
reorganization of the executive branch as such a move would not
be practical without the benefits of the Reorganization Act,
which allowed such a proposal to be considered by Congress in
an expedited fashion. If and when the Reorganization Act is
reauthorized, the administration looks forward to working with
Congress, this committee in particular, and GAO to explore the
opportunities to reorganize agencies and departments to better
serve the American people. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.037
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Mr.
Volcker, I want to thank you for agreeing to come back before
this subcommittee. I really enjoyed hearing your testimony in
front of our full committee, and I recognize you for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF PAUL A. VOLCKER, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
THE PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Volcker. Thank you for inviting me back. I appreciate
it and I will try to be brief. I have the feeling I don't need
any statement. I just have to read your introductory comments
here. We are certainly singing out of the same hymn book and
you emphasized very clearly some of the organizational problems
we have.
Interestingly enough, listening to Mr. Johnson, he says
organization can't accomplish everything, which I certainly
agree with. We arrived at some emphasis at organizational
change because we felt it's very difficult in getting personnel
and other changes of the kind we're talking about without some
pretty basic reorganization and an emphasis on the importance
of bringing related activities together, avoiding too many
conflicts in activities, strong political direction of related
departments, but when it gets to the ministerial agencies,
providing the kind of flexibility and personnel and other
practices and review that Mr. Johnson and the Comptroller
General have emphasized. So we kind of are approaching this in
different directions, but I don't want to lose sight of the
importance of the reorganizational changes.
Having said that, the question is how to get there.
Reorganization is always very controversial and difficult. It's
not a thing that grabs the attention of the Congress or the
administration very often. It's not a glamorous political
subject. And we have concluded that you're not going to get any
action unless you provide some general reorganization
authority. It's a lot easier to say than to do, but I think we
are at an exceptional period now where there is more
recognition of the need for reform, not just an organization
but elsewhere, particularly in personnel practices in
government, and I've seen it for a long time. So the
opportunity is there.
And you personified the interest in Congress, which I
presume is not unanimous, but it's been very difficult to get
people in Congress interested in this. And I'm encouraged by
the interest in this committee and I think there is some
interest in the Senate, too. So I think we have an opportunity
to make some progress, and we strongly recommend something
that's not unique but a reorganization authority. That is about
the only way the progress has been made consistently in the
past beginning back with President Truman and moving ahead with
the reorganization proposed by the Hoover commission.
Reorganizational authority or authority subject to
congressional approval has been used in other controversial
areas, as you well know, and that is our proposal, that you go
ahead and provide some reorganization authority subject to the
approval of the Congress, a positive approval of the Congress,
by both Houses of the Congress.
We are not talking about a blank check. I think the check
in this legislation is to provide a framework that will permit
the President to make proposals within a framework that the
Congress has already set out as reasonable, because otherwise
you are going to have too much controversy on every particular
proposal. So the check as I see it, the good political
challenge is to provide the reorganization authority with
enough of a framework for the President to work within in
presenting a particular proposal.
What do I mean by a framework? I certainly think there
ought to be a requirement for consultation within the effective
departments with the Congress. We suggest in the report that
might be useful to have an outside group or groups of experts
involved so that kind of weight can be attached to the
proposals. I think you need some guidelines to make sure that
merit principles are preserved, traditional insulation at the
administrative side from political interference. You need some
indication of employee protections, many of which have become
quite traditional in the Civil Service. If you're going to have
pay for performance and wide pay bands and all the rest, which
we strongly support, you need some standards for how
performance is judged in a neutral and nonpartisan way. I think
you'll need some provision for oversight by OPM and by the
Office of Management and Budget so that we can have some
assurance that flexibility is used and not abused. But I think
all those things are possible. And the commission that I headed
and its staff is in the process still of sponsoring some
conferences and some work along the lines of spelling out what
might be practical and feasible in terms of developing some of
these guidelines.
So I think that's all I would want to urge today that
concentration be placed upon the importance of enabling
legislation and the kind of framework that should be
established in that enabling legislation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Volcker follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2124.043
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Volcker, and I would
like to say thank you for taking the time and being so patient
waiting while we voted. I appreciate the expertise that comes
from each one of you. I am going to begin with the question and
answer session. And I would like to thank Mr. Van Hollen and
Mr. Murphy and Ms. Holmes Norton for coming to the hearing
today, and we are going to start out here with a few questions.
I will take my 5 minutes and then go to Mr. Van Hollen.
Mr. Walker, in 1949 the Hoover commission sent Congress 277
specific recommendations for structural changes to the Federal
Government. It's estimated that about 100 of the
recommendations were adopted, which was considered to be quite
impressive. In the 2 years following the commission's report
Truman submitted 35 reorganizational plans to Congress, of
which 26 were approved. Do you believe it will be a worthwhile
exercise for Congress to assemble a high level bipartisan
commission similar to that of the Hoover commission for
reorganization of the government?
Mr. Walker. There were two Hoover Commissions. One was more
successful than the other. I think we can learn some valuable
lessons from the Hoover commission that was more successful.
And part of that was the players that were involved, you had a
combination of people from the executive branch, the
legislative branch as well as certain other experts.
Furthermore, if you look at the scope of what they were asked
to do, it was a much clearer defined scope, if you will, and,
you know, dealing more with management and operational issues,
if you will, rather than policy and programmatic choices. And
so I do think that considering some type of a commission that
is properly comprised with the appropriate scope is one that
could help to move this forward.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Would you gentlemen like to comment
on that question?
Mr. Volcker. I must confess, I had not thought of that
approach at this point. I think the kind of consultation and
expertise that was involved in the Hoover commission would be
useful. I don't know whether it's useful to do that kind of
across the board or do it in a particular area that a President
or the Congress may decide is a priority area as a kind of
complement to the kind of legislation I'm talking about, which
would simply have enabling authority for reorganization. And
the substance of that reorganization is obviously a big and
complicated subject. Is that the point at which you want--if
the President chose an independent commission. I don't know
whether it would require legislation. You could go back
obviously and have a full scale Hoover type commission. That's
not what I have been thinking about and my guess is that we
slow down the process at this point rather than enhance it.
Mr. Johnson. My personal preference is that the
Reorganization Act be passed and then the executive branch be
challenged to come forward with proposals.
Mr. Walker. If I can, Madam Chair, I think it is important
to have enabling legislation, no question about that. And
that's fundamental. I think any commission that you would have
could be a supplement to, not a substitute for, but you need
that enabling legislation.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Mr. Volcker, you made a comment
that Congress hasn't politically been real interested in the
reorganization and I would imagine one of the reasons is that,
A, it's not glamorous and, B, it's probably very controversial
and something that quite frankly scares the socks off the
Federal workers, and that's not what this hearing is intended
to do and it's not what we want to do. We want to make it a
better place for our Federal workers. I think that is one of
the reasons you don't see much activity within the Congress on
our reorganizing or doing anything to change our Civil Service
workers.
Mr. Walker. We have reorganized GAO to where we eliminated
a layer of management, which was an unneeded layer. We didn't
lay off anybody. Nobody lost their jobs.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Was there job loss?
Mr. Walker. In that particular case, no. We did close 5 of
16 field offices and there were some job losses, but every
person but one who wanted our assistance to find a job found a
job. And so they either retired or they--or we helped them find
a job. So there are ways to do this in ways that get the job
done, but in a considered, compassionate, you know, effective
manner.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Mr. Walker, your concerns about
government spending should strike a real chord with all the
taxpayers and future taxpayers, and I have heard your comments
and I saw your speech that you made today. And our children and
grandchildren must not be burdened by our inability to control
spending.
Could you give us any ideas about the best path we should
take to achieve governmental reorganization to eliminate
functional redundancies? I assume you read my opening statement
about the cheese pizzas and the pepperoni pizzas.
Mr. Walker. It's hard to believe that one department has
responsibility for cheese pizza and the other department
pepperoni pizza, and the only difference is the pepperonis I
guess. We were trying to debate earlier who had the pineapple
pizzas but we couldn't decide that. That is a small part of our
challenge, let's face it. But it is illustrative of what could
end up happening through an accumulation of agencies, programs,
functions, policies and activities on a piecemeal basis over
decades. And one of the things that has to happen that I
pointed out in my speech at the Press Club today is that we
need to have a very disciplined process where we start looking
at what exists in government today, both mandatory
discretionary spending as well as the tax side. We have to look
at it and ask ourselves does it make sense in the 21st century.
You know, what kind of resources and authorities are being
allocated? What kind of results are being achieved? It's a very
important approach.
I lay out several ideas with regard to redundancies that
need to be considered in my testimony. But this is a
fundamental process. It's an important process. It's going to
take years but we need to get started.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Anyone else have a comment? My 5
minutes are up, and I want to go to Mr. Van Hollen.
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I want to
thank all three of you gentlemen for your testimony. And Mr.
Walker, I haven't had a chance to look at it all but I have a
copy of the speech you gave before the National Press Club and
I heard a little bit about it on NPR radio this morning. So
thank you for your observations there with respect to future
budget situations as well as the management issues.
And Mr. Volcker, thank you very much for your sticking to
it on this issue over many years and your service. You're
right, it is not one of those issues that grabs the attention
of a lot of people but it is very important to the success of
our country that we be able to continue--that we attract good
people to government in the future. So all three of you, thank
you very much for being here. Obviously one of the concerns
Congress has is giving up a blank check over any
administration, Republican or Democrat. So if we were to
provide the kind of authority, as I understand it, you are
supporting a provision where the administration would come
forward with the reorganization proposal and there would be
vote up or down. Let me take you back though to the whole
question of the Homeland Security Department, because there the
administration came forward with the proposal and I think maybe
I'm wrong but my sense was that the administration as well as
Members of Congress thought the final product would be
strengthened and improved in many ways as a result of going
through the process. After all there had been number of bills
that Members of Congress introduced that actually initiated the
process. And if we had just an up or down vote, you wouldn't
have--without the opportunity for amendment, you wouldn't
really have that ability to do it or the administration would
be in such a position they could say well, OK, we agree to that
and will have to come back with another draft. And I guess why
should Congress give up that flexibility? My understanding--I
could be wrong--with respect to reorganization of government
that we have not--and I could be wrong--we haven't seen any
major proposals coming forward in recent years other than
Homeland Security, that we have--and anything that has come up
we as a Congress have acted on. So I would be interested in
your response.
Mr. Volcker. I guess my brief answer would be history is
against you. When you do it one by one and with full range of
debate about every aspect of the reorganization proposal,
nothing gets done. In fact it probably won't be proposed. Now
Homeland Security was a rare instance, obviously following
September 11, obviously revealed a lot of lack of cooperation,
lack of information, of course related agencies at that time, a
sense of emergency, and finally got done with a lot of effort
in a very difficult situation, but a pressing situation.
Whether you can expect that to be successful right across the
board I think is doubtful. With the kind of question that you
have, I would anticipate by saying you can't write a complete
blank check you want to give some instruction in effect in this
legislation about basic principles or guidelines that have to
be respected in terms of any Presidential proposal and you
could require certain consultation, too, including certain
consultation with this committee. But it gives you some kind of
framework within which the proposal is made and if you still
don't like it you vote it down and obviously you would have to
come back. But you don't have to fight every principle over
again. You settle what's really a core continuing requirement
in the enabling legislation in general terms.
Mr. Van Hollen. Do you believe that the prior
reorganization acts offer any guidance in that area or is there
some kind of model?
Mr. Volcker. I think some of those weren't quite so
sweeping. They were more individual proposals, but I think the
conclusion consistently has been to get consistent action here,
you need some kind of enabling legislation. And I am just
urging what's been done in the past to get some action here.
Mr. Van Hollen. Is there a model that you've seen that sort
of spells out the limitations?
Mr. Volcker. There are models in other areas. Base
closings.
Mr. Van Hollen. In terms of this procedure, I understand.
But I'm talking about with respect to the kind of limitations
that you thought would be appropriate to write into this kind
of authorization.
Mr. Volcker. I'm not going to be very precise now because I
am unable to sitting here. It is an area that we've been
working a bit with the committee staff on--the full committee
staff. And it's an area in which we are engaging and plan to
engage in consultations with some experts in this area and we
would be delighted to work with the committee if and when--I
hope you will--develop some legislation.
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson. My comment about the Homeland Security to be
careful, it's not just the Homeland Security organization. It's
the largest reorganization in 50 years. What was proposed by
the President, I think it was 27 pages long, would have led to
a very, very effective Department of Homeland Security. What
was agreed to by the Congress and the President will also lead
to a very effective--it's what was agreed to was better--we
could debate that all day long--it will be made to work and our
country will be much more secure and safer as a result of that.
But I don't think it's proper to say that thank goodness there
was not an up or down vote on the original proposal because
that proposal was flawed.
Mr. Walker. If I can quickly, first, there were unusual
external events that resulted in the creation of the Department
of Homeland Security, which hopefully are not going to occur
frequently. And so I think--we can't count on those types of
events. We don't want those types of events to try to force the
type of reorganization that needs to occur in other areas of
government that may not involve safety and security but are
important opportunities for economy, efficiency, effectiveness,
etc.
Second, you're right, no blank checks. Nobody should give a
blank check. I have had the opportunity to testify before the
House Rules Committee as well as the full Government Reform
Committee on this issue and will be happy to provide that to
your office because I think there are some principles and
guidelines that could be employed to try to allow more
flexibility in circumstances where it's really only management
operational issues versus policy and programmatic issues and,
you know, different safeguards to make sure the Congress is not
giving up too much of its Constitutional responsibilities.
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I
compliment you on putting together this hearing. And these
issues are incredibly important when we read some of these
reports about the number of agencies and programs involved.
It's absurd and we can certainly save the taxpayers a lot of
money and do a better job. In the interest of time and also the
delays our panels had and recognizing the impending weather
here, I would like to submit some questions for the record and
ask them to respond that way.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Without objection. Ms. Holmes
Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I'd
simply like to get some clarification as to what exactly is
desired here. First, I want to make it clear that far from
having any objection to reorganizations of government when I
served as Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
during the Carter administration, I asked the President and he
indeed put forward a major civil rights reorganization of the
Federal Government precisely because the duplication and
overlapping of agencies was so costly and so inefficient. So
I--if I have any bias, it's toward consolidation and toward
reorganization. I believe the government agencies grow like
topsy. When anybody has an idea, they create some department or
subdepartment.
But after having served on the Homeland Security Committee,
I sat on this committee as we dealt with DOD, I want to know
what it is about. I mean after that experience where the
Congress was so responsive, I'm absolutely puzzled that the
administration would come forward and ask to have the authority
to reorganize the government with no amendments from the
Congress as if, you know, there were some kind of perfection
anywhere in the universe.
So I just want to know why you don't feel that perhaps with
some kind of abbreviated process, I can even understand that,
you wouldn't be better off talking to Members of the House and
Senate, many of whom have far longer experience than I have,
know the government better than any of you with the possible
exception of Mr. Volcker. Why in the world don't you think--I
thought I heard Mr. Johnson say a better piece of legislation
than Homeland Security because of the way people cooperated,
what is to be gained? What is it that you are after given the
responsiveness of Congress to you on two occasions, giant
reorganizations, Homeland Security and DOD? What is it that you
are after that requires such haste that you don't even want the
kind of give and take legislative process that we have had for
200 years in this Congress? What is it that requires--because
the word ``requires'' is the word I think should be used.
Congress should give up such authority only if it's required.
Why is it required? What is the urgent necessity requiring it?
Mr. Johnson. I am not suggesting a specific reorganization.
What I'm suggesting is that some form of expedited
consideration by Congress be passed. I don't know how that
ought to be structured. That would be debated as such an act
was being created. But what exists now would almost ensure that
whatever started off as a race horse would end up as a camel
medical. And there has to be instead of that some kind of
expedited way to consider government reorganization. Whether it
allows up, down votes I don't know any of that. But a faster,
more direct way of consideration by Congress has to be
developed is what I'm suggesting.
Mr. Walker. Ms. Holmes Norton, I believe what the issue is
that there are a number of Presidents of both political parties
who, for a number of years, had certain reorganization
authority. That authority has expired. And so the question is
whether and to what extent Congress might seek to give this and
future administrations some basic reorganization authority.
Clearly no blank checks. And as I mentioned, I testified before
House Rules as well as full committee about some ideas as to
how you separate the wheat from the chaff. I share a lot of
your concerns about DOD's transformation bills, especially in
the human capital area. I don't think that's necessarily what
they are talking about expedited treatment for. We're really
talking about organizational units rather than fundamental
changes in the Civil Service system.
Ms. Norton. You know, whole units involving employee rights
could be abolished with a blank check.
Mr. Walker. And blank checks would clearly be
inappropriate. And that's one of the things we have tried to do
at GAO is to talk about some principles and some safeguards in
order to make sure that Congress doesn't give up too much
authority and to make sure that situation doesn't occur because
that wouldn't be anybody's benefit for that to occur.
Ms. Norton. I don't oppose an expedited way to reorganize
the government. My own experience tells me you want to get it
done, you don't want to get it done fast and wrong but you want
to get it done fast. Mr. Johnson's testimony was that President
and Congress need to work together and we work on things far
more serious, far more urgent if, I may so and is. Why would
the reorganization--how would you ensure that the President
works with the Congress given what you have proposed here this
afternoon?
Mr. Johnson. I'm sorry----
Ms. Norton. If in fact the President could put forward an
up or down motion, an up or down bill and you would have to
vote against the whole thing, and we know what the purpose of
that is, we're not fools, how would you assure that we worked
with the President since he knows just like we have an omnibus
bill that nobody is going to go after the omnibus bill because
there are too many things in there to get the whole body to
vote against them? How would you assure that we work together
to keep that from happening, an omnibus type bill from
occurring in this context?
Mr. Johnson. Well, maybe--briefly and you are much more
informed.
Mr. Volcker. You are on the seat here and I'm not.
Mr. Johnson. In my mind, it would be to do it with Congress
and not to Congress, because if we're doing it to Congress
nothing would get approved. Once an idea is developed you would
seek input from Congress, who know their States and districts,
and you would work with agencies who know their programs and so
forth and you would work with constituent groups that know what
needs to be done and what the opportunities were. And then you
develop your ideas and there's compromise and debate and
discussion, but eventually somebody has to put together
something and come forward. And you would come forward with
full explanation and full selling points why on balance this is
the best thing to do.
Ms. Norton. And if you don't like it vote against the whole
thing. That is really an ``in your face'' approach.
Mr. Johnson. As an expedited fashion as opposed to
piecemeal as current legislation would call for. I don't know
whether it has to be up or down. That's the way the old bill
was and Congress and the President and the executive branch
have to figure out what expedited fashion means. But we would
do this so we would be doing it with Congress because the way
our government is set up you don't do anything to Congress.
Ms. Norton. Unless you have an up or down vote when you
get----
Mr. Johnson. I don't hear anybody saying it was a
disastrous approach.
Mr. Volcker. I agree with what Mr. Johnson is saying. You
want to work with the Congress and with others to get something
this broadly acceptable. But I think history suggests that at
the end of the day you have to get together and got to get a
vote. And because there are so many controversial areas
involved, it's very hard to get Congress to act unless they are
faced with an up or down vote. And it's likely to be a down
vote unless there's the type of concentration to talk about.
And you are going to have a certain framework that Congress has
put in there to make sure what Congress thinks are important
are appropriately recognized in the proposal. And employee
protections is one of those areas where you know you fight it
now in Homeland Security. You fight it over again in the
Defense Department reorganization. And you'll fight it in every
reorganization and get a different answer maybe in each one.
You want some kind of a template here that will facilitate
consideration of something that experience shows is very
difficult to get action on even when there's recognition that
something ought to be done, as you have expressed that.
Ms. Norton. I want to assure you that we have up and down
votes on very complicated bills here every week, bills of
enormous complication. So the whole notion that you are
proposing something that is more complicated than what we do on
a regular basis is an amazing notion to me. And I invite you to
look at the bills that have been passed during this session of
Congress alone. Mr. Volcker, again your notion about beginning
with some guidelines and the rest, that gives you a start, but
the last thing we should do is to approach the reorganization
of the government of the United States with a blueprint. The
kind of principles we start out with would be so general that I
don't think they would be of much help. That's why what we
usually start out with is some kind of bill. Then people get to
look at it--and frankly we pass these things--you know some of
us vote against it. You can't hold it up. You got a majority,
at least the present majority has a majority. So some vote
against us. Some of us vote for it. So it passes out the
committee. Yes, there is some division, but it passes. It goes
to the floor and it passes. Nobody can hold it up. So it seems
to me, yes, you begin with principles. Your next task as far as
I'm concerned is to come forward with a specific expedited
process and ask the Congress to vote on that process. I would
be perfectly prepared to vote on an expedited process, not on
something called a concept of an expedited process. And I am in
your corner. I am one of the few Members of Congress who has
run an agency. And I would be prepared to advocate the
shorthand way of reorganizing the government. I saw just a tiny
part of government, what it took to reorganize. And by the way
we did it in a very short period of time.
So I think it can be done, but I don't think you will get
very far talking to Members of Congress who have to deal with
complicated tax legislation, complicated welfare legislation,
that this is so complicated that we need an up and down vote
with all of the stuff kind of buried like sausage in between
and you folks couldn't get it done if you had to deal with the
sausage. We get our hands dirty with this sausage every day. We
pass bills out of here every day and I think we could do this
as well.
Mr. Walker. If I could mention real quickly. Clay Johnson's
two predecessors ago, Sean O'Keefe, who was Deputy Director of
OMB for Management, and I had an opportunity to testify before
the House Rules Committee--and I will make sure that GAO
provides you a copy of that testimony and some of the follow-up
of that because it's very much along the lines of what you're
talking about. What happened is the administration came forth
with the Freedom to Manage Act and it didn't have enough
specificity, controls and safeguards in place. And what we said
was what needs to happen is we need to put forth something that
does have more specificity, more controls and safeguards in
place, which is what I hear you saying. And I think it's a
reasonable request that there's got to be something in writing
that people can debate and discuss.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Thank you, Ms. Holmes Norton.
Without seeing any specifics in concept I agree with you that
it should be not concept but specifics when it comes forward. I
am going to ask one more question and I will certainly leave it
open to you, Mr. Murphy and Ms. Holmes Norton, if you have
another question. And this is to you, Mr. Walker. When
considering reorganization it's of utmost importance in my mind
to do it right the first time, which means we have to have all
of our information in front of us.
Could GAO provide to the subcommittee the identity of all
Federal programs under each Federal agency determine the role
and function of each program and determine if an existing
program performs a function that is performed or carried out by
an existing program or programs even though it is cutting
across Federal agency boundaries?
Mr. Walker. Madam Chair, I would like to work with you to
see if we could narrow the scope and clarify that because that
would be a huge undertaking that would take a tremendous amount
of resources over a considerable period of time. But if we
could end up talking about narrowing it to certain activities
and start there and do it on an installment basis, that might
make more sense.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. That may be the way we do
reorganization as well because we can't vote on reorganization
if we don't know what we are voting on.
Mr. Murphy. Ms. Holmes Norton.
I want to thank all three of you gentlemen. We may have
some more questions that we would like to submit to you in
writing. If you, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Walker and Mr. Volcker would
be willing to respond to us so that we can make it available to
the committee members, I would certainly appreciate it. And Mr.
Volcker, I appreciate you coming all the way down here and I
appreciate your time for coming down here and thank you for all
your valuable work that you have done with your commission on a
bipartisan basis.
Mr. Volcker. I appreciate even more the opportunity to come
down and try to help keep this process going.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Thank you so much, and with that,
the committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]