[Senate Hearing 108-262]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-262
OVERSIGHT OF GAO: WHAT LIES AHEAD FOR CONGRESS' WATCHDOG?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
90-235 WASHINGTON : 2004
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800,
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: stop SSOP, Washington,
DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON 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
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
Michael D. Bopp, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Bonnie Heald, Professional Staff Member
Jennifer A. Hemingway, Professional Staff Member
Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and Counsel
Lawrence B. Novey, Minority Counsel
Amy B. Newhouse, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Collins.............................................. 1
Senator Voinovich............................................ 8
Senator Pryor................................................ 16
Senator Carper............................................... 17
Senator Lautenberg........................................... 28
Prepared statement:
Senator Coleman.............................................. 33
WITNESSES
Tuesday, September 16, 2003
Hon. David M. Walker, Comptroller General, U.S. General
Accounting Office.............................................. 3
Maurice P. McTigue, Director, Government Accountability Project,
Mercatus Center, George Mason University....................... 21
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
McTigue, Maurice P.:
Testimony.................................................... 21
Prepared Statement........................................... 120
Walker, Hon. David M.:
Testimony.................................................... 3
Prepared Statement........................................... 34
Appendix
GAO's Employee Advisory Council, prepared statement.............. 127
Post-hearing Questions for the Record submitted to Mr. Walker by
Senator Fitzgerald............................................. 139
OVERSIGHT OF GAO: WHAT LIES AHEAD FOR CONGRESS' WATCHDOG?
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Susan M.
Collins, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Collins, Voinovich, Pryor, Carper, and
Lautenberg.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN COLLINS
Chairman Collins. The Committee will come to order. Good
morning.
For more than 80 years, the General Accounting Office has
worked with Congress to make Federal agencies and programs more
accountable. The GAO works for Congress, but its beneficiaries
are the American people, who rightfully expect the Federal
Government to spend their tax money carefully. The GAO has
played the role of auditor, overseer, investigator, evaluator,
and watchdog. Today, we consider the GAO itself by examining
its work, the results it has achieved, and the challenges it
faces.
This morning's hearing on the GAO, the investigative arm of
Congress, has two purposes. First, we want to examine the GAO's
efforts to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities to help improve the performance and
accountability of the Federal Government. Second, we will
discuss legislation pending before this Committee that would
provide the Comptroller General, who leads this important
agency, with greater flexibility in allocating and enhancing
its workforce.
When it was first established in 1921, the General
Accounting Office provided the services its name suggests. It
examined the legality, propriety, and accuracy of government
expenditures. GAO clerks checked vouchers and approvals and
whether the items purchased were actually received.
Over the years, the GAO's mission has expanded far beyond
these bookkeeping functions. To better meet its broadened scope
of responsibility, in the 1970's, the GAO added physical
scientists, social scientists, computer professionals, and
experts in fields such as health care, public policy, and
information management to its staff of accountants.
In 1998, David Walker, who will testify before us today,
became the Nation's seventh Comptroller General. Under his
leadership, the depth and breadth of the agency's work on
behalf of Congress have continued to expand along with the
myriad challenges that confront the Federal Government. GAO
auditors, investigators, and analysts have helped Congress
address broad, challenging areas, such as military
transformation, restructured energy markets, private pensions,
prescription drugs, homeland security, and postal reform.
The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, along with the
House Government Reform Committee, has a uniquely close
relationship with the GAO. Last year, for example, nearly one-
third of the GAO's projects were completed for these two
oversight committees. Currently, this Committee has made 32
work requests of the GAO that are either pending or already
underway. We depend on the GAO to help identify waste, fraud,
and abuse in government programs. We look to the GAO for
recommendations on making Federal programs operate more
efficiently and effectively for the American people, whose
hard-earned tax dollars support their government.
The GAO's expanded role in the Legislative Branch of
government also poses many challenges, which Mr. Walker will
discuss today, including the agency's human capital needs. The
GAO is requesting additional personnel flexibilities in order
to assure quality service to the Congress, to continue leading
by example in the government, and to attract, retain, motivate,
and reward a high-performing workforce.
I am pleased to have joined Senator Voinovich in
introducing the GAO Human Capital Reform Act of 2003, which
would allow the GAO to reward employees based on their
knowledge, skills, and performance. This proposal is part of a
larger program to strengthen the management systems and
capacity of the GAO.
I commend the Comptroller General and his human capital
team for working collaboratively with GAO employees during the
development of the proposed reform. In developing its reforms,
the GAO undertook an extensive, phased approach that involved
developing a proposal that was vetted broadly both externally
and internally, and then it made adjustments based on employee
comments and concerns raised during the process.
The GAO worked closely with its Employee Advisory Council,
which represents a cross-section of the agency, to obtain the
feedback necessary as part of a successful process. I want to
commend the GAO for taking that approach, which contrasts with
the approach that some other departments and agencies have
taken. I think that is why GAO's system has been more
successful. That kind of collaborative, inclusive approach has
worked well.
The GAO's past use of management flexibilities and
continued efforts to build the infrastructure necessary to
responsibly shape its organization should serve as a model for
the rest of the Federal Government. The GAO has demonstrated
well how to be responsive to the concerns of its employees. As
agencies move forward in implementing various human capital
reform initiatives they should carefully examine this fine
example.
Before I turn to our first witness today, I just want to
say that I don't know how this Committee would be able to do
its work without the invaluable assistance of the GAO. We rely
on the GAO in so many areas, and the breadth of expertise that
the GAO now brings to Federal projects requested by Congress is
truly impressive.
I am very pleased to welcome our first witness today, the
Hon. David M. Walker, the Comptroller General of the United
States. Mr. Walker has been a very valuable contributor to the
Committee's work on a variety of issues. I am particularly
grateful for his recent assistance with the Committee-passed
version of the civilian personnel reform legislation for the
Department of Defense. Today, we will benefit from a discussion
of GAO's performance as a whole, and we will use this
opportunity to build a legislative record on the legislation
that Senator Voinovich and I have introduced.
So, Mr. Walker, we welcome you and you may proceed with
your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF HON. DAVID M. WALKER,\1\ COMPTROLLER GENERAL, U.S.
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Madam Chairman. It is a pleasure to
be here. It has been almost 5 years since I became the seventh
Comptroller General of the United States. Much has happened
during that 5-year period of time and I look forward to
providing an executive overview of what has happened, along
with the changes, the challenges, and the opportunities that
are before us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Walker appears in the Appendix on
page 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also would like to thank you and Senator Voinovich for
your sponsorship of the GAO Human Capital Act of 2003. That is
a critical piece of legislation and we are hopeful that the
Congress can act on it this year.
If I can, I would like for my entire statement to be
inserted into the record and I will summarize now.
Chairman Collins. Without objection.
Mr. Walker. Thank you. When I came to GAO 5 years ago, I
found an organization with a longstanding reputation, thousands
of outstanding and dedicated public servants, and an
organization that did many things right. At the same point in
time, I found, like many organizations in the public sector, an
organization that had not changed very much in a number of
decades, who had gone through significant downsizing in the
last several years and needed to reposition itself for the
future in order to best serve the Congress, the country, and
American citizens for the 21st Century.
As a result, we embarked on nothing less than a fundamental
transformation of the GAO, which has been ongoing now for about
4 years. I think we have accomplished a tremendous amount, but
much remains to be done.
As you pointed out, Senator Collins, the GAO is very
different today than it was in 1921 in so many different ways,
although we are still faithful to our responsibility to assure
accountability for the American people. I have benefited from
the positive efforts of all of my predecessors, six
predecessors, but in particular, Elmer Staats and Chuck
Bowsher, who made major contributions to the agency over a
number of years and I am pleased and proud to have succeeded
them and to lead GAO.
We are in a situation now where I believe we need to lead
by example in helping the Federal Government and the Congress
determine how best to position itself for the 21st Century.
This includes what the government should do, how the government
should be organized, how the government should do business, and
in some cases, who should do the government's business.
And to do that, I believe very strongly that as the leading
performance and accountability organization in the United
States and arguably the world, we have a responsibility to lead
by example. We have a responsibility to be as good or better
than any other entity that we evaluate, audit or investigate.
Not only do I think we can and we should, I think it adds to
our credibility by doing so. That way, we are practicing what
we preach, walking the talk, if you will.
Over the last 4 years, we have taken a number of steps and
we have adopted what I would call a strategic and balanced
scorecard approach to transforming the agency. As you know, any
organization has to have a strategic plan. If you don't have a
strategic plan, any road is going to get you to an uncertain
future. You may go nowhere fast.
I found at GAO that in the past, we had a number of
individual plans, but we really didn't have a strategic plan.
So we worked with the Congress in a very participative,
partnership-oriented fashion to, in the year 2000, issue our
first truly strategic plan that has four main goals, a
foundation based on our core values, and identifies certain key
trends and challenges that face the United States and many
other countries to help drive our work.
We used that plan to reorganize and streamline GAO. We
eliminated a layer of management. We didn't lay off any of
those management officials or their support staff. We
redeployed them. But we eliminated a layer of management, which
makes us more economical, efficient, and effective. We
consolidated from 35 teams to 13. We went from 16 field offices
to 11. We redeployed resources horizontally and to focus
externally with our clients, with our accountability partners,
and with other good government organizations.
The result of that has been profound and positive results.
If you look at the first factor of the balanced scorecard
approach, results, our financial benefits, as evidenced by
either savings achieved or resources freed up for redeployment
to other high priorities, have gone up from $19.7 billion in
1998 to $37.7 billion in 2002. That is an almost doubling. Our
return on investment just for financial benefits alone has gone
from $58 for every dollar invested in GAO to $88 for every
dollar invested in GAO, and this doesn't count a whole range of
other accomplishments as a result of adopting our
recommendations that can't be measured in dollar terms. These
deal with safety, security, and privacy issues, that can't be
measured in dollar terms, but they are very important.
And obviously, in the testimony, I have a number of other
indicators. But results count.
At the same point in time, we have tried to do a number of
things with regard to our clients. We have had a continuous
Congressional outreach effort. We sought feedback, first from
this Committee, and then the House Government Reform Committee,
on our testimonies and our products that we did for the
Committee with very favorable outcome, over 90 percent positive
ratings for both products as well as testimonies. We have now
expanded that to other committees throughout the Congress. We
would like the response rate to be a little bit higher, but the
positive results are continuing. And so we are encouraged by
that and we are going to try to do what we can to see if we can
get the response rate a little bit higher.
We have improved our timeliness. We are holding steady on
200-plus testimonies a year for Congress. That is important,
because if Congress thinks that our work is important enough
for us to testify at a hearing, that is a good sign. It is an
interim measure, it is not an outcome, but as you know,
Congress through appropriations, oversight, authorization, many
times will end up having hearings, and to the extent that our
employees or our work is a subject of hearings, it increases
the likelihood that we will have positive outcomes down the
road.
And last but not least, one of the things that we have done
to try to help our clients on the other side of the Hill is
because of the anthrax events, we actually became the home for
the U.S. House of Representatives for about 2 weeks back in
2001 and now we are one of several contingency sites. So we not
only have to concern ourselves with the safety and security of
our own employees and also those who we lease space to, namely
the headquarters of the Army Corps of Engineers in our
headquarters building, but we also have to be concerned with
the potential safety and security of our clients in the event
of a contingency.
With regard to agencies, we have tried to employ a
constructive approach with agencies, not just to point out what
is wrong, but to acknowledge what is right, to benchmark them
on progress, and to benchmark them against other agencies. I
think this is a more constructive way to approach our role and
we have had very positive results as a result of it.
Last but certainly not least with regard to what we have
done so far is our people. People, by far, are our most
important asset. We are only as good as our people. We have
arguably the most diverse, as to skills and knowledge,
professional workforce of any entity, even in the private
sector. And as I said previously, I am pleased and proud to
lead them.
We make people a top priority at GAO and we have led the
way, I believe, in human capital reforms, both administratively
and legislatively. That is part of what the bill is about
today, is the next installment, which would be the third
installment on our human capital reforms legislatively. But we
also partner very much with our Employee Advisory Council and
our employees to try to make a great agency even better.
For example, every year, we ask our employees to fill out a
confidential electronic survey asking them how we are doing,
where we are making progress, and what is important to you.
This past couple of months, we got the results back from the
most recent survey. We had an 89 percent response rate on a
voluntary survey, which is phenomenal. Two-thirds of GAO's
employees wrote me a personal and confidential note, anywhere
from two lines to two-and-a-half pages. I read every one of
them during the first weekend that I had the information.
Our positive results went up in 72 out of 83 areas. We are
ahead of the Federal Government in 9 out of 11 areas and we are
ahead of the private sector in all four benchmark areas. So we
are making great progress, but we can always be better and we
will continue to strive to do that.
I know the Employee Advisory Council has a statement that
they have prepared for the record and I appreciate your
willingness to be able to insert it into the record at the
appropriate time.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of the GAO's Employee Advisory Council
appears in the Appendix on page 127.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me last say that as noted within the last 2 weeks, one
of the areas where we have also made tremendous progress is
information technology. Specifically, within the last 2 weeks,
GAO was recognized as one of the top 100 CIO organizations in
the United States, and that includes the private sector.
So we are making real progress on leading by example,
serving the Congress and serving the country. Now, what about
challenges? There are several challenges which I will hit the
highlights on. Details are in my testimony.
Our challenges include continuing our transformation, and
continuing to build on our positive results and to make sure
that they are sustainable. Some of our special challenges
include unfunded mandates. We are concerned about unfunded
mandates. Many times, when you are successful, Congress wants
you to do more. It is fine if Congress asks us to do certain
reports as a part of the legislative process. That is fine. But
when Congress wants to expand the scope of our authority and
get us in new lines of business, we think it is important that
somehow there will be funding for it. Otherwise, we are
diluting our ability to do our primary mission.
Second, sometimes Congress will end up passing pay raises
without fully funding the pay raises. That is very difficult
when 80 percent of your costs are people costs. You can eat
that maybe in 1 year, but you cannot eat that on a recurring
basis without adverse outcomes.
Supply and demand imbalances--when you are doing a good
job, you get requests for more work. That is good news. The bad
news is, you have a certain amount of resources. We have supply
and demand imbalances that we manage very carefully. Some of
them are particularly acute in areas like health care, which
means that sometimes we are going to have to end up going back
to leadership of the committees as well as overall to try to
relook at what is in the in basket and see if we can
reprioritize. Obviously, we are having to place more and more
attention on committee and subcommittee requests and less on
individual member requests because of that supply and demand
imbalance.
Access to records--while we had one highly publicized
problem within the last couple of years, we have not had a
proliferation of records access problems and, therefore, do not
need any legislation at this point in time. We are hopeful that
we will not have problems in the future.
The Deputy Comptroller General position has never been
filled since the law was enacted in 1980. The current process
just doesn't work, and I would respectfully request that the
time has come to reconsider that process and hopefully follow a
process similar to what other supreme audit institutions around
the world do, and that is to allow the Comptroller General, in
consultation with certain parties on the Hill, to make that
appointment or make a recommendation for that appointment. I
think we need to do something because the current process just
doesn't work.
Performance and accountability community coordination--we
are only part of a broader portfolio, the Inspector Generals,
for example. This is the 25th anniversary of the IG Act. I
think there is a need over the next year or so to look at what
is working, what is not, how can we achieve economies, improve
efficiency and effectiveness in that community, as well.
Our bid protest volume is also continuing to increase.
And last but not least, we are being asked to do more and
more work for the Legislative Branch on the Legislative Branch.
By that, I mean where we are being asked to do work on the
Capitol Police, the Capitol Visitors Center, the Architect of
the Capitol, the Government Printing Office, and a variety of
other entities. Obviously, we are happy to help our client, and
yet these engagements do create certain challenges that have to
continually be assessed.
Finally, S. 1522, the GAO Human Capital Reform Act of 2003.
Again, thanks to both you, Senator Collins, and you, Senator
Voinovich, for your sponsorship of this legislation. We believe
that this is both a reasoned and reasonable proposal. We
believe that it will make GAO a more effective place and a
better place to work. We believe it will help us to continue to
lead by example in this critically important area. We believe
that we followed a model process and we believe that we have
got a proposal that deserves your support and this Committee's
support and hopefully the Congress' support this year.
As I look forward, in closing, there are three areas that
I, along with my colleagues at GAO, would like to help the
Congress on in the next 10 years.
First, help the Congress address our large and growing
fiscal imbalance. The numbers just don't add up. Tough choices
are going to be required. We are not going to grow our way out
of this problem. I have a speech at the National Press Club
tomorrow and I will talk more about this issue then.
Second, helping to transform what the government does and
how the government does business is critically important for
the 21st Century. Right now, a vast majority of government is
an amalgamation of programs, policies, functions, and
activities over decades and the base has not been reviewed
thoroughly for its relevancy in the 21st Century. The base is
not OK and the base is unsustainable going forward, especially
if the Congress wants flexibility to meet new demands that is
placed on it.
And last, to continue efforts to make GAO the Federal
employer of choice and the gold standard for a world class
professional services organization that just happens to be in
the public sector.
With that, thank you for your time. I appreciate the
opportunity. I would be happy to answer any questions that you
may have.
Chairman Collins. Thank you very much, Mr. Walker.
Before I turn to my questions, I would like to call on
Senator Voinovich for any opening comments that he might have.
As you are well aware, he is the Senate's expert on human
capital issues, and he is the primary sponsor of S. 1522, which
I was very pleased to join him in introducing. Senator
Voinovich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Comptroller
General Walker, it is always a pleasure to see you and receive
your testimony. I apologize, Madam Chairman, for not being here
until now. I had a little plane problem.
I want to thank you, Mr. Walker, for being a pace-setter on
Federal strategic human capital management and for serving on
my human capital working group. I appreciate your balanced
review of the administration's proposed human capital
performance fund and the Defense Department's national security
personnel system, as well as your forthrightness about the
Federal budget situation. We are hopeful that your comments and
our legislation will make its way into the Conference Committee
that is being held on the defense authorization bill.
Mr. McTigue, thank you for being here, as well. I am
grateful for the excellent analysis you and your colleagues at
the Mercatus Center provide on Federal performance and
accountability issues. Both of you have assisted in my efforts
to reform the Federal workforce during my 5 years in the Senate
and I look forward to making some other changes as we finish
the year.
Madam Chairman, as you know, I have a keen interest in the
management of Federal agencies, and during my 5 years in the
Senate, GAO really has played an integral role in providing
comprehensive analyses and thoughtful recommendations on
reforming the Federal Government's strategic human capital
management, an issue that I have made a centerpiece of my
efforts, as you mentioned, as Chairman of the Oversight of
Government Management Subcommittee.
I would say that, Comptroller General Walker, we have made
some real progress. I remember being in my office 2 or 3 years
ago when you indicated that reform was going to be very
difficult. It is amazing when I think about how much change has
occurred so far, and hopefully more will occur before the end
of this year.
In addition to receiving the benefit of GAO's excellent
research on personnel and management issues, the Federal
Government has in its own midst an examplar of excellent
management practices. In the first 5 years of his 15-year term
as Comptroller General, Mr. Walker has begun an important
cultural transformation of his agency. Assisted in part by
Congress' enactment of special personnel flexibilities in GAO
in 1980 and in 2000, Mr. Walker is in the process again of
restructuring GAO's workforce in order to maintain its mission
both now and in the coming years. That makes GAO noteworthy not
only for recommending to other agencies how to improve their
management, but for setting an example for those agencies
through its own practices. In other words, GAO is a best
practices organization. It is difficult to go out and tell
other people what to do if you are not doing them in your own
shop.
On July 31, I was pleased to introduced S. 1522, the GAO
Human Capital Reform Act of 2003. This legislation, which was
developed by GAO, I believe will further enhance those
personnel authorities.
Madam Chairman, I hope that we will be able to report out
the bill at the Committee's next business meeting in October. I
am pleased to note that the House Civil Service Subcommittee
already has reported out a companion bill. Madam Chairman, Mr.
Walker has often observed that for too long, Federal employees
have been seen as ``costs to be cut rather than assets to be
valued.'' I mentioned that yesterday when I spoke with a group
of representatives from labor unions in the Federal Government.
He has done a good job in changing that perception at GAO. I
think, frankly, that perception has been changed during the
last couple of years, from beating up on Federal employees to
valuing them and you have been a great leader in that area.
I thank you for your testimony, and Madam Chairman, thank
you for giving me a chance to make this opening statement.
Chairman Collins. Thank you, Senator Voinovich.
Mr. Walker, in your testimony, you gave some impressive
statistics on the return on investment. I believe you said for
each dollar that GAO receives that there is a return of $88,
and that is up from $58, which is very impressive.
Could you quantify for the Committee how much money the GAO
has saved the Federal Government through its recommendations
being implemented during the past 4 years, and could you also
tell us, since there are undoubtedly some skeptics out there,
how GAO goes about estimating the savings?
Mr. Walker. It would be around $100 billion or a little bit
more, but let me clarify for the interest of full and fair
disclosure. The financial benefits are a combination of two
things. They are either outright savings, or they are resources
that are freed up that Congress decides to redeploy to other
priorities, which we don't control. Obviously, the Congress has
the prerogative to do that. But we believe that it is a better
utilization of taxpayer resources and, therefore, appropriate
for us to count as a financial benefit, because if that had not
occurred, then they may have spent both, if you will.
The way that we go about it is we have a very disciplined
process where the teams who want to claim these financial
benefits have to be able to document what was the
recommendation that we made and was it adopted by the
department or agency or the Congress, can we demonstrate that
we are the primary or a major reason why this change occurred
as a result of our work, and then an estimation of what the
financial benefits were as a result of adopting that
recommendation, whether it is a one-time savings, whether it is
a multi-year savings. If it is, we don't consider forever. We
just consider several years and come back to a discounted
present value.
For this year, for anything that involves $500 million or
more, our Inspector General independently reviews the estimated
savings and either signs off or doesn't sign off, and if the
Inspector General doesn't sign off, we don't count it. And if
she does sign off, then we do count it.
We also are going to be undergoing a peer review that is
going to be led by the Auditor General of Canada. It will
involve a consortium of other countries within a couple of
years and we expect that they will probably take a look at
this, as well.
We are also trying to get our external auditors to take a
look at our financial benefits. We have had a clean opinion, no
material control weaknesses, no compliance problems with our
financial management reporting for years. We are trying to get
our external auditors to be willing to express an opinion on
our performance statistics. That is something CPAs haven't done
and I am trying to, frankly, get the profession to modernize
itself and to lead by example in that area, as well, and I am
hopeful that we will be able to get them to assume that
responsibility. But right now, it is not in accordance with
professional standards, so we need to update professional
standards to make them more relevant for the 21st Century, as
well.
Chairman Collins. And as you know, the need for an
independent outside evaluation is an issue Mr. McTigue has
raised. Do you agree that it would be helpful?
Mr. Walker. I agree, and we are very much on the case. We
would like for our external auditors to do it. Again, it is
going to take a change in professional standards for that to
happen and we are also trying to explore whether or not as part
of the peer review something might be able to be done. That is
where our peers, other supreme audit institutions, are going to
take a look at us.
Chairman Collins. When the GAO makes recommendations to
agencies, whether they would result in cost savings or simply
better operation and more effective delivery of services, what
percentage of those recommendations are adopted by agencies.
Are agencies generally receptive to the recommendations, or is
there a push-back and resistance?
Mr. Walker. Well, first, that is an indicator. That is
something that we follow, what percentage of our
recommendations are adopted. For 2002, 79 percent of the
recommendations that we made 4 years prior had been adopted by
2002. Now, some were adopted immediately. Some are adopted 1
year to 4 years later. We use 4 years because we believe that
if you don't adopt it within 4 years, you are probably not
going to adopt it. So 79 percent, which we think is very high.
And then from that 79 percent, what were the financial
benefits, the non-financial benefits which occurred, which we
report, as well.
As you know, they are not required to adopt our
recommendations, but as a result of our constructive engagement
approach, where we are trying to work with them on a much more
constructive basis to make government work better for
everybody, we have actually seen the percentage go up.
Specifically, we have also seen the percentage of our
recommendations implemented go up. This year, I think it may go
up a little bit from what it was last year.
Chairman Collins. That is encouraging to hear, as well.
Could you give us some examples of major recommendations
the GAO has made that have resulted in either significant cost
savings or in significant program improvements?
Mr. Walker. Well, we have made a number of recommendations
in the area of acquisition practices and contract management as
to how the government goes about engaging those types of
activities that have resulted in significant dollar savings. We
have also made--been involved in past base closure and
realignment commissions and related activities to try to
rationalize the excess infrastructure that the Federal
Government has, which, by the way, is not just DOD, it is also
the Postal Service, it is also VA, it is also a variety of
other departments and agencies who are built on infrastructures
and organizational systems for the 1950's rather than the 21st
Century, in many cases.
There is a whole list in our performance and accountability
report, which is on our website, which is www.gao.gov.
Chairman Collins. I am going to ask you one more question
before I turn to my colleague, and then we will do a second
round, and you led me into it nicely. The GAO, as you well
know, issues a high-risk list of programs or activities in the
Federal Government that are particularly vulnerable to
mismanagement or not reaching their goals to limit waste,
fraud, and abuse. One of the disturbing aspects of that list is
while there are additions to it, such as the real property
issue that you have just mentioned, there are also programs
that have been on the list for over a decade--I think since the
list was first formulated. Medicare, DOD contracting are
examples of that.
What can we do? This Committee really wants to play a role
in ensuring that programs don't appear year after year on the
high-risk list with no progress being made to remove them from
the list by identifying management weaknesses and correcting
them. I am going to try to follow up. We are working very
closely with the GAO on the real property management issue, and
we are going to have a hearing on it shortly.
Mr. Walker. Sure.
Chairman Collins. But what can we do so that we don't
repeat this cycle, of seemingly making little or no progress?
Mr. Walker. Well, several things. First, on Medicare, just
to touch on that for a second, that is another area where there
were significant financial benefits because we have done a lot
of work with improper payments, and improper payments have come
down from about $23 billion a year to about $13 billion a year,
still unacceptable, but that is a $10 billion difference every
year. We still need to make more progress.
With regard to the items that remain on the list, there are
a variety of things that I think Congress has to consider
doing. First, hold agencies accountable as part of the
oversight process. Second, consider as part of the
appropriations process whether and to what extent they should
be given incremental resources to solve a problem or resources
should be pulled back when they are not making progress in
certain areas.
Let me give you an example of DOD, and I think it is a good
case study. In my view, DOD is No. 1 in the world in fighting
and winning armed conflicts. There is nobody even close. We are
the gold standard. So they are an A-plus on fighting and
winning armed conflicts.
DOD is, however, a D on economy, efficiency, transparency,
and accountability. They have 8 of 25 high-risk areas, and they
probably would have had them for decades before we had the
high-risk list. They haven't made much progress. I think there
are several reasons that they haven't made much progress, one
of which is they are in the line of business of fighting and
winning armed conflicts, and as long as they do well there,
there is not a whole lot of time and attention focused on the
other and they still get what resources they want.
I think the other reason is, is that if we look at
leadership in the Executive Branch, we are talking about the
need for cultural transformation. We are talking about changing
how the government does business. Authoritative literature will
tell you that is a 7-plus-year effort to do that and to make it
stick, and yet the typical leader in the Executive Branch stays
2 to 3 years. You can't transform an organization, you can't
deal with the kind of issues that have to be dealt with in a 2-
to 3-year period of time no matter how good you are. It just
doesn't work.
And so as a result, one of the things that we have thrown
out is the idea that for selected departments and agencies who
face major challenges--not everybody, and DOD is clearly one--
the concept of exploring the possibility of a chief management
officer or a chief operating officer, a level two official
whose job is to focus on these key management issues--strategic
planning, organizational alignment, financial management, IT,
human capital strategy, knowledge management, change
management. This person would have a term appointment, ideally
for five to 7 years, with a performance contract, who would end
up focusing on these issues that just frankly don't get focused
on.
Now, I know under the current administration, we have the
President's Management Council, which is comprised primarily of
the deputies. But the problem is the deputies already have
full-time jobs. Many of them have backgrounds and interests in
the area that I am talking about, but most don't. But the fact
is, even if they do, they don't have the time to be able to do
what needs to be done.
So I think that is a modest proposal. If you do that, I
think you could then look at CFOs, CIOs, and some other
positions. You might make this job a PAS and you may not have
to have PASs on the others. I mean, you could actually
streamline and simplify the process and expedite getting some
good people in some of these other jobs. That is one example.
Chairman Collins. Thank you very much.
I know that I said we would do two rounds of questions for
Mr. Walker, but now that we have been joined by two additional
colleagues, we will do 10 minutes on this round and then go to
our next witness.
Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you. I have been impressed with
your comments about the fiscal crisis that is looming for us. I
recall that when I became Governor, I said that gone are the
days when public officials will be judged by how much they
spend on a problem. The new realities dictate that public
officials must work harder and be smarter and do more with
less.
It seems to me that with the budget problems that we have,
we really need to do a comprehensive budget review, what I
would refer to as an operations improvement task force in the
Federal Government to look at the areas where we have the most
opportunity to reduce spending. I would be interested, do you
believe that the place to start on that would be to knock off
those high-risk areas that the Chairman has spoken about?
Mr. Walker. Well, I think you have to recognize that the
high-risk areas represent an opportunity for improving economy,
efficiency, and effectiveness. They are not just fraud, waste,
abuse, and mismanagement. I mean, we have really made a
concerted effort since 2001 to make that list more strategic.
It includes a number of transformational challenges, like human
capital, the Postal Service, disability programs, etc. I think
if you look at the high-risk list, there is a lot of
opportunity for savings----
Senator Voinovich. In other words, is the high-risk list--
if you looked at the Federal Government, that list was
reflective of what you think would result in the most savings
for the Federal Government and improvement in efficiency?
Mr. Walker. I would say that they represent an opportunity
for significant savings and significant improvement. But one of
the things that I am also asking GAO executives to do, which is
new, is that our high-risk list is based to a great extent on
work we have already done.
One of the things that I am asking GAO executives to do is
that given our fiscal challenge, and based upon their
experience, expertise, and institutional memory, we are going
to have some internal brainstorming sessions on areas that we
may not have done work on yet but we believe represent
opportunities that we want to bring to the Congress for
exploration and consideration. This is more proactive than
historically GAO has done. We need to do this in conjunction
with the Congress. We don't want to do this on our own. But I
think the time has come to do it.
Senator Voinovich. I do, too. I think if you had a
comprehensive list of things--if you surveyed the whole
operation of the Federal Government, broke it down and
prioritizing the areas where we would get the biggest return
for the time that we would spend, that would be very helpful to
us as we move through the next several years.
I am a little bit concerned about the one statement that
you made in terms of the Defense Department and we have talked
about this before, saying that the only way that we can handle
the high-risk list would be to have a chief operating officer
who would have continuing responsibilities. It would seem to me
that once people come on board at the Defense Department, you
would have one group that would be concentrating on doing the
war thing and then the other would be just strictly working on
the management and dotting the ``i''s and crossing the ``t''s
and following up on some of the recommendations that you folks
have made.
Obviously, they have been on there a long time, and so you
are basically saying that under the current structure, it is
not going to happen without something like what you are
suggesting?
Mr. Walker. I don't think that the chief operating officer
or chief management official, or call it whatever you want, is
a panacea, but I think it is a significant missing link, and in
the absence of having that, I think it is not likely that you
are going to be successful. I think you need to do other
things, too, and some of which the Department of Defense,
Secretary Rumsfeld and his people are trying to focus on now.
I am an ex officio member of the Defense Department
Transformation Advisory Board to the Secretary. I use that as a
way to make sure they are aware of all the good work that GAO
is doing, and I am pleased to say that they have liked a lot of
our work and have made a number of recommendations to the
Secretary to move on some of them. I also understand they are
going to make a recommendation to Secretary Rumsfeld around
this chief management officer/chief operating officer concept
soon, and hopefully he will view that favorably, but it would
take legislation to make it happen.
Senator Voinovich. I am sure that this Committee would be
interested in that.
I would also like your thoughts on other things that we can
do. We talked a couple of years ago about better oversight by
Congress. One of the areas that was discussed, Madam Chairman
and Senator Carper, was the area of the Appropriations
Committee and the fact that they have the power of the purse. I
believe they should be more involved in looking at what is
going on in those agencies because all they do is come in and
ask them for money. I just wonder how much real oversight is
occurring while they are looking at the appropriations to these
various areas.
It seems to me that perhaps if we could come up with some
kind of a process where the authorizing committees would work
with the Appropriations Committees to talk about some real
significant problems that we have in some of these agencies and
really come together and say, we have a problem here, we have
to get it taken care of, and use both the authorizing and the
appropriations processes to really put the pressure on and get
some action on these things that have been laying around for
the last 5 or 10 years.
Mr. Walker. Senator, I think you have put your finger on a
very important issue. The old saying, money talks. And in this
town, for years and years and years, it was ``get the money,
spend the money.'' The fact is, I think there is a tremendous
opportunity and a tremendous need for a partnering arrangement
between the authorizing committees and the appropriators to
focus on those areas of opportunity, because in the end, if
there aren't consequences, if people aren't making progress and
there's not consequences, then why should they pay attention?
At the same point in time, sometimes to solve a problem,
you need an investment. It may be a one-time investment, but
that is something that has to be pointed out, as well.
Senator Voinovich. Well, it is something and I think that
we are really going to have to spend some more time on it if we
are going to get any kind of action. I think a lot of people
show up and we talk with them and importune them to do things
and they walk out and say, well, they had their hearing and
they just go back to doing what they have been doing before.
I also think in the military area that we should recall
Dwight Eisenhower's admonitions about the military-industrial
complex. We have people leaving the Defense Department and
going to the private sector. There is just a little club that
is there. Even, I think, some of the members of the
Appropriations Committee in that area have been around a long
time and they know all the same people and they don't want to
rock the boat or do anything to make anybody unhappy.
I think it is long overdue that we really look at that
area, particularly because of the money that we are putting in
today for the defense establishment.
Mr. Walker, in regard to your budget, how much has your
budget increased in the last couple of years? I should know
that, but I don't.
Mr. Walker. Well, this year, do we have that number right
off, how much the budget has gone up? While we are looking for
that real quick, I can tell you that what we are asking for,
which, I think, is another example of leading by example, for
2004, we are asking for a 2 to 3 percent increase.
Now, in fairness, in the interest of full and fair
disclosure, our budget went down by $100 to $110 million the 5
years before I came. In the 5 years since I have been here, our
budget has gone up about $100 million, and part of that is to
be able to reinvest in our people, to deal with pentup
technology, safety, and security issues.
But now we are in a situation where I think we have dealt
with the most acute needs and what we are doing now is trying
to tighten our belt, recognizing that we have got a situation
where the Congress faces a growing deficit. We are holding the
line on what we are asking for on future increases. We are
having business cases, to the extent that we need something
other than basic inflation and the mandates that Congress tells
us that we have to comply with. And I just hope that the
Congress will consider the results that they are getting from
us and the return on investment when they are making resource
allocations and decisions in the future so they don't take an
across-the-board approach, which obviously is not the best way
to do it.
Senator Voinovich. And the budget is adequate, and you have
the manpower to respond? Every time we turn around, there is
another request. In fact, this is a little provincial, but I
was shocked at the report that you folks came out with on
medical malpractice. Frankly, I thought the conclusions were
off the wall. I don't know if anybody reviews those before they
are released. Do you do that?
Mr. Walker. The Medicare--are you talking about the
objective----
Senator Voinovich. I am talking about the crisis that I
have in my State with people dropping out of the medical
profession because of the high cost----
Mr. Walker. Medical malpractice?
Senator Voinovich. Medical malpractice.
Mr. Walker. Well, first, I think it is important to put it
in context, Senator. I understand your frustration. The fact of
the matter is, medical malpractice is a problem. There is no
question that it is a problem. Is it the only problem?
Absolutely not. Is it the same degree of problem on a State-by-
State basis? No. And so I think what our report is trying to
say is, yes, medical malpractice is a problem, but it is not
the only problem and the degree or the acuteness of that
problem varies significantly depending upon what State you go
to. In some States, it is not a big problem. In other States,
it is a big problem.
Senator Voinovich. Do you have a team that reviews those
reports before they hit the street?
Mr. Walker. The way that we deal with it, Senator, is that
we do it on a risk-based approach. Depending upon the
complexity and the controversy of the work, among other things,
we have different levels of review within the agency and
different entities within the agency involved.
The other thing that we do, as you probably know, is that
we also have stakeholders either within the government and
sometimes outside the Federal Government--it could be State and
local government, it could be other professions or whatever--
have an opportunity to comment if they are significant
stakeholders before we finalize our report, and we consider
their input and make adjustments as appropriate before we
finalize our report.
So we have a very thorough process and it is rare that we
have any controversies associated with our report. But
sometimes we do, especially on issues like health care.
Senator Voinovich. My time is up.
Chairman Collins. Thank you. Senator Pryor.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PRYOR
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I just have a
couple of lines of questions here very quickly.
One is, as I understand it, the GAO requested feedback on
its proposal relating to human capital on its internal website.
I was curious about what kind of feedback you received from the
employees.
Mr. Walker. With regard to our human capital proposal,
there was two phases of the human capital proposal. The first
phase was an initial straw proposal where we went out, and I
had not even had an opportunity to explain it yet, and we got
feedback at that point in time and then we got subsequent
feedback through various mechanisms.
Initially, I would say that most of the proposals were not
controversial. There was one proposal that was very
controversial and that was the proposal to decouple our annual
pay increases from the automatic adjustments in the Executive
Branch. That was by far the most controversial proposal.
After putting out the straw proposal, there were a number
of supplemental outreach efforts, listening sessions, talking
to the Employee Advisory Council, the managing directors. I
went out to a number of field offices, a variety of different
mechanisms was used. Also, employees had the opportunity to
make comments, either confidentially or associating their name,
directly to me and to other parties, including the Employee
Advisory Council.
Based on that, we made a number of changes, clarifications,
and commitments, such that, in my view, the only area where
there is any degree of controversy still is the decoupling of
pay. I believe I have gone about as far as I can go to deal
with employee concerns, to the extent that they exist there,
and still maintain the concept of we want to have a somewhat
more pay-for-performance-oriented system. And so I believe that
what we are asking for is reasoned and reasonable and I believe
it will make GAO a better place.
Senator Pryor. And the other question I had is somewhere I
have read that you want to establish an executive exchange
program with the private sector, which I actually kind of like
that concept, but the question I have is, how do you do that
and make sure that you are protecting yourself against
conflicts of interest? How do you set that up?
Mr. Walker. A very important point. First, let me clarify
what we are asking for. We are asking for the authority to be
able to have up to 30 people come into GAO at any given point
in time and/or up to 30 people to go out of GAO at any given
point in time for knowledge exchange, best practices, etc.
Candidly, I expect that this is going to be more people coming
into GAO than people going out of GAO for a variety of reasons.
For example, supply and demand.
Senator Pryor. Do you think those would be government
people coming into GAO or private sector----
Mr. Walker. It could be private sector or government
people, if you will. We are very concerned with the conflict of
interest issue. You raise an excellent point. That is
particularly acute in the Executive Branch, because in the
Executive Branch, they have responsibility for policy making
and for enforcement. They are on the front line of actually
making government decisions.
In our case, we are doing audits, investigations, and
evaluations. We are not the ones making the final call. We are
the ones gathering facts and doing analysis. We are very
sensitive to that and we will make sure that the assignments
that they have are such that they would not present a real or
perceived conflict of interest.
Senator Pryor. That is all I have, Madam Chairman. Thank
you.
Chairman Collins. Thank you, Senator. Senator Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Senator Carper. Thanks, Madam Chairman. General, how are
you doing?
Mr. Walker. It is good to see you again, Senator.
Senator Carper. It is nice to see you, as well. Thanks for
joining us today and thank you for your leadership and your
stewardship.
You talked a little bit about an Employee Advisory Council.
Describe that council to me--who is on it, how do they get
appointed, how long do they serve, that kind of thing.
Mr. Walker. Well, it has evolved. The way that it is right
now, it is a 23-member group. It is comprised of people from
different levels of the organization, different occupations,
and different locations. It is entirely democratically elected
now. Depending upon the nature of the group, they could--for
example, if it is an association dealing with Asian Americans,
or African Americans where they have an association, then they
will end up electing their representative. If it is a level,
for example, supervisory personnel or senior analysts, if you
will, then they will run an election to elect one or more
representatives to represent them. So it is a fully
democratically-elected body that is representative of the
diverse workforce that we have.
That body meets with the Executive Committee, which is
myself, Gene Dodaro, Chief Operating Officer, Sallyanne Harper,
Chief Mission Support Officer, and Tony Gamboa, our General
Council--the four of us make up the Executive Committee--and
others at least once a quarter to talk about issues of mutual
concern and how to make GAO a better place. They set the
agenda. We may add to it. We don't take items off though. But I
think it is one of the reasons why we have been able to make
real progress, is having this mechanism where we are partnering
with our employees, partnering for progress.
Senator Carper. Just describe for me, if you will, the
evolution. How long have you been head of GAO now?
Mr. Walker. It will be 5 years effective November 8, I
think.
Senator Carper. Just describe for us, if you will, the
evolution of the relationship and the interchange between the
leadership that you represent and the council.
Mr. Walker. Well, when I first came in, we didn't have a
collective council. We had individual councils. Specifically,
we had councils representing various interest groups and we
didn't really have a collective council.
I looked at it and I said, we need to maximize progress for
all rather than for segments. We don't have a union at GAO, but
I believe very strongly that we need to have our employees as
key players to help us figure out what we are doing well and
how we need to make additional progress.
And so we started out with a concept of let us create an
Employee Advisory Council that has representatives from these
previous councils that were more interest group councils and
then let us make it more diverse and more representative. I
initially appointed representatives for groups that didn't have
representation. And then, believing in democracy and working
with the council, we agreed to make this a fully
democratically-elected body over time, and we did. About a year
ago, we ran elections for the slots that I used to appoint and
now it is a fully democratically-elected body.
So it has been a mechanism that is in place now for several
years. It is a very important mechanism because I talk to them
at the same time as we talk to the managing directors, which
includes the senior executives that lead the 13 teams. We are
talking to them basically at the same time on important issues
and give their input great weight.
Senator Carper. I don't believe the council or
representatives of the council are going to be testifying
today.
Mr. Walker. They have a statement for the record.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of the GAO's Employee Advisory Council
appears in the Appendix on page 127.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Collins. They have submitted testimony, which will
be included in the record.
Senator Carper. Good. I have not seen their statement. If
they were here, what might we hear from them?
Mr. Walker. Well, they were at the House hearing and I
would commend that statement to you. I think what they would
say is basically what their statement says, is that with regard
to what we are asking for, that our employees don't have a
concern about a vast majority of the provisions, that the only
area where there is still some concern is our proposal
decoupling from the Executive Branch with regard to automatic
pay adjustments.
At the same point in time, they acknowledge that the
process was a good process, that we have made changes,
clarifications, and commitments to try to deal with employee
concerns. They acknowledge that we need to continue to
modernize our human capital practices, and they acknowledge
that there is mixed opinions about changing our name. They
don't take a position one way or the other on that.
My view is, is that we haven't had a tremendous problem in
the past, but you don't know who you miss because of your name.
If you are trying to hire lawyers, if you are trying to hire
Ph.D. economists, if you are trying to hire people who aren't
accountants, you don't know who you miss. What I do know is our
name is very confusing to the public. They think we are in the
accounting business, and less than 15 percent of what we do has
anything to do with accounting or traditional financial
management. And so it is a problem.
Senator Carper. As I understand it, what you are trying to
do is put in place a pay-for-performance system, but one that
does not undercut the ability of your employees to meet the
rising cost of living. How do you do that? Have I
mischaracterized that?
Mr. Walker. Here is what we are trying to do. This is very,
very important. First, unlike most Federal agencies, GAO has
had a pay-for-performance system since about 1989. And so what
we are trying to do here is to make it somewhat more pay-for-
performance oriented.
Specifically, what we are looking to do is that while we
have our own personnel system and we have broadbanding and pay
for performance, we are still subject to the annual across-the-
board increase that applies to the Executive Branch, even
though we are not in the Executive Branch under the current
system, which means your best performer and your worst
performer, even those individuals who are not performing at a
satisfactory level, are guaranteed by law that across-the-board
increase, irrespective of their skills, knowledge, performance,
and irrespective of where they live.
What we want to be able to do is to say that for the 97-
plus percent of our employees who are performing at an
acceptable level or better, that we will protect them against
inflation at a minimum; that we will consider differences in
competitive compensation by locality, but based upon surveys
that are more reflective of our workforce rather than how it is
currently done; and that with regard to anything else, that the
increases will be based on performance.
And so what we are doing, basically, is taking what
otherwise--there was a 4.1 percent pay increase last year that
applied to everybody. Basically, what we would be saying is if
you are not performing at a satisfactory level--that is less
than 5 percent of our workforce--you are not guaranteed that.
But if you are, then you will get inflation, consideration for
differences by locality, and something on top of that for your
performance, but that will vary based upon what your
performance is.
Senator Carper. I think you have indicated that GAO's
responsibilities continue to expand. I know I asked you and
your agency to do a variety of things, and I am sure other
Senators do, as well. My understanding is that you are
attempting to meet the requests that are made of GAO without
adding to the number of employees that you have. Just talk a
little bit about how you manage to balance all that.
Mr. Walker. That is an excellent question. Here is what we
do. We have a much more disciplined and transparent process
with regard to what the rights of our clients are, what our
responsibilities are to our clients, and what our engagement
acceptance practices are.
Basically, the priorities that we have are if it is a
mandate by law, including something that is in the Committee
report, we consider that top priority because the Congress as a
whole has spoken. We monitor potential mandates a lot closer
because sometimes there are mandates that may not represent a
good use of your resources and the taxpayers' resources and so
we will try to intervene before they become law. But if they
become law, they are our top priority.
We are also required, in accordance with current law, to do
work for committees. Therefore, if we get a request from a
committee chair or a subcommittee chair, we are bound to do it.
As a matter of policy, and in accordance with our wanting to be
professional, objective, and nonpartisan in nature, we accord
the same priority to ranking minority member requests, even
though as a matter of law they don't have the same legal
standing. And so as a matter of policy, we give them the same
priority. We give them the same rights.
The next level would be individual member requests, which,
candidly, we are not doing a whole lot of individual member
requests. We tell members that they need to go to a chair or
ranking member for two reasons. One, we have a supply and
demand imbalance. And two, in order for our work to be able to
benefit the Congress, the country and the taxpayers,
realistically, you are probably going to have to have it go
through a committee or subcommittee. And so what we are trying
to do is to have more chair and ranking member requests. We are
also trying to encourage bipartisan requests. They have gone
up. We can't require that, but they have gone up, as well.
And so we have a much more disciplined and transparent
process and we are getting a lot more results out of the same
level of employees. But that can only go so far.
Senator Carper. And that is only so far as my time goes,
too. It has expired. Thanks very much.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Collins. Thank you, Senator Carper.
Mr. Walker, I want to thank you on behalf of the Committee
for your testimony this morning, but also for your first-rate
leadership of the GAO. Under your leadership, the GAO has
continued to make great strides in the work that it does. It is
very important work, particularly to this Committee and to the
American taxpayers. So I thank you for your excellent
leadership and look forward to continuing to work with you.
Mr. Walker. Thanks, and if I could just say for the record,
I am pleased and proud to lead this agency. We have a great
executive committee and executive team and a lot of very bright
and dedicated public servants. We look forward to working with
this Committee and others in the future. Thank you very much.
Chairman Collins. Thank you.
Our next witness this morning is the Hon. Maurice McTigue,
the Director of the Government Accountability Project at George
Mason University's Mercatus Center.
As a former cabinet minister and member of Parliament in
New Zealand, Mr. McTigue has a unique perspective on issues
relating to government management, and more specifically,
results-oriented government.
From 1984 to 1994, Mr. McTigue led an ambitious and
successful effort to restructure New Zealand's public sector.
In his current position, Mr. McTigue conducts annual
evaluations of how Federal agencies are performing. He reviews
their performance plans and reports required under the
Government Performance and Results Act. For the last 2 years,
the Comptroller General has asked Mr. McTigue to conduct a
similar evaluation of GAO's performance reports, and that will
be the subject of his testimony today.
Mr. McTigue, we very much appreciate your appearing today,
and I look forward to hearing your statement. Please proceed.
TESTIMONY OF MAURICE P. McTIGUE,\1\ DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT, MERCATUS CENTER, GEORGE MASON
UNIVERSITY
Mr. McTigue. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Senator
Voinovich. I am honored to have been asked to present myself
before you today and to give to you some of the knowledge that
I have acquired in the 6 years that I have been here in the
United States at George Mason University's Mercatus Center,
working with your government, and in particular the experience
that I have had in working with GAO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. McTigue appears in the Appendix
on page 120.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Madam Chairman, when we talk about GAO, we have to
recognize that we are talking about the best of the best. It is
my considered opinion that GAO is certainly the premier
organization in government. Also, I think that in David Walker,
you have an extraordinary leader who stands head and shoulders
above most in the public sector.
However, when you are looking at the best of the best, it
doesn't mean that there is no room left for improvement, and I
certainly think that there are areas in which GAO can continue
to show improvement on the role that it has played in the past.
First, I want to really look at the perception of GAO. What
is its role? Many people might look at it as the research arm
of Congress, and that would be true. They might look at it as
the government's auditor, and that would be true. They might
look at it as the government's accountability office, and that
also would be true.
But of all things, I think that the most important
contribution that GAO makes is that it maintains the public
confidence in the institutions of government. Any erosion of
public confidence in the institutions of government is
detrimental to all of us.
How does it do that, because GAO does not actually have any
power to instruct organizations to do things? It doesn't have
any power to compel people to do things. It just has the power
of influence, and that power of influence is directly
proportional to its reputation. So for GAO, continuously
enhancing its reputation is a high priority.
In enhancing its reputation, I think that there are
important values that are involved. The first of those is the
quality of the work that it does. If it doesn't meet a very
high standard, then its reputation is damaged, and it seems to
be able to continually excel itself in improving on the quality
of its work.
It is the integrity with which it does that work. It is the
fairness with which it does its work. It is also the perception
of fairness by those who are examined and the public at large.
It is the fearlessness with which it approaches its job,
because it must not be put off from examining something that
might be controversial or difficult because it fears
consequences for itself. And it is the reliability with which
it produces its information.
One of the areas of reform that occurred in my country
while I was in government was a reform of the equivalent of the
GAO, which we called the Auditor General's Office. We rewrote
its law between 1984 and 1994. We made it very independent so
that it is answerable only to the Parliament, it is not able to
be compelled by any particular party or the government to do
anything. The Auditor General makes his or her own decisions as
they think appropriate.
It still does much of the investigative research for the
government and it still does two-thirds of the auditing for
government, but not all of it, and that is a deliberate policy
so that there is a chance to compare what private sector
auditing produces as opposed to what is produced by the Auditor
General's Office.
It also has the liberty to examine issues of its own
volition, because the auditor general perceives them as risks
or failures. It might be why certain social problems have not
responded to the investment that the government has made in
those social problems, or, indeed, the programs used have not
produced results.
This is my view in an area of inquiry that is going to
become increasingly more important for GAO as the U.S.
Government moves to results accountability. I want to touch on
that a little bit more in a moment or two, but there are two
other things that I think are important and that I see as
challenges for GAO.
The first of those is the world post-September 11. Given
GAO's role in maintaining public trust in the institutions of
government and given the necessity for the U.S. Government to
take unto itself additional powers that in many ways compete
with or infringe on the rights of individuals, being able to
maintain public trust in how those powers are used may be an
important part of protecting trust in the institutions of
government.
Looking at how the Immigration Service uses its extended
powers, looking at how the FBI uses its extended powers, and
accepting that some of this inquiry may have to be done in
confidence, GAO could indeed examine the use of those extended
powers, assure itself that the use of the powers was
appropriate, and then give such an assurance to the public
without having to disclose things that might be damaging to our
security. This is a different world. GAO has to have both the
resources and the time to be able to examine these powers or a
dangerous erosion of confidence could occur.
While thinking of that expanded role for GAO, it raises
another issue, and that is the changing world of government.
GAO, like all other government organizations, is going to have
to manage its human capital, to produce the capability
necessary to accomplish its mission.
I think that your move to give to GAO more flexibility in
how it manages its human capital is a good move. I think that
GAO should use that opportunity to set itself up as a role
model for the rest of government setting up a template that can
be copied by other government organizations.
I want to make a comment here about the concept of human
capital. Many people think about human capital in the way in
which they have thought about human resources in the past. In
my view, that is incorrect.
Human capital encompasses two concepts. The first of those
concepts is the concept of being a good employer. Do we do all
of the things that we should for our staff? Everybody knows the
principles of being a good employer and should be able to
practice them.
The new and more important concept is that human capital is
really a reflection of the capability of the organization. Do
the people, the skills, and the talents necessary to do the job
exist? How do we manage that capability? How do we assess what
capability we need in the future? How to develop policies that
will bridge the gap from the organizations capability now and
the capability needs of the future?
For example, the expanded role that GAO will have to play
in examining how enhanced security measures are utilized inside
the American Government may well require capabilities they
don't have today. The Congress should be cognizant of that and
should allow them both the latitude and the resources to be
able to accomplish that task.
Another area of challenge, in my view, is the world of
results managed government. A few moments ago, Senator
Voinovich asked David Walker about the challenges on the fiscal
side of government and how they might actually be addressed. In
my review, results-based management of government is one of the
best ways of addressing that.
Having been a member of Parliament and having sat where you
sit from time to time, Madam Chairman, one of the challenges we
faced was that we were very badly served with the information
necessary to make good decisions about allocating scarce
resources. We didn't know what was being achieved in public
benefit trends by different activities. Minus that knowledge
and often minus the knowledge also of what it cost to do that,
we couldn't make very good decisions.
As that capability improved and we were to compare these
activities results against those activities results, it became
possible to strategically move funding into those activities
that worked better. Consequentially it became possible to
enhance public benefit with considerably less in resources.
In my view, the U.S. Government is in the early
evolutionary stages of this process at the moment. You will not
see the full benefits of this change until about the 2005 or
2006 fiscal year. It will take that long to get the full
results-based information necessary to be able to compare
activities and reallocate resources accordingly.
GAO will play a significant role in determining the
validity of measures used by agencies. If I can just, as an
example, Madam Chairman, use something that David Walker
mentioned in his testimony and you questioned him on, and that
was the recoveries of $37 billion made by GAO last year.
It can be said, that is a fine achievement. It is an
increase of $11 billion over the year before. However, those
recoveries were able to be made because there was some
inappropriate practice, malfeasance, misallocation, or
misappropriation of monies or resources inside government.
Success should be measured in terms of whether that number
comes down as a result of GAO's actions. The public benefit
would then go where Congress intended. Over time it should
become more difficult for GAO to be able to find those monies.
This would then become a measure of the outcome. The
complained-of behavior is gradually being eliminated.
In exactly the same way when looking at the recommendations
made by GAO the fact that they are accepted by agencies is an
important interim measure, but the final measure is, did they
cure the complained-of behavior. Achieving the cure is what we
need to know if we are going to focus on outcomes. To me, GAO
playing a role in examining government organizations and
determining what result was achieved would be a major
contribution towards good government here in the United States.
That is the conclusion of my comments, Madam Chairman, I
would like to ask that my written statement be included in the
record. Thank you.
Chairman Collins. It will be entered in full, without
objection.
Mr. McTigue, thank you very much for your testimony and
also the very important work you are doing in this area, not
only with the GAO but also with other agencies in evaluating
their performance reports.
We looked long and hard to try to find an expert who could
comment on the GAO. The GAO comments on everybody else, and we
thought it would only be fair to have an outside group. I
suggested to my staff that they contact your organization, the
Accountability Project. I was delighted to learn that you had,
indeed, done work in this area, and I give David Walker credit
for asking you to do this work, as well.
We heard today the Comptroller General's discussion of how
the GAO prioritizes the requests it receives from Congress. As
a committee chair, needless to say, I like the priority the GAO
gives to requests that come from committee chairmen and their
ranking members. But I understand you have a slightly different
perspective on how the requests should be prioritized. I would
invite you to share that with us today.
Mr. McTigue. Madam Chairman, if I was sitting in your
chair, I would feel exactly the same way that you do.
[Laughter.]
And certainly, I think that the bulk of what GAO does is
going to continue to be the work that it does for Congress. But
Congress itself may well have to start to think about the
prioritization of that work so that low-value work from
Congress isn't setting aside some other things that GAO might
be looking at that would be very much more valuable.
I think the visionary role that GAO plays is very important
in identifying risks to the American Government, doing work on
those risks, and then starting to publicize that activity or
lead that debate.
I would pose the question that if David Walker had not
spent so much time on commenting on the crisis in human capital
in the Federal Government, would it have got the attention that
it has received to date and would the American Government be
taking action on it? And I think the answer is probably no, or
it might have been postponed 2 or 3 years into the future.
I think the work that he is leading now in taking a long-
term look at the fiscal crisis so that there are more options
available to government before the crisis becomes incurable is
work that is extremely valuable. Congress does need to weigh
the value of these tasks against the requests that Congress is
making and accepting some prioritization.
The reassurance of the American people about the
trustworthiness of institutions of government is incredibly
important, particularly at a time of crisis of security
accompanied by some erosion of civil liberties. The guarantee
that new powers are used with the greatest propriety is very
important. To me GAO has the reputation and credibility to give
those assurances.
So what I am really saying is that in allocating to GAO
tasks, I think Congress has to be cognizant of the fact that
there is a limited resource, there are other activities that
are carried out by GAO that are very important for the quality
of government. Congress should not crowd those activities out
with requests that are of a lower priority.
I think David Walker's suggestion that from time to time
members are going to have to work through committees rather
than making individual requests is a good one. I think that
making collective requests rather than partisan requests is a
good one.
Chairman Collins. Thank you. The other issue I want to have
you comment on is the GAO's high-risk list. I have found this
list to be useful in directing our attention to problem areas
in the Federal Government, but I am troubled by the fact that
programs stay on the list year after year after year. How could
the GAO change its assessment of the high-risk list to make it
more useful to Congress and to Federal agencies?
Mr. McTigue. In my view there are a variety of approaches
that could be given consideration. Madam Chairman, there are
activities in government that are inherently high risk and
might need to be included all the time. For example, in the
field of taxation, the collection of revenue is always
something that is subject to attack by clever lawyers and
accountants who want to find legal ways for their clients to
minimize their taxes. So a risk exists that there will be
continuing erosion to the tax base and there needs to be
protective measures taken to deal with that. That might mean
that tax collection is something that inherently remains on a
high-risk list.
Other activities currently on the high-risk list may be
making significant progress towards getting off the high-risk
list. It would be good to know that significant progress is
being made.
It is of concern that some risks are there for 12 or 13
years. These are things that should be readily manageable, like
contract management, acquisitions. There is plenty of
experience around the United States on how you do those things
well. The fact that it takes 12 or 13 years to eliminate these
risks is unacceptable.
Perhaps GAO has to be more aggressive in detailing the
unacceptable nature of these failures. GAO may need to say to
Congress, there needs to be legislative action to eliminate
this problem.
Chairman Collins. Thank you. Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. It is interesting that that last
question you asked was one that I had on my list. [Laughter.]
From your experience in government, and based on my
comments to General Walker about getting the Appropriations
Committee involved in coming up with some kind of strategy
where they really could lean on some of these agencies to get
done what needs to be done.
What would your reaction be if this Committee was going to
pick out a couple of areas, get letters off to the heads of
those agencies, let them know that we are dead serious about
something being done, drag them in here, and then let them know
that every 2 months, we are going to drag them back in here
until we start to see some kind of action taken as a result of
that and maybe highlight some of these issues to the point
where they will feel they have to do it because they are being
pressured.
The point around here is you don't know the number of
letters I have sent to some of these agencies, and it takes
them 5 months to get something back to me. They just ignore
them. They just figure it is going to go away. If you don't
stay on them over and over and over again, you don't get any
action from them. What is your reaction to that?
Mr. McTigue. I don't really have an opinion, sir, about the
recalcitrance of agencies in answering your questions, but what
I do have some views about is one of the areas in which you
might move that would help to relieve some of these problems.
I think that you have already ``put in train'' by passing
in 1993 the Government Performance and Results Act something
that is having a quiet revolution throughout the Federal
Government but which you at Congress level have not yet become
the beneficiaries of. Gradually, you will get information that
tells you that a variety of different activities are addressing
the same outcome, but they have a huge range of success rates
in addressing that outcome and they have very different costs.
What would happen if you were to invest in the most
successful of those activities and to either give the others
the chance to perform at that level or to lose their funding?
That would make a big difference. I think that Congress will be
doing business in this manner by the 2005 or 2006 fiscal year.
Regarding Congress itself, it would be worthwhile to study
the reforms of legislatures around the world. Many have dealt
with the disconnect between the processes of policy
decisionmaking, authorizing and oversight, and the
appropriation process.
Many legislatures have reformed their operations by using
their committee structure as fact finding opportunities to
inform the appropriation process. Direct recommendations coming
from those committees require that appropriators take note.
Certainly, the New Zealand legislature made reforms of that
nature. Those reforms made the work of the Parliament much more
meaningful.
For Congress, there are issues that need to be addressed so
that appropriators take note of the work that goes on in your
other committees. Otherwise, if they don't, why do you do
oversight and why do you do authorization work?
Senator Voinovich. This has been raised by some of the
appropriators. I know I have talked to Senator Stevens about
this on a couple of occasions. The spirit is willing but the
flesh is weak. We just have so many other things that we are
doing, we just never get to it and I am afraid that the people
who are supposed to do it know it. [Laughter.]
That is the problem.
In your written testimony, you said Congress should ensure
that the GAO has the freedom and the flexibility to be a role
model in human capital management. Could you comment on how the
flexibilities contained in S. 1522, the GAO Human Capital
Reform Act, could assist GAO in further improving its workforce
management as an example for other Federal agencies?
Mr. McTigue. Senator, while you were out of the room, I
made some comments, some of which I will need to repeat now.
Senator Voinovich. I apologize.
Mr. McTigue. What GAO has to deal with is developing
different capabilities as it addresses some of its tasks. Those
capabilities are going to require different skills, some of
which it will have internally, but some of which it may have to
go out into the marketplace and buy. It needs to be able to buy
those skills because its credibility is very important to its
main task, which is reassuring the American people that they
can trust the institutions of government, particularly as they
examine the utilization of the new powers required to maintain
the security of the homeland and whether they are being used
appropriately.
GAO needs to become a 21st Century employer, recognizing
that we as individuals, will approach work in a very different
way. We will move frequently in our jobs. We will work from
different locations. GAO has to have the flexibility to be able
to acquire talent, to let talent go and to bring it back again
if necessary. Being able to reward the performance of high
achievers, is going to be an essential part of employing in the
21st Century if you are to keep your high performers working
for you.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Chairman Collins. Thank you, Senator. Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman,
Senator Voinovich. It is always a pleasure to work with my
colleagues here, even when they are wrong sometimes.
[Laughter.]
But it is a pleasure to be here and to welcome you, Mr.
McTigue.
Madam Chairman, do I have just a couple of minutes for an
introductory statement?
Chairman Collins. Certainly. We are expecting a vote very
shortly, so you are going to be the last, but please, go ahead.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAUTENBERG
Senator Lautenberg. I do thank you for holding this hearing
on this very important department of government. Usually, we
see Comptroller General Walker here to testify about government
policy or another Federal agency, but today we are here to
discuss the management and performance of his Department, GAO.
And by all accounts, GAO is a model agency. In 2002, their
programmatic and policy recommendations have helped Congress
and the Executive Branch to achieve nearly $38 billion in
financial benefit. That is a return of 88 cents on each dollar
invested in GAO, and that is a pretty good return. I come out
of the corporate world and I know a good one when I see one and
that is good. We can only hope that other government
investments, such as an administration's tax cuts for people
who don't need it, and I had a good run in some years of
business.
Frankly, I like investing where I get a good return, and
investing, in my view, in government, where we have the ability
to do things that no one else has for our society, sounds like
a good idea to me. I think I do a lot better for my children
and my grandchildren and over the years ahead if we continue to
build our internal strength even as we protect our security
from external attempts to disrupt it.
The value of GAO should not only be measured in dollars.
Waste, fraud, abuse don't just cost money. They erode the
public's confidence in government. That confidence, that faith,
is something too precious to calculate. The fact is that GAO,
Comptroller General Walker and his 3,200 employees help
Congress meet responsibilities to the American people by
improving the accountability, efficiency, and the overall
performance of the Federal Government.
One particular matter does concern me, and I think it is
regrettable that we don't have administration cooperation with
GAO's investigation of the White House's secretive energy task
force. And if the stories are true, it is regrettable that the
administration supporters here in Congress have threatened
GAO's funding because of the investigation.
Congress needs to stick up for GAO. They are an arm or a
tool for us, a resource for us to really understand what is
taking place, even when the agency has some unpleasant truths
to tell us. We shouldn't stand idly by while people who might
be discomforted by what GAO might try to cow it into
submission.
So I just have a question, because we are seeing changes
that are contemplated, and Mr. McTigue, I wanted to get your
response. According to GAO's performance and accountability
report for fiscal year 2002, GAO conducted its first voluntary
early retirement of 52 employees. They also implemented new
performance appraisals, revised pay, promotion and rewards
system. And now they are working on implementing a broadband
pay-for-performance system for administrative professionals and
support staff. I understand that GAO also wanted to eliminate
locality pay.
I mentioned the fact that I had some experience in the
corporate world, and the company that I helped found is a
company today that has more than 40,000 employees, and when I
left to come to the Senate, we had 16,000, not a small company,
but it also shows you what happens when progress comes with new
leadership. [Laughter.]
But the fact is, I had a lot of experience in the kind of
bonuses and natural expense increases that we had to be
concerned with.
We couldn't, in our earliest days in business--my company
is called ADP--we could transfer people willy-nilly and just
say, hey, you are going to--I don't want to name the cities,
but those that are less desirable, let us say, than San
Francisco or Washington, D.C., or Portland, Maine, of course,
and they would go. But as time went on and people assessed the
value of family life in a different way, they would say to me,
``Yes, Frank, I would like to go, but I am going to need
something more than just a transfer to take care of my family
needs, etc.,'' and I approved of that.
I approve it when we have tension-filled jobs like those in
the control towers, to take someone from a quiet area with not
too many flights each day, put them into the New York region,
Chicago region, Los Angeles and say, OK, you are going to go to
work there. Yes, expenses are higher, but it is service for
your country. That is not good enough.
So all of that is a preface to what I want to ask you. Mr.
McTigue, did you assess the morale within GAO in contemplation
and in expectation of these changes that might be made?
Mr. McTigue. The answer, Senator, to your question is, no,
we didn't do a specific assessment of morale. I could comment,
though, from my observations because we work closely with GAO
in a wide range of areas. GAO has some of the most capable
people that you have in the civil service in the United States.
They also are people who have skills that are in very high
demand in the private sector and there is no indication that
there is a significant exodus from GAO.
Modern human capital management, sir, I think is going
through some major evolutions, and a wise manager today is
going to recognize that the ability of his organization to
function successfully is going to be directly attributable to
the skills and talents of the people who work for him or her
and being able to keep those people is going to be one of the
most essential tasks that you would carry out as a manager.
Acting in a way that is contrary to the best interests of
people means that you are going to lose them, because we are
talking about people who will not have difficulty finding other
jobs. They are people who are already in high demand. They have
high quality skills where there is plenty of demand for them.
So you don't have the liberty to be able to say, I can make
these decisions without there being a consequence. There will
be a consequence.
And at GAO, we did not see a high exodus rate. So in my
view, GAO have people who find the work rewarding, they find
the management acceptable, and they find the rewards
acceptable. Otherwise, there would be a significant exodus.
Morale is not something that GAO can be complacent about,
though, because the expectations of the workforce will change
over time and management has to be astute enough to be able to
meet those changed expectations as they develop.
Senator Lautenberg. I would ask you this. I am sure that
the people who do their work there really like working for the
U.S. Government, as I see in staff personnel all around,
whether it is Committee personnel or my own staff personnel,
and having worked in the private sector for as long as I did
and being able to make a comparison about the dedication to
service is quite striking, and that is that people will work
for the government for less money, for less often recognition,
but because there is an inner satisfaction that is drawn from
doing the right thing.
However, if you want to transfer somebody, no matter how
much they love their job, is it fair to say, OK, you are going
to go into this high-cost area and that is where you are going
to be located and carry out this responsibility. Do you think
that would have any effect on one's view of the transfer that
might occur for a family who is trying to get by, educate their
children? There isn't anybody--there are few in government that
are paid excessive amounts of money, and it would be terribly
political for me to suggest otherwise, but the fact--I am
teasing, obviously.
But people have to live and they have to be able to be paid
on a relative basis so that they can sustain themselves and
their families. And even though they can go get jobs in the
private sector, it does mean some kind of a disruption. It does
mean some kind of a risk. It does necessitate change of some
significance.
Mr. McTigue. Unless I knew the specific circumstances, sir,
I don't think I can give you a definitive answer, but I can
give you this answer, and that is that if you are thinking as a
manager about transferring somebody to somewhere else,
particularly if it is a more expensive place to live, it is a
more densely populated city, the presumption is that there is
probably a promotion, as well. And unless you compel the person
to move, then it seems to me that it is going to be a matter of
choice by you, the manager, to ask them to move and they, the
employee, to decide to move.
If they decide to turn it down, then I presume that they
have to accept the consequences for that. It would mean that
perhaps they don't get the increase in pay that might have gone
with the move and perhaps it may also impact their ability to
be able to achieve promotion in the organization.
But as long as you are not constrained in terms of the
choices that you make and you are able to make those choices
open and freely, then I think that that is something that
between the employer and the employee they are going to have to
work out and it may be different decisions for each employee.
Senator Lautenberg. We don't have the liberty of saying, in
my view, that a lateral transfer, which is graded based on the
civil service system, at the same level of pay, is
automatically the province of the manager. There are other
conditions that dictate what happens, and I think when you try
to put someone in a high-cost area, much higher costs than they
have, and if they are family-bound, that is a tough decision
and I, frankly, am very wary of those proposals to limit that.
Thank you very much, and thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Collins. Thank you, Senator.
We do have a vote in progress, so I am going to thank Mr.
McTigue for his testimony. We may have a few questions for the
record that we may submit for either you or Mr. Walker. The
record for this hearing will remain open for 15 days for the
submission of any additional materials.
But I want to thank both of our witnesses this morning. I
think this was a very useful oversight and legislative hearing
on the General Accounting Office, and I thank you both for your
participation.
After the vote, we will resume with the second hearing of
the day. It will be a new hearing on the nomination of Suzanne
Mencer to be the Director of the Office for Domestic
Preparedness for the Department of Homeland Security.
This hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:16 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLEMAN
Thank you Chairman Collins for holding this hearing.
At the outset, Mr. Walker, I want to take a brief moment and
commend you for your teams that are working closely with my staff on
two oversight matters. The GAO team headed by Gene Aloise is assisting
in the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations' continued review of
the Federal Government's response to nuclear terrorism, particularly
the deployment of radiation portal monitors by the Bureau of Customs
and Border Protection, Second Line of Defense and the Department of
Energy. The GAO team headed by Rich Stana is assisting us in our
assessment of the Container Security Initiative and the targeting
techniques employed by Customs at our nation's ports and borders. In
addition, Marjorie Kanof's team has already produced one investigation
concerning SARS and is currently working on another looking at
infectious disease surveillance. You are well served by these three
individuals and their teams. Please ensure that they have the resources
and cooperation to continue their vital work with us.
As the members of this committee know, in order for Congress to do
its job, it needs to be adequately informed on the issues before it. Of
course we rely on our staffs for a great deal of advice, but on more
complex issues the role of specialists is crucial. The General
Accounting Office, along with the Congressional Research Service and
the Congressional Budget Office play a vital role in helping us fulfill
our Constitutional duties. GAO is especially important to this
committee and the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I
chair, since we are responsible for overseeing government itself.
GAO has already undergone significant structural transformation in
order to adapt to changes in finance, technology, society, and
politics. It has had to develop expertise in new skills while
struggling to replace an aging workforce. It has had to adapt to the
creation of independent inspector generals who are tasked with
performing many of the type of investigations it traditionally handled.
Yet it retains a vital role in keeping us informed.
Like any tool, GAO's ultimate value depends on how well it is
maintained and used. I commend both the Chairman and Sen. Voinovich for
introducing S. 1522, the ``GAO Human Capital Reform Act of 2003.'' It
is my understanding that this legislation reflects extensive external
and internal research on GAO's part, including consultation with both
its Employee Advisory Council and the Office of Personnel Management. I
intend to cosponsor it and look forward to voting for its passage.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAIALBLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
-