[Senate Hearing 110-421] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 110-421 PRIORITIZING MANAGEMENT: IMPLEMENTING CHIEF MANAGEMENT OFFICERS AT FEDERAL AGENCIES ======================================================================= HEARING before the OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE of the COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ DECEMBER 13, 2007 __________ Available via http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 40-509 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008 --------------------------------------------------------------------- For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800 Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001 COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TED STEVENS, Alaska THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana TOM COBURN, Oklahoma BARACK OBAMA, Illinois PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHN WARNER, Virginia JON TESTER, Montana JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director Brandon L. Milhorn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman CARL LEVIN, Michigan GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware TED STEVENS, Alaska MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas TOM COBURN, Oklahoma MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JOHN WARNER, Virginia Richard J. Kessler, Staff Director Thomas Richards, Professional Staff Member Jennifer A. Hemingway, Minority Staff Director Theresa Prych, Minority Professional Staff Member Emily Marthaler, Chief Clerk C O N T E N T S ------ Opening statements: Page Senator Akaka................................................ 1 Senator Voinovich............................................ 3 WITNESSES Thursday, December 13, 2007 Hon. Clay Johnson III, Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget.......................................... 4 Hon. David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the United States... 6 Paul A. Brinkley, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Business Transformatin, U.S. Department of Defense...................... 9 Alphabetical List of Witnesses Brinkley, Paul A.: Testimony.................................................... 9 Prepared statement........................................... 43 Johnson, Hon. Clay III: Testimony.................................................... 4 Prepared statement........................................... 23 Walker, Hon. David M.: Testimony.................................................... 6 Prepared statement........................................... 25 APPENDIX Background....................................................... 52 GAO Report entitled ``Organizational Transformation, Implementing Chief Operating Officer/Chief Management Officer Positions in Federal Agencies,'' GAO-08-34, November 2007................... 58 PRIORITIZING MANAGEMENT: IMPLEMENTING CHIEF MANAGEMENT OFFICERS AT FEDERAL AGENCIES ---------- THURSDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2007 U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:17 a.m., in Room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Akaka, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. Present: Senators Akaka and Voinovich. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA Senator Akaka. This hearing will come to order. Good morning, everyone. I would like to welcome our distinguished witnesses to this hearing on establishing a Chief Management Officer at Federal agencies to address human capital, business transformation, financial management, and strategic planning challenges across the Federal Government. Senator Voinovich and I have been working with agencies for years, and we have been working well together. He has been a champion, too, of human capital, and we are still trying to work some things out--and, of course, all of this with the hope that we can make things better for our country. We have been working together for years to resolve management challenges and encourage agency leaders to prioritize management. Hearing after hearing has shown that strong agency leadership that places a priority on management results in improved agency performance. An agency's main focus must be its mission. However, agencies tend to overlook the importance of strong and sustained management in their operational goals. As a result, agencies often fail to meet their mission in the most efficient and effective way. Using the ongoing war in Iraq as an example, it is clear that strong leadership and efficient management are essential to supporting the war fighter. We also need strong leadership and efficient management throughout the Federal Government to support the critical efforts of agencies to meet their missions. I believe that a CMO, a high-level official in charge of a department or agency's business operations, can help improve overall effectiveness and enable the agency to better meet its mission. This would not complicate the existing bureaucracy; rather, I believe that elevating the issues of strategic planning, human capital, and business transformation to a higher level will provide management issues the priority they deserve, and this has become clear. In the past, people who have sought to assume that position at a lower level have not been able to make any difference. Last year, our Subcommittee asked the Government Accountability Office to evaluate how CMOs have been established in the public and private sector and to develop criteria and strategies for establishing CMOs across the Federal Government. As we will hear from the Comptroller General, establishing a CMO and providing them with the necessary authority can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of any organization, especially large, complex departments. On September 18, 2007, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates designated Deputy Secretary for Defense Gordon England as the Chief Management Officer at the Department of Defense. I believe Secretary England is a strong leader and a good choice to serve as CMO. Also, I am pleased to see the Department elevate the importance of management to the deputy level. I look forward to seeing the progress made at DOD to improve its business operations. However, in a little more than a year, the Federal Government will face a Presidential transition, and Secretary Gates and Secretary England likely will leave their posts. We need to ensure that their management efforts do not disappear by making management part of the institutional framework at the Defense Department and other Federal agencies. Structures need to be developed that will stay in place from one Administration to the next. GAO recommends that the establishment of a CMO at Federal agencies be codified. I agree. Earlier this year, the President signed into law a provision to create a CMO at the Department of Homeland Security as part of the 9/11 Commission Recommendations bill. There is also a provision to codify a CMO and Deputy CMO at the Department of Defense included in the fiscal year 2008 defense authorization conference report. But these are just first steps in a long process of improving management accountability at agencies. The continuity of management and business operations is also critical. A CMO could be that link between Administrations. One of GAO's recommendations is to have a 5- to 7-year term appointment so that management can remain a constant high-level focus of an agency outside the political process. I think this is an idea that we need to explore very seriously. GAO examined the impact, both positive and negative, that codifying such a position would have on the management of departments. I believe that GAO's recommendations provide sound criteria for agencies to begin establishing CMOs. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how they see the establishment of CMOs as part of the overall management strategy for the government. And now I would like to call on our Ranking Member for his statement. Senator Voinovich. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the things that I think the public does not comprehend when they see Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and it does not seem like they are able to get along with each other, is that there are some really wonderful things that are happening in the various committees of the U.S. Senate. I have been blessed with the partnership of Senator Akaka. We work together on an agenda and we are staying with some of the themes that we have been working on for years because we realized that if you do not continue to oversee them, you are not going to get the progress that you would like to get. I would like to thank David Walker for all of the cooperation and help that he has given to us this year; and Clay Johnson, who I think has done an outstanding job. Clay Johnson, when I came here, I said there was no ``M'' in OMB. You have brought ``M'' back to OMB. I think the fact that even though there may be differences of opinion on occasion between GAO and OMB, the two of you working together, particularly on strategic plans to remedy some of the management problems in our Federal Government. So I just want you to know how much I admire you and appreciate your service and what you have done and continue to do for our country. Mr. Brinkley, I know that our friend Gordon England would be here today, but he is overseas. We are pleased that you are here because you are the person that is really on the firing line in terms of transformation, and we are looking forward to hearing from you today. I think it is through strong partnerships, whether between Senator Akaka and myself or between the Executive and Legislative Branches, that we really achieve reform and transformation of the Federal Government for the benefit of the American people. And, again, a lot of the stuff that we do does not happen in these hearings. It is in meetings with you individually and our offices. In fact, sometimes, Senator Akaka, I would say that the meetings in the offices are better than the hearings. And I suspect maybe you feel the same way about that, too. Having focused intently the last few years on CMOs at the Department of Defense and at Homeland Security, Senator Akaka and I have asked General Walker to look at these positions. We focused on DOD and DHS because the management challenges of these large agencies are daunting. I think I have mentioned to Clay Johnson on occasion that if we went back and looked at the creation of DHS, mergin 22 agencies with over 200,000 people, on reflection that may not have been the best thing that we could have done at the time. And it has presented some unique management challenges, because of trying to bring these departments together and to create a different culture. It has been tough. I think it is well known that the Department of Defense has had challenges on the high-risk list for a long time--eight specific to the Department, and then six government-wide. The public expects us to work harder and smarter and do more with less. There is no question in my mind that we really have some challenges in both the Department of Homeland Security and Defense. How well they function has a great deal to do with our main responsibility, securing our national and homeland defense. I would like to say that I applaud Secretary Gates for taking the steps to name a Chief Management Officer, the designation of the existing Deputy Secretary. But I do not think it gets the job done. I think if you really look at the responsibilities of the Deputy Secretary, it is not going to get the attention that it needs, particularly in an agency as vital to this country as the Defense Department. Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich. I want to echo what the Senator has just said in gratitude to our witnesses, Paul Brinkley, Clay Johnson, and Comptroller General Walker, for the years that you have been here, your expertise, your experiences, and how you have helped us to try to think about what we are trying to do to improve the accountability and management of our systems. And so I, too, am very appreciative of that, I want you to know. It is good to have Mr. Brinkley here and joining our efforts with the Department of Defense in this. Let me then mention and introduce our witnesses this morning: Clay Johnson, Deputy Director for Management, White House Office of Management and Budget; David Walker, Comptroller General, Government Accountability Office; and Paul Brinkley, Deputy Under Secretary for Defense, Business Transformation, Department of Defense. As the three of you know, our rules require that all witnesses testify under oath, so would you please rise and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give the Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God? Mr. Johnson. I do. Mr. Walker. I do. Mr. Brinkley. I do. Senator Akaka. Thank you very much. Let it be noted in the record that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. Welcome again, and before we begin, I want you all to know that although your oral statements are limited to 5 minutes, your full written statements will be included in the record. So, Mr. Johnson, will you please proceed with your statement? TESTIMONY OF HON. CLAY JOHNSON III,\1\ DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Mr. Johnson. Senator Akaka, Senator Voinovich, thank you for having us. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 23. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would like to say that my whole job is focused on helping the Federal Government spend the taxpayers' money effectively and better every year. The Executive Branch needs to do more towards this goal, as well as the Legislative Branch. We just issued Executive Order 13450 calling for this, declaring it to be the policy of the Federal Government, and calling for the head of the agency to set up certain functions within the agency to make this happen. This is something we need to make sure that your staff understands because it might have some bearing and provoke some thinking about how to help all agencies become more effective. And we would be glad to share with you what the concept is and how we are going to go about implementing this. Let me be very clear. I do not believe that any agency, including DOD, needs a second Deputy to help it perform better. Let me add also that the majority of the participants in the forum on this subject that Mr. Walker and GAO held last spring felt the same way. There were present and past Deputy Secretaries of Defense. There were other management luminaries from the area. And the majority, a significant majority of the people felt like a second Deputy was not a good idea. I believe that the thing that needs to happen for DOD or any agency to get something done is the following four things: They need to have a very clear definition of what they are trying to accomplish. What is the definition of ``success'' for supply chain management at Defense, for financial management, for acquisition management? What is the plan for accomplishing it? What is a reasonably aggressive plan? What is the time frame for that? And, by the way, all of this needs to be agreed to by GAO, DOD, and the relevant people at OMB. So clear goals, a clear plan for getting there. It needs to be clearly defined who is accountable for each of the component parts of that plan. And then it needs to be really clear to everybody involved that this is important, that the head person, the Secretary, the President for that matter, and Congress really wants this to happen. Those four things. I do not believe that DOD needs a second Deputy to make these things happen. In fact, let me point out two facts that I think are relevant to this. Currently, without a second Deputy, DOD--Paul and Beth McGrath, and the Transformation Office--working with GAO, working with OMB, has developed acceptable--or is developing acceptable goals of definitions of success. What does supply chain management mean at DOD? What does good financial management mean at DOD? So they, without a second Deputy, have clear goals. They have developed clear action plans for accomplishing those goals in an appropriately aggressive time frame. They have defined who is accountable for accomplishing each of the component parts, not the Army, not this office, but Joe, Mary, whatever. And the Secretary has made it clear that this is important. So without a second Deputy, they have done, I think they are in the process or are accomplishing the four things that I say have to exist. The key--and I have expressed this to Gordon England--is how aggressively he holds the people involved accountable for doing what they say they are going to do, for implementing the plan as desired. The key in my mind, in terms of accountability, is how accountable are the career managers held. Right now, SES, the Senior Executive professionals at DOD and at all agencies, are help accountable. They are required to be held accountable and evaluated on the performance of their programs per the--I forgot what the name of the bill was called, but you all were instrumental in passing that legislation 5 years ago, 4 years ago or so. So there are mechanisms, there is legislation that says SES are to be evaluated on the performance of their programs. So the mechanisms exist, and it is now for the head of the agency--and if an additional support staff is required to make this happen, to help him or her do that, so be it. But this is happening at DOD. There are clear definitions of what they are trying to accomplish. There are clear plans for doing it. There is clear accountability, and it has been made clear to everybody that this is important, without a second Deputy. Now they have to do what they say they are going to do. The second relevant fact to this debate, to this hearing, is that all the termed positions that are referenced in GAO's analysis are the heads of separate operating units. None of the positions that are termed--that are talked about in the analysis are involved in operational transformation across the board at an agency. So there is no precedent today in the Federal Government for what is embodied in the concept of a second Deputy at Defense focusing on how well the Defense Department is managed. And that to me should speak volumes. There might be a reason for that, which is over time people have not felt that was the way to go. DOD, every agency, Homeland Security, Interior Department, Labor Department, need to be held accountable for how effectively they spend the taxpayers' money. We can hold--Congress can do a better job of holding them accountable. Senior management--the President can do a better job of holding senior management of every agency accountable. We do not need a second Deputy, in my opinion, to make that happen. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions at the end of everybody's statements. Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson. Mr. Walker. TESTIMONY OF HON. DAVID M. WALKER,\1\ COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES Mr. Walker. Thank you, Chairman Akaka and Senator Voinovich. It is a pleasure to be back before you. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Walker appears in the Appendix on page 25. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clay Johnson is a good friend, and we work together very constructively on 95 percent of the issues. And even areas where we disagree, we are not disagreeable when we do that. But I have to correct for the record a couple of things that Clay Johnson just said. One, two of the positions in the summary are Chief Operating Officer positions. They are not heads of separate business units. Two, the government is a lag indicator. The Federal Government is no model to be followed for economy, efficiency, effectiveness, ethics, and equity. And the mere fact that we do not have these positions now is part of the problem. We need to resolve that problem. Three, we did not take a vote at the forum on whether or not a majority of the people supported a second Deputy or not. There was a significant majority who supported the need for a CMO, but there is a different issue as to how you accomplish that, whether you designate an existing person or you create a new position, what you call that new position, what level that position is. So I just wanted to state that. Now, let me, if I can, summarize the key information that is in the report. We have released a report today that talks about the experiences of several organizations that have COOs and CMOs at the request of this Subcommittee in order to try to analyze different attributes associated with those positions.\1\ I believe very strongly that the Federal Government--not only because of existing high-risk areas but because of our clear, growing, and imprudent unsustainable fiscal path--needs to do things differently. We need to think about what the government ought to be doing, how it ought to be doing it, and who ought to be doing it. And we need to manage this government very differently than we have. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ GAO Report entitled ``Organizational Transformation, Implementing Chief Operating Officer/Chief Management Officer Positions in Federal Agencies,'' GAO-08-34, November 2007 appears in the Appendix on page 58. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The simple fact of the matter is that a vast majority of people who come into government do so to focus on policy issues, not operational issues. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people who come into government do not stay in government very long. And the fact of the matter is that a vast majority of the challenges that this government faces are basic management and operational issues that require professionals who can focus on it in a sustained manner, both within and in some circumstances between Administrations, because it will take years to be able to effectively address. Just yesterday morning, I spent time with one of the key executives at IBM who was in charge for IBM's business transformation effort in the systems area. Phase 1 took 10 years. Let me restate that. Phase 1 of IBM's systems and other transformation efforts took 10 years. Now they are working on Phase 2, which started in 2003. So even in the private sector, you are talking about initiatives that are extremely complex and take a long time. In addition to the work that we did that is summarized in our report, we held a roundtable in 2002 to talk about the COO and CMO concept, and there were several key points that came out of that. There was a need to elevate attention on management issues and transformational change. There was a need to integrate various key management and transformation efforts. And there was a need to institutionalize accountability for addressing management issues and leading transformational change in government. Now, let me say I think every agency needs a CMO, but I think in most cases that CMO could be the Deputy Secretary or the Deputy Administrator, and so we are talking about looking at this issue on a facts and circumstances basis, applying those facts and circumstances in reaching different judgments about whether or not it is an existing position or person or a new one and what level it ought to be. Because each agency has its own unique set of characteristics and challenges and opportunities, the type of COO or CMO that each agency needs, I think, should vary, and here there are various criteria that I think should be considered: First, the history of organizational performance, including the number of high-risk areas. Second, the degree of organizational change needed. Third, the nature and complexity of the agency's or department's mission. Fourth, the organization's size and structure of the entity. And, fifth, the current leadership, talent, and focus, among other things. We also identified six key strategies that can be useful in implementing COO and CMO positions in the Federal Government, and those are: (1) to define the specific roles and responsibilities of the position; (2) to ensure that the position has a high level of authority and clearly delineated reporting relationships; (3) to foster good executive-level working relationships for maximum effectiveness; (4) to establish integration and transformation structures and processes in addition to merely having a COO or CMO; (5) to promote individual accountability and performance through specific job qualification requirements and effective performance management techniques, including performance contracts as appropriate; and (6) to provide for continuity of leadership in the COO and CMO position. Now, let me touch for a minute--if I may, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate your indulgence--on DOD. Gordon England is one of the most capable executives I have ever met. This is not an issue of Gordon England. The problem is many of the debates have been focused on an individual. This is not about an individual. This is about an institution--the Department of Defense. We have no guarantees as to what type of individual the next Deputy Secretary of Defense will be. I am not going to mention any names, but there were a number of Deputy Secretaries of Defense over the past 20 years or 30 years that clearly were not CMOs and could not be CMOs and, quite frankly, did not give a hoot about business issues and transformation issues. We are talking about a serious challenge that faces this government, in particular DOD, DHS, and the intelligence community, and we need to start taking it seriously. A lot of people that have opinions on this, quite frankly, have a fundamental conflict of interest. That fundamental conflict of interest needs to be considered. I think it is unfortunate that this Administration has not looked at this as an opportunity to institutionalize and to perpetuate the many good management initiatives that it has undertaken. And I agree with that, this Administration has taken management seriously, and I want to compliment Clay Johnson and his colleagues on this. These represent opportunities to institutionalize and to perpetuate it, because let me tell you what is going to happen. A lot of these key management transformation positions are not going to get filled right away in the next Administration, whoever it is. We are going to lose momentum. And we do not know what kind of people are going to fill them. And I think it is incumbent upon not just the Executive Branch but the Legislative Branch to think about what can be done to maximize the chance that we can do things differently to improve performance, to assure accountability, and to discontinue billions and billions and billions of dollars of waste that occurs every year just within the Defense Department alone. That is of critical importance, and it increases with the passage of time. And so I am more than happy to answer any questions that you might have. These are one of the few areas where we have a strong disagreement, but you know what they say, Mr. Chairman. It takes patience, persistence, and perseverance, and ultimately pain, before you prevail. Prevail we must. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Walker. Mr. Brinkley, your statement, please. TESTIMONY OF PAUL A. BRINKLEY,\1\ DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, BUSINESS TRANSFORMATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Mr. Brinkley. Yes, Chairman Akaka and Senator Voinovich, it is obviously an honor to be here today. I thank you for the time and the opportunity to speak to you regarding our efforts. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Brinkley appears in the Appendix on page 43. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I also want to acknowledge the honor to share the desk here with Mr. Walker and Mr. Johnson, whose passion you have already heard this morning for the subject matter. I benefit from that passion with great regularity in my private meetings with these individuals. They make their concern and their patriotic concern for the management of certainly the Department of Defense (DOD) clear to me with great clarity. I want to respond in my remarks to some of the things that have already been said so that we do not recap and perhaps buy back a little bit of time. The DOD and its mission, as you mentioned in your opening comments, has a primary objective to support our war fighters. Having spent a significant amount of time over the past 2 years in theater with our war fighters, I have seen firsthand where this really counts, making our business processes as nimble and agile as the business processes we as citizens now take for granted in our everyday lives but we do not see taking hold in government. An Information Age that has caused technology to evolve at a pace that is remarkable, government's ability to move as quickly as change is taking place in the private world is absolutely critical. The enemies we face take advantage of Information Age technology every day. Our ability to adopt it, our ability to be nimble and agile in our business practices, has a very significant and immediate effect on national security. No one feels that more passionately than we do within the Department of Defense. I want to point out that over the past 2 years, sometimes this feels like we are moving to address these issues, and as Mr. Walker stated, he cited the IBM example. It took 10 years to transform IBM. If you asked someone from IBM, they will tell you that did not stop. They are still continuing to evolve every day. General Electric and other bellweather corporations that we admire as Americans, it takes years and years to transform into a modern entity. In the Department, the team that we have assembled in the Business Transformation Office, which was established at the beginning of 2005, we have worked diligently to put processes in place that create that same kind of concept and culture of continuous improvement, incremental progress so that when we report to Congress, it is not about a great thing that is going to happen 5 years hence, but that there has been measurable, steady, incremental improvement. This is the way this works in industry. We have to find a way to embed that type of thinking in government. We have established, over the past 2 years, governance structures. Deputy Secretary England has been acting as the Chief Management Officer since he came. It was a very natural role for him to play within the Department, given his executive leadership roles in private industry. The established governance structures. The Defense Business Systems Management Committee, which was actually codified in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), I believe, in 2005, has become a foundation of our management process within the Department of Defense. We have established in less than 2 years the Business Transformation Agency, a new entity that sits at the top of the Department to bring in world-class talent from outside and meld it with world-class talent from inside government, with expertise in business practices and systems to help accelerate the pace at which we can change longstanding ways of doing things in a government, and in an entity within government that has 200 years of proud history of delivering security to the people of the United States. Change is difficult when processes have been embedded for a long time. When those processes are embedded in an organization that has a proud successful history, change is even more difficult. So I cannot overstate that there are significant steps that have been taken in the past 2 years. Establishing a new Federal entity is not an easy thing to do. We have done that. It has delivered value. Programs that used to be poster children for difficulty, programs like the Defense Integrated Management of Human Resources System--DIMHRS--the Defense Travel System, these are programs that used to be front and center for hearings on why the Department cannot do things well. They are now becoming showcases for how the Department can do things well. We have melded non-system-related work, business process improvements, Lean Six Sigma, into the Business Transformation Office and the Business Transformation Agency--again, with Deputy Secretary England's leadership. This is now driving process change, continuous incremental improvement. We deliver to the Congress an Enterprise Transition Plan. We do that every 6 months. We deliver an update with 6-month incremental, measurable objectives. We have hit on average 83 percent--over 80 percent of those objectives for the past 2 years. That is significant forward progress in our efforts. Our goal is to have that sustained. We believe we have taken steps to make this sustainable. The Business Transformation Agency is led by a career Senior Executive Service (SES) recruited to take on that job and carry it forward beyond this Administration. It is staffed with world-class people. We have worked with the services to embed these cultures into the services as well. Is this enough? As our overseers, you must judge this. I know Mr. Walker has a great deal of passion for this subject, as does Mr. Johnson, in terms of ensuring the progress that we have made, which we do not argue is complete or adequate. It will never be adequate to the mission. Is it sufficient today, or are there additional organizational steps to be taken? And I am sure today we will have a good discussion about that. I thank you for your time, and I look forward to receiving your questions. Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Brinkley. We do have questions for you, and right now, Senator Voinovich, I am looking forward to two rounds of questions. Senator Voinovich. OK. Senator Akaka. So let me begin by directing this to Comptroller General David Walker. Management structures and challenges at all agencies are of concern to me and to many of us, not just those at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and DOD. Can you discuss some of the challenges that you have encountered in your review that highlight the need for a Chief Management Officer (CMO) in agencies other than DHS and DOD? Mr. Walker. Yes. As I said before, I believe that every department and agency needs to have a designated CMO or COO. But I also believe that when you apply the individual facts and circumstances to the criteria that I outlined and that are included in the report, a significant majority of the agencies can just designate an existing official, for example, the Deputy Secretary. Now, I think it is important that when the President appoints Deputy Secretaries, that person keep in mind that if that is going to be the position that is going to be the COO/ CMO position, it is to make sure that the person has the right type of background and qualifications in order to be effective and in order to be credible in the eyes of not just political appointees but career civil servants with regard to that categorization. I think there are some--and, in fact, I would argue a few-- departments and agencies where the task is so great because of the number of high-risk areas, because of the complexity of the business transformation process, and because of other factors-- and I guess one factor I would mention with regard to the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence--is we are currently, ``at war.'' And we are likely to remain so for an indefinite period of time. And there are serious management challenges that have to be faced in those entities with very large stakes and consequences not with regard just to fiscal issues but human lives. And in most cases, you will find that the Deputy, whoever the Deputy is, has to be the alter ego to the Secretary, has to focus on some policy issues, and has some ceremonial duties. Deputy Secretary England is out of the country today, and I am sure for good reason. But the fact of the matter is that there are some situations where the stakes are so high, the risks are so great, that we need somebody focused. My view is it is not necessarily a Deputy Secretary. I think the Defense Business Board may have gotten it right--of which I sit on as an ex officio member and so does Clay Johnson. I think they may have gotten it right with regard to the Defense Department by saying a Principal Under Secretary of Defense, a Level 2 official reporting to the Deputy Secretary, focused on business transformation, with a Deputy CMO who would be there to work with them, I think they may have gotten it right. But those would be my thoughts, Mr. Chairman. Senator Akaka. Thank you. Mr. Johnson, accountability for management reforms at agencies is essential. I believe that it would be one of the benefits of having the responsibility for agency management placed in the hands of one CMO at a high level in a Federal agency. Do you believe that there is currently one person at a high level in each agency who is held accountable for management and transformation issues? Mr. Johnson. Yes, and it varies by agency who that person is and at what level. The Department of Education, for instance, the person that is in charge of managing the Education Department is Secretary Spellings, and everybody understands how focused she is on it. There was a person that works for her who is not a PAS. He is, actually, I think a SES who used to work for Dell Computer, who runs all the management piece. He is a representative on the President's Management Council, and everybody knows that he is focusing on management issues, the PMA part, performance improvement and so forth, on behalf of the Secretary. Everybody understands that. He does not need a title, he does not need Senate confirmation to have the stroke he needs at the Department of Education to get done what they need to get done. So it is a function of how committed the head of the agency is and is there somebody there to do the legwork, to pull the information together, to communicate, to make sure that those four things that I talked about exist, clear definitions of what we are trying to achieve, what our goals are--a clear plan, reasonably aggressive plan for getting there, time frames and so forth; clear accountability, who is responsible for which pieces; and clear reminders, consistent reminders that this is important, the Secretary, the head person wants this to happen. And Hudson LaForce is the person that does this. So he would be designated the Chief Management Officer, I guess, or what we would call the Performance Improvement Officer. There is somebody like that in every agency. One of the things that our Executive order that went out, unrelated to this hearing and these other considerations of a second Deputy at DOD, is to try to institutionalize a little bit the support structure that exists in every agency and try to clarify formally from the President what we expect every agency to do, what kind of capabilities that support structure is supposed to have. So we are in the process now of formalizing it, but it exists on an informal basis now in every agency. Senator Akaka. Thank you. Mr. Brinkley, DOD has been working hard at business transformation in its Enterprise Transition Plan (ETP). How will the designation of the Deputy Secretary as CMO improve the implementation of the ETP at the Department? Mr. Brinkley. Well, in the near term, as I mentioned, Deputy Secretary England has been acting as the CMO, so it is a bit of business as usual for the duration of this term. The new designation does not change his day-to-day engagement and drive, which has really made all the progress to date possible. Our intent in that designation is that the next Deputy Secretary, there will be an enterprise transition that will be published in September 2008 that will include milestones and deliverables that will go through 2009 and 2010, and that this designation will help clarify that the next Deputy Secretary takes ownership. It is a hand-off at that point, and the Congress and its oversight will be able to hold the next Administration accountable for things that are not political in nature but are simply ongoing management improvements. And so I believe the designation of CMO is more of a transitional support mechanism to ensure that there is not a dropped ball in that hand-off, and that was the intent. Senator Akaka. Before I turn the questions over to Senator Voinovich, may I call on Mr. Walker for any further comment. Mr. Walker. I would just like to quickly have a follow-up on Mr. Brinkley's comments. I agree with what he said. The designation of Gordon England as CMO is business as usual. Now, don't take me wrong. I think Gordon England has done a great job, and Paul Brinkley has done a commendable job. I think a number of people are doing very good work. But it is business as usual. It is form over substance. Second, Gordon England is gone at noon on January 20, 2009. And it would be interesting to know how many of the key players in Business Transformation are also gone on January 20 at noon in 2009. That is part of the problem. We need to recognize the reality that these are very challenging and difficult efforts that take years to be able to accomplish, and there has got to be a reasonable degree of continuity at the right level. The Defense Department is one of the most hierarchical organizations in the world. If you are in the military, you wear your rank on your shoulder or on your sleeve. If you are not in the military, your rank is known, whether you are a Presidential appointee, Senate confirmation; Presidential appointee; career civil servant; and if so, what level you are in the Executive Schedule. And, believe me, it makes a difference within the Pentagon. I have talked with many people that are there today and that have been there before. Rank matters. And, yes, having the Secretary's support is critically important. But then, again, who is the next Secretary going to be? And are they going to care about management issues? We can go back to several past Secretaries over a number of Administrations. Some of them have cared about these issues, and some of them have not. And that is how it is likely to be in the future. Senator Akaka. Before I call on Senator Voinovich, let me ask Mr. Johnson for any further comment. Mr. Johnson. Two comments in response to Mr. Walker's comments. If the Secretary does not care about transforming the Department of Defense, it will never happen. I do not care whether you have got four deputies or eight deputies. I do not care who is the person under the Secretary. If the Secretary does not want it to happen, it is not going to happen. That is point one. Second, what is not gone on January 20, 2009, at noon, is the plan, the definition of success, the action steps and time frame by which the Defense Department is going to implement that plan to achieve the goals, which are designed to be accomplished, achieved in some cases a couple years, in some cases 10 years, 8 years, 6 years--the plan. And what is also not going to be gone on January 20, 2009, is every SES manager involved in that transformation effort will have in their performance goals for that year, taken through the end of the fiscal year, September 30, 2009, their part of the implementation of the transformation plan. They will be evaluated by their career employees, by their career bosses, as to did they do this past year what they said they were going to do as part of their effort, the effort to transform the Department. So it is not true that all accountability, all focus on transformation at DOD stops on January 20, 2009. It is just not true. Senator Akaka. Senator Voinovich. Senator Voinovich. I was mayor of Cleveland for 10 years and governor of Ohio for 8 years, and we undertook some significant systemic changes, and I can tell you it took 5 to 7 years for us to solve some of our key challenges. If you look at GAO's high-risk list, wouldn't you conclude, particularly at the Defense Department, so many issues on the high-risk list that someone ought to look at the way the Department is being managed to determine how the changes necessary are going to get made? Mr. Brinkley, how long have you been with the Defense Department? Mr. Brinkley. Since August 2004. Senator Voinovich. August 2004, and you will be one of those that will be gone on June 20? Mr. Brinkley. January 20, 2009. I believe noon, yes. Senator Voinovich. It would seem to me that the Defense Department would want to do everything in their power to make sure that your good work and Ken Krieg's good work continue and that the baton is not dropped during the transition. And Mr. Walker is right, hopefully Congress will pay more attention to the quality of the individuals nominated for key positions. But what I have observed is that there is sort of a revolving door, and if you would compare the way you run the Defense Department to IBM or some other major corporation, I think you would have to surmise that we are not designed to get the job done. That is why I think that having someone that has the qualities of Gordon England that would be signed off by both Republicans and Democrats and have a term. They would know they would have a term which would give them some confidence that they will have enough time to get the job done, which is real important when you hire someone. And you are going to need a pretty special person because they are probably giving up a job in the private sector that is paying them twice what they would get if they came to work for the Defense Department, someone that would command the respect of people who are in the civil service there. I fail to understand why you do not think it is good policy to have someone that would be in that position to guarantee that the work that you and Ken Krieg have done is carried out. Mr. Brinkley. Thank you, sir. Well, first of all, to your point, myself, my team, no one feels more strongly about making sure that the things we have done are sustainable. It has been an underpinning of every decision we have made in terms of how we have structured reports, how we have structured management processes. It always is about how can we sustain given the constraints we operate with in government and given that, unlike the IBMs and the General Electrics and the companies of the world, we undergo no less than every 4 years a major turnover in many tiers of the leadership of the organization. That is a constraint that creates a huge amount of challenge for any Federal entity. And so the steps we have taken have been in many respects to try to create exactly what you have described. They are necessary steps. They were things that had we not done and a CMO or someone, a new appointee, had come in, I believe that person would have done as one of their first undertakings. The question about structure, there are many principled arguments about why creating a new structure, codifying it legislatively in this particular arena can be disadvantageous to the Department of Defense. I will only speak about the Department of Defense. They come on several fronts. The first is just the classic Executive Branch sense that we need the flexibility to structure ourselves according to the designations of the Cabinet Secretaries who are put in charge, and anything you do to create more structure legislatively removes flexibility in terms of their ability to organize. So there is an Executive Branch viewpoint that takes hold. The second is a managerial one, one that I tend to understand, and sometimes I swing back and forth in my agreement with. Business management, the best, most effective change you can drive is when the people who live with the operational outcome are very actively involved in the work. In the case of the Department of Defense, we have an Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics organization, Ken Krieg; we have a Finance organization, Under Secretary Jonas; a Personnel and Readiness organization, Under Secretary Chu. Those individuals, active, ongoing, sense of ownership, sense of responsibility for driving change in their space is extremely important to them. They feel that it is a part of their day-to-day operations. So one of the biggest concerns we have, which I think is somewhat legitimate among those organizations, is another management official who suddenly is responsible for change, strictly focusing on change, removes some of their sense of accountability for driving things. There is a tension, a healthy tension, between operational leaders driving change versus some central organization, headquarters function driving change. That is another aspect to this. So when you see the debate, it is not a resistance or a lack of understanding that we want to see our progress sustained. It is a debate about whether the steps that have been taken are sufficient. Are there additional steps that have to be taken? I will make my last comment on the high-risk list. I think you can divide the high-risk list into two categories: Things that we can justifiably look at and say these should be off the high-risk list at some point in the near future because we need to aggressively address the management shortcomings that place them here. Then there are some that I can tell you now I would be concerned as an American citizen if they ever come off the high-risk list. Supply chain management is going to evolve at a pace that will always outstrip government. We will never see supply chain management in government, especially in the war- fighting arena, match what a world-class logistics company can do. There is a different set of objectives, a different set of performance measures, and a different pace. It always should be seen as high-risk. We always need to maintain a high degree of discipline on this. Weapons systems acquisition, business systems modernization, financial management--these are things that the pace of technology change is always going to outstrip government. Keeping a full court press, to use a sports metaphor, on these areas I think is something that is going to happen in an ongoing way. And so thinking of them this way I think is important as well. Senator Voinovich. I would like to ask Mr. Walker to comment about what Mr. Brinkley just said. Is the Federal Government organized to take on our 21 Century challenges? Is the Senate organized to take on the challenges of the 21 Century? Obviously, the American people do not think that those of us that are in the Legislative Branch are doing a very good job. Our numbers are as low as they have ever been. So, mea culpa, we have to look at our own operations ourselves. But at the same time, we have an obligation to continue to push for good management in the Executive Branch. Mr. Walker. First, I agree with Mr. Johnson that if you do not have a Secretary who is supportive of the transformation effort, you are not going to be successful. They may or may not have much interest in it. They may or may not have as much background in it. They may or may not spend much time on it. But they have to at least be supportive, and I think that is important. So I agree with that. Second, I believe that every person that Paul Brinkley mentioned by name is a Presidential appointee who will be gone at noon on January 20, 2009. Third, this Administration has a plan, and it should be commended for that plan. There is a lot of good work that Mr. Brinkley and others have done, Secretary England has done; they should be commended for that. But it is this Administration's plan, and it is yet to be determined whether and to what extent the next Administration will accept that plan. Every Administration has had their management initiatives. The last Administration has Reinventing Government under the Vice President. That was not embraced. Then the Administration changed. Each Administration came up with their own approach, and this Administration came up with the President's Management Agenda, and I think it is a very good approach. It has a lot of conceptual merit, and I think it has made a lot of progress. So one cannot presume that the plan is going to be embraced by the next set of players because you have a whole change in leadership. And, yes, there are incredibly capable career civil servants in the Defense Department and every agency of government, but they also know it is their job to take the lead from the political appointees. And we do not know who they are going to be. We do not know what background we are going to have. We do not know what interests they are going to have. We do not know how long it is going to take them to get appointed. And we do not know how long they are going to stay, because I have been a Presidential appointee for President Ronald Reagan, President George Herbert Walker Bush, and President William Jefferson Clinton, and political appointees are temporary help. They are good people, but they are temporary help. Senator Voinovich. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson. First of all, let me respond to a couple of comments. Senator Voinovich, you were talking to Mr. Brinkley about why wouldn't you want a second Deputy, a term position, whatever, who could guarantee this and that and so forth. No one person can guarantee anything, so I think it is unrealistic to expect that the silver bullet is this person, and then all of a sudden DOD starts working like a Swiss watch. You referred several times to that it has not gotten done yet. We are talking about this, but it has not gotten done yet. Well, let me say what has gotten done. There is for the first time ever, for each one of the DOD high-risk list items, a clear definition of success, a clean plan for accomplishing it, clear definitions of accountability, and it is being made clearer and more emphatic than ever before how important it is that we get this done. GAO has signed off on the plan, on the definitions of success. GAO has signed off on the action plans and the reasonable levels of aggressiveness for accomplishing them. Your staff has been involved in this. You have agreed, your staff has agreed on the definitions of success for these items and the time frame in which they are to be accomplished. So I do not know how much better those plans would be with the second term deputy than they are now. But that is new stuff. That has not existed before. It is because the current leadership, the current structure at DOD is committed to make it happen. The current ``M'' in OMB is committed to make it happen. And we have worked together to do so, to collaborate on this. You have talked about where there is no argument, there is no support for continuing to do it the way we have done it before. We are not doing it the way we have done it before. The organization that Paul and Beth McGrath and their team have at DOD has not existed before. The attention being paid to this at DOD has not existed before. I do not know what previous Presidents did within the DOD or within the ``M'' part of OMB, but they did not do a very good job of it; otherwise, we would not be working on what we are working on now. And I would suggest it was not--it is not because there was or was not-- there was not a second deputy at DOD. I would suggest to you that nobody was ever held accountable. Congress never held DOD accountable, the ``M'' part of OMB never held anybody accountable for actually reducing the risk in these areas, for actually causing programs to be more effective. There are lots of mechanisms that exist to increase the level of accountability for addressing all these issues that we want addressed. A second deputy is not one of those significant pieces of the pie, slices of the pie that can ensure accountability. It has got to come from the head of the agency, and it has to come from Congress. You asked me one time, on January 20, is it going to be clear to you what DOD is working on, all agencies? And so when the next bunch comes in here, are you going to have to start all over with them, or are they going to have a clear idea about what is in place and what the career staff is being held accountable for accomplishing? And I told you then--which is still true--there will be a clear definition of what all the career employees are working on at DOD to transform the Defense Department. And they will be committed to continue to work on those things for the 4 months, 6 months, 8 months before their political leaders are in place. Momentum will not stop at noon on January 20. Effort will continue to take place. The new Administration can come in. They inherit that plan. They can change it. They can tell you they do not want to transform DOD. I bet you you do not let them. They can tell you they want to go slower than the current plan calls for. I bet you you do not let them. They have that option, but there is--and maybe they come in and they say, ``I have got an even better plan. We should do this faster than that.'' And I bet you you let them do that. But having a person there that says this is the plan, this is the only plan, and this is as good as this plan can get, to expect that that second deputy is going to be the insurance, the guarantee that the plan is absolutely the best that it can ever be, is unrealistic, I think, an unrealistic expectation for them. Senator Voinovich. I am sure there are other people that sat in your shoes, and Mr. Brinkley's, and said the same thing 8 or 10 years ago. Mr. Johnson. Ask GAO if the plans that exist now are to their satisfaction for the transformation of DOD. Senator Voinovich. Mr. Chairman, from my perspective, I would feel a lot more comfortable if I knew there was someone at DOD and DHS that would remain in place during and after the transition. We are not looking for that. We are looking for someone that can say to the team, ``You guys have done a great job. I am here. We are going to work together. We are going to keep going on this thing.'' And as the new people come in, talk to them about it, get their points of view about things. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Akaka. You are very welcome. Mr. Johnson, as the leader of President Bush's transition team, you saw firsthand the difficulties of transitioning to a new Administration. Now, having a senior-level official that could overlap between Administrations by serving in a term appointment could be very helpful to the continuity of agency operations during these sometimes turbulent times. What harm do you see in establishing a term appointment for a CMO at a senior-level position? Mr. Johnson. That is a very good question. In other words, instead of why, why not? I can think of two things: One, what Paul Brinkley was talking about, which is you have Chief Financial Officer, Tina Jonas; you have the Chief Personnel person, David Chu, you have the Acquisition, Technology position, that was Ken Krieg; and I do not know the current person in that position. They have two bosses. They have the Secretary--the Deputy Secretary in terms of operational responsibility, and then they have another boss over here under the transformation responsibilities. And what if there is a conflict? What if they have a conflicting direction from those two people? How is that conflict resolved? It is lack of clarity, which is problematic, significantly problematic, I believe. If David Chu is trying to reform--if Tina Jonas is trying to reform--do management of the financials of the Defense Department, and at the same time she is trying to work out budget matters and funding for the war and so forth and so on, what is she responsible for, what is this management person over here responsible for? It is lack of clarity, and lack of clarity is death in a large organization--in any size organization, but the larger it is, the more death-like it is. The second thing is that when you put a term position on somebody, it is like putting a term position on an Inspector General. I think you lessen the level of accountability, because if they are not performing up to speed and they cannot be removed except for committing a crime, that person is not held as accountable as the person that serves at the will of whomever. And we want the Management Officer in an agency to be really accountable. So those are the two reasons, the two problems that I think exist with the structure that is being proposed. I think the greater of those two is the one that Mr. Brinkley articulated well. Senator Akaka. Thank you. Mr. Walker, the provisions in the 9/11 Commission bill and the defense authorization conference report establishing CMOs at DHS and DOD do not require a term appointment. You discussed the importance of this issue at length in your testimony. What can agencies do to ensure that a CMO is still effective even if they are not in place for a term appointment of 5 to 7 years? Mr. Walker. Well, first, you have to focus on the qualifications for the person. You have to make sure that you are picking the right type of person for the job. Second, clearly you need to have a plan, but authoritative literature for change management and transformation says that 90 percent of success or failure is implementation. It is not having a plan. It is implementation of the plan, and that involves people, process, technology, and environment, among other things. So the person has to be the right kind of person with the right kind of skills and knowledge. There needs to be a plan. There need to be accountability mechanisms. And I would argue that one of those accountability mechanisms ought to be a performance contract. The whole purpose of this transformation leader is to improve performance, and so I think it is critically important that they and others have some type of performance contract. Let me mention one last thing on the term, Mr. Chairman. There are ways to deal with concerns that I have heard about the term appointment. It is one thing if you say you have a 5- or 7-year term. It is another thing to say that you cannot be removed except for certain reasons. Now, there are reasons why I think restrictions on removal from accountability slots make sense. That means the Comptroller General slot, which I have, or Inspector Generals, because a lot of people do not like accountability and you are supposed to be independent. So I think one could make an argument that there might be some grounds that would have to exist for removal for those types of slots. But for this slot I feel differently. For this slot, it is a management operational slot, and one could provide the ability to remove, for a variety of reasons--non- performance, incompatibility. The reason that you need a term is so that hopefully the person is making a commitment when they come in such that if everything works out okay, they can expect to stay that length of time, but possibly to be able to say that if for some reason they are not performing or for some reason there is incompatibility or some reason like that, just have an advanced notification to the Congress to say that the Secretary intends to terminate this person for the following reason. Just advance notification. I think that could end up bridging one of the concerns that we have heard expressed about a term appointment. Senator Akaka. Mr. Brinkley, I have a lot of respect for Deputy Secretary England. I really do. No question he is a capable leader, and I am glad to see that DOD named him the Department's CMO. His appointment brings accountability and priority of management, I believe, to the right level. However, Comptroller General Walker has testified that a second CMO position is needed because the Deputy Secretary already has too many other demands to focus the necessary attention on business transformation. How would you respond to that concern, Mr. Brinkley? Mr. Brinkley. Two thoughts. First, the empowerment present--and Mr. Walker outlined it earlier. The Department of Defense is a hierarchical organization. It is exceedingly attuned to where power resides and where authority resides, both in the civilian and in the uniformed military sides of the Department. And so it is the fact that the Deputy Secretary has such a weight of responsibility that gives him the authority people look to. If something serious is happening, the Deputy Secretary is behind it. Separating, creating a separate function, particularly a second deputy, I believe would cripple that area, management reform, in terms of having it have the perceived weight. The Department's mission is to secure the Nation. One of the things we have tried to embed in the way the Department thinks and we see firsthand now in Iraq is the business operations of the Department service and support, and must service and support seamlessly, the war-fighting mission of the Department. Three years ago, when I joined the Department, it did not think that way. It was very hard to get people focused on the war-fighting mission of the Department to talk about the business mission of the Department. They were divided in separate mission areas. And you could see the most important, most powerful people in the Department focused their energy, necessarily, on the war-fighting mission of the Department. That is where the primary mission of the Department exists. Having this awareness, having the two be seen as uniform, integrated, economic effects that we are driving in Iraq today as a result of leveraging our business operations in support of troops on the ground, these are things that are causing these two mission areas to become seamlessly integrated. The concern is that if you create a second deputy, that implicit power structure that everyone looks to, they look above, where does power reside, where is the significance in terms of decisionmaking present, that understanding would be at least temporarily lost, perhaps could be re-created as management reform and a powerful individual were placed in the position. So that would be the concern on a second deputy. Another thought I would like to reflect on is regarding the point the Comptroller General made a moment ago, which is about a termed appointment or not. Honestly, I think the only argument that resonates with everyone that we all feel and I have shared with you is how do we ensure we sustain beyond. If the decisions about Chief Management Officers or Deputy Chief Management--whatever the decision is--does not include a structure that ensures a carryover between Administrations, then I think it loses, in my opinion, the only meritorious argument that exists. It is just creating another position inside the Department of Defense that is going to have to be staffed. That is my personal opinion. It loses a lot of weight and merit. That is my only comment. Senator Akaka. Yes, Mr. Walker? Mr. Walker. I think what Paul Brinkley is saying is the term may be one of the things that is necessary if you are going to have something. But, I do not know, he can speak for himself on that. Continuity is important, no matter what level the position is or what type of position. I have actually had dual deputies before. This is not some theoretical construct from my standpoint. I used to be head of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. I used to be head of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, and I had two deputies. One of them focused on policy and external matters. One of them focused on operations, enforcement, and internal matters. And it worked great, and there was not any confusion about who was responsible for what. In one case, the deputy that was focused on operational and internal matters was a political appointee; in one case, they were a career official. In both cases, they had the right type of professional qualifications in order to be capable and credible, if you will. Now, one of the concerns that I have, Mr. Chairman--and I will just leave it at this--is I think this has been overly focused on the Department of Defense. And as I said before--and I do not mean by you. I am just talking about the discussion that we have had. I have already acknowledged that I think that the Defense Business Board probably had it right. Don't create another deputy. Create a Principal Under Secretary for Management and look at some of that, because just having dual deputies can create some confusion. At the same point in time, I think there is a bigger issue here that I would just like to put on the table for you to think about and we can cover later. I think there are three kinds of Presidential appointee positions in government right now, and we need to think about treating them differently. The first is a policy position, which clearly the President ought to have discretion who they appoint, the Senate might confirm, but they serve at the pleasure of the President because they are executing the President's policy. The second is an operational management position where you want to pick somebody who is primarily based on their professional competence. It has got to be politically acceptable. It has got to go through a process. But you are picking him primarily in professional competence, and in certain circumstances it may make sense for them to have a term appointment, but that is the exception to the rule. And the third is adjudication and oversight--judges, Inspectors General, the Comptroller General of the United States, etc., where you want to pick primarily for professional competence but you also have to make sure that you have independence. The thing I would put on the table for a separate discussion at a later date is to take a look at that, because we need to be focusing more than just the Department of Defense. We need to be focusing broader and not just on the CMO but a range of basic management positions that exist that frankly are not likely to get filled very quickly in the next Administration. Senator Akaka. Well, I want to thank you very much for your comments and your statements. I know we can go on and discuss the subject today, but improving the management of human capital, financial management, and business transformation needs to be a higher priority throughout the Federal Government. Establishing CMOs may be a part of the answer. We may need to look at legislation that would establish CMOs at each Federal agency, not just DOD and DHS, and bring greater accountability and focus to strategic management issues. It might also be helpful to have a mechanism in place to allow CMOs to share best practices and work together through a coordinated effort by OMB to ensure effective management at Federal agencies and to set maybe a policy on this. So these are some things to think about, and as you say, Mr. Walker, at another time we can further discuss these. But I want to thank all of our witnesses so much for their testimony and their answers. We may have additional questions for the record, and I look forward to working with all of you on this important issue. I want to wish all of you happy holidays, and I look forward to seeing you again next year. This hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X ---------- [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.000 1[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.000 2[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.000 3[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.000 4[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.000 5[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.000 6[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.000 7[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.000 8[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.000 9[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.001 0[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.001 1[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.001 2[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.001 3[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.001 4[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.001 5[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.001 6[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.001 7[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.001 8[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.001 9[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.002 0[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.002 1[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.002 2[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.002 3[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.002 4[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.002 5[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.002 6[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.002 7[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.002 8[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.002 9[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.003 0[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.003 1[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.003 2[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.003 3[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.003 4[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.003 5[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0509.092