U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

20–173 PDF 2005

S. Hrg. 109–7

TRANSFORMING GOVERNMENT FOR THE

21ST CENTURY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

FEBRUARY 16, 2005

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas

MICHAEL D. BOPP, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

TOM ELDRIDGE, Senior Counsel 

DON BUMGARDNER, Professional Staff Member 

JOYCE A. RECHTSCHAFFEN, Minority Staff Director and Counsel 

DAVID BERICK, Minority Professional Staff Member 

AMY B. NEWHOUSE, Chief Clerk 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statement: Page 

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 1

Senator Lieberman ........................................................................................... 3

Senator Coburn ................................................................................................. 5

Senator Lautenberg .......................................................................................... 6

Senator Pryor .................................................................................................... 21

WITNESS 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2005

Hon. David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, U.S. Government Accountability Office ............................................................................. 8

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29

APPENDIX

Charts submitted by Mr. Walker ........................................................................... 62

Responses to questions for the Record for Mr. Walker from: 

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 67

Senator Lieberman ........................................................................................... 75

(1)

TRANSFORMING GOVERNMENT FOR THE 

21ST CENTURY 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2005

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Susan M. Collins, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Collins, Lieberman, Coburn, Lautenberg, and 

Pryor. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN COLLINS 

Chairman COLLINS. The Committee will come to order. Good 

morning. 

This Committee often holds hearings exposing wasteful or even 

fraudulent government spending as part of its oversight responsibility. 

Today, however, we are taking a broader look at what government should do and how government should deliver services in the 

21st Century. 

As the title of this hearing—Transforming Government for the 

21st Century—indicates, we are not here to look at where we are 

or where we have been. This is about where we need to go and how 

to get there. It is about questioning the very premises of programs 

that have often changed very little from when they were first 

launched decades ago. It is about accountability and effectiveness. 

All of us here can easily remember a time not very long ago 

when mention of the 21st Century evoked images of a future that 

was either dazzling or depressing. Now that we are in the 21st 

Century, we find that it is neither the Jetsons nor the Matrix. 

The great changes we must deal with, the new threats that have 

emerged with the end of the cold war, the globalized economy, demographic trends, and the advancement of technology were underway long before Y2K. 

The key to this hearing then is not the phrase 21st Century but 

the word ‘‘transforming,’’ one of the most dynamic words in our language. The great changes of recent decades and the myriad other 

changes they draw in their wake have been accumulating and accelerating over many years. In response, government has all too 

often moved at what can charitably be described as the speed of 

government. 

2

1 A copy of the report, ‘‘21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal Government,’’ GAO–05–325SP, February 2005, is retained in the files of the Committee, or may be 

obtained through the U.S. Government Accountability Office. 

The GAO report we will discuss today is an excellent place to 

begin this transformation and I want to commend the Comptroller 

General and his staff for embarking upon this study. Like this 

Committee, the GAO is going beyond its customary role by opening 

this important discussion. 

The title of the GAO report that we are releasing today is ‘‘21st 

Century Questions: Reexamining the Base of Government.’’ 1 This 

report is not an exercise in imagining the future. It is the direct 

result of the GAO’s fiscal oversight duties and the sobering realization that our government’s current fiscal policies on both the 

spending and the revenue sides of the ledger cannot be sustained 

in the future we have entered. 

Baby boomers’ retirement, health care, homeland security, national defense, environmental protection and the increasing demands in such areas as energy, transportation, and education are 

but a sampling of the forces that are relentlessly leading our Nation to mounting deficits. 

As this report observes, the concern is not with deficits that result from extraordinary events such as terrorist attacks or shortterm economic downturns. The concern is with long-term escalating 

and persistent deficits that will diminish the standard of living and 

the security of Americans for generations to come. 

This report is presented in the form of questions. They cover virtually every function of the Federal Government. They range from 

broad policy objectives to specific inquiries. For example, how best 

to allocate resources across our increasingly integrated yet still discrete Armed Forces? Can transportation grant programs be restructured and consolidated to encourage the creation of efficient intermodal systems? Given the great advances in communications, are 

regional offices still the best way for Federal agencies to serve the 

public? Is having 44 job training programs spread across 9 agencies 

the best way to help our workers adapt to the changing economy? 

These are just some of the questions that GAO raises. 

This question format is appropriate because it is Congress and 

the administration that must provide the answers. There are more 

than 200 questions and they cover a lot of territory. But the overall 

issues can be summed up by these three questions: First, what 

kind of government would we create if we were starting from 

scratch today? Second, since we cannot ignore existing obligations, 

needs, programs and systems, how can we transform government 

without disrupting its ongoing functions? And third, and perhaps 

the most perplexing question of all, how can we change government 

in spite of the entrenched interests that are committed to resisting 

any change? 

All of this sounds daunting. We should be encouraged, however, 

because we have done it before. The structure of our military today 

could not have been imagined during World War II and yet it has 

been transformed dramatically. Program reexamination and restructuring are nothing new, Social Security in 1983, tax reform in 

1986, and welfare reform in 1996 are just a few examples. In the 

aftermath of September 11, we consolidated 22 Federal agencies 

3

into the Department of Homeland Security. And more recently, enacted sweeping intelligence reforms. 

It is time we applied our proven ability to innovate and our 

knowledge of transferring the government to the entire spectrum 

of government itself. 

If you type the words ‘‘challenges of the 21st Century’’ into an 

Internet search engine, you will get tens of thousands of results. 

From hospitals to the hospitality industry, from the news media to 

art museums, from the governments of great economic powers to 

rural school boards. It seems that every organization is reexamining what it does and how it does it in the light of this new millennium. 

Look a little closer and it is clear that there is nothing intrinsic 

about the dawn of the 21st Century that makes reexamination necessary. The striking new look our calendars took on 5 years ago 

was merely a reminder to many that a reexamination is long past 

due. 

One of the great thinkers on the subject of organization and 

management is Peter Drucker, a Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient in 2002. His pre-millennium book, ‘‘Management Challenges 

of the 21st Century,’’ includes a chapter entitled ‘‘Creating Change: 

The Leader’s Task.’’ Here is a quote from that: ‘‘Innovation,’’ he 

said, ‘‘is not a flash of genius. It is hard work.’’

So today we are embarking on the hard work of the innovation 

and transformation. This hearing and this report will get us started. And again, I want to commend the Comptroller General for undertaking this vitally important task. 

Senator Lieberman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LIEBERMAN 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, for 

an excellent, thoughtful opening statement. A great one line there, 

not your most substantive point, but that the 21st Century turned 

out to be neither the Jetsons nor the Matrix. I thought that was 

good. 

Mr. Walker, welcome. This is a very important hearing and I 

thank the Chairman for convening it. The truth is the room ought 

to be packed and the Nation ought to be watching. Maybe some are 

watching through that camera. 

But you are playing a role as a kind of a Paul Revere. And this 

time it is not the British that are coming. It is genuine fiscal failure of the American Government, which will make the future of 

our children and grandchildren, and those of us who are lucky 

enough to be alive, in the not too distant future, much less than 

we want it to be. 

Today Mr. Walker, who has done such an extraordinary job at 

the helm of the now quite appropriately renamed Government Accountability Office, is going to take us beyond the day to day, which 

is to say the kinds of reviews of ongoing Federal programs that 

GAO does such a great job at, to look over the horizon at the enormous fiscal, social and national security obligations that the Federal Government will face and, on the current path, will not be able 

to handle. 

4

This stuff is riveting. Madam Chairman, I had the opportunity—

it is hard to describe it as an opportunity—to hear Mr. Walker do 

something like this to another group a while back. I was just grateful when it was over that all of us were still able to rise from our 

chairs and leave the room because honestly, it goes at the heart of 

America’s normal optimism and particularly hopefulness about the 

future. 

Maybe part of what it says to us is that we have been really optimistic and hopeful about the future, but we have not figured out 

how to pay for it. As a result, some of the consequences are startling. These charts that Mr. Walker will show us soon, says to us 

that by 2040, which is not that far from now, 35 years, just on the 

current path that we are on, and not extending the current tax provisions, including tax cuts, the revenue that at the Federal Government is likely to generate will cover net interest on the debt, Social 

Security and most of, but not all, of Medicare and Medicaid. Nothing for what is the rest of the Federal Government, and a lot of 

stuff that a lot of people really care about: Education, environmental protection, and, I should have started at the beginning, national security, homeland security—the first responsibility of government—to provide for the common defense. 

And as startling as that is, and I feel like we should be screaming this out, if you extended the otherwise expiring tax provisions, 

when we get to 2040, 35 years from now, with the revenue that will 

produced, all we are going to be able to pay for is the projected interest on the debt. I laugh with a certain sense of alarm. No money 

for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or any of the rest of the 

Federal Government. 

The only way we are going to begin to deal with these is by beginning to deal with them, and as soon as possible. We are going 

through, with the President’s leadership if you will, he is challenging us to do something about Social Security because it is not 

sustainable in the long run. 

What Mr. Walker’s statement to us today says, is that the Federal Government, as we know it, is not sustainable in the long run. 

As much as we all care about Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which we surely do, and we have to deal with the enormous 

looming gaps in funding for those programs that are so critical to 

the quality of life of tens of millions of Americans, we also care 

about the rest of the Federal Government—national security, 

homeland security, and education. I repeat housing aid, environmental protection, and national parks. You could go on and on. 

We have to face this and we have to tighten our belts. Obviously, 

one of the consequences of not doing so is that we continue to increase the amount of money we borrow. At some point this puts us 

in real jeopardy in terms of our fiscal credibility, perhaps leading 

to a precipitous slide of the dollar with all of the adverse consequences that we will have for our economy ultimately and probably leading to the loss of an enormous number of jobs in our country. 

But also, of course, we become beholden to foreign purchasers of 

our debt. And in some sense, thereby lose some of the independence 

and authority that we gain as a result of our extraordinary American military. 

5

The final point that I wanted to make is that all of this reminds 

us, I hope it does, that our budget process has broken down here 

in Congress. A series of checks that were set up to try to limit 

spending, or to put it another way, to make sure that spending and 

revenues balance, have just collapsed. There is not a lot of rational 

focused review of spending as we all know. The last 3 or 4 years 

we have had big omnibus appropriations acts come through that 

frankly do not receive much of attention from individual members. 

We need to get back to a better system. 

I say this with a certain grain of salt, but I have felt that we 

ought to go to a system of present value accounting so we can get 

a real long-term sense of what our obligations are as businesses do. 

I say that with a grain of salt this morning because just going to 

2040 is alarming enough and ought to generate action. 

I go back to what I said at the beginning, David Walker is extremely credible for all that he has done for our government. He 

is now saying to us, this country is in danger. We have met the 

enemy and it is us. Therefore, it is up to us to do something about 

it. 

President Bush, in his State of the Union address recently said, 

‘‘we will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our 

problems to other Congress’, other presidents, and other generations.’’

And now, we all need to honor that promise and work together 

to make sure that the events that Mr. Walker projects this morning do not happen. Because if we continue on our current path, 

they will happen and America, this beloved country of ours, will be 

much less than we want it to be for our children, our grandchildren, and for the world. Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator. Senator Coburn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN 

Senator COBURN. Madam Chairman, and Mr. Ranking Member, 

I apologize for being late. 

I just came from the Indian Affairs Subcommittee meeting where 

they are talking about budget items. There are 10 times as many 

people there protecting the turf as there are here looking at the 

long run. I must associate my remarks with yours. Most of what 

you just said is what I ran on just 4 months ago. I think it is really 

important and I am so pleased to have the opportunity to chair a 

Subcommittee. And I hope both our Chairman and Vice Chairman, 

as ex-officio Members of that Committee, will be involved. We have 

to do something. 

My heartache is that things will continue as they have been. It 

does not matter whether it is Democratic leadership or Republican 

leadership. The powers that be, to protect themselves and their interests, deter effective oversight. And we have not done it. We have 

not lived up to our responsibility as a Congress to do the right 

oversight in each and every area. 

I am reminded back: The Grace Commission stipulated that over 

20 percent of everything that the government spent was either defrauded, wasted or abused. And yet, of all of the recommendations 

that were brought forth by that independent commission, two out 

6

of every three that were recommended were never even looked at 

by Congress, never even considered by Congress. 

Also, looking at the chart, and having read a book which I think 

both of you are familiar with, ‘‘Running on Empty,’’ by Peter Peterson, and a lot of his numbers come from your office, sir. The time 

to do something is now, not later. The time to be aggressive is now, 

not later. 

As I look at the numbers that are spent on Medicare and Medicaid—as we see that number from today triple—one out of every 

three dollars that is going to be spent on Medicare and Medicaid 

in 2040 is going to be related to diabetes. And yet, the administration is not leading on that. Nobody is leading on prevention. We 

know that one of two people who will ultimately get diabetes could 

be precluded from that by just a change in the exposure to the 

foods they eat as a child. High fructose corn syrup now has been 

held in two different separate studies to double your lifetime risk 

for diabetes, unrelated to obesity. And yet we have no leadership 

in our country on prevention. Prevention is the thing that is going 

to bring those numbers down. 

We are starting to see some leadership in terms of best practices 

in terms of Medicare and Medicaid, but it is very minimal and not 

aggressive enough. 

I look forward to your testimony. I believe it is incumbent upon 

us, if we really care about the future, and if we want to honor the 

heritage that was given to us, that we fulfill our responsibility of 

being aggressive in terms of oversight. I hope to be a part of that. 

Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you very much. 

I think we should address you as Dr. Coburn in addition to Senator Coburn. I was just saying to Senator Lieberman that I founded the Diabetes Caucus in the Senate several years ago. And at 

that point, one out of four Medicare dollars were being spent treating diabetes. I remember bringing up that issue at Tommy Thompson’s confirmation hearing because an initiative in that area would 

clearly translate not only in improved human health and lives but 

a substantial reduction in health care dollars. So I appreciate 

knowing of your interest in that area. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAUTENBERG 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Madam Chairman and I apologize for my lateness. I should have played follow the leader. I saw 

Senator Lieberman going to another committee that we both sit on, 

and he had advance notice that that was not going to be held for 

2 more weeks. It took me awhile to discover that I was the only 

one in the room. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Senator Lautenberg, when I told him that, 

said he would still go there to sit down so he could be the first to 

speak when the hearing started. [Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. In any event, Madam Chairman, we have 

done a fair number of things together after we got through the getting used to your kind of start. But in any event, important matters come before this Committee and I am pleased to see your leadership on yet another important matter. 

7

Holding this hearing on government accountability, it causes us 

to look at things, I think, in kind of a different way. The telltale, 

if you will, is the budget. I have listened carefully to Senator 

Coburn’s comments, having the background that he has as a physician, has special resonance. 

But when we look at the cost increases in programs like Medicare and Medicaid and what might happen with Social Security if 

we do not deal with the problems there. And I think of the number 

of people who are so dependent on these programs. And those numbers obviously have grown, much to my personal delight as one can 

attest to. 

My father died when he was 43, having contracted cancer in an 

occupational position that was dangerous to his health. But my father, who was 43 when he died, took 13 months to die. My mother 

was 36 years old when he finally passed away. In addition to the 

grief that came from losing a loved one, the enormity of the bills 

that were owed, doctors, hospitals, you name it. There were not the 

sophisticated chemicals or drugs that we have today to help him 

get through. But the costs mounted. 

I had enlisted in the Army with not very good prospects in sight, 

and my ability to go to Columbia University at a cost that was reasonable for even this little family of ours meant an awful lot. I am 

not sure all of my Republican colleagues would agree that this was 

a benefit to the country but here I am, having created a business 

and an industry, the outsourcing industry. I am credited with being 

a pioneer in that industry. 

I look at the benefits of those programs and the embarrassment 

that my dad had when he had to take a job with WPA. His dignity 

was hurt but not so much that he could resist the few dollars a 

week that he could make and help my mother and my little sister 

and me. 

We want to do these things and get them into line. But I think 

the starting point has to be examining the programs fully and realistically and kind of understand where the government fits. As I 

look at some of the commentary that has been available to us, the 

statement from Grover Norquist who is President of Americans for 

Tax Reform. And he said their goal is to shrink government to the 

size where it can be dragged into the bathroom and drowned in the 

bathtub. 

When I think of the people who are dependent on Medicaid or 

disability payments from Social Security, what a terrible thing it 

would be to eliminate those programs when we consider, Madam 

Chairman, the fact that my good fortune in business got me to a 

point where I can afford to take good care of my family and certainly did not need a tax break. 

If that tax break comes at the cost of eliminating someone from 

Medicaid or a disability program, someone who desperately needs 

medical attention and health care, and we start looking at the 

budget first and saying OK, I think we have to look at the thing 

in its entirety. 

I commend you for bringing the question up, and Mr. Walker for 

his exceptional and balanced service to the country. We are glad to 

have you here and to be able to discuss this. 

Sorry I was late and sorry I ran over time here. 

8

1The prepared statement of Mr. Walker appears in the Appendix on page 29. 

2 A copy of the report, ‘‘21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal Government,’’ GAO–05–325SP, February 2005, is retained in the files of the Committee, or may be 

obtained through the U.S. Government Accountability Office. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. 

I would now like to welcome our distinguished witness to the 

hearing. David M. Walker became the seventh Comptroller General 

of the United States and began his 15 year term on November 9, 

1998. 

As all of my colleagues have indicated, we have worked very 

closely on this Committee with the Comptroller General. He has 

done an outstanding job in leading the Government Accountability 

Office and in producing fact-based, nonpartisan reviews of government programs and operations. So we very much look forward to 

hearing your testimony today. 

Thank you, Mr. Walker. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. DAVID M. WALKER,1 COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. WALKER. Thank you, Chairman Collins, Ranking Member 

Lieberman, and other Senators for being here today. 

I appreciate the opportunity to unveil GAO’s latest report: 21st 

Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal Government.2 I understand that each of you have a copy of the report. It 

is being unveiled at this hearing. 

I want to thank this Committee, and the Chairman and Ranking 

Member in particular, but all of the Members of the Committee for 

your support of this effort and for your recognition of the strategic 

importance of the issue which we are going to discuss today. 

It is somewhat ironic, as one of you mentioned, there are a number of competing hearings going on right now. And they all involve 

important players and topics of varying importance. But they are 

all focused on the here and the now. There is not enough focus 

about the future. 

I would respectfully suggest that the contents of this report and 

the subject of this hearing is of more strategic importance and long 

ranging significance to this country than probably any other hearing that will go on today in either body of the Congress. 

So I want to thank all four of you for being here and maybe others will come and join us from time to time. 

The good news is that this is just the beginning. This is the first 

step of what is likely to be a long road involving this Committee, 

other committees, and various other parties over many years in 

order to address our current situation. 

As you know, Senators, the GAO is in three lines of business: 

Oversight, insight, and foresight. Today’s topic is a foresight topic, 

with significant oversight and insight implications. 

I would like to note that it is important to know at the outset 

why we produced this report and why we produced it at this time. 

First, as you know, while most of our work is oversight and insight, 

we have been doing more foresight related work in order to help 

the Congress be in a position to address current and emerging 

trends and challenges before they reach crisis proportions. 

9

1The charts submitted by Mr. Walker appear in the Appendix on pages 62 to 66. 

In doing that, we have drawn upon the extensive amount of work 

that we have done for the Congress over the years, over 90 percent 

of which is either mandated by the Congress or requested by the 

Congress. We also looked at our strategic plan for serving the Congress, which is prepared in conjunction with the Congress. 

And candidly, the reason that we are doing it now is that if you 

look at the results of the financial statement audit for the U.S. 

Government for September 30, 2004, fiscal 2004 was a very bad 

year. We increased our liabilities and unfunded commitments by 

over $13 trillion in 1 year. They went up from $30 trillion to over 

$43 trillion in 1 year, largely due to the Medicare prescription drug 

benefit. And we had a large unified deficit, of which less than 25 

percent had anything to do with Iraq, Afghanistan, and incremental homeland security costs. And yet, we had the strongest economic growth of any major industrialized Nation last year, and 

have not been in a recession for several years. 

But as Chairman Collins mentioned, the important point is not 

as much what happened last year or what is going to happen this 

year. The important point is where are we headed? I think that 

this report makes it very clear that, based upon our work, we are 

headed for very troubled waters if we continue our current course. 

As a result, we must change course or risk doing irreparable harm 

to our ship of state as well as to the future security, standard of 

living and choices that will be made available to our children and 

grandchildren. 

If I can, what I would like to do is show you some of the highlights in the report. I would respectfully request, Chairman Collins, 

that my entire written statement be included in the record, if it is 

OK with you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Without objection. 

Mr. WALKER. Thank you. 

Understand at the outset, before I go through this, the report 

notes that we are on an unsustainable fiscal path. We must fundamentally review and reexamine what the Federal Government 

does, how the Federal Government does business, and in some 

cases who does the government’s business. It must be comprehensive, involving discretionary spending, mandatory spending and entitlement programs, as well as tax policies. That is the premise. 

It is also important to note that a significant majority, if not a 

vast majority, of the Federal Government, is based upon conditions 

that existed in the 1950’s and the 1960’s. Most current Federal 

Government policies, programs, functions, and activities have never 

been subject to fundamental review and reexamination since they 

were initiated. We have been layering and layering and layering 

with the presumption that the base is OK. Not only is it not OK, 

it is unsustainable. It is important to recognize that reality. 

If I can, this is the first chart.1 I understand that all of these 

have been provided to you. They are also contained in the report. 

The first one is based upon CBO’s baseline protection. We do not 

compete with our sister agency. They do a very good job with what 

they are asked to do. It is also based upon the best estimates of 

the Social Security and Medicare Trustees—of which I used to be 

10

one from 1990 to 1995—regarding what the cost of these programs 

will be. 

But there are three key assumptions that underlie CBO’s projection and are used as an input into this first GAO simulation, that 

I would respectfully suggest are totally unrealistic. First, no new 

laws will be passed. Second, discretionary spending will grow by 

the rate of inflation. And third, that all tax cuts will sunset. And 

actually, let me add a fourth one, that AMT, the alternative minimum tax, will not be fixed. Those are four key assumptions which, 

by the way, CBO is required by law to make. And I would respectfully suggest those are unrealistic assumptions and so this is an 

optimistic scenario. 

But even under this optimistic scenario, you can see that we face 

large and growing structural deficits due primarily to known demographic trends and rising health care costs. 

If we can, let us take the next chart. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Excuse me, for a quick question. What kind 

of economic growth do the CBO numbers assume for the country 

over that period of time? 

Mr. WALKER. On the out years they assume economic growth, I 

think, of about 1.8 to 2 percent real GDP growth. However, I will 

provide the exact number for the record. The reason, primarily, is 

because of slow work force growth, because we have a significant 

reduction in work force growth that is expected to continue. The 

bottom line is, let us hope we can get better economic growth than 

that. But I think you will see from the next chart, there is no way 

we are going to grow our way out of this problem, reinforcing the 

importance of today’s report. 

The next chart. There are only two differences between this simulation and the last one, as Senator Lieberman touched on. Discretionary spending grows by the rate of the economy rather than inflation. And, that all tax cuts are made permanent. 

I am not saying that is good, bad, or indifferent. I am just giving 

you the numbers. The fiscal future on this scenario is that the Federal Government will be able to do little more than pay interest on 

our large and mounting Federal debt. In fact, the simulation model 

blows up in the 2040’s under this scenario. 

These are obviously both unacceptable paths. A likely scenario is 

probably somewhat in between these two bookends. Both of which 

are unacceptable and unsustainable. We need to do something 

about it. Next chart please. 

This report attempts to take the strategic themes that are in our 

strategic plan for serving the Congress, which have been developed 

in conjunction with the Congress. These are themes that have no 

geopolitical boundaries. They are global trends. They are trends affecting the Federal, State, local governments, the public sector, private sector, and not-for-profit sector. Long-range fiscal challenges, 

I have shared with you some of those. Changing security threats 

in a post-cold war environment and increasing global interdependence. The changing nature of the economy, moving to a knowledge 

age rather than an industrial age. Demographic shifts, rapid 

changes in science and technology and a variety of quality of life 

issues, such as education, work, family, the environment, and 

urban sprawl. Also changing governance structures where more 

11

and more issues have to be handled on a global basis like fighting 

infectious diseases, and protecting the homeland. These have to be 

fought on a global basis, not just here at home. As well as more 

and more issues have to be dealt with Federal, State and local as 

well as public, private, and not-for-profit sector involvement. 

Next chart please. 

We build off of our strategic themes because they are grounded 

in our work for the Congress and in our strategic plan that has 

been accepted by the Congress. We have a number of generic questions in the report. 

Such things as when did we create this program or policy? Why 

did we create this program or policy? What were the conditions 

that existed at the time? What were we trying to accomplish? How 

do we measure success on an outcome basis? Are we successful 

based upon such measures? How has the world changed since 

then? Should the program be reviewed, reconsidered, revised, reengineered or eliminated even based upon those changes? What 

priority is it for today and tomorrow? Are we using best practices? 

These are very basic questions but I would respectfully suggest 

they have not been asked and answered for a vast majority of the 

Federal Government. 

And it is not just the spending side. It is also tax preferences. 

In many years, the total cost of tax preferences exceeds total discretionary spending. And yet, they are off the radar screen. Total 

tax preferences in many years exceed total discretionary spending, 

the biggest and the fastest-growing tax preference being health 

care. Next chart please. 

We then look at these themes, which are on the horizontal axis, 

and we looked at a vertical axis—such as defense, education, transportation—these are self-explanatory, to see how these trends converge with the different departments and agencies and functional 

areas within the Federal Government. Typically, committees are 

structured on the vertical axis rather than from a horizontal dimension. This Committee, fortunately, has a lot of horizontal responsibility and authority. 

Then, next chart, what we then attempted to do is to pull the 

vertical and horizontal dimensions together to show how they interrelate. For example, when you are talking about demographics, you 

have to talk about things like Social Security, the labor force, private pensions, disability programs, and health care. Next chart 

please. 

When you are talking about increasing global interdependence, 

you have to talk about such issues as financial regulation, domestic 

subsidies, and the structure of our tax system. Next chart please. 

When you are talking about a knowledge-based economy on 

which our competitive posture and economic growth is based upon 

having the best people, we cannot compete on wages. We have to 

compete based upon productivity, quality, and innovation. 

On this dimension, you have to look at immigration policy and 

workforce policy and retraining, research and development and 

whether or not we are generating enough personal savings to be 

able to finance our own needs. As you know, and I think Senator 

Lieberman was the one that mentioned it, we are relying to an increasing extent on foreign investors to finance our consumption and 

12

our deficits. To a certain extent, we cede part of our own destiny 

by doing that. That is not risk-free, by doing that. Next chart 

please. 

Changing security threats and defense resource allocations. What 

type of force do we need? What type of footprint do we need? What 

type of information sharing must we have in order to maximize deterrent and respond to adverse events? Next chart please. 

And then from a governance standpoint, issues like the need for 

national performance indicators. Believe it or not, this country does 

not have a strategic plan. It does not have a performance plan. And 

it does not even have a set of key national indicators to measure 

where we stand, how we are doing over time, and how we compare 

with others. Economic, security, safety, social, and environmental 

indicates. We do not have them. 

We are working with the National Academy of Sciences and the 

OECD to try to help further the development of such standards. 

They could help to inform a strategic plan, enhance performance 

and accountability reporting, and provide a basis for this muchneeded fundamental baseline review and reassessment of the Federal Government. 

In summary, there is little low hanging fruit here. But there is 

tough work that needs to be done. No one single approach will address all of our challenges. Many players will have to be involved 

over a number of years in order to address them. 

I would respectfully suggest this could take as long as a generation to effectively address all of the questions. But we must start 

now because time is working against us. And unlike investments, 

where the miracle of compounding works for you, the miracle of 

compounding is working against us right now because debt on debt 

is not good. 

And last, I would respectfully suggest that our country, children 

and grandchildren are counting on us to not just focus on today but 

to also be good stewards for tomorrow. And that ultimately, it is 

not about numbers. It is about values. What type of country do we 

want to have in the future? What type of country do we want to 

hand over to our children and grandchildren? What choices do we 

want them to be able to make as to what they feel the proper role 

of government should be in the future? How much flexibility are we 

going to provide them? 

I would conclude by saying, Chairman Collins, that you mentioned a very important word. And I think there are three that are 

going to be really important here as we move forward, both for the 

Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch. First, courage. the 

courage to take on these issues. There are a lot of people who are 

vested in the status quo. Change is really tough, especially for a 

monopoly like government that does not change very much. 

Second, integrity. People with integrity who speak the truth, 

state the facts, and tell it like it is. People who want to find out 

what is working and what is not working in order to make informed choices. 

And third, innovation. We are going to have to think outside the 

box. What are we trying to accomplish? How best to accomplish it? 

What is the proper role for the Federal Government? Where should 

the Federal Government be involved because the private sector 

13

cannot or will not do it, the other levels of governments are not 

doing it and therefore we are in a unique position or there is a 

need for us to be able to do it? And how can we partner more? And 

how can we focus more on achieving positive results and concrete 

outcomes? Because in many cases, we do not know what results 

and outcomes we are getting, from the tax preferences, for the discretionary spending, or the mandatory spending. 

As you know, more and more of the budget is on autopilot. Over 

60 percent of the budget is on autopilot and it is going up every 

year. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate you allowing me a 

little bit of extra time because this is an important topic. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you so much for an excellent statement and overview. 

I think most Members of Congress are keenly aware of the fiscal 

challenges that you describe, although when you see the charts, it 

is even more startling in the out years. And in many ways, we are 

like a person who knows that he needs to go on a diet and yet just 

cannot seem to start. 

That makes me wonder whether we need changes in the budget 

process to help us exercise the kinds of fiscal discipline and make 

the hard choices that need to be made. 

Could you comment on whether or not there are some specific 

changes to the budget process that GAO believes would help impose the kind of fiscal discipline that is lacking now? 

Mr. WALKER. Yes, I can. And I think that is an excellent point. 

Many of the controls and safeguards that existed in the budget 

process have now expired. Some of the things that we believe that 

the Congress needs to consider include reasonable spending caps, 

PAYGO rules that apply on both sides of the ledger, meaning on 

the spending side and the tax side. Realistically, if you are trying 

to address the bottom line, you should not exempt one side of the 

ledger. 

Having also some type of triggers for mandatory spending programs. Being able to get a better handle on the total commitments 

that we have already. For example, I mentioned to you the $43 trillion number. That is the estimated total liabilities and commitments as of September 30, 2004. Let me compare that number to 

another number that might shock you. The total estimated net 

worth of every American, Bill Gates down, including home equity 

is $47 trillion. And we currently have total liabilities and commitments of $43 trillion in current dollar terms. 

We are obviously not going to be able to deliver on all of our current promises. We are going to have to restructure. 

We need to think about the discounted present value cost of 

major spending and tax proposals before they are enacted into law. 

And as a supplement to or a substitute for the cash flow items that 

we get right now for 1 year, 5 years, and 10 years. 

We also need to try to get a sense as to what the intergenerational impact of some of these burdens might be. As you know, 

right now there are a lot of things in the budget, a lot of things 

in the law right now whose costs escalate right beyond the 5 or 10 

year horizon on both the spending side and the tax side. And because of known demographic trends, we need to think about the 

14

longer-term affordability and sustainability of existing policies and 

programs. 

There are other things that I think should be considered, as well. 

Some people have advocated biennial budgeting. That is not a panacea by any means. Some people believe that if you had biennial 

budgeting, that you would spend more time on oversight. I would 

like to think that is the case, but I would not want to bet a whole 

lot of money on it. 

Frankly, we have been doing supplementals every year, and are 

likely to do supplementals for the foreseeable future. So that provides a safety valve to be able to deal with issues if you go to biannual budgeting. 

So these are some of the areas, but I absolutely agree, Madam 

Chairman, that we absolutely have to do something with regard to 

the budget process. It is fundamentally broken. 

Chairman COLLINS. I want to switch to one of the specific issues 

that you have highlighted in your report and that is the fractured 

approach that the Federal Government applies to job training programs. I believe GAO indicated that there are some 44 job training 

programs spread across nine different agencies. This matters to a 

State like mine, which has lost a lot of manufacturing jobs in the 

past decade. I know there has been some frustration about the delivery of job training programs in my State. 

On the other hand, we passed the Workforce Investment Act to 

try to coordinate those programs. Did that not work? What is your 

assessment? 

Mr. WALKER. I think that was a positive step in the right direction but I think there is more work that needs to be done. Candidly, job training is just a subset of a much bigger challenge. For 

example, you properly point out that we have noted that there are 

44 different programs among a number of different agencies. I recently found out, for example, there are over 20 Federal agencies 

involved in financial literacy. We recently had a related forum over 

at GAO. We invited a number of people. Many of them did not even 

know they were in the business. 

One of the things that we have to do is we have to get better 

visibility horizontally. In other words, take particular areas, job 

training, food safety, financial literacy, you name it. How many different players do we have on the field? What are they doing? Why 

do we need this many? Are they doing things consistently and in 

a nonduplicative and integrated fashion? 

I think one of the things that we look forward to working with 

this Committee and others on is how can we start looking at things 

not just vertically, which government has done for years and always will, but also horizontally? 

Chairman COLLINS. Let me just quickly ask you one final question for this round. 

As I read your report and the 200 questions, it is almost overwhelming to know where to begin to tackle the programs and policies that you outlined. Your report is a great help in giving us the 

overview. But as a follow up, I wondered if GAO would be willing 

to apply the reexamination criteria that is set out in Table 1 of 

your report to the programs within the Federal Government and 

respond back to us with a list of programs that you believe should 

15

be reexamined first? If you could help us narrow the universe of 

programs that might be most fruitful for us to examine in-depth. 

Would that be a project that GAO would be willing to undertake? 

Mr. WALKER. I would be happy, along with the other GAO professionals, to work out something with your staff that can be done 

within a reasonable amount of time. As you might imagine, trying 

to apply those criteria to all Federal programs is something that 

would take years to do. 

So I think what we might be able to do is to take particular 

areas that you and other Members might have particular interest, 

like homeland security information sharing. To what extent do we 

have multiple programs across government dealing with the same 

type of issue? What about regions? Do we need as many regions as 

we have? And other topics, and to try to come back with something 

for your consideration. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Lieberman. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Madam Chairman. 

I want to go back, Mr. Walker, to something you said at the end 

of your opening remarks, which is that more than 60 percent of the 

spending of the Federal Government is currently on autopilot. That 

is a reality that is clearly not understood or known by most of the 

American people. I would dare say that a lot of Members of Congress have not focused on that reality. 

It struck me last year, when once again we were unable to complete, because of the breakdown of the Congressional budget process, each of the separate 13 appropriations bills. So it was all 

lumped together in an omnibus bill at the end. It came to somewhat over $800 billion. That is a lot of money, obviously. But it 

turns out to be about a third of the full spending of the Federal 

Government because the rest is interest on the debt, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, particularly. 

It speaks to our problem, and why the focus in this session on 

the sustainability of Social Security over the long run is just the 

beginning, and why it is so important that we figure a way together to deal with that, to give both the public, the financial markets and ourselves the confidence that we can go on and deal with 

some of the longer-term problems of broader Federal Government 

sustainability that you talk about. 

Deficits in the Federal Government are nothing new. So my first 

question to put this in the context, because you, in previous years, 

and other comptrollers general, have come before Congress and 

warned about impending long-term unsustainability. 

To the best of your knowledge, is the circumstance we are in 

today, that you have portrayed, just a little worse than it has been 

for a long time? Or is something much more grave occurring? 

In other words, is this the worst ever as a Comptroller General 

looks forward to the fiscal future health of the United States? 

Mr. WALKER. I do not know that I would be in a position to say 

is this the worst ever. What I would be able to tell you is that fiscal 

2004 was a very bad year. With a $13 trillion increase in liabilities 

and unfunded commitments in 1 year, going from $30 trillion to 

over $43 trillion in 1 year. And the large current deficit, which obviously is not the primary problem. Where we are headed is the 

primary problem. But with the current deficit, less than 25 percent 

16

of it had to do with Iraq, Afghanistan, and incremental homeland 

security costs. And yet, we had strong economic growth and we 

have not been in a recession since November 2001. So those are 

warning signals. 

I am a member of the Sons of the American Revolution. Both my 

wife and I have family members who fought and died in the Revolution. I remember Washington’s words of wisdom, ‘‘the most important personal attribute is courage. And the most important institutional attribute is fiscal responsibility.’’ We need to heed 

Washington’s words of wisdom. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Let me ask you about some of the responses 

institutionally. As you know, I have been interested in present 

value accounting for the Federal Government activities. I suppose, 

in one sense, people would ask why, because the news is bad 

enough with cash value accounting. But we ask businesses under 

ERISA to use present value accounting. Social Security trustees 

are now using it. 

I believe I know you are supportive of this, but I wonder if you 

could just talk about why it would help to go to present value accounting as a supplement to cash value accounting? 

Mr. WALKER. First, we have present value accounting for financial reporting. Unfortunately, not enough people look at the financial statements of the U.S. Government. 

I would respectfully suggest that while they were issued in 

record time this year, they were issued on December 15, only 76 

days after the end of the fiscal year, which is record time, which 

is a real accomplishment, not many people have probably read 

those financial statements, including the disclaimer of opinion by 

GAO because of the poor state of financial records at DOD and 

elsewhere. But also because the emphasis paragraph that I put in, 

noting that we are on an unsustainable fiscal path. 

But we have present value accounting for financial statements. 

And the numbers that I gave, the $43 trillion, you can get those 

out of the annual report. The problem is you have to look in several 

different places and pull them together. 

And so I am working with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of OMB, and the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory 

Board to enhance financial reporting. 

But in addition, on the budgeting side, which I believe you are 

touching on, I think as a supplement to—not a substitute for—the 

cash flows, we need present value numbers for big ticket spending 

and tax items to be considered by the Congress before it acts. You 

did not have that when you passed the Medicare prescription drug 

bill. The debate was about whether it was going to cost $395 billion, which is what CBO said, or $534 billion, which is what the 

Medicare’s Chief Actuary said? 

Roughly 31⁄2 months after Congress passed that bill, the Medicare trustees came out and said $8.1 trillion in current dollars. 

That number should have been on the table. It should have been 

discussed and debated because I think a lot of people are shocked 

by it today. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. My time is up but I look forward to a second 

round. 

17

One thing that number would have probably inhibited is the 

number of people who described the Medicare proposal as cheap. In 

other words, too cheap, that it did not cover enough. It just suggests what the cost is of the commitments that we make. 

And we do this all with good intentions. This is another part of 

the American character. We are good people. We want to take care 

of each other. 

But one of the great traditional American values also was to pay 

your bills. The Federal Government is not paying its bills. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Senator Coburn. 

Senator COBURN. Madam Chairman, I think one of the great traditions of Congress is fixing the wrong problems. And I think that 

is what they did with the Medicare drug bill. That happens to be 

my personal opinion and I was not here at the time. 

Following on what Senator Lieberman said, the real problems we 

face, because of the lack of discipline in Congress—and see if you 

agree with me—we have a demographic shift, aging population. We 

have an unsustainable population birth rate. In other words, it is 

below reproduction of our population. We have exported a vast majority of our basic manufacturing tasks. Fourth, is we have not restrained spending. 

Whether you want to talk about tax cuts greater or less than 19 

percent of consumption or 22 percent consumption of GDP, the fact 

is that with those basic demographic changes, if they are not 

changed, we will not fix the problem. 

We are not going to change the aging. It is doubtful we will have 

much influence on the birth rate. So we have really two options. 

One is to do what you suggest and really have a systematic review. 

The other is to look at the export of our manufacturing that we 

seem to be wanting to give to the rest of the world through our 

open trade but nobody else’s open trade policies. 

How much of our financial problem has to do with the undermining of our basic manufacturing industry in this country, in 

terms of jobs? Much as the Chairman has lost, Oklahoma, I think, 

lost 60,000 manufacturing jobs in the last 6 years. 

If we want to try to tackle this problem, and I think right now 

you can see the number of people here, there are not many people 

interested in this problem. So, is it realistic to think the Congress 

is going to address it? And, if we decide to address it, how do we 

leverage that? How do we expand? You’re talking about a generation. We can’t wait a generation to fix these problems. 

Mr. WALKER. Several comments. First, a number of the items 

that you mention are real issues. They are real problems. There 

are others, but those are real problems. 

Second, someone said demographics are destiny. And demographics are a major factor contributing to our long-range problem. 

Those are known. They are not going to change very much. We 

need to recognize that reality. And the baby boomers are eligible 

for early retirement beginning in 2008. That is going to start to 

crunch the budget because the Social Security surpluses are going 

to start to go down in 2008. That will start putting pressure on the 

rest of the Federal budget, and ultimately it is only going to get 

18

worse over time. As you know, Medicare is a much bigger problem 

than Social Security but it is going to take much longer to solve. 

Manufacturing, that is an issue. But I think one of the things we 

have to keep in mind is while obviously one has to look at trade 

policy, I think the other thing one has to keep in mind is we are 

truly in a global economy. More and more corporations are multinational corporations. And multinational corporations do not have 

duties of loyalty to countries. They have duties of loyalty to their 

shareholders. To the extent that there are other countries that can 

end up producing things that are not high value and a lot cheaper 

than us, we are never going to be able to compete on wages. 

All the more important that we have to recognize we have to 

have education systems, retraining systems, and technologies that 

enable us to compete based on productivity, innovation, quality, 

those types of factors in order to maintain our standard of living 

and improve it. 

As far as Congress, I would respectfully suggest that there are 

at least a couple of committees that are of strategic importance. 

This one, because of the scope of this Committee. You have the authority to deal with all of government operations and look at the 

effectiveness of government programs. And second, the Budget 

Committee. Others are very important, do not get me wrong. 

But I think those two committees can help lead the way. And I 

also think this is something that needs visibility in both caucuses 

because I do not think that many members really understand the 

true nature, extent, magnitude, and potential implications of this, 

in part because of how we keep score, as Senator Lieberman mentioned. The way we keep score does not provide a full and fair view 

of where we are and where we are headed. It does not allow you 

and your colleagues to make a fully informed decision on really important things. That has got to change. 

But I am confident that we can rise to this challenge. I am just 

concerned about when we are going to get started and I hope today 

is the beginning of that effort. 

Senator COBURN. Let me go back and ask you, based on the history of oversight of the Congresses of the last 10 years, why are 

you confident that Congress is going to do that? 

Mr. WALKER. Because some people are starting to pay attention. 

When I came into my office this morning, and Madam Chairman, 

I don’t know if you all saw this. I just saw it this morning, and had 

no idea this was coming out. 

Merrill Lynch took out a full-page ad today in the Hill that says 

GAO to Congress, long-term fiscal policy on unsustainable course. 

They took that money out of their pocket and their shareholders 

pocket. I knew nothing about this. 

This tells me that Wall Street is watching and that investors and 

lenders are now starting to get concerned about it. And they should 

be. And by the way, the dollar has taken a big hit in the last couple 

of years and that is a shot across the bow. We need to take that 

seriously. 

Senator COBURN. So let me go back. Do you have any ideas, if 

Congress would decide they want to tackle this, how do we leverage 

that out so it does not take a generation to do? How do we leverage 

the ability of this Committee to look both horizontally and verVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:12 Apr 07, 2005 Jkt 020173 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\20173.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
19

tically and to do assessments and reviews based on some of the 

outlying characteristics? How do we leverage that to get it done in 

less than a generation? 

Mr. WALKER. First, I think we have to leverage it within the 

Congress and also elsewhere. For example, the Executive Branch. 

I would respectfully suggest that since the Executive Branch is the 

management part of government, and since they have the responsibility for managing the various programs that exist, that they need 

to look at these generic questions that we have, that apply to every 

major program, policy, function, and activity. They need to look at 

the other illustrative questions that we have raised. And they need 

to start focusing on those, answering those questions. OMB needs 

to develop a strategic plan and a government-wide performance 

plan. 

In addition to that, I believe that Congress and all of the committees of Congress, should take a look at the contents of this report 

and consider it as they deem appropriate in setting their agenda 

for oversight, in considering budget requests that come before the 

Congress, in considering legislative proposals. 

So I think that this is a framework that can and should and 

must be considered by both the Executive Branch, both career and 

non-career, as well as the Congress in basically thinking about how 

it goes about doing its ongoing business on a day-to-day basis. It 

has to integrate it into the ongoing business operations. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Lautenberg.

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you again, Madam Chairman. 

Your presentation is excellent and we would expect nothing less, 

Mr. Walker, knowing you over these years. But I do think that the 

cart is running ahead of the horse here in terms of how do you 

solve these problems? 

The first thing I would do would extend the terms of U.S. Senators and say maybe you can only serve one 12-year term. And 

then we would start thinking about the long-range implication of 

decisions that we make. These are unfortunately tied into political 

decisions, as you know. 

There are some natural factors. When you talk about the implication that some of government record-keeping is a little bit shoddy, is this an Enron we are looking at? Or is it a Fannie Mae or 

something like that? If you do not have the confidence that you 

ought to have in what we are producing, then that is a mechanical 

thing. 

I think that we are way beyond that in terms of what the problems are. There is a book around and I commend for my colleagues 

and general reading. It is called the ‘‘End of Work: The Decline of 

the Global Labor Force and the Dawn of the Post-Market Era.’’ It 

is written by Jeremy Rifkin. And since I grew up in the technology 

business in my business career, one of the biggest things that we 

are looking at is the technological opportunities to replace manual 

labor. As a consequence, there is an actual shrinkage of the workforce that is taking place in front of us. 

One of the things, among several that we have to look at, you 

cannot have low wages with higher standards of living. And that 

is axiomatic, in my view. So if we want to go to Bangladesh, or 

whatever countries, where people live in huts and they will knit 

20

and push machines for 15 cents an hour and want our American 

workers to compete with that, then we are saying what is going to 

have to happen is our standard of living is going to have to go 

down substantially. Because you cannot say to them OK, you live 

in the huts and you run with the diseases that your kids have, 

high infant mortality in many cases, and then have us with high 

wage employees and reasonable standards of living and say that 

well, we have to match up. Once the marketplace became global, 

there was enormous change. 

I don’t mean to give a lecture here but last night Chairman Collins and I saw a film on disaster portrayed in the event of an attack in London using chemicals and radiation. It was a horror. I 

was forced as I viewed things—and I served in World War II—on 

a comparative basis the world had a lot fewer casualties for the 

numbers engaged directly in combat than we see later on. 

An observation that I made was that the theater of war, Senator 

Lieberman, was extended substantially. America itself is now included in the theater of war. That is what happens. Because with 

technology and madness, any part of our country is susceptible. 

And therefore, if we have to spend the money necessary to defend 

ourselves in a theater of war, then the costs are considerable. 

It is a lot easier to think of war over there someplace, away from 

our borders. But we learned on September 11 that we are included. 

When I was a kid in the Army, in World War II, I saw the first 

of unmanned missiles. One was a jet bomb, one was a rocket bomb 

sent by the Germans, unmanned. It was the beginning of a terrible 

gain in technology. And now that they have been able to compact 

these weapons, nuclear bombs are small, have them carried by one 

or two persons willing to conspire, give up their lives to take others. So what is the cost of that? 

I submit, without getting too esoteric here, that there is enormous sociological change that we have to examine. The increased 

longevity, for which I am grateful because otherwise I would not 

be here, but the fact of the matter is all of these factors come into 

play. And how we relate the numbers, frankly, is a secondary thing 

because we want to promote good health and we want to promote 

not only long life but energy and vitality, as well. And all of these 

things have enormous costs. 

But then what happens to our budgeting? 

As you know, Mr. Walker, a financial statement is comprised of 

two principal parts. One is the revenue side and the other is the 

expense side. You cannot have a balanced report unless the revenues somehow or other, either through direct production or loans 

or borrowing, at least equal your expenses. Not indefinitely. 

So we are in a peculiar position. I think you did a real service 

this morning and I thank Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman 

for promoting this discussion. The question of how you really get 

to the bare bones is something that we are unwilling to attack with 

the political events as we see them. Everyone knows that we get 

closer and closer to encouraging our reelection when the previous 

one is complete. As a consequence, it is hard to put the longer 

range things on the table because there is no impact felt right 

away. 

21

And with that I don’t offer you any solutions but I offer more 

things to be concerned about, I think, and looked at. Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Senator Pryor. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PRYOR 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Walker, again, thank you for your time and attention to this. 

This is all very important, and of special long-term importance. 

The work GAO has done on this subject matter has been a very 

valuable tool for Congress. 

Also, you have a great reputation and you have always impressed me as a straight shooter. We need more of that around 

here, folks that will get through all of the rhetoric and just get 

down to the facts. 

The first question I have is about GAO itself. You have been in 

operation since the 1920’s? 

Mr. WALKER. Nineteen hundred and twenty one. 

Senator PRYOR. I am curious about GAO’s track record in making 

predictions. Have you ever looked at yourself and tried to go back 

and see how accurate you have been over the years in making projections? 

Mr. WALKER. I have not had that done. We can go back and see 

whether or not it has been done before and also maybe take a look 

at what has happened in recent years. 

I will tell you this, that having been a trustee of Social Security 

and Medicare for 5 years, and having been part of the process of 

projecting out for 75 years for those programs, and knowing that 

the trustees come up with three estimates, high cost, low cost and 

best estimate, which we are using for this simulation, in general 

over the time actual results have been between the best estimate 

and the high cost estimates. 

I know that since I have been Comptroller General, which is a 

little over 6 years now, that the long-range budget simulations 

have generally gotten worse over time. The reason that they have 

generally gotten worse is because we are not necessarily thinking 

about the long-term cost, affordability and sustainability of current 

decisions on both the spending side and the tax side of the ledger. 

Senator PRYOR. I agree with what you are saying sitting there. 

I know that as a Member of the Senate, and just as a Member 

of Congress generally, I think that we all should continually look 

at the programs we have for the Federal Government and evaluate 

them and reevaluate them. I like the areas where you touched on 

going back to the basics. How long has this program been around? 

What was the goal of it, etc.? I think that is a very healthy exercise 

that we should all do. 

But I would like to hear your thoughts on a practice that Congress does, and that is we sunset legislation. When we often sunset 

legislation or we have to reauthorize it at a certain time, is that 

helping or hurting us in our examination and reform effort to try 

to make government run more efficiently? 

Mr. WALKER. It is a concept that has conceptual merit but quite 

frankly, many times Congress does not reauthorize programs and 

yet they are funded. And so that system is not working as anticipated, as well. 

22

I do think that one of the things that has to be done is that there 

needs to be mechanisms to periodically review and reconsider what 

is in the base and whether or not Federal programs and policies 

are achieving their intended objectives and whether or not they are 

as high a priority today and for tomorrow as it has been in the 

past. 

Senator PRYOR. Do you have a recommendation on that? Are you 

saying that Congress should be the one that does the reevaluation? 

Or should Congress somehow get blue ribbon panels or whatever 

to go and review programs? How should we do that? Do you have 

a recommendation on that? 

Mr. WALKER. One of the things that we have in chapter 3 of this 

report, or what I would refer to as the way forward, is we have a 

number of different mechanisms that could potentially be used in 

order to address these and other questions, some of which need to 

be embedded in the normal process that Congress deals with, the 

budget process, the appropriations process, the oversight process, 

and the reauthorization process. 

I do believe, Senator, that it is a shared responsibility. I believe 

that the Executive Branch should be focusing on these issues, these 

generic questions as well as the other illustrative questions. I also 

believe the Congress, as part of its regular legislative, oversight, 

and appropriations responsibilities, needs to be focused on these 

issues. So we need both. I do not think we can rely on one or the 

other. I think both have to play a major role. 

Senator PRYOR. So as we are talking about reforming Social Security and at some point reforming Medicare and Medicaid, do you 

think we need to reform Congress as well? 

Mr. WALKER. As you know, the Congress is my client. I will tell 

you this, I do not believe that either the Executive Branch or the 

Legislative Branch is well-positioned to deal effectively with all of 

these challenges that we are facing. Realistically, the Executive 

Branch is probably going to change before the Congress. But ultimately, I think the Congress is going to have to change in some 

ways as well to maximize its effectiveness. 

Senator PRYOR. One thing that you touched on that Senator 

Lieberman picked up on is that 60 percent of government spending 

is on autopilot. Basically, you are talking about the entitlement 

programs or the mandatory spending categories, whatever we want 

to call them. Do you have any recommendations on how we address 

those and how we can make those less expensive and a smaller 

part of the budget overall? 

Mr. WALKER. First in 1964, Congress got to decide how twothirds of the budget would be spent every year. Now it is down to 

less than 40 percent and it is getting less each year based upon 

known demographic trends and a variety of other factors. 

We have a number of suggestions in the report but some of the 

ones that I would touch on would be that we need to start getting 

some things on the radar screen that are off the radar screen. To 

a great extent, a lot of this mandatory spending is off the radar 

screen. We are just letting it go. We are not even focusing on it. 

That is not just on the spending side, it is on the tax side, too. 

23

As I mentioned, in many years the total cost of tax expenditures 

exceeds total discretionary spending. And yet, tax expenditures are 

off the radar screen. We are really not focusing on them. 

I think looking at the commitments that have been made, being 

able to consider triggers, engaging in a fundamental review and reassessment of existing mandatory programs. 

I saw this morning, for example, that there is a proposal to extend TriCare to all Reservists and Guard members, even if they are 

not on active duty. That would cost a tremendous amount of 

money. Given the fact that employers are looking to get out of the 

health care business, let me assure you that that would just be an 

excuse for every member of the Guard and Reserve and their family to go on to the Government TriCare program, which in 1-year 

cost, or the 10-year cost may not look that bad. But the discounted 

present value cost would be shocking. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. 

Mr. Walker, the OMB has put forth a number of proposals to encourage Congress to evaluate Federal programs, and if they are ineffective to terminate them. For example, there already is the OMB 

Program Assessment Rating Tool, the PART program. Last year, 

Congress funded all but one of the 13 programs that OMB concluded were either ineffective or had results not demonstrated. 

I think the PART program may not be the best tool for evaluating the worthiness of programs, but I think OMB has a point 

about how difficult it is to terminate programs once they have been 

enacted. 

This year, the administration has proposed a Results Commission and a Sunset Commission to try to put into place some sort 

of action forcing mechanism to force Congress to make affirmative 

decisions to extend programs that the commission may have found 

are ineffective. 

What is your general view on the PART program and on the administration’s proposals for these two commissions? 

Mr. WALKER. I think the PART program, the Program Assessment Rating Tool, has conceptual merit. It is basically the administration’s recognition that you need to review the base of government and to try to ascertain whether and to what extent programs 

are achieving real outcome-based results. And if not, why not? And 

the ones that are more successful, hopefully, would receive better 

treatment, at least as it relates to the President’s proposal. And the 

ones that are not demonstrating results, then presumably they 

would not receive as favorable treatment through the President’s 

proposed budget. 

I believe that PART is a step in the right direction. By no means 

is it perfect. I think you also have to recognize, as you do I’m sure, 

that any administration is associated with a particular president 

and a particular party and therefore is not necessarily viewed with 

the same degree of merit on both sides of the aisle. And that there 

could be some skepticism, no matter which administration it is, as 

to what their proposals might be. 

And so I think it is important to have GAO and others, as appropriate, doing evaluations that are professional, objective, factVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:12 Apr 07, 2005 Jkt 020173 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\20173.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
24

based, nonpartisan, nonideological, and hopefully fair and balanced 

as a supplement to what the administration might do. 

I also believe that there needs to be more consultation. I believe 

the administration has done some good things, but their consultation with key stakeholders has not always been very effective. And 

working in partnership over a period of time would significantly increase the likelihood of success. Reasonable people can and will differ in these areas. No doubt about it, especially with all the vested 

interests. But I think there needs to be significant process improvement. 

As far as the Results Commission and the Sunset Commission, 

I have not seen the details. As you know, Senator, titles of things 

can be misleading. Therefore, I will reserve judgment on what they 

are proposing until I see the details. 

Chairman COLLINS. Let me do just a follow-up, knowing that you 

would want to get back to us on that issue. 

As I understand the administration’s proposal for the Sunset 

Commission, it would review some 1,200 government programs 

over a 10-year period. So that the concept is that a program’s managers would have to justify its continued existence once every 10 

years, or at least once every 10 years. 

From what you are saying, however, if we take that kind of approach we should look at the other side of the ledger. We should 

be looking at tax preferences and whether they should be continued. Is that a fair judgment? 

Mr. WALKER. Absolutely. I think we have to look at mandatory 

spending, including entitlement programs, discretionary spending 

and tax policy, including tax preferences. The gap is too great to 

grow our way out of the problem. You are not going to solve the 

problem just by looking at one dimension. We need to look at all 

three. 

Chairman COLLINS. Let me ask you one final question today, and 

that is in the area of health care. If you look at your charts, the 

fastest-growing part of the Federal budget is the Medicaid and 

Medicare programs. It is going to be a tremendous challenge for 

government to tame the cost. 

What should Congress and the administration begin to tackle in 

what is the fastest-growing part of our budget? 

Mr. WALKER. First, one of the things I was pleased to see, although not without controversy, is the President’s Budget incorporates a number of GAO recommendations. One example is that 

there is some gaming going on with regard to Medicaid reimbursements. There has also been some practices that have been engaged 

in by various other parties where the government, we believe, is 

paying more than it should and more than was intended. So that 

is a positive step. 

Second, with regard to Medicare, I think some of the things we 

are going to have to look at is such things as, in the short-term, 

is there an opportunity to be able to develop some standards of 

practice that would improve quality, reduce costs, enhance consistency, improve equity, also potentially reduce litigation risk? 

Third, is there an opportunity to engage in large case management practices? A significant percentage of Medicare’s cost, and 

Medicaid’s too, are incurred by a relatively small percentage of the 

25

covered population. In the private sector and even some State and 

local governments, there are large case management practices that 

are being engaged in to try to get a better handle as to what people 

are doing and what the costs are. Sometimes you find yourself, you 

have people taking 16 prescription drugs, which is dangerous, or 

they are working counter to each other. That is another example. 

A fourth one might be how can you leverage the government’s 

considerable purchasing power? 

But in the final analysis, Senator, Medicare by itself is eight 

times greater than Social Security. Medicaid is on top of that. It 

is going to take fundamental reform on an installment basis over 

many years, not just of these programs but also the entire health 

care system. 

And that is why I think it is important that the Congress consider moving now rather than later on Social Security reform. The 

reason being is that while Social Security is only $3.7 trillion of 

that $43 trillion problem, you have an opportunity to reform Social 

Security in a way that will exceed the expectations of every generation of Americans—and I will be happy to comment on that if you 

want. You can get a win and improve credibility in the markets, 

improve confidence within the public and within the Congress to be 

able to deal with issues before they reach crisis proportions because 

quite frankly the heavy lifting is going to take a lot more time and 

you are not going to exceed the expectations of any generation of 

Americans, I would respectfully suggest. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Lieberman. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Walker, earlier on in your testimony you mentioned a series 

of steps that Congress could take to try to get us back in balance. 

And look, we are proving, unfortunately, that we are incapable of 

just doing it in the normal process, that we have got to create some 

parameters here, some fences around the holes we are falling into. 

I am going to list the ones: Spending caps, PAYGO rules, triggers, 

and biannual budgeting. One of our colleagues has a Constitutional 

Amendment on a line item veto, which we passed some years ago 

and then was struck down by the Supreme Court. So this is his attempt to try to bring it back. 

Of those, and this Committee—and I appreciate the Chairman’s 

leadership in calling this hearing and beginning the process—this 

Committee is in a position to try to take the lead in offering some 

legislative parameters to self-discipline. What would be your favorite among those, or a couple of favorites, and just talk about the 

details of why you chose them? 

Mr. WALKER. We would be happy to work with your staff and 

other Committee staff further, but on a preliminary basis what I 

would say is some spending caps and PAYGO on both sides of the 

ledger. In addition, to consider, as a supplement to and not a substitute for, the current information Congress gets, the discounted 

present value dollar cost of major tax and spending proposals before they are enacted into law. 

There are others but those would be a few off the top of my head. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. That is helpful. 

26

Can I take you back and ask you just to talk a little bit, and I 

would welcome your input or your staff’s, on spending caps? Just 

describe in general terms how we might best do that? 

Mr. WALKER. Realistically, I think there are probably a couple of 

different approaches. One is you may want to take a look at what 

type of target or cap you might have, not just with regard to discretionary spending. But I also think that you have to think about 

whether or not you have certain triggers or mechanisms that deal 

with mandatory spending, where you are on autopilot, that forces 

some type of review and reconsideration, rather than just automatically assuming we are going to continue the status quo. 

I think you also have to think, and I am talking off the top of 

my head here, Senator, a little bit, brainstorming with you. I think 

we have to think about what are we going to do on the tax preference side. That cannot be off the radar screen, either. 

For example, one of the things that I noted in the President’s 

budget is there is a proposal for additional tax preferences for 

health care. It is already the largest tax preference in the Internal 

Revenue code. And yet we are proposing additional ones. What 

about reconsidering the existing one? 

So I think that somehow we have to consider the tax side too, 

because in the final analysis we are talking about the bottom line. 

And the bottom line is a function of revenues and expenditures. 

And therefore you need to consider both. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. How about PAYGO. PAYGO is the basic 

idea, as the name suggests, that if you adopt a spending program 

or a tax cut you have to pay for it. 

Mr. WALKER. I think it needs to apply on both sides of the ledger 

because we are talking about the bottom line. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. What are your thoughts about a line item 

veto, leaving aside whether it is significant enough to amend the 

Constitution? 

Mr. WALKER. That would involve a significant change in authority between the Legislative Branch and the Congress, who I and 

GAO work for, and the Executive Branch. So I hesitate to say more 

on that at this time, Senator. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. That was well done. But let us continue to 

work on that. 

Let me ask you a very different kind of question, although related to the general subject, and bring you to where Congress is focused today, which is on trying to make Social Security sustainable. One of the things that bothers me about the current proposal, 

insofar as we understand it, for privatizing accounts, and I am 

really trying hard, as a lot of members are, to keep our minds open. 

As I said at the outset, the President has forced us to confront the 

long-term unsustainability of Social Security. So one or another 

may argue about what his response is, but he put it on the agenda. 

One of the questions that I have asked myself is on the 

privatizing, which requires transition costs and borrowing to 

achieve them—and that goes into the trillions, as Vice President 

Cheney said a few weeks ago, over the decades to come. How do 

we measure whether that indebtedness really begins to affect our 

international financial credibility to the point where the dollar 

27

loses value, interest rates have to be raised, business is stifled, people lose jobs? 

What standards can we apply to that? I guess I will stop there 

and I may have a quick follow-up. 

Mr. WALKER. Senator, I would guess, one of the things we have 

to be careful about in the debate about Social Security is the words 

that we use. I would respectfully suggest that just as a crisis may 

not be an appropriate word, privatizing may not be either. Because 

in effect, what is being talked about with individual accounts is 

whether or not there should be individual accounts. If so, as part 

of a broader proposal. Because by themselves they will not deal 

with the solvency and sustainability problem. In fact they could exacerbate it. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. That is a real important point. There may 

be a value to those private accounts for a lot of other personal and 

macroeconomic reasons, but they themselves do not deal with the 

system. 

Mr. WALKER. That is exactly right, Senator. The question is are 

they a carve-out? In other words, are they part of the existing payroll tax? Are they an add-on? Are they voluntary? Are they mandatory? 

I will say this, we need to consider, I believe, in any reform proposals not just the cash flow implication but also the discounted 

present value dollar implication of whatever reform package is 

being considered. We are consistent at GAO. We say we think you 

need to consider both, on the tax side, on the spending side, as well 

as part of major reform proposals. 

I think the other thing that we have to consider is that not all 

promised benefits under Social Security are funded. If you want to 

deliver on all promised benefits under Social Security, it is going 

to cost several trillion dollars to be able to do that at some point 

in time. The question is when? 

So one last thing I would mention on this is if you look at the 

financial statements of the U.S. Government, you will not find a liability to the trust funds of Social Security and Medicare, 

shockingly. The reason that you will not find a liability is because 

the left hand owes the right hand. That is something I think that 

needs to be reconsidered. Why? Because after the government took 

the people’s payroll taxes, it spent the people’s payroll taxes, and 

it put an IOU in the so-called ‘‘trust funds.’’

Senator LIEBERMAN. Which we are going to have to start paying. 

Mr. WALKER. Correct. You are going to have to start paying. The 

IOU’s are guaranteed as to principal and interest. The bonds are 

backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. That 

has legal, political, and moral significance, but no economic significance whatsoever. Social Security is going to start to constrain the 

budget in 2008, as the surplus starts to go down. It is going to get 

worse over time. 

At the same time, when you go from implicit debt, which is the 

unfunded gap, to explicit debt———

Senator LIEBERMAN. Which we will have to deal with, either by 

cutting current government spending or raising more revenue. 

28

Mr. WALKER. Correct. Or you can go out to the market to borrow 

it. You either have to raise revenues, cut expenses or increase debt 

held by the public. 

If you do that, then you are competing with other capital needs. 

The question is what interest rates are you going to have to pay? 

Part of the issue is how much credibility does the reform package 

have in the market because, on the one hand, it is good news if 

Congress is able to handle a known problem before it absolutely 

has to, which is what it did in 1983. In 1983, the checks were not 

going to go out on time! So the market would presumably give you 

some credit for handling a known problem before an absolute crisis 

was on your doorstep. 

On the other hand, you are going to be competing for capital and 

it is to be determined what impact that might have on interest 

rates. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you. Thanks very much. It has been 

a very important morning. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you very much, Senator Lieberman, 

for your participation in this important hearing. 

Mr. Walker, thank you so much for the great work that GAO is 

doing in this area. 

Mr. Walker, I think this is extraordinarily important work, as 

your first comments implied to us. We look forward to continuing 

this process with you, in helping us identify more precisely where 

we should begin focusing and tackling some of these issues. 

And also, on the possible budget reforms, which I really think 

could be key in getting control and imposing fiscal discipline. 

The hearing record will be held open for 15 days for the submission of questions and additional materials. 

I again want to thank you and your staff, and I want to thank 

our Committee staff for their hard work. 

This Committee is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(29)

A P P E N D I X 


20173.001
30


20173.002
31


20173.003
32


20173.004
33


20173.005
34


20173.006
35


20173.007
36


20173.008
37


20173.009
38


20173.010
39


20173.011
40


20173.012
41


20173.013
42


20173.014
43


20173.015
44


20173.016
45


20173.017
46


20173.018
47


20173.019
48


20173.020
49


20173.021
50


20173.022
51


20173.023
52


20173.024
53


20173.025
54


20173.026
55


20173.027
56


20173.028
57


20173.029
58


20173.030
59


20173.031
60


20173.032
61


20173.033
62


20173.034
63


20173.035
64


20173.036
65


20173.037
66


20173.038
67


20173.039
68


20173.040
69


20173.041
70


20173.042
71


20173.043
72


20173.044
73


20173.045
74


20173.046
75

Æ


20173.047