U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

34–573 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

S. Hrg. 115–547 

REVIEWING THE ADMINISTRATION’S GOVERNMENT 

REORGANIZATION PROPOSAL 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 18, 2018 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman 

JOHN MCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

JON TESTER, Montana 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

KAMALA D. HARRIS, California 

CHRISTOPHER R. HIXON, Staff Director 

GABRIELLE D’ADAMO SINGER, Chief Counsel 

COURTNEY J. ALLEN, Deputy Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs 

MARGARET E. DAUM, Minority Staff Director 

PHYLICIA L. WOODS, Minority Counsel 

SARAH GARCIA, Minority Senior Counsel 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

BONNI E. DINERSTEIN, Hearing Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 1 

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 3 

Senator Lankford .............................................................................................. 13 

Senator Heitkamp ............................................................................................ 17 

Senator Hassan ................................................................................................. 23 

Senator Jones .................................................................................................... 26 

Senator Peters .................................................................................................. 28 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 32 

Senator Harris .................................................................................................. 36 

Senator Hoeven ................................................................................................. 38 

Senator Daines ................................................................................................. 41 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 49 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 2018 

Honorable Margaret Weichert, Deputy Director for Management, Office of 

Management and Budget 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50 

APPENDIX 

OMB Government Reorganization Plan ................................................................ 56 

Statements submitted for the Record: 

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL–CIO ........................ 188 

National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association ....................... 193 

National Treasury Employees Union .............................................................. 196 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record: 

Ms. Weichert ..................................................................................................... 206 

(1) 

1The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 49. 

REVIEWING THE ADMINISTRATION’S 

GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION PROPOSAL 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 2018 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Johnson, Portman, Lankford, Hoeven, Daines, 

McCaskill, Carper, Heitkamp, Peters, Hassan, Harris, and Jones. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON 

Chairman JOHNSON. Good morning. This hearing will come to 

order; the title of this hearing, ‘‘Reviewing the Administration’s 

Government Reorganization Proposal.’’ Glad to see good attendance 

by Members of the Committee. I am really glad to see a pretty full 

audience. It is nice to see a lot of people are really interested in 

reorganizing the government to make it more efficient, more effective, and more accountable. 

First of all, I would like to ask that my written statement be entered into the record.1

I want to start today’s hearing with a question to the audience. 

I ask this to many audiences, just most recently in front of the 

Council of Inspector Generals on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE). 

A show of hands from the audience. How many people here think 

the Federal Government is efficient and effective? 

Senator MCCASKILL. Do not be afraid. You can raise your hand. 

[Show of hands.] 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. We got a couple people. 

Listen, I asked that in front of CIGIE, and Senator Heitkamp 

was there. I do not believe anybody raised their hand, and let us 

face it. It is probably the most knowledgeable group of people in 

terms of the question is it efficient and effective. 

Now, I have literally asked that question to tens of thousands— 

that is not an embellishment—tens of thousands, primarily Wisconsinites, but Americans as I traveled around, and this is for sure the 

largest percentage. We maybe got five or six people raising their 

hands. Maybe a couple hundred out of those tens of thousands 

have raised their hand. 
2 

I generally do a follow up question: How many think it is pretty 

broken and dysfunctional? The majority of the audience, after having laughed at the first question, raised their hand who think it is 

pretty broken and dysfunctional. 

It is obvious that the Federal Government needs a very close 

evaluation and is well overdue for serious reorganization and a serious look at how to make it more efficient, more effective, and 

more accountable. 

In my briefing pack, they gave me just some basic stats, and I think this pretty well tells it all. We spend $4.2 trillion a year. 

That is how large this entity is, and it is an incredibly complex entity. People cannot even begin to grapple what a trillion dollars is, 

much less 4.2. We are $21 trillion in debt, total debt. It exceeds the 

size of our economy, a very dangerous place for us to be, and according to the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) long-term projections, which they present as a percent of gross domestic product 

(GDP), we convert it to dollars for them—at least $100 trillion 

more in deficits over the next 30 years tacked onto $21 trillion. It 

is clearly unsustainable. The deficit for fiscal year (FY) 2018 is $873 billion, and I think 

this almost says it all. There are 441 Federal departments, agencies, and sub-agencies listed in the Federal Register—and here is 

the money line—but there is no authoritative list of Federal agencies in existence. We are kind of taking a guess at 441. I am taking 

a risk that I might be PolitiFact wrong on that, but it is pretty 

amazing that there is really not even an authoritative list of how 

many agencies there are. 

Now, it is important to point out that we are just at the start 

of this process, although the Executive Order (EO) was issued over 

a year ago. You have solicited comments. 106,000 came in, and in 

testimony, Ms. Weichert will talk about that this is really a process 

that it will probably span 3 to 5 years. We are not talking about 

this proposal, every last thing being enacted, but we have a lot to 

consider, laid on the table, but it is a process. We are only at the 

start of it, which is why Senator Lankford and I have introduced 

a piece of legislation, the Reforming Government Act of 2018. 

Let me just quickly describe what this thing does. It is not a 

scary piece of legislation at all. It is pretty much the exact same 

piece of legislation updated for the circumstances today, as Senator 

Lieberman, when he was Chairman of this Committee, and Senator 

Warner introduced when President Obama was talking about reorganization. 

What this bill does, it provides the Administration with the authority to submit reorganization plans to Congress for up to 2 years 

after enactment. The last authority that we actually enacted into 

law expired in 1984. It lifts current statutory restrictions on reorganization plans by authorizing, one, the creation of new executive 

department or renaming of an existing executive department and, 

two, the consolidation of two or more executive departments. That 

is what reorganization is about. Lift the statutory prohibition on 

that right now makes that possible. 

It requires a determination by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) and the reorganization plan will likely result in a 

decrease in the number of agencies or a cost savings. Again, those 
3 

are good things, and it triggers Senate and House Rules for expeditious consideration of reorganization plans, and all it does is it puts 

in the same approval process that was part of the 1984 bill. 

This bill does not reorganize the government. It just offers and 

produces a process that can possibly do that. 

I hope we can get support. I hope we can get this thing signed 

into law. I hope people take very seriously, I think, a very sincere 

attempt by this Administration to take a look at the government 

and do the reorganization that is necessary to make it a little more 

efficient, a little more effective, a little more accountable. I do not 

see how anybody could really be opposed at least to the effort. I can 

understand maybe opposed to the specific proposals, but it is good, 

worthy effort, and I think it is our legislative jurisdiction. I think 

we ought to authorize that effort and support it in every way, 

shape, or form that we can. 

With that, I will turn it over to my Ranking Member, Senator 

McCaskill. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I certainly agree that this is an important effort. What my questioning will focus on and what I would like us all to remember 

today is that if we are emulating business, there is no way this 

document would be brought into a board room of any private company for a mergers and acquisitions (M&A) determination. It is 

woefully short on details. 

Since my time as a State auditor, I have made it my mission to 

fight for a more efficient and effective government, and I have repeatedly in my time in the Senate supported reorganization, consolidation, and program elimination by the Executive Branch. 

I have conducted oversight on how some of our formal investment entities like the Overseas Private Investment Corporation 

and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency and thought there 

was an awful lot of duplication there. I have repeatedly introduced 

legislation, which I am proud that the Chairman supported, to 

eliminate another entity I investigated, the National Technical Information Service at the Commerce Department, a relic of the 

1950s that the Internet has essentially made obsolete. 

These proposals were works—unfortunately, these took years of 

fact-finding, data-gathering, analysis, and meetings with stakeholders. What I learned from that process is that it is difficult to 

reduce or eliminate government programs, even when you have bipartisan support and even when you have done the work. 

On their face, some of your reorganization proposals—and some 

of that—and that is frankly, in some instances, a pretty generous 

word because many of them are things we could work on together. 

We can agree about the importance of strengthening the 

cybersecurity workforce, improving Federal agencies’ customer 

service, and ensuring veterans’ cemeteries are well maintained. 

To be fair, many of these proposals are not new. Some of them 

are ongoing, and some were the work of previous Administrations 

and Congress. 

On the other hand, some of these ideas are untenable. I would 

put postal privatization in that category. We all understand that a 
4 

business model of privatization for postal results in one reality, the 

same reality that faced rural communities when it was time for 

them to get electricity, the same reality that faces rural communities when they need to get broadband, and that is, there is no 

business model that will provide the level of profit that that last 

mile of real estate requires. 

If you look at what is going on in rural America right now, the 

hope for rural America is not only a trade policy that makes sense, 

but it is also the ability of rural Americans to participate in small 

business by online participation. That is why we spent so much 

time talking about rural broadband, but if you do not have the delivery of the packages, if you do not have the delivery in Alaska 

of food, that is absolutely a big step backward for economic vibrancy in our rural communities. 

There is no way a privatization model delivers the same level of 

service to rural America as they currently receive. It just does not 

work by the numbers, and you know who would pick up the liabilities? The privatization companies would take all the profit out of 

the urban areas, and guess who would be left holding the bag for 

all the rural areas? It would once again be the government. Why 

do not we just give the postal authority the flexibility and the authorities they need to do this in the most effective and efficient way 

possible? 

For some reason, this Administration and the Republican-led 

Congress has been incredibly stubborn about facing that reality in 

the Postal Service. 

I know what privatization means for rural Missouri, and I will 

not go there on postal. I am pretty confident that most of my colleagues that have a large swath of rural constituents will feel the 

same way. 

Although we may disagree on the substance of some of these proposals—and that is fair with any proposal—I take issue about the 

idea that there is substance. The details we need are simply not 

here. There is no cost-benefit analysis. There is no implementation 

timeline. There are no metrics by which these measures would actually show success, and we know how to set goals and metrics and 

come up with plans. In fact, the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO), has come up with a whole framework, which you did not 

follow. 

I am not seeing the facts behind this proposal. In fact, what has 

been frustrating is we have repeatedly asked the Office of Management and Budget about the data, about any cost-benefit analyses 

that might exist, about the over 100,000 in public comments, timeliness and authorities. A simple question, tell us what you think 

you need in terms of legislation. Tell us what you think you can 

do without legislation. 

We are getting stonewalled. There has been an outright refusal 

to answer many of these questions. That is not the way to get this 

started. If you want a willing partner—and I want to be one—then 

you have to give me the information that you have, and if we are 

not getting the information you have, then this is not serious. It 

is just not serious. 

I will work with anyone to find common solutions, and I will elevate any good idea, regardless of who proposes it, but you have to 
5 

provide the details. I am going to ask for those details, the data, 

the analyses, and the agency plans behind this proposal again after 

the hearing. That is where we are going to reach a stalemate if we 

cannot begin to openly share information. 

I do not know what the strategy is behind stonewalling us. That 

certainly was not the way I took your presentation when you visited with a number of us as we began this process, but that is the 

way the agency is treating this in terms of requests for information 

that we have had. 

I am willing to withhold judgment, and hopefully, we can begin 

anew with sharing data. But there is no way that Ron Johnson’s 

manufacturing company or any other private sector would begin to 

even consider putting into law this proposal without more data. If 

we are going to try to emulate the efficiency of the private sector, 

we need to do it in every regard and not just notional ideas that 

are thrown out without any meat on the bones. We have to get to 

that meat before we can really move forward. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I think I mentioned this was the start of the 

process, and from my standpoint, I am looking at these things coming before Congress. Legislation says no more than three proposals 

at a time. You will have the backup. I would require the backup. 

I understand the deliberative process, but this Committee will 

certainly—and the Congress will certainly—expect the type of information to validate whatever proposals are actually submitted to 

Congress on those things. This has far greater detail than what the 

Obama administration presented—which by the way, I would have 

liked to support reorganization of that Administration as well. 

This is just barely the start of the process, although there has 

been an awful lot of work. But there is a lot of work to be done. 

I will agree from the standpoint that we will need more information. I do not think you disagree with that either, Ms. Weichert. 

It is the tradition of this Committee to swear in witnesses, so if 

you will stand. Raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony 

you will give before this Committee will be the truth, the whole 

truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God? 

Ms. WEICHERT. I do. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Please be seated. 

First of all, I want to welcome Margaret Weichert, Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget, as our witness. 

In my script, I have a brief little description, but it does not do 

you justice. I want to describe really the qualifications you bring 

to this process and to your job and thank you for your service. 

You were nominated on September 5, 2017. Our Committee approved, sent you on to the Senate on January 8, 2018, and you 

have been on the job since being confirmed on February 14. I am 

pretty impressed with how quickly you embraced this and brought 

us to this starting point. 

A brief history, but one that still probably does not even do you 

justice, Ms. Weichert currently serves as the Deputy Director for 

Management at the Office of Management and Budget. Ms. 

Weichert is an experienced business executive who served as a 

principal at Ernst & Young, LLP, since 2013. In her 25-year profes-
6 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Weichert appears in the Appendix on page 50. 

sional career, Ms. Weichert has also held executive leadership positions at Market Platform Dynamics, First Data Corporation, Bank 

of America, and Andersen Consulting focused on strategy, innovation, and business process improvement in banking and payments 

technology. 

An innovator and an entrepreneur, Ms. Weichert also co-founded 

an Internet company, Achex, Incorporated, and sold that company 

to First Data in 2001. As a result of her innovative work in payment technology, Ms. Weichert has been named as an inventor on 

14 successful U.S. patents. 

An avid supporter of technology innovation in Georgia, Ms. 

Weichert has served since 2010 on the Technology Association of 

Georgia’s Fintech Steering Committee. She holds a B.S. of Foreign 

Service, Magna Cum Laude, from Georgetown University; a postgraduate diploma in Economics with distinction from the University of Sussex; and a Masters of Business Administration from the 

University of California at Berkeley. 

Ms. Weichert also is certified as a Green Belt in Six Sigma, Design for Six Sigma. 

You are an overachiever, and I certainly appreciate that and I 

think well qualified for this particular task of trying to start reining in and reorganizing parts of Government to make it more efficient, effective, and accountable. 

Ms. Weichert, thank you for your testimony and your time for 

coming here before the Committee, and the floor is yours. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MARGARET WEICHERT,1

DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

Ms. WEICHERT. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member McCaskill, 

and Members of the Committee, thank you for having me here 

today. 

Healthy organizations are designed to adapt and change to customer needs and free market demands. The U.S. Government 

should be no different. Our Founders conceived a durable governing framework and Constitution to serve the American people. 

However, our current Federal Government organization model has 

not kept pace with the 21st Century needs. 

Despite dramatic changes in technology, today’s Federal Government still operates much like it did 50 or 60 years ago. Current 

government infrastructure is not aligned to provide the service and 

flexibility that Americans expect in the Digital Age. 

I cringe when I hear how inefficient it is for Americans to interact with their government due to layers of organizational bureaucracy. This is not how Americans want their government to operate. 

Job seekers have to navigate more than 40 workforce development programs across 15 agencies, while small businesses face 

overlapping, multi-agency processes every time they engage with 

the Federal Government. 

Food safety has its well-known red tape, and there are numerous 

other examples of how everything from fish in our rivers to housing 
7 

benefits to infrastructure projects are subject to counterproductive 

layers of bureaucracy. 

Most programs were designed with positive intent and are funded by supportive taxpayers, but old-fashioned organizational complexity creates confusion for citizens. This Administration recognizes these challenges, and a March 2017 Executive Order directed 

the Office of Management and Budget to produce a comprehensive 

proposal to reform and reorganize the government to better meet 

the needs of the American people. This plan seeks to balance the 

mission, service, and stewardship responsibilities of the Executive 

Branch, while reducing inefficiency, risk, and duplication. 

Although it is difficult to cut bureaucracy and red tape, it is not 

impossible. The President’s Management Agenda (PMA) released in 

March offers a vision for government change that the Reform and 

Reorganization Plan continues. To that end, OMB reviewed reorganization proposals from agencies, academics, interest groups, and 

Federal employees. Over 106,000 public comments came from 

Americans interested in government efficiency. OMB shared this 

feedback with agencies to inform their proposals. 

We also reviewed GAO and CBO reports, leading organizational 

design frameworks, think tank recommendations, and business 

journals. Last month’s Reform and Reorganization Plan reflects 

synthesis of this input. 

The recommendations include top-down and bottom-up proposal 

for change, and they represent a starting point for public dialogue 

on much needed government transformation. This approach addresses difficulties that hampered past proposals by creating a holistic, all-of-government, organizational change blueprint rather 

than piecemeal recommendations. 

Given the seriousness of the task and its potential for impact to 

government missions and to our workforce, OMB conducted predecisional reform plan analysis in phases. The first phase was the 

data collection phase. When OMB collected key stakeholder input, 

seeking the most significant input from agencies, early outputs 

were included in the 2019 Budget. 

The second phase focused on opportunities to reduce duplication, 

fragmentation, and to improve cross-agency efficiency. This analysis drew heavily on GAO reports, including the GAO High Risk 

List and duplication reports. 

The final phase incorporated the President’s Management Agenda priorities identifying organizational opportunities to improve 

mission, service, and stewardship support in the 21st Century. 

Transformation at this scale will take time and teamwork to implement. Some changes can be achieved directly in Federal agencies, while other more complex proposals require Presidential or 

congressional action. Now that the Reform and Reorganization 

Plan has been issued, we are eager to engage with Congress on 

moving forward together. This Committee in particular will undoubtedly play a leadership role. 

We have seen similar transformations at the State and local levels. Cities like Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Detroit; States like 

Georgia, Arkansas, and North Carolina provide insights for rethinking government. We can learn from innovative State and local 

government approaches, including reorganization to address the 
8 

practical realities of delivering citizen services in the 21st Century 

without overburdening taxpayers. 

As the U.S. faces the challenge of serving the diverse needs of 

our growing country, commitment to government of the people, by 

the people, and for the people is critical. We must ensure that the 

Executive Branch is well aligned to 21st Century realities. 

As we collectively pursue the task of government transformation, 

OMB acknowledges the important role of dialogue and public deliberation in determining the trajectory for government change. 

I am grateful to be here today for this ongoing dialogue on the 

path forward. 

Thank you again for inviting me here. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Ms. Weichert. 

Normally, I would defer my questioning because I really want to 

reserve the time for the other Members that have shown up. 

In this case, I want to make a slight exception. In your testimony, you really have not listed kind of a prioritization. I have a 

six-page summary. I know you are talking about 32 proposals. 

There are 49 bullet points on this. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Yes. 

Chairman JOHNSON. A lot of ideas, a lot based on GAO. Can you 

just for the Committee, maybe to help structure our questioning, 

can you just lay out what you believe are, first of all, the top priorities of things that we really want to focus on first and what may 

be most possible, where there might be areas of agreement as opposed to obviously, Ranking Members talking about where there 

will be areas of disagreement. But can you just kind of talk about 

those top priorities before I turn it over to the Ranking Member? 

Ms. WEICHERT. Yes. Thank you, Senator. 

I think it is great framing to say that this activity was meant 

to showcase the art of the possible, and so, as noted, the proposals 

are at varying degrees of specificity. The things with less specificity 

are going to need more public dialogue, more traditional interactions on the specifics, but the ideas that are most prepared for 

near-term implementation, I would start first with background investigations. 

This is an issue I know that this body has thought long and hard 

about. When the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) in 

December suggested and required moving 70 percent of that capability from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to the Department of Defense (DOD), that really catalyzed an in-depth look 

at the economics and the efficacy of that entire function, which we 

all know needs a lot of work. The determination of that analysis, 

much of which has taken place in a public deliberative process, concluded that both the reality of having to move 70 percent and the 

economics of stranding the remaining 30 percent would mean that 

moving the entire background investigation made more sense and 

was less risky. That is the first proposal. 

I think the second one, the work on cyber, obviously very topical. 

The proposal outlines some specific work that OMB and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have done that, again, has been 

fairly well shared, and we would be happy to share more detail 

about that. I know this body has done a lot of work in thinking 

about how we can particularly look at our cyber workforce. The 
9 

work to actually do the skills gap assessment has already kicked 

off, so that is a second area. 

There are a number of other proposals. They did not get as much 

sort of noise in the press, but the customer experience proposal— 

there is the proposal for advanced research called the Government 

Effectiveness Advanced Research (GEAR) Center that actually 

would involve the creation of a capability outside of government, 

but with a real focus on government issues. That would bring private sector, government, academics, and the public together to address key issues in government. Those are the ones that I think are 

top of mind for me. 

There are a range of other really important topics that require 

deep consideration by Congress, and those need to—as you all have 

noted—follow a process that allows appropriate deliberation, and 

so, again, what is in the proposal is meant to be a framing-a vision 

document and the operating model component and then the implementation planning component are what typically come next. You 

frame the vision. You look at the operating model, the high-level 

target, and you do the analysis on the cost benefit at that point. 

Then you get into the detailed timelines and implementation planning. 

Chairman JOHNSON. You agree with the Ranking Member. There 

will be a lot more information supplied to Congress as we move forward on this. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Absolutely. The real question and part 

of—and we take many of the comments that we have heard today, 

but also we have seen in the literature. There is a bibliography on 

page 128 of the document that highlights some of the analysis we 

did looking at past reform efforts that failed. 

What we actually wanted to do—and my characterization from 

the private sector is a little bit different than what the Ranking 

Member suggested, but what this is is not the detailed due diligence. What this is is the prospectus to shareholders. It is a highlevel articulation of the objectives of the reorganization. It is not 

the cost-benefit analysis. It is not all the detailed planning. 

We actually loved the report that GAO released mid-June, days 

before we actually released the plan itself. We think that is utterly 

appropriate to apply to the operating model and implementation 

phases for these activities, and I have shared that with my team 

on that front. But this for the most part on the more complex 

projects was the vision framing to ensure that we did not hide in 

darkness and lose under the name of deliberation the potential art 

of the possible for the bigger change. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Thank you. 

I did not use up quite all my time. Senator McCaskill. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I understand the point you are making, and 

I get that. But as we move forward, we need to get the information 

that you have gotten that is informing you. 

The Executive Order that was issued on March 13, 2017, tasked 

OMB with developing a comprehensive plan. Shortly thereafter, 

OMB issued guidance to agencies for developing the plans. The 

guidance listed very specific things for agencies to consider. One of 

those things was cost, the cost of continuing to operate an agency 

and the cost of shutting down or merging agencies. 
10 

Did the agencies comply with OMB guidance? 

Ms. WEICHERT. That component of the analysis happened before 

I took over leadership of the work product earlier this year, but 

what I can say is the agencies that submitted plans attempted to 

comply. The ones where the detail was sufficient for those plans, 

they ended up in the 2019 budget. 

What we discovered and undoubtedly is not surprising to the 

members of this body, is the ask in the Executive Order was massive and the potential scope unlimited. What we got came in at 

varying levels of specificity, and we had to proceed based on what 

was appropriate to proceed with. 

Senator MCCASKILL. How many of the agencies complied with 

the guidance and gave you any information on cost of merging cost 

of shutting down, etc? How many of the agencies complied with 

that? 

Ms. WEICHERT. I cannot give you the specific number, but I 

would be happy to consult with my team at OMB and provide it. 

Senator MCCASKILL. When you get that number, you can see the 

list of the agencies that have complied and the estimates they 

made on cost? 

Ms. WEICHERT. Again, the notion of the pre-decisional deliberative process, much like in the budget process, follows a specific 

path to ensure that in the Executive Branch, we can adequately vet 

ideas, that we do not become so risk averse because we are concerned in the deliberative process. 

Senator MCCASKILL. You are concerned that some of the information that would become public would harm your effort to do what 

you would like to do? 

Ms. WEICHERT. I am concerned that we need to follow process 

that is—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Let me just get to the chase here. You have 

listed very specific things for the agencies to consider. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. You are asking Congress to give you the authority, maybe sequentially and maybe over years, to implement 

bold changes, but you are going to take the position that the information you have from the agencies has to be held within the Executive Branch and not shared with the Legislative Branch at this 

point in time. Is that an accurate assessment? 

Ms. WEICHERT. No, it is not. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. Will you share the information you 

have received from the agencies about the cost of this plan with 

this Committee? 

Ms. WEICHERT. When the plan is in the post-deliberative 

stage—when we have determined that there is sufficient information that it can follow either a normal budgetary implication— 

again, as I said earlier, the plans that had sufficient information 

and impact from a cost-benefit analysis, those plans were included 

in the 2019 budget, and that information was shared in the way 

it is in any budget cycle. That is kind of the notion that the vision 

was the starting point, the framing, but the actual execution needs 

to follow the processes that we are all familiar with, whether it is 

administrative action, Presidential action, budgetary action, or congressional action. 
11 

Senator MCCASKILL. If we cannot get what you are getting that 

is informing the proposals you made, how can you expect us to fully 

evaluate those proposals? I do not understand how you think that 

is going to work. 

Ms. WEICHERT. For things to actually get implemented—we have 

shared the reason why the proposals were considered. We have 

shared the framing of it. For anything to move forward into implementation, again, if we go back—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. So you are not recommending an implementation of anything at this point in time? 

Ms. WEICHERT. All of the implementation activities will follow 

the normal course of business, the way it does in government. You 

brought up a great example of how M&A happens. The initial discussion in an M&A context happens completely behind closed 

doors. Lots of considerations are discussed, debated behind closed 

doors effectively in an effective body. 

When it is time for implementation, they have to go to more of 

a due diligence process, and then it is published. Because of the nature of a public forum and a lot of the legislative authorities, we 

needed to put something out as a framing document so we could 

have the conversation about substance in the way that it always 

happens. 

Senator MCCASKILL. You are not going to get very far if you do 

not give us the data. I am just telling you. It is not going to happen. If you think you are going to be able to come to us and make 

serious proposals about reorganizing government without sharing 

with us the data that you are basing those recommendations on, 

this is a nonstarter. 

I think we have to get clarity on what exactly you are—— 

Ms. WEICHERT. When we have a proposal—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Two of the things you have actually made 

specific reference to today, I think are well down the line because 

they began during the Obama administration—— 

Ms. WEICHERT. Correct. 

Senator MCCASKILL [continuing]. Both cyber and customer service. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. There is data out there, but for the vast majority of this proposal, we have no data. Until we have data, it 

would be highly irresponsible. We are the board of directors here, 

but this is a little different than a private company in that this is 

the public’s money. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Yes. Absolutely agree. 

Senator MCCASKILL. This is their services. This is not about 

making a profit. This is about making sure that somebody down 

that rural road in Shannon County can start a small business and 

get delivery of their packages on Friday and Saturday. This is 

something that is really important in terms of us having all the 

data. 

If you think you can closely hold this and not share with us, then 

there is going to build up a level of distrust and build up a level 

of why are not they sharing, what is it they do not want us to 

know. I am trying to give you solid, good advice. 
12 

I am not your enemy here. I want to help you do this, but I cannot go further. 

Ms. WEICHERT. I appreciate the advice. I would like to just share. 

As the proposals get closer to implementation—again, this was a 

vision of—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. You cannot implement without us. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Right, but we are not—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. You are saying you are going to make a decision on implementation without us? 

Ms. WEICHERT. No. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. 

Ms. WEICHERT. What I am actually committing to is as the proposals get traction in this type of dialogue about substance as opposed to process, we will follow the process that you always have 

in considering legislative proposals. We are not there yet. I understand the frustration that we are not there yet, but the task that 

we had was to be big enough. That was the expanding part of the 

task. 

Now for 32 proposals that are not at the same level of deliberation or analysis, we cannot give lists that are completely uneven in 

terms of the level of data. 

I agree with you. We cannot make decisions on data if we are 

a mile deep in one place and an inch deep in another place. 

What you have characterized as stonewalling, I would characterize as definitive deliberative thought about what is it time for 

now. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Come when you are ready. When you are 

ready, come to us. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Absolutely, I will. 

Senator MCCASKILL. You are clearly not ready. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I think you are talking about each other. 

I do not see any problem in terms of providing a vision, an outline. These things are not fully fleshed out. They are really not proposals yet. You can call them a proposal. It is kind of a definition. 

When you are really ready to propose something, you are going to 

have the information. You will provide that to us. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Absolutely. 

Chairman JOHNSON. But developing the proposal to a position or 

a point where you can actually make the proposal, there is a deliberative process in there. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Right. 

Chairman JOHNSON. You have a very unequal level of detail from 

different agencies. I think that is pretty understandable. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Right. 

Chairman JOHNSON. But, what you are committing to us is once 

you have done that deliberative process, you have brought one of 

these ideas, one of these visions to the point where you literally can 

make it a proposal, you will have the data backup, and you will 

share that with us. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Correct. 

Chairman JOHNSON. That is just obvious, right? Part of our piece 

of legislation will actually require the fact that we are going to 
13 

have to see that there is going to be some reduction number of 

agencies and cost reduction. 

There will be information provided once the proposal is at a 

State. Maybe we have to come up with different terminology. These 

are bullet points of a vision, and when the proposal is finally made, 

they will have the information. You are not going to be hiding anything from us. You are going to making full disclosure because we 

will all demand it, correct? 

Ms. WEICHERT. Correct. Absolutely. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Senator Lankford. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD 

Senator LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Let me tell you how I see it. When I go through the list, I go 

back to business perspective in the past and remember a very old 

term, the big, hairy, audacious goals (BHAG), and that is really 

what I see this, as the list of the big, hairy, audacious goals. Without any details under them, just to say this is a vision of have we 

considered and would we consider to be able to look at it because 

some of these things obviously will take years—— 

Ms. WEICHERT. Correct. 

Senator LANKFORD [continuing]. To be able to think through and 

to be able to gather data and to be able to go through. 

Can I ask just a specific questions on this? How many of these 

big, hairy, audacious goals that you are laying out there and different vision ideas are coming from GAO High Risk List or Inspector General (IG) reports or from previous Administrations to say 

this is something that is out there that has been considered for a 

while? 

I know a lot of these things were bottom up from different agencies or different individuals that work in agencies say this is something we should consider. How many of them are specifically GAO, 

IG, or previous Administration? 

Ms. WEICHERT. There are about 20 of the 32 proposals that have 

input or a significant fact base derived from the GAO reports. 

When I talk about the highest level—and I talked to Gene 

Dodaro about the proposals—we agreed it is probably about 40 percent of the proposals are effectively, if not identical, fairly close to 

what has been recommended by GAO. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. What about from previous Administrations, however far back as you want to go? 

Ms. WEICHERT. I could look at the exact numbers. Many of them, 

I would say. Probably 10 to 12 include items from previous Administrations. 

Senator LANKFORD. All right. Jeh Johnson spent a lot of time 

with this Committee going through DHS and the restructuring and 

the requests and brought multiple requests to us on what to be 

able to do to be able to help some of the process in that particular 

instance. We are familiar with dealing with those. We have had a 

lot of debate on what that would look like, and we will look forward 

to continuing to be able to get information as these continue to get 

fleshed out in the future. 

Let me ask a question that Senator McCaskill had asked as well. 

How do we get a good balance between what the Administration al-
14 

ready has authority to do and what the Administration does not 

have authority? It is obviously going to be a longer deliberative 

process. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Right. 

Senator LANKFORD. You have mentioned already security clearances as one of those. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Right. Our estimate is there are about 10 to 12 

proposals that do not require legislative activity in addition to some 

of the agency-specific proposals that were included in the 2019 

budget. Things like the customer experience idea that I mentioned, 

things like what we are doing in cyber workforce, but even that 

one, I think there could be additive areas of input from Congress. 

On even some of the things we could do ourselves, that might be 

part of a broader proposal. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. That is helpful. We will try to work 

through that process together, but that is a clear line for us that 

we have to be able to know what is our part, what is this Administration’s part, and what they are already taking on. 

Let me bring up something else this Committee has spent a lot 

of time talking about, and it is real property. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Yes. 

Senator LANKFORD. You addressed this as one of the ideas in trying to be able to resolve this. This is one of the things we have 

started looking at with how the General Services Administration 

(GSA) disposes of properties that are either underutilized or underutilized property, but also how we are doing leasing or buying. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Yes. 

Senator LANKFORD. Recently, I was going through some reports 

and looked at the requests for the Department of Transportation 

(DOT) Headquarters here in Washington, DC. They are requesting 

to be able to buy the facility. Well, that is a great idea. It is the 

headquarters. We will probably have the Department of Transportation for a very long time. We should probably own the facility. 

The problem is we have been leasing that facility for 15 

years—— 

Ms. WEICHERT. Yes. 

Senator LANKFORD [continuing]. At an approximate cost of $750 

million to lease it for 15 years. Now we are being offered to buy the facility for $750 million. We 

are paying for the building twice. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Right. 

Senator LANKFORD. The first 15 years, there is very little maintenance of the building. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Right. 

Senator LANKFORD. For the owner of the building to lease it to 

us, it is no skin off their nose because air conditioners are going 

to work, all those kind of things. That is not an issue. Now it will 

be, and we are going to own it then. It was a terrible idea 15 years 

ago. 

Trying to be able to fix how we are disposing of property, when 

we are buying and leasing property, this is a very big issue to this 

Committee. Senator Carper spent a lot of time on this issue. What 

are some of the proposals that you are already looking at for that 

area? 
15 

Ms. WEICHERT. I think it is a great idea. One of the very specific 

things that gets to the heart of this idea is the Federal Capital Revolving Fund. 

Back in business school, there is a very classic financed truism 

when you compare a lease by decision. Usually, the only rational 

economic reason for a lease decision is if there is a tax benefit to 

that decision, and obviously, government does not have a tax benefit for that decision. 

The other reality could be a cash-flow consideration and how the 

actual money gets allocated, and very often some of our leasing decisions are made because of the nature of the appropriations process. What is in the proposal actually looks at a Federal capital revolving fund that would essentially free us up to make more rational decisions about a lease-buy decision if we really think the asset 

would be valuable for us in the long term. 

Senator LANKFORD. One of the things that you looked at was a 

territorial issue of who runs this space and who has this lane, 

whether that be in small business lending, small business programs, which are scattered all over the Federal Government—— 

Ms. WEICHERT. Right. 

Senator LANKFORD [continuing]. Whether that be in veterans’ 

cemeteries—— 

Ms. WEICHERT. Right. 

Senator LANKFORD [continuing]. Which are also scattered all over 

multiple agencies, whether that would be in other projects and 

other grant-making, which again is scattered everywhere. How did 

you make the determination to say there is a wide variety of entities doing basically the same thing? We need to be able to consolidate, or do we need to be able to streamline that within the agencies? 

Ms. WEICHERT. Yes. I think there are a number of things, again, 

in the proposal that speak to how do we leverage data to really be 

much more thoughtful about how we are making decisions. That is 

very much something in the private sector, and so relocation analytics and being more thoughtful about that are critical components 

of the proposal. 

A range of smarter leasing activities that will allow us to make 

improvements to how we make decision about our leasing decisions, and then the number of process improvements included build 

on the Federal Assets Sale Transfer Act (FASTA) work that has already been put in place. 

I think there are a range of ideas that are fairly tangible and designed to provide incentives for agencies to do the right thing, that 

perhaps they do not have those incentives today, and then to provide data to make it easier for them to do that. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. If I could say this, Mr. Chairman, as 

well, Senator Heitkamp and I are in a hearing on the Office of Personnel Management, coming up very soon. There are seven areas 

that OPM has responsibility for. Five of those, you are recommending transferring out. The other two is left undefined, and we 

do not know what that is, if it stays there, if there is a future plan 

for that as well. But that is an area that we are going to continue 

to be able to focus in on. 

Obviously, there is lots of issues with OPM—— 
16 

Ms. WEICHERT. Yes. 

Senator LANKFORD [continuing]. That are historic issues there 

that absolutely affect our Federal retiring workforce dramatically, 

and so we are going to continue on with ongoing hearings to be 

able to drill down a little bit more in that particular area. 

Ms. WEICHERT. I look forward to that because it is critical. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Let me get a little clarity here. You said 

there were 10 to 12 of your proposals that do not need any kind 

of legislative authority. Does that include the authorizing language 

that Senator Lankford and I are proposing here, the Reform Government Act? 

Ms. WEICHERT. Those would be before that language. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. So 10 to 12 of these things, we can expect the Administration to move forward with? 

Ms. WEICHERT. That is our hope. We are using the remaining 

time this summer to really go through the analysis and clearance 

process about what we would do there, purely administratively. 

Some things may be done via executive action. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. 

Ms. WEICHERT. There will be obvious communications about that 

as it moves forward. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Using your current authorities, following 

the process the way—— 

Ms. WEICHERT. Correct. 

Chairman JOHNSON [continuing]. Previous Congresses laid to out 

for you? 

Ms. WEICHERT. Correct. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Do we know which ones? 

Ms. WEICHERT. We are working on that as we speak. 

Senator MCCASKILL. You just said 10 to 12. Which 10 to 12? 

Ms. WEICHERT. Correct. We are prioritizing and determining 

which of those would move forward by the end of the summer. 

Senator MCCASKILL. You know the 10 to 12, but you will not tell 

us today? 

Ms. WEICHERT. We have not cleared which of those would be 

move forward—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. She is ball-parking. 

Ms. WEICHERT [continuing]. Because we are doing pre-decisional 

deliberative analysis. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Yes. That is perfectly appropriate. There is 

nothing wrong with that. You are giving us some sort of sense, and 

you will inform us when you have made those decisions. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Right. I did share a few of them. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Again, this is the process, and we are at the 

start of it. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Right. Yes. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Senator Heitkamp. 
17 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP 

Senator HEITKAMP. First impressions are everything, and when 

you release that document, I think it is fair for us to assume that 

there was data beyond that document, that there was analysis behind that document, and that we should have access to that analysis as you work through these things. You cannot just plop these 

in, in the budget process, and expect us all to say, ‘‘Brilliant. Great 

idea.’’ 

If you really want this to work, as Senator McCaskill has said, 

you have to form a greater partnerships with us, especially when 

we have been looking at this. We are the Committee that is most 

committed to making this happen. 

I am going to give you an example, the postal issues. Right after 

you guys came out, I met with Congressman Meadows and the 

Postal Task Force that the President has put together. Did you 

consult the President’s Postal Task Force? Did you consult the 

Postal Service? What were their recommendations as you move forward with a recommendation for privatization, which has created 

a great deal of angst now that we have these rural communities 

who are very concerned? They have already lost service standards. 

Now we are suggesting we are going to privatize where we know 

the last mile is not an easy mile to cover. 

My point is, did you consult the task force? Did you consult the 

Postal Service? What were their recommendations that came to you 

that led you to conclude that we should privatize the post office? 

Ms. WEICHERT. I appreciate that question, and it is absolutely 

something critical and that we absolutely are interested in a sustainable economic path forward that includes university service 

and provides a fair—— 

Senator HEITKAMP. No, you are not really answering my question. 

Ms. WEICHERT. I am trying to get there. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Yes or no. Did you consult the President’s 

task force on postal issues? 

Ms. WEICHERT. The work that we did preceded the creation of 

the task force. So there has been communication between the bodies, and the same folks that are involved in this proposal also are 

participating in the work of the task force. 

Senator HEITKAMP. OK. Did the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) suggest that they move food stamps out of USDA and over 

to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)? 

Ms. WEICHERT. I cannot comment on the specifics of the origins 

of that particular proposal. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Imagine that you are on this side of the dais 

and you are responsible for implementing this, and like Senator 

McCaskill has said, we want to help you, but this is the answer 

we get: ‘‘We release this document. It makes us look like we are 

innovators; we are reformers. But, oh, by the way, do not ask the 

question about whether USDA had this recommendation or HHS or 

if that was just something somebody invented over at OMB.’’ 

Senator MCCASKILL. Or Heritage. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Yes. I am not going to get into that. 

But I will tell you that this will not work unless we have complete partnership, and it will not work with an idea that down the 
18 

line, we will see the source documents. You have released a report 

with recommendations that will affect service delivery to our constituents, and we are interested in streamlining, but we are not 

getting the kind of background information that we need to support 

you. 

Maybe you are right. Maybe these are things we ought to do, but 

this idea that later on we will all get to see the data and the documents, why release this without data and documents? Why not release something that has the kind of gravitas? 

You used mergers and acquisitions. That is like one side of a 

merger and acquisition releasing the report to sway the public one 

way or the other without anyone having an opportunity to hear the 

other side of it, right? 

Ms. WEICHERT. Typically, in M&A, most of the deliberations are 

not public. In this environment, we need to have more public deliberation about the bigger ideas. 

What I would say is there is a bibliography on page 128 that 

shares a lot of the impetus for the top-down proposals, and duplication and overlap as well as mission, service, and stewardship were 

the critical drivers. 

What I can say about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program (SNAP) proposal is the origins of SNAP in USDA had to 

do with the notion of originally it being food—— 

Senator HEITKAMP. No, I know. I know why SNAP is over at 

USDA. I know why the food bill—— 

Ms. WEICHERT. Right. What I was saying—— 

Senator HEITKAMP [continuing]. Is structured the way it is. 

Ms. WEICHERT [continuing]. The idea of moving it came from the 

notion that how the electronic benefit is delivered today electronically, not in commodity food form, at the States and local levels, 

it is delivered together with other forms of aid like the Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). 

Senator HEITKAMP. I understand. I am not opposed necessarily 

to that happening, but it is a true example of where we do not have 

the analysis behind it that would give us the ability to say yes or 

no. 

I do not mean to browbeat you, but this sense that you can hide 

all this data—and that may be unfair, but that you can hide all 

this data until you spring a proposal into a budget proposal and 

then we are going to have time to analyze it, it is not going to 

work. You are not going to be successful doing that. 

The best way to be successful is to give us the source data. Let 

us take a look at it. If this is not a political document, then let us 

make sure that it is not a political document by having transparency, and that is one of the problems that we have here, is that 

we need transparency. Clearly, on the postal stuff, you have raised 

a lot of concern in my State with the proposal of privatizing the 

Post Office. You have bitten off a huge chunk that will lead to 

weighing you down rather than working with people to listen to the 

various proposals. 

Privatizing, your example on the Post Office does nothing to get 

us to solvency. It does nothing to solve the problems of the Post Office. We would love to have a partner. 
19 

I met with the Treasury folks. They seem to be moving in the 

right direction, I felt a great deal of confidence with the work that 

is being done by the task force at this point. We will have a chance 

to deliberate. 

But when there is an overarching kind of, ‘‘this is the plan,’’ it 

really dilutes, I think, the efforts that we have been taking, and 

the Post Office is a great example on that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I often describe this Committee as nonpartisan, not even bipartisan. Nonpartisan. I just have to say it is 

disappointing. 

You have put the Administration in a no-win situation here. It 

is a lose-lose. They are coming before us with a proposal that has 

not been all fleshed out. If they were not doing this and if they got 

all the proposals fleshed out, had all the data, and it was going to 

take more months, then there would be the complaints, ‘‘Well, how 

come you were not consulting with us?’’ 

Again, this is the start of the process. Ms. Weichert has come 

here beginning that consultation with us, she does not have all the 

data. 

You talk about source data. There is a deliberative process here. 

I have no doubt I will want to see the information. If there is somebody who is data driven on this Committee, it is me. 

I have been doing a lot of work on postal, and I absolutely am 

going to require data to determine what course of action we need 

to take on any of these proposals. 

I guess I am just cutting the Administration some slack here 

from the standpoint of they are trying to consult with us, lay this 

thing out, so we can start looking at this. I will be demanding the 

information required to move forward on any of these proposals. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Listen, Mr. Chairman, I get what you are 

saying, and I do think this Committee is not a partisan committee. 

I think there are a lot of people on here—and I think that we 

have records to show—that we have spent an awful lot of time trying to get to the efficiency and the effectiveness of government and 

doing aggressive oversight about duplication and waste, all of those 

things. 

But you cannot expect us to sit here at a hearing and say, ‘‘Gosh, 

this is a great document.’’ You have to expect us to ask where it 

came from. You have to expect us to ask basic questions about 

what underlies these recommendations. Where did they come from? 

What are they based upon? 

Did you expect this hearing to be ‘‘Gosh, this is really great. 

Thanks’’? That is not what this hearing is. 

Chairman JOHNSON. No. 

Senator MCCASKILL. This hearing is about fleshing out on what 

basis did these recommendations come about, and the essential 

component of that is where did they come from, what data are they 

based on. 

To act as if us asking for data is a partisan exercise is terribly 

unfair. 

Chairman JOHNSON. No. 

Senator MCCASKILL. She should expect that these are the questions that are going to be asked. She should expect that we are 
20 

going to want to know whether it came from Heritage or whether 

it came from GAO, and we know a lot of these came from Heritage. 

They gave us our Supreme Court nominees. They now are giving 

us government proposals. 

We have a right to know where these proposals came from. Did 

the USDA recommend this? Was there a recommendation from 

Postal? Was there a recommendation from the Department of Defense as it relates to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)? 

These are all reasonable questions to be asked. 

Chairman JOHNSON. At the appropriate time. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And that does not turn us—but what is this 

hearing for? 

Chairman JOHNSON. This is the first step in the consultative 

process for us to understand the scope. 

Senator MCCASKILL. What questions should we be asking? 

Chairman JOHNSON. Those are fine, but the answers, you do not 

have to expect them today. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. 

Chairman JOHNSON. They will come when the proposals are actually being made. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. So then I would just—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. This is the vision statement. 

Senator MCCASKILL. For economy in the future, if this is just 

about us asking questions and not getting answers, then why do 

not we do it by writing and then have a hearing when she can provide the answers? Because I do not see the purpose of a hearing 

if us asking reasonable questions are going to be couched as a partisan activity. It is just not fair to us. 

I think if the roles are reversed, you would be doing the exact 

same thing. In fact, I am kind of surprised you are not doing more 

of it today because typically you are the one that says if government wants to move the needle, there needs to be data. 

This is not partisan. I want to work with you. I want to make 

our government more efficient, but I cannot—and if the idea 

is—first, she said 10 to 12 are going to be done by summer. Are 

we going to have another hearing before they are done? Are we 

going to get answers to these questions that are going to be done 

administratively? Are we going to have any data about what they 

are doing administratively, or are we just ceding the fact that the 

Executive Branch has the right to do it? 

Maybe we want to disagree over whether they have the right to 

do it. That is why it would be helpful to know what are the 10 to 

12 that are in consideration. 

How about this? How about them going into the Budget Proposal? Are we going to have a hearing before they go into a Budget 

Proposal so that we can get at the underlying data? We are never 

going to have a chance in this Committee to get at the underlying 

data in a Budget Proposal because that will be the Budget Committee. 

If this is the oversight committee for government and if there is 

a massive plan to reorganize government, I guarantee you we have 

the right to ask these questions, and I believe that it is fair for 

those answers to come as soon as these proposals are made. We 

ought to be able to at least get basics like how many agencies gave 
21 

you cost benefit. Why does that have to be a secret? What is the 

purpose of that? 

Chairman JOHNSON. First of all, I do not believe it is not, and 

I actually broke form. I asked questions, and I laid out what are 

the top priorities. Ms. Weichert laid out top priorities so we can ask 

follow up questions and we can follow that process through. 

I think the questions will be answered. I will demand that they 

are answered at the right time. This is just the start of the process. 

It is the start. 

If the Administration wanted to come before us, had they not 

laid out this vision, then we would be complaining about the fact 

that you are dropping this on us 4 months without consulting with 

us. This is the beginning of the consultation process, and I think 

it is totally appropriate. I do not expect all these detailed answers 

to be answered today, but I will expect them. And I would imagine 

the Administration will be willing to answer those in detail as each 

proposal is actually being made, when they have the data, past the 

deliberative process. Once they finally have the data there to make 

the proposal, then I will expect full disclosure, OK? That is all I 

am saying. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Will we get that—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. But we can—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Will we get that before the Administration 

makes these changes of 10 to 12 that you said you would make by 

the end of the summer? Will we get the data on those changes? 

Ms. WEICHERT. All of the proposals that move by administrative 

action would follow the standard process for those types of actions. 

Senator MCCASKILL. That did not answer the question. Will we 

get the data underlying those decisions before you make those decisions? 

Ms. WEICHERT. My challenge today—making blanket statements 

about lists of objects that are not alike—is difficult. If we talk 

about, how are we moving forward on cyber, there are elements of 

guidance that we are moving forward on. There are elements of 

other administrative Presidential action that we are moving forward on. 

My big challenge—and I understand the energy in the room. I 

really do because I do not know the last time a proposal had 32 

sort of even medium-size scary ideas in them, let alone the smaller 

ones that are kind of at the back. But I cannot do blanket statements around lists because they are not like objects. 

What I can commit to is that we are trying to be open and transparent at the appropriate time, but we need to make sure that to 

the extent we need to get feedback before we finalize what the operating model might be, so we are really well positioned to frame 

it and get the right cost-benefit analysis data—because, for example, there are proposals. Privatization of the Postal Service, that is 

an example where it is a framing idea. It could have a bunch of 

implementation hurdles. The notion of universal service that you 

raise is absolutely critical to the economy, not just of rural America, but all of America. 

To the extent we cannot thread the needle around this big idea, 

that frankly the largest orientation for that idea is precedent in 

other countries and a top-down analysis of how other countries 
22 

have done it. Other countries are not the United States. They may 

not have the geographic dispersion that we have. 

What is here, the big, hairy, audacious goal that Senator 

Lankford mentioned, is to frame the conversation. I am absolutely 

prepared to have conversations about what is wrong with the idea 

here, but the main thing that this document was meant to do was 

to say this is the nature of the problem we are trying to solve, and 

here is not the only proposal, not the definitive proposal, but a proposal for how we solve it. That is the vision piece. 

The operating model piece is the next piece where we say, ‘‘OK. 

Here is really where we are going to lay out the data for the piece 

parts,’’ and that is the place where I would expect we would have 

a whole lot more data. 

Again, what GAO laid out in the document that responded to 

your inquiry, I think is a fantastic framework that lays out not 

only answering the key questions that you all rightly have, but also 

how you measure success against that over time. 

Maybe the last philosophical point I will make is—I have been 

through probably 40 reorganizations in the private sector, and one 

of the things that reorganization in the private sector does is bring 

attention to problems. It is rare—Bank of America, I think is a 

great example, reorganizing constantly. It creates anxiety. The 

more you do it, the more you get comfortable at least with the process. 

We have not really done it in government in so long, but simple 

process of asking these reorganization questions shines a light on 

these areas and very often leads to action organically on the 

ground that starts solving those problems. 

I would anticipate even on some of the things that feel in the pit 

of people’s stomach like this is just scary and we do not like it— 

I am willing to bet that is going to motivate action in the workforce, in management, and across this body and elsewhere to really 

say, ‘‘OK. If we do not want to reorganize, how might we address 

that same problem?’’ I think there is a lot of examples, even when 

we looked in the deliberative process, of things that you might 

make a top-down recommendation about moving this thing over 

here because they sound alike, where the agencies themselves recognize that and created a joint task force or operating activities 

that eliminated duplication. 

The biggest motivating factor when I got involved in this activity, 

sort of early January, was to say how do we actually make change 

happen, not how do we deliver a report, but how do we actually ask 

the tough questions that have not gotten answers, have not gotten 

traction, despite the good efforts of this body and others, like how 

do we shock the system so that we really make change happen? 

I absolutely stipulate that you are doing your job by asking me 

these questions. I am not offended. I have to follow what I believe 

is the process that can actually be digested. 

I brought an enormous menu. I did not have all the ingredients 

memorized or even in the report. I would say the bibliography is 

a good place to get a sense of the framing of this. Contrary to what 

makes nice headlines, the framing of this is not political. It is 

about making government operations work and learning from leading private-sector practices. 
23 

Sorry for the speech. 

Chairman JOHNSON. The way you effect changes, you think big. 

You think outside the box. You start the conversation. You start 

the process. That is what this is. This is a broad range of proposals. 

Some can be done within the agencies. Maybe you should have left 

those off the list, but again, just like a GAO report, there are some 

things the agencies can do themselves, some things we ask Gene 

Dodaro, ‘‘Is there legislation required?’’ But we are basically at that 

stage. 

All I am asking is let us be supportive here. Let us understand 

this is the start of the process, and I will assure Committee Members, particularly where it requires legislation, I will be right there 

demanding the backup, the information, the data. I am driven by 

that. 

I think we have a director here who is completely qualified to go 

through this process. 

Senator Hassan, sorry we stomped on your order here, but now 

it is your turn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Ranking 

Member McCaskill, for having this hearing, and thank you, Ms. 

Weichert, for being here today and for your work. 

I certainly appreciate the meeting we had to discuss this proposal a few weeks ago. It was a bipartisan meeting with Members 

of this Committee. I thought it was productive, but as you are 

hearing today, an early abstract of a plan causes concern. We all 

share the priority of working toward a more efficient and effective 

Federal Government, and there are specific goals in this plan that 

I have supported for years, common-sense ideas such as saving taxpayers money by unloading unused Federal property. 

The devil is always in the details, as we discussed, and as I 

noted several weeks ago in our meeting, there are parts of this 

plan that I find very concerning. 

But I want to take a step back because of the discussion we have 

just had. I was happy to see in the introduction of the plan on page 

3 that you paraphrased the Preamble to the United States Constitution about what the job of government is, and one of the things 

you are hearing today is that the job of the U.S. Government is not 

exactly the same as the job of a business in the private sector. We 

are supposed to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. Quite a tall order, and it is what 

makes us who we are as a country. 

When you talk about anxiety of the workforce when they see a 

plan like this, I think about the anxiety of the American public because they depend on us to deliver in all sorts of ways. They depend on us to deliver after a natural disaster. Many Americans depend on the Federal Government of the United States to support 

and protect their civil rights. It does not get more basic in a democracy than that. 

I think it is really important that we take this from the abstract 

and remember how this actually impacts people because that is 

how we have to evaluate whether an idea is a good one, not wheth-
24 

er it sounds good or whether we would win in a philosophy debate, 

but whether in fact it is deliverable, given our mission as a country. 

I have a couple of questions about some specifics. One of them 

goes to a concern that I raised in our meeting, but one of the goals 

that I find particularly important in this proposal is solving the 

Federal cyber workforce shortage. 

I have been pressing the Office of Personnel Management for 

months to get basic information, such as how many Federal workers we have doing cybersecurity in each agency, but as far as I can 

tell, the information does not yet exist. That speaks to the magnitude of the problem we face in ensuring that we have the 

cybersecurity personnel we need to protect the Federal Government 

from hackers. 

As we have reiterated just in the past week, the Russian government was fully willing and able to attack our election infrastructure in 2016 and hack into a State election website, stealing sensitive information about 500,000 American voters. 

As my Republican colleague, Senator Lankford, correctly noted, 

that was a Russian attack on our democracy. If Russia is willing 

and able to attack our election infrastructure, they and others will 

absolutely attack our Federal agencies, and we need to ensure that 

we have a cybersecurity workforce in place to prevent and mitigate 

those attacks. 

The idea outlined in this plan would create a unified cyber workforce across the Federal Government. It is an ambitious proposal 

in part because it would impact so many agencies. 

I am going to ask you to be brief because I have a couple other 

questions. If you were to move forward with this proposal or something like it, how would you work with each of the impacted agencies to garner appropriate feedback and buy-in before such a proposal was finalized and implemented? 

Ms. WEICHERT. Thank you for what you shared, and I share your 

concerns on this. 

As we have outlined in the proposal, the first thing is to get that 

talent gap assessment and an actual inventory, and we have kicked 

off the process to gather that feedback. That process has started. 

We do not have the results yet back in. 

In terms of another information component, we need more of our 

unfilled slots around cyber, so not only where do we have gaps, but 

where do we actually have outstanding billets that we have not 

filled? Then working largely through guidance, both from OMB and 

from OPM to address the specific areas, I do think there is a number of interesting proposals that I have seen both here and in the 

House that are looking at other things we might do. But our initial 

start is with the authorities we already have. 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you. 

That is one of the ideas where I think your proposal has some 

promise. 

Let me share an area that is one of the most concerning ideas 

in the proposal, which is merging the Department of Education and 

Labor. There are opportunities to better coordinate workforce training across agencies to be sure, but fundamentally, these two De-
25 

partments have the responsibility to protect rights in two vastly 

different settings, and they carry out very different functions. 

Under this proposal, a single enforcement agency will combine a 

number—I think it is up to eight—of currently separate divisions, 

including the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA), and the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. 

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration was created 

in 1970 to combat the rising injury and death rates in the workplace. 

The mission of the Office for Civil Rights is to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout 

the Nation through vigorous enforcement of civil rights, making 

sure every child has access. 

These entities, the offices came about because we discovered over 

the course of our history that unless there were champions in the 

Federal Government to protect workers, to protect kids, for instance, with special needs, those protections did not happen. That 

is why we are here. These did not come out of thin air. They came 

out because workers were dying on the job. Kids who had disabilities could not go to school. 

This Administration has a track record of chipping away at workers’ protections, including blocking OSHA rules and limiting public 

information about important action taken against bad actor employers. 

The Administration also has scaled back on the enforcement of 

important civil rights protections, such as rescinding the 2011 Title 

IX guidance and dismissing hundreds of civil rights complaints in 

schools because they were deemed to be part of a so-called serial 

filing. When you are combining these missions and many others, 

students and workers will presumably be left with no champion to 

carry out important protections under Federal laws, and that creates real concern. 

A single senior official tasked to oversee this division will be 

forced to choose what protections are more important when allocating limited resources. 

This reorganization comes off as another attempt by this Administration to undermine workers’ rights, students’ rights, and civil 

rights. 

Let me just start with this. Would you agree that the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights has a vastly different 

mission than the Office of Safety and Health Administration? 

Ms. WEICHERT. Absolutely. 

Senator HASSAN. How will you ensure that important protections 

under Federal law do not fall to the wayside in the name of government efficiency? 

Ms. WEICHERT. I think this would be a very appropriate area for 

a collaborative set of dialogues with Congress and the Executive 

Branch because, as you can see in the proposal, the main drivers 

were mission elements about workforce development and kind of 

lifetime learning. 

The proposal itself did not envision touching compliance from a 

mission standpoint. I think there might be some elements of service. How do we make it easier for people to navigate? Because, as 

you well know, it is very difficult for people who are advocating for 
26 

special education or whether it is workforce-or education-related 

activities to interact with government. But I think this is exactly 

the kind of area where we need to have that collaborative dialogue 

about ensuring all of the functions of that mission are protected. 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you, and I look forward to working further with you. 

Thank you for letting me go over, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Jones. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JONES 

Senator JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, 

for holding this hearing. 

Ms. Weichert, thank you for being here. 

I apologize that I had to leave earlier to do a floor speech with 

Senator Alexander. 

I know I have missed a lot, obviously. One of the things—and I 

am about to ask something that I came in on and heard you make 

a couple of statements about. If I am taking this out of context, 

please correct me. But when I walked in as you were answering, 

I think, Senator McCaskill’s questions, you made a comment about 

one of the missions here is how do we make change, how do we 

shock the system to make change happen, and my concern with 

that when I heard that was—first of all, this Administration is 

making a lot of shocks to the system, and second of all, it almost 

appears that this mission was to find the change to make change 

happen, not to see what changes might need to happen. 

Now, am I reading that wrong? Is part of your mission to simply 

go in and make the changes and to shock the system to make the 

changes, or are you studying what is the appropriate way—should 

things be changed at all? Everybody wants to be more efficient, but 

I am concerned that we have an Administration here that went 

into this with a bunch of stakeholders in the private sector who 

said, ‘‘We want this.’’ They are after you to make the changes, and 

your job is to implement the changes that those people wanted. 

Tell me I am wrong. I hope I am wrong. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Yes. I do not think—perhaps coming into a word 

like ‘‘shock the system’’ sent the wrong message, but the point I 

was trying to make earlier was the change we need in the 21st 

Century to our organization structure is big, right? Incremental 

change will not get us from a system that is fundamentally rooted 

in the mission and the organization structures that came out of 

World War II and that mission. 

Our mission today is much more complex. It is much more technologically driven, and from my perspective, what has been happening and really why I am here is that change is needed. 

If you look at actually what informs the proposal, it is heavily 

informed, as I discussed with Senator Lankford, by stacks of GAO 

reports about needed areas for improvement around duplication, 

fragmentation, and overlap, areas where the reason there are pictures of human beings in this report is not marketing. It is about 

the mission, the service to Americans. It is about what Senator 

Johnson mentioned that average Americans feel this bureaucracy 

that is misaligned to the 21st Century. 
27 

And so, the words ‘‘shock to the system,’’ I understand why they 

might get taken out of context, but the notion is incremental 

change is not enough. I have a 17-year-old and a 14-year-old. I 

would like them to inherit a government that can actually do the 

things that Senator Hassan actually mentioned. 

Today, so much of the mission of providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, preserving the blessings of 

liberty is tied up in bureaucracy, not because the history of why it 

was was bad, but because the current implementation is just—calcified. It is layers on layers. 

It absolutely is not, an answer in search of a problem. GAO has 

laid out the problems. You all have identified the problems. What 

I view as a newcomer to government is we have not gotten traction 

on the problems doing business as usual, and so what this approach of kind of a big, hairy, audacious goal, a big vision with lots 

of ideas was meant to showcase that the incrementalism of the 

past would not be enough. You all know in every past Administration in the last 40 years, there have been one or two major reorganization proposals. Most of them have not even gotten out of committee. 

Senator JONES. I appreciate that. To that point, I do not disagree, and no one on this Committee disagrees that we can always 

make government more efficient. But with every Administration, 

there have been some changes. 

Since World War II, we have done pretty damn good. I mean, we 

fought World War II. We fought the Korean War. We have survived 

the cold war. We have survived the Civil Rights movement. We 

have survived worker rights. We have done OK, and I am worried 

about a sledgehammer coming in that is saying, ‘‘Oh, everything 

now is calcified, and we need to bust it up.’’ That was one thing. 

I want to ask a couple of specifics where I have just seen—and 

I have only a couple of minutes here for a couple of specifics. But 

one of the things I have seen in this report is the ultimate goal of 

privatizing the U.S. Postal Service (USPS). 

Now, I got a State in Alabama that is 50 percent—more than 50 

percent—50-some-odd counties out of 67 that are very rural. Those 

counties depend on their postmen. They depend on their postmen 

every day or 5 days a week, whatever it is now, to come in and deliver their mail, to get their bills, and to do those kind of things. 

In looking at privatization, everything I have seen says rates will 

go up for rural America if we privatize the postal system. Have you 

looked at that issue for rural America in particular? Not just the 

bottom line for mail delivery as a whole and how much money the 

Postal Service may or may not be losing, but what is the effect on 

Ma and Pa Kettle out there in rural America that depend on their 

mailbox every day for their newspapers and their coupons and 

their catalogs and their bills and things like that? 

Ms. WEICHERT. I appreciate the question, and the proposal is a 

vision for really dramatically restructuring a service that we know 

already has challenges with meeting its obligations to employees 

and being economically viable and not a burden to taxpayers. 

The vision of universal service is absolutely something that we 

need to square, and again, this proposal is one vision, and it is a 

vision that drew heavily from examples in other countries where 
28 

privatization took place in some cases writ large, but in most cases 

in components to ensure that compliance function is associated 

with it, universals service function is associated with—fairness 

functions associated with it were maintained. 

We talked a little bit earlier about the relationship between this 

proposal and the President’s task force. Again, this proposal is a 

long-term vision. The task force is actually specifically focused on 

some of those operating models you just raised, and so it is a continuation of the same thought process. It feeds into that. The specific rate question, I would defer to the task force as they pull together the implementation plans, which I understand are coming 

together and will be presented in August. 

Senator JONES. Have you considered—and this is a quick question, Mr. Chairman, if you will indulge me. Have you considered 

even the potential antitrust implications of trying to sell off the 

postal system for the entire United States of America? 

Ms. WEICHERT. This would be an area—when you get to the actual operating model and the specifics, that would be the appropriate time to consider that. 

Senator JONES. All right. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to other hearings on 

this matter. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Let me pass for this for just a moment, and I 

can maybe come in next. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Sure. Senator Peters. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, 

Ranking Member, thank you for having this hearing. 

Ms. Weichert, it is great to have you here before us. 

I want to reiterate something the Ranking Member mentioned is 

that I—and to you, Mr. Chairman. I do not believe we have been 

partisan here today. Ms. Weichert, hopefully you have not seen 

partisanship. What you have seen is a Committee, though, that is 

very focused on nuts and bolts. I think that is why all of us were 

attracted to serve on this Committee. That is why I wanted to be 

on this Committee is that I want to work to reform government, 

make it more efficient, but also really get into the weeds. This is 

an in-the-weeds type of committee. This is not a philosophical committee. Even though I have a philosophy degree, this is not a philosophy committee. This is a nuts and bolts committee; that is, 

about trying to figure out how we do things differently and how we 

do them more efficiently. 

I get the fact that this is a visionary document that we are looking at, but we are going to want to get into those kinds of weeds. 

I think if you look at some of the problems that we have with 

duplication right now—in fact, I am working on legislation in a bipartisan way with Senator Gardner to figure out how we can get 

rid of multiple organizations that are involved in regulatory oversight. 

An example I use, we have multiple government agencies that 

oversee catfish. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Yes. 
29 

Senator PETERS. I do not think we need that. I want them to 

have one agency—— 

Ms. WEICHERT. We agree. 

Senator PETERS [continuing]. To make sure that catfish is safe 

when I eat it or ship it, but you do not need multiple agencies. 

But some of those problems are as a result of Congress because 

Congress has jurisdiction, and every committee has jurisdiction 

over certain agencies. They are not going to give up those agencies. 

We have to be part of that process as well. 

But we want to work closely with you to figure out how we get 

to that 21st Century. I am going to ask you some questions about 

that in a minute. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Sure. 

Senator PETERS. But first off, to kind of get into the weeds of the 

10 to 12 or the ones that you are going to put forward that do not 

require congressional involvement, you said you are in the process 

of looking at those. Give us some transparency as to exactly what 

is the process, what will be the determining factors as to which one 

or all of those 12 will be put forward shortly, and will there be complete transparency as to what factors were used, what criteria were 

used in order to come to that list? You have mentioned the data 

will be provided at that time, but it is not just the data. I want 

to know how you have actually used that data to inform some sort 

of metric to determine that those are going to be the reforms you 

put forward. Please enlighten us. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Sure. 

For the proposals that do not require a change to authorities or 

funding, what we are doing now is we are working with the affected agencies, and we are working to determine what the operating model would be for moving that forward. 

I talked about the background investigation process. That on its 

own is a meaty piece of work, and on that one, we have a body 

called the PAC that includes the Director of National Intelligence. 

It includes the DepSec for DOD. It includes the Director of OPM. 

It includes myself and a representative from the National Security 

Council (NSC). We are working through those issues as we speak. 

Department of Defense is actually working on standing up the 

components, and together, we are working to bring those components so that we can address the civilian component as well as the 

DOD background investigations because, as I said before, trying to 

rip them apart while you are also transferring 70 percent is going 

to put the whole enterprise at risk. That is an example of one type 

of analysis. 

Another type of analysis, the GEAR Center, which again it is one 

of my personal favorites, but it is actually looking at a place where 

we can have public dialogue that is informed by evidence, that is 

informed by leading thinking from academics in the private sector, 

and we are putting out a request for information (RFI) in the coming weeks that is asking for more information from the public 

about how we might stand that up. That will be a public request 

for information that is going out. 

Customer service. My team is looking at how we might actually 

integrate some of that and build on things that the U.S. Digital 

Service is doing. 
30 

Each one of these proposals has kind of a slightly different track, 

but the other thing, to your broader question how does this all 

come together, 10 to 12 in and of itself, although they are not as 

large or as high profile as the things that need congressional activity, that is a lot of change. We do not have unlimited resources to 

manage change appropriately. The other activity that is not pure 

science is the art of what comes first and the art of staging, and 

that is something that in every change activity I have been in, it 

is informed by data. It is informed by a combination of you want 

to put some things that are hard but important and need to get 

started now with some things that are easier to achieve. 

You cannot do all the hard things at the same time. We do not 

have the resources for that. 

I apologize that I do not have perfect information to give you 

here, because it is part of a process, but rather than stonewalling 

or sledgehammering—like this thing right here, the Constitution, 

creates this creative tension that ensures that our drive for efficiency or our drive for action in the executive is tempered by your 

representation of the needs of the broader government. 

Senator PETERS. To hear that process, I assume this will be fully 

transparent as it actually works itself through? 

Ms. WEICHERT. Yes. 

Senator PETERS. This will not be a black box? You are willing to 

talk to us even if we do not have a chance to have a hearing? 

Ms. WEICHERT. Yes. 

Senator PETERS. Hopefully, we will, Mr. Chairman, have a hearing on those specifics. That you will be fully transparent to Members of this Committee, answer our questions? You mentioned that 

in your hearing for your nomination that you would be fully transparent—— 

Ms. WEICHERT. Yes. 

Senator PETERS [continuing]. Provide all that data? I have your 

commitment that as this process goes forward, you will do that? 

Ms. WEICHERT. So again—— 

Senator PETERS. And we can call you out if you do not. How is 

that? 

Ms. WEICHERT. The key thing is I need to not create new processes while we are trying to reform government that has plenty of 

processes today. As much as possible, we are trying to leverage the 

processes that exist, and it is my bias to be as open and transparent as possible. I think the challenge—— 

Senator PETERS. Well, it cannot just be your bias. It will be this 

Administration. You will deliver that to us? 

Ms. WEICHERT. I will do my best to be appropriately transparent. 

Senator PETERS. How do you define appropriate? 

Ms. WEICHERT. There is a general counsel (GC) that helps me 

with that. I am not just a private citizen here with my own desires. 

I am part of an institution, and so I have a motivated desire, as 

I have shared, to share the information that will make the change 

possible. 

I need to be cognizant that I am part of an institution, a branch 

of government that has its historical precedent and has process. 
31 

My project, the business of government that we are involved in 

is much larger than the work that I am doing. Process has its 

point, and I have puts and takes on everything that I do. 

Senator PETERS. One reason why a lot of this reform has not 

happened in the past—and we hear it—is because of process. The 

process gets in the way. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Yes. 

Senator PETERS. I would hope that you would also be very active 

in coming to us. If there is a process—— 

Ms. WEICHERT. Yes. 

Senator PETERS [continuing]. If someone is telling you, you cannot give Congress this information, will you be transparent at least 

to tell us that you are being told that you cannot give this information to us? Because we have to stop letting the process get in the 

way of meaningful reform, but make sure that that meaningful reform is actually based on objective data; it is actually based on information that is quantifiable that would be used in a corporate 

boardroom to make decisions, not based on ideology done in a black 

box. That is what the American people deserve. That is what this 

Committee hopes that we will deliver, but we need your help to do 

that. You need to be transparent and let us know where the process is getting in the way of us doing our job, which is to be the 

oversight committee for this reorganization. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Yes. I appreciate that, and one of the leading 

business thinkers I quote a lot is a guy named Stephen Covey, who 

basically says, ‘‘If I cannot start with myself when change is happening, that I am not as well set up for success.’’ My team knows 

that I am constantly pushing to ask why cannot we, how might we, 

what could we do. 

Again, I am one person who I believe is in a position, a unique 

position right now to be able to take advantage of a spirit of 

change, a desire for real action, and I am in a great institution that 

has been here much longer than me. I have to balance those ideas. 

Senator PETERS. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I would point out that a corporate boardroom does not get the transcript of every conversation that took 

place between the people that developed the proposal, every email, 

every text. What they get is the proposal. They can get the work 

product with all the data backing up to the proposal, and that is 

what I expect to get is the rationale once the proposal is actually 

developed. 

I am not expecting the product from the deliberative process. I 

am looking for the final product, the results from that deliberative 

process. 

Senator Carper, are you ready? 
32 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Yes. 

Ms. Weichert, very nice to see you. Thank you for joining us 

today and for your leadership. Thank you for taking on a tough job 

and presenting what your findings are and recommendations are 

today. 

When we fell into the Great Recession back in 2009, our budget 

deficit ballooned to, as you may recall, about $1.4 trillion, the largest since really World War II. 

In the years following that, the deficit has trended down and 

reached about $400 billion, maybe 5 or 6 years later. Still too 

much, but better than $1.4 trillion. 

We are told by CBO now that the budget deficit has begun 

trending up, and we are looking at a deficit next year of a trillion 

dollars or more, and some people just say, ‘‘Well, ho hum, it is business as usual.’’ It cannot be business as usual, and we have to look 

at everything we do and ask if that is the right, smart way to do 

it. We have to look at our revenues. We have to look at our spending. This is an important undertaking. 

This is, as you know, not the first time we have taken a look at 

the way we structure our government, and my approach to doing 

this as the former Chairman of this Committee would be to ask a 

lot of folks this question: What do you think? That includes Federal 

employees, and I do not know to what extent you have asked that 

question. But that is the way I ask all kinds of people: What do 

you think? People like to be included. Frankly, a lot of times, they 

have good ideas that would inform what we are working on. 

In previous Administrations, including the last Administration, 

maybe the one before that, work was done—I know in the Clinton 

administration—with respect to reorganizing government. Among 

the people I would ask, ‘‘Well, what do you think?’’ are people who 

led those initiatives, and maybe you have done that. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. If not, that would be helpful, I think, to you and 

certainly to us. 

Senator Collins and I got involved in postal reform about 10 

years or so ago and to try to put the Postal Service on sound footing, and everything was fine until we fell in the Great Recession. 

Then all kinds of businesses and people, but especially businesses 

decided to get out of the mail and to move lock, stock, and barrel 

to the Internet. As a result, First-Class Mail was dramatically reduced. 

The Internet taketh away but also giveth back, and it has given 

the Postal Service a new line of business, which is packages and 

parcels really on steroids, which is a good thing. 

I used to be State Treasurer of Delaware. I was State Treasurer 

of Delaware when we had the worst credit rating in the country. 

I became State Treasurer at the end of 1976. Pete du Pont became 

our Governor, turned out to be a very good Governor, and we had 

the worst credit rating in the country. And for a 20-year march 

from the worst credit rating in the country to the end of 1999, 

sometime in 1999, my last year—2000, my last year as Governor, 

we earned AAA credit ratings. 
33 

And I will never forget meeting with the folks from Fitch, S&P, 

and Moody’s, and they said to us, ‘‘You you have made great 

progress over 20 years in Delaware, but you still have one big liability you have not addressed.’’ We said, ‘‘Well, what is that?’’ 

They said, ‘‘You have a lot of retirees, and you have fully funded 

a pension system for the State, but you have not done anything to 

fund health care benefits for your State retirees,’’ and they said, 

‘‘You need to do something about that.’’ 

We looked around. We saw, well, nobody else is doing that. Businesses do not do that. States do not do that. They said, ‘‘It does 

not matter. You should do that.’’ 

We began setting aside some money. We still set aside some 

money every year to fund the health care benefits of State employees. Some other States do this as well. 

I have asked my staff to look at Fortune 100 companies: How 

many of them actually fund the health care benefits for their pensioners? Almost nobody. How many of the Fortune 500 fully fund 

the health care benefits for their pensioners? Almost nobody. Fortune 1000? Almost nobody. 

What we had to agree to do to with George W. Bush’s administration was to actually have a deal on postal reform in 2007 to fully 

fund, do something we do not ask any other company or government in the country to do, and that is to fully fund over relatively 

a few years the health care liability for their pensioners. I always 

like to say the government should act more like a business. In 

some cases, we should. 

Well, if we are going to ask the Postal Service to act more like 

a business in this case, we would not be asking to put any money 

aside for their health care liabilities. That is the 800-pound gorilla 

in the room in terms of the postal viability, and sometimes we take 

our eyes off of that. 

I have worked on this for years. Susan has. Senator Jerry Moran, 

Senator Roy Blunt, and the Ranking Member have worked on it. 

Senator Heitkamp. We have asked a lot of questions: What do you 

think we should do? 

If I were in your shoes, if I were in the shoes of Secretary 

Mnuchin who is heading up this postal reform task force, I would 

have asked to meet with us and say, ‘‘Well, what do you think?’’ 

To my knowledge, we have had no such request. 

If we are going to do anything on postal reform, you are going 

to need our cooperation, and I am not telling you how to do your 

job, but take advantage of that opportunity. 

I understand the folks who worked on this particular issue within this task force are now part of the team that Secretary Mnuchin 

is leading. They have sort of gone from working on this endeavor 

to going over and working in the Mnuchin-led task force. It sounds 

to me like this could be pre-baked, but I hope not. I hope not because this is one we can fix. This is one we can fix, and my hope 

is we will do that. 

Let me ask one question. Sorry to go on so long about the Postal 

Service. My wife asked me when I die, what would I like to have 

put on my tombstone, and I have said I would like for it to say ‘‘Return to Sender.’’ That sort of explains my affection for the Postal 

Service. [Laughter.] 
34 

It takes a while to get that. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I guess that should be granted. 

Senator CARPER. Hopefully, that will not be too soon. 

Real quick on the Army Corps of Engineers. Obviously, with any 

change, one needs to start by identifying the problem to be solved, 

and one or two specific concerns regarding the Army Corps of Engineers current structure that the President’s plan is intended to fix, 

and how does that plan address those issues, please? 

Ms. WEICHERT. OK. The Army Corps proposal essentially looks 

at the fact that particularly for our rivers and inland waterways, 

there are multiple agencies involved in all of the mission areas, 

and they are diverse mission areas, everything from protecting endangered species to managing locks, managing ports, and managing flood protection. There is a lot of overlap, but more importantly, there is a lot of fragmentation that creates challenges when 

people are actually trying to make a decision or actually get something done. 

The main changes there were—first of all, only 22 percent of the 

whole mission is civilian. Something in the Army where the Army 

has a much bigger mission about warfighting, it is potentially going 

to get neglected in the broader area where there are important 

missions. Particularly with flooding and a lot of other issues we 

have seen, we want better management around that and to streamline that process and to make it easier to get things done appropriately and also not have conflicting decisions around, Director 

Mulvaney did the fish in the river. It is a funny story, but literally 

because there are different species and there are so many people 

involved and the Army Corps sits in the middle of all of that, we 

might make different decisions about how much water is let out of 

a dam and that could have impacts for that. 

There are environmental issues. There are flood control issues. 

There are permitting issues, and then there is the overall focus and 

attention. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks. Thanks so much. I have some 

more questions for the record, and, Mr. Chairman, thank you for 

letting me go on. 

I would just say on postal, I am not going to suggest this liability 

to health care, liability of pensioners should be ignored. It should 

not be, but we should not just hold out the Postal Service as the 

poster child to do something—— 

Ms. WEICHERT. Right. 

Senator CARPER [continuing]. That we are not asking for other 

companies or other government agencies. 

Thank you so much. We look forward to working with you on 

these. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. First of all, the ‘‘Return to Sender’’ comment 

was well worth your questioning time. 

I will say I have met with the task force, and I have been keeping up with it. My sense is they really are trying to do that. First 

up in problem-solving process was develop the information, which 

I have been trying to develop. It is like pulling teeth to a certain 

extent. It sounds like they have a pretty competent team to develop 

that baseline of information we need to actually develop some kind 

of proposal, so I am hoping that is the direction they are going. 
35 

Senator McCaskill is on a timeframe. She wanted to ask a question or two real quick, if that is—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. I did not want to have to leave the hearing 

without looping around with you. 

You have an opportunity, and I certainly cannot say strongly 

enough how much I want to go forward in a bipartisan basis to 

make changes that make sense. If the attitude—what it feels like 

it has been so far—is we are going to closely hold information until 

we get far enough along in the process that they cannot dive in too 

far to figure out how we got here—and ultimately, the data you 

give us is going to be what you choose to give us, and the worst 

thing in terms of efficiencies is to have lawsuits over executive 

power. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. That is not efficient. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. If there are some bold moves made within 

the Executive Branch without legislative buy-in, you are not going 

to get efficiencies. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Right. 

Senator MCCASKILL. You are going to get a food fight. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I just want to stress to you, trust us if you 

want us to trust you. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. If you will deal with us in good faith and 

not stonewall us on a basic question, ‘‘Give us the number of proposals you think need legislative action,’’ that is not a high bar for 

information. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Thirty. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. I need to know which 30 they are. So 

far, you all have refused to give my staff that information. 

I do not know where your staff is getting their marching orders, 

but the fact that your staff has refused to tell us which 30 proposals you think need legislative action and what that is, that 

breeds distrust, which is the antidote to good bipartisan work that 

we can do here. 

If you will begin to share and not stonewall, I think you might 

be pleasantly surprised how cooperative many of us are. You are 

not going to get 85 votes, but I damn well bet you, you could get 

to 60. If you want to do that—because other administrations, this 

will be marked as an F and will go in the dust bin of history if you 

do not get the trust and cooperation of Democrats that want the 

same goal as you want. And I am one of them. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Give me a chance to work with you before 

you put up the wall and say we are not ready to tell you anything. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Harris. 
36 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRIS 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you. 

The Administration released a set of three Executive Orders that 

seem to be aimed at weakening the unions that represent Federal 

workers, and then coupled with the Administration’s reorganization 

proposal, these actions frankly seem to be targeted at dedicated 

public servants and I think have the potential to really harm the 

American public in terms of the quality of service the American 

public will receive as a result of that. I am concerned about these 

Executive Orders. 

My question for you is, Do the agencies have discretion to deviate 

from the mandates that are contained in the three Executive Orders that are affecting Federal employees? 

Ms. WEICHERT. The Executive Orders were designed to really get 

back to the merit system principles that are set out guiding our 

overall civil service structure and in total we are really looking at 

how do we preserve that. 

I think the agencies have been given guidance around some of 

these components. I think additional guidance is forthcoming, and 

I think that will be available. 

Senator HARRIS. Is that guidance going to direct that the agencies have discretion to deviate from the mandates that are contained in the Executive Orders? 

Ms. WEICHERT. Each Cabinet official is going to obviously take— 

or agency head is going to take the guidance that they were given 

and interpret it and comply with it as it fits in their purview. 

Senator HARRIS. There is no standard for all agencies? Each 

agency head can do as she or he wills as it relates to an interpretation of an Executive Order? 

Ms. WEICHERT. Based on the guidance that they are given. 

Senator HARRIS. Are they going to be guided that they have discretion to deviate from the mandate? 

Ms. WEICHERT. I would like the guidance to speak for itself. If 

there is a specific concern you have, I would be happy to take that 

back. 

Senator HARRIS. Yes. The concern would be as it relates to Federal employees and specifically with regard to the Executive Order 

on official time, and my concern is whether the agencies have discretion to negotiate to allow more than 25 percent of an employee’s 

time in a calendar year to be used for official time. As you are 

aware, official time is used for things like helping the employees 

report fraud and waste. It helps them pursue whatever may be a 

concern about sexual harassment in the workplace. Things of that 

nature are the issues that are addressed when official time is being 

used. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Yes. On official time, the notion was that there 

were people spending up to 100 percent of their time, including 

things like nurses and doctors at the U.S. Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) on official times are being paid for by American taxpayers but not serving the direct mission of what the taxpayers are 

paying for, and so the guidance around official time is the 25 percent number. 

Senator HARRIS. But would not you agree that good public policy 

is not crafted around the abuses? We will address the abuses when 
37 

they occur. Good public policy should be addressed at improving efficiency and effectiveness, and certainly, we know the use of official 

time is effective use of time to address workplace issues and particularly those issues that may harm or affect employees in the 

work force. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Yes. Absolutely, when we are talking about protecting against waste, fraud, and abuse and whistleblower activities—I am actually the executive chair of the CIGIE. 

Senator HARRIS. Well, that is carved out, the whistleblower piece, 

right? 

Ms. WEICHERT. Right. 

Senator HARRIS. This is about everything else. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Correct. Much of your concern, I think, at its root 

is concern about that waste, fraud, and abuse component, and that 

is carved out. The guidance does address that. 

Senator HARRIS. What about sexual harassment? 

Ms. WEICHERT. I think it is a critical issue, and I cannot speak 

explicitly to that point in the guidance, but I would be happy to 

look at it and—— 

Senator HARRIS. Please do and follow up. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Sure. 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you. 

Do the agencies have discretion to negotiate to allow union officials to use official time to handle grievances that are filed by the 

union rather than for the employee to request the official time? 

Senator HARRIS. Again, I do not want to give you the wrong answer, so I would want to get back to you on that. 

Senator HARRIS. OK. 

How many employees do you believe and expect will be removed 

under this reorganization plan? 

Ms. WEICHERT. Although the initial conversation and the initial 

Executive Order had a flavor around reduction in force, when we 

actually did the analysis—and I have shared some of this data publicly—the issue we have in government is not that we have too 

many Federal employees. The issue is that we actually have a 

mass of Federal employees set to retire within the next 10 years. 

We actually have a challenge of having the right number of Federal 

employees in the right tasks, and so a lot of what we focused on 

since I have gotten involved is how do we get the right people to 

the right task. There are no specific reductions in force envisioned 

in this proposal. 

There may be some dislocation areas where either there is a skill 

gap challenge or some other mismatch between the future State 

and the current State, but in general, the goal is not reductions in 

force. 

Senator HARRIS. Is your representation to this Committee that 

there will be no Federal employees removed from their employment 

with the Federal Government pursuant to this reorganization plan? 

Ms. WEICHERT. That is not my representation. 

Senator HARRIS. What is your statement on that? How many will 

be removed? 

Ms. WEICHERT. I do not know the answer to that. It would come 

in dislocation, but the goal is not to remove employees. The goal 

is actually—and we have made a request to Congress for a billion 
38 

dollars in a reskilling, retention, and recruitment activity to ensure 

we have the right skills mismatch. 

To the extent there is any dislocation, it would relate to the skills 

being a match for the mission. 

Senator HARRIS. OK. I only have a few seconds left. 

You said earlier that there will be 10 to 12 agencies in terms of 

the workforce changes, but you did not say which of those you are 

moving forward with. Can you tell me which agencies are we talking about in regard to the reorganization plan and those that can 

be done without congressional approval? Which are the 10 to 12 

agencies? 

Ms. WEICHERT. It is not 10 to 12 agencies. It is 10 to 12 proposals, and many of the proposals, like the background investigation proposals, affect multiple agencies. 

As I shared a fair bit, we will have more information for that toward the end of this summer. 

Senator HARRIS. I have this document, and then each proposal 

has a number next to it. Can you tell me which ones, according to 

the numbers that have been assigned to each proposal, can be done 

from your opinion without congressional approval? 

Ms. WEICHERT. Again, I shared some examples, the challenge I 

had mentioned earlier around providing lists when we still have 

not done the assessment of which things are we ready to move on. 

We are looking at 10 to 12 things. I shared the background investigation component, the cyber workforce component, the customer 

experience, and the GEAR Center. 

Senator HARRIS. Yes. If I may interrupt you, but you may not be 

prepared to move forward on it. But that is a separate point from 

whether you think you can move forward on your own or whether 

you require a congressional approval. 

My question is on that latter point. Which one of these proposals 

do you believe, when you are ready, you would be able to proceed 

without congressional approval? 

Ms. WEICHERT. Again, what I shared earlier is that—and I also 

shared it in the committee with the House last month—is we are 

spending this summer doing that final analysis, and so there are 

10 to 12 that we are looking at right now. We are making the final 

definitive assessment, because as you could imagine, our counsel 

wants to look in and make sure that our initial hypothesis is valid. 

In the end, it might not be 10 to 12. It might be eight. I cannot 

definitively tell you that because we want to be thoughtful. We 

want to be prudent about actually doing that analysis and running 

that through a legal process as well as an analytical one. 

Senator HARRIS. I think that would be a smart thing to do. 

Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Hoeven. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HOEVEN 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Weichert, the plan proposes to move the Army Corps of Engineers, civil works, out of the DOD. The commercial navigation 

function would go to the DOT, and the flood control functions 

would go to the Department of Interior (DOI). 
39 

Are you going to continue to use uniformed military officers for 

those functions, or then would that all be done by civilians? 

Ms. WEICHERT. The details of that would be one of the things we 

would want to work out. 

I think one of the things that we all acknowledge is that the 

leadership development discipline that the Army has brought to 

the Army Corps of Engineers is one of the things that is exceedingly good about the Corps. The challenge is that because only 22 

percent of their resources are spent on civilian works, it is not necessarily the highest priority for the military. I think that particular 

question would be one of the things we would want to have a discussion about. 

Senator HOEVEN. That is a pretty massive change. Is that the 

kind of change you are talking about making administratively rather than via legislation? 

Ms. WEICHERT. Absolutely not. No. This is one that would require congressional involvement. 

Senator HOEVEN. This is something where you are doing an analysis on whether these functions could be done better by moving 

them to civilian—— 

Ms. WEICHERT. The vision again was this was one of the topdown proposals, and it reflects a lot of feedback that we got about 

challenges, both to a range of missions, whether they were environmental missions, flood control missions, or transportation project 

missions. There is a lot of research that has been done, and I believe this Committee may have even looked at issues around permitting and some of the challenges there. 

The root causes of this proposals are varied and myriad, but this 

was fundamentally a top-down proposal to say Department of Interior is doing a lot in certain areas of the mission, Transportation 

is doing a lot in certain areas. The functions sitting in the Department of Defense are perhaps not getting the full attention that we 

would want to dedicate to those civilian missions. 

Senator HOEVEN. Your proposal also includes a section titled 

Solving the Federal Cybersecurity Workforce Shortage, details How 

the Federal Government struggles to recruit and retain 

cybersecurity professionals. 

Senator Peters and I have introduced legislation, the Federal 

Cyber Rotational Program Act, and it is a rotational program for 

employees with cyber designations similar to the joint duty programs that the military has now. 

My question is, Do you support that kind of rotational program 

for Federal civilian cyber employees, and are you open to it? Do you 

think it has benefits, and are you willing to work with us on it? 

Ms. WEICHERT. Absolutely willing to work with you on it. I think 

it is well aligned. I am not deeply familiar enough to be able to 

weigh in on any particulars, but what I can say and what I know 

about it at the highest level is it feels very much aligned. In fact, 

the proposal we actually envisioned, although there are things we 

can do without legislative action that we have outlined in the proposal, that we would want to actually think organizationally about 

how would we take into account things that this body and yourselves have proposed as well as some ideas that have come up in 

the House. 
40 

Senator HOEVEN. In the realm of small business—and small 

businesses make up 96 percent of the businesses in our State and 

obviously are really the backbone of our economy nationally and 

create most of the jobs—you have a pretty big reorganization plan 

for small business programs in general. It affects Department of 

Agricultural, Transportation, Treasury, Veterans Affairs, and it 

looks like you are essentially taking all the programs relating to 

small business from all these different agencies and saying, OK, we 

are going to put them under the Small Business Administration 

(SBA). 

Now, I have always been a big fan of the SBA. I think they do 

a great job and appreciate what they do very much, but now, if we 

are going to take all these programs, put them into SBA, I mean, 

are we going to get into this, Federal one-size-fits-all bureaucracy, 

which, of course, is my fear? Being a former Governor, I think the 

more you can let States do, the better off we are because they can 

respond to the needs in their State, and those needs differ across 

the country. 

When we get these big monolithic Federal agencies, pretty soon 

they are making the customer fit their program and their regulations and their bureaucracy rather than making those programs fit 

the customer, that small business out there that is trying to get 

something done. 

It is one thing for these giant corporations, with all their resources and attorneys and everything else to fight their way 

through that bureaucratic blizzard, but it is darn tough for a small 

businesses. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Right. 

Senator HOEVEN. As you make this change, are you really empowering these small business programs, or are you going to turn 

it into a big old bureaucracy where you cannot even find somebody 

that is supposed to help you, let alone actually get the help? 

Ms. WEICHERT. I think it is a great question, and I have started 

to—— 

Senator HOEVEN. You can kind of sense where I am going with 

it. 

Ms. WEICHERT. No, absolutely. I have started three small businesses, and I have a deep affinity for this subject. 

This proposal actually was one that started with the service element: How do we serve small businesses, and how do we keep 

them from having to run hither and yon to get stuff done? That is 

actually one of the things we as a country do pretty well. 

When I think about the appropriate analogy from the private sector, I ran strategy, innovation, and business development, as well 

as analytics, for Bank of America’s e-commerce, ATM, and mobile 

channels. We had service to our customers—and it included small 

business—that included product areas that were delivered by all 

kinds of parts of the Bank, but we delivered them in an integrated 

way. 

Did all the piece parts move in order to do that? Absolutely not. 

This proposal, I think, is another one where a good robust dialogue 

with Congress about how do we make this happen so that it really 

does cut through the red tape for the small businesses and make 

that transparent to the small business. Some of the functions 
41 

might actually move if we think there are real efficiencies. Some 

of it may simply be a way of conceiving and advocating for that 

small business to say does this end-to-end make sense. 

Small businesses in your State, do they have a high overlap between agriculture activities and commerce activities today? What is 

the best way to bring that together? At this point, I cannot definitively say that. You may have the better idea about that, but that, 

I think, would be a great substantive discussion rather than the 

goal being creating some behemoth organization. 

Senator HOEVEN. Yes. I think if you can achieve that, where you 

reduce the red tape, the bureaucracy, and really empower those 

programs to serve the customer based on the customer circumstances, the small business out there, rather than trying to 

make them conform to some big one-size-fits-all model, then that 

is the kind of thing that could be of benefit. But you have to be 

careful as you do this to make sure you are achieving that. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Right. Because a small business farmer, a small 

business high-tech company, and a hair dresser may have very different needs in terms of how they interact with government. To 

your point, we have to be careful we do not want to lose sight of 

what we are really trying to do. 

Senator HOEVEN. Well, that is it. I mean, right now our farmers 

produce the highest-quality, lowest-cost food supply in the world 

that benefits every single American, every single day. We cannot 

take some of those things for granted as we make these changes, 

and that is just one area. 

But Department of Agriculture, at least they are focused on the 

farmer. If some agriculture business now has to go into some big 

bureaucracy that does not know squat about agriculture or rural 

America, it could be counterproductive. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Yes. I think that is critical, and actually, when 

I was in Kansas City, I met with a bunch of farmers. One of their 

biggest criticisms of government was ‘‘I am a business. I am an 

LLC. I am not an individual, and everything that I go to do with 

USDA treats me like an individual, but I am an LLC. I am a 

multigenerational family business. I need to be treated like a business.’’ That really stuck with me. 

Senator HOEVEN. OK. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Those are exactly the kind of questions we 

will be asking once you have these proposals fleshed out. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Right. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Daines. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DAINES 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding 

this hearing today. 

Like the Chairman, I went directly from the private sector to 

Congress; like the Chairman, I spent decades in the private sector. 

I want to applaud the Trump administration for initiating this 

effort here of how do we eliminate the duplication and redundancy 

in the Federal Government, how do we improve efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability. 

Can you imagine if we had James Madison and Thomas Jefferson at this witness table here today and asked them, ‘‘So take a 
42 

look at what is going on in the Federal Government, and what do 

you think? Is it panning out like you thought it would with this vision of limited government?’’ as they put forward this amazing vision, this American experiment, this American idea? I think they 

would be shocked at what they see, and I want to thank you for 

tackling the swamp and the efforts that you are doing here to reorganize and reform the way the Federal Government operates today. 

I think back to the countless conversations I have had with Montanans as I travel around our State. I get to all 56 counties, every 

congressional period, every 2 years. They overwhelmingly agree 

that the Federal Government is broken. It makes their lives more 

complicated. The government has forgotten who the customer is in 

the transaction, and the reason for that is there is no competition. 

Having spent time in the private sector, as you have, Ms. 

Weichert, you know that the reason you get better is because of 

competitive forces. You have to keep delivering better value and a 

better customer experience, or else your customer goes somewhere 

else. But when you have a captive audience like the Federal Government does, where are the incentives to do that? I am convinced 

that most often, these bureaucracies, when they wake up every 

morning, they are more focused on serving the bureaucracy and 

how do you keep the status quo than changing things to better 

serve the customer, so thank you. I think this is the President once 

again making good on promises he made to the American people 

and why he is the President. 

Healthy organizations embrace change. Healthy organizations 

adapt to better meet the needs of their customers. That is the nature of reform that you see in the private sector, but here in Washington, DC, just listening to this dialogue between members of the 

Senate and yourself, it seems that President Trump’s opponents 

would rather quash any real reform discussion and seek to preserve the status quo. I think they have forgotten who the customer 

is, and if I need to remind everybody again, the customer is the 

taxpayer of the United States of America. 

Ms. Weichert, as it stands now, you have estimated the transformation is going to last between 3 to 5 years. I think that is a 

realistic assessment. Should these discussions stall on Capitol Hill, 

what aspects of the proposal are most at risk? 

Ms. WEICHERT. I think the biggest elements of the proposal that 

are at risk are the ones that frankly are the result of our top-down 

analysis and synthesis of the GAO reports. The biggest issues are 

also some of the strengths of—what is set out in the Constitution 

is this natural tension. Corporations have a very strong executive 

that can make even the language executive decisionmaking. Our 

democracy was not designed that way. It was not designed for efficiency. Some of these hard overlapping areas where you have big 

dueling bureaucracies and particularly if they are in different jurisdictions, I think those are some of the biggest challenges, and that 

is frankly why we want to have this process be open and not just 

jump precipitously into those things that need congressional help. 

Part of what for me this process is about and why even the conversation here is useful is to get a sense of what might we do together because I think that is the place the American people will 

absolutely be livid if we do not move forward. 
43 

In the President’s Management Agenda, we started out talking 

about trust in government, and that is not an Article I, Article II 

combat issue. The trust problem is about all of us, and the American people do not trust us. The trust has been declining because 

we cannot get our act together. 

My hope is that collectively we can—whether it is small businesses, whether it is mission around our inland waterways, whether it is our mission around cybersecurity, if we can get traction on 

a handful of proposals—and that is part of why we have broken it 

out the way we have, unlike how it has been characterized, we are 

not trying to stonewall. We are trying to actually line up change 

that can happen. 

I love that you referenced Montana and what happens at the 

State level in the context of competition because State governments 

know that people can move across State lines. They do it all the 

time, and if a State Governor does not get his act together or her 

act together, people leave. Businesses leave. 

Senator DAINES. And they are right now too. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Right. 

Senator DAINES. We can see it across our country. They are leaving States that tend to have higher taxes, more regulation than 

other States. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Right. 

There is a lot to learn, and I actually indicated my interest in 

learning more from what has happened at the State and local level. 

Senator DAINES. I think that federalism vision is a good one on 

that, to decentralize this behemoth here in Washington, DC. 

I want to jump in, while my time remains, on a specific, and Senator Hoeven touched on this a bit. I was pleased to see this idea 

of consolidating the background investigations from OPM to DOD. 

My understanding is last year OPM backlog exceeded 700,000 investigations with no end in sight. It prevents the military from filling positions that are critical to national security, and it seems to 

me on the surface that shifting the responsibility to DOD seems 

like it is probably a prudent decision. 

I agree with you, and I have been involved in reform efforts in 

larger businesses. You set a bold vision going forward, but then you 

have to start eating that elephant one bite at a time. You cannot 

go off and boil the ocean. It is going to have to get some wins in 

some important areas. This could be one of them. 

Ms. Weichert, could you provide an update on OPM’s current investigation backlog and how what you have proposed might help 

resolve this perennial problem? Because when you have this backlog in background checks, you have outstanding, qualified people 

ready to fill a position, but because the background check is taking 

far too long, the best people leave and go find different work because they cannot stand there waiting for this. The folks you have 

left sometimes are not your top performers. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Yes. I appreciate that question, and you are precisely right. The urgency around this proposal is it is critical to 

what we laid out in the President’s Management Agenda. We cannot do the mission if we do not have the right people with the right 

skills, and getting people in, particularly the best people do not 

wait a year. 
44 

In terms of the specific number, the last number I heard was 

700,000. I do not have an updated number. We could certainly get 

back to you and provide an answer for the record. 

But the goal of this activity is to, again, shine a light on this, 

keep the function together, because there is really critical talent 

that does that, but we also at the same time have to look at the 

nature of the work changing. 

As the skills in government become more about judgment and 

orientation as opposed to clerical skills, the nature of the background investigations and the level of the background investigations is different. The mix of work is different, and so we need to 

look at what are the leading practices, including using information 

technology (IT), continuous evaluation, that both improve our outcomes and in terms of identifying potential bad actors, but also improve throughput. That is a dual process, and we believe that certainly the resources, the financial resources and the human resources (HR) will be brought to bear by the Department of Defense 

as part of this transition. 

But we continue to maintain in my role as Deputy Director for 

Management advocating for the whole of government. We are going 

to be looking at service levels. We are going to be looking at this 

backlog. 

Senator DAINES. Yes. 

Ms. WEICHERT. This is something I am totally in agreement with. 

Senator DAINES. I know it is one of your high priorities. 

I will yield back to the Chairman here. 

But thank you, too, for focusing on the customer experience. 

Many Americans, they walk into a Federal agency are not expecting a great customer experience, and I go back to—we used to require Ken Blanchard’s book, ‘‘Raving Fans,’’ as a required reading. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Yes. 

Senator DAINES. A short book, right? How do you move customers to ‘‘wow’’? 

Ms. WEICHERT. Yes. 

Senator DAINES. Let us see if we can do that in the Federal Government. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Yes. I will take ‘‘OK’’ if we can get there. 

Senator DAINES. All right. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thanks, Senator Daines. 

By the way, I think it was pretty interesting. I appreciate you 

bringing up our Founding Fathers. First of all, I think they would 

be pretty proud of the fact that we survived 242 years. I am not 

sure they thought that was possible. They would be pretty proud 

that the checks that they put in place worked pretty well for almost two centuries. 

They would probably be disappointed that the Federal Government has busted out of the constraints of the enumerated powers. 

I do not think they would be surprised at all at the inefficiency 

that is a result of that. 

But I think they would be pretty encouraged by an effort like 

this that is trying to restrain it, trying to make it a little more efficient, more effective, and although not perfect, it is still working. 

And we still have a pretty bright future. 
45 

They may be spinning in their graves right now. Hopefully, we 

can maybe reduce that spin rate a little bit in terms of what Ms. 

Weichert is trying to accomplish here. 

Senator Carper has one last question before I close it out. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

One of the things we do in our office, Mr. Chairman, is—I succeeded Senator Bill Roth used to chair this Committee, and his picture is right out here in the anteroom. He had a great reputation. 

His staff had a great reputation for constituent service. 

When I succeeded him, I said that we were going to try to replicate that and maybe even ultimately do better. With technology, 

we ought to be able to do better. 

One of the things we do at the beginning of every month, we 

send out a survey to people we served the previous month. Like at 

the beginning of July, we sent out a survey for those that we 

served in June, and there used to be by snail-mail paper, but now 

it is almost entirely on the Internet. We get about a 20 percent response rate from the folks that we query, and we ask them to 

evaluate our service, excellent, good, fair, or poor. The ones who do 

not go back and say excellent or good, we call them to see what 

we could have done better. 

The last I checked for 17 years, we are running 97 percent excellent or good and 2 percent, I think, fair; 1 percent, poor. We know 

we can do better. Everything we do, I do, I know we can do it. We 

are very proud of that, and we try to—and it is one of the things 

we have orientation for new Senators. It is one of the ideas we pass 

on to our new Senators that they might want to keep it in mind, 

but others probably have a better idea. But it is just one idea that 

seems to work. 

Every month when we get responses back over the Internet with 

these surveys, they say, ‘‘Why was it excellent, good, fair, or poor?’’ 

It is sort of like a reinforcement for the employee, for our constituents, and for the services team. It is usually very good reinforcement. 

Two quick questions, if I can. I do not expect in-depth responses, 

Ms. Weichert, but I do want to come back and just ask you to just 

comment briefly on how the opinions of front-line Federal employees were considered in the drafting of this report. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Thanks for that question. Most of the agencies 

actually involved their employees in that. I think there is actually 

a good description of what Interior did that is coming up in a hearing in the coming days. I think individual agencies will share that, 

but we shared the public comments with the agencies. Then they 

solicited agencies, and did the career feedback as well. 

Senator CARPER. OK. I always used to say, ‘‘Ask your customer.’’ 

You have probably done that too. Both of you have, but in some 

cases, it is good to ask your employees as well—— 

Ms. WEICHERT. Yes. 

Senator CARPER [continuing]. Because this is their life. 

Ms. WEICHERT. Yes. I think the Federal Employee Viewpoint 

Survey (FEVS) was also something that informed the overall thinking around the proposals particularly related to the workforce. 

Senator CARPER. The second question is you mentioned earlier 

that—and I think you said in the next 10 years, some huge per-
46 

centage of our Federal workforce is going to be eligible to retire. 

What did you say? Forty percent? Fifty percent? 

Ms. WEICHERT. It is 60 percent in the next 10 years and then 40 

percent in the next 3 years. 

Senator CARPER. OK. That sort of caused me to ask this last 

question, and that would be, How does this plan try to ensure that 

we are able to recruit and retain a world-class workforce? 

Ms. WEICHERT. There are a number of things in the proposal. 

The background investigation piece is part of it. The proposal 

around OPM really is designed at its core. It has gotten a lot of 

noise about the Executive Office of the President (EOP) specifically, 

but the goal was to elevate the strategic function, to really ensure 

we are recruiting, retaining, and reskilling employees, so we have 

the right skills match. That is something I would love further indepth dialogue on. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

All right. Thanks so much. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thanks, Senator Carper. 

By the way, I think you raised a really interesting point. I am 

glad you asked the question about the retiring workforce. I do not 

know about you, Ms. Weichert, but in business, every time I faced 

a problem—and you are facing problems almost daily—the first 

question I always ask is ‘‘Where is the opportunity here?’’ 

Ms. WEICHERT. Yes. 

Chairman JOHNSON. ‘‘Where is the opportunity?’’ Obviously, that 

is a huge problem. It almost begs reorganization. it almost begs efficiency, and so there is an opportunity there as well. 

Ms. Weichert, I really do appreciate the background you bring to 

this, the experience. Hard to think of a better resume of somebody 

to try and tackle this enormous problem. I think it is just a fact 

that the American people, by and large, do not have a real favorable opinion of the efficiency, effectiveness of this place. 

I appreciate the fact that this Administration, again, is thinking 

big, thinking outside the box and willing to take the slings and arrows as you are trying to effect change because people, human 

beings just naturally are resistant to change. I understand that. 

Not quite understanding why there was kind of the pushback here 

in terms of a sense of a lack of cooperation. I do not know how else 

you could do this. 

I truly appreciate your transparency. You have been meeting 

with members. I assume you will continue to meet with them. This 

begins the process. I want to underscore that again: This just begins the process. We are a long ways from the finish line. 

Now, maybe on individual proposals, it might be a little bit closer, but I expect full consultation. I would imagine that you also 

have understood the desire on the part of every person on this 

Committee of full consultation, and it is just in your best interest 

to actually accomplish what you want to accomplish, to provide 

that and to provide us the information. That in itself will be a more 

efficient way of doing this. 

I just want to thank you for your openness. I look forward to 

working with you in the future, and I just wish you—and I think 

the American public and I think the Members of this Committee 

really wish you the best to affect the kind of change that will make 
47 

this a little more efficient, more effective, a little more accountable 

government. 

With that, the hearing record will remain open for 15 days until 

August 2 at 5 p.m. for the submission of statements and questions 

for the record. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:24 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(49) 

A P P E N D I X 
50 

Testimony to Senate Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

Margaret Weichert 

Deputy Director for Management 

Office of Management and Budget 

July 18, 2018 

Reshaping American Government in the 21st Century 

Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member McCaskill, and members of the Committee: 

Thank you for having me here today. 

Healthy organizations are designed to change and adapt to customer needs and 

the demands of the free market. The United States Government should be no 

different. Our Founders conceived a remarkably durable governing framework 

and Constitution to serve the American people. However, our current Federal 

Government organization model has not kept pace with the needs of the 21't 

Century. 

Despite dramatic changes in technology, today's Federal Government still 

operates much like it did 50, or 60 years ago. Current government infrastructure 

is not well organized or aligned to provide the service and flexibility that 

Americans expect in the Digital Age. 
51 

Americans expect convenience, and use online shopping, mobile banking, and 

other modern solutions to make their lives simpler. So I cringe when I hear how 

inefficient it is for Americans to interact with Federal agencies because of the 

layers of organizational bureaucracy that have grown over time. This is not how 

Americans want government to operate. 

Job seekers have to navigate more than 40 workforce development programs 

across 15 agencies, while small businesses face overlapping and bureaucratic 

certification processes and complicated paperwork challenges every time they try 

to work with the many different parts of government with jurisdiction or focus on 

small business. Poultry companies deal with multiple government offices and 

time-consuming paperwork because chickens and their eggs are regulated by 

different agencies. Even simple things like frozen pizza are affected by 

government complexity, since cheese pizza and pepperoni pizza are regulated by 

different organizations. There are numerous other examples of how fish in our 

rivers are affected by regulations from 4 different agencies, and basic 

infrastructure projects for our roads and in our ports face organizational 

complexity and costly regulatory overhead that can delay investments by years. 

And recently, while visiting Federal facilities in Kansas City, I learned firsthand 

how veterans struggle to navigate across the Department of Veterans Affairs and 

the Social Security Administration to figure out how to handle their medical and 

disability benefits, not to mention the challenges on navigating across a host of 

agencies to get access to well-meaning, veteran-specific services or benefits 

delivered by the Office of Personnel Management, the Department of Labor or 

the Small Business Administration. These programs were conceived with positive 

intent, and paid for by supportive taxpayers, but it can be hard for veterans to 

find clear information and comprehensive resources because of the 

organizational complexity of our government structure. 
52 

This Administration recognizes these challenges and frustrations. As a result, in 

March 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order 13781 directing the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to work with key stakeholders to 

produce a comprehensive plan to reform and reorganize the Government to 

better meet the needs of the American people. This reorganization plan is 

intended to balance the mission, service, and stewardship responsibilities of the 

Executive Branch, while reducing inefficiency, risk, and duplication. 

At its core, reorganization aims to increase the efficiency, effectiveness, and 

accountability of how government serves its people. It's not uncommon to see a 

large company change and realign its business model to respond to evolving 

technologies and customer needs. Even though its mission and priorities are 

different, the Federal government should be similarly responsive to changing 

customer expectations and technology-enabled opportunities to enhance mission 

delivery. 

While it can be difficult to break through bureaucratic red tape and restructure 

old, paper-based processes, it's not impossible. Concrete efforts to drive this 

change are highlighted in the President's Management Agenda (PMA) released in 

March of this year. The PMA is the Administration's blueprint for investing in IT 

modernization, effective use of data and providing the tools for our workforce to 

better serve the country. By realigning our own business model, we will be able 

to streamline processes that help the economy and create jobs. 

Over the past year, OMB reviewed reform and reorganization proposals from 

Federal agencies and solicited ideas through the White House website, where we 

received suggestions from the public, academics, interest groups, and Federal 

employees. In fact over 106,000 public comments came in from Americans 

interested in seeing their Government work more efficiently, and we shared this 

important feedback with the relevant agencies to inform the proposals that they 

submitted to OMB. We also assessed leading organization design frameworks, 

think tank recommendations and input from business journals. After synthesizing 
53 

this information, we developed reorganization and reform recommendations 

included in the report released last month: Delivering Government Solutions in 

the 2151 Century: Reform Plan and Reorganization Recommendations. 

Ultimately, report recommendations included both "top down" and "bottom up" 

transformational proposals for near- and long term-changes. It represents a 

starting point for the public dialogue on much-needed government 

transformation. This approach takes into account the challenges and difficulties 

that have limited progress on past proposals, focusing on creating a holistic, "all 

of government" blueprint for organizational change that will truly address 

entrenched, outdated and bureaucratic organizational constructs, signaling a new 

direction for the future. 

Many of the proposals included in the report draw on years of research and 

recommendations coming out of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), 

including the GAO High Risk Lists and reports on fragmentation and duplication 

within the Federal Government. 

Given the seriousness and import of the analytical task and its potential for major 

impact to our government missions and to our workforce, our team at the Office 

of Management and Budget worked with Executive Branch agencies in conducting 

the deliberation and pre-decisional analysis for the Reform Plan in phases. 

• The initial phase was the data collection phase, the OMB team collected 

input from all the key stakeholders, seeking the most significant input from 

the agencies themselves. Some of the most straightforward outputs from 

the initial phase were included in the February release of the President's 

2019 Budget proposal. 

• The second phase focused on opportunities to reduce duplication and 

fragmentation, and improve cross-agency efficiency- this analysis drew 

heavily from GAO reports and other stakeholder input about ways where 

taking an enterprise view across government agencies would better serve 

the underlying missions and objectives. 

• The final phase of analysis incorporated the priorities of the President's 

Management Agenda- identifying organizational challenges that impact 
54 

the broad ability of government to support the mission, service, and 

stewardship needs of the 21 '

1 Century, enabling us to have the 

organizational foundation needed to confidently move forward with IT 

Modernization, Data and the Workforce in the Digital Age. 

A transformation of this size will take time and teamwork to implement. Some 

changes can be applied directly within Federal agencies while other, more 

complex proposals contain elements that will require action by the President or 

Congress. Now that the proposed Reform and Reorganization Plan has been 

issued, we are eager to engage in a conversation with Congress on where, and 

how, we can move forward together. We know that the Legislative Branch shares 

our interest in creating positive reform. This Committee, in particular, has 

dedicated considerable effort over the years to exposing duplication and 

inefficiency in Government, and exploring ways to improve its operations. 

With the proposed Reform and Reorganization Plan, this Administration has 

seized an opportunity to highlight how leading management and reorganization 

practices from the private sector can bring practical improvements to government 

services. 

We have already seen similar transformations at the state and local levels. Cities 

like Baltimore, Philadelphia and Detroit, and states like Georgia, Arkansas and 

North Carolina, are evolving from their industrial and agrarian roots to become 

beacons of digital and technological innovation. In fact, innovations in 

government in the Digital Age abound, because the practical realities of delivering 

citizen services in the 21'1 Century without over-burdening taxpayers have 

demanded those innovations1. 

'Innovations in E-Government. Edited by Erwin A. Blackstone, Michaell. Bognanno, Simon Hakim, 2005. 
55 

At times of great change, commitment to "government of the people, by the 

people and for the people2

," is critical. As the United States faces the challenge of 

serving the diverse needs of our growing country, it is important to reexamine 

government services to ensure that the executive branch is well-aligned to 21'1 

Century realities. 

Although we, in OMB, were tasked with creating this report and recommending 

the initial proposals for Reform and Reorganization of the Executive Branch, we 

recognize and acknowledge the important role of dialogue and public deliberation 

in setting the best course for the future. To that end, we welcome dialogue, 

debate, and discussion of the proposals we have set out and look forward to 

engaging in a constructive discussion of the issues, today and going forward. 

Thank you again for inviting me here today. 

2 President Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address, November 19, 1863. 
56 
57 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 
58 
59 
60 

INTRODUCTION 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
61 

rwo decades into the Century, the pub!k stil! believes 

thJt the F-ederal Government serves crit\cal roles, and 

in sorne ureas performs them welt.1 However, public 

trust in the Federal Government has dedi ned over the 

:-ast t}ec.Jde,2 calling into question how we!! the current 

organizational constructs of Government are aligned to 

rneH Americans' needs Government 

in th·e 21 '

1 Century 

and modern lnforrnation 

heart of the u.s. r;m;nnom,ont 

And yet 1 today's Executive Branch 

stove~ piped organizational constructs Cen·· 

tury, which in many cases have inefficient and outof~ date. and our workforce are 

frustl'atcd ability to deliver its mission 

in effective, efficient, and secure way. 

At times of great change, the need to reinforce this 

common commitment to "government of the people, 

by the people, and for the peop\e" 3 has been criticaL 

So it is not surprising, as the United States faces the 

chJtlenges of serving the broad Jnd diverse needs of 

country, that it becomes important to 

reexamine organization<'!! alignment of Executive 

Government ins-titutions to ensure that our 

organizational constructs are well aligned to meet the 

needs of the 21 q Century, 

nizationa! 

dancy,'' and 

accountability of the executive branch. 

utive Branch to better serve the mission, service, and 

stewardship needs of the American WhHe so!Tte 

of the recommendations identified volume can be 

achieved via Executive administrative action, more sign it~ 

kant changes will require legislative action as well. 

slon sense in the 21 >t Century. As 

such, while some of the proposals are ready for agency 

implementation, others establish a vision for the Executive Brj]nch thJt wiH require further exploration and partnership wlth the Congress. 

Finally, reorganization is one tool 

this Administration is using to 

change in Government. Meeting the needs of the 

as well as the President's mandate 

effectiveness, and accountab!lity, 

a rJnge of transformational approaches to sup· 

port reorganization. To that end, the President's Man-

(PMA) out!lnes a of additional 

priorities tools that, in will create an 

Executive Branch that is prepared to meet the needs of 

the Amerlcan now and in the future. The 

Administration and 

considerwtlon of all the toots, capabilities, organizational principles that help support our mission and 

better serve tile public. 

Pew Research C>2nter. December 2017, "Public Trust m Government: 1958-201'7,'' 

Research Center December 2017, "Government Gets Lower Ratings lor Handing Health Care, Environment and Disaster Response·· 

President ,1\brnham Unco!n, GNtysburg Address, Novemb·~r 19, lSG3 

'President Donald Trump, iv1arch 13,2017, speech. 
62 

HISTORY OF REFORM AND 

REORGANIZATION EFFORTS 

has sought to enhance 

Government bureaucracy to better 

with policy and efficiency priorities" f-rom the ereof the Bureau of the Budget in 1921 under President 

Warren Harding, the Executive Branch has continued to 

evolve to and mission 

of the Federal Government. and reorganization 

effort~ in the 2o:n Century reflected bipartisan efforts 

effectiveness, while reducing 

waste, In fact, Executive Branch reorganization was reason<Jb!y common occurrence undNtaken by most new administrations, More recently, 

notable efforts at organizational reform included the 

personnel reform initiated under Presfdent 

under the 

Presreorganizations have also mission focus, usually 

responding to major mission failures or service de!lv~ 

The most notable recent examples of major 

reform and r12organlzation efforts came in 

December 1, 1991. 

REFORM PlAN AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDA.TlONS 
63 

response to mission challenges experienced after 9/11 in 

ae;lin'<t terrori,;m OperationJ!, communication, 

resulted in the 

Security (DHS) 

Today, agencies have interconnectl::ld ir-nperatives around 

mission delivery, customer service, and stewardship of 

taxpayer dollars. Broader, system .. (<0vel thinking around 

Goverr,rnent requires tJck!ing interconnected barriers to change across these three Jreas. 

CviriPrsecrun!tv and service 

n use of data 

accountability and transparency, and workforce chi1trequire new organizational thinking to better 

mission, service, and stewardship 

silos of Government. Moreover, 
64 
65 

ORGANIZATIONAL 

REFORM PRINCIPLES 
66 

reform ideas to the 

Management and Budget (OMB) in response to an April 

12,2017 OMS implementation memo. These submissions included valuable feedback provided by the public 

an open comment process.6 Over the summer 

agencies worked with OMB to refine the 

ideas, identify opportunities across 

opportunities to act on proposals in 

cies submitted refined reform 

Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 

the more straightforward, 

<Jgencies under existing authorities. 

The 

alignment to the needs 

and 

nest fa! lowing the ana!y5ls of the President's Manage-

! !lis Agenda provided the broad context 

tor what needs to change in Government, 

renewe-d focus on mission, service, and 

behalf of the ,;\merican 

the 

Mission: The first reform in 

the 21 sr Century is to mission. Specific 

reforms must ensure that Government activities are 

rooted in the missions that the American people, through 

their elected offida!s, require. Within these mission 

areas-from national security to infrastructure to food 

and water safety-Government must have dear and 

aligned structures that allow staff, and 

agencies to de!iver the outcomes the 

Service: Understanding the customer or stakeholder 

needs in the 21 't Century is critical to understanding 

how to realign the modeL ln 

outmoded 

needs have distracted from core mission, hindered 

outcomes, and fa !len out of step with 

tations. Federal 

nesses seeking loans, to families 

port, to veterans expecting proper 

care-·deserve a customer experience that compares to 

or exceeds that of leading private-sector organizations, 

which most Feder.:llservlces behind, The Executive 

Branch must develop better facilitate end· 

to-end customer experiences that cross agency boundaries, and create faster, more convenient, and more 

cost-effective interactions. 

Target opportunities to enhance 

mission, service, and stewardship 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
67 

MODELS TO LEARN FROM: 

ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN 

IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR 

f~eorganlzation is a k€y tool that pr!vote··scctor cornpa~ 

n1es momtaln relevance, efficiency, 

ai\d over time. Whilt: orgcmizat!onCll change 

is hard and takes time, the experiences of companies in 

the pri':':.J:t.~~sect.or over the last few dec1des have shown 

th21t !arge-sca(e transformation possible and c1n both 

improve customer service and lower costs. Studies by 

McKinsey"' and BCG 10 have 

design success factors before and 

tion, For example, both 

foundational step in Mc,~nintie>c•ol 

to focus on 

For the Fed era! Government, this means starting with 

a focus on mission outcomes and service d~livery. 
68 

Organizational decisions should be rna de and executed 

to U€'ate the most value for taxpayers and the customers 

of Federa\ services, not based on outdated \ega! struc~ 

or historlca! precedent 

Operating models must also be reviewed in 

ln1provements possible in the dlgita! 

learned from 

REORGANIZATION ALIGNMENT 

FRAMEWORK 

Based on these approaches, a Kec>n'clniZal!<on 

rnent Frarnework was developed to assess the and 

best align reorganization efforts to the 

of mission. 

the Reorganization Alignment Framework, p!ense see the 

bibliography section. 
69 

above, nr<ce1ni7e·Hor,,1 

categories: 

Mission Alignment Imperatives. Analysis highareas where Fed era! services are 

efficiently, but outdated 

orcc,miY,iCimnl constructs hinder the ability to 

mission objectives and 

citizens. !n addition, this Administration 

several opportunities to "right size'' the mission to 

the cunent environment. As such, 

A. Organizational 

mission and st~rvice 

B. Changes to refocus, reduce, or expand 

the mission. 

in ways that dupU~ 

cate other Federal activities or rely on outdated 

ors:anle<rtiOI131 structures that .are wasteful and 

These present cross-agency oppor· 

tunitles to better steward taxpayer resouro:s to 

achieve the same core missions vvith bette1· results, 

Transformation Urgency: New Capability 

Requirements. In severa! areas, the Federal Government tacks crit1cat capa.bi!ltles for successful 

sectors. !n 

to fulfill both 

responsibilities. 

a 21'1 Century characterized by 

data··driven mission supOrganizations in Alignment. !n other 21reas, 

nizationa! capabilities 

the customer and 

additional investments may be needed, Since 

these changes represent "bus1ness-as~usua[" 

process improvement opportunities, this volun1e 

wi!! proposals in depth. For 
70 

AVOIDING "ONE-SIZE-FITS ALL" 

APPROACHES 

Rather than adhere to a simplistic set of decision rules 

to individincluding 

imp0ct on mission, service, and stewardship in order to 

agencies' unique mles Jnd 

improve coor" 

and lower costs through economies of scale 

best promotes mission, service, and stewardship. Yet ln 

other cases, increase customer align~ 

m0nt and ''on-the··ground" 

realities may reducing program 

duplication has to !ower costs and 

reduce confusion among both customers anrl employees. 

across prograrns may also create 

activities and 

program flexibility to react to changing factors. 

KEY DRIVERS OF REFORM 

Heorganizations in the private 

sector have demonstrated 

that without efficient and 

organization transformation: 

Information Technology Modernization. 

Data, Accountability, and Transparency. 

People and the Workforce of the Future. 

needs of the 21' Century, it 

wl!! be critical to leverage 

of these key drivers. 

this front 

part of 

ManageIIH-:nt Agenda, Jnd you can 

see more detail on spe-cific 

In addition, these key drivers wi!l inform next 

steps for each of the reforrn proposa1s discussed in this 

volume, 
71 
72 

Utlllz1ng the frameworks described above, the Administration's comprehensive plan for reforming and reorganizing the Executive Branch includes 

extend across agencies, with the goa! 

on integrated mission, service, and stewardship 

Our Nation is used to tea ding the world in technology 

innovation and service delivery and at one time, the 

U.S. Government catalyzed that innovation. As such, 

the Administration is investing in deep-seated transformation that begins with the President's Management 

Agenda and extends through the recommendations for 

Executive Branch organizational reform. This section 

provides an overview of the initial organizational reform 

priorities that are organized based on the Reorganization 

Alignment Framework presented above. 

MISSION ALIGNMENT IMPERATIVES 

A. Organizational Realignments to Enhance Mission and 

Service DeUvery 

1. Merge the Departments of Education and labor 

into a single Cabinet agency, the Department of 

Education and the Workforce, charged with meet~ 

ing the needs of American students and workers 

from education and skit! development to workplace 

protection to retirement security. As part of the 

merger, the Administration also proposes significant 

Government-wide workforce development program 

consolidations, streamlining separate programs in 

order to increase efficiencies and better serve American workers. 

2. Move the non-commodity nutrition assistance 

programs currently in the U.S. Department of 

. J\g~iculture's {USDA) Food and Nutrition Service into the Department of Health and Human 

Services-which will be renamed the Department of Health and Public Welfare. 

Also, establish a Council on Public Assistance, comprised of all agencies that administer public benefits, with statutory authority to set cross-program 

policies including uniform work requirements. 

3. Move the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Civil 

Works out ofthe Department of Defense (ODD) 

to the Department ofTransportation (DDT) and 

Department of the Interior (DOl) to consolidate 

and align the Corps' civil works missions with these 

agencies. 

4. Reorganize the USDA's Food Safety and lnspec· 

tion Service and the food safety functions of 

HHS's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) into a 

single agency within USDA that would cover virtually all the foods Americans eat. 

5. Move USDA's rural housing loan guarantee and 

rental assistance programs to the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development (HUD), allowing 

both agencies to focus on their core missions and, 

overtime, further align the Federal Government's 

role in housing policy. 

6. Merge the Department of Commerce's (Com~ 

merce} National Marine Fisheries Service with 

DOl's Fish and Wildlife Service. This merger would 

consolidate the administration of the Endangered 

Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act in 

one agency and combine the Services' science and 

management capacity, resulting in more consistent 

Federal fisheries and wildlife policy and improved 

service to stakeholders and the public, particularly 

on infrastructure permitting. 

7, Consolidate portions of DOl's Central Hazardous 

Materials Program and USDA's Hazardous Materift 

als Management program into the Environmental 

Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund program. 

This consolidation would aHow EPA to address 

environmental cleanup under the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response Compensation & Liability 

Act (CERCLA) on Federal land regardless of which 

of these agencies manages the land, while DOl and 

USDA would maintain their existing environmental 

compliance, bonding, and reclamation programs for 

non-CERCLA sites . 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
73 

8. Optimize Department of State (Stale) and U.S. 

, ''.1\genCY"ior International Development (USAID) 

humanitarian assistance to eliminate duplication 

of efforts and fragmentation of decision-making. 

A specific reorganization proposal wi!! be submitted 

State and USAID to OMB as part of their FY 2020 

efficiency and effectiveness Government's humanitarian 

assistance across State and USA!D, establish unity 

of voice and policy, and optimize outreach to other 

donors to increase burden-sharing and drive reform 

at the UN and in multilateral humanitarian policy. 

9. Consolidate the U.S. Government's develop~ 

ment finance tools, such as the Overseas Private 

Investment Corporation (OPIC) and the Develop· 

ment Credit Authority {DCA) of USAID, into a new 

Devetopment Finance Institution in a reformed 

and modernized way to leverage more private~ 

sector investment, provide strong alternatives to 

state-directed initiatives, create more innovative 

"'~htcieStO open and expand markets for U.S. firms, 

and enhance protections for U.S. taxpayers. 

10. Transform USAID through an extensive, agen~ 

cy~driven structural reorganization of headquar~ 

ters Bureaus and Independent Offices as a foundational component of USAID's overaH p!ans to bet~ 

self-reliance, support 

ensure the effectiveness 

J 1. Move the poticy function of the Offi<:e of Personnel 

Management {OPM) into the Executive Office ofthe 

President, and elevate its core strategic mission 

while devolving certain operational activitiesthe delivery of Vdrious fee-for-service human 

resources, lT services, and background Investigations- to other Federal entities better aligned to provide non-strategic transaction processing services 

that meet 21 stcentury needs. This new structure 

would better accommodate an overhaul of the Fed· 

era\ c!vH service statutory and regu!atoryfrarnework. 

12. Transfer responsibility for perpetual care and 

operation of seted military and veteran cemeteries located on DOD installations to the Depart~ 

ment of Veterans Affairs' National Cemetery 

Administration. This transfer assures these cemeteries wm be maintained to nation at shrine standards to continue the recognition of service of those 

interred therein, gains efficiencies, and limits mission overlap based on a common-sense approach to 

good government. 

13. Reorganize the U.S. Census Bureau, the Bureau 

of Economic Analysis, and the Bureau of labor 

Statistics under Commerce to increase cost~effectiveness omd improve data quality whi!e simultaneously reducing respondent burden on businesses 

and the public. Together, these three agencies 

account for 53 percent of the U.S. Statistlca! System's annual budget of $2.26 billion and share 

indicators. 

in their coHection of economic 

data and analysis of key national 

14. Consolidate the Department of Energy's {DOE) 

applied energy programs into a new Office of 

Energy innovation in order to maximize the benefits of energy research and development and to 

en<:~bk~ quicker adaptation to the Nation's changing 

energy technology needs. 
74 

B. Changes to Refocus, Reduce, or Expand the Mission 

15. Devolution of Activities from the Federal 

Government 

a) Sell the transmission assets owned and 

operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority 

and the Power Marketing Administrations 

, <within DOE, lnc!uding those of Southwestern 

Power Administration, Western Area Power 

Administration, and Bonneville Power Administration, to encourage a more efficient allocation 

of economic resources and mitigate unnecessary risk to taxpayers. 

b) Restructure the U.S. Postal System to return 

it to a sustainable business model or prepare 

it for future conversion from a Government 

agency into a privately~held corporation. 

The President's Task Force on the United States 

Postal System wiH make recommendations on 

reforms towards this goal in August2018. 

c) Reorganize DOT to better align the agency's 

core missions and programmatic respon~ 

sibilities, reduce transportation program 

fragmentation across the Government, and 

improve outcomes. Changes would include 

:;pinning off Federal responslbitity for operating 

air traffic control services, integrating into DOT 

certain coastal and inland waterways commercia! navigation activities and transportation security programs, and reassessing the structure and 

responsibilities of DOT's Office of the Secretary. 

16. Transform the way the Federal Government 

delivers support for the U.S. housing finance 

system to ensure more transparency and accountability to taxpayers, and to minimize the risk of taxpayer-funded bailouts, while maintaining responsible and sustainable support for homeowners. 

Proposed changes, which would require broader 

policy and legislative reforms beyond restructuring 

Federal agencies and programs, include ending the 

conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, 

reducing their rote in the housing market, and providing an explicit, Umited Federal backstop that is 

on-budget and apart from the Federal support for 

!ow-.~~g moderate-income homebuyers. 

17. Rethink how the Federal Government tan drive 

economic growth in concert with private~sector 

investments in communities across the Nation by 

coordinating and consolidating Federal economic 

assistance resources into a Bureau of Economic 

Growth at Commerce, producing a higher return on 

taxpayer investment on projects that are transparent and accountable. 

18. Transform the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps into a leaner and more efficient 

organization that is better prepared to respond 

to public health emergencies and provide vital 

health services, including by reducing the size 

of the Corps and building up a Reserve Corps for 

response in public health emergencies. 

MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT 

AND EFFICIENCY OPPORTUNITIES 

19. Establish an accelerated process for determining 

whether one or more of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Centers should be converted to, or host, a Federa 

ally Funded Research and Development Center 

{FFRDC), FFRDCs can potentially allow the agency 

to be more agile in rapidly responding to changing 

needs and in recruiting and retaining scientific and 

technlca! expertise. 

20. Consolidate the administration of graduate fel~ 

low ships for multiple Federal agencies under the 

National Science Foundation in order to reduce the 

total cost of administering those fellowships, 

21. Optimize the Federal real property footprint by 

making smart investments in renovations and new 

fad!ities, driving down tease costs, and disposing of 

unneeded rea! estate through a stream tined process 

that results in the greatest return to the taxpayer. 

22. Consolidate and streamline financial education 

and literacy programs currently operating across 

more than 20 Federal agencies to ensure effective 

a !location of Federal financial literacy resources and 

avoid unneeded overlap and duplication. 

23. Strengthen the Small Business Administra~ 

tion (SBA) as the voice of small business within 

the Government by consolidating smaU business 

focused guaranteed lending and Federal contracting 

certification programs at SBA. 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
75 

24. Consolidate protective details at certain civil~ 

ian Executive Branch agencies under the U.S. 

Marshals Service in order to more effectively 

and efficiently monitor and respond to potential 

threats. Threat assessments would be conducted 

with support from the U.S. Secret Service. 

25. Consolidate the small grants functions, expertise, 

and grantmaking from the lnter·American Foun· 

dation and U.S. African Development Foundation 

into USAID beginning in FY 2019. The consolidation 

would be a significant step to reduce the pro!!fera~ 

tion of Federal international affairs agencies that are 

operating today, while also elevating community-led, 

"local works" small grants as a development and 

diplomacy too! for the U.S. Government. 

26. Transit!on Federal agencies' business processes 

and recordkeeping to a fully electronic environ· 

ment, and end the National Archives and Records 

Administration's acceptance of paper records by 

December 31,2022. This would improve agencies' 

efficiency, effectiveness, and responsiveness to citizens by converting paper-based processes to electronic workflows, expanding online services, and 

enhancing management of Government records, 

data, and information. 

TRANSFORMATION URGENCY -

NEW CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS 

27. Transform the way Americans interact with the 

Federal Government by establishing a GovernM 

ment~wide customer experience improvement 

capability to partner with Federal agencies to help 

them provide a modern, streamlined, and customer-centric experience for citizens, businesses, and 

0theFc-ttstor'f1ers, comparable to leading privatesector organizations. 

28. Pursue a Next Generation (Next Gen) Financial 

Services Environment as a new approach to Fed~ 

era I Student Aid (FSA) processing and servicing 

with a modernized, innovative, and integrated 

architecture. Next Gen witt save taxpayers millions 

of dollars and wH! create an improved, world-class 

customer experience for FSA's more than 42 million 

customers, while creating a more agile and streamlined operating modeL 

DELIVERING GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS IN THE 21" CENTURV 

29. Solve the Federal cybersecurity workforce 

shortage by establishing a unified cyber workforce 

capability across the civilian enterprise, working 

through DHS and OMB in coordination with all 

Federal departments and agencies. The Administration will work towards a standardized approach 

to Federal cybersecurity personnel, ensuring Government-wide visibility into talent gaps, as we!! as 

unified solutions to fill those gaps in a timely and 

prioritized manner. 

30. Establish a Government Effectiveness Advanced 

Research (GEAR) Center as a public-private partnership to help the Government respond to innovative technologies, business practices, and research 

findings that present opportunities to improve mission delivery, services to citizens, and stewardship 

of public resources. 

31. Transfer the National Background Investigations 

Bureau from OPM to DOD, providing the opportunity to achieve an efficient, effective, fiscally viable, and secure operation that meets aU agencies' 

needs. 

32. Expand upon existing agency evaluation capabilities and push agencies to adopt stronger practices 

that would generate more evidence about what 

works and what needs improvement in order to 

inform mission-critical decisions and policies. 

These changes will help to address the large gaps and 

inconsistencies across Government in Federal agen·· 

des' ability to formatly evaluate their programs. 
76 
77 

LOOKING AHEAD 
78 

The business of the Federal Government is to serve the Amerbut outdated frameworks hinder 

deliver on and steward~ 

objectives in the digital age. Data breaches, delays in 

investigation and security clearance 

and outdated paper-based a!! 

outdated organizotiona! constructs designed decades ago. 

!t Js also important to ensure tha.t the Federal Government 

""''mmi,,telv aligns its mission and servlce activities to areas 

role is critical and where State and 

ernments cannot effective: services. no 

longer appropriate to having foundutiona[ discussions 

about services that n1ight be better served by direct State, 

local, or even private-sector stewardship. To the extent that 

constructs are too complex or out~ 

realignment or reform be needed 

mission. service, and stewC~rdship 

Recent decades have demonstrated that the Federal Government wit! continue to change. The question is whether 

short·sighted, piecemeal change will continue 

ers short and ignore funcbrnerrt<JI 

transformation w!H elevate Government to the 

efficiency, effectiveness, ond acrountabHity that the public 

deserves. With the priorities 

the that fo!!ow wm make 
79 

GOVERNMENT-WIDE 

REORGANIZATION PROPOSALS 
80 

Department of Education and the Workforce 

Departments of Education and Labor 

Summary of Proposal: This proposal would merge the Departments of Education (ED) and Labor 

(DOL) into a single Cabinet agency, the Department of Education and the Workforce (DEW). The new 

agency would be charged with meeting the needs of American students and workers, from education 

and skill development to workplace protection to retirement security. Merging ED and DOL would 

al!ow the Federal Government to address the educational and skill needs of American students 

and workers in a coordinated way, eliminating duplication of effort between the two agencies and 

maximizing the effectiveness of skill-building efforts. 

THE CHALLENGE 

EO and DOL share a common goal of preparing Americans for success in a globally competitive world 

through family-sustaining careers. However, the two Departments operate in silos, inhibiting the Federal 

Government's ability to address the skHt needs oftheAmerican people in a coordinated manner. The result 

has been the creation of a complicated web of funding streams for States and !ocal!t1es to administer, 

and a confusing set of signals sent to American students and workers regarding how best to develop the 

skil!s needed to succeed in the 21 't Century economy. The Federal Government currently operates more 

than 40 workforce development programs spread across 15 agencies. This fragrnentation perpetuates 

unnecessary bureaucracy and complicates State and local efforts to weave together disparate funding 

streams to meet the comprehensive needs of their citizens. 

The Administration proposes to merge ED and DOL Into a single Cabinet agency, the Department of 

Education and the Workforce (DEW). As part of the merger, the Administration also proposes significant 

Government-wide workforce development program consoUdation, streamlining separate programs in 

order to increase efficiencies and better serve American workers. 

THE OPPORTUNITY 

The new merged department would reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, streamline access and better 

integrate education and workforce programs, and allow the Administration to more effectively address 

the full range of issues affecting American students and workers. The workforce development program 

consolidation would centralize and better coordinate Federal efforts to train the American workforce1 

reduce administrative costs, and make it easier for States and localities to run programs to meet the 

comprehensive needs of their workforce, 

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WHY IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO 

Th-e proposal would merge aU of the existing DOL and ED programs into a single department, DEW, with 

four mJin sub~agencies focused on: K-12, Higher Education/Workforce Development, Enforcement, and 

Research/Evaluation/Administration. This would help create alignment throughout the education~to~career 

pipeline, while also creating coherence within the workforce development and higher education worlds, 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
81 

K-12 

The .K:l~ agent'£ would support State and local educational agencies to improve the achievement of 

preschool, elementary, and secondary school students, including students with disabi!lties, Native American 

students, and English language learners. The agency would comprise improved ED K-12 offices that 

would better integrate across K-12 programs and more effectively coordinate with higher education and 

workforce progr;:~ms. The K-12 agency would administer activities currently implemented by ED's Offices 

of Elementary and Secondary Education, lnnovution and Improvement, English Language Acquisition, 

and Special Education Programs. As described below, the Rehabilitation Services Administration would 

be moved to the Higher Education/Workforce Development agency, 

Ariiefican Workforce and Higher Education Administration 

The new American Workforce an..!! Higher Ed.~cat[onAdministration (AWHEA) would be charged with 

ensuring that American workers possess the skiHs necessary to succeed In the workforce, The agency 

wou!d bring together current DOL workforce development programs and ED vocational education, 

rehabHitatlon, and higher education programs, As part of the reorganization, the Administration also 

proposes to consolidate overlapping workforce development funding streams, Observers of Fed era! 

workforce development efforts have long noted the large numberofprograms across multiple agencies and 

duplicative administrative structures inherent in the system, Since 2011, the Government Accountability 

Office has identified workforce development as an area of duplication, fragmentation, and overlap 

and has suggested that colocating services and consolidating administrative structures may heighten 

efficiency. 1 Despite modifications made as part of the 2014 reauthorization of the Workforce Innovation 

and Opportunity Act (WIOA), the system remains fragmented at the Federal leveL To address these 

issues, the new agency would place higher education and workforce development programs under the 

same umbrella. By doing so, Federal skill-building policy would be better coordinated to meet the full 

range of needs of American students and workers, and in particular would support improved synergy 

between higher education and workforce development programs. This proposal would simplify and 

streamline Federal workforce development programs, moving from the current arrangement of more 

than 40 programs at 15 agencies to 16 workforce development programs at seven agencies, 

The AWHEA would be structured to include components focused on: Higher Education; Disability 

Employment; Adult Workforce Development; Youth Workforce Development; and Veterans Emp!oyment1 

each headed by a presldcntiaHy-appointed officiaL 

TheJ:Ug.bs;J Educatio.D.._IQ_mponent would better align progrums that promote and expand access 

to postsecondary education with workforce development programs to meet the diverse needs of 

students and workers. This includes strengthening the capacity of colleges and universities to promote 

reform, innovation, and improvement in postsecondary education, while expnnding access to and 

driving improvement in high-quality, short-term programs that provide students with a credential, 

certification, or license in a high-demand field, The Higher Education component would also 

complement Federal Student Aid's customer.,service focus and move to the Next Generation 

(Next Gen) Financial Services Environment, atso proposed in this Volume, Next Gen would enhance 

operational components of Federal student aid programs, make it easier than ever to apply for 

OELIVERING GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS !N THE 2l~T CENTURY 
82 

firl-anciat aid from a mobile platform, and streamline the way that schools interact with student !oan 

servicing and the rep<Jyment system. 

The Disabi!i.t)!_~.rr:tglQyment com__Qonmt would consolidate ED's Vocational Rehabilitation State 

Grants and DOL's Office of Disability of Employment Policy into one office within theAWHEA, allowing 

for better coordination of services, policy direction, technical assistance, and reporting within the 

workforce development system. This office would ensure the provision of high-quality services to 

individuals with disabilities, maintain strong coordination with researchers on best practices to 

promote employment, and centralize DOL and ED's support to States. 

The Adult Workforce Deveio1.1ment CQl!lll.Qnent would consolidate four major formula streams that 

currently serve adult populations in a duplicative manner: the WIOAAdult, WIOA Dislocated Worker, 

Employment Service, and Jobs for VeterJns State Grants. This component would also consolidate 

three Native workforce development programs currently spread across three 

a set-aside for Native American adults. 

The yguth WQJ:kfor_~~-!!&Y~loJJJlle_nt!;o_mp_QDent would address both in-school and out-of-school 

youth and create stronger pathways to postsecondary paths and employment for both. 

The ~~t~J:.iltt.?:_EmplQ:Lm~t_QflL;.g would ensure that veterans continue to receive priority of service 

m the workforce system; advise on veterans' employment issues; and support the Departments of 

Defense and Veterans Affairs in administering the Transition Assistance Program. 

The AWHEAwould also maintain a Federally-administered Apprenticeship and Impact Fund, which would 

consolidate a range of disparate grant programs into a s!nglefund that is focused on testing and replicating 

effective apprenticeship, workforce development, and postsecondary education models. 

!n addition to greater policy coordination, this proposal could improve the use of data for !earning, 

performance management, and evaluation in order to study how education and workforce development 

programs lead to successful labor market outcomes. For example, education programs could benefit 

from high+qua!ity information about participants' labor market outcomes, which are more commonly 

tracked in workforce development programs. 

Enforcement 

The Enforcement a~ would lndude worker protection agencie'-> from DOL that are responsible for 

enforcing statutes relating to workers' pay, safety, benefits, and other protections, as weH as Federal 

workers' compensation programs. The Agency would also include ED's Office of Civit Rights, which is 

responsible for ensuring equal access to education through enforcement of civil rights ln the nation's f<-12 

school and higher education institutions. The DOL agencies represent more than half of DOL's workforce 

as measured in ful!-time equivalents (FTEs), mostly comprised of field enforcement staff. ln the new DEW, 

aU of these agencies would report to one senior official to enhance the efficiency and coordination of 

enforcement and compliance assistance efforts. 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
83 

Research, Evaluation, and Administration 

The Res~K.f!Jvahtation. and Administrati.Q.rl......,g~ would include centralized offices focused on 

policy development, research, and evaluation, in addition to management-focused offices related to 

IT, procurement, financial management, and budgeting. Consolidating these functions would result in 

efficiency gains. As discussed elsewhere, the Bureau of Labor Statistics would be moved to the Department 

of Commerce as part of a proposal to bring the primary economic statistical agencies under one umbrella. 

DEPARTMENT Of 

EOUI;ATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCAT10N AND 

THE WORKFORCE 

K~U EOIJLATtoN 

Ed'ucabonforth.e 

Di$a·dvar~t~pd 

lmpartAfd 

Seheollmt"JtOvl!;'rtMt 

J>rogt<trru; 

Saft Sc:hooh& Citfli!n:$h\p 

!ndilm£rlvutlon 

lnno..,atlon and 

lmpf0Y!lfl10H'lt 

Engli:sh l.an.giiage Ac(tv\:l;itiort 

Spet:!al£dueation 

AOMINlSTRATtoN 

Dllopi!o f'tfrt0:!'1t·wu:k £vah.<~tiol'l 

ON'~t! 

ProgramAdm,nf$tTlltlon 

St1.1dalit Aid Adminlstn.trQI'I 

Offtce of lnspectotGenenl 

!n.stituteofEd>~.r;atloL'l 

S<l&nl;ll:;~; 

ENfORCEMWf 

Worl<:erPro«td.km .'\g@nees 

fromth~ r.>ep:~~rtm~ntoflabor 

Ofli-tltferCivllRlgh~t 

PROGRAMS MOVING TO OTH'E:R AGENCIES 

II DELIVERING GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS IN THE 21ST CENTURY 

DEPARTMENT OF 
84 

Consolidate Non-Commodity Nutrition Assistance 

Programs into HHS, Rename HHS the 

Department of Health and Public Welfare, and 

Establish the Council on Public Assistance 

Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services 

Summary of Proposal: This proposal moves the non-commodity nutrition assistance programs 

currently in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) into the 

Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Administration for Children and Families (ACF), and 

renames HHS the Department of Health and Public Welfare (DHPW). The proposal also establishes 

a Council on Public Assistance, comprised of all Federal agencies that administer public benefits, 

with statutory authority to set cross-program policies including uniform work requirements. 

THE CHALLENGE 

USDA and HHS are currently responsible for administering the Federal Government's major public assistance 

programs, not including housing programs. However, State and local governments, the entities det!vering 

these services to participants, often administer many of these programs under a single Agency, For example, 

when a person goes to apptyfor services through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program 

and for nutrition assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP}, they often go 

to a single State agency office to do so. Unfortunately, that single State agency currently must foHow two 

separate sets of reporting, regulatory, and other administrative requirements one set imposed by HHS 

for TANF, and another by USDA for SNAP. This creates unnecessary administrative burden and potential 

duplication, using up resources that could be better used helping families move towards self-sufficiency. In 

addition, because these programs are currently administered by different Federal departments, they are 

often not well coordinated. 

ThLs proposal moves a number of nutrition assistance programs currently housed in USDA- most notably 

SNAP and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (W!C) -to HHS and, 

acknowledging the addition of these programs to the Agency, renames H HS the Department of Health and 

Public Welfare (DHPW). To provide for even morecoordinatlon across aU Fed era! public assistance programs~ 

this proposal also establishes a permanent Council on Public Assistance, housed in DHPW and composed of 

aU agencies that adm!nisterpub!k benefit programs, including USDA, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid 

Services, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and others. This Council would have 

statutory authority to set certain cross-program policies, including on uniform work requirements. 

THE OPPORTUNITY 

This proposal will better a!ign the administration of these publlc assistance programs at the Federal !eve! 

with how they are often administered at the State and local levels. This will reduce administrative burdens 

and duplications of effort that currently exist for State and local governments. ltwi!l at so ensure that policies 

are applied consistently across aU programs, potentially reducing confusing, complex, and sometimes 

contradictory requirements across progr<:Jms that can make 1t difficult for both States and participants to 

follow the rules. 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
85 

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WHY IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO 

Move Non-Commodity Nutrition Assistance Programs and Rename HHS 

FNS currently administers 15 nutrition assistance programs, which can be separated into two major 

categories: "near-cash" benefit programs and commodity-based programs. Near-cash programs provide 

money to !ow-income households, including through an electronlc benefit transfer card or voucher, to 

allow participants to buy food through retail outlets. Commodity-based programs deliver actual food to 

eligible entities, who in turn provide a meal or food benefit to participants. Near-cash benefit programs 

dO not need to leverage USDA's expertise in food procurement or delivery, nor do they primurily fit 

with USDA's core mission of supporting American farmers and agriculture. Rather, these programs are 

designed to support !ow~lncame Americans, a mission area better situated in DPHW. Specifica!!y, the 

Administration proposes to move SNAP, WIC, the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP)', and the 

Farmers' Market Nutrition Programs into ACF. USDA1 whether with a smaller FNS or a different division, 

would continue to administer the commodity-based programs, including the Nation a! School Lunch and 

School Breakfast Programs, The Emergency Food Assistance Program, the Commodity Supplemental 

Food Program, and others.' 

Moving the near-cash benefit programs into ACF would aUow for better and easier coordination across 

programs that serve similar populations, ensuring consistent policies and a sing!e point of administration 

for the major public assistance programs. This single point of administration would lead to reduced 

duplication in State reporting requirements and other administrative burdens, and a more streamlined 

process for issuing guidance, writing regulations, and approving waivers. Having all the major public 

assistance programs under one agency would also create more synergies vvithin the Agency, allowing ACF 

to develop a more holistic understanding of how programs interact with each other, which itself could 

lead to better policy analysis and outcomes. For example, as States have provided more TANF benefits 

through non-cash assistance, SNAP enrollment has grown due to individuals becoming "categorically" 

eligible for SNAP. This has resulted in some unintended consequences, such as fdmities becoming eligible 

for SNAP through the receipt of a TANF pamphlet or other non-cash assistance. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 

Budget proposed to tighten these loopholes, but combining these public assistance programs under one 

CJgency would help to increJse awareness of these inter21ctions and improve policy development that 

prevents such unintended consequences. 

With the move of these non-commodity programs, the welfare portfolio at HHS increases significantly. 

The proposal renames HHS the Department of Health and Public Welfare to more accurately reflect the 

mission of the Agency and raise the profile of non-health related programs within the Agency. 

Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservatlons, 

Disaster Assistance (not including Disaster SNAP). 
86 

Establish Council on Public Assistance 

As part of this initiative, the Administration also proposes to create a permanent Council on Public 

Assistance within the DHPW that would accomptish the goal of ensuring a unified, coordinated focus 

on cross-cutting welfare and workforce issues at the State and local levels, and to drive Federal~levet 

program reforms. The Councl! would be given statutory authorities and responsibilities, including but 

not limited to: 

Approving service plans and waivers requested by States underWe!fare¥to~Work projects, assuming 

enactment of the FY 2019 Budget proposal; 

Designing uniform work requirements to be implemented across aU welfare programs; 

"Tie-breaker" authority to resolve disputes when multiple agencies disagree on a particular policy; 

Designing cross-program standards for program applications, data verification, and program integrity; 

Facilitating information sharing and collection as we!! as regulatory and other policy guidance 

coordination across affected agencies; and 

Recommending programmatic and operational changes to eliminate barriers that it identifies at the 

Federal, State, and local levels to getting welfare participants to work, 

The Council would be housed at DHPW and composed of agency heads or their representatives from 

USDA (including from the smaller, reformed FNS focused only on commodity programs), HUD, the 

proposed Department of Education and the Workforce, the Office of Management and Budget, and 

others, as appropriate, and chaired by DPHW senior leadership. Creating this Council would further 

break down silos between agencies operating public assistance programs by establishing an interagency 

coordination and support structure to carry out the welfare reform agenda of the Administration with 

high~!evel visibility. Because this Council would become the Administration's welfare potlcy-making 

apparatus, this proposal would consolidate policymak!ng functions across the different agencies, likely 

reducing administrative resources and duplication in current po!icymaking functions) and would ensure 

that Federal public assistance programs are we!! aligned and focused on promoting opportunity and 

economic mobility. 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
87 

Consolidate Mission Alignment of 

Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works 

with Those of Other Federal Agencies 

Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works and 

Departments of Transportation and the Interior 

Summary of Proposal: This proposal would move the Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works (Corps) out 

of the Department of Defense (DOD) and into the DepartmentofTransportation (DOT) and Department 

of the Interior (DO!) to consolidate and align Corps civil works missions with these agencies. 

THE CHALLENGE 

The primary mission of DOD is to provide the military force needed to deter war and protect the security of 

the Nation. The Corps placement within DOD grew out of its historic involvement in military construction. 

Today, the Corps conducts both military and civl! works functions. The Civit Works program has three 

primary missions: commercia! navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem 

restoration; the commercia! navigation program is split between coastal and inland navigation. 

THE OPPORTUNITY 

Both DOT and DO! have missions that relate to and/or complement the Corps' civil works missions. 

DOT has a broad overarching systemic view of transportation policy and infrastructure in the United 

Stat\::S that cou!d beneficially inform the Corps' transportation-related efforts. DO! administers 

various land., water, and natural resource management programs spanning the country that are 

complementary to Corps efforts. Under this proposal, Corps navigation would be transferred to DOT 

and the remaining Corps civil works missions (flood <Jnd storm damage reduction, aquatic ecosystem 

restoration, regulatory, and a!! other activities) would be moved to DOl, where those activities could 

be integrated and aligned with complementary programs focused on issues !ike water manZ~gement, 

ecosystem restoration, and recreation. 

Aligning and consolidating Corps civil works mission areas into those of DOT and DOl would increase 

consistency of Federal policy and actions in both transportation and natura! resource n1anagement, 

resulting in more rational public policy outcomes. !t would also enable the broadest possible view 

of both transportation and land and water management infrastructure, thereby leading to improved 

Federal investment decisions, The transfer of certain Corps programs to DO! particularly when 

coupled with the other proposal in this Volume that would move the National Marine Fisheries Service to 

DO!- consolidates most major land and water resource management programs in the Federal Government 

in one department. Consolidating these programs under one umbrella would improve effectiveness 

of tand, water, and natura! resource management efforts, as welt as infrastructure permitting> across 

Government. It would also place Corps civil works activities in domestic agencies instead of in DOD, 

whose mission is focused on national defense. 

OEUVERlNG GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS lN THE 21>1 CENTURY 
88 

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WHY IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO 

Under this proposal, the Corps commercial navigation functions would move to DOT, whose mission 

already in dudes Federal responsibility for aU other modes of transportation, All other activities, including 

flood and storm damage reduction, aquatic ecosystem restor<Jtion, hydropowet~ regulatory, and other 

activities, would move to DOL 

Aligning and consolidating the Federal Government's role in domestic water resources activities would 

provide greater consistency in policy and investment decisions, including comparisons of various 

investment opportunities. Doing so would increase economic efficiency and improve transparency of 

investment decisions. 

Moving Commercial Navigation Functions to the Department of Transportation 

Transferring Corps nJvigation programs to DOT would consolidate responsibHlty across all transportation 

modes within a single Federal agency, thereby encouraging consistent Federal policy in the transportation 

secto(. This consolidation would teverage DOT's expertise in infrastructure, and make DOT's maritime 

responsibilities analogous to its role in other transportation sectors. In the maritime sector, DOT's mission 

would expand to helping States and non-Federal partners make infrastructure investment decisions. 

Moving Remaining Functions to the Department of the Interior 

The Corps administers an aquatic ecosystem restoration program to implement projects designed to 

benefit fish, wildlife, and their habitat. These projects are often justified by the benefits they provide to 

species protected under the Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, two laws that 

DOl administers with great expertise. Development of these projects requires significant coordination 

with DOl to ensure that the resulting project effectively targets the highest priority needs. If the Corps' 

restoration program was administered through DO!, the Executive Branch could better direct its ecosystem 

restoration investments to achieve the greatest benefit to fish, wildlife, and their habitat, and better 

leverage the expertise and relationships DOl maintains with State fish and wildlife agencies. 

ln addition, consolidating the Corps' regulatory responsib!!ities for permitting of non-Federat projects 

within DO! would simplify the infrastructure permitting process for stakeholders who often have to 

navigate mu!tlple Federal agency processes when seeking project permits and approvals. Moving 

regulatory responsibilities, induding those related to the Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 

10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, within DOl's existing permitting programs would produce administrative 

efficiencies and opportunities for simplified interaction with stc1keho!ders. 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
89 

Reorganize Primary Federal Food Safety Functions 

into a Single Agency, the Federal Food Safety Agency 

Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services 

Summary of Proposal: This proposal would address the current fragmented Federal oversight of 

food safety by reorganizing the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection 

Service (FSIS) and the food safety functions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) into a single agency within USDA. USDA demonstrates 

strong and effective leadership in food safety and maintains an expert understanding of food safety 

issues from the farm to the fork, This proposal would cover virtually aU the foods Americans eat. 

THE CHALLENGE 

For more than forty years, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported that the fragmented 

Federal oversight of food safety "has caused inconsistent oversight, ineffective coordination, and 

inefficient use of resources,'" and food safety has been on GAO's list of high-risk areas since 2007. FSIS 

and FDA are the two primary agencies with major responsibilities for regulating food and the substances 

that may become part of food. FSIS is responsible for the safety of meat, poultry, processed egg 

products, and catfish, while FDA is responsible for all other foods, including seafood and shelled eggs. 

There are many examples of how illogical our fragmented and sometimes duplicative food safety system 

can be. For example: while FSIS has regulatory responsibility for the safety of liquid eggs, FDA has 

Jcgulatory responsibility for the safety of eggs while they are inside of their shells; FDA regulates cheese 

pizza, but if there is pepperoni on top, it falls under the jurisdiction of FSIS; FDA regulates closed-faced 

meat sandwiches, while FSIS regulates open~ faced meat sandwiches. 

To address this fragmented and illogical division of Federal oversight, FSIS and the food safety functions 

of the FDA would be consolidated into a single agency within USDA called the Federal Food Safety Agency. 

GAO and other experts have recommended merging Federal food safety functions as a potential solution 

to this fragmentation. The National Research Co unci! and the lnstitute of Medicine (now known as the 

Health and Medicine Division of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering~ and Medidne) have 

recommended that the core Fed era! food safety responsibilities shau!d reside in a single entity or agency, 

with a unified administrative structure, dear mandate, a dedicated budget, and full responsibility for 

the oversight of the entire U.S. food supply. 

·: 'llovl:'rnment Account<:lbi!ity Office, "GA0·17-317: High-Risk Series: Progress on Many Hieh~Risk Areas, While Substrmtia! 

Efforts Needed on Others," {February 2017). 

DELIVERING GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS IN THE 21ST CENTURY 
90 

THE OPPORTUNITY 

The new Federal Food Safety Agency would pursue a modern, science-based food safety regulatory 

reg1medrawlngon best practices of both USDA and HHS, with strong enforcement and recall mechanisms, 

expertise in risk assessment, and enforcement efforts across aH food types based on scientiflcaHypractices. The Agency would serve as the central point for coordinating with State and local 

and food safety stakeholders, rationalizing and simplifying the Federal food safety regulatory 

regime. The reform would reduce duptlcation of inspection at some food processing facilities, improve 

outreach to consumers and industry, and achieve savings overtime while ensuring robust and coordinated 

food safety oversight. 

While the FDA ond FSIS currently have very different regulatory regimes, consolidating FSIS ond the food 

safety functionsofFDAwou!d a!!owfora better aHocation of resources based on risk, bettercommunication 

during illness outbreaks, and improved policy and program planning through development of a single 

strategic plan. 

-·-Wt!AT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WHY IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO 

The irrational divisions of responsibility between FDA and FSlS have evolved since the early days of U.S, 

food regulation. The Congress created separate statutory frf.lmeworks, spurred in part by various food 

safety concerns and incidents of the day, originaHyto address the widespread murketing of intentionally 

adulterated foods and the unsafe and unsanitary conditions in meat packing plants in the early 1900s. Over 

the years, the Congress added new authorities to meet new challenges. Overtime, the different legislative 

authorities that govern the two agencies have resulted in two distinct regulatory regimes, cultures, and 

approaches to addressing fuod safety. Thus, fully integrating FSIS and the food safety functions of FDA 

would ultimately require a reconciliation of underlying legislative authorities and regulatory approaches. 

Food Safety and Inspection Service Approach 

FSIS is responsible forthesafetyofdomestic and imported meat, poultry, processed eggs, and catfish. Meat 

and poultry undergo continuous (i.e., 100 percent) inspection during slaughter, and one or more Federal 

inspectors are on site during aU hours that a slaughter plant is operating, and present for every shift in 

processing plants. FSIS is involved in many areas of food processing and food distribution: the inspection 

of domestic products, imports, and exports; conducting risk CJssessments; and educating the public 

about the importance of food safety. FS!S ensures the safety of imported products through a three~ part 

equivalence process that includes an analysis of the country's Llnd regulatory structure, initial 

.~nQ perlodic on-site audits to ensure equivalence with FS!S and a continual point-of-entry 

re-lnspection of products from the exporting country. 

Food and Drug Administration Approach 

FDA is responsible forthesafety of aU U.S. domestic and imported foods except meat, poultry, processed 

eggs, and catfish. FDA conducts inspections of most establishments that manufacture, process, pack, or 

hold foods. FDA requires food importers to verify that their foreign suppliers have adequate preventive 

controls ln place to ensure that the food they produce is safe, and FDA can refuse entry into the United 

States of food from a foreign facility if FDA is denied access by the facility or the country in which the 

facility is located. FDA also has a systems recognition program, whlch determines whether another 

country has comparable regulatory programs and public health outcomes to the United States. Systems 

REFORM PLAN. AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
91 

recognition allows FDA to avoid duplication of effort while leveraging the high-quality work done by 

regulatory authorities in each country. Given the scope of FDA's responsibi!ities, FDA inspects food 

establishments based on risk. As required by law, FDA must inspect 100 percent of high-risk domestic 

food facilities everythreeyears. FDA physically inspects !ess than two percent of imported foods annually 

atthe ports. Where FSIS and FDA statutory and/or regulatory regimes overlap, some establishments fall 

unrie-r the jurisdiction of both agencies. 

Locating the Federal Food Safety Agency at USDA 

USDA is well poised to house the Federal Food Safety Agency. USDA is a strong leader in food safety; 

has a thorough understanding of food safety risks and issues aU along the farm to fork continuum; and 

many agencies within USDA focus on food safety. 

The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) spends about $112 million on in-house food safety research, and 

ARS scientists work with both FSIS and FDA to help develop research priorities and food safety practices. 

In addition. many other programs at USDA have food safety elements, from helping to manage wildlife on 

farms, to monitoring animal health, to collecting pesticide residue data on fruits and vegetables. USDA 

also has established relationships between State departments of agriculture, local farms, and processing 

facilities, and is thus keen!y aware of food safety issues at aU levels. 

Following the food reorganization, FDA (which would be renamed the "Federal Drug Administration") 

would focus on drugs, devices, biologics, tobacco, dietary supplements, and cosmetics. 

The proposed consolidation would merge approximately 5,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees 

and $1.3 billion from FDA with about 9,200 FTEs and $1 billion in resources in USDA. In the long term, 

the Administration expects this proposal would result in improvements in food safety outcomes, policy 

ariD Program consistency, and more efficient use of taxpayer resources. 

O.EUVERING GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS IN THE 21n CENTURY 
92 

Move Select USDA Housing Programs to HUD 

Departments of Agriculture and Housing and Urban Development 

Summary of Proposal: This proposal would move the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) rural 

housing loan guarantee and rental assistance programs to the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD). Having both USDA and HUD housing programs administered by HUDwould allow 

both <Jgencies to focus on their core missions and, ovt>rtime, further align the Federal Government's 

role in housing policy. 

THE CHALLENGE 

Currently, USDA and HUD operate similar programs that assist homeowners and low-income renters 

and support rental housing development. Each agency operates its own mortgage insurance programs 

for home purchase and refinance loans, as well as loans to bui!d, rehabilitate, and refinance rental 

housing properties. !n addition, the two agencies operate separate rental assistance programs offering 

subsidies to makC' rents affordable to low-income tenants. 1 The programs, however, are not identical~ 

there are differences in eligibility requirements, assistance levels, delivery and oversight structures, and 

other program features that have evolved separately ovNtime. Given that these housing programs are 

currently situated in separate agencies with distinct missions and priorities, incorporating best practices 

across programs and establishing a unified housing policy has been a chaUenge. This proposal seeks 

to mitigate these issues by moving USDA's single-family and multifamily loan guarantees and rental 

assistance programs to HUD. 

THE OPPORTUNITY 

Moving USDA housing programs to HUD would foster a more integrated approach to homeownership and 

rental housing programs by consolidating oversight and policy direction under one agency. !n the !ong 

term, it would Improve operational efficiency and service delivery through integration of like programs 

and the adoption of best practices. 

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WHY IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO 

USDA's housing programs, which serve eligible rural areJs, were initially established in the 1940s. in 

response to an underrepres.entation of nation a! housing programs in rural areas. They were also a result 

of the ready-mJde delivery system USDA had in place through its field office structure for farm loans, 

Since then, the rationale for separate, rural~ focused housing programs at USDA has become outdated 

given HUD's role in serving communities throughout the Nation, including in many rura{ areas. !n fact, 

due in large part to the sheer size of its programs, HUD serves more households in USDA-eligible areas 

than USDA does. For example, CIS shown in the Figure, HUD's Federal Housing Administration (FHA) 
93 

guaranteed approximately 633,000 single-family loan.s in zip codes that were 100 percent USDA-eligible 

from fiscal years 2015 to 2017 compared to 258,000 !oans guaranteed by USDA. 

Moving USDA housing programs to HUD would be the 

fir,~tstep toward achieving !ong-terrn improvements 

in operational efficiency and service delivery. For 

ex8mp!e, program requirements, management and 

oversight processes, and systems would be assessed 

to identify and take advantage of best practices from 

each agency. Private-sector partners, including 

lenders and developers, that currently work with 

both agencies to administer housing programs could 

realize efficiencies as conflicting requirements are 

eliminated or reduced. Another long.-term objective, 

to the extent it can be achieved without compromising 

Agency mission, would be to produce Federal savings 

by reducing Agency overhead costs. 

Number of FHA and USDA loans in 100% 

USDA-eligible zip codes, 2015·2017 

fHA USDA 

ff ~ 100,000 loans 

5\:lvee: HUO anC USZ'A 1M~!ff$ ~tta. 

--~--·~·------~ 

This reorganization could be modeled after the provision in a draft House bill, the "FHA-Rural Regulatory 

Improvement Act of 2011," which proposed to establish a separate HUD Rural Housing office to provide 

loan guarantees and rental assistance in rural areas, and transfer the USDA housing programs into 

that office. This proposal is also consistent with findings from the Government Accountabllity Office 

(GAO). Since 2012, GAO has issued annual reports on opportunities to reduce fragmentation, overlap 

and duplication, and housing programs at USDA and HUD have routinely been included in that report. 

DELIVERING GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS IN THE 21~' CENTURY 
94 

Merge the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

Departments of Commerce and the Interior 

Summary of Proposal: This proposal would merge the Department of Commerce's (DOC) National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) with the Department of the Interior's (DOl) U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS). This merger would consolidate the administration of the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) in one agency and combine the Services' science 

and management capacity, resulting in more consistent Fed era! fisheries and wildlife policy and 

improved service to stakeholders and the public, particularly on infrastructure permitting. 

THE CHALLENGE 

The National Marine Flsherles Service (NMFS)- located in the Department of Commerce's National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)- housed within 

the Department of the lnterior (DOl) administer two foundational taws that aim to prevent extinctions 

and recover fish and wildlife: the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA). The Services' jurisdictions under these two laws is generally split based on habitat type, with FWS 

covering species thut spend time on !and orin inland fisheries, while NMFS covers mostly marine species. 

This split jurisdiction, coupled with the fact that the Services are located in different departments, 

creates a confusing permitting landscape for project proponents. For example, when reviewing the 

impacts of a proposed dam system on endangered species, FWS and NMFS may come up with directly 

contradictory requirements about how that dam system needs to be managed to be ESA compliant. 

FWS may determine that the dam system needs to release extra water to benefit an endangered in!and 

fish species, while NMFS may simultaneously conclude that the dam operator should store that water to 

provide future benefits to an anadromous fish under NMFS's management The end result is confusion 

and a !ack of clarity on how to proceed with the project. 

This proposal would seek to address these concerns by merging NMFS with FWS in DOl, simplifying the 

administration of the ESA and MMPA, and coordinating fish and wildlife science and related resource 

management capacity in one bureau within DOl, 

THE OPPORTUNITY 

This proposal would simplify and bring greater clarity and consistency to the administration of the ESA 

and MMPA, enabling a coordinated and synchronized approach to ESA and MMPA regulatory reform. This 

would result in improved service to stakeholders and the public, particularly on infrastructure permitting. 

This merger would also combine fisheries and wildlife management Glpacity into one bureau within DOL 

DOl already carries a great breadth of natura! resource management responsibilities, and bringing NMFS 

and certain Army Corps of Engineers programs) as proposed elsewhere in this Vo!ume1 into DOl would 

increase the effectiveness of conservation efforts across the Government by putting them an under one 

umbrella. Overtime, the proposal may yield savings through the consolidation of administrative support 

functions within the merged FWS and across DOL 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGAN!ZAT!ON RECOMMENDATIONS 
95 

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING ANO WHY IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO 

Merging NMFS into DOl's FWS presents opportunities to improve implementation of the ESA and MMPA, 

which wiU benefit of species and stakeholders and improve natura! resource management. 

With the Services currently housed in different departments and assigned different species under 

their jurisdictions, administration of the ESA and MMPA can be complicated and inconslstent, posing 

cha!!enges for stakeholders and species a !ike. Under these statutes, both agencies have similar 

responsibilities: NMFS for primarily marine species and FWS for primarily freshwater and !and-based 

species. Under the ESA, the Services decide whether to protect a species (i.e., list it as threatened or 

endangered), designate critical habitat for listed species, and perform consultations for Federal actions 

that may impact listed species or their critical habitat. Under the MMPA, the Services review and issue 

permits that a!!ow the hunting, harassing, or killing of marine mammals in limited circumstances. 

In recent years, FWS and NMFS have soughtto better align their implementation of the ESA, Rather than 

pursuing individual regulations that govern ESA implementation, the Services have undertaken seve rat 

joint rulemakings in recent years, which establish clear and consistent definitions and processes for how 

the ESA should be administered. 

However, bringing NMFS into FWS would also improve the effectiveness of fish, wildlife, and natural 

resource management activities by coordinating protections for jointly managed species, improving 

interagency coordination, and streamlining permitting. Both Services engage in complementary scientific 

research, voluntary habitat conservation, law enforcement, and international conservation work. 

A_merger provides an opportunity to look across this suite of activities to direct resources at the highest 

value conservation work and to discover agency best practlces that could be applied more broadly. 

This idea is not new. Dating back to the Carter Administration, previous administrations and congresses 

have proposed reorganizing NMFS and FWS, with a focus on improving natural resource management. 

Those past proposals span a wide spectrum. From smallest to largest, these proposals have suggested 

moving NMFS's ESA responsibilities to FWS, merging NMFS into FWS, moving NOAA into DOl, and 

establishing a new Department of Natura! Resources. 

DELIVERING GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS IN THE 11'T CENTURY 
96 

Consolidation of Environmental Cleanup Programs 

Departments of the Interior and Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency 

Summary of Proposal: This proposal would consolidate portions oft he Department of the Interior's 

(DOl) Central Hazardous Materials Program and the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Hazardous 

Materials Management program into the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund program. 

This consoUdation would allow EPA to address environmental dean up under the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response Compensation & Liability Act (CERCLA) on Federal land regardless of which 

of these agencies manages the tand, while DOl and USDA would maintain their existing environmental 

compliance, bonding, and reclamation programs for non-CERCLA sites. 

THE CHALLENGE 

The Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation & Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) provided 

the President with the authority to respond to the release of hazardous substances that pose a threat to 

public health or the environment. EPA was designated as the lead L~gencyfor developing and implementing 

guidance and regulations for addressing those releases, and approving remedies for the most contamin<Jted 

sites in the country (i.e., those sites that end up on the National Priorities List (NPL)). The job of actually 

performing and paying for the cleanup activities was then distributed ac(oss the Fed era! Government to 

ensure that agencies have an incentive to be good environmental stewards of the properties they operate, 

manage, or administer. ln general this system works as intended; agencies such as the Departments of 

Energy and Defense, for example, pay for the dean up associated with their activities on properties they 

operate, manage, or administer. 

The system becomes more challenging when addressing environmental conditions at abandoned mine 

sites, which are present on both private and public lands. EPA is delegated authority for conducting 

cleanup at mining sites on private !ands, while DO! and USDA are responsible for executing dean up at 

mining sites on Federal lands. The problem is that DOl and USDA inherited over 80,000 abandoned mine 

sites, over which they had no control prior to the rnid-1970s. While the vast majority of these sites have 

only minor environmental or physical hazards, some require a more extensive environmental cleanup. 

In those Instances, DOl and USDA apply EPA's guidance, but discrepancies in interpretations have led to 

inefficiencies and inconsistencies across the Federal dean up regime. In some instances, inconsistent 

cleanup determinations within a mining district or watershed have been the resu!t of these types of 

conflicting interpretations. In addition, due to competing mission priorities within DO! and USDA, the 

cleanup activities at these sites do not necessarily receive the same !eve! of attention that theywou!d if 

they were part of EPNs Superfund program. 

Consolidating the cleanup programs in a way that allows EPA to add sites in need of CERCLA-Ievel attention to 

the Superfund program would create efficiencies by eliminating inconsistent interpretations among various 

agencies, reducing the number of decisions and approvals, and ultimately expediting the dean up of sites. 

THE OPPORTUNITY 

This proposal would reduce ineffici€ncies, oversight costs, Jnd indirect costs by consoUdatlng the 

environmental assessment and dean up activities under the agency with the most significant expertise 

in this area. 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
97 

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WHY IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO 

T:ds proposal would integrate portions of the DOl and USDA cleanup programs into EPA's Superfund 

program in order to streamline the Federal Government's response to abandoned mine sites in need of 

environmental assessment and deanup. The Fed era! Governme-nt's responsibility for cleanup is currently 

dispersed across agencies based on jurisdiction, as opposed to expertise and liability. This proposal 

would enable better use of resources and expertise, streamline the implementation of statutory and 

regu\(ltory requirernents, and facilitate a more comprehensive and consistent Jpproach to addressing 

contaminated lands across the Nation. 

The agencies estimate that there are over 80,000 abandoned mine sites on Federal lands, close to five 

percent of which could require a CERCLA-Ievel cleanup. While DOl and USDA attempt to address those 

sites as they are identified, their environmental cleanup programs are not core to their missions, and 

therefore present a cha!tengeforthe agencies to address the wide range of environmental issues stemming 

from mining sites and other activities on Fed era! lands. As such, certain sites requiring CERCLA-type 

dean up may not be addressed in as timely a mannerastheycou!d be lfinc!uded as part of a more holistic, 

nationu! program. 

The multi-minion dollar environmental liabilities associated with abandoned mine sites pre-date modern 

Federal regulation of environmental issues. The General Mining Law of 18'72 was enacted to help develop 

the West by encouraging mining on Federal lands without the need for bonding or permitting. In the 

mid-1970s, environmental and other land control issues drove the desire to develop a more comprehensive 

.Ft?dcral approach to the development of our natural resources. !twas at that time that the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 were 

passed, Under these taws, DOl and USDA administer the environmental compliance, financial bonding, 

and closure reclamation of trline sites on Federal lands. Due to their efforts since the passage of those 

laws, the vast majority of modern mine sites do not rise to the level of environmental degradation that 

would require a response under the CERCLA. DOl and USDA, however, continue to be responsible for 

addressing the environmental problems stemming from the abandoned mines from the Gene rat Mining 

Law of 1872 era simply due to their presence on Federal lands. 

EPA is the Federal agency responsible for the development of regulations, procedures, and guidance used 

by the Federal Government to conduct environmental cleanup. EPA is also responsible for overseeing 

and approving remedies put into place at Federal sites on the NPL and providing technical assistance 

to States that oversee cleanup activities at Federal sites that are not on the NPL, Due to this role, EPA 

serves as the Fed era! Government's subject matter expert on decontamination and hazardous substance 

risk assessment, 

Funding and FTEs would shift from DOl (up to $10 million and eight FTEs) and USDA (up to $3.5 million 

and six FTEs) to EPA to cover the increase in the assessment and c!eanup workload at EPA, while DO! 

(lnd USDA would continue to maintain funding and FTEs for their existing compliance, bonding, and 

reclamation programs for modern mines. Although the end result would be a slightly larger Superfund 

pr9gram, It would continue to allocate resources based on risk. !n addition, project managers would 

have control over the dean up work and not have to direct the actions through another Federal agency 

manager at Federal sites. The affected States, Tribes, and communities surrounding these sites would 

also have a single Federal point of contact for raising their concerns with the cleanup approach. This 

may also lead to certain sites that have been languishing receiving attention, which could result in more 

favorable conditions for enjoying the natural environment of our Federal lands, and the rivers and streams 

that run through them. 

DEUVER!NG GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS IN THE 1P'CENTURY 
98 

Optimization of Humanitarian Assistance 

Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development 

Summary of Proposal: The Administration is launching a process to optimize U.S. humanitarian 

assistance. U.S. humanitarian assistance programs are conducted by three Department of State 

(State) and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) offices, dividing decision-making on 

humanitarian policy and implementation. The Administration wl!t develop a proposal to reorganize 

how humanitarian assistJnce is provided across State and US AID to maximize our leverage and assure 

aU assistance meets our foreign policy goals and objectives, induding the capacity to drive strong 

United Nations (UN) humanitarian system reform, increase burden sharing, minimize duplication 

'J:f effort in programming and policy, and maximize efficiency in meeting humanitarian needs and 

resolving underlying cr!ses. In developing this proposal, the Administration wiH address changes 

needed to achieve a unified voice on humanitarian policy, budget, and reforms to optimize outcomes. 

The process wiU consider a!! options to achieve these objectives. As part of this process, State and 

USAID will submit their joint recommendation to the Office of Management and Budget (OMS), as 

part of their Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 Budget request, to optimize humanitarian assistance programs. 

THE CHALLENGE 

In FY 2017, State and USAID provided $9 billion in humanitarian assistance. More than 65 million people 

are displaced worldwide with needs outstripping limited resources. As a result, it is critical to maximize 

the impact of U.S. taxpayer resources spent on humanitarian assistance and deliver the greatest outcome 

to beneficiaries for those investments. Currently, three U.S. Government offices- one at State and two 

at US AID- share the responsibility to establish humanitarian policies and implement related assistance 

programs. Given the size of U.S. humanitarian relief efforts, it is imperative that they coherently plan, 

budget, and program against needs, providing the best possible outcomes for beneficiaries and value 

for the taxpayer as well as avoiding duplication of effort and fragmentation of decision-making. 

State's Bureau for Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) serves as the Government lead for program 

-resporlSe to refugees (i.e., those who have crossed an international border). Within USA! D's Bureau for 

Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA}, the Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance 

(OFDA) is the lead Federal coordinator for international disaster assistance and aid to internally-displaced 

persons (!DPs). USA!D's Office of Food for Peace (FFP) is the lead Federal provider of international food 

assistance, including to lOPs and refugees. AU three offlces-PRM, OFDA, and FFP-address the needs 

of victims of conflict, where, without careful coordination, there is the risk of overlapping effort. 

While PRM and DCHA have always responded to conflict-induced displacement, in the last decade the 

composition of g!oba! beneficiaries has changed dramatically. Victims of conflict have become the largest 

share of affected persons globally. Conflict-related emergencies which are man~made, inherently 

po!!tica!, and require diplomatic engagement-impact a changing mix of refugees, !DPs, and other affected 

persons, which requires the three Government offices to be able to respond in a ftuid and adaptable way. 

The most recent example is the Rohingya humanitarian emc:rgency in Burma and Bangladesh, OFDA 

and PRM separately fund their partners to assist victims of conflict in Burma. PRM funds additional 

partners to support Rohingya who have become refugees by crossing into Bangladesh. FFP provides 

food for refugees, lOPs, and others affected in both Gurma and Bangladesh, !nan emergency situation 

RE'FORM PLAN AND RE'ORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS m 
99 

like this, it can be difficult to consistently execute a cohesive U.S. response that uniformly monitors the 

p:r:1formance of imp!ementers, including UN agencies, ensures there are no dup!icat1ons or gaps in aid, 

and deploys J seamless and effective assistance strategy for atl affected people. 

Under the current set-up, improvements in coordination across U.S. humanitarian assistance are 

dependent upon the circumstances and willingness of those involved on a case-by-case basis. For 

example, in 2015, thanks to their good working relationship, the heads of USAID and State worked 

together to prevent the closure of the Dadaab refugee camp and the forced return of its occupants to 

Somalia. 

Similarly, the delivery of humanitarian assistance across different offices can result in multiple and divergent 

Government voices In international fora on UN humanitorian policy and other aspects of humanitarian 

assistance, if not weH coordinated, in an environment where most other participant countries have a single 

voice, represented by their foreign ministries. This results in confusion and reduces the effectiveness of 

the United States relative to its scale in the global humanitarian system. 

This structure can also create additional programmatic and other costs and inefficiencies in implementing 

U.S. assistance, ranging from programming efforts that are conflicting, or contain gaps, to the use 

of different contracting, oversight, accountability measures, systems, policies, and procedures with 

imp!ementers. In addition, it impedes broader seamless and coherent responses encompassing a!l 

tools available to the United States, from relief assistance to development support. There is a growing 

r.ecognition that relief~development coherence is key to solving prolonged large-scale displacement 

The evolution and expansion in global humanitarian needs and responses in recent years and the structure 

of the U.S. humanitarian response apparatus, among other factors, underscore why we now need to 

optimize how we provide humanitarian assistance. 

THE OPPORTUNITY 

The ultimate go.::d is to achieve strategic, coherent, and seamless U.S. humanitarian programmatic 

and policy responses that best achieve our foreign assistance and policy goals, and that maximize our 

leverage, the benefit to recipients of assistance, and the value to the U.S. taxpayer. The Administration's 

reorganization propos<:~l will strengthen the capacity of the U.S. Government to achieve critical major 

reforms within the UN humanitarian system, optimizing outcomes and securing greater accountability 

and transparency within the mu!tibteral humanitarian system. 

Specifically, the final proposal will seek to achieve: 

A seamless cohesive approach to humanitarian progr<:~mming and funding delivered by the United 

States; 

A unified voice that ensures the United States exercises a level of influence over donors and multilateral 

humanitarian efforts commensurate with our overall level of humanitarian funding and that we are 

not disadvant<:~ged in dealing with the foreign ministries of other nations. A unified voice will not only 

a How the U.S. Government to more effectively and consistently drive necessary reforms amongst 

imp!ementers, particularly the UN, but witt also strengthen our ability to encourage other donors to 

increase their share of humanitarian assistance; and 

Strong and consistent oversight of U.S. Government implementing partners' performance, including 

the UN humanitarian partners. 

DELIVERING GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS JN THE 21;1 CENTURY 
100 

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WHY IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO 

Each U.S. humanitarian office-PRM, OFDA, and FFP-has its strengths, and often works well with the 

others, both in Washington and in the field, when their leadership jointly focus on addressing specific 

chal!enges and improving specific responses. However, the actions taken by State and USAiDto date have 

not overcome structural deficiencies and therefore have been unable to achieve a systematic, optimal, 

and consistent CJpproCJch to humanitarian operations, programming and standards, po!icy issues, and 

coordination with the UN and other imp!ementers, other donors and grantees. 

As outlined in the FY 2019 Budget, following an in-depth external study of USA! D's humanitarian offices 

in 2016, the Administration decided to merge DFDA and FFP. The merger will allow these two offices to 

increase the efficiency and effectiveness of USAID's humanitarian programs. The Administration intends 

to go beyond the FY 2019 Budget by elevating the merged DFDA and FFP offices in a new USAID bureau, 

In addition, the Administration is deploying a new approach to relief in the near term across State and 

USAID as a stopgap meu.sure that improves how we conduct humanitarian assistance within the current 

U.S. humanitarian structure, and is also launching a process that will optimize the structure of U.S. 

humanitarian assistance, culminating with the delivery of a joint recommendation for consideration by 

OMB as part of the 2020 Budget development process. 

Elevation of USA !D's Humanitarian Assistance Offices into a Bureau 

As a first step, USAID is currently seeking to elevate the merged OFDA and FFP into a new Bureau. The 

Bureau would report to a new Associate Administrator for Relief, Resilience, and Response. This action is 

intended not only to raise the importance of humanitarian assistance within USAID and with domestic and 

international stakeholders, but also to improve and eliminate duplication within USA!D's crisis responses, 

including those crises driven by persistent conf!lct and food insecurity. The improvements include 

faci!itating the transition from relief to development in new and ongoing humanitarian emergencies. 

New Approach to Relief 

State and US AID are embarking on a new approach to relief in the near-term, discussed in broad terms 

in the FY 2019 Budget, to begin to address three presidential priorities to 1) increase burden-sharing by 

other donors; 2) catalyze advance reform at the UN and other implementing partners; and 3) improve 

internal Government coherence on humanitarian assistance. Under this approach, State and US AID will 

both continue to engage in humanitarian policy and diplomacy. 

Amplifying U.S. Global Leadership by Optimizing U.S. Humanitarian Assistance 

ln addition, the Administration proposes to launch a process to revisit and optimize humanitarian 

assistance across State and USA1D, to result in a reorganization proposal in the2020 Budget. This proposal 

to optimize how humanitarian assistance is provided across State and USA!D will establish the capacity 

to drive strong UN humanitarian system reform, increase burden-sharing, minimize duplication of effort 

in programming and policy, and maximize efficiency, and empower our diplomatic efforts to resolve 

conflicts and end long-standing displacement Table 1 lays out the key challenges and risks, as well as 

the desired outcomes to be addressed in a flnal2020 Budget proposaL 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
101 

developing this proposal, the Administration will address fundamental changes needed to achieve a 

unified voice on humanitarian poHcy, budget, and reforms to optimize outcomes by institutionalizing the 

core clements of the new approach to relief, to optimize the effectiveness of U.S. humanitarian assistance, 

Jnd to make the coordination of policy and implementation across State and USA!D seamless and more 

durable, accountable and effective. 

Table 1: 

Optimization of Humanitarian Assistance- Current Challenges and Risks, and Desired Outcomes 

• Voices and policy positions not fully 

coordinated in international forums and 

negotiations 

• Suboptimal policy positions and compromises 

in international negotiations 

• Difficulties in shifting funds across refugees, 

ID.PS, and food as needed to address changing 

situations 

• Different and suboptimal business models for 

providing assistance 

• Suboptimal accountabillty, transp<:~rency, 

efficiency and effectiveness 

• Duplicative and different oversight and 

reporting requirements 

DELIVERING GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS IN THE 215r CENTURY 

• Increased burden-sharing 

• Strengthened diplomacy to resolve conflicts 

• Seamless, coherent budgeting, planning, 

and programming (including planning for 

contingency needs} 

• Unified voice that seeks opt! mal UN reforms 

• Seamless implementation of rellef~ 

development coherence across affected 

persons regardless of status, not just lOPs 

• Provision of aid based on needs (not status) 

• Abilltyto surge in unified, seamless response 

across a!! humanitarian assistance as crises evo!ve 

• Ability to use funding as needed either for 

refugees or lOPs and other affected persons 

• Significant and rne<;~surable improvements 

in outcomes for benefic!arles and value for 

U.S. taxpayers, including accountability and 

transparency 
102 

Development Finance Institution 

Overseas Private Investment Corporation and USAID Development Credit Authority 

Summary of Proposal: The Development Finance Institution (DFI) brings together the U.S. 

Government's development finance tools, such as the Overseas Private Investment Corporation 

(OPIC) and the Development Credit Authority (DCA) of the U.S. Agency for International Development 

(USA! D), in a reformed and modernized way to !eve rage more prlv:;:~te sector investment, provide 

strong alternatives to state-directed initiatives, create more innovative vehicles to open and expand 

markets for U.S. firms, and enhance protections for U.S. taxpayers. 

THE CHALLENGE 

"Development finance'' refers to the use of tools such as loans, guarantees, and political risk insurance 

to facilitate private-sector investment in emerging markets with the goal of achlevlng positive 

deve!opmentu! impact Public-sector support aims to mobilize transactions that the private sector 

wouldn't do on their own. 

The U.S. Government has used these tools through OP1C to back projects in key sectors such as 

water, and health that improve the quality of life for millions, and help lay the groundwork 

creating modern economies. Likewise, the U.S. Government has used USA1D's DCA risk-sharing 

guarantee program to drive private investment into countries and sectors with no or insufficient access 

to commerclal finance. 

Current U.S. development finance tools are outdated and fragmented across multiple Federal agencies, 

and often are not we!! coordinated. This has hampered the Government's ability to make investments 

that support key U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives, and resulted in the inefficient use of 

taxpayer do!!ars. For example, OPIC and DCA have operated for over 15 years without significant legislative 

··upDates, and lack authorities to pursue more innovative deals in pursuit of our foreign policy interests. 

These institutions also have some duplic<Jtive functions, and lack the most modern development finance 

tools needed to counter the state-driven rna del of countries like China, or to cooperate with the DF!s of 

our al!les like the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, and Japan, who wre investing heavily throughout 

the developing world. 

DFI brings together the U.S. Government's development finance tools, such as OP!C and DCA, in a 

reformed and modernized way to leverage more private-sector investment, provide strong alternatives 

to state-directed initiatives, create more innovative vehicles to open and expand markets for U.S. firms, 

and enhance protections for U.S. taxpayers. 

THE OPPORTUNITY 

With a new DFI, the United States wi!! be better placed to advance our development and national security 

goals in the developing world and boost the competitiveness of American businesses, which are critical 

for promoting American prosperity and security. Compared to the status quo, the OF! wiU be better 

aligned with the President's National Security Strategy and better able to manage U.S. taxpayer risk. 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
103 

A consolidated DFl wiH increase coordination and operational efficiencies, making more funding available 

for programming. In addition, it will be more nimble and better able to mobilize private sector funding 

with a modernized 21" Century toolkit allowing it to compete globally. 

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WHY IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO 

In November2017, before the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation {APEC) Summit in Vietnam, the President 

committed to reforming U.S. development-finance institutions to "better incentlvlze private-sector 

Investment" and "provide strong il!ternatives to state-directed initiatives that come with many strings 

attached." Additionally, the President's National Security Strategy prioritizes efforts to catalyze private 

sector activity in developing countries to complement our more traditional foreign assistance programs. 

The DFI wHt have reformed and modernized tools so that it is more interoperable with partners, while 

adhering to tho key principles of mitigating risk to the U.S. taxpayer and not displacing private sector 

resources. The DFI will have similar tools to OPIC and USAID's DCA today, (e.g. loans, guarantees, and 

insurance). In addition, the DFI will be able to support development finance related feasibility studies, 

project*specific grants, and equity investments, with appropriate constraints. 

The OF! wlU have an updated governance structure and strong institutional !inkuges with the Department 

of State (State) and USAlD to ensure the prioritization of projects that are critical to national security and 

developmentaHy impactfuL The connectivity wHl drive better pipeline and programming coordination 

Jmongst USG agencies. For example, ln a high-priority country, we envision complementary activities 

that could entail having the DFI support a feasibility study and subsequent early-stage financing for a 

new project, while USAID funds economic policy reforms that strengthen the enubling environment 

and attract more priv.;~te-sector investment. To cement this alignment, the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Budget 

proposes resources for State/USAIO programming (and other tr<Jnsfer authorities) to support activities 

such as grants for technical assistance or "wraparound" services thatcomplementand support the DFl's 

project-specific investments. 

The new DF! governance structure wilt ensure that U.S, Government investments catalyze, but do not 

displace, the privJte sector, and wH! better manage taxpJyer risk. For example, the Budget proposes 

annual loan limitations, in addition to an avera!! exposure cap, and the Administration's proposal includes 

investment constraints to enhance taxpJ.yer protections. The Budget also requests significantly expanded 

funding for inspections, evaluations, and oversight of the DFl. 

The Administration expects savings from eliminating some redundant 12fforts in development-finance 

programs, such as risk-man<Jgement, credit+modeling, and servicing. These savings will allow the OF! 

to allocate more effort to its mission than to duplicative overhead activities. 

The Administration's DFl proposal is consistent with similar proposals from a range of independent 

stakeholder groups and think tanks such as the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network and the Center for 

Strategic and International Studies, and derives important lessons from other countries' DFis. Additionally 

this proposal reflects significant coordination among all affected agencies and various other stakeholders. 

The Administration has indicated strongsupportforthe goals of H.R. 5105/5.2453, the "Better Utilization 

of Investments Leading to Development (BUILD) Act of2018." The legislation is broadly consistent with 

the Administration's DF1 propos a!, and the Administration has been working with the Congress to make 

adjustments to the text JS the bil!s progress through the legislative process. 

DELIVERING GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS IN THE 2l'T CENTURY 
104 

Structural Transformation of Central 

Washington-Based Bureaus at the 

U.S. Agency for International Development 

U.S. Agency for International Development 

Summary of Proposal: The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is planning an 

extensive, Agency-driven structural reorganiz01tion of its headquarters Bureaus and Independent 

Offices, as a foundational component of its overall ptans to better advance partner countries' 

self-reliance, support U.S. national security, and ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of foreign 

assistance. Most significantly, USAID's transformation will accomplish the following: 1} elevate 

and realign its humanitarian assistance, conflict-prevention and response, and resilience and food 

security progrmns; 2) consolidate and reorient its centralized program design, innovation, and 

technical support functions to better support overseas Missions; and 3) consolidate and strearnllne 

policy, budget, performance, and central mo~magement functions. 

THE CHALLENGE 

USA!D has not undergone a comprehensive structural transformation in more than 20 years. The operating 

environment for USAID has changed dramatically in those 20 years, and USAlD is looking to change with it 

by creating a more dynamic and efficient organization that enables its people and programs to be more 

effective while also maintaining the Agency's leadership on development. The goal of this transformation 

effort is to strengthen the Agency's core capabilities. SpecifiGllly, that means breaking down stove-pipes 

and creating coherent and rational structures that can enable more efficient coordination and integration 

of programs and resources. lt also means continuing to work to unlock information, analysis, and ideas 

internally and externa!lythatcan improve decision-making and programming across theorganizatiort For 

-example, the magnitude, complexity, and protracted nature ofhumanit<Jrian assistance,stabilizntion, and 

resilience needs worldwide has outstripped USA!D's exi-stlng structures and approaches, so the Agency 

has planned an improved structure that wilt enable fuHy~integrated responses and effective transitions 

from recovery to longer terrn resilience and self-sufficiency. Further, specialized technical expertise and 

cross-cutting capabilities Me dispersed inconsistently and in some coses duplicative!y across the Agency, 

with no single centralized resource to support Missions overseas in designing innovative and effective 

programs. USA!D's budget, policy, and evidence-based performance functions are currently dispersed 

among multiple bureaus and offices) so the Agency is planning to bring those functions under one umbrella, 

as well as ensure coherence in operatlona!izing the vision for self-reliance that is the centNpiece of the 

future USAID. Lastly, the restructuring is exploring how to better integrate core management functions 

to strengthen the operational foundation of the Agency. 

To address these challenges, USA!D is pursuing a comprehensive set of experience-based, employee-driven 

reforms across the Agency. These proposals wi!l elevate 01nd consolidate humanitarian assistance; better 

align efforts to prevent and respond to conflict and conduct stabilization and response efforts; enable the 

building of more resilient communities and countries in the face of shocks; reinforce adv01nced program 

design, innovation, and implementation as core capabilities; strengthen connections and coherence 

between policy, budget, and strategy; and align centra! management services. 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
105 

THE OPPORTUNITY 

These reforms will strengthen USA! D's core capabilities in priority areas, rationalize Bureau and Office 

structures, and estabtlsh dear roles and responsibilities to reduce duplication, improve accountability, 

and maximize effectiveness. As a result, USA!D wiH be better positioned to support the President's 

National Security Strategy and economic growth objectives through foreign assistance, !ncludingthrough: 

better development and emergency response outcomes; increased self-reliance in partner countries and 

a reduced need for traditional foreign assistJnce; improved USAJD program and procurement design 

and implementation; and greater accountability, effectiveness, and efficiency in using taxpayer dollars. 

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WHY IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO 

USAID's ambitious structural reorganization wilt provide a strong foundation for its broader transformation 

plans, which emphasize policy and process reforms across such topics as ending the need for foreign 

assistance, better supporting national security, opening markets for U.S. businesses, and driving reforms 

ln human resources, information technology, and procurement. These structural changes witt help 

ensure that improvements are sustainable by strengthening core Agency capabilities and coordination, 

improving the design and implementation of humanitarian and development assistance programs, and 

streamlining offices and clecision~making. USJ\!D is investing extensive time, expertise, and leadership 

focus in analyzing, developing, and implementing seven major Bureau changes, including in many 

Washington-based offices. Each major change summarized below Is supported by a strong rationale and 

detailed plans for successful implementation. Taken together, they represent a significant re-envlsioning 

of USAlD and its potential to support U.S. national security, foreign policy, and economic goals while 

effectively managing and overseeing taxpayN~funded programs. 

Associate Administrator for Relief, Response, and Resilience 

The new Associate Administrator wilt lead an integrated effort to strengthen and further unify humanitarian 

assistance with resilience and food security, and with prevention and response to conflict and crises. 

By providing overall strategic and programmatic guidance, the Associate Administrator wi!l reduce 

stove-piping, improve decision-making, and ensure effective, timely, and appropriate coordination of 

critical programming and technical assistance. This position will also reduce the number of individuals 

who report directly to the Administrator and Deputy Administrator, and allow them to focus on broad 

strategy and management of the avera!! Agency. 

Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance 

The current structure of humanitarian assistance at USA!D ls out of date and based on an artificial 

bifurcation of food and non-food humanitarian assistance, which impedes fully-integrated, effective, and 

eff!dtmt responses. The new Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance will conso!!date USA!D's current Offices 

of Food for Peace and U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance, uniting humanitarian programming, eliminating 

confusion and duplication in the fie!d and in Washington, D.C., and allowing beneficiaries and partners 

to dea! with one cohesive humanitarian assistance provider within USAID. This unified structure wiU 

improve the Agency's core capability to save lives, reduce hunger and human suffering, and mitigate the 

impact of disasters and complex emergencies around the world. 

DELIVERING GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS IN THE 21sr CENTURY 
106 

Bureau for Resilience and Food Security 

Elevating leadership and strengthening Mission support on resilience will better enable USAID's programs 

to break the cyde of chronic vulnerability, extreme poverty, and hunger driven by recurrent shocks and 

stresses- and therefore to reduce the types of instability that threaten U.S. national security. The new 

Bureau forResi!lence and Food Security will combine the capabilities and expertise of the current Bureau 

for Food Security (including the Center for Resilience), the Office of Water, and the Climate Adaptation 

team to provide technical leadership and more efficient and effective support to field Missions through 

fo-ur centers that cover Agriculture, Resilience, Water, and Nutrition, as well as through cross-cutting 

capabilities such as research. 

Bureau for Conflict Prevention and Stabilization 

Approximate!y70 percent ofUSA!D's programming is in fragile states or countries in conflict, emerging from 

conflict, or at risk of conflict, yet USA!D's current Bureau for Democracy Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance 

(DCHA) does not always operate as one unit with one voice. The new Bureau for Conflict Prevention and 

Stabilization will house USA!D'scurrent DCHA Offices of Transition Initiatives; Civilian-Military Cooperation; 

Conflict Management and Mitigation; and Program, Policy and ManJgement, along with Countering Violent 

Extremism staff, in a single streamlined and focused Bureau. The Bureau witt lead the implementation of 

effective con filet prevention, stabilization, and poUtlcJ! transition assistance through field progr<:~ms to 

respond to acute crises, integrated technical assistance and servkes to Missions, and surge capacity and 

rapid response support. Enhancing and more effectively Integrating these functions in one bureau wHl 

strengthen USA!D's ability to countervlolent extremism, advance U.S. national security, achieve long-term 

development goals, and help more countries move towards self-sufficiency. 

Bureau for Development, Democracy and Innovation 

In USA !D's current structure, there is no single, centra! resource for program design and innovation 1 

with relevant technical expertise spread inefficiently and inconsistently across the Agency, both at 

ht~adquarters and in regional Bureaus. The new Bureau for Development, Democracy and Innovation 

will bringtogetherthetechnica! expertise of the current Bureau for Economic Growth, Education, and the 

Environment; the Center for Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance; the Global Development Lab; 

regional bureaus; and other components such as American Schools and Hospitals Abroad, the Center for 

Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, and Minority-Serving Institutions Program. The Bureau will be 

a one-stop shop for technical expertise and high-quality progrum-design support. It wit! house sever a! 

Centers on specific topics and help Missions to improve programmatic results by integrating innovation, 

technology, indusivity, good governance, private-sector engagement and partnerships, expertise in 

managing smaU grants, and other cross-cutting priorities into long-term development efforts. 

Associate Administrator for Strategy and Operations 

Currently, USAID's budget, financial management, polky and !earning, and other management functions are 

dispersed across multiple Bureaus that report sepamtety to the Administrator and Deputy Administrator. 

The increasing complexity of USAID's mission means that these two Agency leaders can no !onger 

devote sufficient attention to strategic and programmatic priorities whi!e a! so driving management 

reforms, operational and procurement improvements, and overseeing USA!D's finances and human 

capitaL USA!D is exploring the feasibHity and value of establishing a new Associate Administrator for 

Strategy Jnd Operations that would unite these functions under a single dedicated leader for the first 

REFORM PLAN A.ND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDA.TtONS 
107 

time, to reduce stove~piping; improve decision-making; and ensure effective, tlme!y, and appropriate 

coordination of critical operations and management functions. This role would also reduce the number 

of individuals who report directty to the Administrutor and Deputy Administrator, to a !low them to focus 

at the strateglc level while the Associate Administrator for Strategy and Operations would be accountable 

for a!! mrmagement functions on a day-to-day basis. 

Bureau for Policy, Resources and Performance 

The new Bureau for Policy, Resources, and Performance {PRP) wiH consolidate staff from the current 

Bureau of Policy, Planning and Learning, the Office of Budget and Resource Management .. the Bureau for 

Management, and the Global Development Lab to better coordinate, align, and strengthen USA I D's foreign 

[)Ssistance policy, resource management, and evidence-based performance management functions. The 

PRP Bureau would report to the nevvty-established Associate Administrator for Strategy and Operations. 

Bureau for Management 

Multiple Agency-wide management and human capital functions reside in organizational units outside of 

the Management Bureau. The Bureau tor Management oversees most procurement and program-funded 

human resources functions, whereas the remainder of human resource functions are housed within the 

Bureau for Human Capital and Talent Management {HCTM), and the Office of Security (SEC) is currently a 

stand~a!one organizational unit. The merger of HCTM and SEC with the Management Bureau wi!l provide 

for a more simplified operational structure. It wi!! reduce direct reports to the Administrator, increase 

accountability and direct oversight, aU ow for all human capita! components to reside in a single Bureau, 

and support a more streamlined security clearance process. The Bureau for Management wou!d report 

to the newly-established Associate Administrator for Strategy and Operations. 

Bureau for Asia 

The countries of Afghanistan and Pakistan were formerly part of USAID's Bureau for Asia until2010, when 

the previous Administration established the separate the Office of Afghanistan and Pakistan Affairs (OAPA) 

to address the tremendous pace of operations in the two countries. Designed as an interim solution 

intended to help administer the ramping up of development programs in Afghanistan and Pakistan, 

the current maturation of those programs, and the necessity for improved regionat coordination and 

effectiveness to c!'lrry out the President's South Asia Strategy, warrant the reintegration of OAPA into a 

sing!€ Asia-wide regional Bureau. 

DELIVERING GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS IN THE 21" CENTURY 
108 

Reorganizing the U.S. Office of 

Personnel Management 

U.S. Office of Personnel Management 

Summary of Proposal: This proposal would reorganize the U.S. Office of Personnel Management 

(OPM) and the process by which Federal personnel management and operations functions are 

coordinated. Specifically, the proposal would n1ove OPM's policy function into the Executive Office 

of the President (EOP) and elevate its core strategic mission, while devolving certain operational 

activities, including the delivery of various fee-for-serv1ce human resources and IT services, to 

other Federal entitles better positioned to provide transaction processing services that meet 2l"t 

Century needs. 

THE CHALLENGE 

Forty years ago, OPM was established in statute by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, and was tasked 

with aiding and advising the President on actions to promote an efficient civil service. This was the 

last time the Government implemented broad civil service reform. The Genera! Schedule Federal job 

classification structure dates back to 1949. Today, there is broad acknowledgment that the Federal 

employment system is archaic in many significant respects, and does not reflect the realities of the 

contemporCJry workforce. Evidence of this recognition is the creation by the Congress in recent years 

of a variety of nlternative personnel systems. These systems addressed problems impacting specific 

agencies as they arose. This has postponed a broader overhaul of the core personnel system, and 

left a fragmented personnel structure- roughly a third of which now lies outside the purview of OPM. 

Meanwhile, the vast majority of OPM's workforce and budget are currently dedicated to operational 

activities-with a sma!l minority dedicated to po!lcy and oversight activities related to, for example, 

hiring, performzwce management, compensation, merit system compliance, and labor relations. On a 

reimbursable basis, OPM performs human resources-related services, including background investigations 

and information technology services, for other Federal agencies. !n recent years, several high-profile 

incidents concerning these servlces-induding a major information security breach-have created major 

distractions for OPM leadership that have nothing to do with the core personnel functions that are OPM's 

primary charge. 

The 2.1 mHilon-person civilian workforce represents one of the Federal Government's largest and most 

impactfu! investments. Like any large corporation, th£? Government is only as effective as its people. Yet 

the Government Accountability Office has designated strategic human capita! management as a high-risk 

area since 2001, because the Federal Government does not do an effective job attracting, managing,, and 

retaining a skilled workforce. An extensive literature review documents these falllngs. The causes are 

varied, but addressing them effectively requires an optimized management structure that is centrally 

situated, empowered to view the Federal workforce ho!istica!!y, and free to focus on core strategic and 

poticy concerns. 

REFORM PLAN ANO REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
109 

THE OPPORTUNITY 

This proposal ls an opportunity to elevate the Federal workforce management function and maximize 

the operational efficiency of human capital services. The civil service system Is overdue for an overhaul, 

and that overhaul would best be implemented under a new management structure that is more focused 

on core priorities and that has not been molded around the exist1ng1 archaic framework of dvl! service 

rules and regulations. 

Once complete, a transition into the EOP could create a more streamlined personnel management unit 

that is less expensive to operate. Such a unit would atso support centralized coordination of a !I personnel 

policies for Federal employees, eliminating the confusing matrix of who does what today, as well as seve rut 

key gaps in policy that are inhibiting the streamlining of mission support services. Centra!1z1ng human 

capital operational services at the General Services Administration (GSA) should provide economies 

of scale and significant cost-avoidance based on reductions in contract and 1T duplication as well as 

increased data sharing and avai!abHlty. 

-~''WHAIWE'RE PROPOSING AND WHY IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO 

Current OPM Structure 

OPM currently comprises seven major organizational units: Employee Services, Retirement Services, 

Hea!thcare& Insurance, Merit System Accountability& Compliance, Human Resources Solutions, Suitabitity 

Executive Agent, and the National Background Investigations Bureau. !n general, current OPM activities 

and functions fall into two categories: human resources policy and comp!lance and human resources 

service delivery and implementation. 

This proposal would elevate human resources policy functions into the EOP, and provide it with a whole~ 

of-Government mandate that OPM currently lacks_ 

To drive real reform, the Federal Government needs to elevate Federal workforce policy so that evidence 

and leading practice can drive strategic management of the workforce. In particular, reform requires an 

agency steadfastly committed to: 

A holistic view of the Federal workforce; 

Assessment of innovations and contextual changes that drive the future of work; 

Data-driven policy development; 

._'!. Dnta analytlcs and strategic workforce management; 

Agency policy advice and change management assistance; and 

ldentificntion and advancement of leading practice throughout the Federal Government. 

DELIVERING GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS IN THE 21" CENTURY 
110 

Structure and Function of the EOP Office 

Today, Federal human resources policy is fragmented, making it difflcuit to assess Government~wide 

human capital chatlenges. This EOP office wou!d centralize policy decisions in areas such as employee 

compensation; workforce supply and demand; identification of future workforce ski!! needs; leadership 

and talent management; and other important issues, The office would work to rationalize policies, 

rrocedures, and Incentives across the Government, while minimizing unintended consequences. 

Thls new office would also modernize the e1pproach to hum~n resources policy, with a core focus on: 

strategy and innovation; workforce and mission achievement; senior talent and leadership management; 

and, total compensation and employee performance. Each of these units would be informed by data 

analytics and human resources standards. 

Achieving this vision will require realignment of OPM's current functions, some of which would be 

transferred and realigned to a service delivery operational entity. The new entitywou!d be formed from 

a combination of OPM's operational/service units with the existing offices of GSA, to be reconstituted 

as the "Government Services Agency," This combination would yield an organization with a focus on 

providing Government-wide services and solutions associated with the fuU Federal employee !ifecyc!e. 

Immediately below is a summary of how current OPM functions could be realigned under this proposal. 

While the precise transition plan for all units has not been finalized, organizational units in the EOP 

office would subsume and expand upon the current OPM human capital policy-based activities under 

this proposal. At the end of this paper, there is an existing OPM organizational chart and a notional 

organizational chart for the off!ce to be housed within the EOP. 

Note: The placement of other OPM offiCes and functions wlll be determined at .a later date 

Transfer of Operational Functions to a Renamed Government Services Agency 

OPM's current human resources service delivery and implementation functions would be transferred. 

A strong nexus wou!d be retained, however, between these operational activities and the personnel 

management office to be housed in the EOP, which woutd be responsible for ensuring that human 

resources IT operations and services evolve in a manner consistent with changes in workforce policy. 

Centralizing human resources operational functions in a single entity within the newly renamed 

Government Services Agency would integrate the transactional and employee-centric, service-based 

functions currently performed by OPM with existing GSA operations, including Federal employee payroll 

and traveL With end-to-end services around the Federal employee Ufecyc!e maintained in one place, 

considerable operational efficiencies should be attained. Currently, these services are stove-piped) 
111 

forcing burdensome processes on managers and employees. lt fs worth notlng that HR services are rated 

!ast among aU mlsslon support services by Federal managers. 

To achieve the vision outlined in this proposal, the consolidated service agency would house those 

functions currently performed by OPM's Human Resources Solutions, and Hea!thcare & Insurance 

organizational units. !t could also potentially carry out OPM's responsibHlties for retirement processing 

and servicing, but other entities, such as the Department of the Treasury, would also be considered. 

As also discussed in this Volume, activities currently performed by the National Background Investigations 

Bureau would be consolidated with similar activities mandated to the Department of Defense. 

Additional Analysis and Background 

More than 80 percent of OPM's funding and staff is dedicated to meeting the Agency's service-based 

responsibilities. These include important functions, such as administering the Federal Employees 

Health Benefits Program for more than 8.2 million active Federal employees, retirees, and their families; 

administering the Civil Service Retirement System and the Federal Employees Retirement System for 

over 5.3 miliion active Federal employees, annuitants, and survivors; processing more than two mHlion 

background investigations each year for over 100 Federat agencies; and managing USAJOBS1 which 

receives over 85 mHilon searches each month from 15 million site visitors. While these functions are 

vita!, thelr scope and scale are such that they necessarily distract agency leadership's attention from 

strategic human capital management and stewardship of an efficient civil service structure. OPM's 

greatest vislbillty in recent years has stemmed from high profile challenges within these operational 

and service-based activities. 

In 2014, a data breach into OPM's systems exposed personally identifiable information for over20 million 

individuals, including Federal employees and theirfamHies,job applicants, Jnd contractors, creating one 

of the biggest national security threats in decades and requiring the Federal Government to pay for credit 

monitoring for 10 years. In 2007, OPM issued a stop work order marking its fourth consecutive failure 

to automate its retirement processing function. Since then, OPM has not attempted this effort again, 

and instead re!les on manual reviews. From 2014 to today, OPM has increased prices on background 

investigations by more than 40 percent, and the timeline for processing background investigations has 

tripled, further straining agency budgets and the ability to fill critical positions. Currently, OPM is working 

to reduce an inventory that has grown to approximately 725,000 cases. 

T~er_e is no significant benefit obtained from having these operational fee-based functions housed within 

the same agency that oversees the overarching policies. Further, it is in no way apparent that OPM has a 

comparative advantage relative to other Federal entities in the management of information technology or 

contractual services. Also, in se!!ing human resources and JT products to those agencies whose personnel 

practices it monitors, OPM is in a position that can lend the appearance of a conflict of interest. 

DELIVERING GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS !N THE21H CENTURY 
112 

Achieving the End-State Vision 

Achieving this vision may ental! both !eglslatlon and administrative actions to transfer and/or delegate 

certain basic OPM functions, resources, and authorities. This includes moving peripheral functions to 

other agencies, and moving core policy units into the EOP. There would also be a change-management 

and capacity-building process, led by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the 

Director of OPM, to transform and elevate the organization. Fully and effectively achieving the end-state 

vision presented here would necessarily require a partnership with the Congress, including the granting 

of statutory authorities as necessary, 

Current OPM Structure 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
113 

Status Quo 

under same organization 

President 

Future State Vision 

Focus on \v'orkforee iliJl!!!ID' tOr 

'Whole (lf govem.roent 

Enable effective strategy and workforce alignment 

through effective oversight and spreading adoption of 

New Organizational Structure Organizational Roles 

DELIVERING GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS !N THE 215

T CENTURV 
114 

Consolidation of Federal Veterans Cemeteries 

Department of Veterans Affairs 

Summary of Proposal: This proposal would transfer responsibility for perpetual care and operation 

of select military and veterans cemeteries located on Department of Defense {DOD) installations to 

the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)- National Cemetery Administration. This transfer would 

increase efficiency, limit mission overlap, and ensure that these cemeteries are maintained to national 

shrine standards to continue the recognition of service of those interred therein. 

THE CHALLENGE 

Currently, mission overlap exists in the oversight and operations of Federal military and veterans cemeteries. 

Specifically, VA maintains and operates 135 national cemeteries and 33 cemeteriat installations, DOD is 

responsible for approximately43 cemeteries located on active and inactive installations, the Department 

of the Interior (DOl) is responsible for 14 situated within national parks, and the Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) is responsible for one. !n most cases, this mission overlap is inconsequential as the responsible 

agency has adequate infrastructure and support in place at each location, making each a suitable 

caretaker. However, at some facilities responsible agencies no longer maintain an active presence, 

presenting unique chaHenges for efficient oversight and warranting reconsideration of the status quo. 

This proposal recognizes c:m opportunity to transfer responsibility for the operation and care of select 

post cemeteries, 10 of which are located on Inactive facilities formerly occupied by the Department of the 

Army (Army) and one on a re-missioned open garrison (Fort Devens), to VA by leveraging the expertise and 

capabilities of the National Cemetery Administration (NCA). This consolidation will enable the Army to 

utilize Operations and Maintenance resources for other critical mission needs while reducing duplication 

of effort across Government. 

THE OPPORTUNITY 

For severa! decades, DOD has maintained "post cemeteries" on inactive bases shuttered as a result of 

various closure and re-missioningdecisions- specifically, 10 former active Army facilities, ln these cases, 

lack of an active Army presence makes efficient operations and maintenance chaUenging. The National 

Cemetery Administration (NCA), established by the Congress in the National Cemeteries Act of 1973 

and one of the three administrations that rnake up VA, operates a large network of veterans cemeteries, 

making it better suited for this mission. In addition, one open garrison- Fort Devens, Massachusetts- has 

been re-missioned as an Army Reserve Forces Training Area and is induded in this proposaL 

In addition to serving as the interface fort he public in the delivery of VA burial benefits, NCAoperates and 

maintains the network of national cemeteries to "national shrine" standards. These standards inc!ude 

headstone realignment, irrigation and grounds improvements, and other facility upgrades to improve 

uccessibility and visitors' experience. NCA's performance is substantiated by consistently high customer 

satisfaction ratings from veterans, family members, and visitors. 

Consolidation wit! aUeviate duplicative mission requirements and entrust operational control to an 

agency with more expertise in running cemeteries. This wi!! allow more burial options for veterans and 

dependents at some of the transferred cemeteries by taking advantage ofNCA's operation a! experience 

in maximizing the use of available space. 
115 

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WHY IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO 

VA, DOD, DOl, and USDA maintain approximately 226 Federal cemeteries where the remains of veterans 

and dependents from various €ras and conflicts are interred. The NCA is responsible for 135 national 

cemeteries and 33 other cemeteriat installations. 

The remaining 58 cemeteries fall under the collective responsibility of DOD, DOl, and USDA as listed 

below. Not listed are numerous other State and/or tribal veterans cemeteries. Further, this inventory 

does not indude American Battle Monuments Commission instaUations as nearly aU are overseas and 

currently maintained to guidelines commensurate with "national shrine" standards. 

• Fort Lawton Cemetery, WA 

• fort Douglas Cemetery, UT 

• Fort Worden Cemetery, INA 

• Fort Missoula Cemetery, MT 

• Fort Stevens Cemetery, OR 

• Benicia Post Cemetery, CA 

• Fort Sheridan Cemetery, IL 

• Fort Devens CemetNy, MA {active) 

• Fort Crook;OffuttAFG CemE'tery, NE 

• Volk Field, Camp Douglas, WI 

• Fort Benning, GA 

• ~art Bragg, NC 

• Carlisle Barracks, PA 

• Edgewood Arsena!, MD 

• Fort Huachuca, AZ 

·Fort Knox, KY 

• Fort Leonard Wood, MO 

• Joint Base Lewis-McCho1·d, WA 

• Fort MeJde, MD 

·Presidio of Monterey, CA 

• Fort Riley, KS 

• Fort Sill, OK 

• U.S. Military Academy, NY 

• Watervliet ArsenaL NY 

·f-ort Campbell POW Cemetery, KY 

• Fort Drum POW Cemetery, NY 

·U.S. Nava\Academy, MD 

DELIVERING GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS IN THE 21'1 CENTURY 

·Yorktown, VA 

• Poplar Grove, VA 

• Fort Donelson, TN 

• Andrew Johnson, TN 

·Stones River, TN 

• Shiloh, TN 

• Andersonville, GA 

• Vicksburg, MS 

• Chalmette, LA 

• Custer, MT 
116 

Transfer of the 11 cemeteries italicized above from Army to NCA makes progress towards several 

Administration priorities, including, but not limited to: reducing redundancies and mission duplication 

across Government; streamlining operations and achieving efficiencies; increasing access to burl a( 

optlons for veterans and eligible dependents; and, providing veterans with benefits they have earned 

in service to the Nation. 

This consolidation wiU constitute the largest transfer of cemeteries to VA since the National Cemeteries 

Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-43) established the system in place today. The proposal is limited to base cemeteries 

located on instaHations that no longer maintain an active personnel presence, as well as one re-missioned 

base (Fort Devens) where transfer would realize efficiencies. Although the effort is not conceived as a pilot, 

it will enable VA to develop and execute an implementation plan that could also inform future transfers. 

This proposal would not transfer cemeteries on other active DOD installations or those located within 

DOl national parks where support infrastructure and presence exists. 

th-ese facilities to NCA is the optima! good-government strategy, and is consistent with 

Cemeteries Act of 1973. NCA leads the way in providing a variety of world-class burial and 

memorial benefits for veterans and their fam1!ies and has received the highest customer satisfaction 

rating among the public and private sector from the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) for six 

consecutive years. Upon transfer, these facillties will be maintained to the same high standards as other 

NCA cemeteries, which have garnered public praise. VA does anticipate that each of the 11 transferred 

cemeteries wiU need to undergo some minor infrastructure improvements (e.g., roads, irrigation and 

drainage, marker alignment, turf renovation, etc} 

REFORM PlAN AND REORGANlZAT!ON RECOMMENDATIONS 
117 

Reorganizing Economic Statistical Agencies 

Departments of Commerce and Labor 

Summary of Proposal: The U.S. Statistical System is composed of 13 principal statistical agencies 

across the Federal Government. Three of these agencies-the U.S. Census Bureau {Census), the Bureau 

of Economic Analysis (BEA), and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)-account for 53 percent of the 

System's annual budget of $2.26 biU1on, and share unique synergies in their col!ection of economic 

and demographic data and analysis of key national indicators. Reorganizing these agencies under 

the Department of Commerce (DOC) would increase cost-effectiveness and improve data qua!1ty, 

whHe simultaneously reducing respondent burden on businesses and the public. 

THE CHALLENGE 

Census, BEA, and BLS are the three statistical agencies responsible fort he vast majority of the economic 

and demographic statistics produced by the Federal Government However, as separate agencies across 

multiple departments, current duplications in data co!tection efforts yletd increased burdens on businesses 

and the public. For example, Census and BLS separately collect data on, and maintain different llsts of, 

business establishments to support their statistical activities. Such duplication creates unnecessary 

burden on respondents, which only impedes the timely production and analysis of vital U.S. data that the 

public re!y on to make everyday household, business, and policy decisions. Further, because these three 

agencies already work in dose coordination with each other, their reorganization under one department 

would bring about efficiendc:s through the integration of not only data products, but staff services and 

IT systems, achieving cost savings while improving data quality and security. 

Reorganizing these agencies under the direction of DOC's Undersecretary for Economic Affairs will provide 

the policy and management oversight necessary to coordinate and streamline the production of Federal 

economic statistics. To achieve this goal, planning would begin in 2019 with implementation in 2020, 

after the peak operations of the 2020 Decennial Census are complete. 

itiE OPPORTUNITY 

This proposal would support three key opportunities for improvement: 

Reorganizing Census, BEA, and BLS within DOC would reduce redundancy by utH1zlng shared 

infrastructure- including modernized IT dnd human resource systems resulting in more efficient 

collection and production of national data. 

Integrating survey operations, such as survey sample designs .and respondent lists, would reduce 

respondent burdens for businesses and the public by decreasing redundant survey questions and 

consolidating existing surveys. 

Reorganization could also improve data qua!ity by stream!lning the approaches used to measure 

U.S. economic statistics, induding capital investment, productivity, trade, and service industries. 

DEUVER!NG GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS IN THE 215T CENTURY 
118 

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WHY IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO 

Reorganizing Census, BEA, and BLS is !ogical because an three produce national-level economic and 

demographic indicators whose value extends fiJr beyond the scope of their respective departments 

and programs. There is agreement within the statistical community, the Administration, and 

among private that consolidating these three agencies would reduce pub!lc burden and 

end duplicative practices, while simultaneously enabling a more coherent approach to developing the 

Nation's principal statistics, Numerous presidential, congressional, and other studies have recommended 

consolidation and coordination. !n addition, many other nations with high statistical capacity, including 

Canada, the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand, have a much greaterdegre.e of centralization of statistical 

functions than the United States. 

While there is a sound case for reorganization, the Administration acknowledges that there are 

risks. Maintaining trust in the accuracy, objectivity, reliability, and integrity of Census, BEA, and BLS 

products is essential to meeting the needs of a wide range of end users and other stakeholders. The 

reorganization wi!! provide the opportunity to move to an open~source environment that wilt improve 

transparency and confidence in statistical products. Reorganizing these agencies under DOC's Under 

Secretary for Economic Affairs provides the best opportunity to preserve the quality and integrity of 

these products white also creating the greatest opportunity to improve the efficiency of the agencies, 

The Under Secretary already leads oversight activities of both BEA and the Census Bureau on high 

management, budget, employment, and risk management issues; advises Government 

on economic policy; and participates in interagency policy councils. Folding GLS into DOC 

Would only strengthen the Under Secretary's ability to coordinate and integrate current work with 

the priorities and requirements of the Department and other Government entities. To mitigate any 

possibility of impacts to high priority programs, such as the decennia! census, reorganization would 

not occur until !ate 2020 1 after nationwide field operations for the 2020 Census have been completed. 

The Administration will continue to study this proposal to ensure that a combined agency wi!! not be 

less accountable or transparent to the American people than the current division of responsibility 

among multiple agencies. 

Reorganization would focus on the foHowing goals: achieving increases in operational efficiencies; 

reductions in respondent burden; enhancements in privacy protections; and improvements in data 

quality and availab!iity. 

Achieving Increases in Operational Efficiencies 

The integration of data products and sharing of administrative services and IT systems could yield greater 

economies of scale, resulting in substantial increases in operational efficiencies. For example, BLS's 

headquarters lease is ending in Fiscal Year 2022. Rather than develop and finalize independent plans 

for relocation, BLS wiU exptore options with Census and BEAto leverage office space as well as unfque 

assets necessary to complete their mission, such as lock~up production facllities. In addition, Census has 

invested heavHy in its JT infrastructure ahead of the 2020 Census and intends to expand that investment 

to the rest of the Bureau following its completion. Starting to plan for consolidation now would atlow 

Census to integrate the operational requirements of GLS and GEA so that the planned expansion of their 

infrastructure could address the needs of all three agencies. This would a!so provide the most cost~ 

effective opportunity to modernize older systems at BLS and BEA. 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
119 

Reductions in Respondent Burden 

The potential to consolidate duplicative survey data co!!ections and e!1m1nate some collections and 

survey questions would produce tangible efficiencies for the public and the Federal Government. For 

example, BLS and Census currently conduct separate surveys on U.S. businesses and their activities, 

and because current law does not permit consolidation of the lists of business establishments, BLS and 

Census maintain separate lists of business establishments to support statistical activities. Consolidation 

of these agencies could a!!ow for combining these surveys into a single data collection. Reorganizing 

these agencies within one department would also provide them with access to existing administrative 

data in a more efficient manner1 which could !ead to the elimination of certain collections while 

producing higher quality and more timely data. For example, current agreements between outside 

partnPrs und Census, BEA, or BLS on!y permit the agency in the agreement to use the administrative 

data. Through a reorganization, the adrninistrative data agreements with outside partners could be 

leveraged for use across a larger suite of programs and would reduce public burden and costs. 

Enhancements in Privacy Protections 

Privacy risks and concerns over the safeguard of information could also be optimally mitigated by 

consolidating these agencies. The proliferation of information about people and businesses online 

increases the risk of unintended respondent re-identiflcation. Currently, BLS and Census each release 

numerous business data products, including data on employment and wages of industries and occupations~ 

values of sates and inventories, and prices received by producers and paid by consumers, with each 

release adding incrementa! risk to this re-identification issue. Current taw does not permit consolidation 

of the administrative source data used by each agency, and each set of data products provide unique 

functionality such that data users would be harmed by ceasing one of the products. Consolidating these 

products while maintaining the best features of both could reduce privacy risks while ensuring data users' 

needs are still met. Further, housing these agencies at DOC would increase collaboration .and aU ow each 

agency to seam!essly develop, apply, and promulgate disclosure avoidance techniques across the suite 

of statistical data products. 

Improvements in Data Quality and Availability 

Consolidation would also a !tow each of the three agencies to access the source data utilized by the 

ilgencies in constructing their statistics. This could result in improvements to existing products as 

we!l as the production of new statistical products. !f aU source data resided in a single Department 

more granular data would be made available for input into key economic indicators, and could improve 

the timeliness of their releases. For example, GOP estirnates could see reductions to the size of GOP 

revisions, and the Producer Price Index- released by BLS using Census inputs- could incorporate more 

current data and economic patterns in its estimates. Reorganization would also allow for production 

of new statistical estimates that would have been difficult to produce before-, such as fully integrated 

statistics on goods and services, trade, and inbound and outbound foreign direct investment 

DELIVERING GOVERNMENT SOlUTIONS IN THE 115' CENTURY 
120 

Consolidation of the Department of Energy's 

Applied Energy Offices and Mission Refocus 

Department of Energy 

Summary of Proposal: This proposal would consolidate the Department of Energy's (DOE) applied 

energy programs into a new Office of Energy Innovation in order to maximize the benefits of energy 

research and development and to enable quicker adaptation to the Nation's changing energy 

technology needs. !t would also establish a para He! Office of Energy Resources and Economic 

StrJtegy, which would focus on strategic delivery of solutions that support U.S. energy dominance in 

access to resources and infrastructure. Finally, it would maintain the Office ofCybersecur1ty, Energy 

Security, and Emergency Response, which would protect energy infrastructure from increasingly 

sophisticated threats and ensure energy restoration following disasters. 

THE CHALLENGE 

DOE's core applied energy research and development (R&D) offices are currently organized by major 

energy technology or primary energy source, such as nuclear, fossil, and renewab!es. This structure 

emphasizes sHoed, fuel type-driven R&D that can hinderthe development of integrated solutions, inhibit 

effective collaboration, and impede the best possible research outcomes. DOE's current, entrenched 

applied energy program orgzmizationa! structure paratle!s the stakeholder community, and thus the 

programs can be influenced by the strongly held beliefs of the technology and fuel champions of their 

respective areas, which have biases that are often counter to identifying solutions that are good for the 

Nation as a whole. 

DOE also maintains a separate program called the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) 

that conducts applied research. White the program features positive aspects, such as coordination with 

industry and cross-cutting research, it makes little strategic sense that this entity exists independent of 

DOE's main applied research programs. Achieving energy dominance an integrated national 

energy strategy and scarce resources must be directed to address 

This proposal would consolidate DOE's applied energy research programs into a single Office of Energy 

Innovation that would take a holistic view of energy innovation to ensure Federal research keeps pace 

with the changing needs of the Nation's energy system while maximizing the value to the taxpayer. !n 

para!!e!, an Office of Energy Resources and Economic Strategy would be established to capture the 

Departrnent's expertise in monitoring, analyzing, and adrninlsteringthe Nation's physical energy assets 

and the Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response established ln 2018 would be 

maintained to address emerging threats to U.S. energy security from cyber, natura!~ or other sources. 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATlONS 
121 

THE OPPORTUNITY 

Organizing applied energy research under one unified office has the potential to reduce a practice of 

picking energy technology winners and losers and pitting fuel types against one another for Government 

funding and attention. Breaking down the rooted R&D silos could enable grcaterf!exibiUty and efficiency 

in decision-making and enhance the Department's abilltyto set and achieve big goals. Revitalizing DOE's 

applied energy R&D in this manner also provides the opportunity to integrate the positive attributes 

of ARPA-E into DOE's core energy research rather than it being a wholly independent program. Many 

fields of research, such as materials, energy storage, and the overall enhancement of the grid's stability 

and baseload capabilities, span today's appUed energy offices and would especially benefit from a fuel 

and technology-neutral program structure. With a unified Office of Energy Innovation, applied energy 

research could be directed to achieving natlona!!y significant outcomes and breakthroughs, rather 

than incremental changes for individual fuel types that may have limited if any strategic connection 

to one another. 

!n addition, maintaining the Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response and 

establishing the Office of Energy Resources and Economic Strategy in parallel with the new Office of 

Energy Innovation ensures that key missions of the Department are adequately addressed and prioritized. 

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WHY IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO 

Under this proposal, DOE would create a single Office of Energy Innovation to tackle aH applied R&D to 

further the Nation's energy dominance. The merger would include both the operational components and 

programmatic R&D activities of each applied energy office to maximize savings. The new office would 

emphasize sector and system-level outcomes and ensure a robust, systemic focus on early-stage R&D, 

where the Federal role is strongest. The proposal would also integrate into the blended organization 

some positive elements oft he ARPA-E mode!, such as coordination with industry and ability to incorporate 

cross-cutting research into program outcomes. 

To minimize the potential for simply creating new silos with different foci and to move away from the 

risk~averse tendencies of the long-standing programs, the new office would include an energy technology 

and fuel source-agnostic front-end program that invests in revolutionizing energy concepts, materials, 

and processes, as we!! as incrementa! improvements in existing technologies across energy Sf'Ctors. 

!t would a!so incorporate a mechanism to translate results to either longer-term integrated R&D programs 

within DOE or to the private sector. Projects could be initlal!y short-term with defined milestones and 

priority could be given to crosscutting technologies or solutions that demonstrate a multi-dimensional 

approach or that otherwise maximize public benefit. 

Rather than presupposing the fraction of the budget necessary for certain energy technologies or 

sources, the office would undertake a broader review of energy system needs and opportunities, 

A!! R&D would be required to compete for resources 1n the new environment, which would drive the 

best projects to the top of the list for limited resources, weeding out activities that are less efficient, 

duplicative, and do not adequately consider the crosscutting and diverse nature of the Nation's energy 

requirements, 
122 

By elevating R&D decision-making to a system~wide, cross-sector !evet and implementing mu!tl-discipllnary, 

multi-dimensional R&D programs, this proposal would not on!y make effective use of Federal funding 

but would also facilitate new technological advancements, some of which potentially would never be 

envisioned or achieved in a si!oed environment 

By establishing a parallel Office of Energy Resources and Economic Strategy, the Department's expertise 

in monitoring, analyzing, and administering the Nation's physical energy assets capacity can be enhanced 

and streamlined to more effectively enable energy dominance. Through improved oversight and solution 

development for both the physical and market aspects of the nation's energy system, this office would 

promote mu!ti-dlmens1onal decision-making to better support resiliency, infrastructure improvement, 

and economic growth. Further, we cannot ignore emerging threats to U.S. energy security whether it 

be from cyber, natural, or other sources. To address this important issue, DOE established the Office of 

Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response (CESER) in 2018. In this proposal, CESER would 

be maintained to address this critical mission. While separate offices, both ERES and CESER would be tied 

to the Office of Energy Innovation and the three would work synergistically to achieve the system-wide, 

interdisciplinary vision and strategy. 

This proposal seeks to take the action needed to break down existing stovepipes in the applied energy 

landscape and reap the benefits of that fundamental change, white protecting and enhancing other key 

energy mission priorities within the Department 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDAT!ONS 
123 

Divesting Federal Transmission Assets 

Department of Energy and Tennessee Valley Authority 

Summary of Proposal: This proposal would set! the transmission assets owned and operated 

by the Tennessee Villley Authority (TVA) and the Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs) within 

the Department of Energy, including those of Southwestern Power Administration, Western Area 

Power Administration, and Bonnevll!e Power Administration. Eliminating or reducing the Federal 

Government's role in owning vnd operating transmission assets, ilnd increasing the private sector's 

rote, would encourage a more efficient allocation of economic resources and mitigate unnecessary 

risk to taxpayers, 

THE CHALLENGE 

The Federal Government owns, operates, and maintains over 50,000 miles of electrlcity transmission 

lines and related assets (substations, swltchyards, etc.). The Federal Government's role ln owning and 

operating transmission assets creates unnecessary risk for taxpayers and distorts private markets that 

are better equipped to carry-aut this function. 

The vast majority of the Nation's electricity needs nre met through for-profit investor-owned utitltles. 

Ownership of transmission assets is best carried out by the private sector, where there are appropriate 

market and regulatory incentives. 

THE OPPORTUNITY 

Federal Government's ro\(' ln transmission infrastructure ownership would 

of economic resources and mitigates risk to taxpayers. 

The Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Budget estimates that selling Federal transmission assets would result in net 

budgetary savings of $9.5 billion, in total, over the 10-year window. 

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WHY IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO 

Federal transmission assets account for roughly 14 percent of the Nation's transmission Unes. 1 CoHective!y, 

TVA, Southwestern Power Administration, Western Area Power Admlnistratlon, and Bonneville Power 

Administration own, operate, and maintain over 50,000 miles of transmission lines and related assets. 

By contrast, the vast majority of the Nation's electrkity needs Jre met through for~ profit investor owned 

utl!ities. The Federal Government's rote in electricity production and marketing dates largely to the 

New DeaL Since then, the Federal Government has expanded Its involvement to include and 

operating electric transmission assets. Today, a strong justification no longer exists for the 

Government to own and operate these systerns. 2 The private sector already meets the VJst majority of 

"Transforming the Nation's Electricity System; The Second Installment of the QER," 

See. for examr!e, Cong1 essionat Budget Office study, 'Should the Federal Government Se-H Electricity?" Nov>?rnber 

1997, p. 13. 

DEUVERl"--G GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS IN THE 21sr CENTURY 
124 

needs, Private ownership of transmission ~ssets could result in more efficient 

improvements while reducing the subsidies (both implicit and explicit) that the 

Gmlert11ll'2ntnow provides to the respective n:gions' ratepayers. 

Federal transmission infrastructure assets (lines, towers) substations, and/or right of ways) coutd be 

broken off from the generation assets and sold separately) and sector and/or State and toea[ 

entities could carry out the transmission functions now TVA and the PMAs. The Federal 

entities that would result after such sales could contract with other utilities to provide transmission 

service for the delivery of Federal power just iJ.S the Southeastern Power AdministrJtion, which does not 

own transmission lines, already does. 

The sector is best suited to own and operate electricity transmission assets. Private ownership 

of transmission assets could result in more efficient operation, greater innovation, stronger 

regulatory oversight, and direct and/or greater access to private capita! markets. Further, selling these 

transmission assets could encourage market efficiency resulting from competition and impose market 

discipline result!ngfrom both shareholder and greater regulatory scrutiny, The sale of Federal transmission 

assets would result in more efficientaUocation of economic resources and help relieve long~tenn pressures 

on the Federal deficit related to future Federal capiti.l.l investment and spending on transmission. 

Prior administrations also have recognized the policy merits of divestiture and have proposed to privatize 

the Federal electricity infrastructure a number of times. For example, in the FY 1987 Budget1 President 

Reilgan proposed privatizing the PM As, stating, HUtHlties are not norma!ly a Federal responsibl!ity." In the 

FY 1996 Budget, President Clinton also proposed to sell four out of five existing PM As, and successfully sold 

the /\Iaska Power Administration in 1996. ln the FY 2014 Budget, the Obami.l Administration announced 

it was undertaking a strategic review of options for addressing financi<JI challenges at TVA, including a 

possible divestiture of TVA, in part or as a whole. 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
125 

Restructure the Postal Service 

United States Postal Service 

Summary of Proposal: This proposal would restructure the United States Posta! System to return 

it to a sustainable business model or prepare lt for future conversion from a Government agency 

into a privately-held corporation. Like many European nations, the United States could privatize 

its postal operator while maintaining strong regulatory oversight to ensure fair competition and 

reasonable prices for customers. The President's Task Force on the United States Postal System 

will make recommendations on reforms towards this goal ln August 2018. 

THE CHALLENGE 

When the United States Postal Service (USPS) was created out of the Post Office Department in 1970, the 

Congress tasked it with binding the Nation together through correspondence; half a century tater, that role 

has been increasingly supplanted by less expensive digital alternatives. USPS has extremely high fixed 

costs as a result of relatively generous employee benefits combined with a universal service obligation that 

is understood to require mail carriers to visit over 150 mil!lon addresses six days per week. Historically, 

this !eve! of service was supported by a high volume of mall. Despite significant decline in volume in the 

internet age, the size of the delivery network has continued to grow to meet expectations of the current 

operating structure. USPS cCJn no !anger support the obligations created by its enormous infrastructure 

and personnel requirements. USPS already has over $100 biUion in unfunded liabilities, a substantia! 

capital investment backlog, has posted tosses for over a decade, and has no clear path to profitability 

without reform. A new model that adequately finances USPS while meeting the needs of rural and urban 

communities, large mailers, and sma!! businesses is needed. 

'THE OPPORTUNITY 

A privatized Postal Service would have a substantially lower cost structure, be able to adapt to changing 

customer needs and make business decisions free from political interference, and have access to private 

capital markets to fund operational improvements without burdening taxpayers. The private operation 

would be incentivlzed to innovate and improve services to Americans in every community. 

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WHY IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO 

This proposal would restructure USPS by aligning revenues and expenses to restore a sustainable business 

mode! and possibly prepare it for future conversion from a Government agency into a privately-held 

corporation. Like many European nations, the United States could privatize its postal operator while 

maintaining strong regulatory oversight to ensurefalr competition and reasonable prices for customers. 

A private Postal Service with independence from congressional mandates could more flexibly manage 

the dec!ine of First~Class mail while continuing to provide needed services to American communities. 

DELIVERING GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS IN THE 21'" CENTURV 
126 

Profitability and Privatization: Considerations for the Future of USPS 

First-Class 

40 percent since 2001. Marketing mail is more stable, down only 10 percent since 

price and market downturns. At the same time, USPS hJs continued 

business, particularly the tast-mlle delivery that is relatively cheaper for 

network they must maintain to support mail delivery. However1 the 

lm•Jer--m<Jroln package deHvery and other competitive products cannot replace declining 

service operator. 

(monopoly) products in the long-run. This year, USPS continued 

for the first time defaulted on pension-related payments rather than 

mc'n"vmnnl'< USPS's current model is unsustainable. Major changes are needed in 

and the !evo! of service Americans should expect fron1 their universal 

One successful mode! of Postal reforrn internationally has been to transition to a mode! of private 

mc::~nZJgernent und or shared ownership. USPS is caught between mandate to operate !ike 

a business but the expenses and political oversight of a public agency. A private postal operator 

that delivers mail fewer days per week and to more centra! locations (not door delivery) would operate 

at substantially lower costs. A private entity would also have greater ability to adjust product pricing 

to changes in demand or operating costs. Freeing USPS to more fully negotiate pay and 

prescribing p<:~t·ticipation in a !lowing 

it to follow private sector practices in compensation Jnd relations, could further reduce costs. 

A privatized Postal Service could be structured like an investor-owned continue to be regulated 

by the Postal Regulatory Comn1ission (PRC), a successor agency, or Federal regulator such as 

the Federal Tr<.~de Commission .. consistent with the existing models of privatization in Even with 

continued regulation, a Posta! Service wou!d be more insulated from more likely 

to succeed as a business. A private entity would also have access to private capital 

needed irr1provements Hl<e new vehides without burdening taxpayers with 

an initial public offering (!PO) or sale to another entity would require the 

prior to sale to show a possible profitability. Most foreign 

privatized have been In contrust, USPS has lost over 

billion since the last recession and recorded a $2.7 biUion toss iast fiscal year. To reach profitability, 

most international pasta! have gone shrinking 

their physical and In some cases, legC~cy 

retirement liGb!lities~ in order to prepare a postal operator unfunded liabilities 

in USPS's retirement total more than $100 billion. USPS owes an $15 bil!ion to 

lreasury's Federal Bank and has further !iabllities to the Department of Labor's Workers 

Compc::nsation program. According to the Postal Service's own estim<Jtes, the Agency is Insolvent, with 

liabilities exceeding assets by more than $120 bi!lion. 2 

1 UK NatiOilal A\l("lir Office, The Privati5ation of Royal Mdil, !\pn! 2011\, Pg. 16: https://www.nao.org.uk/report/ 

privatisation-of·roya! ·mail-pic./ 

'2017 Report on Form lO~K United States Posted Service, Ba!ancl? Sheet, CSRS ond FERS Unfunded Retiremt•nt 

Benefits, .;lnd PSRHBF Funded 
127 

Forthcoming Recommendations by the Task Force on the United States Postal System 

To address these major issues and identify solutions, possibly including private ownership, the President has 

issued Executive Order 13829: Task Force on the United States Postal System. The Task Force will conduct 

a thorough evaluation of the operations and finances of the Postal Service and make recommendations 

for reform consistent with this reorganization proposJl. The Task Force wiH examine: 

1. The expansion and pricing of the package delivery market and the USPS's role in competitive 

markets; 

2. The decline in mail volume and its implications for USPS self-financing and the USPS monopoly 

over letter delivery and mailboxes; 

3, The definition of the "universal service obligation" in tight of changes in technology, e~commerce, 

marketing practices, and customer needs; 

4. The USPS role in the U.S. economy and in rural areas, communities, and small towns; and 

5. The state of the USPS business mode!, workforce, operations, costs, and pricing. 

The recommendations wi!! include administrative and legislative reforms to the United States postal 

system that promote our Nation's commerce and communication without shifting additional costs to 

toxpayers. The report will be avoilable by August 10,2018. 

DELIVERING GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS IN THE 2F CENTURY 
128 

DOT Mission Adjustments 

Department of Transportation 

Summary of Proposal: This proposal would reorganize the Department ofTransportation (DOT) to 

better align the agency's core missions and programmatic responsibltities, reduce transportation 

program fragmentation across the Government, and improve outcomes. The proposal would spin-off 

Federal responsibility for operating air traffic control servlces and locks along the Saint Lawrence 

Seaway, integrate into DOT certain coJstal and inland waterways commercial navigation activities 

and transportation security programs, and reassess the structure and responsibilities of DOT's 

Office of the Secretary. 

THE CHALLENGE 

A.tVhi'ie DOT is not in need ofwho!esate reorganization, the Department does administer several programs 

that do not fit neatly within its core missions of financial assistance and safety oversight. The most 

significant misaUgnment is where DOT stiU has operational responsibilities, principally the Federal 

Aviation Administration's (FAA) air traffic control services, and to a much sma!ter degree, the Saint 

Lawrence Seaway. DOT also administers two defense-related sealift programs that are outside of its 

core missions. In addition 1 there ls unnecessary fragmentation in transportation programs across the 

Executive Branch. For example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is responsible for coastal and 

inland waterways navigation, while the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) manages certain surface 

transportation security programs. 

This proposal addresses these challenges. The proposal would spin off FAA's alr traffic control services 

and the Saint Lawrence Seaway from the Government; transfer to DOT responsibllities for coastal and 

inland waterways navigation from the Corps; and integrate into DOT certain DHS programs related to 

surface transportation security, including transit security grants. 

THE OPPORTUNITY 

Spinning~off Federal responsibility for air traffic control services to a non-profit entity would better 

enable our aviation system to respond to consumer needs and modernize services. HavingDOTtake over 

responsibility for coasta! and inland waterway navigational development would take advantage of DOT's 

strengths in infrastructure finance and would make DOT's maritime responsibilities analogous to DOT's 

role ln other transportation sectors. Shifting commercial navigation to DOT would also create long-term 

opportunities to adjust and financial relationships between the States and the Federal 

Government, resulting in more project delivery outcomes. Consolidating within DOT surface 

transportation security programs would streamline the Fed era! Government's interaction with surface 

transportation agencies and operators, darlfythe Federal Government's role in surface transportation, 

consolidate planning and grant processes for both safety and security investments, and facilitate more 

effective Federal inspections and interactions with ret evant surface transportation agencies and operators, 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
129 

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WHY IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO 

DOT, created in 1967, has one of the largest discretionary budgets (in terms of outlays) of any 

domestic Cabinet-level agency. It has a decentralized management structure in which the Office of 

the Secretary of Transportation {OST) coordinates the programs, regulatory activity, and research 

and development of nine operating administrations, or ''modes!' In 2017, the Department had total 

btJdgNary resources of $78 billion and employed 54,6 76 full time equivalents. DOT's modes generally 

focus on three primary missions: 

1. Financial Assistance. Approximately 70 percent of DOT obligations in any given year are in the form 

of grants to States and localities, primarily for highway, transit, and airport infrastructure, though 

DOT has smaller grant programs for passenger rail and multi-modal projects (e.g., BUILD grants). 

2 . .S.,<:iktY..B.s;_g_vJgt.i.Q_Q, DOT ensures the safety of the aviation system (including aircraft, air traffic 

control, and emerging technology, such as drones or commercial space), motor vehicles, motor 

carriers, railroads, transit systems, pipelines, and the movement of hazardous materials. 

3 . .Qn.ff.9..:tl9.D.;i. Air traffic control operations constitute the single largest operational budget item, and 

a!so comprise a majority of DOT's workforce. DOT also operates a !ock on the Saint Lawrence SeavJay. 

This proposal recognizes that most of DOT's activities are oriented around financial assistance to States 

and localities and safety oversight, that there are several programs within DOT that do not align with 

those two focus areas, and that several programs outside of DOT should be merged into the Department. 

Air Traffic Control and Saint Lawrence Seaway 

The most slgnlficc:mt misalignment is in areas where DOT operates transportation systems, principally 

the FAA's air tratflc control services, and to a much smaller degree, the Saint Lawrence Seaway. Both 

of ~,hose components could be spun off from the Government, which would allow them to have better 

i~'avernance structures and insolation from the political system, and allow them to better assess fees 

based on actual usage of their systems. Spinning FAA air traffic control services out of the Government, 

to a non-profit entity, similar to the Canadian system, has strong po!icy merits, evidenced by the 

approximately 60 countries that have shifted air traffic control responsibilities to non~governmental 

providers. 

Maritime Consolidation 

Unlike aU other modes oftransportation, DOT has a very limited role in the Nation's commercia! maritime 

systems. The Maritime Administration (MARAD) is DOT's operating administration engaged in the promotion 

of the U.S. maritime sector, yet its mission is dominated by educating cadets at the U.S. Merchant Marine 

Academy and carrying out two defense-related programs designed to meet the Department of Defense's 

military sealift needs in a time of crisis. In contrast to DOT's other operating administrations, MARAD has no 

safety regulatory function and limited financial assistance activities, which leaves DOT under-represented 

in commercial maritime issues. 

There are opportunities to add to DOT's responsibilities for coastal ports, inland waterways, and navigation 

permitting activities. Under this proposJ!, responsibiilty for coastal port dredging and operation of the 

inland waterway system, currently carried out by the Corps, would be shifted to DOT, which already 

has some limited expertise in the port and inland waterway sectors. Shifting these programs to DOT 

-.vould also be an opportunity to reassess the type of Fed era! involvement in both sectors. Given DOT's. 

DELIVERING GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS IN THE 21>r CENTURY 
130 

extensive experience in providing financla! assistance to major infrastructure projects, a new mode! of 

Federal financiJ! assistance to ports may be a more efficient delivery mechanism than direct 

Federal control, construction, and ongoing maintenance. assistance model could be 

app!ied to the inland waterway system, though some porti-ons may require continued Federal ownership, 

control and operation. In addition, transferring current U.S. Coast Guard respons1b1\ities for permitting 

alterations to bridges and aids to coastal navigation to DOT would better align those functions with 

similar functions already carried out by DOT's. 

Surface Transportation Security 

DHS has two security-related surface transportation functions that would be transferred to DOT under 

this proposal: transit security grants currently administered by the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) surface transportation inspection and 

guidance activities. 

FEMA currently provides security grants to transit and rail operators. The Federal Transit Administration, 

--~~"'wrm:h manages much larger financial assistance programs aimed at these same agencies and operators, 

could integrate FEMA's programs into its existing industry relationship. In fact, security and emergency 

preparedness are already eligible expenses in FTA's programs, highlighting the duplicative nature 

of the separate FEMA gre1nts. Consolidating a!\ transit and rail grant funding within DOT would eliminate 

confusion among transit agencies about which agency funds their emergent needs. 

More generaUy) DOT has a strong focus on the safety of our Nation's transportation networks, while 

DHS is responsible for the security of those assets. However1 both ugencies have programs for the same 

non-Federal agencies, operators, and companies that own and manage surface transportation assets. 

Furthermore, the Federal Government traditionally provides guidance, financial assistance, technical 

ZJssistance, ZJnd in certain cases, oversight and regulation for the surface transportation sector. The 

Fed era! Government has no operational role ln manJging or securing surface transportation assets, nor 

should it. That is clear in DOT's mission and history, however since its creation TSA has been pressured 

to expand its operational programs for surface transportation. Despite the compel!ing case for Federal 

aviation security operations, establishing a corresponding Federal role in surface transportation would 

be duplicative of non~Federal efforts, cost-prohibitive, and impractical to manage. 

Currently, TSA has a small component ($129 million enacted in Fiscal Year (FY) 2018) dedicated to 

assessing threats to surface transportation facl!ities, encouraging security planning and threat reporting, 

overseeing compliance with certain rail security regulations, and disseminating best-practice guidance 

to-t! an.sportation companies and government agencies, Under this proposal, TSA's surface-related 

programs would be incorporated into DOT, which interfaces directly and regularly on safety matters, 

ensuring that both safety and security are <Jddressed appropriately. While DHS receives useful intelligence 

reporting from current TSA programs and outreach, many other Sector Specific Agencies who lead the 

collaborative process for other critical infrastructure security have shown they can coUaborate to share 

intelligence as effectively as a DHS component As part of this proposal, the Administration wilt ensure 

any reorganization does not degrade security. 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
131 

OST Organizational Structure 

OST has traditionally focused on formulating national transportation policy and overseeing and supporting 

the Department's operating administrations. More recently, however, the scope of activities performed 

by OST has broadened significantly. Now, OST has programmatic responsibilities that have traditionally 

80errcarried out by operating administrations. For example, OST houses the Build America Bureau, 

whlch, among other responsibilities, administers transportation credit programs, awards INFRA grants, 

a !locates private activity bonds, and communicates best practices and funding opportunities to project 

sponsors. OST also administers the BUILD grcmt program, which received a !arge increase in funds in 

the agency's FY 2018 appropriation. 

Executing these programmatic responsibilities whl!e sim ultan eous!y performing its more trad itlonal oversight 

and management functions has been chol!enging and has stressed OST's organizational structure. Now that 

OST has performed these dua! roles tor several years, it is time to consider whether OST's organizational 

design is optimal for a !lowing it to most effectively carry out its statutory responsibilities. This proposal 

would include an assessment by the Administration and the DepartmentofOST's organizational structure 

and programmatic responsibilities, including potential alternative structures. 

DELIVERING GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS !N THE 21" CENTURY 
132 

Reform Federal Role in Mortgage Finance1 

Summary of Proposal: This proposal would transform the way the Federal Government delivers 

support for the U.S. housing finance system to ensure more transparency and accountability to 

taxpayers, and to minimize the risk of taxpayer-funded bailouts, while maintaining responsible 

and sustainable support for homeowners. Proposed changes, which would require broader policy 

and legislative reforms beyond restructuring Federal agencies and programs, in dude ending the 

conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, reducing their role in the housing market, and 

providing an explicit, limited Federal backstop that is on~budget and apart from the Federal support 

for low- and moderate-income home buyers. 

THE CHALLENGE 

The U.S. housing market is supported by a complex system of Federal subsidies and prograrr1s intended 

to make mortgage financing accessible to a wide range of homebuyers, However, this system is 

chaHenged by the operation of two privately-owned Government sponsored-enterprises (GSEs), Fannie 

Mae and Freddie Mac, in conservatorship, a condition that has been maintained since 2008, in addition 

to overlapping and sometimes conflicting Federal goals. The Federal role in support of housing finance 

is not effectively targeted to households in need of assistance or sufficiently accountable to taxpayers, 

as the costs and benefits of that support are unclear. 

In response, this proposal would end the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and propose 

better tailoring of delivery of Federal programs, Policy makers should also pursue an approach that 

would level the playing field with the private sector to decrease the F~deral subsidies supporting housing. 

THE OPPORTUNITY 

This proposal would reorganize the way the Federal Government delivers mortgage assistance and 

go beyond restructuring Federal agencies and programs by transitioning Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 

to fully private entities. Competition to the duopolistic role played by the two privately~owned GSEs 

would be an essential element of reform to decrease mora! hazard and risk to the taxpayer, Both 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as we!! as other competitive entrants, would have access to an explicit 

Federal guarantee for mortgage-backed securities (MBS) that they issue that is on!y exposed in Umited, 

exigent circumstances, Such a guarantee would be on··budget and fu!ly paid-for. This would also 

ensure that the Government's role is more transparent and accountable to taxpayers, minimize the 

risk of taxpayer-funded bailouts, and ensure that mortgage credit continues to be available in time5 

of market stress for creditworthy borrowers. 
133 

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WHY IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO 

Under the current system, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two privately-owned GSEs, buy and guarantee 

mortgages from tenders and sell them to investors as MBS. Although they are private companies, they 

are congressionally chartered, a unique status that has been viewed as conveying an implicit Federal 

backstop that has in turn towered their cost of capital relative to simi!arly~sized institutions. !n 2008 1 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken into conservatorship and received (and continue to receive) an 

explicit but limited backing from the Treasury under a Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement (PSPA), which 

gives access to capital fundlngthat covers any loss the enterprises may incur. In their Federal charters and 

by action of their primary regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), Fannie Mae and Freddie 

Mac hove of providing a certain amount of financing to low- and moderJte-income borrowers. 

affordable housing activities are not clearly accounted for on the Federal balance sheet. 

In addition to the GSEs, other Federal programs provide mortgage support, contributing to a large Fed era! 

footprint in the housing market. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Federal 

Housing Administration (FHA) provides mortgage insurance intended to aid borrowers traditionally 

underserved by the conventional mortgage market, including lower-wealth households, minorities, and 

first-time homebuyers. The Departments ofVeterans Affairs (VA) and Agriculture (USDA) also administer 

mortgage insurance programs targeted to veterans and !ower-income rural households, respectively. 

The loans guaranteed by FHA, VA, and USDA are in turn packaged into MBS that are guaranteed by Ginnie 

Mae, a Federal entity operated by HUD. Together, loans backed by the GSEs and Ginnie Mae comprised 

Jbout 70 percent of mortgages originated in 2017. 

All these entities, taken as a whole, form a complex and overlapplng network of cross-subsidization, 

without clear accountability as to who is paying for, and who is receiving) housing subsidies. Although 

the Federal role in the housing market has helped to facilitate the availability of the 30-year fixed-rate 

mortgage, the current system has structural flaws that have also created distortions in home pricing that 

may actua!!y hinder the goal of homeownership. This reorganization proposal, which in dudes broad 

policy and legislative reforms beyond restructuring Federal agencies and programs, would: 

Increase competition. The proposal would remove the Federal charter from statute and fu!!y 

privatize the GSEs. A Federal entity with secondary mortgage market experience would be charged 

with regulatory oversight of the fully privatized GSEs, have the authority to approve guarantors, 

and develop a regulatory environment that is conducive to developing competition amongst new 

private guarantors and the incurnbent GSEs, ensuring they would a!l be adequately capitalized 

and competing on a level playing field. If the GSEs lost some of the benefits that have led them to 

dominate the market, this would enable other private companies to begin competing in this space. 

The regulator would also ensure fair access to the secondary market for all market participants, 

including community financial institutions and srnaU lenders. 

JnQJ~f12gJum_~_Qill~llJJL9 .. mLa.,(Q2JJD!E..R.W1Y. Under this proposal, which would also in\Jo!ve entities 

outside the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, guarantors would have access to an 

explicit guarantee on the MBS that they issue that is only exposed in limited, exigent circumstances. 

Taxpayers would be protected by virtue of the capital requirements imposed on the guarantors1 

maintenance of responsible loan underwriting standards, and other protections d€emed appropriate 
134 

by their primary regulator. The reguli'ltorwould set fees to create an insurance fund designed to take 

effect only after substantia! losses are incurred by the private market, including the guarantors, in 

order to ensure the continued availability of mortgage financing tt1rough shifting economic cycles. 

The projected cost of this guarantee and other fees charged would be on-budget and accountable, 

resulting in reduced implicit taxpayer exposure. 

8.ligojncentives and reduce overlfl.JJ. Underthis reform proposal, which would also require legislative 

and policy changes affecting the mandates of entities that are not part of the United States Government, 

the GSEs would focus on secondary market liquidityfor mortgage loans to qualified borrowers, while 

HUD would assume primary responsibility for affordable housing objectives by providing support 

to low- and moderate-income families that cannot be fu!fi!!ed through traditional underwriting 

and other housing assistance grants and subsidies. To effectuate this, the newly fully-privatized 

GSEs would have mandates focused on defining the appropriate lending markets served in order to 

l-evel the playing field with the private sector and avoid unnecessary cross-subsidization. A separate 

fee on the outstunding volume of the MBS issued by guarantors would be used specifically for 

affordable housing purposes, and would be transferred through congressional appropriations to, 

and administered by, HUD. 

Provids_!.!lQL"-.till_g_eted __ .:;_s~.>.tanc"-J:Q those_i.o.JJ_eed. The proposal would be designed so that the 

affordable housing fees transferred to HUD would enable FHA to provide more targeted subsidies 

to !ow- and moderate-income homebuyers while maintaining responsible and sustainable support 

for homeownership and wealth-building. Some of the fees could potentially be used to support 

affordable multifamily housing or other HUD activities. Alt of this support would be on-budget 

and accountable. 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGANlZATlON RECOMMENDATIONS 
135 

Create the Bureau of Economic Growth 

Department of Commerce 

Summary of Proposal: This proposal rethinks how the Federal Government can drive economic 

growth in concert with private sector investments in communities across the country. By coordinating 

and consolldating Fed era! economic assistance resources at the Department of Commerce {DOC), 

taxpayer dollars wi!l receive a higher return an investment on projects that are transparent and 

accountable. 

THE CHALLENGE 

Federal economic assistance programs that serve States, localities, and Tribes are broadly dispersed among 

Federal agencies with different purposes, eligibHlty criteria, time horizons, and reporting requirements, 

As a result, communities must navigate a complicated web of rules and regulations to determine which 

programs they might be eligible for, comply with different application requirements on a variety of 

timelines, and report on performance measures that differ in definition and reporting periods. 

Consolidating these programs within DOC provides an opportunity to streamline and consolidate 

standards and processes for eligibility and participation, including planning and reporting requirements, 

THE OPPORTUNITY 

This proposal establishes a Bureau of Economic Growth in DOC, consolidating existing economic 

development programs to provide a central place for grants and technical assistance to communities 

and entrepreneurs focused on job creation, business growth, and strengthening local economies. 

The new Bureau will better support and empower State, locaC and tribal governments to spur their 

economies through toca!ly plunned development projects. The streamlined Bureau wilt also increase 

transparency in region a! and local Federal spending, as wet! as encourage and facilitate complementary 

prlvate~sector spending, 

Some of the programs that wit! be consolidated include the Department of Housing and Urban Development's 

Community Development Block Grant program, the Economic Development Administration's Economic 

Development Assistance Programs, <:~nd rural business and community facility grants from the Department 

of Agriculture. As part of the Bureau's focus on creatingjob opportunities and supporting the !oca! business 

community, it would absorb the economic development functions of the Delta Regional Authority, Denali 

Commission, and Northern Border Regional Commission. The new Bureau would also oversee technical 

assistance programs. These programs provide training, planning, and other business development 

assistance to help businesses succeed no matter where they are in their !ifecycle, whether they are just 

starting out, looking to expand, or trying to access new domestic and international markets. 
136 

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WHY IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO 

The Federd! Government can p!ay an important role ln bolstering economic growth, with its ability to 

undertake large-scale economic development projects and ho!lsticJ!ly ana!yzetheirimpacts.lt is uniquely 

positioned to help mitigate market failures, and can leverage resources in distressed communities 

when loca!jregional entities cannot Unfortunately, the current Federal economic development model 

is fragmented, resulting in fractured regulatory requirements and jurisdictions 1 overlapping programs, 

redundancy, and waste.1 Many programs and projects are unable to dearly demonstrate their impacts 

an measures ofeconomk growth. 

The Bureau of Economic Growth reorganiz.es several Federal economlc development programs lnto 

discrete functions based on mission, capablllties, and delivery method -with the intent of increasing 

efi!c!ency and accountability, and improving outcomes and services to citizens, business owners, and 

communities. Consolidating this assistance within DOC provides an idea! opportunity to streamline and 

consolidate standards and processes for e!igibl!ity and participation, including planning and reporting 

requirements. 

The new Bureau wit! accomplish its mission vla three operational arms- planning, grant-making, and 

technical assistance- as well as an office of Bureau-wide administration. The Planning Office wHl engage 

State, local, and tribal community development agencies/authorities, in addition to regional consortia 

of these entities. Its primary function wiH be to leverage these agencies' intern a! planning capabilities 

to identify each community's unique barriers to economic growth and set community goals that are 

specific, measurable, dCtionabte, relevant, and time-bound. Through this planning process, these State, 

local, tribal, and regional agencies can establish the criteria and rni!estones by which to measure the 

eff0ctiveness of any subsequently awarded grants. 

AftN completing the planning process, ilpp!icants can apply to the Bureau's Office of Grant-Making for 

the funds to irnplement their plans in a manner consistent with their e<5tab!ished goats. The Office of 

Grant-Making w!!l craft criteria to assure that the implementation activities are sufficiently comprehensive, 

actionable, and consistent with the applicant's plan. 

The Office of Technical Assistance will work with non-profit and educational organizations 

opeoating within the State, local, tribal, or areas to build capacity through strategic and 

operational training and dissemination of best practices in economic development to local businesses 

and practitioners. These non~profits wilt apply directly to the Office of Technical Assistance for funding 

for technical assistance activities that support the community economic development plan. ln addition 

to providing funding, the Office of Technical Assistance could provide access to assets that support the 

non~ profit's implementation. This non~profits wit! allow the Office ofTechnical 

Assistance to function in an efficient and manner, without duplicating staff or other resources 

that already exist in the local community. Recognizing the unique challenges faced by small businesses, 

this proposal does not include the Small Business Administration's Office of entrepreneurial Development, 

which provides planning and educational services exclusively to small businesses, within the new bureau. 

Economic D~veloprnent: Economic Development Programs,' 

Dcvc!opm cnt_ Pro gramsjactl onl.rtt::3. 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
137 

reasons. DOC is J!readytasked creation and economic growth" and 

"lead!ngthe Federal economlc development agenda by promoting innovation and competitiveness, and 

preparing American regions. for growth and success in the worldwide economy." As such, Commerce is well 

equipped with resources and expertise to support the proposed economic development consolidation 

and advance economic growth. 

Through its Bureaus of Economic Analysis and the Census, DOC has access to comprehensive economic 

data which can be used to inform economic development strategies, measure outcomes, and improve 

accountability. Additionally, DOC has wide-ranging capabilities within its offices and Bureaus which 

make it uniquely suited to address the intrinsica!!y multi-faceted nature of economic development. For 

example, it can leverage technical expertise to assist businesses with existing international footprints, 

or those looking to export through trade functions like export assistance and attracting foreign direct 

investment; facilitate technological innovation and commercialization; and help businesses register and 

protect their intellectual property. 

DELIVERING GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS IN THE 2l'r CENTURY 
138 

U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Summary of Proposal: This proposal would transform the Commissioned Corps (Corps) into a 

leaner and more efficient organization that would be better prepared to respond to public health 

emergencies and provide vita! health services. It would do this through a series of management 

improvements, including reducing the size of the Corps and building up a Reserve Corps for response 

in public health emergencies. 

THE CHALLENGE 

of approximately 6,500 uniformed public health professionals, who work alongside 

countNparts performing the same jobs but often receive higher total compensation. Corps 

officers receive military-like benefits, even though they have not been incorporated into the Armed Forces 

since 1952, and generally do not meet the Department of Defense's criteria fort he military compensation 

system. 1-urther, the Corps's mission assignments and functions have not evolved in step with the pubtlc 

health needs of the Nation. 

The Fiscal Year2019 Budget raised questions about the value of having Corps officers ln roles that civilians 

can fin, given they are more expensive than equivalent civilians. Only a small percentage of Corps officers 

deploy for public health emergencies, and many officers encumber positions that could be filled by 

civilians. ln addition, a 1996 Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report1 raised questions about 

the need for Corps officers in positions that did not provide direct health services. 

THE OPPORTUNITY 

This proposJl would reduce the Corps force from approximately 6,500 officers to no more than 4,000 

officPrs, and create a Reserve Corps that can provide additional surge capacity during public health 

These reforms would result in a Corps that is more appropriately equipped to provide 

pub!lc health services and support in public hea!th emergencies. 

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WHY IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO 

Reduce the Size of the Corps 

This proposc:ll would reorganize the Corps through a number of administrative and !eglslative reforms 

that would reduce unnecessary positions within the Corps and utilize Federal funds more effectively, 

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) would hold the Corps to a new standard, and 

require that officers fi!! critical public health roles and/or respond to public health emergencies. 

1 Iss ties on the Need for the Public Health Service's CommissiOned Corps. GGD-95·55: Published: Mily 7, J 996. Publicly 

Released: MJy 15, 1996 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGANIZATlON RECOMMENDATIONS 
139 

Under this proposal, HHS would reduce the size of the Corps to no more than 4,000 officers. Specifically, 

the agency would: 1} civllianize officers who do not provide critical public health services or support in 

pub!k health emergencies; 2) require that Corps officers initially work in a hard~ to-fill area and continue 

to serve there, or deploy as needed in a public health emergency (at !east once every three years); and 

3) enforce standards for Corps eligibility and readiness. 

Create a Reserve Corps 

This proposu! wou!d also create a Reserve Corps-similar to those used by other uniformed service 

programs-that would deploy either in a public health emergency or to backfill critical positions left 

vacant during Regular Carps deployments. The Reserve Corps would consist of Government employees 

and private citlzens who agree to be deployed and serve in times of national need. The Reserve Corps 

would be an integrated part of the HHS response to public health emergencies. 

Budgetary Reforms 

In addition to restructuring the Corps workforce, this proposal would more appropriately allocate 

the cost of Corps officers to ensure each pays its fair share for Corps officers moving forward. 

Currently, if an agency employs a agency does not pay the accruing retirement costs 

for that officer, even though lt retirement costs of civilian employees. This can result 

in an agency employing a civilian because the Corps officer appears less costly 

than is actually the case. This proposal would require agencies to pay the accruing retirement costs for 

Corps officers moving forward. 

Under this proposal, the Corps would deliver on its mission in a more efficient and effective manner and 

spend taxpayer dollars more effectively. At the end of this transformation, the Corps would be leaner and 

have an improved abitity to provide public health services and respond to pub!ic hea!th emergencies. 

DELIVERING GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS IN THE 21s1 CENTURY 
140 

Improving NASA's Agility through Increased Use of 

Federally Funded Research and Development Centers 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Summary of Proposal: This proposal would establish an accelerated process for determining 

whether one or more of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Centers should 

be converted to, or host, a Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC). FFRDCs 

can potentially allow the agency to be more agile in rapidly responding to changing needs and in 

recruiting and retaining scientific and technical expertise. 

THE CHALLENGE 

The missions and programs of NASA are conducted across 10 geographically-dispersed Centers, augmented 

by several testing and support facilities. While nine of the Centers are Government owned and operated, 

the Jet Propulsion Laboratory is operated by the California Institute ofTechnology as an FFRDC. 

In 2004, the President's Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy found 

that NASA Centers: 1) needed to modernize their infrastructure; 2) lacked institutional incentives to align 

them with new policy; and 3) utilized often ossified personnel practices. The Commission recommended 

that NASA Centers be reconfigured as FFRDCs to enable innovation, work more effectively with the 

private sector, and stimulate economic development. With the advent of the President's National Space 

Strategy, a renewed look at the FFRDC operating model is warranted as part of NASA's broader strategy 

to meet the Administration's ambitious space objectives. This proposal would establish a process for 

determining whether one or more of NASA's other Centers should be converted to, or host, an FFRDC. 

THE OPPORTUNITY 

The new National Space Strategy and National Space Policy Directive 1 require the fuU agility of NASA, 

in concert with its cornrnercial and internation<.1! partners, in order to realize the President's goals to 

return American astronauts to the moon and follow with human missions to Mars. In order to bolster 

NASA's agility, increased use of FFRDCs could provide greater flexibility than civil servant organizations, 

potentially a !lowing them to better meet the agency's evolving needs. 

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WHY IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO 

Background on FFRDCs 

FFRDCs are research institutions that are owned by the Federal Government, but operated by 

contractors. They are intended to provide Federal agencies with Research and Development (R&D) 

capabilities that cannot be effectively rnet by the Federal Government or the private sector alone, and 

can convey a number of benefits 1 including the ability to recruit and retain scientific and technlca[ 

expertise, and to more rapidly respond to the R&D needs of a Federal agency than would be possible 

with a civil servant workforce. 

REFORM PlAN AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
141 

The new National Space Strategy and National Space Policy Directive 1 make examining the potential 

ilO'VilriTal;,es of an FFRDC model at NASA particularly timely. FFRDCs may offer a powerful approach 

NASA to better align its workforce skillsets with Agency while simultaneously 

engendering an entrepreneurial spirit that better a!lows NASA to talent from industry and 

commercia! partners. 

FFRDCs offer a number of advantages over traditional NASA Centers in terms of their competitive 

compensation to employees, flexibility, and technical skills available to the Agency. They occupy a 

unique position in the Nation's R&D base: they are free from many of the outdated mechanisms inherent 

in the civil service1 and can also perform work for non-Government customers. As a resutt 1 FFRDCs are 

noted for their technical excellence, strong integration with the U.S, industrlat base, and agility. All of 

these are essential as NASA works to meet the bold objectives laid out in the National Space Strategy 

and National Space Policy Directive 1. 

Process to Determine Best Role for FFRDCs 

This proposal lays a process to determine 1f one or more of NASA's other Centers shou!d be converted to, 

or host, an FFRDC. NASA would oversee this process and provide an analysis, including recommendations, 

to the White House by the end of August 2018 so that the outcome can be reflected in future budget and 

pol1cy plans and proposals. NASA's analysis would draw from prior studies of this and evaluate 

the potential of an FFRDC to further the Administration's policy goals more In addition to 

studying whether one or more Centers could potentially be converted to an FFRDC in whole or in part, 

NASA woutd also establish wheth(0r it mc:Jy be effective to perform new programs and projects using an 

FFRDC structure. 

The additional analysis needed before increasing the use of FFRDCs will address the following: 

Although FFRDCs have several advantages over Government-owned and operated facilities, they 

can also have drawbacks. A 2017 report by the Congressional Research Service, for example, noted 

concerns with FFRDCs including mission creep, ineffective Federal agency oversight, and competition 

between FFRDCs and the private sector for Federal R&D funding.' The analysis will weigh the specific 

costs and benefits of establishing an FFRDC for particular NASA Centers. 

It is possible that a new FFRDC hosted at a Center may be effective in running new programs or 

projects that are part of the Administration's space policy but are not yet underway. The analysis 

will examine whether these programs could more effectively be run by establishing a new FFRDC 

Conversion of a Center, or parts of a Center's operation, to an FFRDC would require several steps related 

to developing the sponsoring agreement with the organization managing the FFRDC, and addressing 

human capital issues. The analysis wi!l examine these steps and estimate their feasibl!ity. 

1 Congressiondl Research Service, "Federally Funded Research and Development Centers {FFRDCs): Background and 

Issues for Congress," December 1, 2017. 

DELIVERING GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS !N THE 21'' CENTURY 
142 

Management Consolidation of Federal 

Graduate Research Fellowships 

National Science Foundation 

Summary of Proposal: This proposal wou!d consolidate the administration of graduate fellowships 

for multiple Fed era! agencies under the National Science Foundation (NSF) in order to reduce the 

total cost of administering those fellowships. 

THE CHALLENGE 

Multiple agencies are administering many different graduate research feHowships across the Federal 

Government. Some of the larger programs fund over a thousand fellowships annually whHe smatter 

programs support only a handful of fe!!owships each year. Each awarding agency devotes resources to 

administeringthese fellowships, but some are similar enough that their management could be consolidated 

at one agency, potentially resulting in !ower costs. 

This proposal would consolidate the administration of Federal graduate research fellowships for smaller 

fellowship programs at NSF. NSF would leverage the efficiency of its existing graduate fellowship program 

to coordinate the fellowship application, selection, and award processes for other agencies, and be 

reimbursed by the other agencies for this work. 

THE OPPORTUNITY 

Consolidating the management/administration of graduJte fellowships for smaller agencies at NSF could 

lead to reduction of duplicative administrative efforts and yield savings across the Federal Government 

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WHY IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO 

Graduate fellowships provide one or several years of funding support for students pursuing a Masters or 

Ph.D. degree. Awardees are selected based on a range of criteria, from their academic accomplishments 

to the broader societal impacts of their research work. Fe!!owships are a source of funding for student 

researchers in addition to research gr~nts obtained by university facu!ty, and because fellowships 

tend to be highly competitive, they are viewed as prestigious in the scientific community. The Federal 

Government is by far the largest funder of graduate fellowships in the United States, but fellowships are 

also offered by foundations and private companies. 

NSF awards the highest number of graduate fellowships of all Federal agencies (more than 1,000 new 

fellows every year), and has an efficient system !n place to do so. For agencies with much smaller fellowship 

programs, using NSF's fellowship process instead of their own could be more efficient and produce savings 

if fellowship offices at other agencies can be downsized or eliminated. Even if NSF requires additional 

resources to process the increased workload, the Government~wide resources spent on administering 

graduate fellowships would be reduced compared to the status quo. 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
143 

An initial step to implement this proposal would be to take a thorough inventory of existing graduate 

fellowship programs across the Federal Government. At the same time, NSF would evaluate which types 

of programs and associated tasks would benefit from using NSF's expertise and grants management 

infrastructure. Depending on the number and size of other agencies' fellowship programs identified in 

the inventory, a phased approach could be implemented where less complex programs are the first to 

nwve under NSF management. 

DELIVERING GOVERNMENT SOLUTlONS IN THE :zFT CENTURY 
144 

Rationalize the Federal Real Property Approach 

Government-wide Application 

Summary of Proposal: The Federal Government is the largest single employer and owner of real 

property in the United States, and as such, has a huge impact on the Nation's communities. Despite 

these far-reaching implications, its management of that rea! property is a mixed bag of smart 

space use, underuti!ized assets, t1abi!ities, and teases. The Federal Government can do a better job 

strategically managing these assets, including utilizing private sector best practices, to improve our 

communities, right-size the Fed era! rea! property portfo!lo, and provide better value and services to 

the taxpayer. This encompasses moving Federal offices and jobs for better quality of life 

and a more J new budgetary mechanism for capita! projects; better Incentives 

for agencies to unnecessary assets; and smarter !easing practices. 

THE CHALLENGE 

Since 2004, the Fed era( Government has improved its rea! property management and has disposed of 

many properties that were no longer a needed. These actions have addressed tow~hanging fruit, but 

many opportunities remain for agencies to irnprovethelr decision-making and identify transactions that 

provide greater value for the Government. Unlike the private sector, Federal agencies sometimes lack 

incentives to think strategically about their workforce and shifting mission needs, and how those factors 

influence where they are located. Without transformative real property-related authorities, the Federal 

Government's ability to meet its mission needs and make smart real estate declsions wl!! continue to 

stagnate and fat! behind the private sector. 

THE OPPORTUNITY 

A combination of administrative and statutory changes would provide opportunities to optimize the 

Federal footprint by making smart investments in renovations and newfacl!lties, driving down !ease costs, 

and disposing of unneeded real estate through a streamlined process that results in the greatest return 

to the taxpayer. Together, these reforms would allow agencies to have the facilities they need to fulfil! 

their missions and serve the American people, while at the sametirne freeing up unused or underutHized 

properties to generate a return for taxpayers and spur local economic development. 

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WHY IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO 

Title 40 Disposal Process Improvements 

Tit!e40 of the U.S, Code governs the process by which most agencies seek to dispose of unneeded Federal 

rea! property. The Title 40 process is complex, with many required steps prior to the disposal of rea! 

property: vetting for surplus, excess, public benefit conveyance, and finally sale. GAO has highlighted 

that the complexity of disposal under Title 40 impacts the decisions that agencies make and can !ead 

to decisions and outcomes that are not economically rCltionaL ln response, prior Administrations have 

proposed modest disposal reforms, but those proposals did not advance in the Congress. ln December 

2016, the Congress enacted !egis!atlon, the Federal Assets Sale Transfer Act (FASTA), which created a new 

Public BuHdings Reform Board to review agency submissions for disposCll, and also induded some limited 

'fJi<:.posal process streamlining. While FAST A is a substantial step forward-and the enhanced visibi!1ty 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
145 

from the Board will generate additional interest-the legislation did not tackle the major impediments 

to accelerating and expanding agency disposals. 

The Administration believes major new authorities are necessary to fully utilize the disposal process to 

return unnecessary Federal property back to productive non~ Federal use. As part of its Infrastructure 

Initiative, the Administration proposed a series of improvements to streamline, accelerate, and incentivize 

the Title 40 disposal process. These improvements indude: eliminating the public benefit conveyance 

authorities, allowing agencies to take unneeded Federal propertydirectlyto sale; retention of net proceeds 

of sa!e dedicated to real property use without further appropriation; and expansion of the allowable 

uses of the Government Services Administration (GSA) Disposal Fund to support agencies with the 

upfront costs of disposition in advance of making a report of excess, The Administration is proposing the 

elimination of a!t conveyance provisions, aUowlngsurp!us properties to go straight to market, maximizing 

the return to the taxpayer. Several Government Accountability Office (GAO) engagements since 2004 

have highlighted the benefit of allowing agencies to retain some or a!! of sales proceeds associated with 

the disposition of Federal real property. Without this reform, agencies currently Incur substantial work 

and costs to dispose of properties, with little to no financial upsfde for them~ reducing their incentive to 

pursue such disposals. 

Federal Capital Revolving Fund (FCRF) 

The Administration recognizes that the Federal Government must have- modern facilities to carry out agency 

missions and serve the American people. However, over the last decade, it has been difficult to secure 

the necessary appropriations to renovate existing buHdings and construct major new Federal facitlties, 

such as the replacement of the Federal 8ureau of Investigation HeBdquarters faclUty in Washington, D.C. 

This inability to secure sufficient, timely funding to execute capita! transactions often results in project 

cost escalation and costly lease extensions. 

To address this, in the Infrastructure Initiative and the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Budget, the Administration 

has proposed creating a new funding mechanism for large, civilian real property projects that is similar 

to the capital budgets that States employ. The proposal would establish a mandatory revolving fund 

for the construction or renovation of Federally-owned civiUan rea! property, thus allowing agencies to 

budget for acquiring major assets incrementaUy while operating within the established, transparent 

Federal budget rules. This proposal is supported within the FY 2019 Budget, providing $10 billion fort he 

corpus of the Fund. GAO has conducted frequent reviews of rea! property -acquisition rnethodologles 

and challenges encountered with funding large projects. 1n 2014, GAO supported a similar approach to 

this proposal; however, the Administr<:~tion's proposal provides even more flexibility and cost savings 

opportunities that those identified by GAO. 

Relocation Anafytics 

Due to mission and cost considerations, agencles are considering opportunities to reposition their reat 

property footprints, including relocating .staff and offices to locations outside of the National Capital 

Region. Untike the private sector, which has considerable flexibility and often takes a holistic approach 

to real estate and corporate mission requirements, agencies do not do a good job thinking holistically 

about their mission, physical location, and how they could deliver services differently. The Administration 

believes there are many lessons that can be drawn from the private sector on how to assess changing 

DELIVERING GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS IN THE 21sr CENTURY 
146 

GSA Leasing Improvements 

be adjusted given information technology 

aeennesvv1rn thought~proccss, 

in agency relocations, and work is already underway. 

!n addition to managing Federal bui!dlngs, GSA also engages in extensive !easing with private sector 

lessors, who provide office and other space to Federal tenants. GSA's !ease portfolio includes 

approximately 180 million rentable square feet in more 8,000 separate leases. !n any given fiscal 

year, GSA executes an average of25 prospectus~level !ease transactions, defined as lease awards where 

the annual cost of the !ease payments exceed more than approximately $3.1 million. 

GSA h(ls seen considerable improvement in their leasing practices in recent years, demonstrating 

significant reductions in the number of holdover leases and reductions in the size of the !ease portfolio. 

However, more can be done to ensure that GSA makes smart leasing decisions, particularly when 

GSA will be undertaking two policy changes: executing longer, 

!ower rates, and undertaking a more rigorous cost analysis before 

executing space reductions to ensure cost effective decisions. GSA continues to assist other Federal 

agencies in making the most cost effective decisions under the Administration's Reduce the Footprint 

policy, Agencies are looking to rt:duce square footage and GSA he!ps to ensure that any reduction leads 

to a cost~effective solution, 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
147 

Consolidate and Streamline Financial literacy Efforts 

Summary of Proposal: More than 20 Federal agencies have some form of financial education or 

literacy program. To ensure effective a !location of Federal finanda! literacy resources and avoid 

unneeded overlap and duplication, this proposal consolidates and streamlines these programs. 

The Federal Government spends an estimated $250 ml!Uon annually on financial literacy and education 

programs and activities across more than 20 Federal agencies to educate Americans about a wide array 

of financial literacy and education topics. These programs lack meaningful coordination, dear measures 

of effectiveness, and are oftentimes overlapping or duplicative. Furthermore, very few agencies appear 

to monitor the effectiveness of their programs and only a handful of these programs have been formally 

, '-~~~~ aSBessed or evaluated for impact. 

in addition to Federa! programming, many non-federal organizations provide financial !!teracy services 

and resources, including nonprofit organizations, consumer advocacy organizations, financial services 

companies, employers, and State and local governments. Given the large number of participants served 

by Federal flnanclalliteracy and education programs, the Federal Government should consider the most 

effective ways to deliver these services white maximizing limited Federal resources and supporting the 

efforts of other pubUc and private participanls in this field. 

The Financial Literacy and Education Commission (FLEC) was established by law in 2003 and is made 

up of the heads of 22 Federal agencies and the White House Domestic Policy Council. Chaired by the 

Secretary of the Treasury, FLEC is tasked to improve "the financlalliteracy and education of persons in 

the United States through the development of a national strategy." However, the FLEC has had limited 

success rationalizing Federa! efforts to promote access to quality financial literacy and education tools 

for aU Americans. 

THE OPPORTUNITY 

Consolidating and streamlining financial literacy efforts wilt increase Government efficiencies and reduce 

among Federal programs. Reform would also improve coordination with entities outside 

Government and develop a data~driven approach to financial education that will increase 

the impact of the programs and make financial titerncy information more accessible. 

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WHY IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO 

This proposa! wou!d require the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) to develop recommendations 

for Federal financial literacy and education activitJ.es that wi!l be shared with the Office of Management 

and Budget before October 1, 2018. 

DEUVERJNG GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS IN THE 21sr CENTURY 
148 

The Administration will considerst1·eamlining and consolidation proposals as part of the Fiscal Year 2020 

Budget, indudlng but not limited to: 

Using an evidence~ based approach to articulate a niltlona! vision that outlines the appropriate role 

for the Fed era! Government and leverages the current work of non-profit organizations, the private 

sector, and State and local governments. 

Elimination and development of programs bJsed on hmv much knowledge participants are acquiring 

from the financial literacy and education program, as well as how likely the program is to result in 

behavior that leads to greater financial capability. 

Consolidation of financial literacy programs into fewer agencies, with a mandate that they consult 

with relevant experts in other agencies. 

Consolidation of financial literacy policy and research into a single agency or commission that would 

evaluate both existing programs and proposals for future programs. 

Challenges Posed by Status Quo 

In addition to the $250 million that the Federal Government spends annually on financial literacy and 

education programs and activities, $170 mi!lion is spent on technical assistance and education for 

entrepreneurs by the Smal! Business Administration, one component of which addresses financial 

literacy. Six of the more than 20 Federal agencies that administer financial literacy programs account for 

almost 90 percent of the Federol funds expended on financial literacy for individuals and households. 

Some areas of potential overlap and duplication among Federal financial education activities, include: 

Financial Counseling: The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP), the Department of Defense 

(DOD), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Department of the Interior, and 

the Department of Veterans Affairs a !I fund or provide gene rat or topic*specific financial counseling. 

• Retirement planning: BCFP, DOD, the Department of Labor (DOL), the Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS), the Offic~of Personnel Management, the Socia\ Security Administration, Jnd 

Treasury all support activities that address retirement planning and decision*making. 

Research: BCFP, DOL, the Department of Education (ED), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 

(FDIC), the Federal Reserve Board, HHS, HUD, and Treasury are supporting (or have recently supported) 

research and evaluation of financial Uter<1cy and education, 

Financial Education for military members: BCFP, 0001 and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 

aU administer financial education and counseling programs for mllltary members and their families. 

Financial Literacy for youth: BCFP, ED, FDIC and Treasury a!t support initiatives that uddress financial 

literacy for youth. 

Websites with financial education content: Many Federal 

web content on financial education (e.g., BCFP, FTC, the 

and Treasury). 

However, limited evaluation is performed by Federal agencies on the effectiveness and impact of their 

financial literacy programs. For example, only three agencies have recent!yeva!uated their programs using 

outcomes that measure changes ln behavior. Most agencies only measure accessibility and utilization 

of their activities, 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
149 

Scope of Treasury's Planned Review of Status Quo 

Currently, the FLEC is assessing the landscape of Federal financial literacy and education activities, with 

the goals of: 

Determining the appropriate Federal role and effective methods to support programs administered 

by non-profit organizations, the State and local governments, and others. 

Consolidating Federal financial and education efforts, including streamlining overlapping 

or duplicative programs. 

Identifying best practices and eliminating ineffective programs, activities, or practices. 

Developing high-quality, consistent Federal financial literacy and education curriculum and resources. 

Developing an effective mechanism for oversight and governance of Federal financial education 

programs to strengthen effectiveness and eliminate the risk of future overlap, duplication, and 

ineffectiveness. 

Estab!1shing governance and oversight to ensure that any new programs are aligned with the 

Government-wide vision. 

DEUVERING GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS IN THE 21'T CENTURY 
150 

Streamline Small Business Programs 

Small Business Administration and the Departments of Agriculture, 

Transportation, Treasury, & Veterans Affairs 

Summary of Proposal: This proposal consolidates the various Federal programs that assist small 

business owners secure access to capital and Fed era! Government contracts into the Small Business 

Administration (SBA). In instances where a Federal !ending or contracting certificate program is 

highly specialized or industry-specific, SBA's duplicative authority would be eliminated. 

THE CHALLENGE 

a critical role in our Nation's economic growth. Approximately ha!f of the U.S. 

nearly 58 miUion Americans are employed by our Nation's 30 million small 

businesses. Communities across the country rely heavily on the products, services, and jobs created by 

these Main Street businesses. Two oft he most important ways the Federal Government supports smaH 

business creation and growth Jre by working with private !enders to provide capital access, and making 

Government contracting opportunitles available to smaU businesses. 

Unfortunately, the GAO has repeatedly identified the Federal Government's current model for operating 

these programs as needing increased coordination and harmonization, citing duplicative programs at 

SBA and the U.S, Departments of Agriculture, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs. 

issues that arise from duplicative programs inc!ude: inconsistent standards and 

and participation; lack of consistent reciprocity between agencies and 

efficiencies and economies of scale. these issues is providing better service to 

maximizing the Federal Government's investments ln 

communities. 

THE OPPORTUNITY 

The various Federal sma!l business !ending and Government contracting programs represent ideal 

candidates for conso!idation, glven the overlap in their mission and delivery method. Centralizing these 

programs would provide an opportunity to assess and streamline participation requirements such as 

eligibil!ty criteria, application processes, and reporting. It would also help to ensure consistency in the 

application of small business certification criteria and reciprocal recognition across Federal agencies. 

Furthermore, itwou!d optimize the value of the Federal Government's small business programs by achieving 

!ong~term cost efficiencies through centralized operations and oversight functions. Streamlining these 

programs and rnuking them less burdensome would ultimately enable America's entrepreneurs to invest 

more of their time J.nd hard-earned profits in operating and growing their businesses. 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
151 

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WHY IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO 

This consolidation wilt improve services to three major stakeholders: 1) business owners seeking financing 

or contracting certifications; 2) the tenders that service Government-guaranteed loans; and 3) the Federal 

agencies that contract with certified small businesses. It would help strengthen and streamline SBA's 

operations across two of its primary program areas: 1) capital access; and 2) Government contracting support. 

Capital Access 

Financing is a key component of starting, operating, and expanding a business. However, access to 

capita! continues to be a hurdle for many entrepreneurs. SmaU business owners often do not have the 

same access to credit as larger businesses that can more readHy take on a traditional loan from a bank. 

New entrepreneurs may not have a credit score that can guarantee them a loan, especially on a new or 

innovative product. Entrepreneurs in emerging markets are more likely to be denied credit and often 

re!y on persona! savings or credit cards to sustain their business. Furthermore, access to capital can be 

especially problematic for groups historically underrepresented in traditional commercial lending. The 

Federal Government he!ps mitigate these market failures through programs designed to offer creditworthy 

businesses the abHity to obtain financing. 

Through its Office of Capita! Access, SBA fil!s gaps in the commercial !ending market and ensuresthatsmaH 

businesses are wel! positioned to access credit. It supports strategies that focus on providing reasonable 

credit terms and access to credit for minority~owned, women~owned, and veteran-owned smaU businesses 

and entrepreneurs. Where other small business loan and loan guarantee programs would 

be folded into the SBA's Office SBA's existing expertise in providing capital access to 

small businesses makes it the best agency to oversee this combined lending portfolio. In addition to 

streamlining assistance, this proposal would create the opportunity for more comprehensive and cost~ 

effective program oversight and Federal credit ris.k management, including loan and lender monitoring, 

predictive risk assessments and mitigation activities, rea! time reporting, t:~nd enforcement activities. 

Government Contracting Support 

The Federal Government is the largest procurer of good and services in the world, spending hundreds 

of billions of doHars annually and averaging nearly $90 billion in contracts to certified sma!! businesses 

eacll year. Contracting with the U.S. Government presents a businesses, and 

"the Congress has recognized its Importance by establishing a Federal contracts set-aside of 23 

percent forsmaH businesses. In addition, as a subset of this overall smaH business goal, the Government 

strives to award no less than 5 percent of contracts to smaU disadvantaged businesses and women-owned 

small businesses, and 3 percent to service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses and those in 

HUBZone locations. These purchasing decisions result in high-impact investments that help grow small 

businesses and stimulate local economies. 

Duplicative programs that support small business contracting would be consolidated into the SBA's Office 

of Government Contracting and Business Development. In the event that any overlapping programs require 

industry-specific economic these programs would remain at their respective agencies, and 

the SBA would eliminate Juthority. This proposal would create a "one-stop shop" within 

SBA for a !I Federal contracting certifications for both the participating smal! businesses and the Federal 

agencies seeking to meet their contracting requirements. This would result in reciprocal recognition of 

smal! business contracting certifications across aU Fed era! ilgencies and make consistent standards and 

processes for eligibility and participation across programs targeting similar constituencies. 

IJI '" O~El1VER!NG GOVERNMENT soLUTIONS !N THE :nsr cENTURY 
152 

The SBA currently provides expertise in this area, serving in an oversight role to ensure that the Government's 

contracting goals are achieved each year. !t also reports on Federal efforts to stimulate technological 

innovation and commercialization through small businesses, and provides unique services !ike the surety 

bond guarantee to support contractors who need bonds to access contracting markets. 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
153 

Consolidation of Certain Protective Details 

U.S. Marshals Service 

Summary of Proposal: This proposal would consolidate protective detai!satcertain civ!!ian Executive 

Branch agencies under the U.S. Marshals Service {USMS) in order to more effectively and efficiently 

monitor, assess, and respond to potential threats. Threat assessments would be conducted by the 

USMS with support from the U.S. Secret Service (USSS). Determinations as to whether protection 

would be provided and its size and scope would be made by the USMS in consultation with affected 

agency heads. 

THE CHALLENGE 

The protective details of Government officials, including cabinet officials and some sub~cabinet officials, 

vary widely in size, scope, budget, training, and statutory authorization. To provide more effective and 

necessary security overaU, this proposal would authorize USMS to manage protective details involving 

specified civilian Executive Branch agencies. Threat assessments would be conducted by the USMS with 

support from USSS and affected agencies upon request by the USMS. This proposal would not affect law 

enforcement or ml!itary agencies with explicit statutory authority to protect Executive Branch officials, 

including the Departments of Justice, State, Homeland Security, or Defense, USSS, or other non-civilian 

Instead, it vvou!d focus on standardizing protective detaits at civilian Executive Branch agencies 

derive protection from a USMS deputation or other source, and assuring that a uniform 

determination of threat level and security need is centrally made. 

THE OPPORTUNITY 

The USMS currently provides for the protection ofjudicia! and designated Federal Government officials by 

providing Deputy U.S. Marshals (DUSM) to serve !n a protective capacity, and assists in the protection of 

other officials by deputizing Government employees of other agencies to perform this function. Currently, 

the USMS provides Deputy U.S. Marshals for the Secretary of Education and the Deputy Attorney General's 

p1otective details. In addition, the agency deputizes Government employees of the Departments of 

Labor, Energy, Commerce, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, 

the lnterior, and the Environmental Protection Agency to assist in the protection of their cabinet- and 

sub-cabinet officials. While the USMS requires certain base!lnetraining and !aw enforcement requirements 

in order to approve a deputation, individuals serving on protective details vary in background, training, 

and experience. Furthermore, these t:~gencies have full autonomy in determining the size and scope 

of their details' activities, which vary based on a perceived threat and wiHingness to pay for protective 

services rather than the detection or assessment of existing threats. 

The USMS currently exercises threat assessment responsibility for aH matters related to members of the 

judiciary, court family, and other designated protectees through its Office of Protective Intelligence. The 

USSS currently exercises expertise in threat assessments through its Nation a! Threat Assessment Center 

(NTAC). NTAC provides guidance on threat assessment and training, both within the USSS and to law 

enforcement, public safety, and academic partners. Specifically, the Presidential Threat Protection Act of 

2000 authorizes the NTAC to provide consultation on complex threat assessment cases or plans, provide 

training in the area of threat assessments, and implement programs to promote the standardization of 

DELIVERING GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS IN THE 2P' CENTURY 
154 

Fed era! threat assessments, among other activities. The USSS is therefore weU~posltioned to support 

thE'! USMS on protection and threat assessn1ent, as needed. Based on these resources, a 

centralized be performed to determine the necessity for and extent of any protective detaiL 

Consolidation of resources related to certain protective details under one agencywou!d leverage expertise 

of Government agencies trained in protective missions and threat analysis, ensure more efficient use 

of Government resources, and provide designated Government officials with appropriate protection 

tailored to their individual circumstances. 

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WHY IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO 

Under this proposal, the USMS would be granted authority over designated protective details and 

provide its own personnel for the purposes of threat assessment and protection. Determinations 

as to whether protection would be provided and its size and scope would be made by the USMS, as 

delegated by the Attorney General in consultation with affected agency heads. The number of Deputy 

U.S. Marshals provided for any approved protection of an official would vary based on the individual's 

threat assessment and risk. This proposal would be phased in as necessary in order to avoid disruptive 

impacts to both USMS and protected officials. The Administration will consult with the Congress 

regarding uny need for additional legislative authority. Further, the Office of Management and Budget 

wiU coordinate with the Department of Justice and affected agencies on budgetary implications and 

necessary implementation guidance. 

Consolidation of certain protective details under USMS offers Government-wide benefits including, but 

not limited to: 

Standardization of Protective Service Levels 

Consolidating resources and authority for certain protective details underthe purview of the USMS would 

standardize those protective details Government-wide. USMS would work with USSS as necessary to 

determine threat levels for covered Federal officials in a consistent manner across a\! agencies. Protectees 

wou!d benefit from standard, high quality training, as we!! as the USMS' ability to set priorities and broader 

strategy across the force, an advantage over the current decentralized modeL Operational de-confliction 

and coardlnated processes would be easier and more efficient with fewer agencies providing protection 

for designated cabinet and sub-cabinet officials. Additionally, while the USMS requires genera! !aw 

enforcement training in order to approve a deputation, agency employees serving on protective details 

vary in background, capabilities, and Providing DUSMs wou!d ensure protectee 

has access to well-trained 

New Efficiencies 

Rather than employing separate protective details with separate resources and authorities, the USMS 

would professionalize and standardize this mission across multiple Executive Branch agencies. 

REFORM PLAN AND REDRGANIZAT10N RECOMMENDATIONS 
155 

Small Grants Consolidation 

U.S. Agency for International Development, Inter-American Foundation, 

and U.S. African Development Foundation 

Summary of Proposal: The President's Budget proposes to consolidate the small grants functions, 

expertise, and grantmakingfrom the !nter~American Foundation (IAF) and U.S. African Development 

Foundation (ADF) into the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) beginning in Fiscal 

Year (FY) 2019. The consolidation would be a significant step to reduce the proliferation of Federal 

International affairs agencies that are operating today, while also elevating community-led, "local 

works" small grants as a development and diplomacy too! for the U.S. Government. 

THE CHALLENGE 

As a development and diplomacy toot, small grants allow the U.S. Government to engage directly with 

local organizotions in poor and remote comrnunlties to support lives and Uve!ihoods and bui!d goodwi!! 

among !oca! populations, often within policy priority countries that the United States seeks to 

stabilize and/or assist in their journey to At present, multiple U.S. Government agencies 

provide small grants assistance; however, each faces unique challenges in doing so. Authorizations for 

carrying out small grants work are also long outdated or provided 1n annual appropriations only. 

As the U.S. Government's lead development agency, USAID has experience in implementing small grants 

in political transitions, but lts efforts to do so in !ong-term development contexts are more nascent, and 

often more labor-intensive per assistance dollar than traditional aid mechanisms. Meanwhlle, IAF and 

ADF face the fixed overhead costs associated with running smaH independent agencies, which continue 

to comprise a share of their overJH budgets, even as they have man(lged to keep variable 

costs per grant 

JHE OPPORTUNITY 

This proposal wou!d support the USA!D Redesign's goa! of helping countries on thelr journey to 

self-reliance, whlle also furthering the core mission of the foundations to support Uvelihoods in poor and 

remote communities across Latin AmericL~, the Caribbean, and Sub-Saharan Africa, leading to an aligned 

and enhanced approach to sma!! grants for the U.S. Government. 1t would consolidate !AF and ADF's 

deep expertise, relationships, and functions into USAID, thereby enhancing USA! D's capabilities while also 

reducing the duplication and overhead costs associated with having three agencies carry out small grants 

work. The proposal would better align the two foundations with U.S. foreign policy objectives and global 

development programs, while elevating community-ted, "local works" small grants as a development and 

diplomacy tool and al!owing for the sharing of best pmctices across USA!D. 
156 

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WHY IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO 

This proposal is consistent with the Center for Global Development's report entitled A Practical Vision 

for U.S. Development Reform (2017), which advised re-visiting the role of the foundations, in light of their 

overlap in mission and function with USAID. The Center Jdvlsed considering the transfer of the certain 

elements oft he foundations' operating models into USAID, {<potentially including outside advisory boards 

and flexible tools for grant~rnoking to local civil society groups in developing countries." The Congress 

has long recognized the value in small grants as an assistance~delivery mechanism, from establishing !AF 

and ADF in the late 1960s and early 1980s1 respectively, to introducing a directive in annual appropriations 

over the past decade to enhance USAID's capabilities in this area. This proposal would enable USAID to 

better achieve the intent of that directive. 

Through the consolidation, USAIDwou!d capitalize on the existing expertise, capacity, relatlonshlps 1 and 

toolsthatADF and !AF provide, includingthelrregionaland rnarketsegmentemphases, in orderto reinforce 

the U.S. Government's bHatera! development efforts. In return, USAID would offer these programs a 

platfonn that would better integrate them with the Agency's existing global development programs, more 

cohesively serve U.S. foreign policy objectives, and increase organizational efficiencies through reducing 

duplication and overhe-ad. The consolidation would also serve to elevate community-led, "local works'' 

small grants as a development and diplomacy tool for the U.S. Government, and it would allow for the 

sharing and integrating of best practices across USAID through the proposed Development, Democracy, 

and Innovation Bureau. As p.art of the proposal, lAF and ADF would begin to wind down as independent 

foundations in FY 2019, and would transfer their grants and select programmatic staff to USAID. 

In support of this consolidation proposal, the FY 2019 Budget requests a total of $55 million, across the 

following accounts: 

$40 million in State/USAID's Economic Support and Development Fund to support IAF and ADF's 

grantmaking via USAID, beginning in FY 2019 (with $20 million per region); 

$7 million in USA! D's Operating Expenses account, to support the absorption of select programmatic 

staff from IAF and ADF in FY 2019; and 

$8 million for one-tlme costs to support the foundations' orderly closeouts in FY 2019, in A OF's 

($5 million) and IAF's ($3 million) direct appropriations. 

ln recognition of the foundations' regional expertise, the FY 2019 Budget proposes merging !AF's grants 

and select personnel into USA!D's Latin America and Caribbean Bureau, and ADF's grants and select 

personnel into USA!D'sAfrica Bureau. The work previously performed by the foundations would be initially 

programmed out of stand-alone offices within the regional Bureaus, but would be further integrated 

into the region a! Bureaus overtime. Overseas, !AF and ADF's work wou!d be fully integrated with USAID 

Missions. Certain cross-cutting functions (such as the monitoring and evaluation ofsmaH grants) would 

be housed centrally at USA!D within the proposed Development, Democracy, and Innovation Bureau, 

so that such technical expertise and best practlces cou!d be leveraged for other regions and the Agency 

as a whole. 

The proposal would also entail establishing a subcommittee under USA I D's Advisory Committee on 

Voluntary Foreign Aid for lAF and ADF's former boards to remain involved with the foundations' work 

going forward and to advise the Administrator on smatl grant activities generaUy, and on the smooth 

transition of the foundations' functions. 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
157 

Transition to Electronic Government 

National Archives and Records Administration (with the Department of Homeland 

Security and Social Security Administration) 

Summary of Proposal: This proposal would transition Federal agencies' business processes 

and record keeping to a fully electronic environment, and end the National Archives and Records 

Administration's (NARA) acceptance of paper records by December 31, 2022, This would improve 

agencies' efficiency, effectiveness, and responsiveness to citizens by converting paper-based processes 

to electronic workf!ows, expanding online services, and enhancing management of Government 

records, data, and information. 

THE CHALLENGE 

Feder at agencies coHective!y spend billions of dollars on paper and paper-based records management 

practices. Even after decades of effort, far too many Federal Government services are stitl primarily 

paper-based. This forces NARA and Federal agencies to devote resources to actively processing, movlng, 

and later maintaining large volumes of paper records {requiring facilities, staff, and support contracts), 

even as electronic communication and systems have dramatically increased the volume of information 

agencies must manage. To date, efforts to address this issue have been inconsistent and ineffective 

across agencies. 

The Federal Government must confront this challenge by taking a comprehensive, lifecycle approach 

to records management On the front end, it must cease paper processes to the extent possible, which 

wi!l enable more efficient and effective delivery of services. Then, on the back end, it must support 

stream tined and secure electronic records management. These actions wit! facilitate citizen services 

~and benefit the taxpayer by creating efficiencies and preserving public C~ccess to Fed era! records. 

THE OPPORTUNITY 

As agencies implement electronic processes in place of paper, it wiH be easier for the public to connect 

with the Federal Government, and apply for and receive services, improving customer satisfaction. 

Electronic records wit! reduce processing times and decrease the probabHityof!ost or missing information. 

For example, the Department of Homeland Security's {DHS) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 

(USCIS) currently ships most immigration applications among multiple facilities, such as tockbox and 

pre-processing centers, prior to adjudication, which is both costly and time consuming. 

Electronic records wiU greatly improve agencies' ability to provide public access to Federal records, 

promoting transparency and accountability. Over the long term, this also wi!! reduce agencies' records 

management and storage costs and streamline the records management process, freeing resources for 

other high priority activities. This wHI also allow agencies to provide more timely and accurate assistance 

to their customers. 

DELIVERING GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS IN THE 21~' CENTURY 
158 

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WHY IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO 

The Federal Records Act (FRA) authorizes NARA to issue Government~wide guidance to agencies on how 

to preserve their records and directs NARA to maintain a permanent archive of Government records that 

will be preserved indefinitely. NARA policies and regulations cover the entire life cycle of records, from 

creation to use to stor21ge or disposaL This proposal would use those authorities to drive agencies to 

reassess and modernize their paper~based processes Government-wide. 

Currently, NARA holds more than 5 million cubic feet (equivalent to 12.5 billion pages) of archival records, 

and anticipates that an additional 3 million cubic feet of permanent records wHI be transferred by Fiscal 

Year (FY) 2030. Additionally, NARA's Federal Records Centers Program stores over 28 million cubic 

feet of Federal Government records on a temporary basis for other Federal agencies, costing agencies 

approximately $200 minion annuaHy in payments to NARA. Agencies also acquire records management 

and storage services from commercia! providers. At the same time, agencies aretryingto manage a surge 

in their electronic records. NARA managed archival electronic records equivalent to 12 billion pJges in 

2005, which grew to 34 billion in 2017. 

nar1er· ba:sed processes diverts resources away from Investments 

system. Without focused attention to this challenge, 

higher costs 

This proposal woutd transition Federal agencies' business processes and recordkeeping to a fuHy 

electronic environment, and end NARA's acceptance of paper records by December 31 1 2022. Establishing 

a deadline by which NARA wiU no longer accept paper records wiU force agencies to direct attention and 

resources to this issue in a way that has not occurred previously. To ensure this necessary transformation 

away from paper-based processes would occur across aU of the Executive Branch, NARA will coordinate 

with Federal agencies to develop and provide the guidance, technical assistance1 and services they will 

need to implement this proposaL The Genera! Services Administration would play a supporting role by 

connecting agencies with corn mercia! digitization services available in the private sector. This w1U allow 

agencies to more efficiently procure needed services 1 helping expedite the electronic records process. 

U.S, Citizenship and Immigration Services Efforts to Expand Electronic Records 

Even as the Administration moves toward electronic records across the entire Federal 

Government, some individual agencies have already started to critical steps toward this goal. 

For example~ the USC!S National Records Center has centralized millions of paper records into a single 

facility, dram<:~tically integrity of USC!S' and cutting the time spent on file 

even months to only a few days. 

USC!S already offers electronic Wing capability for a r~Jplacement green card (l-90) and application for 

naturalization (N-400}. It also plans to achieve end-to-end digital processing for ali of the immigration 

benefits it adjudicates by the end of2020. of all applications and evidence 

through adjudication, decision making, and communication c:Jppliconts. USC!S witl create digital 

immigrntion records at the point of receipt that serve as the official record throughout the immigration 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
159 

lifecycle. This will increase efficiency and reduce risk to the immigration system. To further eliminate 

paper, USCIS !s moving to a fully automated Freedom of Information Act processing system. A subset of 

this electronic capability will be released to the public in summer 2018, and full deployment is scheduled 

to be complete by the end of 2018. Requesters will be able to fi!e requests and receive responses online. 

These efforts also build on other important work USCIS has already done that uses electronic records to 

services and increase efficiency, such as with its E-Vcrify system which electronically 

compares from an employee's Form !-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, to data from 

DHS and the Socia! Security Administration to confirm employment eligibility. 

Socia{ Security Administration Efforts to Expand Electronic Records 

The Socia! Security Administration (SSA) also ls reducing paper processes, relying on an expanding suite 

of automated and online options to conduct business with the public. In FY 2017, the public conducted 

over 155 million transactions via the SSA website, rather than through paper forms. SSA expects the 

number of successfully completed transactions in FYs 2018 and 2019 to increase by 35 ml!!ion each year 

over the prior year. Additionally, SSA estimates that in FY2019 about 50 percent of those submittingSSA 

retirement forms, or about three million peop!e, wl!! use SSA's online services to complete their forms; 

this used to be a wholly paper-based, in-person transaction. 

DEliVERING GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS lN THE llsr CENTURY 
160 

Customer Experience (CX) Improvement Capability 

Government-wide 

Summary of Proposal: This proposal wou!d transform the way Americans interact with the Federal 

Government by providing a modern, streamlined, and customer-centric experience for citizens, 

businesses, and other customers, comparable to leading private-sector organizations. The Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) will provide leadership and establish a Government-wide capability 

to partner with Federal agencies to identify key customer groups (e.g., farmers, veterans), map their 

journeys from end·to-end and across agencies and programs, and llJ1fU' : 1:r · expe; !ence 

delivery channels and organizational sitos. This will be done in partnership the U.S. Digital 

Service and the GenerJI Services Administration (GSA} Technology Transformation Service with 

contributions from specific involved agencies. This capability wm also serve as a central resource 

to better manage organizational change and ensure reform proposals achieve mission, service, and 

stewardship objectives. 

As individual agencies m<Jke investments- particularly information 

the capabHlty to customer experience across agency silos wlU 

2l 't Century needs expectations. At the same time, improving can lead to greater 

efficiency and effectiveness in agency operations. This will require technical expertise, enhznced 

business processes, management support and new Government authorities to create cross-agency, 

Government-wide solutions. 

THE OPPORTUNITY 

Establishing a Government-wide customer experience improvement capability wou!d support existing agency 

efforts and create new Government~wide approaches to improve the way the public interacts with the Federal 

Government. ln partnership with agencies, this new function would identify key Federal customers (e.g,, 

veterans, students, farmers, retirees), map their journeys as they interact with Fed era! agencies, and work to 

streamline those interactions across delivery channels and organizational sHos, It would work with Fed era! 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
161 

organizationsthatcontrol resources and services and convene partner agencies and programs to harmonize 

business processes with a more holistic customer-centric modeL !n many cases, Federal agencies already devote 

considerable resources to customer experience, and these existing efforts will benefit from more end~to-end 

visibility into customer needs and access to broader perspectives and too! sets. Further, this capability will 

support the U.S. Digital Service (USDS) and other information technology modernization efforts by evaluating 

how Federal services are delivered and identifying priority opportunities to leverage technology to make service 

delivery rnore customer~centric and efficient. Not only has this approach been proven to improve services 

in the private sector, but it also offers opportunities to reduce overlap and fragmentation and reduce costs. 

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WHY IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO 

The application of these tools and approaches has been proven in the private sector. Leading practice in 

the private sector now trends to having an individual Customer Experience Officer reporting directly to the 

CEO, supported by teams that both advocate for customer needs at an enterprise level as well as embed 

practices into 1ndividua! business units across the organization. These CX organizations have developed 

a dear set of standards, toots, and capabilities- such as the use of personas and customer journey maps 

-and have demonstrated their utility acmss diverse organizations and industries. 

Applying these tools and capabilities tot he Government has also been proven to work. Through USDS and 

GSA's Office of 18F, the Governrnent has recruited top-tier talent in information technology and business 

process re-engineering. These individua!s are helping the agencies that serve customers incorporate 

user-centered design into plans to modernize digital services- and demonstrating those investments yietd 

a high return. Forexampte, for many years small business owners have been extremely frustrated by s!ow, 

bureaucratic, paper-based processes at the Small Business Administration (SBA) that were not responsive to 

their needs. Due to the USDS team at the SBA, small businesses can now app!y for Government Contracting 

Programs online in about 1 hour instead of days. They can also secure key information on locating their 

business by using a mapping application that updates in near real-time. 

Further, individual agencies have developed enterprise-level customer experience capabllities that are 

delivering direct results to citizens, such as the Journeys ofVeterans Map, which has become the centerpiece 

of the Department of Veterans Affairs· (VA) success in presenting one face to veterans. For example1 

veterans have historically had a frustrating experience navigating over 1,000 VA phone numbers and more 

than l,T70 VA contact centers across its many Unes of business. To address this chaHenge, VA is now in the 

process of integrating backend data systems and providing veterans a single front door. It estimates that 

these efforts wi!l produce a cost avoidance of approximately $2 bi!!ion dollars over five years while also 

improving veterans' experiences. 

This proposal envisions building on these individual efforts by adding the capability to tackle customer 

experience challenges throughout the Government. To get started, this capability and relevant agencies 

wHl conduct research to identify the most significant opportunities for customer-centric change, develop 

customer journey maps which cross organizational sitos, and then develop action plans to execute service 

Improvements. As needed, agencies would partnerw1th USDSand GSA'sTechnologyTransformation Service 

to enhance their digital services. One particular area of focus would likely be the creation of user-focused 

Digital Front Doors- rebuilding Government web properties to focus !ess on Government structure and more 

on user experience. For exam pte Farmers.gov, designed by the U.S. Depmtmen-t of Agriculture, delivers the 

information, tools, and flrst~hand advice built around the needs of the people who produce our food, fiber, 

flora, and fueL 

DELIVERING GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS IN THE 21>r CENTURY 
162 

This capability wH! also serve as central resource to better manage organizational change. Managing 

process improvements across organizations is comp!ex1 especially given the legal structures, size, .Jnd 

cultures of Federal agencies. It wi!! partner with agency leadership to support interagency change 

management, including project p!anning1 convening interagency meetings and facilitating collaboration, 

and sharing best practices on change management. 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
163 

Next Generation Federal Student Aid 

Processing & Servicing Environment 

Department of Education 

Summary of Proposal: The Next Generation (Next Gen) Financial Services Environment that wHl 

benefit Federal Student Aid's (FSA) customers and save taxpayer millions of dollars, will create an 

improved, wodd-c!ass customer experience forFSA's more than 42 mi!!ion customers, while creating 

a more aglle and streamlined operating modeL FSA's initial focus wi!t be on modernizing capabilities 

related to the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA"") form and the servicing and repayment 

of customer loans, with additional work to come to improve the experience throughout the student 

aid life cycle. 

THE CHALLENGE 

FSA helps provide educational opportunity for more than 42 million students pursuing higher education. 

lt manages one of the largest consumer loan portfolios in the country, rivallng those of major flnanclal 

institutions. FSA's customers deserve a wor!d<!ass experience, but they do not consistently receive 

one today. Currently, customers interface with multiple brands and vendors throughout the student 

aid life cyde, creating a disjointed experience. Further, customers want additional capabilities and 

functiona!ities to enable them to make more informed decisions and make their loan experience easier 

and more accessible. The current student loan servicing environment is a major barrier to FSA's ability 

to provide outstanding service to borrowers and taxpayers. 

THE OPPORTUNITY 

The Department of Education is pursuing a new approach to FSA processing and servicing wlth a 

modernized, innovative, and integrated architecture that wlU benefit FSA's customers and save taxpayers 

miHions of dollars. The Next Gen Financial Services Environment wiH create an improved, wor!d-dass 

customer experience for FSA's more than 42 million customers, white creating a morea.gHe and stream tined 

operating modeL 

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WHY IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO 

The Next Generation Processing and Servicing Environment is being designed to meet customer expectations, 

improve how customers consume services and utilize different technology and media platforms, and 

further enhance borrower protections. The new system requires the separation of database housingj 

system processing, and customer account servicing so that cost efficiencies can be achieved and current 

state-of-the-art technologies can be deployed and evolve in the future. Through this market research, 

FSA has refined its strategy to implement the Next Generation Processing and Servicing Environment. 

DELIVERING GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS IN THE 21sr CENTURY 
164 

Based on this research and discussions with a broad range of internal and external experts tn student 

loan finance and information technology services, the Department has developed a plan for a Next 

Generation Financial Services Environment that will leverage best~in-buslness technology to improve 

customer experience and outcomes and drive savings for taxpayers by reducing FSA adrnin!strative 

costs. The key to this transformation will be a comprehensive, Department of Education~branded 

customer engagement layerthatwiU create an environment through which the Department's customers 

w!U receive dear, consistent information and readily accessible se!f~service options at every stage of 

the student aid lifecycle. FSA will emphasize a mobile-first, mobile-complete strategy enabling and 

encouraging customers to fulfill all their needs on mobile devlces- complemented by web, phone, chat, 

and in-person capabilities. 

This engagement layer will foster a life-long relationship with customers, from before they apply for 

aid as high school students through when they plan for their children and grandchildren's education. 

It wi!l transform FSA into a trusted source of information and greatly simplify the process of helping 

customers choose the best options to help them manage their student debt. !n addition, the creation of 

-·~~t§!nd0rdized systems, processes, and procedures-combined with the indus ion of dear performance 

expectations tied wherever possible to explicit contract incentives and disincentives-is expected to 

sirnplify oversight ofVHldor performance and better ensure compliance with consumer protection and 

customer servlce stvndards. 

The Next Generation Financial Services Environment would provide customers a seam tess, world-class 

experience with FSA from application through repayment. a mobile-first, mobile~complete experience 

that allows customers to seomtessly interact with FSA to muke informed decisions about their educational 

experience, and improved back-end technology and operations, to allow FSA to innovate how it interacts 

with customers and the types of products and services it can offer. 

FSA plans to leverage the latest in middleware, processing~ data storage~ and security to create a 

more efficient, cost-effective, and secure technical infrastructure. While Federal student loans are 

uniquely complex, the Department believes that leveraging modern commercia! engagement and 

technical capabilities is likely to reduce FSA's operating costs over the long-term, once the solution 

is fully implemented. 

FSA has issued and will continue to issue solicitations focused on account processing and to an servicing 

in 2018. Significant customer-facing milestones wit! be realized throughout 2019. The Department plans 

to have significant elements of the Next Generation Financial Services Environment in place prior to the 

expi~ation of the current servicing contracts in 2019. 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
165 

Solving the Federal Cybersecurity 

Workforce Shortage 

Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Management and Budget 

Summary of Proposal: The Federal Government struggles to recruit and retain cybersecurity 

professionals due to a shortage of talent along with growing demand for these employees across 

the public and private sectors. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), working in coordination with all Federal departments and 

agencies, wH! establish a unified cyber workforce capability across the clviUan enterprise. This 

Administration wit! work towards a standardized approach to Federal cybersecurity personnel, 

ensuring Government-wide visibility into talent gaps, as well Js unified solutions to fiU those gaps 

in a timely and prioritized manner, 

THE CHALLENGE 

The Federal Government struggles to recruit and retain cybersecurity professionals due to a shortage of, 

and growing dernand for, cybersecurity talent across the public and private sectors. The workforce shortage 

compounds the Government's challenges in responding to a constantly evolving threat environment and 

Jchievlng its many IT-dependent missions, 

ln the past, each Federal department and agency was responsible for addressing Its own cybersecurlty 

workforce gaps independently, which has led to disaggregated and redundant Federal programs. 

As a result, the Government lacks a comprehensive, risk-derived understanding of which cybersecurity 

ski!lsets the Federal enterprise needs to develop and which positions are most critical to filL 

Moreover, the manner in which departments and agencies recruit, hire, train, retain, and compensate 

cybersecur1ty personnel varies by agency. This uneven approach has created internal competition for 

talent, which in turn creates disparities and discontinuities that degrade agencies' ability to defend 

networks from malicious actors and respond to cyber incidents. A unified <~pproach to attracting and 

retaining cybersecur!ty talent within the Federal Government would better support the Government's 

cybersecurity enterprise. 

FinaHy, there have not been continuous, strategic investments made in U.S. education programs to 

strengthen a pipeline for future cybersecurity talent. The abundance of redundant Federal programs 

focused on strengthening cybersecurity education illustrates how the Government's role building the 

cybersecur1ty talent pipeline remains HI-defined. 

THE OPPORTUNITY 

This Administration can strengthen Federal cybersecurity and improve agencies' ab11ityto carry out their 

missions by identifying and closing workforce gaps in the near term, and can ensure long-term viability 

by building the cybersecuritytalent pipeline. 
166 

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WHY IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO 

To improve recruitment and retention of highly qualified cybersecurity professionals to the Fed era! 

Government, this Administration will develop a standardized approach to identifying, hiring1 developing, 

and retaining a talented cybersecurity workforce in a timely and prioritized manner. 

ln the near term, this Administration wit! prioritize and accelerate on~going efforts to reform the 

way that the Federal Government recruits, evaluates, selects, pays, and places cyber talent across 

the enterprise. 

Taking Stock of the CurrentCybersecurity Workforce and Identifying Gaps 

Human Capital personnel from across the Executive Branch are currently working with the Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM) to categorize the Federal cybersecurity workforce, using the National 

Initiative for Cybersecurity Education CybersecurityWorkforce Framework (NICE Framework, as required 

by the Cybersecurity Workforce Assessment Act of2015). By Fall2018, the Federal Government will have 

catalogued the entire cybersecurity workforce to better understand our current set of knowledge, skH!s, 

abilities, and identify any gups; this catalog wilt give us Government-wide insight into where our most 

pressing needs are, and, for the first time, enable the development of an enterprise-wide approach to 

the recruitment, placement, and training of cybersecurity talent 

Using the NICE Framework analysis, the Federal Government will be able to determine which workforce 

gaps are most critical to address the current cybersecurltythreat landscape. DHS, as the lead agency for 

the protection of Federal !T networks, is best positioned to drive this prioritization with Federal agencies 

and OMB. By the first quarter of Fiscal Year (FY) 2019, all CFO Act agencies, in coordination with DHS and 

OMB, wi!l develop a list of critical vacancies across their organizations. By the end ofFY 2019, a !I CFO and 

non-CFO Act agencies wi!l have a prioritized list of cr1ticat vacancies. OMB and DHS wH! analyze these 

lists and work with OPM to develop a whole-of-government approach to identifying or recruiting new 

employees or reskHling existing employees in FY 2019. 

Developing Innovative Recruitment, Retention, and Mobility Strategies 

As agencies prioritize their cyber workforce needs, they will likely need to adopt innovative hiring 

techniques to ensure the best and brightest cyberta!ent can seamlessly enter the Federal Government. 

To address this challenge, the Department of Homeland Security received authority, through the 2014 

B-order Patrol Pay Reform Act, to modernize the traditional personnel system. With this new authority, 

DHS Is working to create a new Federal hiring system caUed the Cyber Talent Management System 

(CTMS}, exempting DHS from many of the requirements and restrictions in existing law under Title 5 for 

hiring and compensation ofcybersecurity professionals. With an agile and innovative personnel system, 

DHS will be better equipped to compete for cyber talent with the private sector-speeding up the hiring 

process, attracting talent from non-traditional educational backgrounds, using innovative tools to assess 

applicants, and offering more flexible performance~based compensation. DHS wH! also be able to align 

prospective cybersecurity talent to the most pressing cybersecurity needs and wiU allow these technical 

professionals to accelerate their careers as rapidly as their aptitudes a !low. In order to implement CTMS, 

by the first quarter of FY 2019 OMB, through its Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), will 

work with DHS to promulgate the necessary regulatory notices. By the end of FY 2019, DHS wiH work 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGANIZATION. RECOMMENDATIONS 
167 

with OMB and all Federal agencies to measure the performance of CTMS and determine how to expand 

the system so that aU departments and agencies can leverage it to address their personnel gaps. 

One of the main hindrances to a sec:~mtess entry into the Federal Government is the security clearance 

ptocess. The success of this initiative partly hinges on the success ofthe Government's security clearance 

reform initiative, as discussed in a separate Executive Branch reorganization proposal in this Volume. !n 

addition to the Government-wldesecurityc!earunce solution, OMB, DHS, and OPM wil! work with agencies 

to review workforce characteristics to rationalize security clearance requirements in order to expedite 

the vetting and onboardlng process. 

The NICE Framework Federal workforce assessment is expected to confirm whnt has been known for 

some time: that cybersecurity employees' skills and competencies vary across the Government. OMB 

will consutt with DHS to standardize training for cybersecurity employees, and will work to develop an 

enterprise-wide training process for Governn1ent cybersecurity employees. 

As part of creating a modern hiring and compensation system that rewards cyber expertise, the Executive 

Branch should also evaluate opportunities to make cybersecurity positions more mobile than traditional 

Government jobs. F!exibitities that at! ow workers to easily move from one position to another, or from 

one agency to another, would appeal to cyber talent in the agile and fast-paced cybersecurity industry. 

This mobility is also useful during a majorcybersecurity incident, a Hawing agencies to surge capacity for 

incident response activities. OMS, in coordination with departments and agencies, wilt develop a work 

plan to implement this initiative by the end of FY 2018. Departments and agencies will begin to exercise 

these authorities by the end of FY 2019. 

-As an ct!ternative or supplement to surge capacity, a mobi!e workforce will allow agencies to surge 

capacity for incident response activities. OMB, DHS, and DOD wiU evaluate what workforce gaps might 

exist that would be needed during a major Federal cybersecurity incident to determine the requirements 

for a Federal cybersecurity reservist program. As part of this analysis, OMB, DHS, and DOD will evaluate 

the existing authorities of Federal agencies to rapidly mobilize talent, including those of the U.S. Digital 

Service, which recruits talent from the private sector. These organizations wil! also evaluate the feasibility 

of extending a reservist program to support non"Federal major cybersecurity incidents within the United 

States, such as those affecting critical infrastructure. These programs wit! be coordinated with existing 

cyber services, including those in the National Gu<:~rd. 

Reskilling Employees to Fill High-Value Cybersecurity Roles 

!n addition to hiring new cybersecurity ta!ent, the Government must look for opportunities to maximize 

the potential of its existing workforce. This includes efforts to res kilt emptoyC'es whose skills have become 

tess relevant due to automation. OM13, DHS, and OPM will build aptitude and skl!ls assessments to 

identify and select current Government staff who can be res killed to fill critically-needed cybersecurity 

jobs. By res killing the current workforce, agencies will be able to quickly shift its workforce into the 

highest-priority vacancy gaps. OMB and DHS will establish a job reskilling work plan by the first quarter 

of FY 2019. OMB and DHS will then update the CIO Council on a quarterly basis on the implementation 

of the reskilling work plan. 

DELIVERING GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS !N THE 21'' CENTURY 
168 

Building a Pipeline of Cybersecurity Talent 

White solving the immediate needs of the FederJI workforce is a major chaHenge, the Administration 

wiU e~lso work to educate America's youth to build an enduring cybersecurity talent pipeline. As part of 

the FY 2020 Budget development process, OMB wil! evaluate options to rationalize the size and scope of 

current Federal cybersecurity education programs, including the National Science Foundation (NSF)'s 

CyberCorps, the Scholarship for Service program, the National Security Agency (NSA)/DHS Centers for 

Academic Excellence program, NSF and NSA's GenCyber Program) the Department of Labor's apprenticeship 

program, DHS's Cybersecurity Education and Training Assistance Program, the U.S. Army Cyber Center 

of Excellence, and the U.S. Navy Information Operations Command program, among oth.ers. 

While the cybersecurity workforce shortage has been a known chaUenge for Federal agencies, no other 

Administration has taken a whole-of-Government approach to fixing it. OMB and DHS !oak forward to 

solving this major cha!!enge through smart analysis and creative solutions. 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
169 

The GEAR Center 

Government-wide 

Summary of Proposal: This proposal would establish a public-private partnership to help 

the Government respond to innovative technologies, business practices, and research findings 

that present opportunities to improve mission delivery, services to citizens, and stewardship of 

public resources. The Government Effectiveness Advanced Research (GEAR) Center would be a 

non-governmental public-private partnership that would engage researchers, academics, non-profits, 

and private industry from dlsdplines ranging from behavioral economics, to computer science, to 

design thinking to use creative, data-driven, and interdisciplinary approaches to re-imagine and 

realize new possibilities in how citizens and Government interact. 

THE CHALLENGE 

Most Federal Government entities and programs were designed many decades ago, whHe still others 

have their organizational roots aligned to the missions of the 19th Century. Their designers could not 

have anticipated how technology and society would evolve or how the mission demands on the Federal 

Government would evolve in the 21'~ Century. Government has also been slower than the private sector 

to adapt operations to new realities. The bottom llne is that the Government has fallen behind the curve, 

with reported decreases in trust1 and !ower customer satisfaction". The Inability to keep pace with the 

private sector on adoption of technology has Ukely contributed to these failures to meet expectations as 

we!! as inefficient use of resources. This proposal makes progress toward a future vision of a more efficient 

and effective Government that provides a !eve! of service that citizens deserve. 

Although disparate research is available in the public and private sector, there is little work directed 

toward providing a forward-looking view on how the operating entities of Executive Branch should 

evolve management practices fort he 2l't Century. The Executive Branch currently lacks the capability 

to work with State and toea! governments, businesses, and institutions of higher education to assess the 

long-term strategic needs oft he Government enterprise, and to "test and learn" how to apply innovative 

approaches to meeting the mission, service and stewardship needs of the 21': Century. This capability 

is needed to effectively apply theory to practice in a low-risk environment. 

THE OPPORTUNITY 

The GEAR Center would be a public-private partnership bringing together experts from disciplines 

ranging frorn behavioral economics, to computer science, to design thinking, in order to take a creative, 

data-driven, and interdisciplinary approach to imagining and realizing new possibilities in hmv citizens 

and government interact. 

1 Pew Research CentBr, May,2017, "Public Trust in Government Remains Near Historic Lows as Partisan Attitudes Shift" 

2 https:/twww.theacsi.orgjnews-Jnd-r£>sources/customer-satisfaction-reportsjreports-2017jacsi-reti1il-report-2017. 

DELIVERING GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS IN THE 21"1 CENTURY 
170 

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WHY IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO 

To establish the GEAR Center, the General Services Administration {GSA) could, for example, issue a new 

Challenge under the America COMPETES Act", and as a parallel effort, issue a Request for Information 

(not leading to a traditional contract but to get more information on the art of the possible) to maximize 

input from the public, universities, and industry to show transparency while promoting innovation from 

the largest group possible. 

New "Challenges" under the America COMPETES Act provide agencies with the authority to conduct 

prize competitions to spur innovation~ solve tough problems, and advance their core mission, Priz12 

competitions under this new statute may be funded jointly by more than one agency and by the private 

sector, These challenges can be monetary or non-monetary, and they al!ow for multiple phases of 

engagements, ideations, and competitions. The America COMPETES Act authority offers a flexible and 

fast method to obtain input from a wide swath of the public, including industry, non-profits, universities, 

and other entities. 

Based on the results of the Challenge, the GEAR Center could be established at a university, think tank, or 

other prominent research institution as a public-private partnership to inform critical areas for programs 

and services to meet the needs of the American public. The GEAR Center would caU upon researchers, 

academics, non-profits, and private industry to help test hypotheses, rapidly prototype new strategies 

and mode!s, and help the Government anticipate and respond to changes in technology with implications 

for service to citizens and Government mission. 

The Center would provide the Federal Government with the opportunity to not only catch up to where 

the private sector services and capabilities are today, but to !ay the groundwork for where Government 

operations and services need to be in five, 10, or 20 years or more by bringing together researchers, 

academics, non-profits, and private industry to inform leaders in the Fed era! Government of the future 

delivery models for programs Jnd services that meet the needs of the American pub!ic. This CenterwiU 

enable the testing of hypotheses and shape future direction in order to help the Government anticipate 

and respond to changes in technology and society with implications for how the Government can better 

serve its citizens. For examp!e, the GEAR Center could examine the impacts to Government that are 

!ikety to occur due to broader economic forces (e.g., self-driving cars, automation}, improving service ln 

prugrtlms that rate the worst in terms of public feedback {e.g., immigration system, farmers), cmd exploring 

strategies to ieverage Big Data and manage data as an asset across Government silos. 

Developing this capacity supports innovation as an engine to transform the public's r-xperience with 

Government. Researchers wi!l validate and/or develop improved ways to serve the needs and desires of 

the customers of Government services, and rethink the experience of Governrnent~pub!ic interactions. 

Unltcd States.' 

Act of 2010. 

REFORM PlAN AND REORGAN!ZAT!ON RECOMMENDATIONS 
171 

Further, the GEAR Center would provide capacity to explore questions concerning how Government 

c:1n be-st harness technological advances to address evolving challenges concerning citizen interactions 

with the Government, Federal workforce skill/reskilling requirements, the leveraging of Big Data, and 

collaboration with the private sector via grant-making, procurement and public-private partnerships. 

1n addition, it would explore opportunities to better integrate public and private sector innovative fee for 

service and co-investment models to ensure that infrastructure fort he digital age receives appropriate 

investments and attention. 
172 

Transfer of Background Investigations from the 

Office of Personnel Management to 

the Department of Defense 

U.S. Office of Personnel Management and Department of Defense 

Summary of Proposal: Thatthe National Background Investigations Bureau (NBIB), currently under 

the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), be transferred to the Department of Defense (DOD). 

THE CHALLENGE 

The placement and performance of background investigations for the Executive Branch has been an 

evolving and open issue for years, 

In October 2016, the National Background Investigations Bureau (NBIB) was established to succeed 

the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) federal Investigative Services (FIS). The NBIB absorbed 

the FIS's background investigation capabilities, inventory, and operational challenges, and began 

the conduct of background investigations for 95 percent of Executive Branch agencies. 

In August 2017, an implementation plan was provided to the Congress for DOD to conduct background 

Investigations for DOD personnel, pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act (NOAA) for 

Fiscal Year 2017 (P.L. 114-328). 

In December 2017, the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2018 (§925(b) of P.L. 115-91) was enacted into law, 

legislating a phased transfer of DOD background investigations conducted by NBIB from NBIBto DOD. 

The pending transfer of DOD Investigations from NBIB comprises 70 percent of NBIB's background 

investigation volume and raises questions with Government-wide implications regarding the remaining 

30 percent With no easy or obvious answers regarding the placement of the 30 percent, the Security, 

~Suitability, and Credentiu!ing Performance Accountability Council (PAC) principal agencies (OPM, DOD, 

the Office of and Budget, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence) initiated 

determine a path forward. 

THE OPPORTUNITY 

This proposal would transfer the NBIB background investigation program, currently under OPM, to 

DOD. The transfer provides the opportunity to achieve an efficient, effective, fiscally viable, and secure 

operation that meets J!l agencies' needs. It avoids a variety of potential problems inherent in splitting 

the existing program into two pieces, and provides the means to achieve bold, transformative reform 

in the manner in which background are conducted. The opportunity exists to improve 

timeliness, strengthen management information and ensure a more trusted workforce. 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGAN1ZAT!ON RECOMMENDATIONS 
173 

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WHY IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO 

The Administration recognizes that background investigations are critical to enabling national security 

missions and ensuring pubtictrust in the workforce across the Government The congressionally mandated 

transfer of 70 percent of NBIB's background investigation caseload has significant implications for the 

conduct of background investigations Government-wide. Additionally, the mandate comes at a time when 

significant challenges in security, suitabitlty~ and credcntia!ing processing continue to adversely affect 

Government operations. The background investigation inventory has risen to approximately 725,000; 

the average Top Secret background investigation takes four times longer than the target completion 

date; and costs have risen more than 40 percent since Fiscal Year 2014. This is an unsustainable way to 

do business. 

Now is the time for bold, transformational change in how we vet our workforce. To that end, the 

Administration has concluded that to achieve an efficient, effective, fiscally viable, and secure operation 

that meets the needs of the Executive Branch, it is necessary for the background investigation program 

to remain consolidated through a complete transfer of NBIB to DOD. Given the urgency and complexity 

of the issue, the Administration believes this transfer is the right thing to do because: 

k9Il.?Qli9_g!_ion retains "economies of scale)J. Keeping the program together prevents unnecessary 

duplication of functions {e.g. headquarters, back office, etc.}, removes operational complexity, and 

provides increased opportunities for centralization and specialization that will increase continuous 

process improvement benefits. 

R~'ii.Qlag..wl!bl!:!J2Q!Ul!,llLtii\!1S better ley_<CCQging_QLQ.OJLs_;;xistlng_gnteiQr]>~-"-o.QilbJJ.itil1>- DOD 

already provides capabilities to the enterprise by servicing industria! security clearances for 

31 agencies through the National Industria\ Security Program, and manages adjudications for four 

agencies through the DOD Consolidated Adjudications Facility. DOD already has strong, established 

research and training programs under the Personnel and Security Research Center and Center 

for Development of Security ExceUence, is developing continuous evaluation capabilities that will 

benefit non-DOD agencies, and has a global footprint that is well-suited to the increased need for 

international contact and employment investigations. Drawing on significant national security, !T, 

and cybersecurity expertise, DOD is also responsible for designing, building, securing, and operating, 

a suite of end-to~end vetting shared services to be made available to 01!1 Executive Branch agencies. 

Ir.u1y_QQI.Q_gnQ_li<~JJ~fQIJD_gtional reforms are more ach~r;tbl~_t[l_rQ!Jg._b consolidation. Despite 

improvements, the Federal government's vetting policies, processes, and tools, have failed to 

keep pace with emerging technological capabilities and opportunities to continuously identify, 

assess, and integrate key sources of information. Reform initiatives chartered by the Security and 

Sultabi!ity/Credentialing Executive Agents are underway to revamp the fundamental approach 

and supporting policy framework, overhaul the business process, and modernize the information 

technology architecture. Implementation of these reforms across a single, consolidated provider 

can best serve the sustainment of a trusted workforce for the Nation. 

m· DEUVER!NG GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS IN THE 2l~'CENTURY 
174 

The Administration will take the requisite executive actions to ensure the background investigation 

program remains consolidated within DOD. Transition planning and implementation over the next 

several years wit! be critical to success and wiH involve interagen(y cooperation and coordination. The 

PAC wi!l provide oversight of that transition, and witt continue to be accountable for ongoing reform of the 

broader Executive Branch vetting progrC~m, including background investigations. The existing Security 

Executive Agent (the Director of National intelligence) and Suitability and Credentialing Executive Agent 

(the Director of OPM) wilt continue to fu!fitt their respective policy and oversight roles for the security, 

suitability, and credentialing enterprise. 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
175 

Strengthening Federal Evaluation 

Government-wide 

Summary of Proposal: Bringing evidence to bear in declsion~maklng is a critical component of good 

government. However, there are large gaps and inconsistencies across Federal agencies in their 

abi!ltyto formally evaluate their programs. These reforms would expand upon existing capabilities 

and push agencies to adopt stronger practices th1:1twould generate more evidence about what works 

and what needs improvement in order to inform mission-critical decisions and policies. 

THE CHALLENGE 

Decisions about how best to allocate taxpayer dollars and improve government services involve a complex 

set of factors, including political priorities, resistance to change, and the avai!abl!ity of credible evidence. 

In many policy domains, however, we lack key information on program effectiveness that could help the 

Congress and the President make better decisions. Program evaluation is a valuable too! that can help 

us !earn what works in order to focus limited funding on effective programs, discontinue programs that 

fall short of desired results, and identlfy ways to improve continually funded programs. For example; 

d decade of rigorous evaluations of the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program 

demonstrated positive impacts and future savings that warranted scaling up the program. In contrast, 

Project D.A.R.E., a substance abuse prevention program for adolescents, lost all Federal funding following 

several high-quality evaluations that determined the program was ineffective and in some cases had 

negative effects. 

These examples illustrate how, absent program evaluation, we would not know whether what we think 

works 1 does in fact work. Yet, building evaluation into program design so that we can !earn and improve 

is currently the exception rather than the rule, and there are no forma! Government~wide incentives, 

expectations, or guidance to Federal agencies regarding program evaluation. We must increase the 

capacity of Fed era! agencies to conduct evaluation and fill a critical gap in the Federa! government's 

abHity to generate evidence about what works and how we can improve programs. Th!s will !ead to 

more and better information that the Congress and the President can use to make decisions about how 

to best spend taxpayer dollars and provide services for our citizens. 

THE OPPORTUNITY 

Passage of the Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act of2016 set an important precedent that 

our Nation must have expectations for monitoring and evaluating foreign assistance programs. OMB's 

guirlance for these programs (see M~lS-04) was a first step, but there is much more that can be done 

across Government We must set standards for evaluation across a !I program activities and agencies so 

that Federal agencies, OMB, the Congress, and taxpayers have critical informutfon about the effectiveness 

of Government programs and policies, which wH! lead to improved services, increased efficiencies, and 

a greater return on investment. 

DELIVERING GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS IN THE 21sr CENTURY 
176 

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WHY IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO 

The Congress !s increasingly compelling agencies to focus funding on evidence-based programs that we 

know work. Executing this vision requires evaluation to answer essential questions regarding program 

effectiveness and cost-efficiency that cannot be answered through performance measurement, statistics, 

or data ana!ytics alone. Unlike Federal statistical and performance functions, there is currently no 

format Fed era! system or underlying infrastructure to support evaluation. As a result, there are many 

programs and po!ides across the Governrnent for which we hJve no evidence on program effectiveness, 

thus making evidence-based poticymaking difficult. 

to test innovative strategies and execute effective programs, we must enhance 

ability to conduct program evaluation and other evidence-building activities, 

Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking's recommendations and subsequent draft 

legislation would further these goals. However, manyofthe necessary improvements can be accomplished 

administratively. Doing so wiH require a change ln Federal agencies' cultures and standard operating 

procedures so that program evaluation is integrated into program design, and evaluation experts are 

part of decision-making processes. 

We must strengthen the role of program evaluation and better understand how we <Jre investing in 

evaluation across the government At minimum, OMS intends to ask Federal agencies to: 

.Qg~lgnate a senior official remnsib!ejgr coordinating, the a£_Sl!lQL~-~'Lil!JlatiQil.ACtivltl\l$ !eanti.og 

gg~..Di.ta.._..f!JJ.d.lofu.I.OJAJ:ion reported tQ____OMB on eviden~. This official must have expertise and 

experience in program evaluation, which is a different ski!! set than performance, statistics, and other 

agency functions. One approach that has worked welt in some agencies is to create a centralized 

independent evaluation office and designate a senior career official to !ead this office who is given lead 

at the agency. Other agencies have multiple sophisticated evaluation 

serving different components. 

Q..Q£:-Um..f,'nt the u;.~u.rces dedicatedlQ _ _j2IQ_g[ilOlJ,~.Va!uation. If taxpayers, the Congress, or the 

Administration were to ask how much is currently spent on program evaluation, we would not be able 

to state an amount nor easHy calculate a reasonable estimate. Absent this information, we cannot 

know where our investments in evaluation are adequate and where we are under- or over-investing. 

We must also strengthen the Government's ability to bui!d and use a portfolio of evidence, including 

results from program evaluations, to inform decision-making. To do this, OMB wi!l provide direction and 

set expectations that encourage agencies to: 

Strf,illgJ;hen the quality of the information provided to OMS on evideru:__~_i.JlLd.ID~Q.tl.[viti.~~ 

induQing_Qrogram evaluation as part of the annual budget process, Currently, agency submissions 

vary greatly in quality and completeness. If improved, however, they could be Zl useful way for 

OMS to understand agencies' current and planned evidence-building activities, the evidence 

base behind key priorities, and evidence gaps that should be addressed. By designating a senior 

official at agencies with relevant experience responsible for this submission, OMB expects the 

quality and breadth of submitted information will improve and better inform the budget and 

po!icymaking processes. 

REFORM PLAN ANO REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
177 

~'-'-'llLH?LLfll!!L'''"'""-w.,u.\.L:OI-"''"-""~''-'JJL!l>.<'-'>"''y_,,_,, Learning agendas are a powerful toot that a !low 

Federal agencies to strategically plan and other evidence-building activities over a 

multi-year period. The structured agenda setting process requires coordination within an agency 

to identify priority research questions and knowledge gaps. Learning agendas should be informed 

by key stakeholders and the public, and the resulting documents should be made available to the 

public to promote transparency and accountability. The studies, evaluations, and other learning that 

results from these agendas should be shared within the agency and with other stakeholders, OMB, 

the Congress, and the public in order to facilitate policy and program improvement. 

A broad consensus has emerged regarding the importance of evaluation as a key part of evidence-based 

po!icymaking. We acknowledge the potentia! risk that establishing a more formal structure for Federal 

evaluation could introduce administrative rigidity and complexity in ways that may detract from innovation 

in the smal! number of agencies already excelling in this area. During implementation, however, we 

could mitigate this risk by allowing appropriate flexibility, recognizing the unique circumstances and 

capacities of various agencies, and soliciting input from stal<eho!ders both inside and outside of the 

Federal Government. 
178 
179 

APPENDIX: AGENCY-SPECIFIC 

REFORM PROPOSALS 
180 

DEPARTMENT OF 

AGRICULTURE 

Reorganizing the Agricultural Marketing Service 

program areas in FY 2018. 

Realigning USDA's Mission Areas 

DEPARTMENT 

OF ENERGY 

Streamline Environmental Management 

Headquarters Organization 

tive manner. 

Consolidate International Staff Under 

Office of International Affairs 

Merge Shared Service Centers and Other Activities 

Office of Science Restructuring 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 

AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Optimize National Institutes Health {NIH) 

Rf'Structur~J NIH's administrative functions to ensure operations Me 

Consolidate Health Research Programs into 

National Institutes of Health (NIH} 

Reorganize the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS} to the 

Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) 

Restructure the SNS from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

DHS Air & Maritime Programs 

common future capabHity requirements 

REFORM PlAN AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
181 

Coordinated Operations, Planning & Intelligence 

National Bio and Agro·Defense Facility 

(NBAF) Transfer from DHS to USDA 

Organizing Headquarters Functions 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING 

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Reform Rental Assistance 

work_ and p\3(0 f-<UD's rental assistance programs on a more fisca!-

;y<;u::.tainable path. 

Consolidate Headquarters Offices 

footprint and annualleasmg costs. 

DEL1VERING GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS IN THE 21 1r CENTURY 

DEPARTMENT 

OF STATE 

Modernizing IT, HR Operations, and Data Analytics 

ness and efikiency. 

Leadership Development and Training 

Special Envoys 

Enhance Global Presence and Policy Processes 

Enhance Operational Efficiencies 
182 

DEPARTMENT OF 

THE INTERIOR 

Aligning DOl Regions Across Bureaus 

Americ>n public that DOl serves. 

Improving Efficiency through Shared Services 

Milfli!gcment System (FBMS) wit! also furthe1 these objectives. 

DEPARTMENT OF 

THE TREASURY 

Consolidate Alcohol and Tobacco Enforcement at Treasury 

DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION 

OST Streamlining 

Work ron:~ lJE!vetopment 

DOf 

Department of centralize workfore£ development policy and to deliver more efficirnt <Ftd effec:· 

t1ve outcomes. 

DEPARTMENT OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS 

Electronic Health Record Modernization 

for veterans. Having Zl veteran's complete and accurate health in forCommunity Care 

Appeals Modernization 

lanes based on their unique circumsta'lces. 

Financial Management Business Transformation 

Hw; a:nbitrous effort will uansform V/l.'s financial manag(:rncnt 

Legacy IT Systems Modernization 

promoting greater transparency. 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
183 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY 

Tailoring State Oversight 

r-educe, and tailor its oversight activities to focus on nationul consistency and technical assistance to Statr:s as netded. 

Examining EPA Field Presence 

tmpro\'ing Management of EPA Laboratories 

cicntly and effectively 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

Federal Motor Vehicle Fleet Management 

The Feder at Government oper<~tes rnorp thcm400,000 motor vehi 

OEUVERlNG GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS IN THE 21 s' CENTURY 

NATIONAL SCIENCE 

FOUNDATION 

Introduce Two Convergence Accelerators to 

Support Interdisciplinary Research 

Fron\icr:· Staff, budp:ct, ,md resources for the Accel<;rdtors wii! be> 

rccl!rgncd frorn the current directorates and offices. Accelerator 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT 

Implement a 21'tcentury Approach to Federal 

Employee Records and Data Management 

Hf~ functions. 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Merge the Office of New Reactors (NRO) and the 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation {NRR) 

tions to identify cf!lucnclc~ and eliminate redundancies 

With 
184 

SOCIAL SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION 

IT Modernization 

oot;ons H\ a cos.t dtectiVC and secure manner 

Eliminate In-Kind Support and Maintenance 

and the Holding Out Policy for SSI 

Eliminate Services to Claimant Representatives 

burst: the trust funds. The $30 million collected is not currently p.Mt 

of SSA'~ i'ldministrative resources. 

Establish a Consistent National State 

Disability Appeal Process 

wiH provide sorne rc!lcfto SSA's hearings backlog. 

Eliminate SSI Dedicated Accounts 

Implement Metrics and Quality 

Implement Standard Office Design 

uatmg the security of these off1ces. 

Additional Footprint Reduction 

U.S. AGENCY FOR 

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

Journey to Self-Reliance 

countries can vspire. 

Advance National Security 

ism; and improving coordination with DOD. 

Empower People to Lead 

Respecting the Taxpayer's Investments 

REFORM PLAN AND REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
185 

Sthool Pr~ss, 2000 

• ;<;1!ser, Tom "RO/ for Nonprofits: The Nf:'w K~ytosustainability. · John Wd<.'y, 1()09. 

• Roebroek,Fr;mk. "6Major rrendsinHRShar;;dSevice5.~ 

• StO\km?n. (}avidAli!fl. The Triumph a{Politics;HvwtheReagan Revolution Failed." 

Harper&r<ow,l98B 

•WoriclEcono<nltForum.'TowordsaReskillingRevolution:AFutur~:ofJob5forAll.·' 
186 
187 
188 

CONGRESSIONAL 

TESTIMONY 

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD 

J. DAVID COX, SR. 

NATIONAL PRESIDENT 

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO 

BEFORE 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE 

ON 

REVIEWING THE ADMINISTRATION'S GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION PROPOSAL 

July 18, 2018 

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO 

80 F Street, N.W., Washmgton, D.C. 20001 (202) 737-8700 www.afge.org 
189 

Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member McCaskill, and Members of the Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs Committee, on behalf of the more than 700,000 federal and District of 

Columbia government employees represented by the American Federation of Government 

Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE), I submit this statement for the record for the Committee's 

hearing to examine the Administration's government-wide reorganization plan on July 18,2018. 

On June 21,2018, the Trump Administration issued a document entitled "Delivering 

Government Solutions in the 21 '

1 Century-Reform Plan and Reorganization 

Recommendations." The plan outlines the Administration's recommendations for reorganizing 

the federal government. AFGE objects to many recommendations of this plan as implementation 

will result in inefficient allocation of agency resources and workload, and politicization of the 

civil service. 

Background 

Prior to public dissemination of the Administration's reorganization plan, on March 13, 

2017, the President issued an Executive Order1 mandating that the Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and the heads of executive branch agencies create agency 

reorganization plans within 180 days. In April 2017, the OMB Director also issued a 

memorandum2 with instructions stating what reorganization plans were supposed to include and 

the policies they were supposed to implement. Although the April OMB memorandum included 

the following sentence: "When developing their Agency Reform Plan in coordination with 

OMB, agencies should consult with key stakeholders including their workforce ... ," very few 

agencies complied with this direction. With a few rare exceptions, national AFGE bargaining 

councils and AFGE locals were not consulted or even informed of reorganization plans. The 

same is true for the Administration's recent reform plan and reorganization recommendations. 

As public servants, federal employees take very seriously their duty to provide vital 

services to the American public. Federal employees are dedicated to their professions and are 

experts not only in their field of work, but also, through years of service, many federal 

~mployees understand what is needed to improve the internal workings of their agencies far 

better than private consultants. Federal workers and their representatives should play an 

important role in the development of organizational changes involving federal agencies and the 

services they provide. Neglecting to seek input from employee representatives in the 

development of government-wide reorganization plans is counterproductive to any genuine effort 

to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of government. 

Reformation and Reorganization-Privatization 

In introducing its government reorganization plan, the Administration has stated that 

there are no plans to cut jobs, and that job reductions were not a factor in devising the plan. 

However, the recommendations of the plan, as outlined, are contrary to the Administration's 

statements. The reorganization plan contemplates privatization of the Postal Service, the various 

Department of Energy Power Marketing Administrations, and the Tennessee Valley Authority, 

1 EO 13781 2 OMB M-17-22, April12, 2017 
190 

to name but a few. In addition, the Administration's plan constantly uses words such as 

&treamlining, consolidating, restructuring, realigning and transferring. No one opposes these 

actions in principle. In practice, however, words like "streamlining" often just mean reduction or 

degradation of service delivery. 

The reorganization plan promotes a particularly pernicious governmentwide 

"consolidation" of so-called "shared services." The substance ofthis concept is that all federal 

administrative service functions should use or will be required to use centralized cross-agency 

administrative support for these "common functions" of government. The theory behind the 

"shared services" concept is allegedly based on economies of scale; when multiple federal 

agencies make use of administrative services functions, centralizing these services in a limited 

number of providers and requiring that every agency use the centralized source( s) to obtain the 

services will supposedly reap cost savings. However, AFGE believes that the concept of"shared 

services" encourages private sector entities to either compete with government-sponsored service 

providers or to enter into "partnerships" with government agencies to provide the services. It is 

not efficiencies that drive this quest for consolidation, but rather profits for the private sector. 

It must be noted that consolidation of services, "shared services," is actually at odds with 

maximizing flexibility and agency responsiveness to the public. Mandatory centralization of 

administrative services has proven to result in less responsive government and will have a 

negatiye impact on agency head accountability for the efficient and effective administration of 

tfieir own Departments. 

While AFGE strongly objects to many ofthe consolidations and mergers of agencies 

recommended by the Administration's reorganization plan, we would like to explicitly object to 

the following reorganization of agencies: 

Consolidation of the Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works with the Department of 

Transportation and the Department of Interior-The realignment of the Civil Works funded 

programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers into the Department of Transportation and 

Department of Interior will significantly weaken a war-fighting capability of the Department of 

Defense. Specifically, both the military and civilian skill sets and capabilities that are partially 

funded on a civil basis in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provide a reach-back capability for 

the military during national emergencies and contingency operations. For instance, a civilian 

employee may be performing civil works functions, but based on that employee's skill set, he or 

she may also be regularly called upon to perform military functions when the need arises. Such 

mission support will not be as readily available if the civil works functions are transferred to the 

Department of Transportation and the Department of Interior. Transferring this function would 

weaken the career progression pyramid and rotation base ofthe uniformed Engineer Branch 

required by Title 10. 

We acknowledge that the Civil Works programs are separate funding streams from the 

Military funded appropriations in the Defense budget and therefore, on the surface it may seem 

harmless to simply transfer the civil works functions to other agencies, but such a transfer 

ignores how the Army Corps of Engineers actually operates in support of the military, and how it 

manages its human capital planning and workforce development. 

2 
191 

Merge the Department of Education with the Department of Labor-The missions of 

the Department of Education and the Department of Labor are distinctly different. The merger of 

these two agencies would directly undermine the public education system and the opportunity for 

equal access to a quality education afforded to all Americans. The Administration is misleading 

the American public by insinuating that merging these two agencies, which both have substantial 

organizational structures and missions that touch every American, will lead to improved public 

services as it relates to our nation's schools and education system, and increasing employment 

opportunities. In fact, it is more plausible that such a merger will have the exact opposite effect 

as combining two agencies with such expansive missions will likely result in limited resources, 

reduction of services to the public, and increased bureaucracy. 

Transfer the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Policy Functions to the 

Executive Office of the President-Moving OPM policy functions into the Executive Office of 

the President is direct politicization of personnel policy. The Administration's reorganization 

plan would designate the Executive Office of the President as responsible for policy decisions in 

areas such as employee compensation, workforce supply and demand, and employee 

performance. The Administration's plan also refers to the existing framework of the civil service 

as "archaic." AFGE believes that the current framework of civil service rules and regulations is 

anything but archaic. Rather, the current civil service is based on merit system principles and 

focuses on employees' skills, qualifications and experience instead of discriminating based on 

race, sex, gender or age. A "merit-based" civil service system is a cornerstone of all modem 

Western democracies. It ensures that technical expertise is brought to bear on performing agency 

missions, without the threat of overt partisan agendas driving day-to-day operations. Moving the 

OPM policy functions to the Executive Office of the President will undermine this system. 

These and many other recommendations from the reorganization plan are shortsighted 

and do not fully take into consideration how such changes will hinder agencies' mission 

fulfilment. Many agency leaders have already made the decision to not only consolidate offices, 

but to close agency offices. These decisions to close offices were made prior to the 

Adillirilstration making the reorganization plan public. Office closures are directly affecting 

federal employees and their families with many employees forced to relocate or lose their jobs. 

AFGE urges this Committee to conduct oversight of these office closures and assess the impact 

that the closures will have on the public's access to important public services. 

Conclusion 

The Administration's reorganization plan does not provide any information or indication 

that an analysis has been conducted to project how employees will be affected by the 

recommendations of the plan. Without any type of reliable analysis on the impact to the 

workforce, we can only assume that little analysis has been conducted to determine how the 

recommendations will affect the services provided to the American public. 

AFGE strongly supports examining effective approaches to accomplishing government 

work. While AFGE supports initiatives to improve delivery of government services, the 

Administration's reorganization plan is a thinly veiled attempt to devolve federal involvement in 

3 
192 

everything from education to postal delivery, to energy research and development. AFGE would 

welcome the opportunity to work collaboratively with the Committee and Congress to identify 

ways in which we can improve the delivery of our important public services. 

4 
193 

Richard G. Thissen 

National President 

July17,2018 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Jon Dowie 

National Secretary/Treasurer 

Dear Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member McCaskill, and members of the Senate 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: 

In advance of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' 

hearing, titled "Reviewing the Government's Reorganization Proposal," I write to share 

the views and concerns of the National Active and Retired Federal Employees 

Association (NARFE). NARFE is dedicated to advancing the interests of the more than 5 

million federal employees and retirees, as well as their spouses and survivors, and has 

more than 205,000 dues-paying members across the country and abroad. 

NARFE appreciates the swiftness with which HSGAC scheduled a hearing to discuss and 

debate the president's reorganization plan. Most of the changes proposed would require 

action by Congress. As these changes would not only impact the more than 2 million 

federal employees who carry out the work of our nation, but also the American taxpayers 

who rely on their services, NARFE commends the Committee for taking the time to give 

these proposals the thoughtful and deliberative attention they deserve. At this time, I 

share some initial thoughts on the reorganization proposal by the White House, but 

NARFE is continuing to evaluate these and other proposals as more details are provided. 

First, transferring federal personnel policy to the Executive Office of the President 

threatens to politicize the federal civil service. While some have expressed support for 

this move, as it has the potential to elevate the attention the largest workforce in our 

country receives from the White House, NARFE has serious concerns that this move 

could prove detrimental to career civil servants. With an administration that has shown 

disdain at times for a professional, merit-based civil service, this raises red flags that the 

move is intended to exert undue political influence on non-political hiring and firing 

decisions. Political influence in civil service hiring and firing allows jobs to be handed 

out or taken away based on political contributions or affiliations rather than individual 

capabilities. The history of the spoils system that existed in the 1800s shows that this 

leads to corruption and incompetence in the civil service. It would also shift substantial 

power from Congress to the Executive as federal jobs could depend more on allegiance to 

the President or political party than to the Constitution and laws enacted by Congress. 

While this element ofthe reorganization does not achieve this by itself, it removes 

important safeguards in the process. While the current administration has proposed 

policies that alarm NARFE, we would express the same concerns with moving policy 

from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to the Executive Office of the 

President regardless of who holds the White House. 

National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association 

WMV.NARFE.org ! 606 N. Washington Street, Alexandria, VA 22314 I phone 703-838-n60 I rax 703-838-nBs 
194 

However, we cannot ignore that this Administration has proposed substantial cuts 

to federal pay and retirement benefits, and therefore elevating federal personnel 

policy to the White House is troubling. In exchange for hard work and public service, 

often over long careers, federal employees and retirees earned the retirement benefits 

they have been promised. Diminishing their value in any way for those who have already 

earned them- including by eliminating or reducing COLAs, altering how they are 

calculated, or eliminating an entire element of the pension- fails to honor the basic 

commitments made to our public servants. While in most cases reorganization proposals 

should be considered independent of the current administration, policies that would roll 

back retirement benefits for individuals approaching, and even in, retirement are 

particularly egregious. Elevating responsibility for these policies to the Executive Office 

of the President would undoubtedly raise their profile, which is a potential consequence 

of the reorganization to consider. 

Third, eliminating OPM entirely and transferring its remaining programmatic 

functions to the newly-named Government Services Agency (GSA), or other 

agencies, raises concerns that OPM's important functions- such as administering 

federal retirement and health benefit programs -will not receive the attention and 

resources that they deserve. Public servants put in hard work often over long careers to 

serve the needs of the American people. In exchange, they earn both pay and benefits. It 

is OPM's job to make sure our government is upholding its end of the bargain. More than 

eight million people rely on the highly-acclaimed and model Federal Employees Health 

Benefits (FEHB) Program to meet their health care needs. In terms of federal retirement 

benefits, while OPM has had its challenges in modernizing retirement processing, we 

should evaluate whether simply moving this program to another agency will accomplish 

the modernization it sorely needs. In considering this recommendation, we urge Congress 

to give careful thought as to whether OPM's current mission will receive the appropriate 

prioritization and resources if moved to an entirely new agency with larger 

responsibilities. 

Fourth, privatizing the United States Postal Service (USPS) undermines the 

provision of universal services that has existed for more than a century and 

threatens the jobs, pay, health and retirement security of hard-working, middleclass postal employees. NARFE wholeheartedly opposes privatization of the USPS, 

which is not a privately-owned business because it has a constitutional obligation to 

provide universal public services. Transforming it into a private entity unnecessarily 

t.l;rreatens the continuation of the public services it provides. It also would promote a race 

to the bottom in terms of basic pay and benefits for postal workers. The timing of this 

proposal is perplexing given the president has formed a cross-agency task force currently 

working to provide recommendations on postal reform in mid-August. If the 

recommendations will be the same- to privatize USPS -what is the point of the task 

force? If not, why muddy the waters with potentially conflicting administration views? 

HSGAC has prioritized reforms of USPS operations in the past, and even though NARFE 

has not always agreed with the path forward the Committee has recommended, we 

strongly urge the Committee not to abdicate its jurisdiction in this arena. 

2 
195 

Finally, in evaluating the reorganization proposals, I urge the continuation of 

careful, thoughtful deliberation and consideration of how the proposals will affect 

the public servants within the affected agencies who are tasked with carrying out 

the important work our country asks of them. Government reorganization aims to 

improve government efficiency and performance to better carry out the missions directed 

by Congress and the president. As the individuals who dedicate their work, day-in and 

day-out, to these goals, federal employees share a desire to align the federal government 

to best serve the American public. They should be viewed as necessary partners in any 

reorganization effort. At the end of the day, no reorganization can be successful if 

agencies, whatever their names and whatever their new structures, are not equipped with 

a competent and effective federal workforce to carry out their missions. 

Thank you for considering NARFE's views. If you have any questions or comments 

regarding this request, please contact NARFE Staff Vice President, Advocacy, Jessica 

Klement at 703-838-7760 or jklement@narfe.org. 

Sincerely, 

Richard G. Thissen 

National President 

3 
196 

NTEU 

The Natiollal 'frea<Jury Employees Union 

Statement of 

Anthony M. Reardon 

National President 

National Treasury Employees Union 

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

"REVIEWING THE ADMINISTRATION'S GOVERNMENT 

REORGANIZATION PROPOSAL" 

July 18, 2018 
197 

Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member McCaskill and members of the Committee, thank 

you for allowing NTEU to share its thoughts on the Administration's plans to reorganize the 

federal government. As National President ofNTEU, I represent over 150,000 federal employees 

in 32 agencies and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this important issue. 

As the committee is aware, on June 21st, the White House released a report detailing its 

plans to reorganize the executive branch entitled, "Delivering Government Solutions in the 21st 

Century: Reform Plan and Reorganization Recommendations." The report is in response to the 

President's March 2017 Executive Order directing the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) to propose a comprehensive plan to reorganize federal agencies. The report highlights 

32 proposals, which impact the following agencies with employees represented by NTEU: 

Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau (CFPB). 

Reorganization Proposals 

The Administration proposal would separate Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) voucher 

programs from the Department of Agriculture's commodity-based programs. Specifically, the 

Administration proposes to move the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the 

Special Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), 

the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), and the Farmers' Market Nutrition Programs 

into the Department of Health and Human Service's Administration on Children and Families 

(HHS-ACF). USDA, whether with a smaller FNS or a different division, would continue to 

administer the commodity-based programs, including the National School Lunch and School 

Breakfast Programs, the Emergency Food Assistance Program, the Commodity Supplemental 

Food Program, and others. The Administration also proposes to rename HHS the Department of 

Health and Public Welfare. It is unclear from the Administration's plan what the impact would 

be on the UDSAIHHS workforces, and whether employee reductions and program elimination 

are in fact the main goals. 

A new Federal Food Safety Agency would combine the "food" duties of the Food and 

Drug Administration (FDA) with the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service. This new 

Food Safety Agency would become part of USDA. Following the food reorganization, FDA 

(which would be renamed the "Federal Drug Administration") would focus on drugs, devices, 

biologics, tobacco, dietary supplements, and cosmetics. The proposed consolidation would 

merge approximately 5,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees and $1.3 billion from FDA 

with about 9,200 FTEs and $1 billion in resources in USDA. 

The proposal calls for a reorganization within the Department of Energy, with an 

emphasis on consolidating currently existing applied energy research programs offices and 

programs including the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E). However, there 

are few concrete details. It is important to note that Congress has continued to recognize the 

value of, and the role of ARPA-E, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

(EERE), and the Office of Science in maintaining our nation's current capabilities and 

J;Q!llpetitiveness in scientific research. 

2 
198 

The Administration also proposes to require the Department of the Treasury to develop 

recommendations for federal financial literacy and education activities that would be shared with 

OMB before October I, 2018. The Federal Deposit Insurance Commission (FDIC) and the 

National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) both perform valuable distinct financial research 

and education, while the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) performs significant and 

important work on financial literacy. NTEU is concerned that overall policy differences with the 

mission of the CFPB could be a reason for its inclusion in this reorganization proposal. 

In addition, the report proposes to break apart the Office of Personnel Management 

(OPM), moving core employee policy divisions to the White House. Additionally, retirement 

policy and the processing of annuities, as well as the administration of the Federal Employees 

Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), would move to a renamed GSA, the Government Services 

Agency, and federal employee background investigations would be transferred to the Department 

of Defense. While NTEU does not represent OPM employees, we are concerned about the breakup of retirement and health care policy and operations, and the loss of needed independence from 

all White Houses for federal employee and workforce management policy-making and decisions. 

The White House's Office of Presidential Personnel has rightly been responsible for the selection 

and hiring of presidential appointees; however, OPM's independent authority over the career 

civil service-and employing agency human resources' actions and decisions-must be maintained 

for our government not to revert to the spoils system. 

It is clear the majority of the Administration's reorganization proposals will require 

congressional action, and that further details on the impact on the workforce and programs are 

needed before serious consideration can occur. NTEU has always supported efforts to improve 

agency performance and eliminate government waste and inefficiencies. However, previous 

reform and reorganization efforts failed to accomplish these goals. Instead, we've seen overly 

ambitious efforts to reform the civil service that eroded employee rights and employee morale or 

haphazard efforts to reduce the number of federal workers by cutting an arbitrary number of 

personnel, implementing a hiring freeze, or failing to replace employees who had retired 

resulting in gutted agencies and largely contributing to the looming retirement crisis facing the 

federal government today. In fact, one of the biggest lessons and failures of the Clinton-Gore 

Administration's so-called "Reinventing Government" initiative was the hollowing out of 

positions, leaving agencies unable to conduct proper workforce planning, and without a skilled 

workforce in place---which devastated agency's abilities to effectively perform their 

responsibilities, opening up federal agencies and workers to criticism. Under this Administration, 

it is unfortunate that there has already been a lost opportunity to improve government by not 

engaging with, and including, frontline employees in ways to improve agency functions and 

operations from the very beginning. 

Agencies Consulting with Employee Representatives 

Effective government management does not attempt reform efforts in a vacuum. Senior 

agency officials and political appointees do not have all of the relevant information or ideas on 

where to focus reform efforts. Rather, we believe that only by having senior officials working 

closely with front-line employees and their representatives will real positive reform take place. 

3 
199 

Front-line federal employees and their union representatives are an essential source of ideas and 

information about the realities of delivering government services on-the-ground to the American 

people. 

In 2009, President Obama issued Executive Order (EO) 13522, Creating LaborM.!'.nagement Forums to Improve Delivery of Government Services. As E.O. 13522 makes clear, 

pre-decisional involvement (PDI) is an important component of the implementation oflabor 

management forums, and therefore calls for agencies to involve employees and their union 

representatives in pre-decisional discussions concerning all workplace matters to the fullest 

extent practicable. Front-line employees and their union representatives have essential ideas and 

information about delivering quality government services to the public and the PDI process 

allows employees, through their labor representatives, to have meaningful input resulting in 

better quality decision-making, more support for decisions, timelier implementation, and better 

results for the American people. 

According to the October 2014 Labor-Management Relations in the Executive Branch 

report, there are numerous instances where PDI and employee engagement efforts have been 

successful. These examples demonstrate how PDI has increased agency productivity as well as 

significantly increased employee satisfaction and morale. I see no reason why similar success 

cannot be had with this new government-wide reform effort. 

Suggestions for Agency Reform Plans 

The President's March 13, 2017 EO tasked the Director of OMB, to formulate a proposal 

to reorganize Executive branch agencies, components, and functions. Notably, the EO also 

·required agencies "to develop a long-term workforce reduction plan." Additionally, the EO 

directed OMB to evaluate whether a program is federal in nature, whether programs and 

functions would be better out-sourced to the private-sector, whether agencies or programs are 

relevant or duplicative, whether internal, administrative operations are necessary, efficient, and 

duplicative, and whether the costs to continue current operations, or to close or merge agencies 

are justified, and in the public interest. The OMB Director was also directed to include any 

personnel costs associated with the impact on "affected agency staff." 

Following release of the March EO, in May of 2017, I met with then OMB Senior 

Advisor Linda Springer and discussed our desire to be part of the Administration's 

reorganization planning. I also discussed how our chapter leaders were engaged in soliciting 

reform recommendations from our members. However, we did not hear back from OMB 

regarding our request to have OMB counsel agencies to reach out and involve front-line 

employees. We fear that such reform efforts without employee involvement will fail; adversely 

impacting the morale of the federal workforce as well as the services we provide to the American 

people, and ultimately wasting taxpayer dollars. Not deterred, I then sent a memo to our 

chapters, asking them to provide ideas I could share with agency heads. I am pleased to say that 

the response from our members was overwhelming. After collecting these ideas, I then wrote 

letters to agency heads summarizing our members' suggestions and offering a meeting to discuss 

·them in depth and answer any questions they might have so that they could fully appreciate how 

these recommendations would improve Agency and employee performance. Unfortunately, other 

4 
200 

than a meeting with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and a perfunctory response in a few 

cases, we did not hear back from agencies, nor were we consulted about the proposals they 

submitted to OMB. While we held no illusions that all of our ideas would be accepted, it is 

important for agencies, the Administration, Congress and the public to understand that when it 

comes to meeting the public's expectations for their government, front-line federal employees 

have much to offer. 

In June, I sent letters to CBP, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission (CFTC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Social Security 

Administration (SSA), and to HHS, among others, to share our members' recommendations for 

the agency reform plans. Although the recommendations were specific to each agency, they fell 

into similar themes. 

Increase telework and/or hoteling to reduce real estate costs and wasted travel time 

At the IRS, we recommended eliminating the requirement that employees report to their 

assigned posts-of-duty (POD) at least two days each pay period. Many employees report that 

they do not have any work-related need for reporting physically to work, and that it is sufficient 

that the Agency have the ability to direct telework-eligible employees to report to their POD on 

special circumstances. In addition, it would also include expanding the "Home as POD" 

program to include any employee who volunteers to telework full-time and is willing to 

surrender their permanent office space/cubicle. These changes would increase employee morale 

and reduce Agency rent expenses. 

Similarly, at the CFTC we recommended an increase in telework. With increased 

telework, CFTC could promote office sharing and reduce rented office space. In addition, one 

additional telework day per week could save up to an estimated $300,000 per year in transit 

subsidies. We also recommended increased flexibility in work schedules, which would increase 

productivity and staff retention as well as reduce the amount the Agency spends on transit 

subsidies. 

Consolidate Management Layers 

According to the OMB memorandum, as part of their reform plans, agencies are to 

consider consolidating higher-grade positions, downgrading management-level positions, and 

ensuring that they have the fewest amount of management layers needed to provide for 

appropriate risk management, oversight and accountability. 

For example, at CBP we continue to see a top-heavy management organization. In terms 

of real numbers, since its creation, the number of new managers has increased at a much higher 

rate than the number of new frontline CBP hires. CBP's own FY 15 end of year workforce 

profile (dated 10/3115), shows that the supervisor to frontline employee ratio was 1 to 5.6 for the 

total CBP workforce, 1 to 5. 7 for CBP Officers, and 1 to 6.6 for CBP Agriculture Specialists. 

Prior to 2003, supervisor to frontline ratio was closer to 1 supervisor to 12. It is also NTEU' s 

understanding that nearly I ,000 CBP Officers are serving either at CBP headquarters or nonOffice of Field Operations locations. This means that nearly 4,000 CBP Officers are serving in 

supervisory positions. 

5 
201 

The tremendous increase in CBP managers and supervisors has come at the expense of 

border security preparedness and frontline positions. Also, these highly paid management 

positions are straining the CBP budget. CBP's top heavy management structure contributes to 

tli.: lack of adequate staffing at the ports, excessive overtime schedules and flagging morale 

among the rank and file and is something we have routinely raised with CBP leadership. 

In another example, units such as the National Case Assistance Centers (NCAC) in the 

Office of Field Operations (OHO, formerly Office of Disability Adjudication and Review) at the 

SSA have four layers of management ranging from GS 13s toGS 15s. First line supervisors are 

GS 13s. They directly interact with and supervise bargaining unit employees. The group 

supervisor reports to a unit manager, who reports to an associate director, who then reports to the 

Director. The multiple layers of management in these offices are not only wasteful, but also 

make communication less effective and efficient. 

In addition, the Baltimore NCAC was initially set up to manage approximately 300 

employees. Due to transfers and attrition, the Baltimore NCAC employs approximately 181 

employees. Despite the reduction in the frontline workforce, NCAC management remains at the 

same level. The Baltimore NCAC, as well as the St. Louis NCAC, have four levels of 

management- I Director, I Deputy Director, 2-3 Unit Managers, and a number of Group 

Supervisors. NTEU proposes eliminating the NCAC Unit Manager position. These are GS 14 

positions and the resulting savings would total $698,495 to $778,338 annually. NTEU also 

proposes eliminating the two NCAC Deputy Director Positions, which would result in additional 

Aa.Ving totaling $208,794 to $271,437 annually. 

At OHO, NTEU proposes eliminating the Quality Review Officer (QRO) positions in the 

Regional Offices and shifting oversight of the quality review specialists to the Regional 

Attorney. The Regional Attorney position description outlines that one task to be performed is to 

"coordinate and evaluate the work of Attorney Advisors and other support staff." Often Regional 

Attorneys review cases sent to them by hearing offices asking for guidance on issues identified 

in decisional drafts. They provide guidance and feedback to the hearing offices. These duties go 

hand in hand with the duties performed by the QRO, which results in duplicative processes. 

QROs are GS 14 positions. Eliminating the 6 QRO positions would result in savings ranging 

from $598,710 to $779,338, based on the Rest of the US pay scale. 

Furthermore, at the IRS Office of Chief Counsel, we recommend eliminating the 

approximately 200 non-bargaining unit (NBU) GS-15 905 Senior Technician Reviewer and 

Special Counsel, and Special Trial Attorney positions in Chief Counsel and converting these 

positions to bargaining unit (BU) GS-15 Senior Counsel positions. These positions are not used 

or needed for management functions, but are needed for performing complex legal and review 

work. The Office has too many GS-15 attorneys designated as NBU who are not really 

managers. These employees generally do not perform or are not needed to perform managerial 

functions. They act as reviewers and lead attorneys and work on the more complex matters. 

'"Essentially, they perform functions that are substantively indistinguishable from Senior Counsel 

BU attorneys. All ofthese positions should be converted to a single Senior Counsel bargaining 

unit position both in the National Office and the Field offices. 

6 
202 

In addition, NTEU recommends reducing the number of front line managers in the Field 

Offices, Associate Area Counsel (AAC), and Deputies/Assistants NBU GS-15 905 positions at 

the IRS and converting them to BU Senior Counsel positions. Field attorneys should continue to 

perform litigation functions and not only administrative managerial tasks. The Assistant Branch 

Chief or Assistant to the Branch ChiefNBU GS-14 position could be eliminated. 

Hire more support staff 

For many agencies, we recommended the hiring of additional support staff so that staff 

members with more complex work could spend less time performing administrative functions. 

At OHO, for example, we believe that by simply focusing on hiring more Administrative Law 

Judges (ALJs) without the support staff of Attorney Advisors and Decision Writers is counterp_roductive to reducing the backlog. 

Empower front-line decision making 

We believe that by empowering employees, agencies breed individual and group 

confidence, enabling people to work both more efficiently and more effectively. When 

employees are confident within their work and with their employer, they are more willing to 

identify problems and suggest ways to improve the quality of their work. 

Fill existing vacancies 

While this recommendation may seem counter to the goals of the agency reorganization 

efforts by the Administration, we believe that efficiencies can be achieved by fully staffing 

agencies so that agencies can meet their missions. For example, we recommend OHO staff 

approximately 200 unfilled Senior Attorney Advisor (SAA) positions via promotion. Filling 

these SAA positions with current Attorney Advisors will allow a number of significant tasks to 

be performed which will improve case processing. 

A Senior Attorney can conduct prehearing conferences with unrepresented claimants just 

about anywhere- using the phones or video hearings or other modalities. Feedback indicates 

·nrnfunrepresented claimants appreciate the opportunity to talk to someone about their appeals 

and what to expect. This provides excellent public service and the data we have seen indicates 

prehearing conferences reduce the numbers of no shows/continued hearings to obtain 

representatives, allowing ALJs to be more efficient. Moreover, rocket dockets for unrepresented 

claimants can be set with Senior Attorneys and after a prehearing conference type meeting, could 

go to an ALJ hearing when appropriate or possibly an on-the-record (OTR) recommendation. 

At the IRS, we recommend increasing the number of Department of the Treasury, Office 

of Tax Policy GS-15 docket attorneys to expedite work on published guidance regulations and 

legislation. The Office of Tax Policy attorneys in TLC (Tax Legislative Counsel), BTC 

(Benefits Tax Counsel) and ITC (International Tax Counsel) work with IRS Office of Chief 

Counsel attorneys in publishing tax guidance including regulations, revenue rulings, notices and 

armouncements. Inadequate staffing in the Office of Tax Policy results in a bottleneck in issuing 

7 
203 

tax guidance to the public. Hiring attorneys for very short-term tenures (I 2-year stints) further 

exacerbates the problem. 

Another option is to insource work currently being performed by contractors. 

Contracting companies charge overhead costs while contract employees lack the accountability, 

expertise, and institutional knowledge of federal employees. Moving these contractor 

responsibilities in-house would translate into improved productivity, better work product, and 

savings in overhead costs. The CFTC currently has just under 700 full-time equivalent 

employees and 400-600 contractors and could realize significant savings by insourcing work. 

Concerns Over Outsourcing 

Relatedly, one ofthe major concerns NTEU has with reorganization efforts is that such 

plans often are intended as a way to increase the outsourcing of government functions. In fact, 

the 2017 OMB Reorganization Memorandum states that agencies should consider leveraging 

outsourcing to the private sector when the total cost would be lower. It also states that agencies 

should consider government-wide contracts for common goods and services to save money and 

free-up acquisition staff to accelerate procurements for high-priority mission work. 

NTEU has long maintained that federal employees, given the appropriate tools and 

resources, do the work of the federal government better and more efficiently than any private 

entity. When agencies become so reliant on federal contractors, the in-house capacity of agencies 

to perform many critical functions is eroded, jeopardizing their ability to accomplish their 

missions. It has also resulted in the outsourcing to contractors of functions that are inherently 

governmental or closely associated to inherently governmental functions. 

Over the years, we have seen at agencies delivering vital services, contractors perform 

critical and sensitive work such as law enforcement, government facility security, prisoner 

detention, budget planning, acquisition, labor-management relations, hiring, and security 

clearances. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Department of 

Homeland Security has used contractors to prepare budgets, develop policy, support acquisition, 

develop and interpret regulations, reorganize and plan, and administer A-76 efforts. 

One of the most egregious examples of the outsourcing of inherently governmental 

functions was the 2006 IRS private tax collection program. The program, under which private 

collection agencies were paid to collect taxes on a commission basis, was an unmitigated 

disaster. The program resulted in a net loss of almost $5 million to the federal government and 

lead to taxpayer abuse. Further, at one juncture in the program, the IRS had to assign 65 of its 

own employees to oversee the work of just 75 private collection agency employees. Given the 

obvious failures of this undertaking, and in the face of strong opposition by NTEU and a broad 

range of consumer and public interest groups, Congress voted to cut off funding for the program. 

Then, in March 2009, after conducting a month-long, comprehensive review of the program, 

including the cost-effectiveness of the initiative, the IRS announced it was ending the program. 

Yet, Congress reinstated the program in late 2015 to offset the costs of the long-term 

highway funding bill, and NTEU remains highly concerned by the use of private collection 

agencies, which not only are costly to taxpayers, but run the risk of exposing the public to scam 

8 
204 

artists. According to a recent analysis of the program's first year by the National Taxpayer 

Advocate, these private tax collectors who are collecting tax debts on a commission basis, have 

been forcing many taxpayers into payment plans they simply cannot afford. The National 

Taxpayer Advocate's analysis found that of the taxpayers put into payment plans by these private 

collectors, 43 percent had income lower than their allowable living expenses. The Taxpayer 

Advocate was so concerned about this finding that it issued a directive on April 23, 2018 that the 

IRS stop assigning to private collection agents any cases where the taxpayer had income below 

250 percent of the federal poverty level. NTEU is pleased with bipartisan legislation that passed 

the House in April as a first-step to limiting the damage, but continues to believe that Congress 

must act to allow only fully-trained IRS professionals to handle debt collection and payment 

duties. 

· The aggressive targeting of federal jobs for public-private competition is not new. 

During the Administration of President George W. Bush, competitive sourcing was one of its top 

initiatives. As part of their efforts, we saw the rules of competition overhauled, quotas set for 

competed jobs, and grades given to agencies on their efforts in conducting competitions. The 

changes undoubtedly had the desired effect: between 2000 and 2008, spending on contracting 

doubled, since 2001, reaching over $500 billion in 2008. The explosion in contract spending 

also led to a drastic increase in the size of the contract workforce in addition to waste, fraud and 

abuse. 

The Obama Administration, noting several issues with the A-76 process, instilled a 

moratorium on outsourcing while it looked to improve the competitive process. I urge this 

Committee to ensure that the current A-76 moratorium be continued. In addition to the concerns 

with the A-76 process and issues with cost overruns and proper contractor oversight, ethical 

issues are also of concern as contractor employees are working for the benefit of their employer 

company-not the benefit of the American people. Such initiatives also have a demoralizing 

impact on the existing federal workforce as they wonder if their job is the next to be outsourced. 

By ensuring that the outsourcing process is fair and that federal employees are able to 

compete for work with contractors on an even playing field, federal agencies will be better able 

t.o.provide high quality services and will save taxpayer dollars and achieve the goals for the 

OMB Memorandum. NTEU strongly supports both the House Appropriations Committee's FY 

2019 Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) measure, and the Senate 

Appropriations Committee's FSGG FY 19 bill, that would maintain the A-76 moratorium. 

Conclusion 

There are many challenges facing the federal government, including a need to invest 

wisely in the federal workforce, and to provide agencies with stable, timely, and adequate 

funding resources. The Administration's plans to re-shuffle, or to eliminate offices and 

programs, coupled with previous stated goals of reductions to the overall workforce--without real 

input from frontline federal employees, require serious congressional review and ultimately 

approval. We remain deeply concerned with directions to agencies requiring reductions to their 

workforces, based only on proposed budgets or plans. Overall, we fear the potential for a real 

opportunity for change will be wasted, along with taxpayer dollars, subjecting federal agencies 

9 
205 

and employees to further charges of being a failed bureaucracy, when it will be one of failed 

leadership. The proposed pay freeze for January 2019 during a time of a robust economy, FY 

2019 budget proposals to slash earned retirement, health care, leave benefits and workers' 

compensation, the recent May 25th EOs to decimate representation and collective bargaining 

rights of frontline employees, and the lack of action to invest in training and professional 

development for federal workers, all serve to demonstrate an Administration that fails to 

understand that agencies cannot hope to successfully implement federal programs and policies 

without providing for and valuing a skilled workforce. Thank you again for the opportunity to 

share NTEU's views. 

10 
206 

"Reviewing the Administration's Government Reorganization Proposal" 

July 18, 2018 

Contents 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable Margaret Weichert From 

Senator Claire McCaskill .......................................................................................................... I 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record Submitted to Hon. Margaret Weichert From Senator 

Michael B. Enzi ...................................................................................................................... 18 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable Margaret Weichert From 

Senator Heidi Heitkamp .......................................................................................................... 20 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable Margaret Weichert From 

Senator Thomas R. Carper ...................................................................................................... 28 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable 

Margaret Weichert From Senator Claire McCaskill 

At the hearing you testified that 10 to 12 proposals would not require legislative action. 

a. Please identify those proposals and the authority or authorities that will be relied 

on to execute those proposals. 

Response: The Administration continues to examine what additional statutory 

authorities are required to implement elements of the reorganization proposals. We 

believe that many of the proposals can be implemented in whole or in part through 

existing administrative authorities. 

b. Please provide cost estimates and business cases analyses that have been 

completed for those proposals, and if those analyses have not been completed an 

estimated dates of completion. 

Response: We recognize that reorganization can have both up-front costs and the 

potential for long-term savings and efficiencies. As I mentioned during the hearing, 

proposals included in Delivering Government Solutions in the 21'1 Century: Reform 

Plan and Reorganization Recommendations, reflect a vision for a future 21st Century 

I 
207 

Government that reduces redundancy, duplication and inefficiency. Following 

leading industry practice for reorganization, the next phase of work will drill down 

into specific operating models and timeline/phasing analysis that provide relevant 

detail for economic analysis. As such, more detailed articulations of specific costs 

and savings of any particular proposal will depend on further refinement of 

implementation plans. Each of the proposals is proceeding according to its own 

schedule, and will be introduced to the appropriate Congressional Committees of 

jurisdiction, as the proposals evolve. 

As a baseline for the economic rationale for the high level concept, each of the 

proposals within Delivering Government Solutions in the 21" Century: Reform Plan 

and Reorganization Recommendations contains a section titled "What We're 

Proposing and Why It's the Right Thing to Do" that provides a justification for the 

proposal. 

c. Please provide the expected timeline of implementation for each proposal. 

Response: While some of the proposals are ready for agency implementation, others 

establish a vision for the Executive Branch that will require further exploration and 

partnership with the Congress. Additional analysis of costs, benefits, and phasing 

bandwidth as well as regulatory and legislative considerations will affect timing. As 

a result, the paths and timelines for implementation may vary widely across the 34 

proposals. 

2. In your testimony before this Committee, you stated that in regards to the 32 governmentwide proposals in the Administration's plan that you met with the Comptroller General 

and agreed that 40% of the proposals "are effectively, if not identical, fairly close to 

what's been recommended by GAO." 

a. Please identify, by number in the Administration's plan, the proposals that were 

the result of a Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommendation. 

See table below showing GAO products that informed government-wide proposals. 

Proposal GAO reports 

Department of Education 

and the Workforce 

• A 2011 GAO report noted the proliferation of 

workforce programs and their clear overlapping 

missions, while suggesting that colocating services and 

consolidating administrative structures may heighten 

efficiency 

2 
208 

3 

4 

Consolidate Mission 

Alignment of Army 

Corps of Engineers Civil 

Works with those of other 

Federal Agencies 

Reorganize Primary 

Federal Food Safety 

Functions into a Single 

Agency, the Federal Food 

Safety Agency 

• GAO issued a 20 I 0 report entitled, "Organizational 

Realignment Could Enhance Effectiveness, but Several 

Challenges would have to be Overcome." 

• This issue has been raised by GAO for several decades 

and food safety has been on the high risk list since 2007 

because of the highly fragmented nature of federal food 

safety oversight. This issue also appeared in the GAO's 

annual duplication report. 

• GAO Annual Report 2018: The duplication report, 

released April 26, 2018, reiterates previous food safety 

concerns and highlights a new food safety issue between 

FSIS and FDA on imported seafood oversight. GAO 

states that improved coordination between FSIS and 

FDA would better manage fragmentation and more 

consistently protect consumers from unsafe drug 

residues. GAO continues to report "open actions" on 

food safety. 

• GAO Annual Report 2017: Additional Opportunities to 

Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication and 

Achieve Other Financial Benefits recommended 

• Congress should consider commissioning the National 

Academy of Sciences or a blue ribbon panel to conduct a 

detailed analysis of alternative food safety organizational 

structures. 

• OMB and other appropriate entities within the 

Executive Office of the President, in consultation with 

relevant federal agencies and other stakeholders, should 

develop a national strategy that states the purpose of the 

strategy, establishes high-level sustained leadership, 

identifies resource requirements, monitors progress, and 

identifies short- and long-term actions to improve the 

3 
209 

5 Move Select USDA 

Housing Programs to 

HUD 

food safety oversight system. 

• Congress should consider formalizing the Food Safety 

Working Group through statute to help ensure sustained 

leadership across food safety agencies over time. 

• GAO Food Safety: U.S. Needs a Single Agency to 

Administer a Unified, Risk-Based Inspection System; TRCED-99-256: Published: Aug 4, 1999. GAO stated "it 

is unlikely that fundamental, long-lasting improvements 

in food safety will occur until food safety activities are 

consolidated under a single agency and the patchwork of 

food safety legislation is altered to make it uniform and 

risk-based." 

• GAO Food Safety: A Unified, Risk-Based System 

Needed to Enhance Food Safety T-RCED-94-71: 

Published: Nov 4, 1993. Among many recommendations, 

GAO included "the creation of a single food safety 

agency responsible for administering a uniform set of 

laws is the most effective way to deal with long-standing 

problems and emerging food safety issues and ensure a 

safe food supply". Similar reports in 1992, 1994. 

• This proposal is also consistent with findings from 

GAO. Since 2012, GAO has issued annual reports on 

opportunities to reduce fragmentation, overlap and 

duplication, and housing programs at USDA and HUD 

have routinely been included in that report. 

• GA0-16-801: Home Mortgage Guarantees: Issues to 

Consider in Evaluating Opportunities to Consolidate 

Two Overlapping Single-Family Programs, September 

2016; 

• GA0-12-554: Report, Housing Assistance: 

Opportunities Exist to Increase Collaboration and 

Consider Consolidation, August 2012. 

4 
210 

6 

7 

Merge the National 

Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) 

Consolidation of 

Environmental Cleanup 

Programs 

• GAO completed a 2013 report looking at the potential 

benefits and downsides of merging the Services. 

• Challenges associated with the cost and cleanup of 

abandoned mine lands was addressed in the last ten years 

in the following reports and testimony: 

• GA0-15-35: Hazardous Waste: Agencies Should Take 

Steps to Improve Information on USDA's and Interior's 

Potentially Contaminated Sites (January 2015) 

• GA0-15-830T: Hazardous Waste Cleanup: Numbers of 

Contaminated Federal Sites, Estimated Costs, and EPA's 

Oversight Role (September 2015) 

• GA0-13-633T: Hazardous Waste Cleanup: 

Observations on States' Role, Liabilities at DOD Sites 

and Hardrock Mining Sites, and Litigation Issues (May 

2013) 

• GA0-11-834T: Abandoned Mines: Information on the 

Number of Hardrock Mines, Cost of Cleanup, and Value 

of Financial Assurances (July 2011) 

• GA0-08-574T: Hardrock Mining: Information on 

Abandoned Mines and Value and Coverage of Financial 

Assurances on BLM Land (March 2008) 

• GA0-06-884T: Environmental Liabilities: Hardrock 

Mining Cleanup Obligations (June 2006) 

5 
211 

11 Reorganizing the U.S. • GAO: Strategic human capital management has been 

Office of Personnel listed as a government-wide high risk area since 2001. 

Management 

12 Consolidation of Federal • GAO has reported on the feasibility of transferring 

Veterans Cemeteries DOD veteran cemeteries to VA, as well as on the joint 

VA-Arrny working group on this topic. 

• September 2014- GA0-14-537 

• December 2011- GA0-12-105 

13 Reorganizing Economic • This was recommended by GAO in the 1990s. 

Statistical Agencies Increasing access and use of administrative records to 

reduce costs and improve data accuracy has been 

recommended by GAO as recently as 2017. 

16 Reform Federal Role in • GAO: Objectives Needed for the Future of Fannie Mae 

Mortgage Finance and Freddie Mac After Conservatorships. 

17 Create the Bureau of • Duplication in Federal Economic Development 

Economic Growth Assistance programs has been cited in various GAO 

reports, including GA0-11-477R: Published: May 19, 

2011 

18 US Pub lie Health • GAO raised this issue in its annual reports in 1997, 

Commissioned Corps 1999,2000 and 2001. GAO also issued a report 

specifically on this topic "Issues on the Need for the PHS 

Corps" in 1996. 

20 Management • The 2018 duplication and overlap report called out the 

Consolidation of Federal fragmentation of federal STEM education efforts in 

Graduate Research general, but not graduate research fellowships 

Fellowships specifically. 

6 
212 

21 Rati(malize the Federal 

Real Property Approach • Federal real property is one of the items on the GAO 

annual high risk list. The annual report highlights the 

challenges with real property in the following areas 

addressed in our proposal: 

• Disposal of unneeded real property: including statutory 

impediments and the lack of retention of proceeds. 

• Costliness of leasing: GAO focuses predominantly on 

reducing the use ofleases which is addressed via the 

establishment of the FCRF as a mechanism for 

acquisition offederally owned space. 

• Reducing costs associated with leasing another area that 

GAO has written additional reports outside of the high 

risk series and this issue area is also addressed in this 

proposal. 

22 Consolidate and • Prior GA 0 reports on duplication of financial literacy 

Streamline Financial and education: 

Literacy Efforts • Financial Literacy: Overview of Federal Activities, 

Programs, and Challenges, GA0-14-556T, and Apr 30, 

2014. 

• Overlap of Programs Suggests There May Be 

Opportunities for Consolidation, GA0-12-588, and July 

23, 2012. 

• Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and 

Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue, 

GA0-12-342SP, Feb 28, 2012. 

• Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in 

Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance 

Revenue, GAO-Il-318SP, Mar I, 2011. 

23 Streamline Small • GAO identified these issues in its duplication tracker in 

Business Programs 2012,2011,2008,2006,2005, and 2000. 

7 
213 

27 

28 

29 

31 

Customer Experience 

(CX) Improvement 

Capability 

Next Generation Federal 

Student Aid Processing & 

Servicing Environment 

Solving the Federal 

Cybersecurity Workforce 

Shortage 

Transfer Background 

Investigations from NBIB 

to DOD 

• GAO has identified customer experience as a key issue 

which cuts across many of the areas in identified in its 

annual reports, and this proposal would help address a 

number of the report's recommendations by providing a 

central capacity to analyze the impact on customers of 

duplication across agencies. Currently the response to 

the duplication report bas been largely conducted within 

agency and programmatic silos, and further progress 

could be made if there was more capacity for crosscutting analysis. 

• GAO identified improvements to student loan servicing 

as an issue ED should address in GA0-16-523. 

• GAO reports: In its 2017 High Risk Report, GAO 

again included "Ensuring the Security of Federal 

Information Systems." The agency noted that of more 

than 2,500 past recommendations, about I ,000 still 

needed to be implemented, and listed several Key 

Reports that touched on workforce issues, including: 

GA0-16-885T 

GA0-16-686 

• Other relevant reports include GA0-18-520T, which 

evaluated the DHS cybersecurity workforce as part of its 

overall cybersecurity program, and GA0-18-466, which 

evaluated the Federal-wide effort to code cybersecurity 

positions. 

• This proposal has been indirectly addressed since 2012 

(Area 11) 

• GAO-addressed duplication of case management 

systems, transparency of costs, and implementation of 

shared services are part of the report. GAO has not 

historically addressed the issue of multiple agencies 

conducting background investigations. 

8 
214 

32 Strengthening Federal 

Evaluation 

• This is an issue that has recently been added to the 

GAO high risk list. 

• Related issues were raised in GA0-17-743 (September 

20 17), which recommended that the OMB Director 

should direct each of the 24 CFO Act agencies to prepare 

an annual agency-wide evaluation plan. 

b. Please provide the GAO report number and recommendation that correlates to 

each of the proposals that were recommended by GAO. 

Response: See table above. 

3. In your testimony before the House and Senate, you cited several cities and states as 

examples of successful government reorganizations (cities like Baltimore, Philadelphia, 

and Detroit, states like Georgia, Arkansas, and North Carolina). Can you please provide 

additional information about those examples? 

a. What specific reorganizations or government innovations are you citing in 

reference to these cities and states? When did these reorganizations occur, what 

efforts were executed, and what results, including any quantitative or qualitative 

data, demonstrated their success? 

Response: The Delivering Government Solutions in the 21" Century: Reform Plan 

and Reorganization Recommendations document includes a robust bibliography (p. 

128) with a range of relevant case studies that informed our thinking about the "art of 

the possible." For example, the book Innovations in e-Government: The Thoughts of 

Governors and Mayors 1 provides insights into "lessons learned" from across the 

country. In addition, we have engaged on a proactive listening tour with key 

stakeholders within and outside of government to identifY leading players at the state 

and city levels that might provide us with insights as we seek to transform 

government in the 21 51 Century. 

b. How do these examples provide insights, as you mentioned in your statement, to 

the proposals of the Administration's reorganization plan? 

1 Innovations in e-Government: The Thoughts of Governors and Mayors. Edited by Erwin A. Blackstone, Michael 

L. Bognanno and Simon Hakim, Rowman and Littlefield, 2005. 

9 
215 

Response: Similar to my testimony, my op-ed noted, "Cities like Pittsburgh, Reno, Provo 

and Kansas City, and states like Georgia and North Carolina, are evolving from their 

industrial and agrarian roots to become beacons of digital and technological innovation." 

These successes are meant to point to examples of how American communities are 

adapting to larger changes in our economy and technological capabilities. What is 

notable about these examples is that in nearly all cases of successful evolution at the State 

and Local level government leaders helped lead non-partisan transformation efforts that 

inclucled key roles for both public sector and private sector players. The Federal 

Government must follow this lead, recognizing that today's Executive Branch is not 

organized to meet Americans' needs in the 21st Century and digital age. 

4. You testified before the House that over 106,000 comments were received pursuant to a 

Federal Register notice. 

a. Was there a System of Records Notice (SORN) that applied to this request for 

information? If so, please provide a copy. If not, please explain why a SORN 

was not applicable. 

Response: It is my understanding that under the Privacy Act, agencies publish system of 

records notices (SORNs) in the Federal Register upon establishment or revision of a 

"system of records." However, I understand that the list of comments OMB received was 

not considered a "system of records" under the Privacy Act. 

b. Did OMB establish any policies regarding the intake of comments? What, if any, 

information was communicated to potential commenters before or after 

submission? 

Response: The following information was published on May 15, 2017 in the Federal 

Register (https://www.fcdcralrcgistcr.gov/documcnts/2017/05/15/20 17-09702/noticc-ofrequest-for-comment-on-governmcnt-wide-reform), and directed submission of 

comments electronically through (https://www.whitehouse.gov/reorganizing-theexecutiv(:-branch).-

AGENCY: 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Executive Office of the President. 

ACTION: 

Notice of request for comment on Government-wide Reform. 

SUMMARY: 

The Executive Office of the President invites the public to suggest improvements to the 

organization and functioning of the Executive Branch. These suggestions will help 

10 
216 

inform the development of the proposed Government-wide Reform Plan, designed to 

create a leaner, more accountable, and more efficient government that works for the 

American people. 

DATES: 

Comments are due by June 12, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: 

Comments and suggestions on government reforms and improvements must be submitted 

electronically by June 12, 2017 to https://www.whitehouse.gov/reorganizing-theexecutive-branch. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

On March 13, 2017, the President signed Executive Order 13781, Comprehensive Plan 

for Reorganizing the Executive Branch, which established a public comment requirement 

for the formulation of a comprehensive plan for reorganizing the Executive Branch. On 

April 12, 2017, OMB issued Memorandum M-17-22, Comprehensive Plan for Reforming 

the Federal Government and Reducing the Federal Civilian Workforce, to chart the 

course for a restrained, effective, and accountable government to better serve the 

American people. Pursuant to Executive Order 13781 and Memorandum M-17-22, a 

White House Web site has been created to facilitate the collection of public comments to 

inform the development of the Government-wide Reform Plan. The American people are 

encouraged to provide their input on how the Federal government can best work for 

them. 

Mick Mulvaney, 

OMB Director. 

[FR Doc. 2017-09702 Filed 5-12-17; 8:45am] 

BILLING CODE 3110-01-P 

c. What process did OMB use to analyze these comments? What methods, in 

particular, were employed to identify and support the proposals that were included 

in the Administration's plan? 

Response: OMB received public comments and organized, tallied, and sorted the 

comments by agency and, in the case of large agencies, by bureaus. Public comment files 

were then made available to agencies through an internal website in three tranches: May 

8, June 2, and June 19, 2017. 

11 
217 

d. Did OMB retain the comments that it received pursuant to the Federal Register 

notice? 

Response: Yes, OMB also made the comments available to agencies through an internal 

web site, where the comments remain. 

e. Is OMB able to identify how many comments were submitted by individuals and 

how many were submitted on behalf of organizations? If so, please provide a 

breakdown of those submissions. 

Response: The comments are not segregated in this manner. 

f. Please identity the number of comments forwarded to other federal agencies, 

categorized by agency and the office or contact at those agencies that received the 

comments. 

Response: Please see the attached document. 

g. For those comments that were forwarded to federal agencies, how were agencies 

instructed to use or respond to those comments in development of the 

reorganization plans? Were agencies instructed to retain copies of those 

comments? 

Response: OMB guidance to agencies in memorandum M-17-22 states: "OMB will also 

coordinate public input as required by the Reorganization EO and share the public 

feedback with agencies as appropriate for their consideration." 

h. Were comments from federal employees included in this tabulation, or were those 

tallied separately? If so, please provide the number of comments received from 

federal employees by department or agency. 

Response: Federal employees may have provided input through the public comment 

process but were not asked to identity themselves as such. However, each individual 

agency ultimately determined whether they sought to solicit additional feedback from 

Federal employees to include in their submission. 

i. Please provide copies of the comments that were cited in the published 

reorganization plan. 

12 
218 

Response: OMB is in the process of redacting the comments for personal privacy and plans 

to make the comments public shortly. 

5. In Director Mulvaney's Apri112, 2017, memo to the heads of all U.S. departments and 

agencies on reorganizing the Executive Branch, he required that all federal agencies 

submit a plan for proposed reforms that reduced costs and the number of federal workers. 

a. Please identify which agencies complied with the guidance and provided the 

information required by the memo and those that did not. 

Response: In September 2017, Federal agencies submitted to OMB their proposals for 

reform along with their FY 2019 budget proposals. The Administration's final proposals 

are the outcome of a deliberative process that included discussion with agencies 

regarding their own and other ideas. OMB does not plan to release this internal, 

deliberative information. 

b. Please provide copies of the plans submitted by the agencies to OMB as required 

by Director Mulvaney's April 12,2017, memo. 

Response: In September 2017, Federal agencies submitted to OMB their proposals for 

reform along with their FY 20 19 budget proposals. The Administration's final proposals 

are the outcome of a deliberative process that included discussion with agencies 

regarding their own and other ideas. OMB does not plan to release this internal, 

deliberative information. 

6. In your testimony, you stated that OMB planned to follow GAO's recently issued report 

entitled "Government Reorganization: Key Questions to Assess Agency Reform Efforts" 

(GA0-18-427) when carrying out the Administration's reorganization plan. 

a. That report identifies the importance of working with stakeholders in any 

government reorganization. What stakeholders is OMB planning to consult during 

plan implementation? 

Response: OMB will consult with stakeholders as appropriate to specific proposals 

that move into implementation. 

b. Please describe in detail how OMB plans to engage Congress during the 

implementation phase. 

13 
219 

Response: Following the hearings with Congress, OMB will continue to work with 

interested members to provide on-going updates about proposals as they evolve. 

7. According to OMB's April12, 2017, memo, "Once the Government-wide Reform Plan is 

finalized, OMB, in coordination with the President's Management Council, will establish 

a mechanism to track the progress of each reform." How does OMB plan to track the 

status and progress of implementation of these reform proposals? 

Response: OMB is in the process of determining the appropriate method to track specific 

proposals. 

8. In your testimony, regarding the federal workforce, you stated that, "although the initial 

conversation and the initial executive order had a flavor around reduction in force, when 

we actually did the analysis, and I've shared some of this data publically, the issue we 

have in government is not that we have too many federal employees, the issue is that we 

actually have a mass of federal employees set to retire within the next I 0 years." 

a. Please identify the analysis that you referenced and please provide a copy. 

Response: OMB relied on publically available data from both published actuarial reports, 

and from the Office of Personnel Management's FedScope database (fedscope.opm.gov) 

thatis updated every quarter using payroll data. Based on OPM actuarial data (from 

OPM's FY2017 Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund Annual Report), 63% of 

Federal employees (FERS and CSRS) as of September 30,2016 were over the age of 45. 

Assuming these employees stay in Federal employment and have the requisite years of 

service, 63% ofFeds employed as of September30, 2016 (most recent published actuarial 

data) will be eligible to retire by 2028. OPM FedScope data roughly backs up this 

information, showing that 58% of current Feds (as of March 2018) are over the age of 45, 

and the average age of a Federal employee is approaching 50. Assuming these 45+ year 

old employees stay in Federal service and have the requisite years of service, they will be 

eligible to retire by 2030 (in 12 years) at the latest. 

b. What exactly did this analysis show regarding retirement and alignment of skills 

within the workforce and how was the determination made that the 

Administration was no longer focused on reducing the federal workforce? 

Response: Research and analysis conducted in preparation of the President's 

Management Agenda2 identified "People and the Workforce of the 21'1 Century" as one 

of the top 3 drivers of change needed to align Government to support Mission, Service 

'President's Management Agenda, March 2018, www.perfonnance.gov 

14 
220 

and Stewardship needs in the 21'' Century. In that context, Federal employees are a 

critical and foundational component of the Administration's plan to drive change. Not 

surprisingly, as in the private sector, analysis suggests that the cost of bringing new 

employees into a government enterprise almost always exceeds the cost of better utilizing 

existing human resources, through reskilling or realignment. 

As the needed skills ofworkforces evolve in all sectors, the Federal Government has 

lagged in large part because of geographical limitations, labor agreements, strict job 

classification rules, and other factors that make it difficult to easily shift employees to 

where the work is needed, or to easily upskill and reskill employees to acquire new 

competencies. One study using Bureau of Labor Statistics data showed that about 5% of 

current positions could be automated. At the same time, the Government struggles to fill 

different mission-critical positions. This is why the President's Management Agenda 

includes a pillar to reskill the dedicated employees who are already vetted to find new 

positions. Consequently, M-17-22 explicitly focused on good governance policies and 

not staffing levels. 

c. Have any analyses regarding an increase in the use of service contracts to make 

up for either attrition or reduction in the federal workforce been completed? If 

no, please explain how OMB will address this issue. If yes, please provide a copy 

of the analyses. 

Response: No. OMB lifted the hiring freeze in April 2017 without a requirement for 

reduction in staffing levels. Each agency has the discretion to determine the appropriate 

staffing balance within its appropriated funding level. As OMB starts preparation for the 

2020 President's Budget Request, agencies will continue to maintain discretion on 

whether to hire federal employees or contractors. OMB is supportive of new legislative 

authorities that provide more flexibility in hiring temporary, term, and recent graduates to 

fill shorter -term opportunities. 

9. In your testimony, you pointed to the examples of other countries that have privatized the 

postal service as a model that the U.S. could follow. 

a. How many other postal service organizations around the world are privatized? 

See below. 

b. What analysis has OMB conducted of these organizations to inform any U.S. 

proposals? 

See below. 

15 
221 

c, What has the experience been in terms of price increases, delivery days, and the 

impact on rural communities for those countries? 

See below. 

d. Did you discuss the costs, benefits and consequences, both intended and 

unintended with anyone involved in postal privatization from countries that have 

undergone such a transition? If so please provide a summary of those 

conversations. 

See below. 

e. Did OMB analyze any alternatives to improve the financial condition of the Postal 

Service other than privatization? If so, what were they and what factors led to the 

decision to highlight the privatization option? 

Response: Many countries in Europe (including Germany, the UK, Belgium, and 

Austria), and more recently, Japan, have adopted some degree of Postal privatization. 

The models vary from full privatization with regulatory oversight to publicly traded 

companies with some form of joint-venture ownership by the government. A 

universal service obligation and regulation typically exist to ensure that needed postal 

products are available to all citizens at a reasonable price. Germany, for example, 

continues a universal service obligation for letters and small parcels. In our view, the 

dire financial position of the USPS poses the biggest risk to the ability of the Postal 

Service to meet its obligations to customers over the long-term. Postal reform and 

restructuring is required to ensure Americans continue to receive needed mail 

services and we're eager to work with Congress to achieve that. 

10. The Department of Defense (DoD) represents approximately 50% of annual discretionary 

spending and about 35% of the federal civilian workforce, not taking into account the 

military or postal service. 

a. Why didn't OMB include any reorganization proposals for DoD, other than 

moving OPM's background investigations to DoD? 

Response: In recent years, DOD has undertaken numerous efforts to eliminate 

inefficiencies and reform the Department, including efforts directed by Congress. 

Given these ongoing efforts to reform and reorganize the Department, OMB and 

DOD agreed to focus on implementing existing reorganization initiatives 

including proposals affecting background investigations, Army Corps, veterans 

cemeteries and other areas OMB will continue working with the Department and 

16 
222 

Congress to ensure that ongoing reorganization, reform, and efficiency efforts are 

successful and meet the Administration's intent to reform the government. 

b. Was DoD exempt from the Executive Order and the reorganization directive? 

Response: No. Given these efforts to reform and reorganize the Department, 

OMB and DOD agreed to focus on implementing existing reorganization 

initiatives. 

c. Did DoD provide OMB with a plan for reorganization? If so, what proposals did 

that plan include? 

Response: Given these efforts to reform and reorganize the Department, OMB 

and DOD agreed to focus on implementing existing reorganization initiatives. 

d. Should Congress and the public expect proposals for DoD separately from the 

Administration's plan? 

Response: 

Given these efforts to reform and reorganize the Department, OMB and DOD 

agreed to focus on implementing existing reorganization initiatives. 

II. In 2016, the Director ofOMB, Acting Director ofOPM, and Federal Chieflnformation 

Officer issued a Federal Cybersecurity Workforce Strategy. Congress also passed the 

Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA), which gave the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) broad authority to help recruit and retain cybersecurity talent. What is 

the difference between your proposal (proposal #29 in the plan, "Solving the Federal 

Cybersecurity Workforce Shortages") and the ongoing efforts to address these issues that 

were in place before this Administration? 

Response: OMB views the Federal Cybersecurity Workforce Strategy, CISA, and the 

Solving the Federal Cybersecurity Workforce Shortages proposal as a continuum of 

efforts, rather than divergent activities to strengthen the Federal cybersecurity workforce. 

Prior efforts relied on agencies to address workforce challenges independently, and led to 

inconsistent participation in programs that build the talent pipeline and inconsistent use of 

existing recruitment and retention authorities. The reform and reorganization proposal 

builds on prior work, while shifting to a whole of government approach that benefits all 

Federal agencies by streamlining programs the talent pipeline, developing a centralized 

surge capacity to respond to cyber incidents, and reskilling existing employees. 

17 
223 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record Submitted to Hon. Margaret 

Weichert From Senator Michael B. Enzi 

In the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Budget Request and the President's Reform Plan and 

Reorganization Recommendations (Plan) issued in June 2018, the Administration proposed a 

new capital revolving fund for the construction or renovation of federally-owned civilian real 

property. This proposal intends to implement elements of a capital budget, allowing agencies to 

access up-front capital that would then be paid back into the fund over a number of years as 

operating expenditures. The President's FY 2019 Budget requests $10 billion for the corpus of 

the fund. As an accountant, a mayor, and a state and federal legislator, I have been a long-time 

supporter of budgeting for tangible capital like real property. As I continue to review the 

Administration's proposal, I request your response to the following questions. 

1. How does the Plan differ from or improve upon the approach reported in the General 

Accountability Office's (GAO) 2014 report (GA0-14-239) that is referenced in the Plan? 

The Plan incorporates many of the elements included in the GAO approach including the 

creation of a government-wide fund to finance capital projects. That fund would provide 

full funding for the up-front acquisition cost, capitalizing the Federal Capital Revolving 

Fund (FCRF) with mandatory appropriations so that project costs do not score 

immediately against discretionary appropriations, making repayments over time from 

agencies to the FCRF using discretionary annual appropriations, and basing resource 

allocation decisions on information provided in business case analyses. The primary 

differences are: (I) we include directed scoring that is necessary to make the FCRF work 

from a budget enforcement standpoint; (2) we propose to capitalize the FCRF by a $10 

billion mandatory appropriation instead of by borrowing authority; and (3) we do not 

factor interest into agencies' repayments because agencies currently are not charged 

interest when discretionary appropriations are used to pay for capital purchases. 

2. Please provide a detailed estimate of the potential cost savings from the proposed federal 

capital revolving fund (FCRF), including the source of such savings. 

The FCRF is a budgetary mechanism to address the lumpiness of the full funding 

reqUirement for the largest of capital projects. Federal ownership of an asset where the 

Government has a clear, long term need or where the asset is unique to the Government's 

specifications is always the most cost effective solution, e.g. agency Headquarters 

facilities, complex laboratories. The cost savings will depend on the specific 

circumstances of each project. Replacing a building that is long past its useful life will 

save on maintenance and repairs. Replacing several leases by consolidating staff into a 

single new building with an efficient footprint will save on lease costs. Purchasing a 

18 
224 

building instead of acquiring the space via a capital lease will at a minimum save on 

interest costs and avoid needing to extend the initial lease or move to new space when the 

term expires. While it is difficult to quantify the cost savings to the FCRF as a whole, 

savings associated with individual projects will be part of the business analysis. In 

addition, a classic buy vs. lease analysis may also include an assessment of the potential 

asset valuation change over time 

3. Is the $10 billion proposed for the corpus of the FCRF sufficient for the entire federal 

gciv~ernment given the significant costs associated with real property projects? What is 

the basis for this amount and how was it derived? 

The FCRF is proposed as part of the Administration's larger Infrastructure Initiative. The 

$10 billion amount seemed like a reasonable starting point to test an entirely new 

approach to budgeting and financing the most costly of the civilian federally-owned 

buildings. Obviously the amount can be re-evaluated as we gain experience with this 

approach. 

19 
225 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable 

Margaret Weichert From Senator Heidi Heitkamp 

1) Ms. Weichert, I have often said that it's important for us all to remember the root causes for 

why the Postal Service is in the financial shape it is in today. The aggressive prefunding 

schedule that was placed on the Postal Service, coupled with the Great Recession of2007-2009, 

and declining mail volumes have allied us to this point. And, that is why both the Senate and 

the House have been working on legislation to alleviate the Postal Service's challenges. 

There is a reason that the Postal Service is in our Constitution and why it has a wholly unique 

Universal Service Obligation- it is the only nationwide communications network of its kind that 

is accessible and affordable to everyone. 

• Could rural communities continue to be served in the same way they are today under a 

privatized Postal Service? 

o How would it be profitable to serve rural areas that are, quite literally, in the 

middle of nowhere? 

o How do you envision the Universal Service Obligation being impacted? 

Response: Ensuring the continuation of needed services to all Americans- including the 

delivery of important mail to rural customers- is a key part of our vision for the Postal 

Service. The dire financial position of the USPS poses the biggest risk to the ability of the 

Postal Service to meet its obligations to customers over the long-term. In almost any 

model of reform- including our proposal regulatory oversight of some prices and 

service standards would be needed to ensure the Postal Service meets the needs of its 

customers. Postal reform and restructuring is needed to ensure the long-term viability of 

the organization and we're eager to work with Congress to achieve that. 

• I would like your commitment that you all will take a real look at the legislative solutions 

in the House and the Senate and work with members on both sides of the aisle 

constructively to fix the Postal Service in a way that reflects the needs of the American 

postal customer. 

o Can I have that commitment from you? 

20 
226 

Response: I am committed to helping promote a dialogue between Congress and the 

Executive Branch to ensure that all action to fix the Postal Service incorporates the best 

thinking from both branches of govermnent. 

2) As you know, I have been very interested in the agency reorganization effort since it started 

last spring and Senator Lankford and I have held two hearings on the subject in our 

Subcommittee. You also know that I have been waiting to hear from OMB for some time about 

the reorganization proposals that agencies submitted to OMB. It is important for Congress to see 

and understand those agency generated plans so we can properly evaluate the Administration's 

final proposals. 

• One ofthe proposed reorganization plans includes moving USDA's food stamp program 

into HHS. Was this proposal in the plan that USDA submitted to OMB? 

Response: OMB worked with many agencies, including USDA, throughout the 

development of this plan, to refine the ideas presented in initial proposals, and to identify 

opportunities across agencies that would further the goals of better mission alignment, 

management improvement and operational efficiencies. Through this collaborative effort, 

and considering the input from all proposals and sources, it was determined that this 

proposal would better align the administration of these public assistance programs at the 

Fedt:rallevel with how they are often administered at the State and local levels. This will 

reduce administrative burdens and duplications of effort that currently exist for State and 

local govermnents, and ensure that policies are applied consistently across all programs, 

potentially reducing confusing, complex, and sometimes contradictory requirements 

across programs that can make it difficult for both States and participants to follow the 

rules. 

• How many of the core 32 reorganization proposals contained in the reorganization 

proposal that the Administration released on June 21, 2018 were proposed- in part or in 

whole- by a federal agency in the reorganization plans that were submitted to OMB? 

Response: The Administration's final proposals are the outcome of a deliberative process 

that included discussion with agencies regarding their own and other ideas. OMB does 

not plan to release this internal, deliberative information. 

21 
227 

• Will you release the agency reorganization plans to Congress? 

o If so, when? 

o If not, why not? 

Response: The Administration's final proposals are the outcome of a deliberative process 

that included discussion with agencies regarding their own and other ideas. OMB does 

not plan to release this internal, deliberative information. 

• If OMB refuses to release those plans to Congress, what do you think that refusal says to 

Congress? 

Response: OMB's role in coordinating Executive Branch policy, management and budget 

activities relies heavily on our ability to efficiently and effectively solicit input, analyze 

input, and ultimately support the President of the United States in his ability to make 

decisions and recommendations about Executive Branch functions. As with the annual 

budget process, pre-decisional and deliberative inputs to this process are not broadly 

shared, since the end product- in this case, the Reform Plan- provides a holistic view of 

the final perspective of the Administration. Moving forward, OMB hopes to engage in 

productive conversation with the Congress about the Administration's proposals. I look 

forward to active and constructive conversations with you on specific proposals. 

3) Many of these reorganization proposals provide no specific details about how they are going 

to impact the day-to-day lives of our citizens and their interactions with the federal government. 

The plan includes claims that sound good such as "better align the administration of' or "reduce 

unnecessary bureaucracy," but offer no specifics regarding the actual impact of these 

proposals. I do not see any analysis of how merging USDA nutrition assistance programs into 

HHS will make things better for program participants, or how combining the Education and 

Labor Departments will improve government efficiency. It is not enough to claim something will 

be better. Congress needs you to show how this program will actually improve government 

effectiveness. 

22 
228 

• In your opinion, does Congress have enough analysis to judge these proposals and how 

they will impact communities and families? 

Response: As I outlined in the hearing, the Administration sought to provide a 

perspective on a vision and a path forward for thinking differently about organization 

aligmnent to meet the needs of Mission, Service and Stewardship in the 21 '

1 Century. 

The specific proposals represent the Executive Branch contribution and framing for the 

on-going policy deliberation that will be required to move forward with the broad 

transformation that is needed. Each proposal included in the document is at a different 

stage, and our expectation is that we will proactively engage with Congress as the 

proposals move forward. Moreover, OMB is glad to engage with the Congress in further 

discussion on specific proposals as part refining them and moving toward 

implementation. 

• What are OMB's plans to provide additional analysis of these proposals and the specific 

impacts they will have? 

Response: OMB has provided these proposals to begin a constructive dialogue. Specific 

impacts of individual proposals would be subject to further refinement with stakeholders, 

including the Congress. Moreover, our expectation is that further analysis of individual 

proposals will incorporate many of the specific elements outlined by the GAO in the 

recently published volume: Key Questions to Assess Agency Reform Efforts.3 

• What type of analysis is OMB planning to produce on its reorganization proposals? 

Response: Because specific impacts of individual proposals would be subject to further 

refinement with stakeholders, including the Congress, OMB plans to produce further 

analysis as appropriate based on constructive dialogue. Our expectation is that further 

analysis of individual proposals will incorporate many of the specific elements outlined 

by the GAO in the recently published volume: Key Questions to Assess Agency Reform 

Efforts.4 

3 Key Questions to Assess Agency Reform Efforts. Government Accountability Office, June 13, 2018 4 !<q Questions to Assess Agency Reform Efforts. Government Accountability Office, June 13, 2018 

23 
229 

• When does OMB expect to share additional analysis about the impact of these plans with 

Congress? 

Response: Because specific impacts of individual proposals would be subject to further 

refinement with stakeholders, including the Congress, OMB plans to produce further 

analysis as appropriate based on constructive dialogue. 

• What factors will OMB use to analyze the impact of these plans? 

Response: Factors considered in further analysis would depend on refinement with 

stakeholders, including the Congress. Our expectation is that further analysis of 

individual proposals will incorporate many of the specific elements outlined by the GAO 

in the recently published volume: Key Questions to Assess Agency Reform Efforts. 5 

4) One of the Administration's proposals is to move the human resources policy functions of 

OPM into the Executive Office of the President, while moving a number ofOPM's operational 

and service functions, such as retirement services and healthcare and insurance, into a new entity 

called the Government Services Agency. This new agency would essentially be a combination 

of the current Government Services Administration (GSA) and OPM's operational/service units. 

• What experience does GSA have with retirement policy, processing, and health care 

policy and administration? 

Response: GSA has substantial experience offering HR services to federal agencies. 

Before GSA offers new services, the Administration will ensure that it currently has or 

acquires any relevant expertise to ensure that there are no disruptions in service to federal 

employees. 

• What is the plan to avoid negative impacts to the various groups of employees, retirees 

and family members that would be affected by these transfers of functions? 

Response: Successful delivery against the promises of Reform to enhance Mission, 

Service and Stewardship requires on-going care to minimize adverse impacts associated 

with transition to new government operating models. As such, change management and 

5 Key Questions to Assess Agency Reform Efforts, Government Accountability Office, June 13, 2018 

24 
230 

communications planning will play a core role in the roll out of each plan, to ensure that 

potential adverse impacts are well understood and considered, and where appropriate, 

addressed by mitigation plans. 

5) One of the reasons given in the June report for the proposal to move OPM's human resources 

pol\<:y fanctions to the Executive Office of the President is to "provide it with a whole-ofGovernment mandate that OPM currently lacks." 

How will moving these human resources policy functions improve efficiency across the 

government? 

Response: Elevation of core OPM policy and strategy functions into the Executive Office 

of the President will help provide government-wide clarity and consistency on broad 

policy frameworks, and provide a centralized perspective to assess when to devolve 

additional control back to agencies where appropriate. 

6) In your opinion, which of these reorganization proposals do you think you have executive 

authority to implement? 

• i\!1-~•which do you believe you will need legislation to implement? 

Response: As I mentioned during the hearing, we are spending the summer engaging with 

relevant agency representatives to evaluate timing and required vehicles for 

implementation. As part of this process, we are assessing which functional transfers can 

occur administratively. As we continue our assessment, we will work with Congress if 

legislative fixes are found to be necessary. 

At the hearing, you mentioned that there were 10-12 proposals that OMB believed the 

Executive Branch had authority to execute on without congressional approval. 

o When do you expect to share that list of proposals? 

o For each of those 10-12 proposals, can you provide a specific timeline regarding 

agency plans to implement them? 

Response: Our expectation is that we will have clear timelines and documented 

approaches for an initial group of those proposals, such as possibly four to five, by the 

end of October, and would begin to share information about those specific 

implementation plans as they become finalized. The remaining administrative proposals 

will likely be evaluated and staged for broader sharing during the fall. 

25 
231 

4. The proposed $10 billion in up-front FCRF capitalization is classified as direct spending. 

How does the Administration propose paying for this initial investment? Does the 

Administration anticipate future mandatory appropriations to the FCRF? 

Response: The proposed mandatory appropriation to the FCRF is part of the overall 

President's FY 2019 Budget Infrastructure Initiative and thus, like other budget proposals, 

is offset within the entire President's Budget. We look forward to working with Congress 

to find a specific offset or to find other ways to capitalize the FCRF. 

5. What is the process by which agencies would apply for this funding? What requirements 

are proposed for agencies to receive the funding from FRCF? How does the 

Administration propose to prioritize requests? 

Response: We envision a process that involves agencies submitting project funding 

requests as part of their annual budget submissions to OMB, which would include a 

robust business case analyses, and an OMB comparison and ranking of proposed projects 

to select projects that will be included in the President's Budget each year. 

6. Does the Administration envision an annual limit on FCRF obligations? If so, what is the 

proposed limit and how did the Administration arrive at that number? 

Response: Yes, section 4(t) of the proposed legislation specifies an annual limit of$2.5 

billion on newly approved projects, plus any unused annual limitation from previous 

years. Given the proposed $10 billion capitalization of the FCRF, a $2.5 billion annual 

limitation on new projects seems sufficient to fund the largest high priority project or 

projects over several years that will provide us with useful information about how this 

proposal will work in practice. 

7. What accountability mechanisms are proposed for tracking project cost recovery and the 

return on investments? 

Response: Evaluation of the return on investment or cost effectiveness of the project will 

potentially be an aspect of the initial business case analysis. The draft legislation 

includes text requiring purchasing agencies to fully repay the FCRF the entire amount 

transferred to the agency from the Fund ensuring total cost recovery by the Fund. 

8. Capital budgets have been the subject of several reports issued by budget concept 

commissions, GAO, and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Capital budgets are 

common at the state level. What are the challenges associated with adopting capital 

budgets at the federal level? 

26 
232 

Response: One challenge is that a capital budget at the Federal level could become an 

uncontrolled and unlimited source of financing that greatly expands Federal spending and 

Federal debt. The conditions differ at the State and local level; they generally are 

required to balance their operating budgets, and they are subject to market constraints on 

their ability to borrow, which acts as an external discipline on their capital budgets. In 

contrast, the Federal Government is running large deficits and would have a large 

operating deficit if we separated Federal operating and capital spending, and tl1e Federal 

Government seems to be able to borrow at will with no market penalties. A full-fledged 

capital budget for the Federal could quickly become a magnet for all kinds of spending 

that cannot fit in the operating budget, which would greatly reduce budget control and 

budget enforcement. We address this issue in our proposal by capitalizing the FCRF with 

a $10 billion appropriation and limiting the use of those funds to $2.5 billion per year. 

Another challenge concerns the defmition of capital. State and local governments 

typically use their capital budgets only to fund assets that they own. In contrast, a large 

percentage of Federal investment is in the form of grants, which are not owned and 

controlled by the Federal Government, or investment in military hardware. We address 

this issue by limiting the FCRF to Federal facilities that are owned by non-DOD agencies 

and that house Federal employees. 

27 
233 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable 

Margaret Weichert From Senator Thomas R. Carper 

1. What was the process and timeframe for the development of the President's plan entitled, 

"Delivering Government Solutions in the 21st Century Reform Plan and Reorganization 

Recommendations"? Who participated in its development, what groups were consulted 

and what was the process for collaboration? 

Response: This plan shares the Administration's priority ideas and is meant to open a dialogue. 

We look forward to engaging very actively with members of Congress and other stakeholders as 

we rauve forward. The Administration was pleased to receive more than I 06,000 public 

comments to help inform and guide the development of these proposals. 

The graphic below from page 6 of the plan shows the process and timeframe for development: 

28 
234 
235 

2. I am concerned that this re-organization proposal, the President's recent Executive Orders 

targeting federal employee ability to collectively bargain, and his ongoing attacks on 

federal employees, including the men and women that make up our federal law 

enforcement, is having a serious effect on morale across government. And not only 

morale, but the ability of the government to recruit and retain a world class workforce. 

With that in mind, how were front line federal employees consulted in the drafting of this 

proposal? Does the Administration have any plans to consult directly with federal 

employee unions as it continues to develop its re-organization proposal? How does this 

plan ensure that we are able to recruit and retain a world class workforce? 

r-.~~ponse: Frontline Federal employees played a crucial part in the reorganization proposals. 

Initially, employees were encouraged to submit proposals along with the public. Unions had the 

opportunity to make proposals during this period too. Moreover, individual agencies had the 

latitude to conduct additional outreach activities before, during and after the proposal submission 

process. The Administration will continue to welcome opportunities to engage in constructive 

dialogue with key stakeholder groups, including Federal employee organizations, unions and 

public interest groups as we move forward with specific proposals. 

The reorganization plans will make agencies more effective and efficient places to work. 

Employees have also been long frustrated by silos created during the past 100 years in some 

agencies. The savings from increased efficiency will directly improve the experience for current 

employees, and as the Government invests in a modern workforce, new employees will be drawn 

to public service. The Administration will work with Congress on Civil Service Modernization to 

ensure we have the statutory tools to hire and manage for the 21st century. 

Moreover, the Administration will continue to move forward with activities outlined in the 

President's Management Agenda,6 which includes a critical focus on people and workforce 

issues, including performance management, training/reskilling and acquisition of top talent as 

p~· of a comprehensive plan for Strategic Workforce Management for the 21 '' Century. 7 

3. I always believe that, with any major change, one needs to start by identifying the 

problem to be solved. During this hearing, I asked what are the specific concerns 

regarding the Corps' current structure that the President's plan, entitled "Delivering 

Government Solutions in the 21 '' Century Reform Plan and Reorganization 

Recommendations," is intended to fix, and how does the plan address those issues? In 

your testimony, your response was that multiple agencies operate and overlap, and cause 

fragmentation, in the Corps' environmental, flood control and permitting spaces. You 

6 The President's Management Agenda, March 2018, www.performance.gov. See Cross-Agency Priority Goal #3, 

~P· 18-21. 

lbid.,p. 19. 

30 
236 

also stated that the Corps' civil missions are a small part (22%) of the U.S. Army and are 

neglected in an Army focused on warfighting. When will the data and analysis to support 

these claims be provided to this committee? Additionally, the small proportion of the 

civil works program of the Army mission seems to be an argument for removing the 

Corps civil works program from the Army umbrella, not disbanding it altogether and 

placing this mission with DOT and DOI, where once again it will be a small piece of a 

much larger program. Please explain the thought and analysis behind placing the civil 

works mission with DOT and DOL 

Response: The proposal to "Consolidate Mission Alignment of Army Corps of Engineers Civil 

Works with Those of Other Federal Agencies" is focused, in the case of functions proposed to be 

moved to the Department of the Interior, at improving land, water, and natural resource 

management efforts, including infrastructure permitting across government and in the case of 

moving the coastal navigation function to the Department of Transportation, providing greater 

consistency in policy and investment decisions by the federal government in the transportation 

sector. 

4. Do you concur that data, cost-benefit and other analysis should serve as the foundation 

for the 32 proposed solutions within the President's plan? What is your proposed path 

forward to gather data, information and recommendations from the Corps of Engineers, 

and your commitment to share the specific data, analysis and details (including the bodies 

that are the sources of the ideas) with this committee for the purposes of Congressional 

oversight prior to the proposals coming before Congress as part of the normal budget 

process? 

Response: The Administration's Reform Plan and Reorganization Recommendations serves as a 

cornerstone for productive dialogue to enable the Federal Government to operate more 

effectively in the 21st Century. Some proposals are ready for implementation, but others will 

require legislation or longer-term refinement to address all of the specific details for 

implementation. The Corps proposals falls into this latter category. 

5. The Corps of Engineers is primarily a planning, design and construction organization for 

projects that affect multiple states, as opposed to DOT that is primarily a granting 

organization. What is the knowledge gap in your assessment? What specific actions 

would you take to address this knowledge gap? 

Response: The proposal to "Consolidate Mission Alignment of Army Corps of Engineers Civil 

Works with Those of Other Federal Agencies" is focused, in the case of functions proposed to be 

moved to the Department of the Interior, at improving land, water, and natural resource 

management efforts, including infrastructure permitting across government and in the case of 

moving the coastal navigation function to the Department of Transportation, providing greater 

consistency in policy and investment decisions by the federal government in the transportation 

sector. Moving the Corps navigation mission to the Department of Transportation would 

31 
237 

consolidate federal transportation policy and investment decisions at a single federal agency 

thereby streamlining and improving federal policy and investment decision making. As we move 

into implementation of the proposal, we look forward to working with Congress to ensure the 

best results for the Nation. 

6. How would you organize and manage the navigation and the flood control missions 

between the DOT and DOl? Please be specific. 

Response: The Administration's proposal moves the Army Corps Civil Works commercial 

navigation mission to the Department of Transportation and the remaining Corps Civil Works 

missions (flood, and storm damage reduction, aquatic ecosystem restoration, regulatory and all 

other missions) to the Department ofthe Interior. The planning, construction, and especially 

operation of navigable waterway systems frequently involves the management of competing 

demands for storage or water releases to support navigation, flood risk management, 

hydropower, municipal or industrial water supply, recreation, and flows to sustain aquatic 

ecosystems. To guide these operations, plans in the form of Reservoir Operating Plans and Lock 

and Dam Operating Plans have been created and proven particularly helpful during periods of 

drought (low flows) or flood (high flows). The effective execution of the navigation and flood 

control missions, will be dependent on close coordination between the two agencies and frequent 

collaboration on the operation and maintenance of structures, and review and updating of these 

plans. 

7. The nature of water is that it is a common resource that is essential to life itself, shared by 

all, and used for competing purposes. There are inherent conflicts and tensions when 

managing reservoirs for flood control, hydropower generation, water storage, recreation 

and other purposes; and, optimizing navigation can have environmental impacts and 

consequences. The Corps often serves as a "referee" to balance competing Federal and 

. ~ta_te water needs. If DOT is focused on water transportation, but DOl is focused on 

managing interstate flood control responsibilities, who determines the winner in the event 

of a conflict? Please describe in detail the process that would resolve this conflict. 

Response: The details of how the two agencies would interact will be addressed as the proposal 

moves into the implementation phase. While there will likely be complex questions that need to 

be addressed, ultimately when implemented, the proposal will result in more rational public 

policy outcomes and better Federal investment decisions. 

8. The water wars between Georgia/Florida and Alabama involve fundamental 

disagreements over complex multi-purpose water supply, recreation, hydropower and 

flood control issues that have ended up in the Supreme Court of the United States 

multiple times. How do you believe DOT and DOl would manage the reservoirs in light 

ofthese competing demands? Please be specific. 

32 
238 

Response: The details of how the two agencies would interact will be addressed as the proposal 

moves into the implementation phase. While there will likely be complex questions that need to 

be addressed, ultimately when implemented, the proposal will result in more rational public 

policy outcomes and better Federal investment decisions. I would note, that the Department of 

the Interior has extensive experience managing water resources, including for water supply, 

recreation, hydropower, and flood control purposes. 

9. The Corps of Engineers is a U.S. federal agency under the Department of Defense and a 

major Army command made up of some 33,000-37,000 civilian and military personnel, 

making it one of the world's largest public engineering, design, and construction 

management agencies. Only around 500-650 of its ranks are soldiers, with the vast 

majority being civilians. The Corps is the repository for historical information and all 

sorts of specialized kinds of technical knowledge and expertise - capabilities that can't be 

economically maintained in the private sector. These skills reside within the Corps' 

districts, divisions, labs, forward operating sites and deployed throughout the world, 

Have you explored how to maintain this capability, especially if the Corps structure is 

dissolved and the current offices are closed? Are you concerned about the sudden 

upheaval- changes in agency culture and priorities- that may make these jobs less 

attractive to the best and brightest talent for these specialized skills? What specific 

actions would you take to overcome these challenges? 

Response: The Administration's Reform Plan and Reorganization Recommendations serves as a 

cornerstone for productive dialogue to enable the Federal Government to operate more 

effectively in the 21st Century. Some proposals are ready for implementation, but others will 

require legislation or longer-term refinement to address all of the specific details for 

implementation. The Corps proposals falls into this latter category. The specific details for 

staffing and organization structure remain to be worked out, but it isn't anticipated that any 

personnel will lose their jobs as a result of mission alignment 

l 0. In 20 I 1, when the Mississippi River was in major flood stage and impacted navigation, 

flood risk, operating and maintenance of the federal levees, dams, floodways across eight 

states, the USACE Commander had responsibility across all these functions to 

communicate with and discuss actions with all the Governors on both sides of the river 

and up and down from the crest which was moving weekly down river to New Orleans. 

Under the proposed structure, how would you manage these actions between DOT and 

DQI? Please be specific. 

Response: The federal government has experience in dealing with large multi-state disasters and 

mechanisms can be adopted in advance to ensure seamless interaction between the two agencies, 

if needed in future emergency situations. Specific details as to how these mechanisms would 

work will be worked out in the implementation phase. 

33 
239 

II. More than twelve thousand Corps civilian employees volunteered to assist with the 

rebuilding efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. All were volunteers. Moreover, the Corps is 

currently in over 90 other countries worldwide. Corps personnel are also on call to 

respond to natural disasters, such as restoring 30,000 miles of downed power lines and 

over 60,000 power poles in hurricane-ravaged Puerto Rico, where much ofthe work was 

on nearly inaccessible mountain tops. Has anyone thought about whether thousands of 

DOT or DOl employees would have the skills, and be willing, to volunteer to deploy to 

dangerous and difficult locales? How would the new proposed structure ensure that 

civilians are deployment-ready for these missions for which the nation and the world are 

counting on us? 

Response: As the proposal moves through the implementation phase, there are likely many 

complex issues that will need to be addressed. This likely includes analysis as to whether or not 

only civilian federal employees have the necessary expertise to rebuild foreign nations. In the 

case of federal response to Stafford Act disasters, FEMA is the lead agency for coordinating the 

Administration's response efforts. FEMA would continue in this role and the Administration 

would continue to ensure the federal government maintains its capability to help state, local, and 

tribal governments respond to disasters. 

12. Page 30 of the report, Delivering government Solutions in the 21 '

1 Century," states that 

"[t]he primary mission of DOD is to provide the military force needed to deter war and 

protect the security ofthe Nation" and therefore suggest moving the Corps' civil works 

missions to the Department of Transportation and the Department of the Interior. 

However, on page 53, the report recommends transferring the National Background 

Investigation Bureau (NBIB) from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to DOD. 

The logic behind these two recommendations does not seen congruent. Please explain. 

Response: The decision to move DOD-related security clearance investigations to the 

Department of Defense was included in the last NDAA which was passed by Congress in 

December of2017. Since the vast majority of the background investigation mission consists of 

investigations for security clearances or other national security purposes for the Department of 

Defense, approximately 70-80% of the total NBIB volume was already affected by that 

legislation. The DoD is also the Executive Agent for the National Industrial Security Program, 

which handles contractor employees and facilities with a national security mission. 

In this context, separating 80% of the background investigations from OPMINBIB, effectively 

created a reality in which NBIB would not have a scalable ability to handle non-DOD volume 

cost effectively. Given that reality, many other agencies actively considered moving away from 

the NBIB shared-services model for background investigations. Analysis suggested that such a 

"splintered" outcome would be cost inefficient, and would move the entire government away 

from a desired goal of having a common suitability and security standard that would allow 

efficient movement of people across government agencies. 

34 
240 

As such, the rationale for the move ofNBIB in total (rather than just the DOD investigations) 

was driven by the goal of preventing proliferation of duplicative, non-integrated background 

investigation capabilities. Fairly considered, the DoD mission of protecting the security of our 

country includes ensuring that the Federal civilian, contractor, and military workforce with 

access to classified information is trustworthy, loyal, responsible, and will protect people, 

property, and information. 

13. The Corps of Engineers supports the International Joint Commission that works on intercountry rivers such as the Souris River, which runs from Canada into North Dakota. In 

2011, the Souris River flooded, and the Corps was able to work the flood activities thru 

this international Commission. PL 84-99 funding was provided to address the significant 

damages experienced within the state. Would the PL 84-99 authorities be transferred to 

the Department of the Interior? How do you anticipate that the Department of the 

Interior will be able to navigate a similar event? 

Response: The Administration's Reform Plan and Reorganization Recommendations serves as a 

cor!lerstone for productive dialogue to enable the Federal Government to operate more 

effectively in the 21st Century. Some proposals are ready for implementation, but others will 

require legislation or longer-term refinement to address all of the specific details for 

implementation. The Corps proposals falls into this latter category. The specific details for 

which authorities would need to be transferred remain to be worked out. l would note that the 

Department of the Interior has experience managing international agreements, such as on 

wildlife trafficking, migratory birds, water agreements, and international parks. 

14. The border wall along the Mexican border is being advanced with the Corps because it 

has overlapping missions of real estate, wetland permits, planning, design and 

construction expertise. Under the President's plan, how would you transfer those 

activities and would they be under one agency? 

Response: The Administration's Reform Plan and Reorganization Recommendations serves as a 

cornerstone for productive dialogue to enable the Federal Government to operate more 

effectively in the 21st Century. Some proposals are ready for implementation, but others will 

require legislation or longer-term refinement to address all of the specific details for 

imp'kmeiitation. The Corps proposals falls into this latter category. The specific details for 

which authorities would need to be transferred remain to be worked out. 

The Department of Homeland Security, through U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), is 

responsible for building physical barriers along the southwest border of the United States. CBP 

has selected the Army Corps of Engineers to carry out physical construction of these barriers so 

far. CBP will determine how best to proceed with constructing border barriers if Congress 

enacts the Administration's proposed reforms. 

35 
241 

15. How will you address the current Army real estate mission that has both military and 

civil works functions and responsibilities? 

Response: The specific details of implementing the proposal are still being analyzed. While there 

will likely be complex questions that need to be addressed, ultimately when implemented, the 

proposal will result in more rational public policy outcomes and better Federal investment 

decisions,. 

16. The Trump Administration released its government reform plan last month. The proposal 

seeks to consolidate many economic development related programs. Within the plan, 

EDA's Economic Assistance programs would be transferred into a new agency, the 

Bureau of Economic Growth (BEG). The agency would also administer Community 

Development Block Grant (CDBG) and federal-state regional commissions including the 

Delta Regional Authority and Northern Border Regional Commission. These programs 

have mostly been slated for elimination by the Trump Administration. Is the effort to 

create this new agency another attempt to eliminate these programs? Do you support this 

effort to consolidate these programs? 

Response: The Administration's proposal to consolidate these programs into the Bureau of 

Economic Growth is, at its core, an effort to drive more effective and efficient use oftaxpayer 

money. Although it took place before my direct involvement, it is my understanding that The 

Administration previously proposed to eliminate these programs in the Budget because, as 

currently organized, they are duplicative and in many cases ineffective. The proposal we 

included in Delivering Government Solutions in the 21st Century: Reform Plan and 

Reorganization Recommendations addresses those efficiency concerns by eliminating 

it:tiundancy and ensuring accountability. By deploying a new model for economic assistance, the 

Federal Government can better leverage private sector investments in communities across the 

country to support job creation, business growth, and strengthening local economies. 

17. I understand the Administration wishes to move the entire federal government's 

background investigations program to the Department of Defense. I remain concerned 

about the significant backlog of security clearance applications, which numbers over 

700,000 cases. The 2018 National Defense Authorization Act calls for a comprehensive 

assessment of the workforce requirements for both the Department of Defense and the 

National Background Investigations Bureau. How will the Administration ensure the 

current investigation backlog isn't exacerbated through the transition period planned by 

the Administration? What is the anticipated status of the backlog once the transition from 

OPM to DOD is complete? 

Response: The Executive branch is committed to aggressive efforts to get the security, 

suitability, and credentialing background vetting programs for the Federal government back in 

good health. While the Department of Defense's analysis is still underway, the goal is to have 

the investigative backlog back to a steady state of good health at the end of calendar year 2019. 

36 
242 

To support the transition, NBIB and DoD are jointly developing a transition plan for NBIB 

which will ensure that the backlog is not worsened. The Secretary of Defense and the Executive 

Agents recognize that clearing the backlog will involve a focus on risk-management principles 

and outcome-based policies and procedures, and moving away from antiquated, compliancedriven processes and systems for conducting background investigations and adjudications. That 

work is well underway at DoD. Indeed, since June 2018, efforts from DoD, NBIB, OPM (as the 

Suitability & Credentialing Executive Agent), and ODNI (as the Security Executive Agent) have 

already reduced the backlog from approximately 725,000 to 680,000. This backlog reduction 

represents real, and growing progress toward our ultimate goal of backlog elimination." 

37 
Tnt<Jl of Reform Publi<.:Comrnentsbv 

stration 

Total# of Unique Comments 1 T!)ta( #of Unique RefOrm 

COmments 

Pagel 

2, 

31, 

45, 

2,900 

2,595 2,672 

till" 

2,385 

29,134 

925 

1,052 

989 

9s7 

lMi 

1,034 

1,088 

909 

1,iV 

907 

7o9 "' 

559 

1,374 

537 

Total It of Reform a

"""'""

OMB·P
~t N 

Total·DepartmentofJustice 

Total Number of Reform Public Comments by Agenc-{/COrnP"'Y!e!'Jt 

Total It of Unique Comments' Totat•otunlq~~fteform Comntenl;5 

2,526 1.174 P~ge 2 2,696 1,096 1,050 3,Tl7 1,254 17,346 1,086 1,284 1,293 3,195 1,198 1,163 1,262 1,115 1,607 1,019 

TQtalllofUnlque EHmmate 

"'"'"""' 

1,069 

782 

"' 

606 

840 

751 

1,0:% 

648 

636 

8,011 

S73 

658 

624 

1,550 

830 

993 

678 

763 

1,305 

1,119 

675 

396 

805 

645 

11,614 

7<6 

827 

1,123 

919 

825 

863 

5,303 

1,483 

1,998 

511 

766 

455 

641 

442 

627 

511 ~ 556 

sn 

Total #of Refonn a

Co~

~~~- 

OMB-P
Total Number,_; 1\eform Public Comments by Agenr;v/Component 

Tc:; tal# of Utlique- Comment$ Total# Q( Vnlque Refonn ""~" Page3 3,788 2..033 29,685 3,437 1,955 2,710 2,276 2,197 2,758 2,7ii 969 1,046 1,842 6,602 1,185 1,074 1,407 1,023 875 945 973 

TotallfofUniqq!'!:Eihninate Toffl #of Reform a

eomm~u Comme

no 

627 

570 

643 

657 

573 

4,968 

"' 

443 

692 

831 

2,384 

619 

368 

436 

575 

505 

579 

554 

447 

542 

""' 

1,041 

6,1SO 

330 

458 

445 

1,233 

1,064 

1,279 

974 

778 

838 

841 

615 

383 

684 

499 

... , 

8,420 

1,196 

463 

784 

569 

602 

451 

695 

"' 

1,972 

931 

912 

OMB-P
246 

4 
247 

Æ 

Final Count on Government Reform Public Comments 

Final Comment Count 

~" •·· 11:59 PM on Men 6/12-106,147 

Top 10 for Reform: 

1. Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (6,103 

comments) 

2. Department of Defense: Full Department (5,077) 

3. Department of Health and Human Services: National Institutes of Health (3, 777) 

4. Department of Veterans Affairs: Full Department (3,396) 

5. Department of Education: Full Department (3,229) 

6. Department of Homeland Security: Full Department (3,195) 

7. Department of Justice: Full Department (2,958) 

8. Central Intelligence Agency: Full Agency (2,956) 

9. Department of Justice: Federal Prison System (2,746) 

10. Department of Health and Human Services: Full Department (2,696) 

Top 10 for Eliminate: 

1. Department of Education: Full Department (2,471 comments) 

2. Department of Justice: Drug Enforcement Administration (1,998) 

3. Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service (1,972) 

Ilk- Department of Homeland Security: Full Department (1,550) 

5. Central intelligence Agency: Full Agency (1,513) 

6. Department of Justice: Bureau of Alcohol- Tobacco- Firearms- and Explosives (1,483) 

7. Environmental Protection Agency: Full Department (1,436) 

8. Department of Commerce: Minority Business Development Agency (1,374) 

9. Department of Defense: Full Department (1,315) 

10. Department of Homeland Security: Transportation Security Administration (1,305) 

OMB-PEER-068