U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

51–784 PDF 2011

S. Hrg. 111–838 

NOMINATIONS OF HON. TARA J. O’TOOLE AND 

JEFFREY D. ZIENTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

OF THE

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOMINATIONS OF HON. TARA J. O’TOOLE TO BE UNDER SECRETARY 

FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY; AND JEFFREY D. ZIENTS TO BE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR 

MANAGEMENT, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

JUNE 10, 2009 

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

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois 

MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

LAWRENCE B. NOVEY, Senior Counsel 

F. JAMES MCGEE, Professional Staff Member 

KRISTINE V. LAM, Professional Staff Member 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ROBERT L. STRAYER, Minority Director for Homeland Security Affairs 

AMANDA WOOD, Minority Director for Governmental Affairs 

JENNIFER L. TARR, Minority Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

PATRICIA R. HOGAN, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Hearing Clerk 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Lieberman ........................................................................................... 1 

Senator Levin .................................................................................................... 1 

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 3 

Senator Tester .................................................................................................. 12 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 14 

Senator Bennet ................................................................................................. 15 

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 25 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Lieberman ....................................................................................... 29, 144 

Senator Collins.............................................................................................. 30, 144 

Senator Bennet ................................................................................................. 145 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 2009 

Hon. Tara J. O’Toole to be Under Secretary for Science and Technology, 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security ............................................................. 5 

Jeffrey D. Zients to be Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget .................................................................................................. 19 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

O’Toole, Hon. Tara J.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31 

Biographical and financial information .......................................................... 36 

Responses to pre-hearing questions ................................................................ 56 

Letter from the Office of Government Ethics ................................................. 104 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record ..................................... 105 

Letters of Support ............................................................................................. 117 

Zients, Jeffrey D.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 146 

Biographical and financial information .......................................................... 148 

Responses to pre-hearing questions ................................................................ 159 

Letter from the Office of Government Ethics ................................................. 197 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record ..................................... 198 

Letter of Support .............................................................................................. 204 

(1) 

NOMINATIONS OF HON. TARA J. O’TOOLE 

AND JEFFREY D. ZIENTS 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Lieberman, Levin, Akaka, Carper, Tester, Bennet, and Collins. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LIEBERMAN 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. The hearing will come to order. 

We have just been having a debate about—we know you are an 

honorable person—why the title ‘‘Hon.’’ is in front of your name, 

Dr. O’Toole. And I know it is not your choice, and I have been told 

that you were confirmed for a position during the Clinton Administration. Am I right? 

Dr. O’TOOLE. That is correct. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. So perhaps that is why you are not only 

honorable but officially ‘‘Honorable.’’ [Laughter.] 

Welcome to the hearing. 

Senator Levin has to leave urgently to go to a meeting that he 

has, and he wanted to make a brief statement before we proceed. 

So I will call on him at this time. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN 

Senator LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate it. 

There have been a number of critics who have raised questions 

about Dr. O’Toole’s writings in the past, and with the permission 

of the Chairman, I would like to submit for prompt response questions to those critics, and then give Dr. O’Toole, of course, an opportunity to respond to any comments that they might make. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Levin. Without objection, 

we will do that. 

Senator LEVIN. I appreciate that. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. 

Dr. O’TOOLE. I would be happy to. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Today we are going to consider the nominations of Dr. Tara O’Toole to be Under Secretary for Science and 

Technology (S&T) at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

2 

and Jeffrey Zients to be the Deputy Director for Management at 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 

We are going to begin with Dr. O’Toole, who has appeared previously before our Committee as a very constructive and helpful 

witness on various matters that we have been following and who 

I am delighted to welcome back as the nominee for this important 

position. 

The Science and Technology Directorate at DHS is charged with 

managing our Nation’s investments in homeland security research 

and development (R&D) projects. The fact is that Senator Collins 

and I, when this Committee was working on the legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security after September 11, 

2001, were very impressed by the work that the Defense Advanced 

Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has done over the years at the 

Department of Defense (DOD) and wanted very much to create a 

similar center for public investments in research in science and 

technology that could enable our country to take much more effective and rapid leaps ahead in protecting homeland security. 

And the truth is, it is hard to think of a threat to our homeland 

security that is not already being better defended against or could 

not be better defended against with the innovative and sensible application of science and technology. So this is a very important part 

of our overall homeland security effort. 

The fact is that the Science and Technology Directorate had what 

I will diplomatically call ‘‘a difficult launch’’ in its early years, and 

it struggled to clarify and, in fact, at times execute its primary mission. As a result, unfortunately, the fiscal year 2007 Appropriations 

Act cut the Directorate’s then $1.4 billion budget by 40 percent. 

In wake of that jolt, former Under Secretary Jay Cohen, who 

held the position that you have been nominated for now, resolved 

to build a leaner and more tightly managed organization that focused on serving its primary customers—the various agencies within DHS—and also on being fully transparent with Congress. 

Under Secretary Cohen, I think, did very effective work implementing internal controls to monitor S&T finances and track the 

progress of S&T investments. He established a structured strategic 

planning process that is designed to produce specific objectives and 

annual performance measures. And the good news is that there 

have been recent increases in the Directorate’s budget, which are 

about the most tangible way Congress can express its growing confidence in the work that the Directorate has done, though I will say 

it is not yet back to where it was before that cut. 

But, obviously, a number of complex challenges remain and the 

threat to our homeland in various ways from Islamist terrorists, 

particularly, willing to strike at human targets and undefended 

targets, which will present you, of course, if confirmed, Dr. O’Toole, 

with challenges and will call upon your leadership to continue to 

build and improve this agency that is so vital to the Department’s 

overall mission. 

Among the challenges that I think you will face are expanding 

investments in innovative R&D for homeland security and ensuring 

the reliability of the testing and evaluation that is done on large 

acquisition programs. 

3 

Second is strengthening relationships between the Science and 

Technology Directorate and agencies within DHS. To these and the 

other challenges you face, Dr. O’Toole, you bring a wealth of experience that will serve you well in this job, if you are confirmed. 

For the record, I will simply say that probably as an act of humility by my staff on my behalf, they have left out—and I know 

Senator Collins always likes to note this—my pleasure that you 

spent time in your medical education at Yale University in New 

Haven, Connecticut. 

After practicing medicine in Baltimore for several years, Dr. 

O’Toole earned a Master of Public Health from Johns Hopkins University, spent 5 years as a senior analyst and project director with 

the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, and from 1993 

to 1997, served as the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety 

and Health—in a most honorable fashion, I might add—at the Department of Energy. 

From 1999 to 2003, she managed the Johns Hopkins Center for 

Civilian Biodefense Strategies. For the last 6 years, Dr. O’Toole has 

served as the Director and Chief Executive Officer at the Center 

for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh. 

Dr. O’Toole is known as a nationally recognized expert on biodefense and the actions that we must take to detect, deter, and 

react to either a biological terrorist attack or a pandemic event. 

She is a former chair of the board of the American Federation 

of American Scientists and has participated in major studies or advisory panels at the National Science Foundation, the Department 

of Defense, the Department of Health and Human Services, and 

the Department of Homeland Security. 

This is a most impressive background that you bring as a nominee, and I welcome your selection. Of course, all this does not say 

that you are beyond question, and therefore, I look forward to the 

question-and-answer period. 

Dr. O’TOOLE. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Senator Collins. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I join the Chairman in welcoming Tara O’Toole to the Committee 

today. As the Chairman has pointed out, Dr. O’Toole has testified 

before us previously and has also lent her expertise to us when we 

have called her informally for advice. 

The Chairman has already illustrated that Dr. O’Toole has an 

extensive medical, public health, and biodefense career. I would 

point out that she was one of the original members of the Johns 

Hopkins Center for Civilian Biodefense Strategies and served as its 

director from 2001 to 2003. 

When the Department of Homeland Security was established, 

Congress recognized the important role that technology must play 

in securing our Nation; therefore, we created a Science and Technology Directorate to undertake research and development activities. As the Chairman has indicated, the Directorate got off to a 

rough start, but in recent years has made some real progress. 

Today, the Department is developing technologies on a variety of 

4 

fronts, including biological, chemical and explosives detection, communications interoperability, and passenger and cargo screening. 

Technological advances at the ports of entry are already helping 

to identify individuals who are using fraudulent travel documents. 

This technology allows the Department to better perform its mission of protecting the American people while still facilitating the legitimate flow of people and commerce. Our goal is always to let our 

friends in while keeping our enemies out. 

The Department’s relationship with the University of Maine and 

other research universities is helping to improve our homeland security. An example of the great promise of advanced technology is 

the composite-material cargo container prototype under development at the University of Maine. A composite shipping container 

with embedded sensors could improve the security and integrity of 

the supply chain while offering shippers a lighter and longer-lasting alternative to traditional steel containers. I mention this as an 

example of the promise of technology. 

Research and development of new technologies at the Department carry an annual multi-billion-dollar price tag. To ensure that 

these dollars are well spent, the Science and Technology Directorate must rigorously test and evaluate technologies before procurement decisions are made. Better engagement by the Directorate’s testing and evaluation office in the Department’s acquisition programs could help avoid problems such as those that have 

been experienced in the SBInet program. 

The next Under Secretary for Science and Technology will also 

need to align DHS research and development priorities with the 

greatest security vulnerabilities that our Nation faces and ensure 

close coordination with DHS operational components and other 

Federal, State, and local partners. I look forward to hearing how 

Dr. O’Toole would address these challenges, if confirmed. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Senator Collins. 

Let me now say for the record that Dr. O’Toole has filed responses to a biographical and financial questionnaire, answered 

pre-hearing questions submitted by the Committee, and had her financial statements reviewed by the Office of Government Ethics. 

Without objection, this information will be made part of the hearing record, with the exception of the financial data, which are on 

file and available for public inspection in the Committee offices. 

Dr. O’Toole, as I think you know, our Committee rules require 

that all witnesses at nomination hearings give their testimony 

under oath, so I would ask you to please stand and raise your right 

hand. Do you swear that the testimony that you are about to give 

this Committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth, so help you, God? 

Dr. O’TOOLE. I do. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you very much. Please be seated. 

We would now welcome your opening statement and introduction, if you choose, of any family and friends that are with you 

today. 

5 

1The prepared statement of Dr. O’Toole appears in the Appendix on page 31. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. TARA J. O’TOOLE 1 TO BE UNDER SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Dr. O’TOOLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Collins, and 

distinguished Members of the Committee. It is a great honor to appear before you today as President Obama’s nominee for the position of Under Secretary of Homeland Security. I am greatly humbled by this privilege of being chosen by the President and by Secretary Napolitano to be nominated for this important post. I am 

also honored to appear before this Committee, which has done so 

much for so long to provide distinguished leadership in the complicated, ongoing efforts to address the Nation’s many homeland security challenges. 

At this point, I would like to recognize my partner, Dr. Liza Solomon, for her unstinting support; and my niece, Sarah Hallonquist, 

who is just beginning her government career. I would also like to 

thank the many friends and colleagues who are here today for all 

they have done to enrich my life. 

Mr. Chairman, as you noted in your opening remarks, when this 

Committee wrote the Homeland Security Act of 2002, you recognized that the application of science and technology would be fundamental to the success of the Department. The history of the 

Committee since then shows that you have repeatedly returned to 

this topic of how science and technology might be used to advance 

the goals of the Department as well as national homeland security 

priorities. 

Similarly, Secretary Napolitano has identified the pursuit of 

science and technology in service to the Department of Homeland 

Security missions as being among her top priorities. She noted in 

congressional testimony, perhaps echoing you, Mr. Chairman, or 

you, Senator Collins, she said, ‘‘It is difficult to think of an area 

of DHS operations where a greater use of cutting-edge technology 

would not improve capabilities.’’ 

And, indeed, mobilizing science and invention to solve practical 

problems has been an American hallmark since Ben Franklin flew 

his kite in a lightning storm. And I am very excited and grateful 

for the opportunity to continue this tradition. 

As you noted, I am trained as a physician. I have practiced medicine, and I have served in government in the Office of Technology 

Assessment and as an Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environment, Safety and Health. And for the past decade, I have helped 

found and led two university-based think tanks devoted to biosecurity. 

Over the course of my career in universities, government, and 

non-governmental organizations, my work has encompassed the 

study and management of a broad range of ‘‘threats’’ and focused 

particularly on risks associated with nuclear and biological weapons, radiation, and toxic chemicals, and on what could go wrong in 

complex, human-built systems. 

As this Committee knows well, the responsibilities of the DHS 

Directorate of Science and Technology cover a broad spectrum of 

technical and operational problems. While I do not claim to have 

6 

deep expertise in all of these areas, I am confident that my background and experience equip me to lead the Directorate and to 

serve the research and development needs of the Department and 

of the country. 

Through my own work on biodefense and nuclear safety, I am 

convinced that the skills, expertise, and willing collaboration of 

State, local, and tribal governments, first responders, and the private sector are essential to the Federal Government’s capacity to 

execute a coordinated, fully functioning homeland security strategy. 

This is, I realize, a view which this Committee has long championed. And if confirmed, I commit to working closely with the 

Committee to identify, answer, and manage the science and technology needs of the Department and to serve the strategic homeland security R&D priorities of the country as a whole. 

Should I have the privilege of being confirmed to this position, 

I would pursue four priorities. 

First, I will continue to strengthen the relationships between the 

Science and Technology Directorate and the Department’s operational components, including first responders. It has been said, actually by the DARPA, that transitioning technology—that is, moving technology from research into use—is a contact sport. It is done 

by personal contacts between people. 

As you noted, under the leadership of the former Under Secretary, Admiral Jay Cohen, the S&T Directorate established the Integrated Project Team process to create these essential connections. 

If confirmed, I will work to expand and deepen the contacts and 

the working relationships between the actual users of technology 

and the operation components of DHS and the R&D professionals, 

and to integrate a disciplined process of technology development 

into the Department’s acquisition process. 

Second, if confirmed, I would modestly increase the portion of the 

S&T budget devoted to longer-term, highly innovative projects 

which, if successful, could change the playing field or provide solutions to particularly difficult high-priority problems. 

While I believe that DHS’s immediate operational needs continue 

to demand significant investments in near-term technology development, I believe that some of the problems confronting the Department may require fundamental discoveries and technical 

achievements. 

Third, if confirmed, I will work with this Committee and with my 

colleagues in DHS to forge a strategic 5-year approach to homeland 

security R&D, both within the Directorate and across the Department. I believe the ongoing Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR), which the Secretary has underway, will provide an 

essential foundation for such a strategy, and I hope to become actively engaged in the QHSR, if confirmed. 

Fourth, should I be confirmed, I would seek to focus more resources on how we might make the American people and our communities more resilient to disasters, whether natural or man-made. 

I believe we can use science and technology to assist the American 

people as individuals, as employers, or as employees, as volunteers, 

and as community members to help prevent and better prepare for 

the unexpected and to construct more robust public-private sector 

collaborations and foster more rapid recoveries from calamities. 

7 

The consequences of path-breaking science and of new technologies are famously unpredictable. I am here today in part because of the surprise launch of the Soviet satellite Sputnik in 1957. 

The shock of Sputnik spurred U.S. investments in science education, which brought teachers, science fairs, and advanced placement science courses to my small public high school in Massachusetts—New England—and essentially launched me into college and 

medical school. 

In the end, Sputnik catalyzed the U.S. triumphs in space and a 

new era of achievement in American science and technology. It is 

and has long been my conviction that science and technology wedded to American ingenuity can be applied to help us better understand, prevent, and if necessary, respond to terrorist attacks and 

natural disasters. I would be honored to be a part of such an effort 

as Under Secretary for Science and Technology. 

If confirmed, I am committed to working with this Committee to 

help create a strong and successful Department of Homeland Security and to serve the interests of the United States and its people. 

I am, of course, happy to answer any questions you might have. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Dr. O’Toole. That was 

really an excellent, very thoughtful opening statement, and I will 

come back and begin my questioning by asking you about a few of 

the things you said, which are thought provoking. But let me begin 

with the standard questions we ask of all nominees. 

Is there anything you are aware of in your background that 

might present a conflict of interest with the duties of the office to 

which you have been nominated? 

Dr. O’TOOLE. No, sir. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Do you know of anything, personal or otherwise, that would in any way prevent you from fully and honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to which you have 

been nominated? 

Dr. O’TOOLE. No, I do not. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. And, finally, do you agree without reservation to respond to any reasonable summons to appear and testify before any duly constituted Committee of Congress if you are 

confirmed? 

Dr. O’TOOLE. Yes, I do. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I appreciate that. Let us proceed now 

with the first round of questions that are limited to 7 minutes 

each. 

I am going to depart from what I was going to begin to ask you 

because your opening statement sort of led me to refine it a little 

bit. I am very interested in drawing you out on two of your four 

priorities. The second one was to consider investments in long-term 

innovative projects that may assist in our efforts to defend against, 

to prevent, or to respond to high-priority problems. Talk a little 

more about what you have in mind and what kinds of models there 

are that you have in mind for previous governmental involvement 

of this kind. 

Dr. O’TOOLE. Well, the model I have in mind is DARPA’s, quite 

frankly. They have been extremely successful in taking on very formidable challenges and working away at them over a period of 

years long before their customers—that would be the military servVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:41 Feb 07, 2011 Jkt 051784 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\51784.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
8 

ices—have identified a particular technology, such as stealth aircraft, as something they need to fight the wars of today or tomorrow. 

I think there are many such challenges in the Department of 

Homeland Security, and indeed, the problem may be selecting one 

or two that we could afford to pursue. Let me give you one example. 

I was visiting with Mr. Ahern, the head of Customs and Border 

Protection, and we were talking about the threat of these unmanned submersibles bringing large quantities of drugs into the 

shores of Mexico. If we could detect and interdict those vehicles, 

which are getting increasingly sophisticated and numerous, we 

could turn off the drug trade before these drugs are distributed to 

many people who are a lot harder to track down and before these 

drugs get to the Mexican shores, so we could actually aid in the 

stability of Mexico in addition to getting rid of a big problem and 

securing our own borders. 

I think that is a huge technological challenge, but it is a challenge which, if met, would take that problem off the table. So if you 

can take the problem off the table as opposed to getting better and 

better at incrementally diminishing the problem, that would be 

very attractive to me. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Good example. Very hopeful. And the 

fourth one was more resources to assist the American people and 

our government to achieve resiliency. That brought to mind—I recently met with John Brennan, the Assistant to the President for 

Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. And on the chart of the 

National Security Council, there is now a box, among several boxes, 

that is called ‘‘Resiliency.’’ So what are you thinking of? 

Dr. O’TOOLE. Well, I think social science has actually been very 

useful in helping us to design strategies and technologies that 

could, for example, help human agents detect wrongdoers or people 

who are acting suspiciously. I think we can also use social science 

to help us better understand how to improve resilience. I think 

there are endless examples in the context of past disasters, including September 11, 2001, including Hurricane Katrina, of individuals and groups of individuals and of organizations, including businesses, doing great things, sometimes spontaneously, sometimes 

with prior planning. I think that truly protecting homeland security is going to require that we take a much more strategic, 

thoughtful, and purposeful approach to organizing that kind of ingenuity and collaboration and enabling it in new ways. 

So, for example, how could we form more robust public-private 

partnerships between businesses and State or city government to 

get better prepared? 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. So here you are thinking really primarily 

of social science research. 

Dr. O’TOOLE. Yes. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Very interesting and, again, hopeful. 

Let me give you an opportunity to respond on the record to the 

matter that I believe Senator Levin was referring to. I have heard 

and seen some of the criticism, which to me seems, I will indicate 

a bias here, like an academic debate. I say that with respect. 

[Laughter.] 

9 

But, in other words, you have had some pretty aggressive critics, 

particularly of the two exercises you played an important role in 

organizing—Dark Winter and Atlantic Storm—which explored, generally speaking, our country’s preparedness to respond to a biological attack, specifically a smallpox attack, as I recall. And there has 

been some criticism here that—I am going to do it generally, and 

maybe not do it justice—you were offering too severe a portrayal 

of the disease outcome and spread and in some sense that your 

science was not sound; and if I can really express what I think is 

the sort of policy approach behind it, that you were drawing the 

country through these exercises into too strong a response to the 

threat of biological attack and, therefore, money was being allocated to those purposes as opposed to other public health purposes 

where it was more needed. 

Give us a response to that in general, if you would. 

Dr. O’TOOLE. Well, first of all, thank you for the opportunity to 

do so, Senator. As you say, Dark Winter and Atlantic Storm were 

both scenarios positing a smallpox attack on the American people, 

a covert attack. I believe the question that Senator Levin is concerned with and, indeed, the question that the critics—there is actually one critic, very persistent—have fastened on is the secondary 

transmission rate that we assumed in the scenario. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. And just define it for us. What is the secondary transmission rate? 

Dr. O’TOOLE. OK. That is the number—once you have an attack 

and you have infected a certain number of victims, how many subsequent infections will those initial unfortunates cause? And we 

chose the number 10. 

Now, the transmission rate of a disease is very contextual. It is 

not a biological factor. It has a lot to do with the context in which 

the disease occurs—the number of people exposed, the number of 

people in the population who are susceptible, the number of contacts the exposed had with other people, the time of the year, etc. 

What we did in Dark Winter is we looked at the available empirical data of the number of people who got secondary smallpox in 

the context of those importations of smallpox that occurred in Europe in the 1960s just before smallpox was eradicated. Even though 

it was mostly gone from Europe, you would still have occasions 

where people would come back from other countries and bring 

smallpox into the country. 

We looked at instances where, first of all, there was some transmission, because at that point in time doctors were pretty good at 

recognizing smallpox, isolating people, and it never went anywhere. 

We looked only at winter events because we thought a thinking 

enemy would pick the season in which smallpox is most contagious. 

That virus lives longer and more robustly in cool, dry weather. And 

that left us with six instances of transmission of smallpox after importation. And the data—these are not assumptions; these are empirical data from those cases—showed that the secondary transmission rate was between 9.3 and 17.3, with a confidence interval 

of 95 percent. 

Now, in the Dark Winter story, it was happening in June 2001, 

at a time when 42 percent of the American population had never 

been vaccinated, and at a time when most doctors have never seen 

10 

a case of smallpox. And, of course, prior to September 11, 2001, we 

were not thinking about smallpox and their differential diagnosis. 

So we chose what we thought was a very reasonable and conservative transmission rate of 10, and we were not alone in this. There 

was another article in Nature, another peer-reviewed magazine, in 

2001 which thought that the secondary transmission rate would be 

somewhere between 4 to 12 because of the difficulty of recognizing 

these cases before they had gone on to contact and infect others. 

So I do stand by the assumptions. They are assumptions, but as 

I said, they are based on empirical data. And as you say, this is 

something of an academic debate. The transmission rate one way 

or another does not change the scenario in any way. And, furthermore, I make no apologies for my advocacy of the need for a stronger biodefense. I do not agree that we have done too much in biodefense. As you know, I think there is much left to be done. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks. That was an excellent response. 

Of course, I agree with you, and I would just say parenthetically, 

because I am way over my time, the Graham-Talent Commission 

on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Proliferation and Terrorism actually focused—this was last year—on 

the threat of biological attack as the one that we need to urgently 

raise our defenses against because it is more likely for various reasons than the other forms of a potential WMD attack. Thank you. 

Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me pick up 

where you left off. 

Dr. O’Toole, as you know, this Committee has done a great deal 

of work on bioterrorism, holding several hearings, and you have 

contributed greatly to those. Last year, we did look at the safety 

of biological labs, and we heard testimony from the Commission on 

the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism, which specifically recommended that we take action to improve the security of 

biological labs. 

In addition, the Government Accountability Ofice (GAO) testified 

that, in response to the global spread of emerging infectious diseases and the threat of bioterrorism, high-containment biosafety 

laboratories have been proliferating in the United States and that 

more needs to be done to ensure their safety. 

Given your expertise, I am alarmed then at a statement that you 

wrote last year in a scientific journal in which you said, ‘‘The notion that we can somehow prevent a bioattack by locking up pathogens in research laboratories is ridiculous.’’ 

Could you explain what you meant and if you disagree with the 

Commission and the GAO’s assessment that we do need to tighten 

security of labs? 

Dr. O’TOOLE. Well, first of all, Senator, thank you for the opportunity to clarify the record and explain my rather inartful singlesentence quote in what was a long conversation with that reporter. 

And thank you, too, for your support and pursuit of the WMD Commission recommendations, which I regard as very important. I am 

actually very proud to have letters of support from both of the Senators of that Commission. 

I strongly support improved and more formal biosafety and biosecurity approaches, particularly for high-containment labs, and, 

11 

indeed, for those BSL4 labs, the highest level of containment, I 

think it would make sense to have a certification and training program in addition to a stronger regime. 

I have advocated stronger biosafety since the early 1990s when 

I was overseeing safety at the Department of Energy laboratories. 

The journal, which I co-edit, was one of the very first to require a 

security review from all reviewers of the authors to make sure that 

there was not dual-use information in the articles that we published. And we also at the center held what I think was the first 

workshop on safety and security, and we called in most of the directors from the BSL4 labs in the United States to that workshop. 

So I very much support stronger biosafety, and I agree completely with the Commission’s recommendation that the current regime of dealing with select agents and safety ought to be reviewed. 

I also agree with the statement of the Commission that we need 

to proceed while taking care that we do not impede or otherwise 

unnecessarily burden legitimate research. 

You may know that during the H1N1 outbreak, Mexico initially 

sent samples to Canada, not to the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC), because of the difficulty of transporting these legitimate research samples into the United States due to the Select 

Agent rule. So I do worry about that. I think biology is going to 

be not only critical for biodefense but for economics. So that is my 

concern. 

Senator COLLINS. There are a considerable number of privately 

funded BSL3 labs in this country that are permitted to work on a 

number of dangerous pathogens that could result in a serious biological event, yet these labs are not required to inform any Federal 

agency of their activities. 

What is your view of the need to at least require laboratories operating at the BSL3 level to identify themselves through a Federal 

registration process so that we at least know where these pathogens are? 

Dr. O’TOOLE. Well, I think that is something worth considering, 

and I would be pleased to work with you on that. There are many 

BSL3 labs, not just in private hands but at hospitals and universities and so on and so forth. So the practicality of doing that and 

the benefit of doing that would be worth examining. But it is not 

unreasonable. 

Senator COLLINS. You had a controversy in your previous confirmation that, just for the record because it is likely to come up 

at some point again, I would just like to give you an opportunity 

to respond to. At that time questions were raised regarding your 

involvement in an academic group that once had been called the 

‘‘Marxist Feminist Group 1.’’ Could you explain, since that obviously is a very loaded title for this group, your involvement with 

this group? 

Dr. O’TOOLE. Thank you again for the opportunity, Senator, to 

clarify the record. I belonged to this reading group, which was 

called ‘‘Northeast Feminist Scholars’’ in my time, which was a 

group of academics, again, many of whom were economists, and 

they met three times a year for a weekend, and we discussed topics 

such as aging parents, math phobia among women, books that we 

read, international events, and so forth. It did not do any political 

12 

advocacy. It was not Marxist in any way, shape, or form. But that 

had been the title back in—this is actually a very longstanding 

group—the 1960s and 1970s. And during my last nomination, in 

1993, when that came to light, some of the Senators became concerned. There was a full Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigation. The White House took affidavits from Members of the 

Committee, and I was passed out of the Committee with only two 

people voting no and confirmed, as you know. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. We have not had mention of 

Karl Marx here in this Committee for quite a long time. [Laughter.] 

Senator COLLINS. Just trying to keep things interesting, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. That was very interesting. Thank you. 

Senator Tester. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank 

you, Dr. O’Toole, for putting yourself up for public service again. 

I appreciate that very much. 

I am going to talk a little less globally, more specifically, as I 

talked to you before the hearing, and I do not have any quotes. I 

would give you the opportunity to make one today. This deals with 

the Plum Island Animal Disease Center located in Plum Island, off 

Long Island, New York. You are probably intimately familiar with 

it, but it does research with contagious diseases that are applicable 

to animals, including foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), which is a 

very contagious disease among animals. 

I would state that a new facility has to be built. There are no 

ifs, ands, or buts about that. There is talk about building the new 

facility, not talk about the new facility but actually, I believe, the 

decision has been made to build a new facility at Kansas State 

University in Manhattan, Kansas, and I have got nothing against 

Kansas State. I am sure it is a great university. 

But the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on this national 

bio and agro defense facility that was done, states this—and there 

were five sites chosen, and it applies to all five except for Plum Island. The EIS states this: ‘‘The Manhattan campus site provides a 

significant opportunity for the spread of virus vectors and infected 

wildlife.’’ It also said, ‘‘For this site, as with all the other sites, except Plum Island, there was a potential for viral pathogens to be 

transported significant distances by the wind.’’ It went on to say 

that the location of the Plum Island provides a barrier against 

spread of these viruses. 

Now, I understand that there are some advantages of being connected with the university. I think there are some advantages of 

being in the center of the United States. I think it is probably easier to get to in Manhattan, Kansas, than it would be on Plum Island. 

From a common-sense perspective, if we are talking about a 

transmission rate of highly contagious diseases as it applies to our 

animal industry, would it not make better sense, would it not make 

more common sense just to rebuild that facility on Plum Island beVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:41 Feb 07, 2011 Jkt 051784 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\51784.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
13 

cause it does not have the potential to spread as it would somewhere in the center of the United States? 

Dr. O’TOOLE. Thank you, Senator. This is obviously a very important question, as you point out, and as is my understanding, the 

current facility is too old to continue, and we have to build a modern facility equipped with modern bioengineering capabilities. 

I believe, first of all, that we can build such a facility in a way 

that contains anything with which the scientists work with very 

high confidence. There should be no releases from these facilities. 

As Senator Collins has pointed out, there are many high-containment labs already working, not just here but around the world. So 

that is the first thing. Wherever it is built, it has to be secure. 

Second, it is my understanding that the site selection criteria included very prominently the nearby location of veterinary and agricultural schools so that the research and, indeed, the people power 

available to the facility would be very robust and that Kansas 

State came out ahead on that score. 

I understand there is a GAO report looking into the very issue 

that you identified regarding the FMD problem, and I will be examining that very closely. 

It is my understanding that, according to the World Organization 

for Animal Health (OIE), regardless of whether there was a FMD 

release—which I do not think should happen—from Plum Island or 

from the mainland, all of the United States would lose its FMD 

status. So in terms of the economic implications, which is not what 

you are asking, I realize, it would be the same regardless of whether it was a release from Plum Island or from the mainland sites. 

Senator TESTER. Just to follow up on that, I would say that I understand the loss of FMD status, if it was a release, regardless of 

where it happened in the United States. I am talking about the actual spread of it. And I can tell you that we may be living in a new 

age, but humans still can err. There were releases as recent as 

2007 from the United Kingdom. I do not know if that facility was 

rated at the level this one is going to be or not. I think it is great 

to be affiliated with the university. That is where the action is— 

the agricultural school, the veterinary medicine school, all that 

stuff. But this is 2009. Distances are not that big of a deal when 

we are dealing with petri dishes, mainly, I would guess. We are not 

dealing with live animals walking around for the most part. 

I understand that it was your own EIS from your agency, I believe, that pointed out the problems with Manhattan, or any other 

place, versus Plum Island. Plum Island has been around forever. 

I just think that we need to look at it from not the best-case scenario but from a worst-case scenario if this were to get out in the 

center of the United States. That is all. It could literally do some 

real bad things to our food supply, the livestock industry, and the 

list goes on. 

So, with that, I ask you to take a hard look at it, use the best 

common sense you have before we move forward. And like I said 

before, I know this is probably a lot of money for Kansas, but if 

this thing ever gets out, we have major problems. 

Dr. O’TOOLE. Senator, I will definitely take a hard look at that 

and get back to you. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you. 

14 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Senator Tester. Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Thanks very much. Dr. O’Toole, welcome. It is 

good to see you. 

Dr. O’TOOLE. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you for your service to our country and 

for your willingness to serve in this capacity as well. 

Like much of the rest of our country, Delaware, where I am from, 

has many critical infrastructure sites that require a variety of security protocols to safeguard those facilities. And it seems to me that 

resiliency plays a very important role in securing sensitive sites 

from harm and in assisting with our ability to prepare for and to 

recover from a disaster of really any type or scale. 

What I would like to ask you about here today is what your 

thoughts are in integrating resiliency into the Science and Technology Directorate’s critical infrastructure protection mission? And 

if you agree with this importance, how would you integrate it? 

Dr. O’TOOLE. I agree with you, Senator. I think resiliency is extremely important, and I noted in my opening remarks that one of 

the four priorities that I would pursue would be more of a focus 

on how we can build resiliency among individuals, communities, 

and between the public and the private sector. 

It may be that one place to start would be to begin with critical 

infrastructures and to take them as a model and to study how you 

could take a critical infrastructure and make it more resilient so 

that if it went down, it could recover very quickly. I can think of 

a couple of infrastructures in your State where that might make 

a lot of sense. And I do think that a more intense focus on recovery 

and on preparedness so that we are further along when catastrophe hits is warranted at this point. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Let me ask a question I should have 

asked you right at the top, but why would you like to have the opportunity to serve in this position? You may have said that already 

in your statement, but I missed it. 

Dr. O’TOOLE. I believe in public service. I think it is both a privilege and a duty. I think I have the background and the experience 

that at least gives me a good chance of being able to perform these 

duties adequately. And, frankly, I think it sounds like an enormously fascinating set of tasks that I eagerly look forward to. And 

I am very impressed with Secretary Napolitano and the President 

and very much appreciate the honor of having the opportunity to 

work for the country. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Good. 

Speaking of the President, the President recently announced the 

consolidation of the National Security Council and the Homeland 

Security Council into one organizational structure. Some of the 

critics of the Homeland Security Council said that its functions 

were duplicative, suggested that it contributed to a significant 

amount of bureaucracy within the interagency process, especially 

when it came to policymaking. And some of those critics said that 

combining these two entities will dilute the homeland mission— 

and you may or may not be familiar with this, but if you are, I 

15 

would appreciate your response. If you have any thoughts, what 

are your thoughts on these critiques? And while it might be too 

early to tell, what benefits might you see coming from this new 

streamlining? And if it is not a question that you are prepared to 

answer here today, if you can answer on the record, I would appreciate it. 

Dr. O’TOOLE. Well, Senator, I have been concentrating on Homeland Security and the S&T Directorate for the past few weeks. I 

am not familiar with what Mr. Brennan has in mind. I believe that 

the President is very committed to homeland security and that Mr. 

Brennan is, too, but I would be happy to comment further for the 

record. I just do not have much more to say. 

Senator CARPER. If you would do that, that would be great. 

Thanks so much. 

Dr. O’TOOLE. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Senator Carper. 

Thank you, Dr. O’Toole. I think we are actually going to go on to 

the next nominee because a vote has been called for later this 

morning, and we want to complete this hearing. I think we have 

covered the important questions. You have survived the exhaustive 

pre-hearing inquiries of this Committee. And if there are any additional questions, including the ones that Senator Levin mentioned, 

we are going to ask that they be submitted by the close of business 

tomorrow. And then we will proceed to consider your nomination 

in the Committee as soon as you are able to answer those questions. 

But with that, we thank you very much. Do you have anything 

you would like to say in conclusion? 

Dr. O’TOOLE. Just thank you very much. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. All the best. 

Dr. O’TOOLE. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. This part of the hearing is concluded, and 

now we will call on Mr. Zients. 

Why don’t we begin this second part of the hearing as soon as 

Senator Carper gets through extending the greetings of the Committee. 

Senator COLLINS. He is hoping there is some Delaware voters 

there. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I know that Senator Bennet is coming to 

introduce you, which we appreciate, but to expedite, we will go 

ahead with our opening statements, and we will call on him. 

We are going to consider President Obama’s nomination of Jeffrey Zients to be Deputy Director for the Office of Management and 

Budget. 

Senator Bennet, I know you are a new Senator, but you are a 

busy Senator, and your response time in getting here was so rapid 

that I am going to honor it by allowing you to introduce the nominee and then proceed back to your normal business. 

OPENING STATEMENT SENATOR BENNET 

Senator BENNET. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being 

late. I thought I was going to be early because I was so excited to 

have the chance to introduce Jeff Zients to you and to the Ranking 

Member. 

16 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Collins, thank you for giving me the opportunity to introduce Mr. Zients to serve as the Deputy Director 

for Management at OMB. He will also serve as our Nation’s first 

ever Chief Performance Officer. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome him and his family to the hearing. 

If confirmed, Mr. Zients will coordinate the President’s efforts to 

make our government more efficient and accountable by identifying 

wasteful spending and eliminating initiatives that do not provide 

sufficient benefit to the American taxpayer for the amount we are 

investing in them. He will also work to improve how we measure 

the effectiveness of government programs. 

It will not be easy. Just the sheer size and complexity of the Federal Government and the entrenched interests that often fight to 

protect certain programs make this kind of work treacherous and 

too often thankless. But I commend the President for prioritizing 

better governance, and I fully agree that somebody needs to be 

tasked with performing this role. 

Given the enormity of this task, the President could not have 

found someone better suited for the job than Mr. Zients. As an expert in financial management and business strategy, he has the intellect, creativity, and tenacity to examine complex problems, implement solutions, and produce real results for the American people. 

As my friend for nearly 30 years, I know he has the ability to 

exercise sound judgment and the character and integrity to do 

what is right. 

In his mid-twenties, he joined the Advisory Board where he 

worked closely with America’s top companies to become more innovative and efficient. Within 3 years, he became a partner in the 

company. He also helped create the Corporate Executive Board, 

which assists companies across various industries in financial management and business re-engineering. He played an instrumental 

role in taking both of these companies public, all the while creating 

hundreds of jobs in the Washington, DC, area. 

Mr. Zients currently serves as the managing partner of Portfolio 

Logic, an investment firm that he founded several years ago. He 

is also the Chairman of Pediatric Services of America, the Nation’s 

largest provider of pediatric nurse care. 

Outside of the corporate world, he has worked to create better 

opportunities for young adults throughout Washington, DC, and 

Baltimore. He established and currently oversees a nonprofit organization that works with local companies to provide paid internships, mentoring opportunities, and job-training initiatives. 

As we all know, he will be joining the President’s team during 

the worst economic crisis in generations. At the same time, our 

deficits and long-term debt are on an unsustainable course. If we 

want to lay the framework for long-term economic growth, we need 

to ensure that every penny of Federal spending is necessary and 

targeted. His years of experience in financial management and his 

ability to think way outside the box will be instrumental to the 

President’s efforts to make our government more accountable and 

efficient. His private sector business savvy will provide the perfect 

lens through which to examine the effectiveness of many public 

sector initiatives. By making our Federal agencies more efficient 

17 

1The prepared statement of Chairman Lieberman appears in the Appendix on page 144. 

and accountable, he will play an important role in helping restore 

the American people’s faith in our government. I look forward to 

working with my old friend as he begins this important job. 

Mr. Chairman, I gladly introduce and recommend with the 

strongest recommendation I can, Mr. Zients, to the Committee for 

this new and important role. Thank you very much for allowing me 

to introduce my friend. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Bennet. That was an excellent statement and obviously heartfelt. It means a lot to the 

Committee, so we thank you for coming over, and you are excused. 

Senator BENNET. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. If you would like to be excused. 

Senator BENNET. Good luck. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Bennet’s introduction was so strong that it enables me 

to abbreviate my opening statement, but I will say this: Since its 

creation, a common criticism of the Office of Management Budget 

is that its leadership, no matter what party is in charge of the 

White House, too often has focused on the ‘‘B’’ at the expense of the 

‘‘M’’—on budget as opposed to management. And that should not 

be the case. The two obviously go hand in hand. If a program is 

not doing well with the ‘‘M,’’ it is likely to have problems with the 

‘‘B’’ as well, and that means the taxpayers are not getting their 

money’s worth. 

I am very pleased that President Obama has made the drive toward management excellence a priority across the government and, 

as Senator Bennet just indicated, has stated that the Deputy Director for Management at OMB—that is, the position for which Jeffrey 

Zients has been nominated—will also serve as the first Chief Performance Officer of the Government of the United States. 

Mr. Zients will have oversight of four statutory offices with farreaching and very important mandates: The Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, which will give you the enviable task of 

overseeing Cass Sunstein; the Office of Federal Procurement Policy; the Office of E-Government and Information Technology; and 

the Office of Federal Financial Management. 

I am going to put the rest of my statement in the record because 

I am going to raise some questions along the lines of the matters 

that I was next going to reference in my opening statement.1 Bottom line, as Senator Bennet has indicated, Mr. Zients has 20 years 

of business experience as a chief executive officer (CEO), management consultant, and entrepreneur. He has spent most of his career devising ways to improve governance, organization, management, efficiencies, financial systems of companies, all of which we 

will now look to him, if confirmed, to bring to the Government of 

the United States of America. 

So again, I welcome you, Mr. Zients, and I look forward to your 

statement and to the question-and-answer period. 

Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to follow 

your lead and insert my statement for the record as well since we 

18 

1The prepared statement of Senator Collins appears in the Appendix on page 144. 

have only a short time before the vote begins.1 Let me, however, 

just highlight one issue that I think is extremely important. 

A major OMB responsibility is the oversight of approximately $71 billion in spending on information technology (IT) investments. 

It is simply unacceptable that the Federal agencies have identified 

approximately 450 IT projects, totaling more than $26 billion, as 

poorly planned, poorly performing, or both. 

Senator Carper and I have introduced a bill, which this Committee has favorably reported, that would improve agency performance and oversight of Federal IT projects, and that is going to be 

a key responsibility for Mr. Zients, if he is confirmed, to work to 

prevent these kinds of enormous cost overruns, schedule problems, 

and performance difficulties that have plagued IT projects all 

across the government. And this is an area where I think that the 

OMB has not been aggressive enough. 

Finally, I just want to reinforce the Chairman’s point that OMB 

has a two-pronged mission. It is not just budget. It is management 

as well, and that is equally important. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Senator Collins. Good points. 

I will say for the record that Jeff Zients has filed responses to 

the questionnaires, answered pre-hearing questions, and had his financial statements reviewed by the Office of Government Ethics. 

Without objection, this information will be made part of the record, 

with the exception of the financial data, which are available for 

public inspection in the Committee offices. 

Mr. Zients, I would ask you now, as the Committee rules require, 

to please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear that the 

testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and 

nothing but the truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. ZIENTS. I do. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, and please be seated. We 

would welcome your opening statement and, if it does not take too 

long, an introduction of the many family members. You are welcome to introduce anyone you want. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, before Mr. Zients proceeds, I 

must leave. And normally, others do not make statements, but 

could I just make a statement for maybe a minute? 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Go right ahead, please. 

Senator CARPER. I would just like to say how much I appreciated 

the opportunity to meet with Mr. Zients this last week and to have 

an opportunity to discuss a number of the priorities, some that 

Senator Collins has already mentioned, that the three of us share. 

We are also very much interested in continuing the work. The 

foundation has been made on improper payments. A lot of money, 

tens of billions of dollars actually each year, is being inappropriately spent, in many cases overspent. And I welcome the opportunity to talk with you about that and also to figure out how, when 

we have overpaid money, we can get that money back. 

Mr. ZIENTS. Absolutely. 

Senator CARPER. And we are interested in surplus property and 

what to do about it so we do not end up carrying all this property 

19 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Zients appears in the Appendix on page 146. 

on our books and have to pay for the maintenance costs, the utility 

costs, the security costs for buildings and land we are never going 

to use again. 

There are a whole lot of opportunities here for us, and I think 

it is important for us to show that we can help transform our economy to more of a green energy economy. It is important that we 

get health care reform done. It is important that we raise student 

achievement in our schools across this country. It is also important 

that we show that we can spend money responsibly, and facing a 

budget deficit of $1.8 trillion this year and red ink for as far as the 

eye can see, we have our work cut out for us. And we see you and 

the folks that will be working with you very much as partners to 

those of us who serve on this Committee. 

I was pleased to have a chance to meet your wife, Mary, and to 

meet your four children, and to meet your Dad, and I would just 

say to especially your father, thank you for helping raise this guy 

and instill the values in him that lead him to this table here today, 

and special thanks to your wife and to your children for their willingness to share you with all of us. Thanks. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Carper, 

for that statement. 

Mr. Zients. 

TESTIMONY OF JEFFREY D. ZIENTS 1 TO BE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET 

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

and Senator Carper, for the very kind comments. I am honored and 

humbled to be here today as President Obama’s nominee for Deputy Director for Management at the Office of Management and 

Budget. 

I am grateful to my family who is here with me today: My wife, 

Mary, of 17 years; my four children, in descending order of age, 

Sasha, Matthew, Josh, and Jonny. And my Mom and Dad, Debbie 

and Alan, are here today. I thank all of them for their love and 

their support. 

Senator CARPER. If I can interrupt, I did not realize your Mom 

was here. Would you raise your hand? Nice work, Mom. [Laughter.] 

Mr. ZIENTS. Mom and Dad actually raised me here in Washington, so I have been here for many years, and I have had the opportunity to watch many people who have worked in government 

and always hoped that at some point I would have the opportunity 

to serve and give back. I want to thank the President and OMB 

Director Orszag for their confidence in me, and I hope to help them 

achieve and all of you achieve one of the Administration’s top priorities—improving the efficiency and effectiveness of government. 

I believe my background helps prepare me for this role. I have 

spent 20 years in the private sector as a CEO, a management consultant, and as an investor. For 15 of those years, I helped lead the 

Advisory Board Company and the Corporate Executive Board Company. Both firms are leading providers of best practices and 

20 

benchmarking to over 5,000 organizations, including over 400 of 

the Fortune 500 companies. They work closely with the senior 

management teams at these organizations to measure performance, 

increase productivity, and improve service quality. 

I very much recognize and appreciate that government is different from the private sector. I have much to learn from the people who have dedicated their lives to public service and much to 

learn from the many programs that operate efficiently and effectively and deliver good results. 

If confirmed, I hope to help spread these government best practices across agencies while at the same time drawing on my private 

sector experience, bringing forward models and approaches that 

may benefit government performance. I very much agree with both 

of your comments about the need to integrate management and 

budget rather than separate divisions, if you will, everyone wearing 

both hats, both a management hat and a budget hat, at OMB. 

As a CEO, I have always focused on three areas: Leadership, 

measurement, and a motivated workforce. I believe leadership 

starts with putting the right team together and articulating the 

right goals for the organization. Measurement means translating 

these goals into operating plans with clear metrics. A motivated 

workforce requires creating a culture to attract, retain, and develop 

the best talent. Together, I believe these three areas are the key 

to strong performance. 

I have very much enjoyed my early interactions with the staff 

and with you, and I look forward to working closely with Members 

of this Committee, others in Congress, and leaders across government to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our government. 

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I would welcome any comments or questions. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you very much. Let me start with 

the standard questions, three in number. First, is there anything 

you are aware of in your background that might present a conflict 

of interest with the duties of the office to which you have been 

nominated? 

Mr. ZIENTS. No. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Second, do you know of anything, personal or otherwise, that would in any way prevent you from fully 

and honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to which 

you have been nominated? 

Mr. ZIENTS. No. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. And, third, do you agree without reservation to respond to any reasonable summons to appear and testify 

before any duly constituted committee of Congress if you are confirmed? 

Mr. ZIENTS. Yes. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. You are doing very well so far. [Laughter.] 

Let me pick up on something you said, perhaps a question that 

seems to have an obvious answer, but I would be interested, which 

is two things we often hear: One, government ought to operate 

more like a business; and, two, government is different from business. 

21 

As you come into this position, if confirmed, with quite impressive experience in the private sector, what do you mean when you 

say that government is different from business? 

Mr. ZIENTS. In business, there is one very clear, most important 

metric, and that is profitability. There are lots of other metrics that 

matter, including service, quality, and other metrics around performance. But at the end of the day, I think that while business 

is complex, there is a bottom line. 

Here, in the public service, one is balancing in government different metrics, depending on programs, and some of those metrics 

actually are not even program specific. They really need to run 

across programs. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Give us an example. I do not mean of a 

particular program, but what are the metrics that government 

should measure itself by? 

Mr. ZIENTS. I think delivering the services that individual programs or agencies are set out to deliver in a cost-effective and 

meaningful way, so metrics in the Department of Education are 

very different than metrics in DOD. Then there are issues—homelessness being an example—where the issue does not reside in a 

single program, but instead goes across program and even across 

agency. So I think it is very important, when we think about 

metrics in government, that it is not one size fits all. There is no 

single bottom-line profit equivalent like we have in the private sector. And instead we have a flexible system that really looks at the 

unique purpose of a program and develops the outcomes-based 

metrics, where appropriate, to measure against. Some programs 

probably are not conducive or as conducive to metric-based tracking 

across time and also, therefore, require longer-term studies around 

effectiveness and efficiency. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. That was well said, thoughtfully said. Let 

me go on to a question about the Federal workforce. In your prehearing discussions with the Committee staff, you noted, as you 

have repeated here, that advising companies on best practices, and 

particularly improving strategies for human resource management, 

was a major focus of the two consulting firms that you led. Because 

this Committee has oversight responsibilities and legislative responsibilities for the Federal civil service, recruiting, training, and 

retaining a skilled Federal workforce are priority concerns of ours. 

So I wanted to ask you what your initial coming-through-thedoor or approaching-the-door thoughts are about ways in which you 

can help us strengthen the Federal workforce. 

Mr. ZIENTS. Here is a similarity, I believe, with the private sector. Human capital is the most important component of improving 

performance, so in my private sector days, I did spend a lot of time 

on human capital strategies as a result of how important it was to 

the clients of the firm. 

My initial reaction is that there is a recruiting issue in that we 

have a large retirement bubble in the system, and at the same 

time, we have remarkably long lead times in order to bring a new 

individual into the workforce. So I have been struck by how long 

those lead times are and the need to decrease those. 

I think it is an important time to be doing so and that we have 

an opportunity somewhat related to the economy and also to a reVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:41 Feb 07, 2011 Jkt 051784 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\51784.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
22 

newed or even heightened interest in public service to take advantage of an opportunity. But we need to make sure that we streamline the hiring process in order to take advantage of this opportunity and start doing the right kind of planning for the retirement 

bubble. 

Succession planning becomes very important, understanding 

overall the workforce needs by agency, when people are likely to be 

retiring, and how we ensure that we have the right succession 

plans in place. I think, furthermore, we do need to look at training 

programs. Training programs oftentimes in both the private sector 

and now I understand the public sector come under pressure as one 

of the first things to go in budget cuts. That can tend to be shortsighted, and enhancing our training programs at all levels throughout government I believe is an important priority—all of this in the 

context of taking a step back and making sure that we have an employment proposition that works to attract, retain, and develop talent across the Federal Government. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Let me follow with another question related to personnel. There has been a trend, as you know, a very 

significant trend, toward contracting out government services. A lot 

of us are concerned that it has gone too far, though obviously there 

are cases in which it makes a lot of sense. 

In your pre-hearing responses to the questions, you have emphasized that inherently governmental functions should be performed 

by Federal employees and that agencies must have the internal capability to maintain control over their operations. I agree wholeheartedly that those are fundamental considerations. So I wanted 

to ask you this question, going back again to your private sector 

experience. 

In the private sector, what approach did you recommend to your 

clients for deciding what skills they should retain in-house? And 

what, if any, different considerations do you think a government 

agency should make in deciding what work is appropriate for contractors and what should be kept inside? 

Mr. ZIENTS. In the private sector, I would say there are two primary considerations: One, is it a core competency of the organization? Does the organization, the for-profit company, need that competency in-house in order to differentiate itself in the marketplace 

and win against the competition? 

The other consideration is: Is the function something that is conducive to scale? So certain things, certain activities, as you build 

scale and do more and more of it, you become much better at it and 

more efficient. Other things are less conducive to scale. And so if 

something is a scale activity and in an organization you are not 

going to achieve that scale but an outsourcer by collecting, or a contractor by creating their own scale, could do that much more efficiently, that would be the other consideration. 

So two considerations: First, is it a core competency to differentiate in the marketplace? And, second, is it something that if you 

were bundling your activities with someone else’s, would you 

achieve higher quality and lower cost? 

I think those same principles do apply in government once we decide that something should be competed. I think, however, this test 

of inherently governmental, i.e., that all inherently governmental 

23 

work—hiring personnel, managing contractors, setting policy— 

should all be done by Federal workers. That is different from the 

private sector, if you will, this inherently governmental and the 

link to the larger purpose of government. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I mentioned in my opening statement my concern about the Federal Government’s failures when it comes to IT projects. This year 

alone, the Federal Government will spend more than $70 billion on 

IT projects, and yet OMB every year, through its tracking system, 

identifies billions of dollars of wasted spending on IT. 

What do you think OMB should do to get troubled IT investments back on track and to ensure that they are on track in the 

first place? 

Mr. ZIENTS. Thank you for that question. I believe that this is 

a management issue more than a technology issue, so it comes 

down to good management, having the right people accountable, 

sharing best practices, and ensuring that the processes, particularly the program management processes, are robust and experienced people are in charge. 

There are a few efforts underway, which I think are a good start, 

led by the new Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO), Vivek 

Kundra. One is to make sure that the CIO is at the senior management table. I think too often we approach IT projects as a silo 

when, in fact, a large IT project has to have the senior team, starting with the head of the agency, at the table understanding the resources that are required and making the necessary commitment. 

So ensuring that the CIO is at the table as a senior executive is, 

I think, very important. 

Second, I think too often we find out about problems too late, 

when things are off track, on an annual cycle, if you will; whereas, 

an IT project needs to be managed daily, weekly, monthly, not annually. And there is an effort underway to create a dashboard, 

which will allow us, with transparency, to see where projects are, 

spot problems early, and get them back on track. 

Last, I think we need to make sure that someone is accountable 

here, and certainly the CIO and, I believe, the head of the agency 

have to be held accountable in a transparent way for the success 

of these projects. 

Senator COLLINS. OMB has developed a system known as the 

Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), and it is a performance 

results system that is intended to evaluate the effectiveness of Federal programs. Are you familiar with PART? 

Mr. ZIENTS. Yes, I am. 

Senator COLLINS. What we have found, however—and GAO has 

determined also—is despite the existence of the PART ratings, 

managers across the Federal Government do not use the assessments when it comes to allocating resources. So all this energy goes 

into this complex evaluation system, and then, frankly, no one uses 

it. The individual agencies do not use it in deciding what their 

budget request should be for the most part, and Congress does not 

use it either. The Appropriations Committees tend to discount the 

PART ratings. 

24 

In the previous Administration, OMB tried to use low PART ratings as a justification for terminating or reducing funding for various programs, and I am at a loss to think of even one where they 

were successful. 

What can we do to develop a performance assessment program 

that is going to guide resource allocations and budget decisions in 

an effective way? 

Mr. ZIENTS. Thank you. I think you hit the nail on the head. The 

test of a performance management system is: Is it being used to 

make important resource allocation, budgeting, and capital decisions by all stakeholders? And I think the way that you go down 

the path of achieving that goal is with a collaborative approach, 

working with the stakeholders at the senior-most level to understand what matters, what are the overall goals, how are they being 

translated into operating plans, and then what are the best handful of outcomes-based metrics to track progress across time; and 

that you have the flexibility in the system, going back a little bit 

earlier in the conversation, to look at problems not just by program—or issues or opportunities—but across agencies. 

So I am wary of anything that is one size fits all, and at the 

same time, I think the ultimate test is right where you started, 

which is: Is the system being used by senior managers, senior leaders, and senior stakeholders to make decisions? So, if confirmed, I 

look forward to working with the Committee and others in Congress and across agencies to collaboratively develop a system that 

is used to make important decisions. 

Senator COLLINS. I think you have identified the key issue. If it 

is a collaborative system that agencies buy into and if you establish 

performance metrics that are cross-cutting, I think there will be 

more support for using the results of the assessments. And I know 

this is an area where you have had a great deal of experience, and 

I am really pleased that you are going to be bringing that experience as the first Chief Performance Officer. 

The President has committed to making this Administration 

more transparent, and that is something that I completely support. 

And one of the best ways to do that is to expand, update, and improve the use of government websites. 

But if you look at the Federal websites versus the private sector 

and, in some cases, State and local websites, you will find that 

there are a lot of frustrations and that they are not as good as they 

could be. And a great example that this Committee has been focusing on are the websites for the stimulus spending. 

People are very interested in tracking that spending, of making 

sure that it is achieving the results that all of us hope that it will, 

and yet the Recovery.gov website is not nearly as good as a website 

developed by the private sector that I believe is Recovery.org. It is 

a very similar name. 

In the private sector website, you are able to track money down 

to the contractor level. With the Federal website, we are not able 

to do that effectively. 

Mr. ZIENTS. Yes. 

Senator COLLINS. Why can we not get our act together when it 

comes to websites for tracking spending? 

25 

Mr. ZIENTS. Good question, and I totally agree with you that it 

is a high priority for this Administration, one of the highest priorities, to increase the transparency and thereby the accountability 

of government. 

My understanding is that there is a lot of effort right now being 

put into Recovery.gov with focus at OMB and, obviously, the leadership of the oversight board to working collaboratively, and we are 

headed toward, in October, launch of a lot more information on the 

website. 

I think we will see very good things in October, and I think as 

we get that out there, we have to have a continual process to improve and add more and more data, as you said, all the way 

through the sub-recipient level, both on the grant side and the contract side. 

I think the root cause problem is the legacy systems that we 

have and the fact that we have not been able, going back to IT 

management, to update a lot of our IT systems. So we have outdated systems. We saw this in the pressure that was on Grants.gov 

through the added dollars in the Recovery Act. So I think updating 

these systems going back to IT management and making sure that 

we have robust systems that we can draw data out of is very important. Recovery.gov, I think, will offer unprecedented transparency and will set a standard to which we will then move 

USASpending.gov and Grants.gov across time. 

I agree with your premise, though, that we are not where we 

should be in terms of the base foundation to pull the data off of. 

Senator COLLINS. In a way—just one final comment, if the Chairman will indulge me. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Sure. Go ahead. 

Senator COLLINS. In a way, you have identified my frustration, 

though. You are saying by October there should be a significant upgrade, and yet here we have this private sector website that is 

tracking the money more effectively right now, and presumably it 

was a lot harder for the private company to identify the funding 

streams and track them. They do not have these companies, these 

State and local governments reporting the way the Federal Government does. 

So it is frustrating to me to hear that it is going to take that 

many more months for us to try to catch up with what the private 

sector has already done. That indicates a problem. 

Mr. ZIENTS. I agree. 

Senator COLLINS. Fortunately, that is not your watch. 

Mr. ZIENTS. We will hopefully leap-frog in October, but I share 

your concern. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Collins. Senator Akaka, 

welcome. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I do want to 

add my welcome to Mr. Zients and, of course, to your lovely family 

and your children and friends and even your supporters who are 

here at this hearing. 

26 

As you know, the amount of acquisition spending by the Federal 

Government has grown dramatically over the past decade while the 

size and expertise of the Federal acquisition workforce has not kept 

pace, and that has been a huge problem. This has affected agencies’ 

ability to acquire and oversee mission-critical contracts and has 

cost taxpayers through increased waste, fraud, and abuse. 

If confirmed, what role will you play in identifying and addressing the needs of the Federal acquisition workforce? 

Mr. ZIENTS. Thank you. There has been a doubling, as you said, 

across the last 8 years in contracting. At the same time, I believe 

the total size of the Federal acquisition workforce has actually 

stayed the same size or even decreased a little bit. So there is 

clearly a need to do comprehensive workforce planning around the 

acquisition workforce because it also is subject to something we 

talked about earlier, Senator, which is the pending retirement 

wave. It will hit that workforce also. So we have the need to hire 

a lot of new people and the need to train and ensure that we are 

increasing the size and the capabilities of that workforce as we ask 

them to take on more and more complex contracts. 

So I think it is an area that needs a lot of attention. Working 

closely with the General Services Administration, DOD, the Federal Acquisition Institute, and the Defense Acquisition University, 

we need to coordinate those efforts and work with you and others 

on the Committee to ensure that we get ahead of the problem. I 

think we are behind it right now. So we need to catch up and then 

get ahead of the problem and have an acquisition workforce that 

is the right size and has the right set of capabilities to oversee our 

contracting. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Zients, you have mentioned a desire to find 

the right mix of Federal and private contractor employees for performing government services. What steps will you take and whom 

do you expect to coordinate to achieve this? 

Mr. ZIENTS. President Obama in his March 4, 2009, memo on 

contracting talked about a blurring of the line around inherently 

governmental, and I think it is very important that we clarify what 

is inherently governmental and ensure that only Federal workers 

are performing these functions. 

Second, I think it is important that we have the critical capabilities at each agency to do their work, to maintain control over their 

operations. So there are some areas, technical areas, professional 

service areas, where it might be right to have a mix of Federal 

workers and contractors, but at all times the agency has to maintain a core set of capabilities to maintain control over their operations. 

So once we clear through, if you will, those two standards, there 

could be work that is eligible for a competitive process. I think it 

is very important that we have the acquisition workforce, per your 

earlier question, in place to oversee that type of contracting, if indeed we decide to do it, and that we have a fair and transparent 

and economically based decisionmaking process where Federal employees are given a fair choice to compete. 

Senator AKAKA. There are concerns also from Federal employees 

as well. In particular, I would mention the unions. Like you, I believe government transparency and accountability are essential in 

27 

all levels of management. However, in recent initiatives intended 

to hold Federal employees more accountable for their performance, 

there has been significant concern over fairness and consistency in 

evaluations. 

What are your views on crafting performance management systems that can be implemented fairly, consistently, and transparently enough that Federal employees and managers alike will 

embrace them? 

Mr. ZIENTS. I think that performance appraisal systems are critical. They are the basis for a lot of the performance efforts that we 

have been discussing, writ large. I think that we need to make sure 

that anything we do respects and is consistent with the meritbased system and protects employees from any prohibited personnel practices. So I believe that we all are supportive of transparency; at the same time, we need to balance that with other considerations when we are talking about our Federal employees. 

Senator AKAKA. One concern that we have had over a period of 

time is that of security clearances, and this Committee has held 

hearings on that issue. Since 2004, Mr. Zients, our Subcommittee 

on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, 

and the District of Columbia, under both the leadership of myself 

and Senator Voinovich, has worked closely with the Office of Management and Budget in reforming the current security clearance 

process, which remains on the Government Accountability Office’s 

high-risk list. Until recently, the backlog for obtaining a security 

clearance was unacceptably long. While some progress has been 

made, I am concerned that the new Administration may not yet be 

focused on moving forward with security clearance reforms. 

Will you commit to have your team work with our Subcommittee 

on this important issue? 

Mr. ZIENTS. I agree very much with the issue. There has been 

some progress, as you have noted, under your leadership and others. At the same time, we are not where we need to be, and OMB 

plays a role here with the Office of Personnel Management, DOD, 

and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. And I very 

much commit that, if confirmed, it will be a very important priority 

for me to review the work to date and to make sure that we make 

continued progress and work closely with you. 

Senator AKAKA. Well, thank you very much. I want to wish your 

lovely family well, and you also. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Akaka. Mr. Zients, 

thanks very much. Your answers have been excellent. You are obviously well prepared for this position. The Administration and all of 

us need you there as quickly as possible. 

So, without objection, we are going to keep the record of the 

hearing open until noon tomorrow for the submission of additional 

questions or statements, and then we will move as quickly as we 

can, assuming nothing unexpected occurs, to confirm you by the 

Committee and send you out to the full Senate. 

Do you have anything else you would like to say? 

Mr. ZIENTS. No. Thank you. I really appreciate it. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you very much. The hearing is adjourned. 

28 

[Whereupon, at 11:44 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(29) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LIEBERMAN FOR TARA O’TOOLE 

Good morning. Today this Committee will consider the nominations of Dr. Tara 

O’Toole to be Undersecretary of Science and Technology, at the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS), and Jeffrey Zients to be the Director for Management at 

the Office of Management and Budget (OPM). 

We will begin with Dr. O’Toole, who has appeared previously before our Committee as a witness and who I’m delighted to welcome back as the nominee for this 

important position. 

The Science and Technology Directorate is charged with managing our Nation’s 

investments in homeland security research and development projects. 

It is hard to think of a threat to America’s homeland security that cannot be better defended against with an innovative application of science and technology. 

S&T had a difficult launch and in its early years struggled to clarify and execute 

its primary mission. As a result, the FY 2007 Appropriations Act reduced the Directorate’s $1.4 billion budget by 40 percent. 

In wake of this dose of tough-love, former Undersecretary Cohen resolved to build 

a leaner and more tightly-managed organization that focused on serving its primary 

customers—DHS agencies—and being transparent with Congress. 

Undersecretary Cohen implemented internal controls to monitor S&T finances 

and track the progress of S&T investments. He established a structured strategic 

planning process that is designed to produce specific objectives and annual performance measures. 

In my view, the recent increases in the Directorate’s budget indicates that S&T’s 

career staff has succeeded in regaining the trust of the oversight and appropriations 

committees in the House and Senate. 

But a number of complex challenges remain, and we would look to you, Dr. 

O’Toole, for the leadership to continue to build and improve this agency that is vital 

to DHS’s overall mission to protect our homeland. 

These challenges include expanding investments in innovative R&D for homeland 

security and insuring the reliability of the testing and evaluation that DHS relies 

on for large acquisition programs. 

You also must strengthen relationships between S&T and agencies within DHS. 

Dr. O’Toole brings a wealth of experience that will serve her well in this new job. 

After practicing medicine in Baltimore for several years, Dr. O’Toole earned a 

Masters in Public Health from Johns Hopkins University, spent 5 years as a senior 

analyst and project director with the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment 

and, from 1993 to 1997, served as the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety 

and Health at the Department of Energy. 

From 1999 to 2003, she managed the Johns Hopkins Center for Civilian Biodefense Strategies. For the last 6 years, she has served as the Director and Chief 

Executive Officer of the Center for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh. 

Today she is best known as a nationally recognized expert on biodefense and the 

actions what we must take to detect, deter and react to either a biological terrorist 

attack or a ruinous pandemic. 

An important measure of her fitness for this post is the respect she has garnered 

in the scientific community and across the U.S. Government. 

A former chair of the board of the American Federation of American Scientist, she 

has participated in major studies or advisory panels at the request of the National 

Science Foundation, the Department of Defense, the Department of Health and 

Human Services, and the Department of Homeland Security. 

I believe her nomination is an inspired choice. 

30 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS FOR TARA O’TOOLE 

I join the Chairman in welcoming Tara O’Toole, the nominee to head the Science 

and Technology Directorate at the Department of Homeland Security. 

Dr. O’Toole has had an extensive medical, public health, and biodefense career 

and currently serves as CEO and director of the Center for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and as a professor of medicine and of public 

health at the University of Pittsburgh. She was one of the original members of the 

Johns Hopkins Center for Civilian Biodefense Strategies and served as its director 

from 2001 to 2003. 

When the Department of Homeland Security was established, Congress recognized 

the important role that technology must play in securing our Nation and created 

a Science and Technology Directorate to undertake research and development activities. Today, the Department is developing technologies on a variety of fronts, including biological, chemical and explosives detection, communications interoperability, 

and passenger and cargo screening. 

Technological advances at the ports of entry are already helping to identify people 

using fraudulent travel documents. This technology allows the Department to better 

perform its mission of protecting the American people while still facilitating the legitimate flow of people and commerce—letting our friends in, while keeping our enemies out. 

The Department’s relationship with the University of Maine and other research 

universities is helping to improve our homeland security. An example of the great 

promise of advanced technology is the composite-material cargo-container prototype 

under development at the University of Maine. A composite shipping container with 

embedded sensors could improve the security and integrity of the supply chain while 

offering shippers a lighter and longer-lasting alternative to traditional steel containers. 

Research and development of new technologies at the Department carry an annual multi-billion dollar price tag. To ensure that these dollars are spent wisely, the 

Science and Technology Directorate must rigorously test and evaluate technologies 

before procurement decisions are made. Better engagement by the Directorate’s testing and evaluation office in Department acquisition programs could help avoid problems such as those experienced in the troubled SBInet program. 

The next Under Secretary for Science and Technology will also need to align DHS 

research and development priorities with the greatest security vulnerabilities that 

our Nation faces and ensure close coordination with DHS operational components 

and other Federal, State, and local partners. I look forward to hearing how Dr. 

O’Toole would address these challenges if confirmed. 

31 


51784.001
32 


51784.002
33 


51784.003
34 


51784.004
35 


51784.005
36 


51784.006
37 


51784.007
38 


51784.008
39 


51784.009
40 


51784.010
41 


51784.011
42 


51784.012
43 


51784.013
44 


51784.014
45 


51784.015
46 


51784.016
47 


51784.017
48 


51784.018
49 


51784.019
50 


51784.020
51 


51784.021
52 


51784.022
53 


51784.023
54 


51784.024
55 


51784.025
56 


51784.026
57 


51784.027
58 


51784.028
59 


51784.029
60 


51784.030
61 


51784.031
62 


51784.032
63 


51784.033
64 


51784.034
65 


51784.035
66 


51784.036
67 


51784.037
68 


51784.038
69 


51784.039
70 


51784.040
71 


51784.041
72 


51784.042
73 


51784.043
74 


51784.044
75 


51784.045
76 


51784.046
77 


51784.047
78 


51784.048
79 


51784.049
80 


51784.050
81 


51784.051
82 


51784.052
83 


51784.053
84 


51784.054
85 


51784.055
86 


51784.056
87 


51784.057
88 


51784.058
89 


51784.059
90 


51784.060
91 


51784.062
92 


51784.063
93 


51784.064
94 


51784.065
95 


51784.066
96 


51784.067
97 


51784.068
98 


51784.069
99 


51784.070
100 


51784.071
101 


51784.072
102 


51784.073
103 


51784.074
104 


51784.061
105 


51784.075
106 


51784.076
107 


51784.077
108 


51784.078
109 


51784.079
110 


51784.080
111 


51784.081
112 


51784.082
113 


51784.083
114 


51784.084
115 


51784.085
116 


51784.086
117 


51784.087
118 


51784.088
119 


51784.089
120 


51784.090
121 


51784.091
122 


51784.092
123 


51784.093
124 


51784.094
125 


51784.095
126 


51784.096
127 


51784.097
128 


51784.098
129 


51784.099
130 


51784.100
131 


51784.101
132 


51784.102
133 


51784.103
134 


51784.104
135 


51784.105
136 


51784.106
137 


51784.107
138 


51784.108
139 


51784.109
140 


51784.110
141 


51784.111
142 


51784.112
143 


51784.113
144 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LIEBERMAN FOR JEFFREY ZIENTS 

And now we will consider President Obama’s nomination of Jeffrey Zients to be 

Deputy Director for the Office of Management and Budget. 

Since its creation, a common criticism of OMB is that its leadership, no matter 

what party is in charge, too often has focused on the ‘‘B’’ at the expense of the ‘‘M’’— 

on budget as opposed to management. That should not be the case. The two go hand 

in hand and if a program is not doing well with the ‘‘M’’, it is likely to have problems with the ‘‘B’’ as well and that means the taxpayers are not getting their money’s worth. 

I’m pleased that President Obama has made the drive toward management excellence a top priority across the government and has stated that the Deputy Director 

for Management at OMB will also serve as the first ‘‘Chief Performance Officer’’ of 

the Federal Government. 

Mr. Zients will have oversight of four statutory offices with far-reaching mandates: The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; the Office of Federal Procurement Policy; the Office of E-Government and Information Technology; and the 

Office of Federal Financial Management. 

I would like to take a moment to outline just a few of the challenges I believe 

Mr. Zients will face if confirmed. 

In the area of performance metrics, the ratings system created by the previous 

Administration—the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)—was viewed skeptically by many as a biased system that generated poor ratings for programs that 

the Administration wanted to eliminate for ideological reasons. 

I hope, Mr. Zients, that you can help create objective performance rating metrics 

for programs, and one that takes into account that a ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ approach is 

inappropriate given the diversity of government programs. 

Improving contracting practices is another priority for the President, and rightfully so, as total spending on goods and services has skyrocketed from $189 billion 

in 1999 to $532 billion in 2008. 

Another concern is properly managing the Information Technology investments of 

the Federal Government—estimated to be over $70 billion in this fiscal year. We 

must be assured these funds are spent effectively while also meeting the President’s 

goals of using technology to make the government more transparent, participatory, 

and collaborative. 

In a related concern, OMB will continue to play a key role—along with DHS— 

in protecting our Federal networks against the malicious actors that seek to do us 

harm. In recent years this has been a real challenge. 

And finally, I’d like to mention how important transparency initiatives can be to 

improving accountability in government programs. President Obama is passionate 

about this issue as well. 

But many current efforts to provide data to the public on Federal spending, including USAspending.gov, have fallen short of original expectations and now the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board is grappling with how to provide the 

public comprehensive information on stimulus spending. 

I’m optimistic that, with strong leadership, we’ll be able to solve these problems 

so the public can track spending and provide their own oversight if they spot wasteful spending. 

Mr. Zients has 20 years of business experience as a CEO, management consultant, and entrepreneur. He has served as CEO and Chairman of The Advisory Board 

Company and as Chairman of the Corporate Executive Board—two firms that are 

leading providers of performance benchmarking and best practices across a wide 

range of industries. He has spent most of his career devising ways to improve governance, organization, management, efficiencies, financial systems of companies, 

and now we will look to him to bring those best practices to government agencies. 

So again, welcome Mr. Zients. I look forward to your statement and your answers 

to our questions. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS FOR JEFFREY ZIENTS 

For our second panel, the Committee welcomes Jeffrey Zients, President Obama’s 

nominee to serve as the next Deputy Director for Management at the Office of Management and Budget. If confirmed, Mr. Zients will also serve as the government’s 

first Chief Performance Officer. 

Although OMB is better known for its budget responsibilities, it has a twopronged mission. In addition to overseeing the preparation and implementation of 

the Federal budget, OMB oversees Federal procurement, financial management, information technology, and regulatory policies across the Executive Branch. 

145 

The management challenges that OMB faces are extremely important. Effective 

management can help to ensure that agencies are carrying out their responsibilities 

in the most cost-effective manner. Good management can save tax dollars and lead 

to better results. A major OMB responsibility is the oversight of approximately $71 

billion in spending on information technology investments. It is unacceptable that 

Federal agencies have identified approximately 450 IT projects, totaling more than 

$26 billion for fiscal year 2009, as poorly planned, poorly performing, or both. 

Senator Carper and I have introduced a bill, which this Committee reported favorably, that would improve agency performance and oversight of Federal IT projects. 

I look forward to hearing how Mr. Zients would work to prevent future cost, schedule, and performance problems. 

I also look forward to hearing Mr. Zients’s views on how OMB can continue to 

provide effective oversight and implementation of Recovery Act spending. 

Mr. Zients comes before the Committee with 20 years of business experience as 

a CEO, management consultant, and entrepreneur. He will need to call on all this 

experience if he is to serve effectively as the Deputy Director for OMB and Chief 

Performance Officer. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR BENNET FOR JEFFREY ZIENTS 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Collins, thank you for giving me the opportunity to introduce Jeff Zients to serve as the Deputy Director for Management at the OMB. He 

will also serve as our Nation’s first-ever Chief Performance Officer. I’d like to take 

this opportunity to welcome Jeff and his family to this hearing. 

If confirmed, Jeff will coordinate the President’s efforts to make our government 

more efficient and accountable by identifying wasteful spending and eliminating initiatives that do not provide sufficient benefit to the American taxpayer for the 

amount we are investing in them. He’ll also work to improve how we measure the 

effectiveness of government programs. 

It won’t be easy. Just the sheer size and complexity of the Federal Government 

and the entrenched interests that often fight to protect certain programs—make this 

kind of work treacherous and too often thankless. But I commend the President for 

prioritizing better governance and I fully agree that somebody needs to be tasked 

with performing this role. 

Given the enormity of this task, the President could not have found someone better suited for the job than Jeff Zients. As an expert in financial management and 

business strategy, Jeff has the intellect, creativity and tenacity to examine complex 

problems, implement solutions, and produce real results for the American people. 

As my friend for nearly 30 years, I know he has the ability to exercise sound judgment and the character and integrity to do what’s right. 

In his mid-twenties, Jeff joined the Advisory Board where he worked closely with 

America’s top companies to become more innovative and efficient. Within 3 years, 

he became a partner in the company. He also helped create the Corporate Executive 

Board, which assists companies across various industries in financial management 

and business re-engineering. He played an instrumental role in taking both of these 

companies public, all the while creating hundreds of jobs in the Washington, D.C. 

area. 

Jeff currently serves as the Managing Partner of Portfolio Logic, an investment 

firm that he founded several years ago. He is also the Chairman of Pediatric Services of America, the Nation’s largest provider of pediatric nurse care. Outside of the 

corporate world, Jeff has worked to create better opportunities for young adults 

throughout Washington, D.C. and Baltimore. He established and currently oversees 

a non-profit organization that works with local companies to provide paid internships, mentoring opportunities, and job training initiatives. 

As we all know, Jeff will be joining the President’s team during the worst economic crisis in generations. At the same time, our deficits and long term debt are 

on an unsustainable course. If we want to lay the framework for long-term economic 

growth, we need to ensure that every penny of Federal spending is necessary and 

targeted. Jeff’s years of experience in financial management and his ability to think 

‘‘outside of the box’’ will be instrumental to the President’s efforts to make our government more accountable and efficient. His private-sector business savvy will provide the perfect lens through which to examine the effectiveness of many public-sector initiatives. By making our Federal agencies more efficient and accountable, Jeff 

will play an important role in helping restore the American people’s faith in our government. 

I look forward to working with my old friend as he begins this important job. Mr. 

Chairman, I gladly introduce and recommend Jeff Zeints to the Committee for this 

new and important role. 

146 


51784.114
147 


51784.115
148 


51784.116
149 


51784.117
150 


51784.118
151 


51784.119
152 


51784.120
153 


51784.121
154 


51784.122
155 


51784.123
156 


51784.124
157 


51784.125
158 


51784.126
159 


51784.127
160 


51784.128
161 


51784.129
162 


51784.130
163 


51784.131
164 


51784.132
165 


51784.133
166 


51784.134
167 


51784.135
168 


51784.136
169 


51784.137
170 


51784.138
171 


51784.139
172 


51784.140
173 


51784.141
174 


51784.142
175 


51784.143
176 


51784.144
177 


51784.145
178 


51784.146
179 


51784.147
180 


51784.148
181 


51784.149
182 


51784.150
183 


51784.151
184 


51784.152
185 


51784.153
186 


51784.154
187 


51784.155
188 


51784.156
189 


51784.157
190 


51784.158
191 


51784.159
192 


51784.160
193 


51784.161
194 


51784.162
195 


51784.163
196 


51784.164
197 


51784.165
198 


51784.166
199 


51784.167
200 


51784.168
201 


51784.169
202 


51784.170
203 


51784.171
204 

Æ 


51784.172