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

49–494 PDF 2009

PASSING THE BATON: PREPARING FOR THE

PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,

ORGANIZATION, AND PROCUREMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 24, 2008

Serial No. 110–154

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.oversight.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland

PETER WELCH, Vermont

JACKIE SPEIER, California

TOM DAVIS, Virginia

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

BILL SALI, Idaho

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

PHIL SCHILIRO, Chief of Staff

PHIL BARNETT, Staff Director

EARLEY GREEN, Chief Clerk

DAVID MARIN, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, ORGANIZATION, AND PROCUREMENT

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

PETER WELCH, Vermont

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania,

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL MCCARTHY, Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on September 24, 2008 ..................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Johnson, Clay, Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management

and Budget; Gene L. Dodaro, Acting Comptroller General of the United

States, Government Accountability Office; and Gail Lovelace, Chief

Human Capital Officer, General Services Administration ........................ 6

Dodaro, Gene L. ......................................................................................... 20

Johnson, Clay ............................................................................................ 6

Lovelace, Gail ............................................................................................ 48

Kumar, Martha, professor, Department of Political Science, Towson University; Doris Hausser, panel member for the Department of Homeland

Security President Transition Study, the National Academy of Public

Administration; Don Kettl, professor, FELS Institute of Government,

University of Pennsylvania; and Patricia McGinnis, president and CEO,

the Council for Excellence in Government .................................................. 68

Hausser, Doris ........................................................................................... 77

Kettl, Don ................................................................................................... 249

Kumar, Martha .......................................................................................... 68

McGinnis, Patricia ..................................................................................... 214

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Dodaro, Gene L., Acting Comptroller General of the United States, Government Accountability Office, prepared statement of .............................. 22

Hausser, Doris, panel member for the Department of Homeland Security

President Transition Study, the National Academy of Public Administration:

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 208

Report entitled, ‘‘Addressing the 2009 Presidential Transition at the

Department of Homeland Security,’’ .................................................... 78

Johnson, Clay, Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management

and Budget, prepared statement of ............................................................. 8

Kettl, Don, professor, FELS Institute of Government, University of Pennsylvania, prepared statement of .................................................................. 251

Kumar, Martha, professor, Department of Political Science, Towson University, prepared statement of ..................................................................... 72

Lovelace, Gail, Chief Human Capital Officer, General Services Administration, prepared statement of ..................................................................... 50

McGinnis, Patricia, president and CEO, the Council for Excellence in

Government, prepared statement of ............................................................ 217

Towns, Hon. Edolphus, a Representative in Congress from the State

of New York, prepared statement of ........................................................... 3

(1)

PASSING THE BATON: PREPARING FOR THE

PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2008

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,

ORGANIZATION, AND PROCUREMENT,

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:16 p.m., in room

2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edolphus Towns (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Towns, Bilbray, and Platts.

Staff present: Mike McCarthy, staff director; Jason Powell, counsel; Bill Jusino, professional staff member; Robert Burdsal,

detailee; Kwane Drabo, clerk; and Mark Marin, minority professional staff member.

Mr. TOWNS. The committee will come to order.

Welcome to today’s oversight hearing on the upcoming Presidential transition. Today we will examine a huge management

challenge that we face between now and January 20: the Presidential transition.

Last month, we watched our U.S. track athletes compete in the

Olympics in Beijing. You may remember that both the men’s and

women’s sprint relays didn’t even make the finals, because they

dropped the baton passing from one runner to another. It showed

us that as talented and as hard-working as those athletes are,

without working together, all may be lost. I hope the current administration and the new administration keep this example in

mind and make sure that the hand-off of government is not fumbled or dropped.

I will be candid with you. I want Barack Obama to be the next

President. That’s on the side. I know my friend Congressman

Bilbray wants John McCain to be the next President. But that is

not what today’s hearing is about. It is about making sure that the

government isn’t in limbo for any period of time, because the challenges we face will not take a break while things are getting organized.

This transition will have unique challenges. Much has changed

since the last transition 8 years ago. Congress is working on a plan

that would give the Secretary of the Treasury a huge amount of additional authority, $700 billion—that’s ‘‘b’’ as in boy—to bail out

Wall Street and to fix the largest financial failure we have seen

since the Great Depression.

2

I’m skeptical about this plan, but it is clear that the next President and his Treasury Secretary are going to have to clean up this

mess. The candidates have to start working on that right away—

right now, by following the situation closely and by finding the

most qualified person possible to be the Treasury secretary on January 20. It might even be a good idea for each candidate’s economic

advisers to sit in on discussions with Federal Reserve Chairman

Bernanke and Secretary Paulson to make sure that they will be

completely ready to take the lead next year. That isn’t presumptuous. It’s good leadership.

Another concern I have is a problem that has come up before,

where political appointees seek career positions to ‘‘burrow into’’

the executive branch. These career positions are supposed to be

open to the public. They are based on merit. If a political appointee

is the person most qualified for the position, then so be it. But we

will not allow members of the current administration to use their

position to get jobs they do not deserve and stick around into the

next administration.

I would like to thank Ranking Member Bilbray, who has been

working very closely with me over the years on so many issues in

terms of this committee. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses who can tell us a lot about what exactly needs to happen

in the next few months for the most effective transition possible.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Edolphus Towns follows:]

3

4

5

6

Mr. TOWNS. Of course, what I would like to do now is to swear

in the witnesses. We always swear in our witnesses here.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. TOWNS. Let the record reflect that all the witnesses answered in the affirmative.

You may be seated.

Let me introduce our witnesses. Mr. Clay Johnson is Deputy Director of Management with the Office of Management and Budget.

Welcome. He was the Executive Director of the 2000 Presidential

transition and has a lot of experience with transitions.

Mr. Gene Dodaro is the Acting Comptroller General of the

United States and the head of the Government Accountability Office, Congress’ investigative and auditing agency. We welcome you

as well.

And Ms. Gail Lovelace is the Chief Human Capital Officer of the

General Services Administration, the Federal Government’s main

support agency and is leading GSA’s transition planning.

We welcome you, as well.

I would ask the witnesses to summarize their testimony in 5

minutes. The procedure is when you start out the light is on green;

and when it gets to the final minute, it becomes yellow, caution;

and then at the end it’s red. Red means stop. Now, we have had

some witnesses here that did not know what red meant.

So why don’t we start with you, Mr. Johnson.

STATEMENTS OF CLAY JOHNSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR

MANAGEMENT, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET;

GENE L. DODARO, ACTING COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE

UNITED STATES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE;

AND GAIL LOVELACE, CHIEF HUMAN CAPITAL OFFICER,

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

STATEMENT OF CLAY JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding

this hearing.

Let me just make a few brief remarks here at the beginning.

A lot of effort is being expended, a lot of intelligence being applied to make sure that the things you are concerned about don’t

happen. There are really two related transition preparation activities going on. One of them involves the White House; and they are

working with both candidates, the transition teams, to do everything we know how to do to prepare, to advise both candidates to

do the work they need to do now and then during the transition

to put their team on the field faster than anybody previously

thought possible.

Neither candidate is pretending like they aren’t prepared to govern. They understand they need to be working on it now, and my

understanding is that they are working diligently on it. And the

White House is reaching out and working equally with both candidates, which I think might be a first, that the incoming—I mean,

that the outgoing administration is working with both candidates

of the major parties.

The second thing which Gail Lovelace and I are involved in heading up is we want—this is working with agencies to ensure that

7

the continuity of public services during the transition is consistent

as if there is no transfer of leadership taking place. Our definition

of success is that a customer of Labor or a citizen dealing with

Homeland Security, whatever, should not recognize or should not

be getting any different level of service during the transition than

they had when all the political leaders were there in the previous

administration and when all the political leaders will be there in

the new administration.

So we had, for instance, a 3, 21⁄2 hour meeting today with the

career, senior transition leads for every agency. I’m sure it’s the

first of what will be many meetings to talk about our goals, answer

questions, plan on future activities, be really specific about the

kind of input they need and so forth.

With that goal in mind and that services will not be interrupted,

the solution for that for the Treasury Department is going to be different than the solution to that for Homeland Security, which is

going to be different for the solution for that for the Department

of Agriculture. But the goal remains the same, which is if we’re implementing some new program run by the Treasury Department,

we needed to find this fall what that involves, what the outgoing

and incoming administrations need to do aggressively and intelligently with each other and that the necessary preparation is

made and the necessary interaction during the transition period

takes place and that no balls are dropped, no baton is dropped.

I’m highly confident that’s going to happen, because I have every

reason to believe that both candidates’ transition activities are very

results oriented. They know how serious this is. They know how

the risk of dropping the baton during the transition is very real.

And I know this outgoing administration from firsthand experience

is equally results oriented and committed to doing this. So I’m

highly confident that this baton is going to get passed. And, again,

the way it gets passed successfully, Treasury, Homeland Security,

whatever, it’s going to be different, but it will get passed, as we

say, seamlessly so it will not be even noticed by the customer.

So, with that, thank you again for having the hearing; and I look

forward to your questions.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Dodaro.

STATEMENT OF GENE L. DODARO

Mr. DODARO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon to you, Congressman Bilbray, Congressman

Platts. I’m pleased to be here to talk about GAO’s efforts and plans

to assist the upcoming transitions.

As you well know, GAO has a long tradition and experience in

providing assistance to each new Congress, and we have efforts

under way to do that for the 111th Congress. But GAO is also cited

in the Presidential Transition Act specifically as a reference, a

source that new administrations are encouraged to come to to learn

about their upcoming management challenges and risk as they

make the leap from campaigning to governing.

Now, our transition work has several key objectives. One, we

want to provide insight into pressing national issues that the incoming administration will need to deal with from day one. These

include the oversight of financial markets and institutions, a range

of national security and homeland security areas to include U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Second, we want to underscore the range of challenges that a

new administration will face in establishing partnerships with

State and local governments, nonprofits, the private sector to deal

with issues that need innovative, integrated solutions, such as financing our Nation’s surface transportation system. We saw examples of that this year in shortfalls in the highway trust fund activities. Also, critical infrastructure protection, a national response

plan and other issues.

Third, we want to point out targeted opportunities to reduce

waste and to conserve resources that could be applied to new priorities. There is over $55 billion in improper payments that are being

made in a range of Federal programs. The Defense Department

weapons systems have had cost overruns of our last estimate of

$295 billion. There’s a $290 billion tax gap. These are all areas

where I think there are opportunities; and we’re certainly, given

the long-term fiscal outlook of the Federal Government and some

of the pressing short-term needs, are going to need attention and

could free up resources to help in some of these other areas.

Fourth, there is a real capacity challenge in all the departments

and agencies that’s really going to need to be met and if not confronted directly is going to affect implementation of any policy initiatives a new administration will try to put in place. They are

going to need to pick senior leaders as part of the management

team. They have experience running large enterprises and achieving results across the Federal Government. The Federal Government has become more dependent on contractors, and it’s very important to get a handle quickly on the contracts that are under way

and also to build the capacity to better oversee and manage those

contractors going forward.

Also, one-third of the Federal Government’s work force will be eligible to retire on this next administration’s watch, so there’s a succession planning challenge there as well as getting the new team

to be implemented going forward.

21

Last, we also believe it’s very important for the new administration to build on some of the successes and efforts that have been

established by Clay Johnson, OMB, and this administration on the

high-risk programs and lists that GAO lists every year for the Congress that are in need of transformation and are fraud, waste,

abuse and mismanagement. GAO’s high-risk list, which we update

with every new Congress, has really provided the foundation for

the management improvement agendas of both the recent Bush administration and the Clinton administration before then; and we

think that some solid foundations have been laid to make progress

and that we think it’s very important for that progress to continue

to yield results.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, with two wars ongoing, with a first

transition for the new Department of Homeland Security, with turmoil in our financial markets, this is shaping up to be no ordinary

transition effort; and GAO stands ready to help returning policymakers as well as new ones deal with all the challenges facing our

Federal Government. So I will be happy to answer questions later.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much for your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dodaro follows:]

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

Mr. TOWNS. Ms. Lovelace.

STATEMENT OF GAIL LOVELACE

Ms. LOVELACE. Good afternoon, Chairman Towns, Congressman

Bilbray and Congressman Platts. Thank you for the opportunity to

appear before you on behalf of the General Services Administration.

Presidential transition is the top priority for GSA as stated by

our Acting Administrator, Mr. Jim Williams, during his confirmation hearing. Jim has made it quite clear to all of us at GSA that

we will be and are fully committed to a successful and smooth transition from the current administration to the next.

I believe that the transition is an exciting time for us in the government. I’m honored to be able to play a role in ensuring a smooth

transition as envisioned by Presidential Transition Act of 1963.

At GSA, we deliver superior workplaces, quality acquisition services, and expert business solutions to our Federal customers. Our

responsibility during Presidential transition is to provide many of

those same services to the President-elect, Vice President-elect and

members of the Presidential transition team.

We started early and have good teams in place. We have secured

space in Washington, DC, for the Presidential transition team and

are currently well positioned to provide furniture, parking, office

equipment, supplies, telecommunications, mail management, travel, financial management, vehicles, information technology, human

resources management, contracting, and other logistical support as

necessary and appropriate.

We are partnering with the Secret Service and the Federal Protective Service, both part of the Department of Homeland Security,

as they provide security for the President-elect and Vice Presidentelect. We recognize that a transition can be perceived as a time of

vulnerability for our country, and we have identified alternate locations and workplace solutions for the Presidential transition team

in the event of an emergency.

GSA provides space, services and logistical support to the Presidential Inaugural Committee and the teams that plan and stage

the various events that make up the Presidential inauguration.

GSA provides similar logistical support services to President Bush

and to Vice President Cheney to help them establish their offices

when they depart the White House. GSA assists in establishing the

former President’s office, as we do for all former Presidents.

The Presidential Transition Act of 2000 expanded our role in

transitions specifically in two areas: We now prepare a transition

directory in conjunction with the National Archives and Records

Administration, and we assist the incoming administration with

appointee orientation.

The President’s fiscal year 2009 budget requested $8.5 million to

support Presidential transition. In the event of a continuing resolution, GSA will need to make sure that funds are available for obligation by the incoming administration. This will require a special

provision in the continuing resolution.

Looking inside Federal agencies, I’ve had the pleasure of meeting

with many agencies individually and in groups to explain GSA’s

unique role with them and to share some ideas about getting

49

ready. We’ve created a special Web site, a section on our Web site,

to share information about transition.

As Clay mentioned, just this morning we held a meeting with

agency transition directors. This session reinforced transition guidance that was recently issued by the executive office of the President.

Like all other agencies, GSA is diligently working to ensure a

smooth transition within our agency. We have created teams and

empowered them to ensure that we have a successful transition as

well. As an agency, I believe we are well positioned to do our part

to ensure a smooth transition.

In closing, Chairman Towns and members of the subcommittee,

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to address you this

afternoon; and I would be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lovelace follows:]

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

Mr. TOWNS. Let me thank all of you for your testimony.

I’d just like to deviate for a moment and allow opening statements.

Ranking Member Mr. Bilbray.

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it, and I

will ask unanimous consent to introduce a written statement in my

opening statement.

Mr. TOWNS. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. BILBRAY. And, let me just paraphrase. As somebody who has

done transitions in many different ways, from when I was a young

mayor in my 20’s to chairman of a county of 3 million, the transition from one administration to the other is very important; and I

think sometimes we forget that there’s a trust and a responsibility

given to us by the voters in every administration, be it a Member

of Congress, be it some—a long-haired mayor in a beach community or if it be a chairman of a county of—larger than 20 States

in the Union.

The responsibility does not end when someone else is elected.

The responsibility continues to the last moment when the baton is

passed, as this hearing has pointed out.

We are an example, Mr. Chairman, of how not to do it; and I will

say that regardless of my party affiliation. I think everybody agrees

that if we really look back at what happened 8 years ago, that is

an example of how not to have a transition, when we saw the kind

of abuses and the problems we had with the White House. There

was equipment—questions about where it went, damage, records

missing, and everything else.

And, I say that with no happy heart. I just remember this happening; and it was a time that I was doing transition and turning

over my office to another Member of Congress, a new Member of

Congress. This is personal for me. I’ve had the displeasure of taking over an office from a Member of Congress who basically used

the last days of her administrative—her time in office to trash everything so that it was the worst possible, in violation of the oath

of serving and protecting the people under the guidance of the Constitution.

And, one of things I said to my staff when I lost the election in

2000 was we’re going to do just the opposite of our predecessors.

We’re going to show our predecessor exactly how somebody is responsible. And I hope, I hope, that is the kind of attitude that this

administration takes in the transition, of setting an example of

how it should be done. Because, to be very blunt, I think we’ve had

an example of how it shouldn’t be done; and, hopefully, that will

be a challenge that Republicans and Democrats can work together

in this next transition.

So I appreciate the chance to be here today, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much.

I now yield to Congressman Platts.

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have no opening statement other than to thank the witnesses

for being here but, most importantly, for the work you’re doing to

ensure we do have that type of transition that the ranking member

just discussed. Thank you.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much.

60

Let me begin with the questions.

Let me start with you, Ms. Lovelace. What services do you believe will be the most important for the incoming administration?

Ms. LOVELACE. As we work with both campaigns, we’re working

through to make sure that we are providing them all of the services that they need so that when they walk through the door, hopefully, the day after election, they are ready to begin their work immediately. So I believe it is the whole suite of services that we provide.

The IT, of course, will be important. The furniture—I mean, it

sounds rather trivial, but ensuring that they have everything they

need as they walk through the door. I think it’s the whole suite of

services that we provide that will be credible.

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Johnson, let me go to you with the same question.

Mr. JOHNSON. I agree with what Gail says. The transition is such

an intense time that if the environment is something you don’t notice, if it’s just there, the things you need, the space, the lights, the

paper, the computers, the phones or whatever are there, then you

can deal with the intensity and deal with what you’ve been planning to deal with without being distracted by no lights, no air conditioning, whatever. And so, it’s that everything works but yet you

don’t pay attention to the fact that it works because you’re so focused on everything else. I think that’s probably the definition of

success for GSA, and I’ll bet you they’ll do a good job of it.

Mr. TOWNS. Right. Let me ask, now, these political appointees,

as it comes to the end, they now take jobs in an administration.

Is anybody looking at this? Because, I’m concerned about it. Because, I think that if a person is highly qualified and it should be

based on merits, rather than political ties or political connections

for the next administration to have to deal with. Is anybody looking

at this? Because, it happens all the time.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. I think it was in June or July that then

the head of OPM, Linda Springer, put out some very comprehensive guidance on transition-related personnel matters; and one of

them was the potential that you raised of political appointees burrowing in. So, what she defined is all the transition-related matters

that the chief human capital community has to deal with, and so

defined it very clearly, what’s permitted, what’s not, what laws

allow, what laws don’t allow. And so, the chief human capital community is intently focusing on getting the Federal Government to

adhere and abide by those policies, just like the CFO Council is

working on what their transition-related challenges are and the

CIO Council and so forth.

So, it’s been raised as an issue, as something that’s particularly

sensitive during a transition; and it’s something that’s going to be

actively managed. So, yes, people are paying attention to it.

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Dodaro.

Mr. DODARO. Mr. Chairman, if I might add, GAO, as it has been

for the past 20 years during transitions, asked to monitor this conversion process across the Federal Government’s activity. So we

have efforts under way to do this.

During the 2001–2005 timeframe when we last looked at this,

there were about 130 positions that we questioned—we reviewed

61

that—where transitions had occurred. About 18 we had some questions, and we referred them all to OPM. They followed up and took

appropriate action. So we’re on the case again this time at the request of Congress, and we’ll be looking at that process as well.

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Johnson, you offered many general suggestions

for what the incoming administration should do to prepare to govern, but what specifically should they do to prepare to take on the

financial crisis?

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I think I—the primary message I tried to deliver in that article, that I was asked to write was you have to have

really clear goals about what you want to accomplish in a transition. So my answer is sort of an offshoot of that.

If the goal is, as I suggested it should be, that the outgoing administration and the incoming administration manage the transition at Treasury such that the American people, on all that’s being

debated within Congress now, never——

Mr. BILBRAY. Or not debated.

Mr. JOHNSON. Or not debated. Never see—never get a sense that

leadership is changing hands. That what needs to be taking place

at the Treasury Department, Agriculture Department, Homeland

Security, whatever, at the border, whatever, there will be no apparent change in political leadership taking place where the work is

being done.

So, what I’m confident is going to happen—I don’t know what the

specific answer is for the Treasury Department, because, first of

all, what has to be done hasn’t been defined. But I’m confident, as

purposeful and results oriented as I understand both candidates

are, whoever is elected to be President and this outgoing administration are going to clearly define what it means to be implementing what’s been agreed to or not implementing what isn’t agreed

to and decide who needs to be brought up to what level of expertise

and knowledge by what date. And, they’ll decide who needs to be

sitting in on what meetings and how quickly the—isn’t the Secretary of the Treasury the first one that has to be confirmed, etc.,

and that will all get done.

But it will all be driven by the commitment to the goal, which

is that the most important things that have to happen in the Federal Government—and the one you talked about will be one of the

most important if something is agreed to—is addressed and that

the new administration is fully prepared and the outgoing administration is doing all the things they can do to get them up to speed,

prepared to take that baton and pass—not drop it.

Mr. TOWNS. Right.

I yield to the ranking member, Mr. Bilbray. Thank you.

Mr. BILBRAY. Let’s keep on my ranting and raving and say this:

What are we doing to try to avoid the problem we had 8 years ago

and what can we do with the executive basically going in transition? Is it something that we’re going to need law enforcement into,

of watching, and basically try to warn administrative members that

they will be held accountable, if we have another incident like this

where equipment, files, data, and everything else, the kind of

abuses we’ve seen in the past? Do we have the ability to be

proactive here and say, don’t even think about it?

62

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. I think, again starting with the goal, a

seamless transition, no baton is dropped, the new administration

comes in prepared, a new White House comes in prepared to begin

to be effective and govern day one. Then what happens is the facilities people sit down and the communications people sit down and

the mail delivery people sit down and say, what does that mean for

them? And, that means those offices are spick and span, the computers are working, there is no trash, this, that or so forth, and so

then they’re held accountable. And, I know how this White House

is run, and I know that will be the way this is managed.

The keys being missing from some of the computers and the

screens and initials being carved, that did occur. It was not ubiquitous. It was a handful of people, very—I bet very junior people.

It was not systematic. It was—for the people whose offices were affected, it was a nuisance, but it was not a widespread phenomenon

as reported in the paper.

I wish it hadn’t happened. I’ll bet you those that were the perpetrators wish it hadn’t happened. Now that they’re 8 years older,

I bet you they don’t look fondly back on those days.

But I have, again, every reason to believe that this administration is going to make sure that the definition of success for the outgoing administration is going to be made really clear.

Mr. BILBRAY. Well, I think we’ve just got to recognize that there

are two sides of passion, and one is a passion for the people you

work for or whatever. And, when elections don’t work out the way

you want, those can turn very negative. And, that’s one of the

threats you’ve got in there. And, you really do have an environment

where passions can run very high, especially when elections don’t

turn out the way you want.

And so, you basically think that it was a small enough problem

that we don’t have to really make a proactive——

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, yes. I don’t think it’s—we have to respond

to make sure that occurrence doesn’t reoccur. I just know that, in

general, this administration, from the facilities people to the—

whatever, are going to have—to make sure that all the environmental things, the computers, the phone equipment, the spaces and

so forth will be spick and span, clean, ready to go, just like Gail

is planning on having it be the case at the transition offices.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Johnson, we need to do it now while people are

cool and calm, because elections can—once the emotions start flying, all the systems and logic go aside and you end up with that

kind of situation.

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. One of the two deputy chiefs of staff’s primary job is transition and particularly how the executive office, the

President, does its—performs its role during the transition. So, facilities being prepared for the next administration is a primary responsibility of this person and is the primary thing that this deputy chief of staff in the White House is focusing on.

Ms. LOVELACE. And, if I could add to that, we are working very

closely with the people Clay is talking about at the White House,

to make sure that everything is in alignment. We are ready to

make sure that, just as we are preparing for the Presidential transition team coming in to make sure we’re supporting them through

the logistical support and facilities management of the White

63

House complex to make sure that there aren’t any issues. We’ve

had many meetings on this topic and will continue to do that to

make sure that there aren’t any issues.

Mr. BILBRAY. Ms. Lovelace, if I was a manager on this staff, I’d

be telling my staffers, look, if the election doesn’t work out the way

we want, you’re going to have people coming here looking for things

to blame on you, looking for it. So, you’ve got to make sure everything is taken care of, because they’re going to be looking at stuff

to be able to drag you over the carpet on.

Ms. LOVELACE. And, we work on it every day to try to make sure

we don’t have those kinds of issues.

Mr. DODARO. And, Congressman Bilbray, we at GAO were asked

to go look at the circumstances in the White House during the last

transition; and it was—as Clay articulated it—and it was documented along the lines of what he talked about.

Now, one of the lessons learned there, though, too, there’s a need

to keep, you know, better records during this kind of transition

process. So I think, while it wasn’t a widespread issue, that prudence would dictate that it would be good to have reminders sent

out to all the departments and agencies, records be kept appropriate. In case there are instances, then you’d be able to figure it

out more efficiently.

We had to spend a lot of time trying to reconstruct what either

happened or didn’t happen during that period of time. But, at end

of the day, it wasn’t a pervasive issue. It was very unfortunate, but

I think reminders sent out among the executive branch to the key

people would be a good idea.

Mr. BILBRAY. In fact, Mr. Chairman, because of my experience,

it’s maybe one of the issues that we’ve got to remember. It’s not

just the executive branch. It’s every Member of Congress that’s

leaving and a new one coming in. I literally experienced a situation

with computers being trashed and data banks being destroyed and

a lot of stuff going on. So, it’s not just an executive branch problem.

This is a legislative problem, too.

Mr. JOHNSON. Somebody was—in our meeting this morning with

the career transition director, somebody was telling the story that

they’d heard about back in—maybe when Nixon came into office in

the White House. And, there was a fellow that was working in the

Eisenhower Executive Office Building. So the new person came in,

and the outgoing guy who was in charge of the facility had a big

ring of about 30 keys and threw him the set of keys and said, ‘‘It’s

all yours.’’ That was the extent of the transition, the hand-off to the

incoming administration. And, so our sights are set way higher

than that.

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you.

Mr. TOWNS. I’m happy to hear it, too.

Mr. BILBRAY. Pretty ambitious.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you, Congressman Bilbray.

I understand that GSA will manage a budget of $8.5 million to

support transition activities. Should any additional funds be necessary, where that would that money come from? Would it come

from the winning candidate?

Ms. LOVELACE. There is the opportunity when the—once there is

a President-elect, they are able to continue to get funds from priVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:23 Jun 01, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\49494.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
64

vate citizens. There are some rules that are around those funds,

and it’s our experience that most incoming Presidents actually do

get funds during that point in time. And, there are rules around

what they can and cannot spend that money on and how much

money they can take in. But, yes, there is a source of funding for

them, likely.

Mr. TOWNS. So, if your $8.5 million is not enough, you just say,

that’s it, we’re not going to do any more, they now have to assume

the responsibility?

Ms. LOVELACE. Well, we believe that we will manage the $8.5

million effectively so it will take us through the whole point—a period of time between the election and the inaugural. So we will be

working with the office of the President-elect to make sure that we

are spending that money wisely and making sure that they are getting their priorities taken care of as a result of that money, but

they can bring other money in to use during transition period.

Mr. TOWNS. Yes, Mr. Dodaro.

Mr. DODARO. Mr. Chairman, the act allows for contributions up to $5,000, as Ms. Lovelace is pointing out; and those have to be disclosed both at GSA and GAO; and we have potential audit responsibilities over that money as well.

However, your main point, though, goes back to the need—and

one of the other things that we’re doing during this transition is

to try to record lessons learned and identify opportunities for further refinements. Years ago, when the act was first passed in 1963,

there was just an amount set. It wasn’t indexed for future inflation

costs or whatever, and I worked on an effort with the Congress in

the past to have that amount indexed.

But, we’re talking about a government nowadays that’s a lot different than the governments that have come before it in terms of

the responsibilities and the requirements, and I think in a post-9/

11 environment we need to sort of take a look as a Nation as to

whether or not Presidential Transition Act is properly funded—well

configured enough to allow for these type of transitions going forward. I think the current administration is doing a good job getting

things ready, but I think it needs a good examination and lessons

learned that can be documented and then reflected on.

Mr. TOWNS. Right, because the last time we didn’t have Homeland Security.

Mr. DODARO. Right, exactly.

Mr. TOWNS. So did you look at that in terms of whether that

would require extra money to help out in terms of the transition

there as well?

Ms. LOVELACE. Well, with the Department of Homeland Security

standing up, I mean, there are some security requirements that we

have to meet for the incoming Presidential transition team. We are

currently working with both the Secret Service and the Federal

Protective Service as well as different members over in the White

House to make sure that we are meeting those security requirements. So, whether we’ll have enough money to take care of that,

we will figure out a way to help manage through that. But, yes,

there are some new security requirements.

Mr. JOHNSON. But, if the Department of Homeland Security is

scheduling some extra practices or tabletop exercises or whatever,

65

this money does not go to that. This money goes to the Presidentelect’s transition activities; and any moneys that are related to

transition that are particular to individual agencies, that’s supposed to be in their whatever-fiscal-year-it-is budget.

Mr. TOWNS. But, the question is, is it enough? That’s the question.

Mr. JOHNSON. What—the answer is going to be simply you can’t

do anything about—if their appropriations bills are passed by the

beginning of the administration of the new fiscal year, it will be

enough money. But, with the likelihood of a CR, there could be

some agencies that have to move some money around.

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Dodaro, you warned that about one-third of the

Federal work force will be eligible to retire at the end of 2008.

We’re going to need to replace them with the most highly qualified

people we can find, and we don’t pay as well as the private sector,

as you know. This is going to be a tough problem for the incoming

administration. Do you have any suggestions as to what they might

be able to do?

Mr. DODARO. I think the first thing is to focus on the career senior executives in those departments and agencies. Their retirement

rates are a lot higher than for the general work force at large, and

these are the people that have the institutional experience and are

going to be the main interfaces with the political leadership that

are going to come in at the departments and agencies.

There are retention provisions that could be exercised at those

departments, to try to hang on to some of these people a little bit

later. There’s efforts that could be made to bring back retired individuals who have particular expertise in these areas and waive the

disincentive which is built into the system to have their annuity

offset by whatever new money they’re going to make. I think in

some of these extraordinary circumstances that are occurring there

ought to be some creative ways to try to both retain some of these

very talented career senior executive service personnel. And then,

while you’re building the cadre of people underneath them, I am

very concerned, very concerned about the ability to oversee contractors in this Federal Government in a lot of activities. And, if Treasury’s plan is approved the way it is, they’re going to be relying

heavily on contractors; and they’re going to have a big job, a big

challenge overseeing those contractors which already would be

dealing with very complex financial, you know, transactions, financial portfolios. So—and the number of career executives at the

Treasury Department that are eligible to retire currently at the

SCS level is almost 40 percent.

So, I think this is a really important issue, and the new leadership team coming in really needs to focus on this both to solidify

their relationship with the career civil servants and then to be very

creative on attracting and retaining talent. And, succession planning has not been as much as it needs to be a priority in this government and having the capacity to govern and oversee these very

difficult operations.

So those are some of my initial thoughts.

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Johnson.

Mr. JOHNSON. One thing that agencies—for this very reason, one

thing that agencies have been held accountable for is to have sucVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:23 Jun 01, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\49494.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
66

cession plans in place and critical skills gaps. If you anticipate 2

years from now, 3 years from now, 4 years from now, where do you

anticipate having critical skills gaps, management, technical expertise and so forth? So, every agency is held accountable for having

a plan to fill this with—train junior people to take on more senior

responsibilities, hire additional people, retain—and retain people

who might be retiring otherwise.

So, agencies are paying a lot of attention to how they’re going to

have the number of critically skilled people they need, including

management people where they need them and when they need

them, and it’s not 100 percent perfect. Some agencies aren’t where

OPM would like them to be or GAO would like them to be, but this

has been a specific activity that all Federal agencies have been accountable for. And, the majority of them are in very good shape—

in terms of knowing what they’re going to do to make sure they’ve

got the right people on the job when they need them.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you. I yield.

Mr. BILBRAY. I have no further questions.

Mr. TOWNS. Ms. Lovelace, let me just ask you one very quick

question before you go. How is GSA using its lessons learned? In

other words, looking back in terms of what has happened—I’m

thinking in terms of what my colleague just said—in terms of some

of the transitions that he’s been involved in. I must admit that I

have not had his experiences, but I could imagine what would happen in some transitions. Are you using your lessons learned to be

able to deal with what’s coming up?

Ms. LOVELACE. One of the nice things that we’ve done in GSA

for actually the last several transitions is have the Director of

Transition write after-action reports. So we have quite detailed reports on every aspect of the logistical support that we provide to

the transition teams. So we have pretty significant insight into

what happened previously, so that we can share those lessons

learned across several changes of administration.

We have also tapped into some of the resources who actually

worked on previous transitions, so that they are there in support

and advisory capacity to us so—you know, you can’t put everything

on a piece of paper—so they are sharing with us verbally some of

their lessons learned and are there as advisors to us, to help make

sure we can learn from what happened before and hopefully not

make some of the same mistakes.

Mr. TOWNS. Right.

Let me just close with this. Mr. Johnson, you’ve stated that OMB

has already distributed transition guidance and goals to the agencies. We understand that you held a big meeting you said this

morning, which I think is good. But as we reviewed your guidance,

we’re pleased to note how you tied the accomplishments of the

transition goals directly to the performance appraisal of agencies

and, of course, senior executives. Please let us know how that

works out.

And you also indicated that the agencies will establish their fiscal year 2009 programs and management practice goals in a timely

manner to support the transition in an appropriate manner, which

is also good.

67

I guess the question is, when will Members of Congress get their

notice?

Mr. JOHNSON. When will they get their notice?

Mr. TOWNS. Yes. When will we get the information that you

shared with us?

Mr. JOHNSON. You mean about how the transition went?

Mr. TOWNS. Well, when will your goals be made publicly is what

I’m saying. Your goals, when they will be made publicly?

Mr. JOHNSON. There was an agency—general guidance to the

agencies on July 18th, and that’s public.

Mr. TOWNS. It is? Do you have one?

Mr. JOHNSON. I mean, we can distribute it.

Mr. TOWNS. I’d like——

Mr. JOHNSON. It’s a public document. Well, really, it’s attached

to my testimony; so that makes it public.

Mr. TOWNS. Yes, but I would like to have a copy of it.

Mr. JOHNSON. Fine, sir.

Mr. TOWNS. That would really make it public.

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. I sent you a copy with my testimony, but I

will send you another copy.

Mr. TOWNS. OK. Thank you very much.

Let me thank all of you for your testimony. And I really feel that,

working together, we can bring about a smooth transition. I think

that’s very, very important; and we all want to see that happen.

We don’t want to drop the baton, as has been described early on,

and just try to make it as smooth as we possibly can.

And, I would like to sort of put the GAO study into the record

in terms of the Clinton transition. I would like to make that part

of the record.

So thank you very, very much for your testimony; and I look forward to working with you in the days and months ahead.

Mr. DODARO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Congressman

Bilbray.

Mr. TOWNS. Will our second panel come forward.

I would like to welcome our second panel. As with the first panel,

it is our committee policy that all witnesses are sworn in. So please

rise and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. TOWNS. Let the record reflect that all the witnesses have answered in the affirmative.

You may be seated.

Let me welcome all of you here.

Our first witness, of course, Dr. Martha Kumar, is a political

science professor at Towson University. Her research focuses on the

White House; and she is director of the White House Transition

Project, a nonpartisan effort by presidency scholars to provide transition information to the incoming administration.

Ms. Doris Hausser is an academy fellow with the National Academy of Public Administration. She was a panel member for NAPA

recent report on the transition of the Department of Homeland Security, and she retired from the Federal Government last year, as

Senior Policy Advisor to the Director of Office of Personnel Management. Welcome.

68

Dr. Don Kettl is the director of the Fels Institute of Government

at the University of Pennsylvania. His research is focused on public

policy and public administration, and he testified before Congress

on management issues many times before. And, we’re delighted to

have you back again. And, maybe we can keep bringing you until

we get it right.

Ms. Patricia McGinnis is the president and CEO of the Council

for Excellence in Government. Her organization is offering its help

to the incoming administration with orientation sessions, briefings

on management challenges, and it lists the profiles of the most difficult management jobs in the government. Welcome.

Your entire statements will be placed in the record. And as we

went through it before, the green light means go. The yellow light

means prepare to stop. The red light means stop.

As I indicated earlier on, some people get that mixed up. They

think the red light means start. So we just want to make certain

that we have the rules down pat.

So why don’t we start with you, Dr. Martha Kumar.

STATEMENTS OF MARTHA KUMAR, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT

OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, TOWSON UNIVERSITY; DORIS

HAUSSER, PANEL MEMBER FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF

HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENT TRANSITION STUDY, THE

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION; DON

KETTL, PROFESSOR, FELS INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENT,

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA; AND PATRICIA McGINNIS,

PRESIDENT AND CEO, THE COUNCIL FOR EXCELLENCE IN

GOVERNMENT

STATEMENT OF MARTHA KUMAR

Ms. KUMAR. Thank you very much, Chairman Towns, Congressman Bilbray. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss Presidential

transitions and their importance to an effective start of a new administration. It’s something in which we all have a stake. With the

Nation at war and a fragile economy, a smooth transfer of power

is not an option, it’s a necessity.

One of the points that distinguishes our political system from

many others is our history of peaceful transfers of power from one

administration to another. And we’ve experienced orderly transfers

but they’ve been—there’s been a difference in how they’ve played

out. A smooth and effective transition comes about only through

the work and coordination of many people and institutions in our

political system.

Mr. Johnson said the administration has as a primary goal to do

a better job than it’s ever done before to help the new administration prepare to govern. That means a great deal, because the efforts of the President, White House staff, departments and agency

staff, contribute mightily to a smooth transition. The work of others in the Washington community is important as well, including

the contributions of the Congress.

In looking at what kinds of support and priorities seem to be important and have been important in transitions past, there are several.

69

First, a climate of support for transition work by the two candidates. Successful transitions begin early and are viewed as a legitimate aspect of a Presidential campaign. Internally in government there is and has been support throughout the year for the notion of early transition planning. Outside of government, however,

there’s not been the same supportive climate, particularly in the

press. With a Presidential campaign that seemed to have created

so much media interest and attention in 2008, there was little interest in looking, on the part of news organizations, in looking at

the preparations for holding office. News organizations have published occasional op-ed pieces calling for early transition planning.

But, one Washington Post reporter wrote, at the end of July, about

the reports that Presidential candidate Barack Obama was assigning transition planning to a team. He suggested perhaps that they

create a hubris watch. In reality, by the summer nominating conventions, every President coming into office since President Carter

has had a transition operation in place, gathering information on

appointments in past transitions.

In spring 1999, Clay Johnson began gathering information and

names of people to appoint and talk to people from past transitions.

In the Reagan years, Pendleton James who worked on appointments began in the spring of 19—in 1980, and coordinated with Ed

Meese who was then the chief of staff. That was done well before

the Republican Convention.

Second, providing funding support that a transition requires.

Whoever comes in as President next January faces a difficult situation where the budget is concerned. Living as we are on continuing

resolutions rather than a fiscal year 2009 budget, it will be difficult

for a President-Elect to prepare for a budget of his own when

there’s none in place.

The incoming President will need to introduce his budget within

approximately 3 weeks of coming into office. That will mean, he

will need to have his budget officials in place and ready to go shortly after the election.

For the transition, the two teams cannot plan at this point on

government funding when the $8.52 million transition funds request contained in the fiscal year 2009 budget proposal has not

been passed. With—at this point with no funds committed, both the

candidates must anticipate creating a fundraising operation capable of raising substantial sums. In the case of the incoming Bush

administration, they were able to do that before they were declared

the winners, but only because they had planned ahead so early, one

of the kinds of priorities that’s important here.

And third is that White House staff comes first; that a President

needs to have an orderly decisionmaking process in place, personnel director, and a counsel who’s responsible for vetting and for creating ethics orders very early in the process before they ever select

a Cabinet. With around 1,200 administrative positions requiring

Senate confirmation, a White House team needs to be in place to

establish which of those positions to focus on.

Recent experience calls for a new President to choose approximately 100 key positions, as the vetting and confirmation process

has not been able to handle many more than that in the first 100

days. With their emphasis on economic issues, the Reagan transiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:23 Jun 01, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\49494.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
70

tion team isolated 87 positions related to the economy and gave

priority to filling those.

Congress and the administration have made efforts to speed up

the national security clearance process for the 2009 transition by

allowing clearance of officials to begin after the transition team—

after the conventions and by working on the efficiency of the clearance process itself.

The candidates, too, have a role here through what they say and

what they promise. Candidates have sometimes limited themselves

by making promises such as cutting the White House staff by 25

percent, which they then have to live with, and how very difficult

and sorry they had ever said.

Also, early promises about strong ethics rules have sometimes

been a problem as they were in the Clinton administration. And in

the end he had to rescind the order, the ethics order that he had.

Identifying government resources. There are so many agencies,

as we’ve heard today, that are interested in helping the transition

teams early. And there’s things that they can work on. Such, for

example, a transition team can establish how it’s going to capture

and maintain its records. Both the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations experienced difficulties with records issues, which are

something an incoming administration can avoid by working

through with the Archives the capacities of possible record systems,

particularly e-mail ones.

The current administration could provide a smooth records process by reaching agreement on the status of the records of the Office

of Administration in the Executive Office of the President as well

as those of the Vice President.

Otherwise a new administration will begin with unsettled rules

for retaining records in both offices. The executive actions can limit

and aid an administration. Many Presidents leave office with a

blizzard of executive orders, proclamations and regulations, responding to requests by those in the administration and key constituents.

In early May, White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten sent out

a memorandum to executive branch personnel calling for a principled approach to regulation as we sprint to the finish, and resist

the historical tendencies of administrations to increase regulatory

activities in their final months. Though diminished, their remaining pressures——

Mr. TOWNS. Could you summarize? We’re going to have a series

of votes.

Ms. KUMAR. In addition, the administration—sitting administration—can help by clearing out political appointees, by firing those

that are political appointees so that the next Chief Executive

doesn’t have to do that, because it’s hard when he comes in to do

it.

So in sum, there are people in place inside and outside of government ready to assist the transfer, and many positive actions have

taken place to smooth the transfer.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kumar follows:]

71

72

73

74

75

76

Mr. TOWNS. Ms. Hausser.

STATEMENT OF DORIS HAUSSER

Ms. HAUSSER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Did that go on? Can

you hear me, sir?

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for

inviting the National Academy of Public Administration to testify

on the best practices for the 2009 Presidential transition. As an

NAPA Fellow, I served as panel member for the Academy’s 2008

report that assessed the Department of Homeland Security’s executive profile, its transition training, and the Department’s plans for

the 2009 Presidential transition.

Many of the issues and recommendations outlined in that report

apply to other departments and agencies as well as DHS, and especially those with national or homeland security responsibilities.

The Presidential transition of 2009 is the first major transition

since 9/11. As we point out in our report, recent history demonstrates that political transitions present an opportunity for terrorists to take advantage of real or perceived weaknesses in a nation’s ability to detect, deter, prevent or respond to attacks. The

final report of the 9/11 Commission raised concerns about the impact of future transitions on the government’s ability to deal with

terrorism.

Owing in part to the delayed resolution of the 2000 election, the

incoming Bush administration did not have its deputy Cabinet officials in place until spring 2001 or its sub-Cabinet officials in place

until that summer.

Historically, getting the Presidential team in position has been

a slow process. The Commission strongly pushed for changes to the

process so that the Nation is not left vulnerable to these types of

delays in a post-9/11 world. During the transition, DHS must retain the ability to respond quickly to most man-made and natural

disasters.

In light of these issues, Congress and DHS asked the Academy

to assess DHS’s executive profile, study its transition training, and

review its plans for the 2009 Presidential transition.

Our June report was the result of that request, and I request on

behalf of NAPA that it be entered into the record, the full report,

as my testimony is limited to this oral statement.

[The information referred to follows:]

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

Ms. HAUSSER. The lessons learned from this work can be applied

to other Federal departments and agencies. For example, the Academy panel assessed DHS’s allocation of executives between career

and political appointees and compared it with other departments.

Overall, about 13 percent of DHS executives are political appointees, about average for all Federal departments. The percentage of all executive appointees who are political appointees ranged

from 9 percent at the Veterans Administration to 35 percent at the

Department of State. But the Academy panel also noted that 30 of

the top 54 executive positions, or 56 percent at DHS, are filled by

political appointees.

Large percentages of other departments’ top executives are also

political. This includes 49 percent at Treasury, 59 percent at Justice and Defense, and 66 percent at the Department of State.

Overall, the Academy panel believes that efforts need to be made

to reduce the number of political appointees, specifically in the

DHS security and national disaster environment, so that these positions can be filled with career executives who will learn the job

over time versus a noncareer appointee with a much shorter tenure. At DHS the Academy panel recommended that noncareer

headquarters deputy officials, FEMA regional administrators, and

other professionals be career executives.

Another part of the Academy’s DHS study compared their transition training programs with those of similarly structured Cabinetlevel agencies. The Academy panel concluded that DHS’s transition

training and development efforts are consistent with executive development programs in most Federal agencies, and it has a balanced set of transition-specific training programs underway. If implemented, these should help executives prepare to meet their

homeland security responsibilities during transition.

DHS is well along with its—in its transition training, especially

given that it is a young agency with a critical national mission

going through its first Presidential transition. The panel believes

other departments could benefit from learning about DHS’s transition training.

Finally, we looked at their transition planning and the report

laid out a series of actions that were tailored to Presidential transition timeframes. Specifically, before the national party conventions,

DHS was to have completed, updated, and executed its transition

plans, identified key operational executive positions, ensured that

training and joint exercises had begun, and filled vacant executive

positions.

Between the conventions and the elections, consistent with the

recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and sense of the Senate

provisions, the panel recommended DHS should work with executive branch agencies and Congress to reach out to Presidential candidates to identify potential homeland security transition team

members and help them obtain security clearances by Election

Day.

Between the election and the inauguration, DHS should work

with the incoming administration, the executive branch, and Congress to ensure that the new Secretary of Homeland Security is

sworn in on Inauguration Day, that key executives are identified

and voted on by the Senate as quickly as possible, recognizing that

206

any day a critical position is vacant is a gap in our homeland security coverage and that transition training and joint exercises are

provided to executive appointees and nominees.

Following Inauguration Day, training of new appointees, nominees, and careerists should continue to build trust and operational

performance. Within the first 6 months there should be a capstone

scenario exercise to evaluate the effectiveness of transition planning. We want to—are happy to report that in June the DHS appointed retired Coast Guard Admiral John Acton to a full-time

transition director who reports directly to the Deputy Under Secretary for Management, and they have completed a comprehensive

plan for all facets of transition that focus on particularly critical

issues.

In addition, they are collaborating with relevant departments

within the Federal Government, with State and local governments,

and with the private industry. And joint training and exercise opportunities are being actively coordinated.

Many of the Academy panel recommendations for DHS do also

apply to other Federal departments such as the appointment of a

transition director, development of a comprehensive plan, identification of critical noncareer positions and transition training. The

report notes that to the greatest extent possible, incoming DHS

leadership, including the Secretary and key staff, must be in place

on Inauguration Day or shortly thereafter. This will require the

support and cooperation of Congress, and certainly Federal agencies with background checks and clearance responsibilities.

The Academy panel believes all Federal departments and agencies need to begin immediately to address the issues that are appropriate—that are presented in our DHS report.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. Thank you again

for inviting the Academy to this hearing and I would be happy to

respond to any questions.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hausser follows:]

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

Mr. TOWNS. As you know, the bells just sounded, which means

that we have votes. How many votes do we have? I would say 10

minutes after the last vote we resume.

Mr. BILBRAY. I’ll try to make it back. At 4 I have——

Mr. TOWNS. OK. Well, I can’t say what time because we have

three votes. But as soon as we finish.

Mr. BILBRAY. As soon as the Chair is back.

Mr. TOWNS. Ten minutes after the last vote we’ll be back. OK.

So the committee is in recess.

[Recess.]

Mr. TOWNS. Ms. McGinnis.

STATEMENT OF PATRICIA McGINNIS

Ms. MCGINNIS. There we go. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to be part of this discussion. The Council for

Excellence in Government, as I’m sure you know, is a nonprofit,

nonpartisan organization made up of private sector leaders who

work together to improve performance. And we’ve been involved

in—actively in past Presidential transitions in several ways.

One, we publish a quadrennial ‘‘prune book.’’ I don’t know whether you’ve heard of it it or seen it. It is not the ‘‘plum book,’’ which

is the list of 7,000 political appointees. But instead we choose a

smaller number of prunes, the top appointed tough management

jobs. And then we profile them in terms of qualifications and what

it takes to succeed. So we say that a prune is a plum, seasoned by

experience and wisdom and with a much thicker skin. So the metaphor has sort of taken on a life of its own.

We also produce a survivor’s guide for Presidential nominees,

which helps people navigate the very complicated process and helps

those who are reporting about it or overseeing it understand it.

And we’re taking all of this online this year in an interactive Web

resource related to transition.

We also have been asked by the George W. Bush White House

and the Clinton White House to organize and help with orientation

leadership programs for new top Presidential appointees and White

House staff. So that has been a privilege to do. And we have

worked closely with steering committees in the White House to

structure those programs in ways that work best for each President

and each administration. But they focused on managing for results

and managing in the context of the Federal Government and the

Washington context and the national context.

This year we were also asked by the Department of Homeland

Security and Congress to focus on DHS transition. And we’re helping them assure continuity by working first with the acting career

officials to make sure they’re prepared to respond to a major emergency, and then the transition leaders, and then the new appointees as they come in. So we have thoughts about an effective

Presidential transition that I’ll share a few with you, and there are

more in my testimony.

Of course, looking back to the past to see what’s worked and

what hasn’t makes a lot of sense. But this year more than any

transition I can think of, it’s just as important, maybe more important, to look to the future and the kinds of challenges that we’re

facing. We know that this is a historic transition. We have PresiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:23 Jun 01, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00217 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\49494.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
214

dential and Vice Presidential candidates, none of whom have

worked in the executive branch of the Federal Government before.

We’re at war. Our economy is facing unprecedented risk. And 83

percent of Americans think that things in our country are off on

the wrong track. The public’s priorities are understandably the

economy, the war in Iraq, health care reform, and terrorism. And

those really defined the context for the Presidential campaign. And

transition. Campaigns usually focus on ideas and policies and what

needs to change. But success in governing depends as much or

more on the ability to implement and execute those ideas well. And

the same goes for a Presidential transition. So organization and

management and results really matter.

In my testimony I laid out the key indicators of a successful

Presidential transition, and I won’t go through them all. But it’s

really about the quality and experience of the people who are appointed to the leadership roles and, equally important, getting

them in place early so that we do have continuity on January 20th

or as closely as possible for the Cabinet and the top sub-Cabinet

officials. And then, of course, having the White House organized

and a decisionmaking process in place, a lot of consultation and

outreach with other government officials and stakeholders and the

public and being ready to lay out the agenda through the President’s Budget, the Inaugural Address, the first address to a joint

session of Congress.

The things that I want to say in terms of our advice, or to the

transition leaders and to the Congress, the transition leaders

should take advantage of the provisions in the Intelligence Reform

and Terrorism Prevention Act, which allow them to submit—today

they could submit 100 names to begin the security clearance process for transition advisors. It’s my understanding that very few

names have been submitted at this point. And then the day after

the election, they can begin to submit names for prospective nominees. The goal should be to have the Cabinet confirmed on January

20th, the White House staff in place. The White House chief of

staff should be named as soon after the election as possible. And

if you’re going to have 50 to 100 sub-Cabinet appointees in key departments like Treasury, Homeland Security, national security

agencies, you have to start early with the Cabinet. It probably

means that the Cabinet needs to be selected soon after the election

in order to have them—or at least the most critical Cabinet members involved in the selection of the sub-Cabinet appointees.

The other piece of this puzzle for the executive branch in the

Bush administration is to make sure that you can move these

clearances and move the appointments process, the nomination

process, as rapidly as possible. Clay Johnson has said that they are

prepared to have 100 people in place by April 1. And we say that’s

not good enough. You have to have people in place sooner than

that. And the way to do that, given the way the process works—

and it has been streamlined and expedited—is to have more investigators. If you can get the Cabinet in place on Inauguration Day,

or the week after, with enough investigative capacity you can get

50 or more sub-Cabinet critical appointees in place within 30 days

of inauguration.

215

I want to commend Clay Johnson and his work as Deputy Director for Management because I think it really has been outstanding.

But again, we think that this should go faster. And if you sort of

map out the process, I think we could all figure out how to do that,

and expanding the capacity is important.

The final piece of the puzzle is that the Senate should be prepared to confirm nominees within a reasonable period of time. The

Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Protection Act suggests 30 days.

We think that’s right. And we have just—along with the heads of

a number of organizations, including the National Academy of Public Administration—sent a letter to both candidates saying that

they should not only get their names forwarded but implore their

Senate colleagues to agree on a timeframe for considering and approving these—voting on these nominees and perhaps changing the

rules about holds to prevent votes and any other process changes

that would make sense to try to get those in place before the election and before we have a winner and loser. All of those ingredients

together.

If the transition teams, the FBI, and OPM investigative capacity

is expanded and the confirmation process can go rapidly, I think

that we could have a strong team in place and really ensure continuity in this challenging time.

Thank you very much. And I look forward to the discussion.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Ms. McGinnis follows:]

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Kettl.

STATEMENT OF DON KETTL

Mr. KETTL. Mr. Chairman, thanks very much, and not only for

the opportunity for the chance to testify before the subcommittee

today, but also for the subcommittee’s leadership in taking on this

absolutely critical and important issue. We already knew this was

going to be an important transition. We knew that with the issues

of homeland security, we’re facing challenges unlike any we’ve seen

before. But what we’ve seen in the last week with the issues of financial security, we now know that we have challenges that are

multiplied. We have big problems that emphasize all the more the

importance of leadership and that emphasize even more fundamentally the importance of confidence in the system to be able to drive

things forward. And that’s the most important thing that we can

accomplish in the transition that’s coming, of creating capacity to

ensure both competence and confidence in the American government.

The challenges are huge, in part because the problems are so dynamic and changing, in part because the pace at which the decisions are being made is so fast, in part because any decision that

we make has implications that spill over internationally, not only

within our own hemisphere but around the world. We have institutions that we are in the process of creating, recreating, and transforming in the process. And we have big issues for which there’s

no clear roadmap. And so it’s all the more important that we establish principles to guide our actions instead of running the risk of

stumbling through on an ad hoc basis, dealing with one problem

as it comes up after the other, which can only serve to undermine

the ability of the system to create confidence to begin with.

We have homeland security, which is already important. We

have financial security, which has become even more important.

We have other issues that are out there, including management of

the census, the care for our wounded warriors returning from wars

in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have a need to try to manage the war

in a productive kind of way. And in short, we have a whole set of

issues that demand the highest levels of both confidence and competence in our system.

Let me suggest five things, Mr. Chairman, that we might be able

to do to ensure that the transition gives the American people what

it is that they deserve.

The first is to make the obvious point that some of the others

today have made as well, which is the essential importance of beginning now. And in fact beginning now is already too late. We

need to have transition processes in place long before now so that

when Election Day comes, the new team is ready to begin that

process of transition into executive decisionmaking and responsibility.

To even talk about this out loud is so often seen as hubris. But

one of the most important things this committee can do and, in

fact, that all those who care about this issue can accomplish, is to

make it possible and politically safe for people to talk about what

it is that needs to happen, because it is is irresponsible not to. One

of the things that we are electing is the Chief Executive of the

249

United States, and we need to make sure that the President’s in

the position to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.

The second thing is fast track confirmation. As many of my colleagues today have talked about, we need to be able to make sure

that, first, the new administration is in a position to identify the

mission-critical positions; that the security clearances and background checks are done expeditiously; that the Senate confirms

them quickly; and that we can get the key people in the key positions ready to act, so that we are not in a position, as we might

well have been in in the middle of a financial crisis, without the

key people in place, confirmed by the Senate, in the position to exercise legal authority. At this point there is simply no alternative

but to ensure that we have fast track confirmation for those key

mission-critical positions if we’re going to have a government that

works.

Third thing is preparing the team to lead. We need not only orientation programs for the top political appointees, but we need a

kind of rolling process to ensure that as others come onboard after

the first 100 days, the first 200 days, given the pace of clearance

and the way in which these positions are filled, we need an ongoing

orientation program and we need a program on top of that to provide ongoing support.

We did a project not too long ago with Danish senior civil servants and Danish political appointees who told us that one of the

hardest things that was hardest about their jobs was a sense of

loneliness and the lack of support. Having people in a position to

provide guidance on some of these key issues is absolutely critical

to ensuring that the kind of executive experience we need is in

place. This requires, in some cases, a small bit of budget support;

but to do otherwise is to risk leaving the country unprepared.

Fourth is to build the budget. If the President doesn’t have the

priorities in place when the new budget’s submitted, then in many

cases it may be a year and a half until there’s another crack at trying to attack those issues. It’s absolutely critical that the administration has the capacity in place to make those decisions quickly.

Finally, if there’s anything that’s become clear about this election

is it’s an election about change. One of the things we have not

heard, though, is how the candidates propose to translate that

change into results. The new President needs to be in a position

quickly to ensure that the rhetoric of change is translated into results that matter; that we need to have a system for management

for results. We need, as the Comptroller General suggested earlier,

far better contract management and, in particular, an attack on the

high-risk programs that especially expose the government to fraud,

waste and abuse.

And finally, we have a looming human resources crisis that will

require continuing effort to make sure that we have in place the

people who are equipped to be able to do the jobs that need to be

done.

In short, Mr. Chairman, we need a government that can not only

provide competence but also confidence, and that’s why this transition is so absolutely critical.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very, very, very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kettl follows:]

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

Mr. TOWNS. There’s one thing that sort of went through—almost

every one of you said it, that people must be confirmed quickly. I

know Ms. McGinnis indicated 30 days the process should take.

Could I get from the rest of you, in terms of time that you think

that a person should be confirmed, within how many days?

Mr. KETTL. Mr. Chairman, if I could take just a quick stab at

that. It would be hard to have an absolute standard for everyone.

There are some positions that are most critical. And one of the

things that Mr. Johnson has put together is a list of the missioncritical positions, not only the White House staff but also in Cabinet agencies. What we need to do is figure out who needs to be

ready to act and decide at noon on January 20th, limit that to perhaps the first 50, maybe even 75 percent, then work backward to

figure out what it is we need to do, when to get it done, and then

work through the rest of the processes.

We just have no alternative but to make sure that we have a financial security team in place on January 20. Some positions are

going to take much longer. There are some that we just don’t have

the luxury of being able to deal with that. And the thing to do is

to figure out what it is we need to have done when, and backup

to make sure that what we need to do can get done, so that decisions are made and the clearances and the background checks are

done in the meantime.

Mr. TOWNS. Time limit?

Ms. KUMAR. I think if people start putting in—the candidates

start putting in names now, which is something that’s not been

done before—of their transition team people, they can put people

on there who they want to have in their administration when they

come in. So this is an opportunity that they should take advantage

of. And I think that way they’ll be able to increase their capacity.

And I think Ms. McGinnis’s suggestion about increasing the

number of people involved in the confirmation—in going through

the nominee’s background—is a critical way of doing it too. But the

candidates themselves are going to have to decide who they’re

going to focus on, what positions.

Like, for example, Reagan, when he knew that the economy was

the big issue, and so he chose the 87 positions. He did that—he

was able to do that right after the election because they had—they

had chosen their chief of staff and they had a team in place that

could make—make the choices and start sifting through.

Ms. HAUSSER. Mr. Chairman, I do know that NAPA has supported the 30-day deadline, although I agree with Professor Kettl

that probably, it being a hard standard, is a little bit more than

we could hope for. But 30 days seems reasonable.

There is the need to have the vetting. We know the Senate committees like to do a lot of vetting. And that’s—they’re taking their

role seriously. But I think are committed—a sense of commitment

to expeditious confirmation is something we should—they could

also commit to.

Ms. MCGINNIS. Could I just add—and I hope you’ll have a chance

to look at this letter that was signed by the President of the Center

for the Study of the Presidency and the National Academy of

Sciences, the Partnership for Public Service and the Carnegie Institution for Science, as well as I signed it and other leading scholars.

263

And what we called for was to have the Senate consider and vote

on the 50 most critical sub-Cabinet nominees within 30 days of inauguration. And after that, the standard we suggested would be 45

days.

I think it’s important to set a goal and have a deadline. And

that’s why we joined with these leaders to suggest that. The process is—it has two parts. It’s the nomination process, which the

President-Elect in the transition will control, and then the confirmation process. To say that confirmation should happen within

30 days is perfectly reasonable. And the nomination process should

be able to be completed within 30 days as well.

Mr. TOWNS. You know, I know that sometimes you have circumstances that can develop and then might slow down the process. But I think that the key here is that we do not do enough up

front. I mean, the point is that one of these guys are going to be

President of the United States. And of course, I think the process

can start, you know, now, because you know—and of course—and

by the time the process is over, by the time we find out who the

winner is, then we’ll be in a position to move forward.

I think that we need to try to eliminate this long delay. And, of

course, I think that if we do that, then I think that then we would

be able to put people in place in a very timely fashion.

Ms. Kumar, what do you think is the best way to get ready to

address the problem? Should the campaign’s economic advisors be

briefed before the election, especially during this atmosphere and

climate that we have today? They are asking for $700 billion over

there. I just left.

Ms. KUMAR. Yeah. There’s certainly—there’s a great deal of information that’s already out there. And I think the candidates have

been working with the White House, and their transition teams

have been working with the White House. And I think the White

House has tried to be flexible in what it’s providing to candidates.

So I think if they want certain kinds of information, I think that

they’ll probably get it.

Mr. TOWNS. Right. You know, my colleague Congressman

Bilbray, you know, mentioned something that I think that, you

know, that he said that the lower staff members, in terms of people

not at the top but down below, that are now being put out, looking

for jobs, that could create problems. You know, what could we do

to sort of prevent that sort of thing from happening? I mean, he

talked about—I mean, he gave some examples of some experiences

that he’s had at the lower level. But the point is that he felt that

we might have it as well at the level in terms of the Presidency.

You know, when you have a situation where you run for office and

then somebody loses, then the people that’s in know now they have

to go. And then they begin to create all kinds of problems. And he

gave some examples which I thought were interesting.

Ms. KUMAR. I think that in the end, they didn’t turn out to be

very big issues. That there weren’t as many, you know, w’s taken

from the computer keyboards and the rest of the things that

were—that had been listed early on that had happened in the

White House. Most of that, in fact, did not take place.

I think the real problem in coming into a White House is not

that kind of thing. It’s the fact that there’s no institutional memVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:23 Jun 01, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00267 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\49494.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
264

ory. That if—when you come into the Office of Chief of Staff, one

person was telling me when he came into his office as staff secretary, that all he had was a desk, a computer and there was no

hard drive. This is in the Clinton administration when they came

in. And they had no hard drive, because the courts had ordered

that they be taken.

The Presidential Records Act provides that everything from a

White House goes with the President. So, when somebody comes in,

there’s no manual of how to do their job. And, there is—and there

are not records left behind except some in the counsel’s—and the

NSC has records. That’s a real problem when somebody comes into

the White House.

Mr. TOWNS. How can the Congress help? We see it’s a problem.

You know, what can we do to be helpful? Right down the line.

Ms. MCGINNIS. I think this is a leadership issue. And so, you

know, speaking out and making it a high priority to get excellent

people in place and have continuity of leadership on the Senate

side; a leadership commitment to expedite the consideration of

nominees, particularly the critical top 50 to 100. And overall, we

would certainly suggest that in the next Congress, legislation be

considered to reform the Presidential appointments process.

There’s a lot in that process that needs to be changed, and some

of it will require legislation.

There have been proposals in the past which have not been enacted. And that might be a place to start. But, you know, really

look seriously at improving the process and perhaps reducing the

number of people who have to be confirmed.

We who think about the prune jobs, you know, feel that these top

management jobs, people who are running agencies, are really important in terms of accountability and confirmation. But, I’m not

sure that every single assistant secretary or other sort of staff function around a secretary needs to go through the whole confirmation

process. So overall reform would be my suggestion.

Mr. KETTL. Mr. Chairman, let suggest three quick things. One is

to echo what Ms. McGinnis said about streamlining the appointments process, some of which will require some legislative action,

some of which can simply be done to try to at least ensure that everybody makes a promise not to change the forms in the meantime,

so at least there is an ability to be able to note what it is that

you’ve got to supply.

Second thing is, relatively modest appropriations to ensure the

political appointees in particular have ongoing support through the

course of their jobs. We’re not talking about very much money, but

we’re talking about critical money that can make a difference.

And the third, and probably most importantly, is attention, like

this hearing, to try to make it safe for people to talk about these

issues. The overriding—in some ways—terrible fact about this is

that it’s a problem that insiders know about, but it’s very difficult

to talk about it publicly on the outside, outside these Chambers,

because otherwise candidates are accused of hubris. They’re accused of sticking their neck way out. They’re accused of celebrating

before the game is over.

And, it’s absolutely irresponsible not to think about how to do the

job, if you get it, as the process of trying to convince people that

265

ought to earn it. And, unfortunately it is just impossible to be able

to have frank, honest discussions and to be able to use this as a

criteria for selecting the President. And, one of the most important

things that Congress can do is to make the discussion safe, including discussions like this, and including shining a bright light on

the campaigns and asking them what it is that they were doing

and what is it they’re planning and how they would do the job if

they got it.

Mr. TOWNS. Right. Because you’re right. Most of the time, they’d

feel as if they’re being criticized for being presumptuous by taking

on transition work. I mean, they were being criticized.

So, I was wondering, if maybe in terms of—you know, statements

were not made by Members of Congress to say that this process

should be moved forward. I think that might be something that

needs to be done. Because you know, being a candidate a few times

myself, people, you know, you’re concerned about the perception or

criticism that you might get. And, this is a very serious issue that

I think that needs to be dealt with. And, of course, I think that

maybe, you know, that’s something that we can make statements

about. It’s an important time to encourage that process to move forward.

Mr. KETTL. Congressman, I would even consider making a small

appropriation available for transition planning to the candidates,

with the requirement that the candidates name a transition director as of July 1st, for example. Just a small amount of money in

exchange for at least making it public and therefore making it safe

to talk about it might make some difference.

Ms. MCGINNIS. Even a resolution to this effect I think would be

enormously helpful. A House resolution, a Senate resolution. It

gives a lot of cover to the campaigns who are—they do have transition planning teams in place, but no director has been publicly announced. And, it’s all being done sort of below the radar. And, that

is—it’s really kind of silly when you think about all the steps that

need to be taken even before the election. So a bipartisan resolution or statement would be excellent.

Mr. TOWNS. Right. Ms. Kumar, what do you think we can do

right now to help with this? And, what should the transition team

be doing at this moment?

Ms. KUMAR. Well, I think one of the things that’s important is

the transition budget. They need to have—know how much money

they’re getting. The problems that are going to result from dealing

with continuing resolutions are great because when they—when

you do have a winner, they’re going to have to deal with a new

budget, prepare for a budget 3 weeks after they come in. And here

there is no budget in place and they don’t have—the funds, I assume, are going to come forth for the transition. But they have to

figure out how much private money that they’re going to be raising.

I think right now the—in the transition, the transition teams

would be focusing on getting—gathering names for appointments

and focusing on what are the key issues that the candidates are

talking about themselves.

One of the reasons that the Reagan and George W. Bush transitions were so effective was that the candidates spoke about five

issues. And, so when they came into office, they were able to take

266

their five campaign issues and make their governing issues. So

when Bush, for example, came in, he took his five issues and he

spent the first week on education. Then he did faith-based initiatives, tax cuts, and went down the list of what he had already

talked about.

So, one of the things the candidates can do for themselves is

focus on just what they’re going to do when they’re governing. And

then that allows their transition teams to focus on bringing people

in place for those particular issues.

But, we know that national security is crucial, as is financial security. And, those are going to be the areas that they’re going to

have to focus their efforts on on recruitment.

Mr. TOWNS. Yeah. We have to get SEC, SEC, we have to get

FDIC. We have to get all this. And, with the crisis that we have,

I mean, we need to make certain that we get some good people.

Ms. KUMAR. And, there are many vacancies on—a lot of boards

are suffering from having vacancies, too. And they have to make

sure that they can fill those on crucial—spots that are crucial to

those issues.

Mr. TOWNS. Right. I guess, Ms. Hausser, what’s preventing the

implementation of the rest of the NAPA recommendations? What’s

stopping it?

Ms. HAUSSER. I don’t know that I can say that they’re stopped.

I think there’s—until the appointment of Admiral Acton, I think

there was some inertia; that his appointment has really changed

things in terms of their focusing. And with respect to some of the

executive appointment recommendations, they’re making progress.

That, by its nature, is a process that you have to go into thoughtfully. Although it can be expedited and should be expedited, it still

is—making crucial appointment decisions is—especially at this

time in an administration—is its own challenge.

I think there is a renewed—particularly since the appointment

of the Admiral—there’s a renewed focus on the transition and making sure the training is taking place. That had a little bit of a slow

start, but now efforts are panning out. And, there—I think there’s

been an acceleration in momentum.

So, given where their things were in June with respect to our

making recommendations that things happened, of the first 12 recommendations, at least 10 are completed to some degree. So it’s

coming along. And, I’m—I think the—what you hope for is that

there’s nothing that occurs that would reverse that momentum, because it has accelerated.

Mr. TOWNS. This committee—Ranking Member Bilbray and I—

we’re not a finger-pointing committee. I mean, we recognize that

we have a role as well to play in trying to fix whatever the problems might be. So we talk to you to try to find out in terms of our

role, in terms of what we might need to do to be able to sort of

make things work, you know, much more effectively. So, if you

have any suggestions or recommendations to us, you know, and we

call to talk to you, because you’ve had so much experience with it,

and we think that we need to have that, because if we don’t have

it, then we’re not sure as to what we might do on this side. So, we

need to have that information.

267

So, if you have any suggestions or recommendations to us, you

know, as to how we might make this transition much more effective or smoothly, you know, please share.

Ms. HAUSSER. Well, again, with respect to Homeland Security in

particular, I think there had been so much turmoil in that Department with its major reorganizations, with the high degree of turnover, the dust took so long to settle—and it arguably hasn’t settled

completely—that the—it’s important to recognize the progress, but

I do believe that congressional leadership—acknowledging it and

then making it very clear that it’s expected to continue, particularly with respect to prompt appointment of key executives.

There was a little bit of—when the Department was asked to

identify its critical executive positions, that actually started a while

ago and there was an effort made to do that. It turned out the criteria were a little bit confusing. And, when they redid the list, or

when they reexamined the list, there was a particular slant on

transition. It helped focus the effort. So, the first effort was somewhat successful, but a little bit disappointing in some respects, in

that there didn’t seem to be a lot of consistency in how people approached the task. But, they took it as a learning experience.

And, with the oncoming transition, they focused it again, particular emphasis on transition. And, I think they’re very—they’re satisfied with the way they’ve identified their critical positions. So, now

they have much better focus with respect to during a transition,

immediately after, where do they really have to make sure they’ve

got good acting career people or career deputies in place and where

will the initial appointments need to be made. So, it’s—they’ve

done—there’s been a lot of organizational learning at Homeland Security, muddled by the major reorganizations along the way.

Mr. TOWNS. Yes.

Ms. MCGINNIS. At the beginning of the hearing, Mr. Chairman,

you mentioned that you were for Barack Obama and Mr. Bilbray

is for John McCain.

Mr. TOWNS. Yes.

Ms. MCGINNIS. And, that’s not what we’re here to talk about.

But, I think it could be very effective to reach out to the candidates

individually and convey, you know, the points that you’ve raised

and confirmed about the importance of beginning that personnel—

identifying people, making sure that they can be prepared to send

the names of well-qualified people for these most critical positions

before the inauguration, so that we can have, you know, the full

team on the field on day one.

Mr. TOWNS. Uh-huh. Any other comments?

Let me thank you for your testimony. You’ve been very helpful.

And, I think that dialogs must take place and, of course, we might

even be talking with you again, you know, as we move forward, because we want to make certain that we have a smooth transition.

And, I am concerned because Homeland Security is— that was not

a part of any other transition. And, of course, you know, you have

to be, you know, concerned about that. Also concerned about the

fact that our financial situation is really, really in flux. And of

course, it’s important that we get to keep people in there that’s

going to stabilize it to make certain that stays strong.

268

So, your input is very, very important. So I want to thank you

again for your testimony. Thank you very, very much. And, this

committee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[NOTE.—The Government Accountability Report entitled, ‘‘The

White House, Allegations of Damage During the 2001 Presidential

Transition,’’ can be found in subcommittee files.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

Æ