GAO

United States General Accounting Office

a

Testimony

Before the Committee on Rules, 

House of Representatives 

For Release on Delivery 

4:00 p.m. EST

Tuesday, 

November 13, 2001

GOVERNMENT 

MANAGEMENT 

Observations on the 

President’s Proposed 

Freedom to Manage Act 

Statement of David M. Walker

Comptroller General of the United States

GAO-02-241T

Page 1 GAO-02-241T 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

Good afternoon. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the Freedom to 

Manage legislative proposal transmitted by the President to the Congress. 

Both this Congress and the Administration are to be commended for 

increasing the focus on how to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of 

the federal government as we move into the 21st century. GAO has sought to 

assist the Congress and the executive branch in considering the actions 

needed to support the transition to a more high performing, resultsoriented, and accountable federal government. We believe that it is crucial 

for both the Congress and the executive branch to work together in a 

constructive manner on “good government” issues that are designed to help 

achieve continuous improvement of the federal government. At the same 

time, the Congress has authorization, appropriation, and oversight roles 

that must be considered in connection with any related matters.

The fundamental issue raised by this proposed legislation is not whether 

government operations can and should be improved, but rather, how best 

to deal with these issues. The Administration’s proposal would 

fundamentally alter the process by which the Congress and the executive 

branch typically interact in connection with a potentially broad range of 

management-related legislative proposals. Therefore, the question at hand 

is whether and how the Congress wishes to change the nature of its normal 

deliberative process. Importantly, the proposal is very open-ended in the 

range of proposed changes to the management and organization of the 

federal government that could be presented to the Congress for expedited 

consideration.

My statement today will focus on several key issues:

1. A comprehensive review, reassessment, and reprioritization of what 

government does and how it does business is clearly warranted. This is 

especially vital in view of changing priorities and the compelling need 

to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of government in light of 

our long-range fiscal challenges.

2. The Freedom to Manage proposal was evidently motivated, in part, by a 

desire to eliminate wasteful, redundant, and inefficient reporting and 

other mandates. GAO has previously recommended to the executive 

branch that a comprehensive and governmentwide review in this area 

was appropriate. As a result, the Administration’s decision to conduct 

such a review has great merit.
Page 2 GAO-02-241T 

3. While the thrust of this review is desirable and some expedited 

congressional consideration may well be appropriate for specific 

issues, the Congress has an important role to play in management 

reform initiatives, especially from an authorization and oversight 

perspective. The following points are relevant:

• The Freedom to Manage Act is very broad in scope and contains 

several provisions that would significantly affect the scope and 

timing of related congressional debate and involvement in 

connection with a range of related legislative proposals.

• While in the past the Congress has adopted “fast track” approaches 

for specific areas, the design and broad scope of this proposal would 

alter the relative influence of the Congress on the administration in 

addressing a broad range of federal management issues. Depending 

on the nature of the legislative proposals that will be submitted, they 

could have profound implications for the relative role the Congress 

plays in developing legislation and conducting oversight to enhance 

the performance and ensure the accountability of the executive 

branch.

Presumably, the Congress will want to obtain the input of GAO and/or 

other parties before enacting any substantive proposals. As a result, any 

expedited consideration timeframes should allow for a reasonable period 

of time for this to occur.

Reassessing 

Government 

Operations to Improve 

Management and 

Efficiency

The Congress and the Administration face a series of daunting strategic and 

operational challenges to improve the performance and accountability of 

the federal government.1

 The federal government must continue to 

implement, and as appropriate enhance, the already enacted statutory 

management framework designed to maximize the performance and assure 

the accountability of the federal government. Meeting the challenges of the 

21st century will also require repositioning government to address a range 

of key themes outlined in GAO’s strategic plan for supporting the Congress. 

Addressing these challenges will require a fundamental review, 

reassessment, and reprioritization of the government’s roles and 

responsibilities.2

 The federal government will need to enhance interagency 

coordination and integration activities, work better with other levels of 

1

 See High Risk Series: An Update (GAO-01-263, Jan. 2001) and Major Management 

Challenges and Program Risks: A Governmentwide Perspective (GAO-01-241, Jan. 2001)
Page 3 GAO-02-241T 

government, with nongovernmental organizations, and with the private 

sector—both domestically and internationally—to achieve results and 

desired outcomes.

The statutory framework and other legislation enacted during the 1990s 

demonstrate the Congress’ capacity to deal with both specific program and 

governmentwide management reform proposals. Through the creation of 

the existing statutory framework, the Congress sought to improve the 

fiscal, program, and management performance of federal agencies, 

programs, and activities. For example, the Government Performance and 

Results Act (GPRA) is a central component of the existing statutory 

management framework, which includes other major elements, such as the 

Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act, and information resources 

management improvements, such as the Clinger-Cohen Act. These laws 

provide information that is pertinent to a broad range of managementrelated decisions to help promote a more results-oriented management and 

decision-making process.

The Congress has played a central role in management improvement 

efforts throughout the executive branch and has acted to address several 

individual high-risk areas through both legislative and oversight activities. 

This Administration appears to be taking these important areas very 

seriously in setting the President’s Management Agenda and working to 

implement it. Several areas, such as governmentwide human capital 

management, correspond to areas that we have designated as high-risk. In 

addition, we have been engaged in ongoing efforts to work with the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) in a constructive manner on a range of 

“good government” issues. The Administration has also signaled its intent 

to undertake a comprehensive review of the performance and relevance of 

the base of government programs and operations as part of the budget 

process—a review that is both important and necessary.

Just as the Congress has legislated tools to help improve management and 

program delivery, there is little doubt that some legislative provisions 

currently exist that may impede more economical, efficient, and effective 

government operations. Presumably, this is the premise behind the 

Freedom to Manage Act. However, as we reported in 1997, when OMB 

attempted to implement a related legislative managerial accountability and 

flexibility pilot project, agencies generally found that many of these 

2 GAO’s Strategic Plan, 2000-2005.
Page 4 GAO-02-241T 

requirements had been self-imposed and, as a result, they could implement 

needed changes themselves by revising internal procedures or eliminating 

unnecessary regulations.3

 More importantly, as submitted, the Freedom to 

Manage Act would allow the Administration to propose a broad range of 

both substantive and nonsubstantive proposals. It would also provide a 

vehicle to propose new legislation, as well as repeal or revise existing 

legislation.

I would like to commend the Administration for introducing a companion 

bill, the Managerial Flexibility Act. By way of contrast to the Freedom to 

Manage Act, this bill would make statutory changes to promote a specific 

set of management reforms in the areas of human capital, budgetary 

accounting, and property management. Greater flexibility would be 

provided to executive branch managers to address discrete management 

functions with defined and discrete goals and purposes. For example, the 

proposed early retirement and buy-out authorities both make appropriate 

recognition of the need to consider employee skills and knowledge, in 

addition to longevity, when making such decisions. Although we may have 

some suggestions for changing specific provisions and for other 

possibilities that should be covered, on the whole this bill constitutes an 

important step in addressing some of the long-standing challenges within 

the federal government.

Provisions That 

Constrain 

Congressional 

Involvement 

The Freedom to Manage Act contains several provisions that would 

significantly limit traditional congressional debate and involvement. As 

noted above, this bill has a very broad scope and would establish an 

expedited legislative process to consider a broad range of proposals, 

including eliminating or reducing barriers to efficient government 

operations posed by existing laws as well as new and potentially 

substantive and controversial reform proposals. For example, the 

Administration’s proposals could apply to organizational structures, 

program consolidations, program or regulatory requirements, reporting 

provisions, and delivery mechanisms. The act could affect both agencyspecific and governmentwide policies, and could be used to eliminate or 

modify existing laws, whether in authorization or appropriation acts, as 

well as to provide new authorities. 

3 GPRA: Managerial Accountability and Flexibility Pilot Did Not Work as Intended

(GAO/GGD-97-36, April 10, 1997).
Page 5 GAO-02-241T 

Traditionally, congressional and executive branch considerations of policy 

trade-offs are needed to reach a reasonable degree of consensus on the 

appropriate federal response to any substantive national need. The 

provisions of this legislation mandate that any proposal submitted by the 

President under this act must be introduced into the Congress within a 

short time frame, and reported out of Committee within a specified time 

period. Floor consideration would follow soon thereafter—apparently 

regardless of other matters pending before the Congress. The amount of 

time for debate is severely restricted, and amendments are not in order. 

These very tight time frames may—depending on the nature and scope of 

the proposals—prevent the Congress from fully considering the proposals’

key implications or obtaining necessary analysis and perspective from GAO 

and others. Congressional deliberative processes serve the vital function 

of both gaining input from a variety of clientele and stakeholders affected 

by any changes and providing a check and counterbalance to the executive 

branch. This normal legislative process is not a model of efficiency but it 

does help ensure that any related actions have broad support. 

Restrictions on Committee consideration and/or amendments can change 

the legislative process with its normal give and take into an expedited 

referendum on the President’s proposals. Under the Administration’s bill 

the authorizing committees would be cut out of the process. Essentially, 

this would limit the Congress’ ability to garner valuable input through 

conducting hearings and other means. This is especially true in connection 

with proposals for new authorities versus those proposals designed to 

revise or repeal outdated, redundant, or inefficient reporting requirements. 

Moreover, it could undermine support for some proposals by forcing “all or 

nothing” choices on legislative packages.

By requiring an expedited congressional vote on presidential proposals 

without amendment, the Freedom to Manage bill would alter the traditional 

role of the Congress in the legislative process. The President would gain 

substantial leverage to define the issues and the Congress’ ability to 

consider carefully any proposal or to build consensus as to the right 

approach to a problem would suffer. 

The bill appears to be based on two assumptions: (1) that many 

management problems stem from accumulation of incremental legislative 

provisions over time and (2) that the regular legislative process for 

deliberating presidential proposals is unduly slow and cumbersome. 

However, it is worth remembering that the Congress has often achieved 

major changes in highly charged and complex areas through the normal 
Page 6 GAO-02-241T 

deliberative processes—welfare and telecommunications reform are two 

examples. Moreover, special procedures were not needed to prompt the 

Congress to pass the existing statutory management framework mentioned 

earlier. In fact, the passage of these keystone legislative initiatives and the 

subsequent persistent oversight provided by congressional committees has 

propelled the Congress into a major leadership role in governmentwide 

management reform efforts.

Implications for 

Congressional 

Oversight

Given the breadth of this legislation, the key question is not whether 

statutory changes in organizations, program or regulatory requirements, or 

delivery mechanisms are warranted but rather whether the Congress 

wishes to change the nature of its deliberative process to address the 

broad, undefined array of issues that might conceivably fall under the 

rubric of government efficiency. Every administration has defined an 

agenda for management improvement in its own way. Therefore, the key 

issue at hand is how to make changes and reforms and what the respective 

roles of the Congress and the executive branch should be in this process.

I do not want to suggest that expedited consideration of proposals is never 

warranted. Making difficult decisions to reform specific areas is never easy 

given the many stakeholders, agencies, and congressional committees 

involved. It is important to recognize that in the past the Congress has 

designed procedures to bind itself when it deemed it necessary and 

appropriate. However, the broad scope and generality of the Freedom to 

Manage Act is not linked to the same type of discrete initiatives that 

supported earlier modifications of legislative procedures. For example, the 

Base Realignment and Closure Commission was established because the 

Congress, the applicable administration, and the Department of Defense all 

agreed that military operations would be more efficient if existing excess 

capacity were eliminated and savings generated from this action were 

channeled to other uses and that the traditional legislative process would 

not work in this case. Once agreement was reached on the nature of the 

problem and its solution, the Congress established the Commission to 

select the bases for closure and agreed to an up-or-down vote on the 

Commission’s report in toto. The Congress and the President agreed on the 

policy objective and the general scope and nature of the likely proposals in 

advance. As a result, the Congress agreed on the need to modify its 

procedures to achieve the agreed upon objectives. In specific cases, 

developing expedited procedures can hold some promise if the approaches 

are linked to a set of discrete initiatives and the Congress and other 
Page 7 GAO-02-241T 

stakeholders agree on the general objectives served by proposals in 

advance. 

Going forward, the Congress may well find that expedited procedures may 

be warranted if the approaches are linked to a set of discrete problems and 

initiatives. For instance, we have pointed to the need to rationalize 

federally owned infrastructure to address excess and outdated facilities in 

areas ranging from military bases, to regional offices, to veterans hospitals 

to post offices. Addressing these issues may very well call for a process 

similar to the national base closure commissions to expedite consideration 

of consolidation and streamlining proposals. Similarly, to address longstanding strategic human capital management problems in the federal 

workforce, the Congress may find it advisable to turn to a commission to 

help scope out the more fundamental challenges and develop a 

comprehensive reform proposal for legislative consideration.

In summary, the Freedom to Manage Act has a very broad scope. It also 

asks for streamlined and very expeditious consideration by the Congress, 

irrespective of the substantive nature of the proposal and upon other 

matters pending before the Congress. As the tragic events of September 11 

have made us increasingly aware, congressional priorities and the agendas 

of the two houses of the Congress can change quickly. Given the need to 

position our government to address new challenges and heightened public 

expectations, both the Congress and the Administration need to find ways 

to reach consensus on specific overarching national goals. As a result, 

proposals for sweeping changes to create new authorities or reform 

existing authorities must be examined in terms of their effect on the 

balance of power between the Congress and the President. The proposed 

bill, by design, would provide significant new power to the President to not 

only initiate changes, but also to affect the ultimate debate and outcome.

Only the Congress can decide whether it wishes to limit its powers and role 

in this way. As part of the legislative branch, I obviously have some 

concerns about any serious diminution of your authority. In addition, I 

obviously want GAO to have a reasonable amount of time to help the 

Congress assess any related legislative proposals before you are required to 

act. This can only be determined through a considered analysis of specific 

revision, repeal, or authorization proposals. Finally, while we believe that 

the comprehensive review being orchestrated by the Administration is 

appropriate, it is important that the concept of “freedom to manage” not be 

used as a means to try and achieve “freedom from oversight.”
Page 8 GAO-02-241T 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased 

to respond to any questions that you or other Members of the Committee 

may have.
GAO’s Mission The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to 

support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve 

the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American 

people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 

integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents is through the 

Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full-text files of 

current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The 

Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using key words 

and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and 

other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO E-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to our home page and complete the easy-to-use 

electronic order form found under “To Order GAO Products.”

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm,

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov, or

1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system).

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G. Street NW, Room 7149, 

Washington, D.C. 20548
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00