Executive Reorganization Authority: Balancing Executive and Congressional Roles in Shaping the Federal Government's Structure
Published: 2003-04-03T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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, results-oriented, and accountable federal government. At the Committee's request, GAO provided perspective on the proposal to reinstate the authority for the President to submit government restructuring plans to the Congress for expedited review.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: In view of the overarching trends and the growing fiscal challenges facing our nation, there is a need to consider the proper role of the federal government, how the government should do business in the future, and in some instances, who should do the government's business in the 21st century. The fundamental issue raised by the proposal to grant reorganization authority to the President is not whether the government's organization can and should be restructured, but rather, whether and how the Congress wishes to change the nature of its normal deliberative process when addressing proposals to restructure the federal government. Given current trends and increasing fiscal challenges, a comprehensive review, reassessment, and reprioritization of what the government does and how it does it is clearly warranted. This is especially vital in view of changing priorities and the compelling need to examine the base of government programs, policies, and operations since, given GAO's long-term budget simulations, the status quo is unsustainable over time. While the intent of such a review is desirable and some expedited congressional consideration may well be appropriate for specific issues, the Congress also has an important role to play in government reform initiatives, especially from an authorization and oversight perspective. In contrast to the past "one-size-fits-all" approaches in developing new executive reorganization authority, the Congress may want to consider different tracks for proposals that propose significant policy changes versus those that focus more narrowly on government operations. Further, Congress may want to consider establishing appropriate processes to ensure the involvement of key players, particularly in the legislative and executive branches, to help facilitate reaching consensus on specific restructuring proposals that would be submitted for consideration, should the Congress enact a new executive reorganization authority. Modern management practices can provide a framework for developing successful restructuring proposals. Such practices include: establishing clear goals, following an integrated approach, developing an effective human capital strategy, considering alternative program delivery mechanisms, and planning for both initial and long-term implementation issues to achieve a successful transformation. Furthermore, successful implementation will depend in part on continuing congressional oversight. The Congress could significantly enhance its efficiency and effectiveness by adapting its own organization to mirror changes in the executive branch.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the proposal to  reinstate the authority for the President to submit government  restructuring plans to the Congress and obtain expedited review.  Both the  Congress and the administration are to be complimented for stating their  intent to increase the focus on how to improve the efficiency and  effectiveness of the federal government as we begin the 21st century.  This  hearing is evidence of such increased commitment.
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, results-oriented, 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 improve the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of  government on a continual basis. At the same time, the Congress has  important constitutional authorization, appropriation, and oversight roles  that must be considered.
The fundamental issue raised by the proposal to grant executive  reorganization authority to the President is not whether the government’s  organization can and should be restructured, but rather how best to deal  with this issue. In this regard, the recent Volcker Commission and GAO  have noted the need to review and revise the current federal government  structure.  Given that historically executive reorganization authority has  included certain “fast track” provisions for congressional review, the  question at hand is whether and how the Congress wishes to change the  nature of its normal deliberative process when addressing proposals to  restructure the federal government.
My statement today will focus on several key issues: 1. Given current trends and increasing fiscal challenges, a comprehensive  review, reassessment, and reprioritization of what the government does  and how it does it is clearly warranted. This is especially vital in view of  changing priorities and the compelling need to examine the base of  government programs, policies and operations since, given GAO’s long  range budget simulations, the status quo is unsustainable over time. 2. While the intent of such a 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.  In the past, the Congress has adopted “fast track”  approaches for specific areas.  However, depending on the nature of  future 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.  In  contrast to the past “one-size-fits-all” approaches, in developing new  executive reorganization authority, the Congress may want to consider  different tracks for proposals that propose significant policy changes  versus those that focus more narrowly on operations.  Further,  Congress may want to consider establishing appropriate processes  (e.g., a commission) to ensure the involvement of key players to help  reach consensus on any specific reorganization proposals that would  be submitted for consideration by the Congress, should the Congress  enact new executive reorganization authority.  3. Modern management practices can provide a framework for developing  successful restructuring proposals.  Such practices include:  establishing clear goals, following an integrated approach, developing  an effective human capital strategy, considering alternative program  delivery mechanisms, and planning for both initial as well as long-term  implementation issues.  Furthermore, successful implementation will  depend in part on continuing congressional oversight.  The Congress  could significantly enhance its efficiency and effectiveness by adapting  its own organization to mirror changes in the executive branch.
Presumably, the Congress will want to obtain the input of GAO and other  parties before enacting any substantive proposals. As a result, any  timeframes for expedited consideration should allow for a reasonable  period for this to occur.
This testimony draws upon our wide-ranging ongoing and completed work  on government transformation, organization, and management issues.  We  also reviewed the history of major reorganization efforts as well as the  legislative history of executive reorganization authority.  We conducted our  work in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards.
subsections: section_title: Need to Reexamine Government Structures to Meet 21st Century Challenges
paragraphs: The federal government is in a period of profound transition and faces an  array of challenges and opportunities to enhance performance, ensure  accountability, and position the nation for the future.  As you know, our  country’s transition into the 21st century is characterized by a number of  key trends including:  the national and global response to terrorism and other threats to  personal and national security;  the increasing interdependence of enterprises, economies, civil society,  and national governments, referred to as globalization;  the shift to market-oriented, knowledge-based economies;  an aging and more diverse U.S. population;  advances in science and technology and the opportunities and  challenges created by these changes;  challenges and opportunities to maintain and improve the quality of life  for the nation, communities, families, and individuals; and  the changing and increasingly diverse nature of governance structures  and tools.
As the nation and government policymakers grapple with the challenges  presented by these evolving trends, they do so in the context of an  overwhelming fact:  The fiscal pressures created by the retirement of the  baby boom generation and rising health care costs threaten to overwhelm  the nation’s fiscal future.  Our latest long-term budget simulations reinforce  the need for change in the major cost drivers—Social Security and health  care programs. By midcentury, absent reform of these entitlement  programs and/or other major tax or spending policy changes, projected  federal revenues may be adequate to pay little beyond interest on the debt  and Social Security benefits. Further, our recent shift from surpluses to  deficits means that the nation is moving into the future in a weaker fiscal  position.
In response to the emerging trends and long-term fiscal challenges the  government faces in the coming years, we have an opportunity to create  highly effective, performance-based organizations that can strengthen the  nation’s ability to meet the challenges of the 21st century and reach beyond  our current level of achievement.  The federal government cannot accept  the status quo as a “given”—we need to reexamine the base of government  programs, policies, and operations.  We must strive to maintain a  government that is effective and relevant to a changing society—a  government that is as free as possible of outmoded commitments and  operations that can inappropriately encumber the future, reduce our fiscal  flexibility, and prevent future generations from being able to make choices  regarding what roles they think government should play.
Many departments and agencies were created in a different time and in  response to problems and priorities very different from today’s challenges.   Some have achieved their one-time missions and yet they are still in  business.  Many have accumulated responsibilities beyond their original  purposes. Others have not been able to demonstrate how they are making a  difference in real and concrete terms.  Still others have overlapping or  conflicting roles and responsibilities.  Redundant, unfocused, and  uncoordinated programs waste scarce funds, confuse and frustrate  program customers, and limit overall program effectiveness.
Our work has documented the widespread existence of fragmentation and  overlap from both the broad perspective of federal missions and from the  more specific viewpoint of individual federal programs.  As new needs are  identified, the common response has been a proliferation of  responsibilities and roles to federal departments and agencies, perhaps  targeted on a newly identified clientele, or involving a new program  delivery approach, or, in the worse case scenario, merely layered onto  existing systems in response to programs that have failed or performed  poorly.  Though our work also suggests that some issues may warrant  involvement of multiple agencies or more than one approach,  fragmentation and overlap adversely impacts the economy, efficiency and  effectiveness and of the federal government.
It is obviously important to periodically reexamine whether current  programs and activities remain relevant, appropriate, and effective in  delivering the government that Americans want, need, and can afford.  This  includes assessing the sustainability of the programs, as well as the  effectiveness of the tools—such as direct spending, loan guarantees, tax  incentives, regulation, and enforcement—that these programs embody.  Many federal programs—their goals, organizations, processes, and  infrastructures—were designed years ago to meet the needs and demands  as determined at that time and within the technological capabilities of that  earlier era.  The recent report of the Volcker Commission similarly  observed that “ifty years have passed since the last comprehensive  reorganization of the government” and that “he relationship of the  federal government to the citizens it services became vastly broader and  deeper with each passing decade.”  The commission recommended that a  fundamental reorganization of the federal government into a limited  number of mission-related executive departments was needed to improve  its capacity to design and implement public policy.
We now have both an opportunity and an obligation to take a  comprehensive look at what the government should be doing and how it  should go about doing its work.  Based on GAO’s own recent experiences  with restructuring, such a fundamental reexamination of government  missions, functions, and activities could improve government effectiveness  and efficiency and enhance accountability by reducing the number of  entities managed, thereby broadening spans of control, increasing  flexibility, and fully integrating rather than merely coordinating related  government activities.
section_title: Balancing the Roles of the Congress and the Executive Branch in Developing Restructuring Proposals
paragraphs: Given the obvious case for reexamining the government’s structure, the  major issue for debate today is the question of whether and how to change  the Congress’ normal deliberative process for reviewing and shaping  executive branch restructuring proposals.  Such authority can serve to  better enable presidential leadership to propose government designs that  would be more efficient and effective in meeting existing and emerging  challenges.
Presidential leadership is critical to set goals and propose the means—the  organizational design and policy tools—needed to achieve the goals.   However, it is important to ensure a consensus on identified problems and  needs, and to be sure that the solutions our government legislates and  implements can effectively remedy the problems we face in a timely  manner.  Fixing the wrong problems, or even worse, fixing the right  problems poorly, could cause more harm than good.
Congressional deliberative processes serve the vital function of both  gaining input from a variety of clientele and stakeholders affected by any  changes and providing an important constitutional check and  counterbalance to the executive branch.  The statutory framework for  management reform enacted during the 1990s demonstrates the Congress’  capacity to deal with governmentwide management reform needs.  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 resource management improvements, such as the Clinger- Cohen Act. These laws provide information that is pertinent to a broad  range of management-related decisions to help promote a more results- oriented management and decision-making process, regardless of what  organizational approach is employed.
The normal legislative process, which by design takes time to encourage  thorough debate, does help to ensure that any related actions are carefully  considered and have broad support.  The Congress has played a central  role in management improvement efforts throughout the executive branch  and has acted to address several high-risk areas through both legislative  and oversight activities.  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.
It is imperative that the Congress and the administration form an effective  working relationship on restructuring initiatives.  Any systemic changes to  federal structures and functions must be approved by the Congress and  implemented by the executive branch, so each has a stake in the outcome.   Even more importantly, all segments of the public that must regularly deal  with their government—individuals, private sector organizations, states,  and local governments—must be confident that the changes that are put in  place have been thoroughly considered and that the decisions made today  will make sense tomorrow.
Only the Congress can decide whether it wishes to limit its powers and role  in government reorganizations.  As part of the legislative branch, we at  GAO obviously have some concerns regarding any serious diminution of  congressional authority.  In certain circumstances, the Congress may deem  limitations appropriate; however, care should be taken regarding the  nature, timing, and scope of any related changes.  Lessons can be learned  from prior approaches to granting reorganization authority to the  President.  Prior successful reorganization initiatives reinforce the  importance of maintaining a balance between executive and legislative  roles in undertaking significant organizational changes.  Safeguards are  needed to ensure congressional input and concurrence on the goals as well  as overall restructuring proposals.  In the final analysis, the Congress must  agree with any restructuring proposals submitted for consideration by the  President in order for them to become a reality.
subsections: section_title: Prior Executive Reorganization Authority Reflected Changing Balance between Legislative and Executive Roles
paragraphs: Periodically, between 1932 and 1984, the Congress provided the President  one form or another of expedited reorganization authority.  Most of the  authority granted during this period shared three characteristics.
First, most previous authorities established rules that allowed the  President’s plan to go into effect unless either house acted by passing a  motion of disapproval within a fixed period.  However, in accordance  with the 1983 Chadha decision, which held the one-house legislative  veto unconstitutional, the most recent expedited reorganization  authority, granted to President Reagan in 1984, required passage of a  joint affirmative resolution by both houses and signed by the President  to approve any presidential reorganization plan.  Hence, the need for  both houses to positively approve a president’s plan for it to take effect  set a higher bar for success and in essence gave the Congress a stronger  role than in the past.
Second, between 1949 and 1984, the Congress increasingly limited the  scope of what the President could propose in a reorganization plan,  which also had the effect of enhancing congressional control.  For  example, whereas in 1949, there were few restrictions on what the  President could propose, the Reorganization Act of 1977 prohibited  plans that, among other things, established, abolished, transferred, or  consolidated departments or independent regulatory agencies.
Third, expedited reorganization authority during this period limited the  period of time during which a President could propose any  reorganization plans.  Clearly, the extent to which the Congress was  willing to cede its authority to oversee the President’s reorganization  plans has been an important variable in designing such provisions.
section_title: Successful Government Restructurings Balanced Executive and Legislative Roles
paragraphs: Throughout the 20th century, efforts to structure the federal government to  address the economic and political concerns of the time met with varying  degrees of success.  The first Hoover Commission, which lasted from 1947  to 1949, is considered by many to have been the most successful of  government restructuring efforts. The membership was bipartisan,  including members of the administration and both houses of the Congress.  Half its members were from outside government. The commission had a  clear vision, making reorganization proposals that promoted what they  referred to as “greater rationality” in the organization and operation of  government agencies and enhanced the president's role as the manager of  the government—principles that were understood and accepted by both  the White House and the Congress.  Former President Hoover himself  guided the creation of a citizens' committee to build public support for the  commission's work. More than 70 percent of the first Hoover Commission's  recommendations were implemented, including 26 out of 35 reorganization  plans.  According to the Congressional Research Service, “the ease with  which most of the reorganization plans became effective reflected two  factors:  the existence of a consensus that the President ought to be given  deference and assistance by Congress in meeting his managerial  responsibilities and the fact that most of the reorganization plans were  pretty straightforward proposals of an organizational character.”
By contrast, the second Hoover Commission, which lasted from 1953 to  1954, had a makeup very similar to that of the first, but it did not have the  advance backing of the President and the Congress.  Hoover II, as it was  called, got into policy areas with the goal of cutting government programs.  But it lacked the support of the President, who preferred to use his own  advisory group in managing the government. It also lacked the support of  the Congress and the public, neither of which cared to cut the government  at a time when federally run programs were generally held in high esteem  and considered efficient and beneficial.  More than 60 percent of Hoover  II's recommendations were implemented, but these were mostly drawn  from the commission's technical recommendations rather than from its  major ones (such as changing the government's policies on lending,  subsidies, and water resources) that would have substantively cut federal  programs.
The lesson of the two Hoover Commissions is clear: If plans to reorganize  government are to move from recommendation to reality, creating a  consensus for them is essential to the task.  In this regard, both the process  employed and the players involved in making any specific reorganization  proposals are of critical importance.   The success of the first Hoover  Commission can be tied to the involvement and commitment of both the  Congress and the President.  Both the legislative branch and executive  branches agreed to the goals.  With this agreement, a process was  established that provided for wide spread involvement, including citizens,  and transparency so that meaningful results could be achieved.
That lesson shows up again in the experience of the Ash Council, which  convened in 1969-70. Like the first Hoover Commission, the Ash Council  aimed its recommendations at structural changes to enhance the  effectiveness of the President as manager of the government. In addition to  renaming the Bureau of the Budget the Office of Management and Budget,  the Ash Council proposed organizing government around broad national  purposes by integrating similar functions under major departments. It  proposed that four super departments be created—economic affairs,  community development, natural resources, and human services—with  State, Defense, Treasury, and Justice remaining in place.  But the Ash  Council could not gain the support of the Congress. Its recommendations  would have drastically altered jurisdictions within the Congress and the  relationships between committees and the agencies for which they had  oversight responsibilities.  The Congress was not thoroughly clear on the  implications of the four super departments, was not readily willing to  change its own structure to parallel the structure proposed by the council,  and was not eager to substantially strengthen the authority of the  presidency.
Once again, the lesson for today is that reorganizing government is an  immensely complex and politically charged activity. Those who would  reorganize government must make their rationale clear and must build a  consensus for change before specific proposed reorganizations are  submitted to Congress if they are to see their efforts bear fruit.  It is  important that all players, particularly the Congress and the President,  reach agreement on restructuring goals and establish a process to achieve  their objectives that provides needed transparency if anything substantive  is to be achieved.   The process may vary depending on the significance of  the changes sought.  However, the risk of failure is high without having the  involvement of key players and a process to help reach consensus on  specific reorganization proposals that are submitted to the Congress for its  consideration.
A final important lesson from these prior experiences is that a balance  must be struck between the need for due deliberation and the need for  action.  A distinction also needs to be made between policy choices and  operational choices.  Relatively straightforward reorganization proposals  that focus on operational issues appear to have met with greater success  than those that addressed more complex policy issues.  For example,  proposals to eliminate programs, functions, or activities typically involve  policy choices.  On the other hand, a proposal to consolidate those same  activities within a single organization is more focused on management  effectiveness and efficiency, than on policy changes.   Therefore, in  contrast to the past “one-size-fits-all” approaches, in again granting  expedited reorganization authority to the President, the Congress may wish  to consider different tracks that allow for a longer period for review and  debate of proposals that include significant policy elements as opposed to  operational elements.
section_title: Modern Management Practices Provide a Framework for Restructuring Proposals
paragraphs: Three years ago, I testified that the challenge for the federal government at  the start of the 21st century is to continue to improve and to translate the  management reforms enacted by the Congress in the 1990s into a day-to- day management reality across government.  Restructuring can be an  important tool in this effort.  Restructuring efforts must, however, be  focused on clear goals.  Further, irrespective of the number and nature of  federal entities, creating high-performing organizations will require a  cultural transformation in government agencies.  Hierarchical management  approaches will need to yield to partnerial approaches.  Process-oriented  ways of doing business will need to yield to results-oriented ones.  Siloed  organizations—burdened with overlapping functions, inefficiencies and  turf battles—will need to become more horizontal and integrated  organizations if they expect to make the most of the knowledge, skills, and  abilities of their people.  Internally focused agencies will need to focus  externally in order to meet the needs and expectations of their ultimate  clients—the American people.  In the coming month, I plan to convene a  forum to discuss steps federal agencies can take to become high- performing organizations.
GAO is leading by example.  To create a world-class professional services  organization, we have undertaken a comprehensive transformation effort  over the past few years.  Our strategic plan, which is developed in  consultation with the Congress, is forward looking and built on several key  themes that relate to the United States and our position in the world  community.  We restructured our organization in calendar year 2000 to  align with our goals, resulting in significant consolidation—going from 35  to 13 teams, eliminating an extra organizational layer, and reducing the  number of field offices from 16 to 11.  We have become more strategic,  results-oriented, partnerial, integrated, and externally focused.  Our scope  of activities includes a range of oversight-, insight-, and foresight-related  engagements.  We have expanded and revised our products to better meet  client needs.  In addition, we have re-defined success in results-oriented  terms and linked our institutional and individual performance measures.
We have strengthened our client relations and employed a “constructive  engagement approach” to those we review.  The impact on our results has  been dramatic.  Several of our key performance measures have almost  doubled and our client feedback reports satisfaction has also improved.
There are six important elements to consider for a successful  reorganization—establishing clear goals, taking an integrated approach,  developing a comprehensive human capital strategy, selecting appropriate  service delivery mechanisms, managing the implementation, and providing  effective oversight.
Clear goals.   The key to any reorganization plan is the creation of specific,  identifiable goals.  The process to define goals will force decision makers  to reach a shared understanding of what really needs to be fixed in  government, what the federal role really ought to be, how to balance  differing objectives, and what steps need to be taken to create not just  short-term advantages but long-term gains.  The mission and strategic goals  of an organization must become the focus of the transformation, define the  culture, and serve as a vehicle to build employee and organizational  identity and support.  Mission clarity and a clear articulation of priorities  are critical, and strategic goals must align with and support the mission and  serve as continuing guideposts for decision making.  New organizations  must have a clear set of principles and priorities that serve as a framework  for the organization, create a common culture, and establish organizational  and individual expectations.
The most recent restructuring, the formation of the Department of  Homeland Security (DHS), illuminates this point.  There was clear national  consensus that a new national goal and priority was homeland security.   With agreement on the mission and goals of this new department, the  various activities and functions scattered throughout the government could  be identified and moved into the new department.  Building a framework of  clearly articulated goals facilitates any restructuring effort.  This is true for  both the initial design and the implementation.
The government today is faced with many challenges.  In considering  restructuring, it is important to focus on not just the present but the future  trends and challenges.  Identification of goals to address these trends and  challenges provides a framework for achieving consensus and  organizational design.  In fact, the effects of any reorganization are felt  more in the future than they are today.  The world is not static.  Therefore,  it is vital to take the long view, positioning the government to meet the  challenges of the 21st century.  Regardless of the immediate objectives, any  reorganization should have in mind certain overarching goals:  a  government that serves the public efficiently and economically, that is run  in a sound, businesslike fashion with full accountability, and that is flexible  enough to respond to change.
Integrated approach.  The importance of seeing the overall picture cannot  be overestimated.  Reorganization demands a coordinated approach,  within and across agency lines, supported by solid consensus for change.   One cannot underestimate the interconnectedness of government structure  and activities.  Make changes here, and you will certainly affect something  over there.  Our work has certainly illuminated the interconnectedness of  federal programs, functions, and activities.
DHS again provides lessons.  Though many homeland security  responsibilities, functions, and activities have been brought under the  umbrella of DHS, many remain outside.  DHS will have to form effective  partnerships throughout the federal government—on intelligence  functions, health issues, science activities.   In addition, partnerships will  be required outside the federal government—state and local governments,  private sector organizations, and the international community, if DHS is to  successfully accomplish its mission.
We have previously reported that the Government Performance and  Results Act (Results Act) could provide a tool to reexamine roles and  structure at the governmentwide level.  The Results Act requires the  President to include in his annual budget submission a federal government  performance plan.  The Congress intended that this plan provide a “single  cohesive picture of the annual performance goals for the fiscal year.”  The  governmentwide performance plan could be a unique tool to help the  Congress and the executive branch address critical federal performance  and management issues.  It also could provide a framework for any  restructuring efforts.  Unfortunately, this provision has not been fully  implemented.
Beyond an annual performance plan, a strategic plan for the federal  government might be an even more useful tool to provide broad goals and  facilitate integration of programs, functions, and activities, by providing a  longer planning horizon.  In the strategic planning process, it is critical to  achieve mission clarity in the context of the environment in which we  operate.  With the profound changes in the world, a re-examination of the  roles and missions of the federal government is certainly needed.   From a  clearly defined mission, goals can be defined and organizations aligned to  carrying out the mission and goals.  Integration and synergy can be  achieved between components of the government and with external  partners to provide more focused efforts on goal achievement.
If fully developed, a governmentwide strategic plan can potentially provide  a cohesive perspective on the long-term goals for a wide array of federal  activities.  Successful strategic planning requires the involvement of key  stakeholders.  Thus, it could serve as a mechanism for building consensus.   The process of developing the plan could prompt a more integrated and  focused discussion between the Congress and the administration about  long-term priorities and how agencies interact in implementing those  priorities.  Further, it could provide a vehicle for the President to articulate  long-term goals and a road map for achieving them.   In the process, key  national performance indicators associated with the long-term goals could  be identified and measured.
In addition, a strategic plan can provide a much needed framework for  considering any organizational changes and making resource allocation  decisions.  Essentially, organizations and resources (e.g., human, financial,  and technological) are the ways and means of achieving the goals  articulated by the strategic plan.  Organizations should be aligned to be  consistent with the goals and objectives of the strategic plan.   Clear  linkages should exist between the missions and functions of an  organization and the goals and objectives it is trying to achieve.   In making  the trade-offs in resource decisions, a strategic plan identifies clear  priorities and forms a basis for allocating limited resources for maximum  effect.
The process of developing a strategic plan that is comprehensive,  integrated, and reflects the challenges of our changing world will not be  easy.  However, the end result could be a government that serves the public  efficiently and economically, that is run more efficiently and effectively  with full accountability, and that is flexible enough to respond to our  rapidly changing world.
Human capital strategy.  People are an organization’s most important asset,  and strategic human capital management should be the centerpiece of any  transformation or organizational change initiative.  An organization’s  people define its character, affect its capacity to perform, and represent the  knowledge base of the organization.
Since 2001, we have designated human capital management as a  governmentwide high risk.  The Congress and the executive branch have  taken a number of steps to address the federal government’s human capital  shortfalls.  However, serious human capital challenges continue to erode  the ability of many agencies, and threaten the ability of others, to  economically, efficiently, and effectively perform their missions.    A  consistent, strategic approach to maximize government performance and  ensure its accountability is vital to the success of any reorganization efforts  as well as to existing organizations.
A high-performance organization focuses on human capital. Human capital  approaches are aligned with mission and goal accomplishment.  Strategies  are designed, implemented, and assessed based on their ability to achieve  results and contribute to the organization’s mission. Leaders and managers  stay alert to emerging mission demands and human capital challenges.   They reevaluate their human capital approaches through the use of valid,  reliable, and current data, including an inventory of employee skills and  competencies.   Recruiting, hiring, professional development, and retention  strategies are focused on having the needed talent to meet organizational  goals.  Individual performance is clearly linked with organizational  performance.  Effective performance management systems provide a “line  of sight” showing how unit, team, and individual performance can  contribute to overall organizational goals.
Human capital strategies need to be built into any restructuring efforts.   The Congress has recognized the importance of human capital in recent  restructuring efforts.  For example, in the creation of DHS and the  Transportation Security Agency (TSA), human capital issues were  addressed directly with the granting of flexibilities to improve the  effectiveness of their workforces.  Thus, human capital issues need to be  addressed in both the design and implementation of any organization.
Service delivery mechanisms.  Once goals are defined, attention must be  paid not only to how the government organizes itself but also to the tools it  uses to achieve national goals.  The tools for implementing federal  programs include, for example, direct spending, loans and loan guarantees,  tax expenditures, and regulations.  A hallmark of a responsive and effective  government is the ability to mix public/private structures and tools in ways  that are consistent with overriding goals and principles while providing the  best match with the nature of the program or service.  The choice of tools  will affect the results the government can achieve.  Therefore,  organizations must be designed to effectively use the tools they will  employ.
In most federal mission areas—from low-income housing to food safety to  higher education assistance—national goals are achieved through the use  of a variety of tools and, increasingly, through the participation of many  organizations that are beyond the direct control of the federal government.   This environment provides unprecedented opportunities to change the way  federal agencies are structured to do business internally and across  boundaries with state and local governments, nongovernmental  organizations, private businesses, and individual citizens.
Implementation.  No matter what plans are made to reorganize the  government, fulfilling the promise of these plans will depend on their  effective implementation.  The creation of a new organization may vary in  terms of size and complexity.  However, building an effective organization  requires consistent and sustained leadership from top management to  ensure the needed transformation of disparate agencies, programs,  functions, and activities into an integrated organization.  To achieve  success, the end result should not simply be a collection of component  units, but the transformation to an integrated, high-performance  organization.  The implementation of a new organization is an extremely  complex task that can take years to accomplish.  It is instructive to note  that the 1947 legislation creating the Department of Defense was further  changed four times by the Congress in order to improve the effectiveness  of the department.  Despite these changes, DOD continues to face a range  of major management challenges, with six agency-specific challenges on  our 2003 list and three governmentwide challenges.  Start-up problems  under any reorganization are inevitable but can be mitigated by  comprehensive planning and strong leadership.
An implementation plan anchored by an organization’s mission, goals and  core values is critical to success.  An implementation plan should address  the complete transition period, not just the first day or the first year.  It  must go beyond simply the timetable for the organization’s creation,  consolidation, or elimination.  Effective implementation planning requires  identification of key activities and milestones to transform the organization  into a fully integrated, high-performance organization and establish  accountability for results.  Careful planning and attention to management  practices and key success factors, such as strategic planning, information  technology, risk management, and human capital management, are  important to overall results.  A human capital strategic plan must be  developed.  It is vital to have key positions filled with people who possess  the critical competencies needed by the organization.  Further, systems and  processes need to be tailored to and integrated within the organization.   The experiences of TSA highlight the need for long-term planning.  A year  after being set up, although great progress has been made, TSA still faces  numerous challenges—ensuring adequate funding; establishing adequate  cost controls; forming effective partnerships to coordinate activities;  ensuring adequate workforce competence and staffing levels; ensuring  information systems security; and implementing national security  standards.
Top leadership must set priorities and focus on the most critical issues.   While top leadership is essential and indispensable, it will be important to  have a broad range of agency leaders and managers dedicated to the  transformation process to ensure that changes are thoroughly implemented  and sustained over time.  Dedicated management leadership can free the  head of the organization from day-to-day operational and administrative  issues, allowing time to focus on mission priorities.
One approach to providing the sustained management attention essential  for addressing key infrastructure and stewardship issues while helping  facilitate the transition and transformation process is the creation of a chief  operating officer (COO) position within selected federal agencies.  To be  successful, a COO must have a proven track record in a related position  and high profile—reporting directly to the agency head, and be vested with  sufficient authority to achieve results.  Since successful restructurings  often take a considerable amount of time, 5 to 7 years being common, a  term appointment of up to 7 years might be warranted.  To further clarify  accountability, the COO should be subject to a clearly defined, results- oriented performance contract with appropriate incentives, rewards, and  accountability mechanisms.
Oversight.   Congressional involvement is needed not just in the initial  design of the organization, but in what can turn out to be a lengthy period  of implementation.  The Congress has an important role to play—both in its  legislative and oversight capacities—in establishing, monitoring, and  maintaining progress to attain the goals envisioned by government  transformation and reorganization efforts.
Sustained oversight by the Congress is needed to ensure effective  implementation.  The understanding by the Congress of the various  agencies will provide a measure of whether the reorganization is  accomplishing its goals and whether it needs further refinement.  Assessing  progress is important to ensuring implementation is moving in the right  direction.
To ensure effective implementation, along with efficient and effective  oversight, the Congress will also need to consider realigning its own  structure.  With changes in the executive branch, the Congress should  adapt its own organization in order to improve its efficiency and  effectiveness.   Most recently, the Congress has undertaken a  reexamination of its committee structure, with the implementation of DHS.   In fact, the DHS legislation instructed both houses of Congress to review  their committee structures in light of the reorganization of homeland  security responsibilities within the executive branch.
In summary, 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 the process.  Only the Congress can decide whether it wishes to limit  its powers and role in government reorganizations.  As part of the  legislative branch, I obviously have some concerns about any serious  diminution of your authority.  In certain circumstances, the Congress may  deem it appropriate.  A distinction needs to be made between policy  choices and operational choices, and a balance must be struck between the  need for due deliberation and the need for action in these different cases.   The Congress may wish to consider a longer period for review and debate  of proposals that include significant policy elements versus operational  elements.  Further, the President and the Congress may wish to consider  establishing a process (e.g., a commission), that provides for the  involvement of the key players and a means to help reach consensus on any  specific restructuring proposals that would be submitted for consideration  by the Congress.