[Senate Hearing 111-] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] PERFORMANCE ``STAT'': MEASURING PRIORITIES, PROGRESS, AND RESULTS ---------- MONDAY, JULY 12, 2010 U.S. Senate, Committee on the Budget and the Task Force on Government Performance, Annapolis, MD The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:07 p.m., in the Governor's Reception Room, Maryland State House, 100 State Circle, Annapolis, Maryland, Hon. Mark Warner, Chairman of the Task Force, presiding. Present: Senators Warner and Cardin. Also present: Representative Sarbanes. Staff present: John Righter, Ben Licht, Ronald Storhaug, Amy Edwards, and Gregory McNeil. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WARNER Senator Warner. The hearing will come to order. I want to first welcome everyone and thank you for being here. In particular, thanks to Governor O'Malley for hosting us here in the Maryland State House in Annapolis. Our task force greatly appreciates the cooperation and assistance provided by you and your staff. I want to thank my colleagues Senator Cardin and Congressman Sarbanes for accompanying me to this hearing. Of course, it was perhaps a little shorter trip for both of them than for me--although maybe not. Coming from Alexandria, it is not that far. I want to particularly thank Senator Cardin. He is an important member of both the Senate Budget Committee and the Government Performance Task Force, and I have benefited greatly from his guidance and support. This is an official hearing of the Government Performance Task Force of the U.S. Senate Budget Committee. The hearing is being webcast, and an official record of it will be provided to our colleagues in the Senate. The record will include the full written statements provided by each of the witnesses, and we are going to have two panels today. Let me make my statement, then I will call on Senator Cardin and Congressman Sarbanes for comments, and then we will get to the Governor. I would like to begin by welcoming everyone to the Government Performance Task Force Hearing, ``Performance `Stat': Measuring Priorities, Progress, and Results.'' [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.085 Today we will explore how the Stat performance management model uses data to directly improve outcomes and how it has been used at all levels of Government in the State of Maryland. Today also marks the tenth anniversary of the Stat model in Maryland, and I know Governor O'Malley started it in Baltimore as CitiStat. As I mentioned, I am honored to be joined by both Senator Cardin and Congressman Sarbanes. When I first came to the U.S. Senate, I was asked to chair this task force. The task force works to examine the Federal Government performance policies. Now, this is normally a fairly wonky category, but as we are in periods of enormous budget challenges, trying to get this part right in terms of Government performance measurements and procedures is going to become, I think, a wave of the future. And, again, we are with one of the leaders here with Governor O'Malley. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.086 This task force works to improve the information base for Federal decisionmaking, helps us refocus goals. We focus a lot on data and reporting information that matters to Congress, and we are looking at how we can perhaps use some of these tools to develop cross-cutting policy goals across various agencies and departments. Our goal is to create a more efficient Government and identify savings for the American taxpayers. Now, this is a particular area of interest for me. As some of you in the audience know, I am a former Governor of Virginia. This was an area that I focused on during my tenure there. We developed some of the similar cross-cutting policy goals and measures to support them, similar to what Governor O'Malley has done. As a matter of fact, we even changed our budget processes so we could see those results, and I was proud that during my tenure Virginia was named the best managed State in the country. Of course, I will acknowledge that was before Governor O'Malley was in office. Today the Stat model is sweeping across the country. If we could go ahead to the next chart, this initiative started in Maryland. If you look all across the country at how many other locations, you can see the model is used in D.C., San Francisco, St. Louis, Atlanta, Washington State, among others. A total of 11 cities have adopted CitiStat. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.087 The Federal Government is also implementing the Stat model; however, we have a lot of work to do in D.C., and we need to do what Governor O'Malley has already done in Maryland: create governmentwide goals and incent our Federal agencies to work more closely together to achieve those goals. The Governor's administration has worked to define 15 strategic and visionary goals to improve the quality of life in Maryland. The Governor's delivery unit was created to work with agencies to align State and Federal resources around those 15 goals. Now, as somebody who wrestled with this issue at the State level, how you align Federal funding flows to actually meet your State goals, I am anxious to hear if you cracked that code. I am anxious to hear, again, from the Governor on his successes and challenges. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.088 The Stat model, as we have up here on this chart, is relatively simple. Government must set clear goals. You have to hold agencies accountable. You have to make sure that once you set those goals and you tell the agencies you are going to hold them accountable, you actually have regular progress meetings. Time and again I found that even as Governor, if you set a directive, unless you are consciously relentless on following up the progress of reaching those goals, there are some in the work force that might just say, well, this guy is going to be gone at some point, and even more so in Virginia where it was a 4-year term. But I think that regular progress meetings are very important. Strong analytical support and then aggressive followup. I would add that the Obama administration has taken the Stat model as well and is implementing it at the Federal level with TechStat, launched by the Federal CIO, Vivek Kundra. TechStat provides a forum for examining at-risk and failing IT projects. An IT dashboard website was established to help provide data to inform TechStat meetings. Plans are underway to convene quarterly meetings between the OMB and agencies to discuss progress in achieving high-priority performance goals and to establish a Federal Government web portal that focuses on performance. This area around IT projects and failure sometimes of those projects, I think most of us have read about. I have personally been involved as the local Senator on the failure of Arlington Cemetery to keep appropriate records of our fallen heroes, and if there was ever a case of an example of an ill-performed and ill-monitored IT project, it is what has been going on at Arlington Cemetery. We are in the process of trying to get that fixed. While overall we are starting to see signs that our economy is growing again, millions of Americans are still facing hardships and turning to State and local governments at a time when governments are cutting back on services. Again, it is critical for governments at every level to identify savings to improve the services they offer. While most Stat initiatives have been well received as efforts to institutionalize good management practices, some concerns have been raised about agency capacity and workload and the limitations of the data that is collected. However, critics cannot deny that the Stat model has enhanced transparency between high-level officials and the organizations' operating units. One of the things I hope the Governor will at least comment on is, in moving toward this Stat model, whether part of encouraging the work force is also to look at ways you would eliminate some of the past data collection efforts that might not be useful data. I believe the model is working, and I believe that we can at the Federal level learn a lot about what is going on, not only at the State level here, but in our second panel when we get to what is going on at the county and city level as well. So, with that, I will turn to my colleague Senator Cardin and then Congressman Sarbanes for comments, and then we will get to the panel. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARDIN Senator Cardin. Well, first, Governor O'Malley, thank you for your hospitality in allowing us to use this historic State House for our Committee hearing. I cannot think of a more appropriate place, so thank you very much for your hospitality. Senator Warner, I want to thank you and congratulate you for your leadership. This task force was the recommendation of Senator Warner. Senator Warner brings a wealth of experience in Government management to his position as the Senator from Virginia, and he is looked upon by his colleagues in the U.S. Senate as a person who can lead us in the right direction in trying to get a handle on our most important responsibility, and that is Government oversight, accountability, performance standards, spending the taxpayers' money in a correct way, not only in the allocation of priorities but in the manner in which those dollars are spent. So I thank Senator Warner for his leadership. It is nice to have Congressman Sarbanes with us. Congressman Sarbanes is my Congressman, and I think he is doing a great job in the U.S. Congress. It is always nice to be with him. To Ike Leggett, our county executive from Montgomery County, who has one of the toughest jobs in America, the size of his county, the complexity, and demands of his constituency are second to none, and he does an incredible job in managing resources with very, very high expectations from the people who live in Montgomery County. County Executive Leggett is meeting those expectations. So it is nice to have all of our colleagues here. Our State is home to more than 50 Federal agencies, including the Census Bureau in Prince George's County; the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health in Montgomery County; the National Security Agency in Anne Arundel County; and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Social Security Administration in Baltimore County. In all, more than 132,000 Federal employees, many of whom, work in Washington, D.C., reside in the State of Maryland. The Task Force on Government Performance represents an opportunity for us to evaluate how effectively Government is functioning and to examine the mission assigned to our Federal employees and whether they are given the necessary tools and resources to fulfill it. Whether by increasing agencies' coordination, improving management, or streamlining hiring or other personnel practices, our efforts in Congress in conjunction with those of the Obama administration can improve the outlook on both of these fronts. I am honored to serve on the Budget Committee. One of the most important responsibilities of the Congress is to pass a budget to establish the priorities of our Government. But it is more than just establishing our priorities. The Budget Committee is also responsible for the budget process, to make sure that we have efficiency and accountability in the manner in which we determine the budget for the Nation. And that is why this task force is so important. These are most challenging times with unprecedented deficits and, to be a little gentle about this, skepticism among our constituents as to how well Government is doing its work. It is even more important than ever for the work of this task force to restore the type of confidence necessary for us to be able to govern. So I think all the work that we are doing is very, very important. I just want to point out that our witnesses today can be extremely helpful. As mayor of Baltimore and then Governor, Martin O'Malley has been nationally recognized for developing tools to quantitatively measure performance. Two of his initiatives, CitiStat and StateStat, use data to increase accountability, transparency, and cooperation between agencies. These initiatives have been studied by international organizations and local governments across the country, and they have been recognized by the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. In addition, Lieutenant Governor Brown has developed BRACStat to evaluate the BRAC-related progress in our State. Now, Senator Warner, let me tell you, I have seen Governor O'Malley use the Stat process, and I must tell you, I haveten there a little bit early and I've seen the administrative heads come into the meeting a little worried and concerned, because they know that either Mayor O'Malley or Governor O'Malley has really studied the material and expects to see performance improvement. He does not just have one meeting and then 2 years later have another meeting. He has regular meetings with his department heads, using the information with expectations as to how he can improve performance, and having the administrators sign off on what Stats should be improved at the next meeting. And then when they show up at the next meeting, the Governor will quiz them as to whether they have accomplished that increase. And I must tell you, it has been extremely effective. I think Governor O'Malley is one of the most effective Governors not only in the history of our State but I think in our Nation in using hese performance evaluations to make sure taxpayer money is being properly spent. We can learn a lot at the Federal level from what has been done in Maryland and what has been done in Montgomery County, Maryland. I understand that the State budget is $32 billion and the Federal budget is $3.5 trillion. But we can learn from how things are done at the State level. The Montgomery County budget is--I have your budget here, Ike--$4.6 billion. Now, that is a lot of money by anybody's calculation. Again, we are dealing with multi-trillion-dollar Federal budgets. But if we do not break it down to smaller elements, we will never really get the type of efficiency and accountability needed. So I really do think we can take the best practices from Montgomery County, the best practices from Baltimore City, the best practices from the State of Maryland, and we can do much better at the Federal level, and that is why I was so pleased that this hearing was scheduled here in Annapolis. Let me just give a little advance warning to the three witnesses. There are three areas that I will be asking specific questions about. We will not have a Government that performs at its highest potential without a work force that is given the opportunity to perform at that level as well. Interestingly, employee performance management dates back to 1883 when the Civil Service Act established a merit system to handle promotions. This is a longstanding reform effort that continues today. I will be interested in hearing how our witnesses have modified your personnel practices, including retention strategies, training, and merit increases as a result of the information you gather from your performance evaluation programs. In other words, how are we putting information into practice to best incentivize our workers to do the work that we want them to? Second, as the world's largest buyer of goods and services, with purchases of more than $425 billion each year, the Federal Government has an unparalleled opportunity to promote efficiency and entrepreneurship through awarding contracts to American small businesses. We have a Federal set-aside program; 23 percent of the Government's procurements are targeted at small firms, and individual agencies have goals set in coordination with SBA for contracts with veteran-, women-, and minority-owned firms. Unfortunately, our record of meeting these goals is spotty. Last year, only one agency--GSA--met its goals in all areas, and two agencies--OPM and USAID--met none of their goals. So as a member of the Small Business Committee, I believe these set- asides are critically important for economic growth in our community, for creating jobs, and for encouraging the type of innovation that comes from small businesses. How can these performance evaluations can be used to help us meet the goals for small business contracting; what obstacles you have encountered in meeting those goals; and what strategies are you developing to improve Government performance in this area? And the third area I would like to talk to you about is the coordination between the legislative and executive branches. Senator Warner talks about this frequently. If we are going to be successful, we have to be on the same page. You can do a lot of work in identifying issues, at the Executive level, but if we do not enact the policies or support you with our actions, then the executive actions will be overruled by the efforts made by the legislative branch. How can we get the legislative and executive branches on the same script to make Government work more accountably? Also, I would be interested in your observations as to how your findings have been used by the General Assembly or by the County Council in implementing the type of policy changes that reflect the good work that you have done with your staff programs. With that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to our witnesses and look forward to the exchange we will have after their testimony. Senator Warner. Thank you, Senator Cardin. Thank you for your leadership on this issue. And setting out, I know, Governor, we are going to have a few questions for you afterwards. Congressman Sarbanes? OPENING STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN SARBANES Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you very much, Senator Warner. I am going to keep my remarks brief because I want to hear from the Governor and from the other witnesses. But I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the hearing today. I think all the witnesses are going to give us some good information about how the Federal Government can model some of our practices after what you have done at the State level and the county level to improve efficiency. I have been very involved on the House side with procurement reform, which is designed to do this, and I will have some questions along those lines when we get to that part of the hearing. I do want to salute the Governor, though, because he has been a leader on this from day one. And I will tell you the impact it had in Baltimore City, because when CitiStat was started, I was still in the private sector, and the effect it had on the private sector's perspective on the public sector was tremendous. In other words, when the private sector saw the kinds of efficiencies and the management improvements that came from CitiStat, it made the private sector more willing to step up in the partnership with the city. And I think that is one of the things that we can gain from this. If there is a perception that Government is managing its affairs in an efficient way, that is going to promote more collaboration between the private sector and the Government sector. Then the last thing I just wanted to mention is I do not think anyone understands better than this Governor how you have to never forget what the stats are about. It is easy to become mesmerized by the Stat model, but at the end of the day it is about using it to improve the quality of lives, in this case of Marylanders, and help them get through their day and do the right thing for Maryland families. And the Governor has always understood that this is just a tool to that end. So we are really looking forward to your testimony today, Governor, and I yield back. Senator Warner. Thank you, Congressman Sarbanes. You have heard this line from me before, but as the former co-founder of Nextel, it does not offend me at all if cell phones go off during hearings like this. [Laughter.] Senator Warner. One quick last comment before I introduce the Governor, and that is just picking up on what both Senator Cardin and Congressman Sarbanes have said. I want to hear your testimony, but I want to also commend you because you have to be relentless on this stuff. You know, everybody talks about saving money. Everybody talks about bringing efficiency. But this is hard work, and to try to keep whether it is your legislators, your work force, the press interested, people's eyes glaze over when you start talking about some of these performance metrics. But since this is now 10 years that you have been at it, I salute you for your efforts. Our first panelist will be Governor Martin O'Malley. He has a long history of public service. He served as Assistant State's Attorney for Baltimore City, a member of the Baltimore City Council, and eventually mayor of Baltimore City. Governor O'Malley has been a real innovator in the area of performance measurement and management in Maryland, building and improving upon the Stat model that he started during his tenure as mayor. His administration has been focused on developing goals for the State of Maryland to achieve real results. The Governor has also received national recognition for his and Maryland's implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds. Governor, we are again pleased that you were willing to host us here. We are anxious to hear your testimony, and the floor is now yours. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARTIN J. O'MALLEY, GOVERNOR, STATE OF MARYLAND Governor O'Malley. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. We are flattered by your visit to Baltimore and for bringing the Committee here, and I also want to thank Senator Cardin for his very kind words and also Congressman Sarbanes, and also for their leadership. I have a great delegation. You do not mind if I brag about them a little bit. I do not think there is another Governor in America that has a delegation as strong as our delegation is in Maryland, and, again, we really appreciate your leadership on these issues. And I personally appreciate, Senator Warner, when you were Governor Warner, that you took the time to spend with me and gave me some great advice as I was taking over the responsibility and the trust of running our State government. And I welcome you to the oldest State capital in America in continuous legislative use, and I am also looking forward to hearing Ike Leggett's testimony, who has really picked up the Stat model, run with it at the county level in a very large and complex county, and he is one of the best county executives in the country and is taking my home county to another level. In times when governments are finding an increased necessity to do more with less, measuring performance is more important than ever, and the topic of this Task Force on Government Performance could not be more important than it is right now. I believe that our Government should actually work to protect our quality of life, improve our quality of live, and improve the conditions that allow us to create jobs, save jobs, and that allow small businesses to create and save jobs. And having a functioning, livable city or State, making timely investments in effective ways in the talents of our people and the health of our people is all a part of that. The things that get measured are the things that get done. We have heard that said time and again. But it does require that expectation of progress, and it does require a relentless system that forces human beings into the same room to actually coordinate, cooperate, communicate, and find ways to make things better even though there might be a lot less dollars to do them this quarter than there were the last quarter. It is hard to believe that it has been 10 years since we began that first CitiStat meeting in the city of Baltimore, and Congressman Sarbanes reminded me of the perspective of business people. That room was visited so often during my 7 years that I served the people as mayor there, and people coming from government, Chairman Warner, would come into that room, and they would say, ``I cannot believe you guys are doing this.'' Then people from business would come into that room, and they would say, ``Thank God you guys are finally doing this.'' Today, if you plug the term ``CitiStat'' or ``CompStat'' into Google, you will see them popping up all across the country, in big cities and small. It is a testament to any good idea when people want to adopt it, which is what we did at the inception of CitiStat, actually adapting and bringing home the tenets which helped New York City's Police Department achieve such dramatic reductions in crime under the leadership of Commissioner Bratton and also Deputy Commissioner Maple. The Stat model which we have brought with us to State government merges emerging technologies that we just did not have in widespread use 10, 15 years ago, like GIS, geographic information-based systems, with certain timeless human principles, mainly setting goals openly and accountably measuring progress, and on that one, Jack Maple would say everyone, when you say that second one, measure progress openly and accountably so that everybody has the information, you will always get pushback. People say, well, you mean some people get the information. No. All people get the information, and the most important people that need to be able to see that information is the public, which we can now do because of the Internet, and broadly sharing information rather than hoarding it, finding the willingness to change course when necessary to move our graphs in the right direction before a headline or a bad story tells you that it is not going in the right direction. Governments tends to do, have traditionally done a decent job of measuring inputs: how much we are budgeting for a specific priority. But the Stat model is really governance by outputs--measuring how effectively and efficiently we are delivering results, taking action to get better results. I enjoy laying out these two tenets of city government and human nature. They are timeless, actually. These were the old tenets of city government, and it was true across the country, and it was true in our State government. If the Governor really wants to know, we can find out, but we will have to pull all our people off their other jobs and it will take weeks. Tenet number 2, we will get to it as soon as we can, but it will take a few months longer because our budget was cut last year. Tenet number 3, my favorite, that is the way we have always done it, or we are already doing that, or we tried that and it did not work. And how many of us have heard all of those things. Or the fourth one that Senator Warner alluded to, I hope the legislature forgets about this before next year's budget hearing. This cannot be episodic. It has to be a system. When faced with the adversity of turning around the public safety situation in the city of Baltimore, these were the new tenets, the Stat tenets that we used there, that we use here. Timely, accurate intelligence or information shared by all, and all means all, including the public, not just top managers, including workers, not just top managers; rapid deployment of resources; effective tactics and strategies; and relentless followup and assessment. When we faced the adversity of turning our city around from violence and addiction, schools that had been failing for a long time where not even one grade was majority proficient in reading or math, tons of vacant houses in neighborhoods with a lot of vacant hearts, and we began measuring and geo-mapping every conceivable service problem and opportunity. And the great thing about the map is a map does not know whether a neighborhood is black or white or rich or poor, Democratic or Republican. The map tells us where our opportunities are and, therefore, where we need to deploy our limited resources to take advantage of those opportunities for improving our quality of life. This is an example of our pothole map. We have a map for that. We were accused in the early days by a former mayor of Baltimore of not having any vision, so we came out with the 48- hour pothole guarantee, and we were able to hit it with a 98- percent success rate, and part of that was because we already knew we were hitting it in 53 hours. And so people rise to those higher expectations. Another example, sadly, we call it the kidneys of death. This shows the concentration of homicides and shootings in the city of Baltimore in 1999 and then 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003. You get the point. Baltimore over the last 10 years has achieved the biggest reduction of Part 1 crimes--that is, violent and property crimes--of any of the major cities in America. We are third in violent crime reduction, only behind Los Angeles and New York, thanks to courageous police officers and thanks to a much better system of timely, accurate information, relentless follow-up, tactics, strategies, and making the graphs move in the right direction. Let me run you fast-forward through some of the examples of this as we have been applying it to State government, where oftentimes, as the Senator knows, and actually both Senators know from both having worked at the highest ranks of State government, a lot of times the movement from municipal services or county services to State government becomes more complex, less immediate to the eye, and can sometimes defy measurement. But we still subscribe to Jack Maple's belief that everything can be measured. So through the State Stat process, senior staff and I meet with key agency leaders not once a year or once a quarter but every single month to track our progress, to share information, to determine where things are working, and where we need to do better. And our delivery unit works with agencies every day to help them deliver better results around big goals that we have openly set for our States--15 major goals, dozens of sub-goals. And there are some who warn against setting big goals: It is political precarious. What happens if you do not hit your goal? Everybody will say, Aha, you only got three-quarters of the way there. I find that people are pretty smart, and they would much rather have a government that is setting goals and sometimes falling short than a government that is not setting any goals and is instead slipping backward. We have exceeded some goals, and some we have not hit, but always we move forward in an open and transparent way. Over the past 4 years, we have been able, together with law enforcement, to drive down violent crime in Maryland to its lowest level since 1975, including the steepest 3-year reduction in homicides, I think, over these last 3 years, driven homicides to their lowest rate since 1975. Our violence prevention initiative, we now track the most violent offenders who statistics and probabilities tell us have the highest propensity to commit further acts of violence if they are not tightly monitored, and so that is what we now do. When we took office, we found that our predecessors had allowed a backlog of 24,000 unanalyzed DNA samples to collect dust, had neglected to collect an additional 15,000 that were legally mandated, samples that were to have been taken from people that have been convicted. We used our State Stat process to guide our efforts to eliminate both of these backlogs, and since that time, we have made 245 arrests of some pretty bad actors that would not have been made had we not knocked out that backlog of DNA samples, uploaded them so that law enforcement could clear those cases. We have also created a public safety dashboard where we are integrating--boy, this is a nightmare graph, isn't it? Our public safety dashboard has led to the integration of data that we had always had, had always collected, but had never been accessible to a law enforcement officer who is working a case with one click of a button. We have now put together data from our prison system, parole, probation, firearm registries, our fingerprint systems, mug shots, DNA, motor vehicle records, taxation records, and many other sources, and all a law enforcement officer needs is a user name and password to have real access to all of that data in realtime. We are now receiving 25,000 to 40,000 queries a day from 100 different agencies all around the State. It is almost like Google for crime solving where we have been able to put together this data. NASA actually came to see how some smart people forced to meet relentlessly without any additional money came out with clever ways within existing budgets to piece this together. The Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, we have been able to reduce overtime by 20 percent. It did not happen overnight. It happened by measuring it every week, every day, every 2 weeks, and when you look over your shoulder, you save $10 million in overtime by constantly doing the little things that together get you the big results over time. You might have heard some of the ads in the telecommunications industry. There is a map for that. You could summarize our strategy as that we are geo-mapping everything. One person explained it to me this way: We always hear about the pyramids of human organizations, in this case different departments, and those pyramids, you could spend a lifetime trying to connect through IT solutions up and down that pyramid with the complexity of individuals doing complex jobs up and down that pyramid. But if the base of all of those pyramids has to land on a common map with GIS, with coordinates, people start organizing their information in such a way that those efforts become integrated and collated together. We have created for the first time in our State a number of GIS maps. We have created a base iMap. We have created GreenPrint and AgPrint through which we now have done an ecological ranking of every parcel of land in the State of Maryland so that when we preserve land or use precious dollars for the preservation of open space, we are able to give the public an objective criteria ranking this. You can pull it up in your own county and see in a dashboard type way how much of our GreenPrint have we preserved, how much remains to be preserved, in order for the bay to have a fighting chance at functioning. We have done the same thing with our agriculture lands to better see where those lands are so hopefully at the county levels and municipal levels we can better protect contiguous farm economies that still, thank goodness, exist in our State and that we need, that our ecosystem needs to breathe, and that all of us need in order to buy local and sustain ourselves in better ways for the environment. For the first time in our State, we are also mapping now our capital budget so citizens can click on and see where the dollars are being invested in their neighborhood. We are using BayStat to guide our efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay. This is one slide from that map which shows the sources of nitrogen, phosphorous--no, in this case it is actually just the nitrogen and the sectors that contribute to that. Whether it is wastewater treatment plants, farms, stormwater run-off, septic systems, or the forests, we can click on to any of those ten tributaries and show you how it differs from one area to another. And we also have about 26 solutions that we track on a tributary-by-tributary basis. This one is commodity cover crops in order to keep the nitrogen from rolling off over the course of the winter. The Federal Government has now adopted a BayStat initiative for their own drive to help us clean up the Chesapeake Bay and get in all six of the watershed States to agree to two things: One of them was the 2-year milestones, critically important. Things that get watched are the things that get done, if you measure them and you have deadline. And so now instead of a 20- year deadline, we have 2-year milestones so we will know whether we are hitting it, whether we are not hitting it. And also the Federal Government is creating ChesapeakeStat, which is a GIS-based system, so that all of these six States can also coordinate and cooperate. This is from our 2-year plan on--our 2-year milestone. The green line is where we are trying to move. The red line is the human activity across all of those various actions from cover crops to upgrading stormwater rules and regs, upgrading wastewater treatment plants, installing more modern septic systems, getting communities off of septics and on to sewer. And so we have set 2-year milestones, and we are committed not only to holding ourselves accountable but really the value of this is not--the value of this is that the public--that we are able to hold one another accountable as neighbors for what it is that are common platform that we call our State government, or in this case our county, State, and Federal Government is doing, what we are doing together to improve our quality of life. Beth, let us click through the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. President Obama and Congress very courageously and rightly passed the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Had we not done that, we would all be sitting in the middle, in the depths of the second Great Depression instead of debating whether we were moving quickly enough into recovery. We took the President's challenge on the Recovery and Reinvestment Act very seriously. He challenged all of the Governors to make sure that we measure performance at a level of openness and transparency the likes of which we had never seen before. Fortunately, we already had the iMap in place, so we were able to just plug in the dollars that came to the State. We used StateStat and our first in the Nation iMap to target those Recovery and Reinvestment Act dollars, to rapidly deploy the resources, to ensure that we were hitting our goals for Minority Business Enterprise when we award these contracts, and to guard against the possibility of waste, fraud, and abuse. And we believe that the best elixir against waste, fraud, and abuse is openness and transparency. Information shared by just the legislature? No. Information shared by all. Just by the legislature and the managers and the county executives? No. Shared by all. The press that serves the public, the public themselves that is served by all of us. Beth Blauer, our StateStat director, is demonstrating our recovery website. It has been rated the No. 1 site in America. The head of President Obama's Recovery Act and Transportation and Accountability Board has cited our mapping initiatives as the basis for those that are now being implemented by the Federal Government. Beth, what do you want to tell us here? We are clicking on to any of those icons that can tell you in transportation, in Montgomery County. This is a resurfacing project. It is on I- 495, Potomac River Bridge to 270, construction costs--hold on just a second. My old eyes. What is that, 7.48? Ms. Blauer. 7.49. Governor O'Malley. 7.49. Estimated jobs is---- Ms. Blauer. It is 98. Governor O'Malley. 98. Ms. Blauer. It was advertised. Governor O'Malley. Advertised on February 17, 2009. There is the bid date. There is the--what is the NTP? Ms. Blauer. Notice to Proceed. Governor O'Malley. Notice to Proceed date. And there is the MBE goal, 18.9 percent on this particular contract. We have used this on our MBE program. You know, we have long had, thanks to Parren Mitchell's leadership, the highest MBE goals of any State in the Nation, but for the first time, we actually believe we are going to hit that 25-percent goal this year. It did not happen in the first year, it did not happen in the second year. But every year we got closer. What are you showing me here, Beth? Ms. Blauer. This is the MBE attainment for just ARRA---- Governor O'Malley. I am sorry. I did not see that you had a microphone. You might pull that over for--that is why I was repeating as you were whispering in my ear. Ms. Blauer. Each quarter we also put out the MBE performance for all of the ARRA contracts separately on their map so you could see where we are toward our goal for just ARRA spending. Governor O'Malley. The nice thing about this is you can go into--any person in any county can go on this at home and say those Recovery and Reinvestment Act dollars, where are those? What are those projects? Let me click on it. It is also a way that we are able to make sure that those dollars are being invested in a way that is fair to all the jurisdictions, that does not leave our rural Maryland or inner Beltway in the Washington area or the city of Baltimore. As I close, I just want to whip through a few more examples of some of my favorite sites, which are graphs that are moving in the right direction. Mr. Chairman, we have graphs that move in the wrong direction. We have chosen not to share them with the Committee today. [Laughter.] Governor O'Malley. Reducing the number of children placed in--are we OK, Beth? Ms. Blauer. Yes, we are good. Governor O'Malley. Reducing the number of children who are placed in group homes. Instead, we drive up adoptions, drive up other things so the children--because place matters. Cracking down on Medicaid fraud, moving in the right direction. Inmates participating in employment programs so they have some sort of job skill and hope when they come out instead of a higher likelihood of recidivism, moving in the right direction. Energy performance contracts, something we never did in the State until recently, moving in the right direction. Reducing fatalities on our highways, moving in the right direction, and if you save just one life, it is as if you have saved the world. Expanding health care coverage to more of our fellow citizens rather than fewer, moving in the right direction. Robert Kennedy once said that there is no basic inconsistency between ideals and realistic possibilities, no separation between the deepest desires of the heart and of mind and the rational application of human effort to human problems. And that is what this system is all about, is the rational application of human effort to human problems. And that is what performance-based government is about, and, again, thank you so very, very much for coming to Maryland and bringing your Committee here. [The prepared statement of Governor O'Malley follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.035 Senator Warner. Thank you, Governor O'Malley. Thank you for your presentation. In respect of your time, we will try to make sure each of us takes 5 or 6 minutes in our question period, and particular kudos on not only the whole presentation but the data you have on the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It is so critical because I think--I can only speak for my State--a lot of folks did not understand what that act involved, did not understand it was the third largest tax cut in American history, did not understand the dollars that went to the State or other programs, and what you have done with ARRA funds is to be commended. Also on MBE, that was an area that we were woefully behind in Virginia in just not having data, and being able to do that buy project, I give you great congratulations. Governor, you tried this model out at the city level where you could get your arms around it. You grew it to the State level. We are thinking now about how do we take it to the Federal level. I guess I have a two-part question as my first question. One, advice or counsel to us as we try to think about how we implement this or implement portions of this at the Federal level. Should it be done on a holistic basis? Because you set 15 policy goals broadly as your basic function to start the whole process. Or recognizing the enormity of the Federal Government, would you recommend taking it in chunks as opposed to Federal Government-wide? And could you also talk for a moment about, as you get these goals and as you lay out these details, clearly they do not all fit into an exact silo of a particular department, so you have to have these goals embraced by, I would imagine, agency leadership beyond a particular agency. So how did you get at that cross-cutting ability to get all of your various silos to work together on these common goals? Governor O'Malley. I would say the two biggest--the foundational decisions we made as CitiStat started ramping up was that we were all going to use a common GIS map, and we were all going to use a common template for reporting information. Now, we did not care what you labeled these columns, but those were the two standards that we really insisted upon. And it took a little while because some departments would come and say, ``Oh, but we really like our software and the way we have done our map.'' ``Well, we are sure you do, but we are going to use''--I think it was the Department of Public Works that picked the best GIS system. That can only come about, I think, with strong executive insistence. If you leave it to people to do it on their own, I think you are in for trouble. It is like trying to run a railroad on 25 different gauges of track. You have to have one gauge of track. You have to have one map. You have to have one common template that then can be shared among all the departments, and something that is as user-friendly, as off- the-shelf as possible. People would come from other cities and be shocked at how cost-neutral we were able to ramp up the CitiStat process. Well, that is because we used off-the-shelf software. The GIS map at the time was a new thing, but that is pretty ubiquitous now. Ms. Blauer. Our application, if another State wanted to come in and replicate what we have done with RecoveryStat, all of the application is free. You can just go onto a resource page and download it. So it is a very minimal cost, and most States already have pretty well developed GIS programs, and all they need to do is just basically download the application. Governor O'Malley. Now, having said that, we did ramp up one department at a time. I mean, there are only so many hours in a 14-day cycle, and so we did ramp up those meetings adding a new department every few weeks for that first year. And so we added the departments one at a time, but it was only after we let them know, You are coming, here is your turn in the queue, you might want to think about what the primary colors of measurement are. One of the things that we learned--I think it was--someone on the panel talked about how you can become mesmerized with the--John was saying you become mesmerized with all the things you can measure now that you could not measure before. You have really got to hone in on the main goals, especially in order to get cross-departmental collaboration. At the municipal level, our mission statement was a cleaner, healthier city, better place for kids, a place where people want to invest and grow their businesses. Those were our big goals, and every department knew they had to contribute to those in some ways. At the departmental level, in solid waste, one of the things we did was to--we had a competition before Christmas, not on A to Z performance measurement, but the primary colors, if you will, of solid waste becoming better: the tonnage they collect, fewer citizen complaints, less absenteeism and, therefore, less overtime. And based on those four things, I think the Abell Foundation gave us some cash incentives for the crews that could finish first, second, third. The crew that went from last place to first place, that actually happened. One crew that was in last place stayed in last place, I believe made more overtime by keeping their absenteeism high and their unexcused absences than if they had gone after the prize. But the thing that we have done at the State level was to create a unit that we borrowed from Tony Blair called the Delivery Unit. In our State government, we used to have--there was really no robust policy office. We never had one. No Governor ever had one. But out of legislative frustration, the legislature would see that we were not coordinating in ways that would allow us to grow in a smarter way between transportation, housing, planning, and other departments, so they created by legislative initiative, usually--although this one, I think, came from Governor Glendenning--Office of Smart Growth. We would see that we were not coordinating like we should across social services, education, health in order to protect children, youth, and families, so we created an Office of Children, Youth, and Families. So we consolidated those offices. Another one, Governor's Office of Crime Control and Prevention. Well, why do we need that office? Because we are not cooperating in order to control crime and prevent crime across rec. departments and police and the like. So we have consolidated all of those now into a delivery unit in State government that works in conjunction with the performance measurement around 15 big goals and links together what is a much more attenuated chain of delivering results at the State level than we had, say, in filling that pothole, which took about three steps. You know, a person calls, the crew goes. Senator Warner. Let me ask one more, recognizing I want to get my colleagues time in, too. We actually did have Michael Barber come in and talk to us about the Delivery Unit model from the U.K., which was very helpful. But one of the things, just as Senator Cardin and I have delved into this, we see at the Federal level, every new administration reinvents the wheel on what performance management and performance metrics ought to be. Go back. Clinton had one, Bush had one, President Obama has got one now. And one of the things we are hoping, working with President Obama's administration, is with a legislative partner we can institutionalize this. Talk to me a little bit about how--you have talked for a moment about how you get the public involved, but how do you keep the press involved as using this as a way to measure your performance? How do you get your legislators to buy into that these are the right measurement tools and that they could all argue if you agree that the charts ought to be going this way, you can argue about how you get there, but if you at least agree on what the common framework is, you are halfway through the battle. I mean, have you found ways to try to bring your legislature involved in this? Have you found ways to keep the press and the public actively engaged? Governor O'Malley. The city council, we were able to get them on board by giving them all portals so that they could access--we created a 3-1-1 system on the front end for city services as well. So that is how we got the city council on board when they were a little bit concerned that we might be cutting them out of the constituent service business. The openness and the transparency allows everybody to use it. The legislature here has embraced it. It has been very supportive of it, appreciative that they can come to the meetings if they like and see whether we are moving in the right direction or not. I hope over time it informs better legislative policy if we continue to keep it going and open and transparent. The media has been a tougher sell because some of this stuff, if you only look at it incrementally, can be like watching the paint dry and not the stuff that in an overworked press corps makes the headlines. We are trying to drive more and more people to the website, and it has been a bit of a frustration--I should not say frustration. We have yet to really communicate to the public just how much more open, transparent, and accessible their State government has been made. The Recovery and Reinvestment opportunity was a good shot at that, doing some of the town halls around it. Beth, did you want to chime in on something? Ms. Blauer. I think also we have for the first time all of the data and summaries of what happens in the meetings is available on the website as well. So we certainly--States that have been asked to come and meet with legislators during the session as they are articulating their ideas before the session, we were brought in. And this session was really probably the first time where we really spent a lot of time sharing the information and explaining how to access the information that is available on our website. Governor O'Malley. We had been putting it on the website in such a dense way that nobody could sort through it. So now we haveten a little better at boiling it down and giving people more sort of the executive dashboard summaries like I receive when I go into a meeting and sit there. This is how they look. It is in English. You have the charts and the graphs. Hopefully more and more people--we find our labor leaders will look at this site a lot more than anybody else does. And some of the things we are doing on stewardship with the bay is driving a lot of traffic to the BayStat website and a little bit to this website as well: Marylanders plant trees, Marylanders grow oysters, and children and nature, and those sorts of thing. Senator Warner. We appreciate it. I personally appreciate it. I hope you will stick to it, and with that, Senator Cardin? Senator Cardin. Well, thank you, Governor O'Malley. I am always impressed by, and enjoy watching, your the presentations. I have looked at it many times, and it is very impressive, and it really does help the public to understand what you are trying to get done. It gives them more confidence that you are trying to use resources in a most effective way. I want to followup on Senator Warner's point about how the legislature and executive can be on the same page on this. You have given many examples in which legislators have been part of the process. They have had a chance to see the statistical information. They have had a chance to challenge whether you are using the correct barometers, and you have been receptive to their comments. But let me just challenge you as a former House of Delegates speaker and as a former State about legislator how we judge the independence of the legislative branch of Government. Probably there is no more clear place in the Maryland budget process than in the capital budget. And you have indicated you are putting more information up on the capital budget right now. I am curious as to how your evaluation process would be used. If your evaluation process shows that you are getting a better return for the public dollar in one area of Maryland versus another, but yet your political challenge is from the legislature, particularly on the capital budget, which can alter the Governor's budget, how do you resolve that? What have you learned about how to get legislators to overcome their local bias or their political bias to work together to use the public resources as efficiently as possible to get the best results for the citizens of Maryland? Governor O'Malley. You are clicking on the live map? Ms. Blauer. Yes. Governor O'Malley. I have found whether it was tough decisions like closing firehouses in the city of Baltimore or the tough decisions like the capital allocations in the budget, if everyone can see where the dollars have landed and where the investments have gone, and if you have done it to the best of your ability, in a way that is fair and equitable, and also promotes the statewide one Maryland policy goal, that takes a lot of the pushback that you would otherwise--that is otherwise part of the legislative process. Let me say that another way. In our State--and I will not name any counties, but you know that there is always a reason why ever major county or rural areas believe that they are not treated as fairly by the Governor, whoever the Governor is, because--and then you fill in the blank: Because we are so loyal and Democratic, you take us for granted. Because we are poorer than other jurisdictions, you take us for granted. Because we have more wealth than other jurisdictions, you take us for granted. But when you actually put it out on the map and everybody can see that they are not getting shortchanged and that their neighbor is doing better than they are on the merits of things, that I have found to be the single most helpful--one of the single most helpful tools in getting through these tough budgetary times and the cuts is the fairness that the map so brings home. The willingness to have yourself held open and accountable and audited by that map, by showing where the dollars are landing. I saw a great demonstration of this. Jack Dangermond, who is the head of a company called ESRI--it is the company that does all of our GIS thing, great company. He was showing Ed Rendell, Governor Rendell, who is a big-time advocate for transportation funding and making sure the dollars get to the right places, and he had a map of a State that showed where the most structurally deficient bridges are. He did an overlay on that map to show where the greatest numbers of people travel over those structurally deficient bridges. And then he overlaid on top of that where the Federal dollars for structurally deficient bridges go. And when he clicked that third application, the dollars were all over the map instead of landing on the targets, to which Governor Rendell rightly said, ``None of the money is landing on the targets.'' To which Jack Dangermond responded, ``No, but they are all landing on the map.'' [Laughter.] Governor O'Malley. And so our challenge is the rational application of human effort to human problems, and in that openness and transparency to get it to land--you know, since they are landing on the map, we have just got to coordinate it. And I think the only hope--every legislator feels a tremendous burden to make sure they bring home everybody's fair share of their tax dollar, and I think the map and showing people that we are all in this together and having objective criteria--I mean, for all of the dollars that we have protected for open space, I am not sure we have ever had someone, once we grade it and do it openly, make a solid case that we are not deploying those dollars properly or fairly. And where the GreenPrint is, that is another one. People were afraid, Senator, that if we put the GreenPrint there, people would see where the GreenPrint is, and maybe they might get in the way or obstruct efforts to fulfill that policy goal. But we are taking the chance that our best hope of this republic having better and stronger days is better and more information in the hands and the minds of citizens. Senator Cardin. Well, it would be very useful to do this type of exercise at the national level. I chair the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee on the Environment and Public Works Committee, and we are trying to develop a water bill that reflects the Nation's needs. The politics of this is extremely difficult. It will be interesting to see this type of analysis used at the national level. One last question dealing with your comment about labor leaders looking at these pages rather carefully. I want to hear how the State workforce looks at this and what lessons you have learned. They have legitimate concerns that resources should be made available so they can get their jobs done. And they have a legitimate concern as to whether there is the right motivation as to how we operate the Government for the work they are doing. What have you learned in working this system as it relates to the confidence of our work force? Governor O'Malley. These have been really tough years for public employees. We have had to do furloughs for 3 years in a row. We had to do some consolidations that resulted in layoffs. We have tried our very best to place people in other places wherever possible. But as far as the system itself, it has been my experience that the public employees, like all human beings want to know that when they work hard it is recognized by somebody making the decisions that is leading their organization or their piece of the organization. And so I would like to believe from my interactions, especially around the environmental things and the bay and the like, that there is a certain esprit de corps that is developing even in these tough times from that shared sense of commitment and that openness and that ability to see that, hey, when we are doing things and working hard, somebody at the top recognizes that we are going in the right direction. A lot of times when the press would initially report on this, they would make it seem like it was a firing squad and that the public employees were coming in and offered a blindfold and a cigarette. But that was not the day-to-day experience. The day-to-day experience was men and women would come in and the high performers, when they were recognized, the rest of the organization would recognize that. The great Jack Maple described it to me this way. He said 90 percent of us fall in the middle of the bell curve, and in a big organization it can either lean this way to the leaders or it can lean that way to the slackers. And if the top of the organization recognizes and celebrates the achievers and the leaders and lets everybody know, that organization will tilt toward the leaders. And in that is nation-leading progress. Senator Cardin. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Warner. Thank you. Congressman Sarbanes? Mr. Sarbanes. Well, I was going to ask you a question along those lines, but I will just echo what you said, and that is, I think when you go to change culture, particularly to introduce more performance-based measure, it is critical that there be a feeling on the part of the work force that you are supportive of them, that they are not under attack. And that is a challenge we have had at the Federal level, because sometimes when the initiatives come along, they cause the work force to circle the wagons, and then you cannot make progress in terms of changing that performance culture. So you have to create the accountability, as you have indicated, but also make it clear that there is really strong support for people all through the ranks. And then you get the success that I think you have been able to demonstrate in Baltimore and also at the State level. I have one question. One of the things we are wrestling with at the Federal level is the proper balance between what sort of the inherently governmental jobs are that are done by Federal employees and then what gets outsourced to third parties, to outside contractors. And for a while there in the last administration, my sense and the sense of many was that there was an ideological push toward outsourcing that put things out of whack. I would imagine that the Stat process has allowed you to drill down in a way that you can understand what this proper balance between sort of the employee of the Government is and those resources you need to pull in from outside to deliver a good product to the State. And I thought maybe you could address that. Governor O'Malley. Sure. This process helps you manage your contracts a lot better because, I mean, they also have to perform in their part of this. We have not done a lot of privatization because of the Stat process. What we have done, though, is imbued the State organization, public employees, the bureaucracy of our State government, with a much higher level of managed competition than there was before. Mayor Goldsmith of Indianapolis 10 years ago did a lot with bidding services out for contracts, seeing who could bid better and do it more efficiently. We have not had any success in doing a lot of that. We had one incident some 10 years ago that I will not bore you with where we actually did go totally private on--I think it was building security in the city of Baltimore, and part of that was a loggerhead, and in retrospect I think some of us wish we might have done things differently there. But we did measure the trash collection crews against each other. We measure soil conservation districts against each other now when it comes to signing up farmers for cover crops. We measure parole and probation in terms of the supervision that they provide to our more violent offenders and also the speed with which they get their warrants processed so that we get those offenders off the street more quickly. So if I am answering the call of your question, we have not--we have used this to imbue the entire bureaucracy with a better--with that tool of managed competition, recognizing the leaders, making sure the leaders are seen as leaders by their colleagues. We have not done a lot on the privatization. This has helped us to reduce some redundant contracts where we realized, hey, we had somebody in this department who is providing one technical service, and guess what? Another department was retaining the same company to do the same technical service. Why don't we put them together in one contract? Or, worse, a different company to do the same service. So it has helped us to save some money by consolidating contracts. Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you. Senator Warner. Well, Governor, thank you very much. You have been very generous with your time, and congratulations on this 10-year experiment. I think I go back to that second slide we had when we were up to see the way that this Stat effort has spread across the whole country. Kudos to you and your team. And, again, a final comment, as somebody who has been grappling with some of these issues, particularly more in my old job than this current position, I commend you as well for sticking to it, because getting the public, the press, other shareholders and legislators engaged, involved you got to have the metrics and the measurement tools first, and you have clearly set a way. So congratulations. Governor O'Malley. You know, I think the White House--the Federal Government--not to belabor this, but I think that relentlessness has been something that has been lacking in the way that we have--that the national Government has, to the extent they have approached us in the past, I mean, I cannot go to every meeting, especially now with the campaign in full swing. But, by golly, somebody very close to me is running this whole operation as the chief operating officer all the time. And I think we need a person like that. Senator Warner. Well, if you look at the last three administrations, usually with big fanfare in their first year in office, they announce a reinventing government or Bush had a different one, Obama has got a chief performance officer and others. But it has got to have that relentless---- Governor O'Malley. Right. Senator Warner. Because it is not coming easy. But thank you again for your good work and thank you for appearing before us today. Governor O'Malley. Thank you. Senator Warner. We will now call up the second panel. Our first panel focused on lessons we at the Federal level could learn from State government. This second panel is going to focus on local government. We are very honored to have two distinguished panelists: Ike Leggett, who is the county executive from Montgomery County, and Deputy Mayor Christopher Thomaskutty, the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Operations in Baltimore. I will introduce both of our panelists, and then we will hear testimony from both. Ike Leggett has served as the Montgomery County executive since being elected in November 2006. He has also served four times as an at-large member and as the council president three times and as its vice president three times. He served as a professor of law at Howard University Law School from 1975 to 2006. He ran the day-to-day operations of the law school as its assistant dean from 1979 to 1986. Mr. Leggett served as a captain in the United States Army. His tour of duty in the Vietnam War earned him the Bronze Star Medal, the Vietnam Service and the Vietnam Campaign medals. Christopher Thomaskutty serves as Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Operations for Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, overseeing departments that include public safety--fire and police--and health, public works, general services, CitiStat, and other operating agencies. You have a much longer list than I initially thought here. Christopher began his career in Baltimore City government as a CitiStat analyst in 2003--so you were there at the birthplace--under former mayor Martin O'Malley. In 2007, he was selected to serve as the Director of CitiStat and later promoted to the position of deputy mayor. Christopher received a B.A. in Political Science from Birmingham-Southern College in Birmingham, Alabama. While at BSC, he was named a Truman Scholar by the Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation. He has a master's in Public Policy and Urban Planning from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. We will start with Executive Leggett, if you would go ahead, please, sir. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ISIAH ``IKE'' LEGGETT, COUNTY EXECUTIVE, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND Mr. Leggett. Thank you, and thank you, Senator Cardin, Senator Warner, and Congressman Sarbanes, for undertaking an effort that I think sometimes is not fully understood by the public, but it is so, so important to the efficiency and effectiveness of governments today. Let me say that I came at this through the efforts of the then-Mayor O'Malley in Baltimore, and as county executive I fully adopted it as one of the principles of leadership in my county. But when I first heard of it many, many years ago, I was not impressed when I first heard it because I thought it sounded like something that managers would get together, hold hands, and sing ``Kumbaya,'' and come out and maybe adopt some principles and ultimately get something done. And it was a skeptical public who, in fact, heard and saw many of the things that we are talking about today and were not very, very impressed. It was not until, I think, people started to see the connectivity between budgets and outcomes in a way that impacted their lives that it started to take on a different meaning. The main objective for us in Montgomery County, CountyStat, is to improve the efficiency and responsiveness of government by using up-to-date data as an ongoing focus for day-to-day management and long-term policymaking. For us, I believe that our government can and must do a better job in its use of finite public resources to help achieve and sustain Montgomery County residents' priorities and objectives and deliver meaningful results. The objectives for us are outlined in what I put together with a task force immediately upon my election, which is to provide a responsive and accountable county government, affordable housing in an inclusive community, an effective and efficient transportation network, children prepared to live and learn, healthy and sustainable communities, safe streets and secure neighborhoods, a strong and vibrant economy, and vital living for all of our residents. I mention this because one of the things I think we fail to recognize is that unless CountyStat or the Stat programs are tied to some meaningful objective which the public fully embraces and understands, then we will not have the kinds of results that I think we want. Unless it is also part of a comprehensive program, we still would not meet the objective. Most recently, we followed the example of the Governor and others, and we introduced in Montgomery County something called MC311, a comprehensive integrated program that is online and call online for people to call with any requests for services and programs in one central comprehensive data base unit which we can track. In addition to that, we use other tools consistent with the CountyStat program. So we have consistency, we have a comprehensive approach, and it is not something in isolation, and it is tied to our objectives. Now, here are a couple of lessons learned that I think- - some of which you have heard this afternoon, but I want to emphasize again. To be successful and lessons learned, you need to ensure commitment and support for performance management at the highest level. At the highest level. Unless the executive, chief administrative officer, Governor, whoever, is not personally involved, then you will not have the results that you see. You need to partner with the community, develop buy-in from directors and managers, because it is not easily always understood. You heard earlier buy-in through the legislative branch that was talked about, establish a collaborative relationship, focus on what matters, because despite the technology, despite all the efforts, we simply cannot do everything we want to do. You need to have a dedicated staff who performs and assists the departments, take a long-term, comprehensive view of this. You are not going to have the results overnight. Develop capacity within department offices to measure and manage performance and institutionalize this new approach. The process is valued. The people understand the process, it is open, it is transparent, and there is some consistency in the followup. And, of course, we separate it; the CountyStat process is not the budget process. It is a tool to help us in our budget process. So those are separate operations. Now, in terms of things that we have seen and that we have had some success with, I just want to go through and track just a couple things for us. First of all, we look at overtime. Look at this chart. You will see that we have had some success. The success for us, when you look at it cumulatively now, would probably be over $7 million. That is a considerable amount of money. It also helps us to explain and track the performance. For example, if you look at that yellow line there, that yellow line represents the Department of Transportation's overtime. And all of a sudden you will see a number, that line going sky high there. That line represents the most recent efforts related to snow, snow removal. So now we get to a question of the tracking devices that we have had, looking at overtime, savings that we have had traditionally by the use of the tracking system that we have in place, quarterly reports, constant management of this, and the county executive or any executive in a position will have to make a decision at some point. Do I utilize an excessive amount of overtime in order to respond to the challenges of the snow? Or do I stay and continue on this path? Well, by having this system in place, it allows us a tool for which a person can simply click on and see and track, and having this explanation allows us to in some way explain to citizens that we did not meet our objective at this point in time because we had a challenge before us; i.e., to move the snow, to respond to your concerns of safety in the community, or respond to the efficiency problems of reduction in overtime. Very good for explaining it. We have similar results that you look at in terms of the savings that we have had. We had additional challenges in a number of charts here that you may see from the overtime itself going through department by department, quarter by quarter, and staying on top of our managers and walking through this, getting explanations as to why the performance is one way or the other. We have also had another initiative called our Pedestrian Safety Initiative. Huge numbers of collisions, and we have tried to target the entire county. The dots that you see represent incidents of collisions, annually about 450 or so collisions. Probably 17 to 18 deaths per year. We targeted four high-incident areas, and interestingly enough, the efforts that we are making now on education, enforcement, and engineering, one of the things that was revealed to me, despite the fact that I have been looking at this for years in county government, one area that had been completely under the radar for many years has been the fact that a quarter of the collisions occur in parking lots, shopping centers. Our efforts for the most part were on the streets, intersections. So we had to refocus our efforts to, in effect, look at what we were doing as it relates to the parking lots, especially related to the elderly. Paper. Huge amounts of paper. You can see the chart as it indicates where we were headed. We have been able to monitor that. It is inconsistent with our environmental goals. It is cost-challenging for us, and we have been able to save, I think, somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.4 million just in following and tracking paper. Overall in the county in the last 2-1/2 years, we have held 114 meetings on CountyStat, and we have looked at possibly 80 different subject areas. I have with me our chief administrative officer who is the person that oversees this on a day-to-day basis, and his staff, but it is a considerable amount of time that we spend following this. There are quite a few other things that I would like to talk to, but I know that time is limited, but I want to end where I started, No. 1, to thank you for coming here today, to thank and congratulate our Governor for his leadership in this role, and to let you know from a local perspective that this is something that works. In times of tough budgets, it is something that is needed. The transparency, the efficiency with which this operates, and the savings that we have had over the last few years justifies, in my opinion, the need for this at the Federal level. There are a number of things that I would like to address, and we provided information for you that I think you need to look at, that I think may be helpful from a Federal perspective. But in order to preserve time, I am going to turn it over to the deputy mayor to---- [The prepared statement of Mr. Leggett follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.025 Senator Warner. Thank you, Executive Leggett. Deputy Mayor Thomaskutty? STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER THOMASKUTTY, DEPUTY MAYOR, PUBLIC SAFETY AND OPERATIONS, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND Mr. Thomaskutty. Thank you, Senator, and Senator Cardin and Congressman Sarbanes. It is definitely an honor to be here, and it is an important hearing, and we appreciate your interest in what we have been doing. I am here for my mayor, Mayor Rawlings-Blake. She is out of town today. You mentioned earlier that I would not be here but for the fact that Mayor O'Malley hired me in 2003 to work for him in CitiStat. Governor O'Malley. He was a great hire. [Laughter.] Mr. Thomaskutty. There are many others who he has helped groom and bring along to focus on performance. I think those of us who live in Maryland are very fortunate that we have an executive, a Governor, who understands governance and performance the way that he does, and it has translated throughout the counties and maintained in Baltimore City. You have heard a lot of very good examples, I think, of specific improvements that we have seen at the State level, and especially in Montgomery County. What I would like to focus my few minutes on are some of the hidden benefits and some of the aspects of our strategy that I think are beneficial, and there may be tangible links to the Federal Government. First off, as you have heard, this is the 10-year anniversary. There is a longevity to our strategy that has lasted. I think that is because there is a very good fit between what is needed in our city and what this strategy brings. CitiStat has also helped, I think, three different mayors through their transition. What probably started out as a question, would CitiStat last without that executive leadership from Mayor O'Malley, has now turned into an answer that it is a tool for an incoming executive. It flattens that learning curve because you have an exceptional opportunity to learn very quickly the strengths, the weaknesses of your operations and of your et. I think Mayor Rawlings-Blake was hit with a pretty nasty snowstorm within days of her taking office. Within weeks, by reading a lot of these executive memorandums, by looking at a lot of the analysis, by attending CitiStat meetings, she was able to learn her agencies and learn her managers quickly and well. She was able to turn the ship toward the direction that she wanted to see the city move in much quicker than I think other executives who have not taken advantage of this type of strategy. One of the other things I just want to talk about in terms of the speed with which an executive can put their stamp on an operation. We are 10 feet from each other now. Imagine if you got to be 10 feet from each of your managers on a bi-weekly basis. Communication improves, what your expectations is better, and you quickly see, as the Governor mentioned, who your stars are. And I think one of the things that we have been able to do is develop a cadre of leaders in the city over the last 10 years who are managing based on performance, and that is incredibly important for a large organization to get that mentality and the culture of leadership ingrained. It started with Mayor O'Malley, and it has continued under the last two mayors. It has also enabled us, I think--an unexpected benefit is a lot of our CitiStat staff--and we are joined by Spencer Nichols, one of my staff members today. We have been able to groom and place leaders throughout our government, chiefs of staff, department heads, division chiefs, all who have been brought up in this mentality of what gets measured gets done. A few of the other things I wanted to point out. Over 10 years we have evolved. Every successful management strategy must adapt to its people, to its time, and to its resources. What once was a process that focused on an individual agency or an individual department, we have now evolved to where we are focusing on policy issues. As Senator Warner mentioned, very few public problems can be isolated to a particular department. For example, CleanStat, our city requires a tremendous amount of effort and collaboration to try to keep it clean. Our Bureau of Solid Waste cannot do that by themselves. It involves our Recreation Department, our Transportation Department, our housing code enforcement officials. We have been using CleanStat as a method of unifying six or seven different operating groups under a common theme and under common principles with common objectives. With the past year, we have revised our collection process. We have increased--as I think both Senator Cardin and Congressman Sarbanes have seen, our recycling collections are up 53 percent in a single year. That is unprecedented change for a city like Baltimore. We have seen an 80-percent increase in sanitation enforcement citations because we were able to move resources to where we needed them. And we are finally obtaining convictions in court for illegal dumping. That is done by the housing department. We used to only talk about it with the trash department. Everybody has got to be on the same page to have good, effective results. The next example may be one we want to think about the most, and that is GunStat. This is where we have a session and a meeting on a monthly basis based on a common shared goal across city, county, State, and Federal levels of government. And I have to say, without, I think, the Governor's participation from the State agencies and those that are involved in the State of Maryland, it would not be as successful. But we have the police department, the county police, State police, all the State agencies that are involved in supervision, our local State's authority and our U.S. Attorney, all focused on targeted enforcement and increasing sentences for those who are carrying illegal guns. You know, I will be frank. At the beginning part of the struggle is getting folks who do not report to the same person. You know, this is not about the same boss. It is about the same goal. And once everybody understood that here is what we all share in common in terms of what the outcome should be, you begin to develop the trust around data sharing. I am not a law enforcement official. There was some initial concern that why should I get access to certain data, you should, but we got to the point where we had certain agreements about what would be shared and what would not, and now we are all looking at the same amount of data, and it has been incredibly effective at the city level. Just to give you an example--and I am purposely showing you a map that we did not create. Probably one of the Governor's staffers created this map. This is showing in the city of Baltimore. You know, we mentioned this earlier. You can collect all the data you want, but if you do not have a system in place to take action on that data, you are wasting your time. This shows where we have mandatory releasees under the age of 25 who have been out of jail for less than 6 months of two or more federally significant convictions. We know based on a year- plus, almost 2 years of solid data collection on felony gun crimes that that is the population of people we need to be touching. The Governor has people in place in his VPI unit who are in regular contact with them from the State level. And we at the city level have patrol officers on their post who are aware of these particular individuals who have served their time, but we want to make sure they know that we know where they are, that we love them and we want them to see us. So they see a coordination between the city and the State that has never been there before, and as the Governor mentioned, we are seeing the results in our homicide reductions. Another evolution of our strategy I think has to do with the way we are beginning to make links with our budgeting process and with our operations. Outcome budgeting is the process we brought to the city this past year, and a long story short, you normally build your budgets, you start from the baseline of where you were the previous year as opposed to the objectives you want to accomplish. The intent of outcome budgeting is to say what are your priorities, what do you really want to accomplish, and then you start putting your dollars at what you think is important. And through a pretty intensive process, you are able to determine what your priorities are. And so you have heard this many times. We have tried to start taking the scalpel approach instead of the sword. Instead of across-the-board cuts, we are able to see what is the incremental impact of an increase here or a decrease there, and that has been able to help us have in very difficult austere budget times a lot more confidence in what we are funding and what we are not funding and explaining that to our citizens better. Here is just a sample of what an outcome budgeting template would look like for us. I just grabbed a water example from our Water Bureau. We unapologetically in CitiStat have always been heavily focused on outputs. So this attention to purchasing outcomes, to funding the outcomes that you want is different, and it is not always simple to measure an outcome, at least at the city level. But we are becoming more and more comfortable with taking a step back on a quarterly basis, looking at these broad city-wide outcome measures, and bringing the same level of attention through our Stat meetings that we typically do through more of your everyday operational inputs and outputs. They are much easier to measure. Finally, just some quick thoughts on the application. I think both the Governor and the county executive have spoken to some of this. I am not a management professor, and I do not know the Federal Government all that well. But the four tenets that we use are effective. I think they are effective if you are running a coffee shop or if you are running a $2 or $4 billion operation. The first thing I would say is learn the lesson that we learned from the Governor, and that is just get started, pick an operation, pick an agency, pick a section, pick a sector, and just get started. I think there are clear applications, as I have seen your BorderStat and others in the Federal Government that are doing direct service delivery, especially those where there are clear lines of authority and accountability. The application there I think is much simpler and much more straightforward. But for those Federal functions and agencies that are perhaps less involved in direct service delivery, that may be pass-throughs of Federal funds or more focused on compliance, I think there is something to this collaborative model that we have started along the lines of GunStat with multiple levels of government. Again, not focused on the same executive, but focused on the same goals. And as long as you can agree to a common shared outcome, you can find smart people to help you figure out the way of measuring it, sharing information, and then you have to figure out the way to keep the ball moving forward in terms of that executive interaction. There may be multiple executives at the table, but I think that is possible. There is a dynamic that I think the Governor is probably in the best position to speak to, the geographic size. In the city we have the benefit of crossing the street to find many of our managers. At the State level, and especially at the Federal level, just the lack of proximity to some of those who you are managing is something that has to be thought through. There is definitely an appeal and an advantage in managing people you can talk to and see face to face. There is a limit to what you can do via videoconferencing and other things. I think there is a way of applying the strategy to specific divisions within the departments, within agencies, that folks can think through. I think there is definitely promise. I think the four tenets are solid, and I very much appreciate the opportunity to tell you a little bit more about the city and to think through some of the ways this could help the Federal Government. [The prepared statement of Mr. Thomaskutty follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.039 Senator Warner. Thank you both for excellent testimony from both of you, and I am just going to ask two questions, and either one of you can respond to both or either one. One, it just seems to me that as I look at--from the Governor's presentation and the county's and the city's presentation, a lot of this is pre-framed by what questions are asked. And I would be curious from both of you who is making the determination of what Stat is being measured or what outcome is being measured. Do you solicit collaboration from the work force in the county executive's position in terms of the council? How do we make sure we are asking the right questions, No. 1, in terms of what we are going to measure? And then No. 2, it seems that most of the efforts here have been on relatively objective criteria which you can measure against. So, for example, as we--and this may actually--I am just going to get into your area about the budgeting piece. If we were to measure, on a CitiStat, CountyStat, or StateStat, a child's readiness for school, that readiness for school pushes us more into the policy area, and it might be health care, it might be pre-school, it might be parental supervision. You know, have you consciously in CountyStat and CitiStat tried to stay on the cleaner, more objective questions? Who gets the input? And at some point could this be drawn or is it being drawn now into actually the broader policy areas? Mr. Leggett. Thank you, Senator, for your question. I think it somewhat evolves, because I think the first task is to demonstrate to people in a very clear, straightforward way what are the meaningful results. Our demonstration, for example, of the overtime used grabs the attention of a lot of people. Senator Warner. Right. Mr. Leggett. They could see it, they could feel it, they know about it, it is there. We will--and I see that we will evolve to more subjective areas that you cannot measure quite as well. But the first thing that we have done would be to establish the value of the program itself. But until you have that buy-in, I think it would be very difficult to go to the ``soft'' objective areas and demonstrate the efficiencies of the program rather than to do it the other way around. Senator Warner. And when you started even on the --in the ability to demonstrate the effectiveness of the program, did you sit with your leadership team and try to sort through which questions, did you have your staff--how do you even decide which is your---- Mr. Leggett. It is all of the above, but more importantly, I think, from the people involved directly, the managers, the employees, and for us even the public itself. So our process is open. The results are online. You can see every report that we have conducted. If you want to participate, if you want at least to come in and watch what is going on, the public is invited to do so. So we have input of the question from individual components of the work force, especially the managers, and also from average citizens. Mr. Thomaskutty. And I will speak to your comment about trying to put the strategy around something like childhood readiness. That is exactly where we are going, because I think you start with what is your immediate operational needs, and then you take that step back as to what is your city or your county or your government need. So childhood readiness, what are the factors that impact that? The mayor wants us to start ChildStat for this very reason, and we know that a kid is not going to be ready for school unless a few things happen. One, they have to be loved by their city. Two, you have to take care of them immediately upon their birth outcome. So are we taking care of the mom during the prenatal stages? When the baby is born, are they getting a home visit from a trained nurse? How are we doing the immunizations throughout their early term? Then it is being healthy and safe in their home, and there are tests, right? Honestly, you give us a lot of money for Head Start, both private Head Start and public Head Start, and there are certain providers that we have not yet started to measure, but we know we get better results from some than we do from others. So that is what I already know and what we already know. What we do not know is how to turn the needle, how to make the investments that you are providing us, give us better outcomes than what we are currently getting. But it can be measured, and there can be a way of applying the strategy around that particular policy issue to where those at the table, nonprofits, foundations, private citizens, State agencies, city agencies, are sitting there around common objectives, and instead of every time saying, well, you need to do this differently, it may be you are developing the policy that is going to help someone else make that decision. But it is possible. It is just you have to adjust what you have seen applied successfully, I think, so far to your typical municipal operations and county operations. Senator Warner. It would seem to me--and I will turn this over to Senator Cardin--that if you can rank order child readiness for school and the goal is 90 percent of our kids are going to be ready for school by kindergarten and then you have to rank order that versus the other goals you have, but you can then argue as policymakers between how much prenatal versus early childhood health versus brain development activities. But until you can get that goal set--and then you have the inputs and some tools to measure, and I think this is where this--and you guys are at the lead of this, or hopefully this journey will take you all and then hopefully at some point the Federal Government behind it, because it is--you know, the notion of unlimited dollars or even dollars circa 2006, 2007, fiscal year 2008, fiscal year--I just do not think we are going to see them again anytime soon. With that, Senator Cardin. Senator Cardin. Well, thank you very much, Senator Warner. You both have said there has got to be buy-in at the highest level for it to effectively work. Can you define what you mean by that? What is required from the county executive to make this work? What is required from the mayor of Baltimore? Are you talking about your personal time? Are you talking about delegating it to another person? Give me an idea of what is required for this to work at the county level. Mr. Leggett. Well, buy-in means that I fully embrace it and adopt it as a policy consideration, or me as county executive that I show and demonstrate that level of commitment by participation, by involvement. You can delegate some of it, and the person who probably does the day-to-day operation is the chief administrative officer. For those outside of county government, it is the city manager. But I would not delegate beyond that point that it must be at that level, because the chief administrative officer is the head of the county government in terms of its day-to-day operation. All the department heads report to the chief administrative officer. If you go much below that, I think that you lose a commitment. Again, you are making a transition. Many people, believe it or not, in government believe that they are doing an excellent job with what they have, and they have been doing it for the last 25 or 30 years and do not see a need to change. They see a narrow focus. And so you have to educate and transition them. So unless you have the people at the very top making that personal commitment, then it would be a very, very difficult challenge, as well from the legislative branch. You know as well as I do that unless there is that commitment from the top of the executive branch, the legislators are not going to be so tempted to go and make these changes on their own. Senator Cardin. In Baltimore City, what does it mean to have buy-in at the highest level? Mr. Thomaskutty. It is the way we are going to do business. It is understood. And so the mayor has spent a lot of her personal time, especially early on, but she will not have to moving forward. It is understood that I am speaking on her behalf, and it is as if she is always in the room. So this is just the way we are going to manage, it is the way we are going to keep score. I think after 10 years it has been ingrained in the culture in the city. Mr. Leggett. Let me just add something. We have only been in it about 2-1/2 years. I would hope that at some future point it is not so dependent upon the individual executive, that it becomes a way of doing business, and that it is a standard operating procedure for all county executives and for all agencies of government. I hope we get to that point, and we are moving in that direction. I am not sure we are quite there yet. So it requires a direct, personal involvement. But the way we would make certain that this is successful long term, that it is not dependent on an individual, but it is a way of doing business. And I think that is the direction we are moving. Senator Cardin. My second question is: In a time of declining budgets, is there concern that the Stat program is being used to justify budget cuts and, therefore, agency heads are more suspicious about cooperating with the program? Mr. Leggett. Let me take our situation. In the last 3-1/2 years, we have closed budget gaps of about $2.5 billion. We have reduced the overall work force by 10 percent, 1,100 positions. We have had furloughs. We have had eliminations of COLAs and a variety of other things. Certainly there were challenges as a result of that. We faced some difficulties. But the way I approached this was to personally engage myself both in the CountyStat process as well as the rec. department. This is why I stated earlier you cannot look at this in isolation. There are other tools that you have to employ with this in order to make it as successful as possible, the 311 system. But I engaged in the last year 33, 34 separate meetings with individual employees to walk through the potential challenge that we had, to talk about what CountyStat had found. And I think that we have developed a level of credibility of CountyStat that it is not looked upon as a political tool but as sort of a neutral, fact-finding, data analysis, clear, succinct, that goes above--it is over and above the political consideration. That is where the policy comes in where you then have to make the decision between is it early childhood development, something else, do you priority A versus B. But the data is clear. It is consistent. It is neutral. It speaks for itself. And the people that you have--and this is why it is so important to have competent people operate in the system and over and above the political considerations. Senator Cardin. In Baltimore City, does the mayor say, ``Where can I get another $10 million of cuts?'' Mr. Thomaskutty. The finance director might. I would say it is a tool. I think through CitiStat and through our budgeting process, we definitely were able to cut smarter than I think we otherwise would have been. But your good managers view that podium as a two-way street. They advocate just as much as they take questions. And so you will find through this particular budget we spent money on things that we probably otherwise would not. We never could find a way to fund a $140,000 program in our fire department that would put less expensive vehicles out to go to some of our most frequent callers of 911. Because we could show the value of that particular service through this new budgeting model, we had the confidence and the proof in the data to say it makes a heck of a lot of sense to send an SUV than a fire truck to someone who calls the city 180 times a year for 911 service. Senator Cardin. Well, thank you both very much. I will just make one final observation, and that is, you can tell there is a buy-in at the highest level when you meet with the Governor and he wants to take your laptop and show you a new website that he has on statistics. You do not want to challenge him on his technology. Senator Warner. And when the Governor stays for the second session, too, which is really a commitment. [Laughter.] Senator Cardin. Thank you. Senator Warner. Let me just add a couple of quick closing comments. Again, my thanks to the Governor, to the county executive, and the deputy mayor. Two things, just observations at the Federal level. I think at the city and the county level, as a mayor or county executive, this is your job to run the city or the county. I think it gets harder at the State level, but you still have that chief operating officer role as the Governor or someone in the Governor's office. There really is not that equivalent at the Federal level, and I think that has been one of the challenges. President Obama has appointed somebody who I think is extraordinarily talented, Jeff Zients, to be chief performance officer. But whether this position will be maintained, whether it will have enough juice I think the jury is still out. I am hopeful. But, conceptually--and, candidly, there is very little buy- in, I think, to our efforts at the legislative level. There is governmental oversight, but there is not a governmental efficiency metrics performance group. And you got to have a legislative, I believe, at least at the Federal level, partner as well so you do not have this constantly reinventing the wheel every 4 to 8 years. Again, I commend the Governor for having the stick-to-it-iveness with CitiStat that now it has been implemented at the State level and others like Montgomery County are implementing it. The other thing I think we have one challenge at the Federal level--I am a new Member of Congress, although I think I have been guilty of this as well--that to our Federal work force we are always additive on reporting requirements, and we never subtract. So I think our Federal work force at times feels overwhelmed with whatever--whoever is coming in has got a new set of reporting requirements, we never get rid of any of the old ones, and the volumes of data--I think about the PART initiative under President Bush, huge volumes of data, but not user-friendly, and I think it was well intentioned. I am concerned that as we think about how we get better performance and metrics, at least at the Federal level, when we add new reporting we ought to be thinking as well maybe we could take away some of the others, because that sends a message, I think, as well to the work force that this is not just make-work, but this is going to be critical and it is going to be evaluated, it is going to be viewed, it is going to be useful. And I will close with the comment that all three of you have made, and that is, you have to be relentless, that none of this is easy, none of this comes quickly, and kudos to all of you for having that relentlessness. With that, I again want to thank the Governor, the county executive, and the deputy mayor. The hearing record will be kept open for additional questions for our witnesses until noon tomorrow. I ask that each witness respond promptly to any questions submitted to them. The Government Performance Task Force will hold its next hearing this Thursday at 10 a.m. in the hearing room of the Senate Budget Committee. The hearing will cover the issues of Federal procurement and contracting. If there is no other business, the hearing will come to an end. Thank you. [Whereupon, at 3:54 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.042 RESPONSIBLE CONTRACTING: MODERNIZING THE BUSINESS OF GOVERNMENT ---------- THURSDAY, JULY 15, 2010 U.S. Senate, Committee on the Budget and the Task Force on Government Performance, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:58 a.m., in room SD-608, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Warner, Chairman of the Task Force, presiding. Present: Senators Warner, Cardin, and Whitehouse. Also present: Senator Murray. Staff present: John Righter, Amy Edwards, Ron Storhaug, and Gregory McNeill. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WARNER Senator Warner. The hearing will come to order. Welcome to the Senate Budget Committee's Government Performance Task Force hearing on ``Responsible Contracting: Modernizing the Business of Government.'' I want to thank my colleague Senator Whitehouse, who actually was the instigator of this hearing, for his leadership and interest in this subject and for the willingness of our more senior members on the Committee and in the Senate, Senator Murray, for being here as well. As I have explained to a number of the witnesses, let me acknowledge on the front end there may be some shuffling of the gavel. Things here happen on strange time sequences that as a new guy I do not fully understand yet. Today we have a key vote at 11. I personally have a NASA markup going on right now that is very important for facilities in my State, so there will be a bit of shuffling. I know Senator Whitehouse has an important conference call he has to take midstream, so I ask the indulgence of the witnesses and our audience. So, let me go ahead and make my opening statement, and then I will ask Senator Murray and Senator Whitehouse if they would like to make a statement. Then we will introduce the witnesses. Today we will take a closer look at the Federal Government's contracting procedures and practices and learn about opportunities to improve contract oversight and leverage greater savings. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.089 Specifically, I hope our witnesses will tell us more about contracting reforms that are already underway at Federal agencies; second, the potential savings from contracting improvements; and, third, steps to modernize procurement operations. This Task Force on Government Performance has held several hearings examining opportunities to improve the performance of the Federal Government to achieve better savings and service. As we attempt to scale back and deal with our growing fiscal challenges, we must also look at ways to modernize the business of Government, and contracting practices are due for some upgrades. Unfortunately, as my colleagues know, whenever I make any comments, I always refer back to my previous job for at least a moment. During my tenure as Governor of Virginia, we developed a centralized approach to State procurement and developed an online marketplace that has achieved some impressive results. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.090 Thank you, Amy, for holding up the chart. Senator Whitehouse. How well managed was Virginia during the time you were Governor? Senator Warner. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse, for that very important---- [Laughter.] Senator Warner. You know, as a matter of fact, it was ranked No. 1 in the whole country, a designation that we maintained until changes just in the last week or so. I think we fell to No. 2. But you can only keep good practices going for so long. But part of those good practices were represented here on our procurement activities. As of last year, Virginia's electronic procurement system has registered more than 38,000 vendors, has supported more than $20 billion in purchases, and saved Virginians more than $280 million from streamlined purchasing--something that I think could be brought to the Federal Government as well. I know firsthand that results can be achieved by smarter spending, and, again, I think we can do that at the Federal level as well. But effective contracting and procurement is more than just saving money. Contracting is also critical to providing the quality services the public deserves. A recent example and one that has been important to me as the home-State Senator--but I know Senator Whitehouse and Senator Murray have expressed concerns as well--has been the mismanagement of millions of dollars to develop what should be a basic data base at Arlington Cemetery. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.091 The Army's Inspector General found that Arlington Cemetery improperly paid millions of dollars to contractors that failed to deliver a new data base to hold the cemetery's records. As a result, they found 211 misplaced or misidentified graves for our fallen heroes, and that is actually only three sections of the 75 sections of the cemetery that have been audited so far. This was literally a system where they were still using three- by-five cards because all of the millions of dollars that have been spent on upgrading the data bases had never been coordinated. The IT functions had never been put in place. And right now the Army is scrambling. We have put in place a series of private sector folks who would like to come in on a pro bono basis and help. But if we do not have good contract management, this is the results that we could see. And, again, that is what our hearing is about today. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.092 Chart 4, the Federal Government spent $538 billion on contracts in 2009, and 70 percent, or $372 billion, was spent on the Defense Department alone. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.093 And as our final chart shows--following in the footsteps of our great Chairman, Chairman Conrad, you cannot have a Budget Committee hearing without charts and graphs. As our next chart shows, defense contract spending has more than doubled over the last decade. It is worth pointing out that this growth is in line with the growth in the overall defense budget, which has also doubled over the last decade. Given the growth in contracting, I hope our witnesses today will discuss the oversight structures in place to ensure that this growth has been effectively managed. I am also pleased with the Obama administration's focus on contracting and procurement improvements and mandates to save, and I would like our first panel to discuss how they are currently working to ensure effective contracting oversight and to better leverage the spending power of the Federal Government. With that, I would like to call upon first Senator Murray and then Senator Whitehouse for opening statements. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MURRAY Senator Murray. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, and I will not have an opening statement. I just want to welcome both of you and look forward to the question- and-answer period. I have several questions I would like to ask, and thank you for hosting this hearing today. Senator Warner. Senator Whitehouse. Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Senator Warner. I think this is exactly the sort of hearing that we envisioned when I asked Chairman Conrad to set up this Task Force on Government Performance for the purpose of trying to better evaluate Government performance, efficiency savings, ultimately toward the goal of, I hope, being able to put an efficiency number into our budgets in the future and hold administrations to account to try to achieve those efficiency savings. Clearly, Government contracting is an important area because, as you have pointed out, the extent of it and the hundreds of billions of dollars that flow through it just gets bigger every day. Anytime you have that much money out there, it is a target for waste and abuse and for greed and for laziness and all of those human characteristics. So particularly when you have for-profit corporations involved, there are all sorts of risks. The oversight and management function becomes incredibly important. It is not unheard of, particularly--I am on the Intelligence Committee-- in very classified programs where there is little oversight and highly technical issues at stake, to question whether the Government actually has the capability to oversee what it is being told by the contractors or whether the contractors are running the show, running the oversight, running every element of it, because they have simply run ahead of the capability of Government to keep track of what they are doing and to understand the technical substance of what they are doing. There is always the danger in the contracting oversight world of what I call and what economists have for a long time called regulatory capture, that over time slowly but steadily the influence of the regulated entity--the contractors, in this case--through revolving doors, through putting their own people into Government, through threats of litigation if you do the wrong thing and subtle rewards if you do the right thing, step by step it gets to the point where the regulator or the oversight authority becomes more beholden to the industry than to the public. And that is a common theme throughout administration, but particularly acute where you are dealing with very big corporations with huge resources and enormous public dollars at stake. And then, of course, campaign and political activity by these corporations can compound the problem and make it even more acute. So I think it becomes very important that we take an active role to defend the American taxpayer and make sure that these moneys are being wisely spent. Clearly, there is an important role for corporations and for contracting in Government. But it is also a role that we have a responsibility to carefully oversee. So I applaud you for holding this hearing and look forward to the testimony of the witnesses. Thank you. Senator Warner. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Senator Murray. Our first panel, we have Daniel Gordon, the Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy at OMB. Mr. Gordon is responsible for developing and implementing acquisition policy, supporting over $500 billion in Federal spending annually. Prior to joining OFPP, he spent 17 years at GAO and served in several posts in the Procurement Law Division before being appointed Deputy General Counsel in 2006 and Acting General Counsel in April 2009. Our second witness is Mr. Shay Assad, the Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense-Acquisition in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics at DOD. Mr. Assad is responsible for all Department of Defense acquisition and procurement policy matters. He serves as the principal adviser to the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology and the Defense Acquisition Board on acquisition procurement strategies for all major weapon system programs, major automated information system programs, and service acquisition. So clearly, Senator Whitehouse, I think we have the right two guys in terms of oversight, both overall Federal Government and particularly at DOD. Let us start with Mr. Gordon, and before you begin, let me make clear that each of the witnesses' full written statements will be included in the hearing record. So, gentlemen, thank you for both being here. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DANIEL I. GORDON, ADMINISTRATOR FOR FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Mr. Gordon. Thank you. Senator Warner, members of the Committee and the Task Force on Government Performance, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss Federal acquisition and the part it can play in improving the performance of Government. What I would like to do is briefly highlight now some of the progress we have made following the President's direction in March of last year to achieve real, sustainable improvements in our acquisition system. As Senator Warner pointed out, the context of the President's direction was the fact that in the years 2001 through 2008, we had been seeing an unsustainable increase in spending on contracts and contractors, rising an average of 12 percent a year during that period, so that the amount we were spending on contracting each year more than doubled in that period. The Government's acquisition work force, however, barely grew in size, which meant they could not cope with this tsunami of buying that was taking place with predictable results. I cannot tell you today that we have solved all the problems. Far from it. It took years to dig the hole that we are in, and we cannot dig ourselves out of it in a few short months. But I can tell you we have made real, measurable progress. First of all, we are finally investing in our acquisition work force. They are the lifeblood of the Federal procurement system. Agencies have started hiring acquisition professionals, albeit in modest numbers, and we are working on improving the training that they get. For fiscal year 2011, the President has requested that Congress appropriate $158 million for the civilian agencies' acquisition work force, and I urge you to support that request. This is a relatively small investment that will have a high return, especially when you consider that our acquisition work force is handling more than half a trillion dollars in contract spending every year. And in terms of where we are with that enormous annual outlay, the big picture headline is that we put the brakes on spending. Instead of the 12 percent annual increase that we have been seeing, in fiscal year 2009 we had an increase of only 4 percent. Across the executive branch, both at DOD and the civilian affiliate agencies, we are more carefully reviewing what we buy and how we buy it. My colleague Shay Assad will be telling you about DOD's commendable efforts in this regard, and we at OMB are, of course, working very closely with Shay and his colleagues at DOD. But the heightened sense of fiscal responsibility of acquisition is, of course, not limited to DOD. We are seeing proof of it and encouraging it every day in every agency. My written statement has statistics about our governmentwide progress in savings and risk reduction. What I would like to do very briefly, though, is give you five examples of how our agencies are demonstrating fiscal responsibility in their procurements, one of which is going to resonate with Senator Warner's comment about e- procurements in Virginia where I do think the States and local governments have done extremely well. No. 1, agencies are pooling their buying so that we are finally leveraging the purchasing power that the Federal Government should have as the world's largest customer. Perhaps the best example is the set of agreements GSA recently negotiated for office supplies. Those agreements will guarantee for the first time that every Federal buyer in every Federal agency, whether they buy in person, over the phone, or on the Web, will receive deep discounts for hundreds of different office supplies. That may sound mundane, but the result could be as much as a quarter of a billion in savings. Second, agencies are focused on increasing competition, and a great example I would like to mention about increased competition comes from DOD, the Military OneSource Program, which provides important support services for our military personnel and their families. That procurement has never been competed until now. DOD collaborated with the Department of Interior's Acquisition Assistance Center, which ran a full and open competition. That competed contract is expected to save taxpayers $300 million as well as to provide better services to our military families. Third, agencies are moving away from pricing arrangements that have the Government, which means the taxpayers, bearing too much of the risk, to more prudent fixed-price contracts. For example, EPA recently shifted from a cost reimbursement to a fixed-price contract for remediation clean-up services at a Superfund site and is now paying 65 percent less. Fourth--and this is what the Senator's comment about EVA made me think of--agencies are now routinely driving down prices by conducting electronic reverse auctions on the Web in which vendors are bidding online for the Government's business. One example, again: DHS last year ran more than 2,000 electronic reverse auctions, saving us millions of dollars. Finally, agencies are giving long overdue attention to contract management. FEMA, for example, has put together high- quality training for its COTRs, as they are called, the contracting officer's technical representatives. They play a key role in ensuring that taxpayers get the price, the schedule, and the quality that the contractor committed to deliver. I realize these are only examples. We need to make these success stories the norm across the Government. To do that, we are working with the agencies' chief acquisition officers, their chief procurement executives, and directly with the work force. I am meeting them, we are meeting with them in town hall meetings, by e-mail, on a wiki, to share best practices and push for their adoption across the Government. There is much work yet to be done, but our early results show that we are on track in our efforts to achieve savings, reduce risk, and achieve better results for our Government and our taxpayers. I look forward to working with you and other Members of Congress on this important endeavor, and I would be delighted to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.067 Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Gordon. Mr. Assad. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHAY D. ASSAD, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ACQUISITION, OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY, AND LOGISTICS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Mr. Assad. Senator Warner, members of the Committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you today. The subject of today's hearing is ``Responsible Contracting: Modernizing the Business of Government,'' and it is a matter that is one of Secretary Gates' highest priorities. He recently directed all echelons of the Department to take a ``hard, unsparing look'' at how we operate with the goal of cutting overhead costs to transfer those savings to force structure and modernization within the programmed budget. Just over 2 weeks ago, Dr. Ashton Carter, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, directed that all DOD acquisition professionals find ways to improve the way we conduct business in order to deliver better value to the taxpayers for the goods and services we acquire for our warfighters. Dr. Carter's memo is really about increasing the buying power of the Department and getting a better deal for the taxpayers. In directing us to re-examine every aspect of how we do business, Secretary Gates has told us that we should ask two questions. First, is what we are doing respectful of the American taxpayer at a time of economic and fiscal duress? And, second, is this activity or arrangement the best use of limited dollars given the pressing needs to take care of our people, win the wars we are in, and invest in the capabilities necessary to deal with the most likely and lethal future threats? We need to examine not only what we are acquiring, but also how we are acquiring these activities and programs. Within the Department of Defense, we process over 3 million contracting actions a year. This year we will spend somewhere between $350 and $400 billion in goods and services on behalf of the taxpayer. There are a number of actions that we can and must take to infuse arrangements into our contracts and motivate industry to achieve greater efficiency, and we must expect to reap the benefits of those efficiencies, and we will insist that industry share those savings with the Government. In the coming months, Dr. Carter will issue final guidance to implement this initiative. I will conclude by stating that there is a significant opportunity to save billions of dollars. But the savings will only be realized if we have a well-trained and sufficient work force to implement the change that is necessary. As the individual responsible for overseeing the growth and the development of the acquisition work force, I know I speak for the entire work force in expressing my gratitude to Secretary Gates, Deputy Secretary Lynn, Dr. Carter, and Members of Congress in supporting the much needed growth and increased capability of our work force. We will not accomplish this savings without a competent, capable, well-trained, and properly sized work force. I thank you for the opportunity, and I welcome your questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Assad follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.052 Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Assad, and thank you, Mr. Gordon. Let me start by echoing what you both have said, that as we see these dramatic increases in the amount of contracting, the worst example of penny-wise, pound-foolish is not investing in the Federal contracting oversight work force so that we have the appropriate procurement officers, we have the oversight, and we have the expertise. Again, I know from limited prior experience as Governor that not having folks familiar with new techniques, new tools, and simply loading up additional responsibilities without increased oversight is a recipe for disaster. I think Secretary Gates is right, and I know Mr. Gordon has also been a big advocate for this. I have a couple of questions. Then as I mentioned earlier, I may have to step out for about 15 minutes. First, perhaps both of you could address this. One of the things we have seen in contracting--and perhaps this goes to work force issues--is the appropriate size and scoping of a contract. When we go low bid, which at first blush sounds best, but if we get the inappropriate sizing in the contract on the front end, time and again we see contractors come in on a low bid and then with change orders see the original contract size doubled, tripled, or quadrupled. How do we put in place better sizing procedures and framing procedures and have both appropriate penalties and restrictions both on contractors who have underbid and expect to have change orders and agencies that do not have any line responsibility in terms of doing the hard work up front in terms of sizing a contract? Mr. Assad. Senator, there really are two types of products that we buy. We buy products--that is, equipment, goods--and we buy services. And we have to look at them slightly differently. In the world of services, we are now spending more money in the Department of Defense than we do on major weapons systems and/ or goods. We spend about 53 percent of our funds on services, 47 percent on major equipment and goods. And in the world of services, the key is to expand competition as much as we possibly can when we buy services, and to ensure that the scope--that is, the work statements that we are asking contractors to bid to--is understood and that we are using the proper types of contracts to buy the goods and services that we are about to do. In the world of services, one of our problems has been that, again, probably for convenience and expediency, we hold a competition, we select a particular contractor, and that contractor becomes an incumbent over an extended period of time. What we are trying to do at the Department is to extend the number of contractors that will compete on a competitive basis continuously, to reduce the length of time of our services contracts so that the scope of work can be more properly understood and we can get more effective control over what is being performed, and then be able to conduct the oversight to ensure that we actually got the services that we contracted for. In the world of major weapons systems, it is a little bit of a different situation. In that world it is all about properly defining your requirements. And Secretary Gates has talked a lot about the 75-, 80-, 85-percent solution versus the solution which shoots for the moon. and the idea and concept being we are much better off getting equipment into the hands of our warfighters 3 or 4 or 5 years down the road that increases their capability rather than taking 15 or 20 years in an effort to try to produce something that remarkably increases their capability but inevitably takes longer than we thought and costs the taxpayers significantly more money. So in that particular case, what we are doing is we are spending a lot of time up front talking about what are the technologies that are risky and have we made the proper investments up front before we begin making significant amounts of spending in engineering, manufacturing, and development, of ensuring that we are not asking our contractors to achieve things that are incredibly difficult to achieve, and that there is a recognition of the proper type of contract that is fair to both sides in terms of expectation. What we have failed to do in the past is create contracts that are reflective of the outcomes that we want to get, and what we were doing was measuring process rather than measuring the outcome. And at the end of the day, that is what the taxpayer wants. Did we get what we paid for? And are we paying a fair price? So I think what you are going to see from the Department is a lot more time spent on the front end of programs because much like in industry--and I spent a good deal of my career in industry, in major corporations--the fact of the matter is most of the time is spent in defining the requirement. Senator Warner. I guess very briefly, because my time has expired, Mr. Gordon, do you want to---- Mr. Gordon. I will be very brief. Shay's office and mine work very closely together. I agree with everything that Shay said. The one point I might add is that the challenge of requirements definition is directly tied to the weakness of the acquisition work force and the need for the acquisition work force and the program people to work together. When we do not write the statement of work properly, we end up with contractors coming back and saying they need more money, saying they want an equitable adjustment. Starting the acquisition properly makes all the difference in the world, and for that we need better trained acquisition professionals, and we need them working with their program people. Senator Warner. You are consistent on your points, but I would only add two quick points--and we are joined by Senator Cardin. I appreciate Senator Cardin being here as well. One, I would have liked to have heard in that answer, Mr. Assad, something that said, And we are laying out both specific incentives and penalties to reward good behavior in terms of contracts, not expanding beyond scope and size, and clearly I understand the weapons system differently than, say, the services piece, particularly focused on some of the IT contracting, which is very robust in my community, but how we size that correctly and reward contractors or keep to that size and penalize both contractors and/or agencies who get it wrong on sizing. And since my time has expired, Mr. Assad, you will not get, at least at this point, the very pointed question I was going to ask you right now on how did we get into this outrageous mess at Arlington Cemetery and what are we going to do to make sure--and I know the Secretary of the Army and I have had a number of conversation about this to make sure that it is corrected and never happens again. It has been, a national embarrassment. But if I can get another round, just to forewarn you, that is what I am going to come back to. Senator Murray? Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Assad, thank you. We are all focusing on the Federal deficit, and bringing down the national debt. In light of that, it is more important than ever that we make sure all of our programs are running as cost-effectively as possible. Every penny counts here. I want to talk to you--because the GAO recently testified that the reliance on contractors continued to increase and we heard that again today that this is leading to overall cost increase. In their testimony, the GAO noted that of the 50 programs in their 2010 assessment, only 19 had filled all of their authorized positions, and 86 percent of the programs providing data needed to hire contractor support to do the job. How can Congress better assist the Department of Defense in recruiting qualified candidates so we can avoid using these contractors and save the taxpayer money? Mr. Assad. Senator, the point you made is absolutely valid and on point. The reality is one of the things that we are looking at right now is we grow the acquisition work force some 20,000 people over the next 5 years. About 10,000 of those folks will be in program management, systems engineering, logistics management, business management roles. It is in those roles that the growth of the contractor community has really burst to points where it is way beyond where it should be. Mr. Gordon talked about inherently governmental work, and the fact is we need to bring back into Government more of the capabilities so our program managers and our program offices can, in fact, properly oversee these contracts with an arm's- length relationship. We are making good progress. Senator Murray. And are there hiring incentives---- Mr. Assad. Yes, and I would like to talk about that. We are making good progress. At this point we would have--we were planning to have hired about 3,400 people over--it is a 5-year plan. Of those 20,000, we thought we would be at about 3,400. We have, in fact, hired about 4,600. So we ahead of schedule. We are hiring quality people, and I think the flexibility that Congress gave us with the 852 funds and the increased funds provided by Congress with regard to hiring our acquisition work force give us the tools we need. So I think it is a little bit too early for us to request additional assistance from Congress. We need to actually go out and do what you have given us the authority to go do. And I think we are well on our way to do that. Senator Murray. OK. And are we working to get veterans into---- Mr. Assad. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. One of the key things we are finding is a number of our technical--especially at the Defense Contract Management Agency, we are finding that a lot of veterans, especially retired E-8s, E- 9s, folks with tremendous maintenance experience, are now coming into our work force to help oversee the very equipments that they were maintaining. So that is a good thing. Senator Murray. OK. And I also wanted to ask you a really important question. As you know, on June 30th this year, the WTO publicly announced that Airbus had received illegal subsidies that have damaged the U.S. aerospace business. According to U.S. Government estimates, that is about $200 billion in today's dollars in total subsidies to Airbus. That has artificially lowered their prices, and tens of thousands of our American work force have lost their jobs because of those illegal subsidies, and our U.S. industrial base capacity has been reduced significantly, including our knowledge base that we need to build our defense system. Now, competition is key--we all know that--in making sure the Department of Defense gets the best value for their dollar. But it is also really important that the DOT factor in any unfair competition that another company may be receiving. And I wanted to ask you today, in light of that, how is the DOD planning to account for those illegal subsidies that have been received by Airbus--WTO has said that publicly now, and very clear--in the upcoming bid for the KC-X aerial refueling tanker? Mr. Assad. I have to be measured in what I say, Senator, because this is an ongoing source selection. But we think that we have taken adequate steps to ensure that the taxpayers are protected from any findings that might come out of a WTO ruling. As you know, there are two particular cases--one, the European Union versus the United States, the United States versus European Union. I personally--my office represents the Department in supporting the Trade Representative in both of those cases. And it is an extremely complicated situation and matter. It is a matter that is not likely to be resolved and is going to be subject to appeal, and it is going to take a significant amount of time for that to play out. What we have ensured is that in any instance the taxpayers will be totally protected if, in fact, there is a ruling, a final ruling---- Senator Murray. I know why you are saying what you are saying to me, but I just want us all to remember the taxpayers have been harmed now, significantly, and our work force, our industrial base, and our capabilities. So I know why you are saying what you are saying, but I will tell you, there is a lot of us that feel very strongly about the fact that we are now competing against a company with a plane that has been illegally subsidized so they can artificially lower their cost, and that is not a fair competition. And I know what you have to say. Mr. Assad. Yes, ma'am, I certainly understand your position. Senator Murray. Thank you. Senator Whitehouse [presiding]. I have a call that I am supposed to take at any moment, but it has to come in first. So what I might do is go ahead, and if the call comes, I will yield immediately to Senator Cardin. But if you are answers my question and somebody taps me on the shoulder and I suddenly jump up, it really does not have anything to do with what you have said, so please take no offense. Mr. Gordon and Mr. Assad, what is the total amount that the U.S. Government spends annually on contractors, both generally and within the Defense Department? Mr. Assad. Well, I can tell you that the total amount of funds that we spend for the goods and services we buy is approximately--in fiscal year---- Senator Whitehouse. Define the ``we'' in your answer. Mr. Assad. The Department of Defense. Senator Whitehouse. Department of Defense, yes. Mr. Assad. $372 billion last year, and about 53 percent of those funds were for services, and services typically are getting contractors to provide service to support the Department. So it is a significant amount of money that we spend in the contracting of services, so it is about 53 percent of the funds. Senator Whitehouse. Mr. Gordon, governmentwide, what is the number? Mr. Gordon. Government-wide, including DOD, of course, Senator, it was in fiscal year 2008 something like $535 billion, maybe $537 billion. And in 2009, when we slowed that increase from the 12 percent we had been seeing annually on average, it was about $560 billion. It would have been much higher if we had continued on the prior track. Senator Whitehouse. So to go from $535 billion to $560 billion was actually a reduction in the rate of increase that we were seeing? Mr. Gordon. Yes. Senator Whitehouse. That is a pretty significant tell-tale all on its own, isn't it? Mr. Gordon. It is, sir. More than half a trillion dollars a year. Senator Whitehouse. Is it the case from time to time, indeed relatively regularly, that under the services contract side of the Defense Department contracting you will find American soldiers and Government employees providing similar services, in some cases side by side in the field, to Government contractors with the Government contractors being paid more than the soldier or Government employee? Mr. Assad. I think that there is no doubt that we have a large contracted work force in the field working side by side with our warfighters. What we have done is basically logistics support of our warfighters in terms of what we call life support--dining facilities, laundry, things like that. We really do not have warfighters doing much of that anymore. It is provided by contractors. But there is no doubt that contractors make more money than our military work force. I mean, there is no question about that. Senator Whitehouse. What effect do you think that has? I mean, clearly there is a bit of a morale effect if two people are more or less side by side, suffering the same risks, doing the same work, pursuing the same goal, and one is being paid significantly more in the private sector than the other one on the Government payroll. But in addition to that morale effect, does it clearly to recruitment, revolving door, other concerns? Sometimes I feel that people get trained at Government expense and then move out into the contractor world where they take the training that they received at Government expense to go back and do the same work for the Government at a higher rate, and that is sort of an unfortunate result that merits a little bit of attention. Mr. Assad. It does merit oversight, Senator, but I do not think it is as widespread as your concern might be. For the most part, we have tried to divide those responsibilities so that what the contractors are performing is work that really our soldiers--either the choice has been made by our commanders in the field they do not want soldiers and marines performing those responsibilities, or they are of a technical nature such that our marines and soldiers are doing certain amounts of maintenance and the contractors are doing perhaps more sophisticated maintenance. Senator Whitehouse. The Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan report identified in particular KBR, which collected nearly $32 billion since 2001, was connected to what the Commission called the vast majority of war zone fraud cases and a majority of the $13 billion in questioned or unsupported costs, and in particular, an issue that we focused on a lot has been the payment of at least $80 million in bonuses to KBR for the allegedly faulty electrical work that resulted in the fatal electrocutions of more than a dozen U.S. soldiers in the field. That sounds like a massive failure of oversight and really a bitter irony for the families of those dozen soldiers to realize that KBR was paid bonuses for that work. How are we responding to the Commission's report in terms of trying to protect against this sort of stuff happening again? Mr. Assad. Senator, in fact, the information is not exactly accurate. The fact is we paid zero award fee to KBR during that period of time for which we deemed them to have unsatisfactory quality oversight of their electrical performance. That was between, I think, the period January of 2008 to around May of 2008. The fees that they got--I mean, the reality of life is if you go to the field and you talk to the commanders in the field, they will tell you that in general KBR does an adequate job in supporting our troops. The amount of money--and $80 million is a lot of money. But they also performed a lot of work outside of that particular period for the electrical work, and I think what we awarded them was about 40 percent to 50 percent of the fee that was available for the work beyond the electrical work. But we actually awarded them zero-- irrespective of what they performed during that period, it was zero award fee. My office oversaw that. Senator Whitehouse. Senator Cardin. Senator Cardin. Well, first, thank you both very much for your service. We very much appreciate it. The Federal Government is the largest purchaser of goods and services in the world, and Congress has made it clear through statutes that we want a certain amount of that procurement work reserved for smaller companies, 23 percent. There are five goals that are spelled out in law, and the most recent survey indicated that only one agency complied with all five of the goals and two agencies failed to reach any of the goals set out. So, Mr. Gordon, I want to ask you whether you are satisfied with the efforts we are currently making for small businesses to be able to participate in Federal procurement as Congress has envisioned. As you know, small companies are the living force behind job growth and innovation in this country. Are we doing enough, or do we have to do more? Mr. Gordon. Senator Cardin, we are not doing enough. The President and the administration are not satisfied with the situation. We need to be meeting those statutory goals not only for small businesses, a 23-percent goal, but also the goals for the subsets, such as the service-disabled-vet-owned small businesses. The President, as you know, signed a direction to us on April 26th to set up an interagency task force to look for ways to expand the opportunities for small business contracting. We in OMB are working with the Department of Commerce, the Small Business Administration, and the buying agencies right now, this summer, to come up with concrete recommendations for ways to move forward. There have to be more opportunities. I will tell you, Senator, too often people think, Oh, well, if you buy smarter, if you use strategic sourcing, that is going to mean you turn to the big companies. Not true. In my opening statement before you arrived, Senator, I talked about a new initiative to buy office supplies through blanket purchase agreements at much lower prices. At the time those were rolled out at the beginning of June, GSA awarded 12 of those agreements. Eleven of the 12 were to small businesses. Eleven of the 12 were to small businesses, two of which were service- disabled-vet-owned small businesses. In our experience, we can make progress on small business contracting and get a better deal for our taxpayers. We can meet both of those goals if we are open to flexibility and looking for opportunities for our small businesses. Senator Cardin. Well, thank you for that reply. You know, one of the major problems we have is the abuse of bundling, which is somewhat related to whether the different agencies have enough personnel to be able to evaluate the number of interested contractors. In the Department of Defense, I must tell you a frequent complaint I receive from defense contractors is that they are often required to work with the larger companies in order to be able to have their work seriously considered, leading them to be subs or in some cases actually bought out by the larger companies. Mr. Assad, I know your background, and you have had a distinguished private sector career working for one of the Nation's largest companies. With no aspersion at all as to the company you work for, there has clearly been intimidation within the defense contracting industry to partner with a larger company if you intend to do business with the Federal Government. What is your response for more direct contracts between small companies and the Department of Defense so that they do not have to rely on being subcontractors or in some cases being bought out by the larger company? Mr. Assad. Senator, right now our goal is 23 percent. We are running at about 18.9. That is not good enough. That is nowhere near good enough. And one of the things--I do not know if you have had an opportunity for your staff to show you Dr. Carter's recent memo that he put out into the work force, but the biggest single area where we have an opportunity to significantly increase small business is in the world of services. And we are going to focus on this like a laser beam. We get a better deal when we have small business participation, and especially competitive small business involvement. And where we are going is if we establish multiple award contracts in the future, we are going to insist that not just a certain amount of the work be set aside for small businesses, but that small business participation exists in every multiple award environment, and if there are two or more firms that can accomplish that work, we want it competed amongst the small businesses. So what you are going to see from us is a tremendous focus in trying to grow in the world of services opportunities for small business, because what happens on our hardware side of the street is--you know, when we buy an aircraft carrier or we buy some major pieces of equipment in any particular year, it really hurts our ability to get that percentage up. However, I just mentioned to you that we spend 53 percent of our money on services, and so that is where we are going to focus to grow small business opportunity. And I could not agree with you more about small businesses being in that limbo state of not being able to compete on the hardware side of the street with a major equipment supplier, and we do want to foster, for example, through our Small Business Innovative Research Program, opportunities for small business in that environment, too. There is a lot of work to be done in this area, Senator, but I can assure you that--I am personally responsible for small businesses in my acting role, and I can assure you that we are focused on growing this. Senator Cardin. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Senator Cardin, and thank you, gentlemen. This more than half a trillion dollars a year in climbing is clearly a geyser of taxpayer funds that needs to be carefully watched, and I appreciate your efforts to increase and improve the oversight on it. As you depart, I would ask if you would take as a question for the record and respond in writing, Mr. Assad, to the question that Chairman Warner asked having to do with Arlington. Mr. Assad. Yes, sir. [The information referred to follows:] Senator Whitehouse. And if you could both respond to the recommendations of the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan and their September 21 report and let me know whether you think those recommendations are advisable and any comment you may have on those recommendations, I think that would be helpful. So I appreciate it very much and you are both excused. I thank you for your presence here today. [The information referred to follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.084 Senator Whitehouse. We will take a 2-minute recess while we call up the next panel of witnesses. Thank you both so much. Thank you for your service. [Recess.] Senator Warner [presiding]. The Committee will reconvene. I want to again thank Senator Whitehouse, Senator Murray, and Senator Cardin for chairing, whoever did, while I slipped off to the Commerce Committee. And I thank our second panel as well. Our second panel will offer outside perspectives on both contracting practices and suggestions for improvement. I think it is going to be a lively panel. I know we have different views here, which I think is important that we as members hear. First we will hear from Dr. Allison Stanger, a professor of international politics and economics and Director of the Rohatyn Center for International Affairs at Middlebury College. Dr. Stanger's most recent book, ``One Nation Under Contract: The Outsourcing of American Policy and the Future of Foreign Policy,'' was published by Yale University Press in 2009. She is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Academic Leadership Council of Business for Diplomatic Action. She was also a contributor to the Booz Allen Hamilton project on the world's most enduring institutions, the Woodrow Wilson School Task Force on the Changing Nature of Government Service, and a whole lot of other stuff which will be submitted for the record. Our second witness is Dr. James Carafano, the deputy director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and director of the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Dr. Carafano is a historian and teacher as well as a writer and researcher on the fundamental constitutional duty of the Federal Government to provide for the common defense. Dr. Carafano's most recent book is ``Private Sector, Public Wars: Contractors in Combat--Afghanistan, Iraq, and Future Conflicts.'' He is also a 25-year veteran of the Army, manages the day-to-day research program as the director of the Allison Center, and has a series of very distinguished background as well. We will get to the panel. Dr. Stanger, you go first. STATEMENT OF ALLISON STANGER, PH.D., RUSSELL LENG 1960 PROFESSOR OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS AND ECONOMICS, MIDDLEBURY COLLEGE Ms. Stanger. Senators, it is an honor and privilege to share some thoughts with you here today. I have submitted a longer statement for the record, and I am going to use my 5 or 6 minutes here to make a simple argument: that our cherished value of self-government now depends on radical transparency in all Government business transactions. As we have heard on the first panel, the business of government is increasingly in private hands, and there is broad consensus that the current Federal acquisition system is antiquated, ill-equipped to deal with the surging demands placed upon it. A few key figures from USASpending.gov make the general trend clear. In 2000, DOD spent $133.2 billion on contracts. By 2008, that figure had grown to $391.9 billion, which is an almost threefold increase. Again, the same period, 2000 to 2008, the State Department spent $1.3 billion on contracts. Eight years later, contract spending had grown to $5.6 billion, an increase of 431 percent. In 2000, USAID spent $478.6 million on contracts. By 2008, the figure had grown to $3.3 billion, which is an increase of 690 percent in 8 years' time. Despite this paradigm shift in how Government conducts its daily business, contracting, I think, continues to be perceived as something peripheral to policy itself. Yet when contracting and grants comprise 83 percent of the State Department's requested budget, as they did in 2008, 82 percent of the Pentagon's budget, and a whopping 99 percent of USAID's net cost of operations, it is clearly no longer the case that contracting is something peripheral to policy. In the foreign policy realm, with America's first two contractors' wars in full swing, contracting has clearly become a strategic issue. It must be treated as such. Now, I am a Vermont-based professor without a security clearance. I can present these numbers to you here today because of the 2006 Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, or FFATA, which created USASpending.gov. In preparing my written testimony, the figures I cited to you, I pulled them from that website in December 2009. But I discovered last week that sometime in early 2010 USASpending.gov's platform and interface were totally redesigned. Once significant change caught my immediate attention. The old version of USASpending.gov used to have a page entirely dedicated to subcontracts and linked to the home page. The subcontracts page used to report that the site was under development. It really provided a clear place holder for important forthcoming information. Today there is no subcontracts or sub-grants page linked to the home page, and the category does not even exist in the menu of choices. Given recent revelations that U.S. taxpayer money has been flowing through subcontracts into the pockets of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the evaporation of the subcontracts page is troubling. Without transparency in subcontracts, we are effectively pouring taxpayer money into a black hole in Afghanistan with no real means of knowing how well that money is likely to be spent or even who is receiving it. FFATA required that information on subcontracts be made available to the public by January 1, 2009, and the old website really made it clear that USASpending.gov was a work in progress, that this information was forthcoming. Today that has changed. The irony here, at least at the level of appearances, is that a website designed to show American taxpayers where their money is going, whose very existence is owed to legislation championed by then-Senator Obama, has grown less rather than more transparent under President Obama's administration. Writing in Federalist No. 10, Founder James Madison saw what he called ``the mischief of factions'' being neutralized that the plethora of special interests in vast colonial America canceled one another out through both federalism and representative Government. In 21st century America, however, Government by contract instead encourages inside-the-Beltway special interests to coalesce and carry the day. Government by contract means that Government is entirely dependent on the private sector to conduct its daily business, so effective oversight is too often hostage to a corporate bottom line. Whenever the economy falters, the profit motive encourages businesses to cut safety and security measures unless Government insists they do not do so. And our disdain for bureaucracy makes it difficult for Government to secure the staffing it needs to ensure that these short cuts are not taken. Congress and the White House can, therefore, have the best of intentions yet be unable to escape the quagmire that Government itself has in part created through its incessant outsourcing. And I want to be sure that my basic point here is not misunderstood. There is no partisan villain in this tale, no conspiracy. We have together constructed a system that no longer functions as the Founders intended. Rescuing Government by the people from the current Government by checkbook is a project for a generation, but we need to get started now. When so much of the work of Government is in private hands, standard approaches to transparency will no longer suffice. President Obama's March 4, 2009, Presidential memorandum ordering a governmentwide review of our contracting practices was a bold step in the right direction. The next step is to ensure that the spirit and letter of FFATA are upheld. Thank you for your attention, and I welcome your questions. [The prepared statement of Ms. Stanger follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.082 Senator Warner. Thank you, Dr. Stanger. Dr. Carafano. STATEMENT OF JAMES JAY CARAFANO, PH.D., DIRECTOR, DOUGLAS AND SARAH ALLISON CENTER FOR FOREIGN POLICY STUDIES, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION Mr. Carafano. I do not know if-- [off microphone]. Senator Whitehouse. Oh, come on. Try. [Laughter.] Mr. Carafano. I would like to highlight five quick points and highlight three recommendations. My first point is contracting in the private sector, if it is done right, is a huge competitive advantage for any nation. World global product is $58 trillion. About a fifth of that is the United States. Most of that wealth was created by the private sector. Much of it was created by small and medium businesses, so harnessing that power is really the key to being the winner in the 21st century. And if you are a free nation, you actually start out with a competitive advantage. If you have rule of law, if you have transparency, if you have low rates of corruption, if you have a media and other people that bring transparency and sunlight, you have an enormous advantage in executing this thing. So getting this right--really, it is not even just about fiscal responsibility. This is about protecting and keeping the Nation free, safe, and prosperous in the 21st century, and leveraging one of the absolute most powerful advantages on the known planet is a big piece of that. I and a team at Heritage, we have been looking at this issue for a very, very long time, and after years of study I come back again and again and again, when I get to the root of the problem, 99.9 percent of the time the root of the problem is Government is not a very good customer. And a lot of what I hear today is the right discussion. The enemy is largely us, being the people that contract for goods and services. My concern is it is great to hear all this discussion and talk about fixing the problem and do this, and we can put aside the fact that we have heard this for decades and decades and decades from administrations both Republican and Democrat. Intentions are great, but intentions have to be meaningful, and analysis that focuses on outputs as opposed to outcomes to me is very troubling. So when we just throw numbers around out of context, numbers independently as if they mean something, whether they are good or bad or we are going to do this or we are going to do that, and it is not tied to a specific outcome that is clear and compelling, then I wonder whether reforms are actually going in the right direction. The fourth point I would make is by and large the solutions that I would argue for, my personal prejudice is always people overprocess, particularly where you are dealing with very, very huge, complex systems. Probably a great example of this is back in the 1990's, when information technology was really exploding, people had a good heart, and so we had the Clinger- Cohen act, and the notion was Government has to get on top of this. So we added a process. We said, Look, consider IT a major enterprise acquisition for your Federal agency, period. And that seemed like a good thing. We were putting people in charge. Well, of course, we were really at the dawn of the IT revolution, and the people who were put in charge were clueless. They did not have any ideas on what good IT was. So it is like we gave matches to the kid, and as a result in the 1990's Government locked itself into a lot of stupid decisions that the private sector did not make in terms of buying proprietary software and different services. And we have been locked into that, and in large part you could argue that our IT policies and acquisition have stunk for decades because we put stupid people in charge at the beginning, and now we are just playing catch-up. When you get the people piece right, everything else falls into place. And I want to just emphasize three areas of that. Getting an acquisition work force, I think everybody agrees that is absolutely right. We powered down our acquisition work force, particularly in DOD, at the end of the cold war. Huge mistake because we knew the only way we were going to grow capacity in time of war was to use the private sector and to take away the head that was supposed to run that. That was just dumb. And we have to build that back. When we build that back, we have really got to be smart, and there is a good analogy here. If you look in the scientific community what keeps scientists at a university or a research center? And it is not just what you are paying them. They like to hang out there because it is cool. They have cool research facilities. They got great work. They have the tools that they need, and they are doing exciting things. So when we build this IT work force, we have to give them the tools and the capabilities and the authority to do their job; otherwise, they are not going to stick around. And if we just have a lot of people cycling through the system every 12 or 18 months, we are not going to get any oversight. Particularly in the area of the IT systems that support the acquisition oversight and management process, we have to put the investments in there and get the right systems in place. The second piece I would emphasize is auditing. Everybody talks about auditing. Auditing is great. When we look at the history of the auditing of the auditor of the Defense Contracting Auditing Agency, it is not a pretty picture in the last couple years. You know, we have to get that piece right, and we have to, I think, make a distinction and re-create the difference between doing auditing of fiscal processes and what the Inspector General does. And I am very concerned that in our rush to fix things, we are tending to blur these things together to the point that it actually might get counterproductive. They are important activities, they are interrelated activities, but they ought to be cleanly separate activities, and they ought to be a resource and run appropriately. Then the last point I will make is we have really got to end the process of micromanagement. The concept of risk management was created to help leaders make decisions. It was not created to childproof the universe. You are never going to eliminate risk. And if you make laws and rules and processes that their sole purpose is to drive risk out of the system and not get anything done wrong, at the end what you are going to do is drive a process that is incredibly inefficient and incredibly risky. So risk management works when it is in the hands of the people who have responsibility, so we need to be empowering program managers, we need to be empowering the acquisition work force, we need to have the oversight and transparency. But we cannot continually saddle them with more and more regulations and requirements and have them in turn impose more and more regulations and requirements which are actually creating a more inefficient system. So we get to the point where we are buying absolutely nothing with zero risk and spending an awful lot of money on it. With that, I thank you for having me here today. [The prepared statement of Mr. Carafano follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.075 Senator Warner. Thank you both. I think there may be some spirited disagreement, but I think--not as much as you promised me, Sheldon. But I do think it was important that we have heard from all four of our panelists that the acquisition work force, getting those folks right, and getting them trained is key. Dr. Carafano, I would like you to expand on your comment in a moment. I am going to ask one broad-based question and let you both answer. This notion of fiscal auditing responsibility versus the Inspector General role, I agree with you. They were different functions, and the two tend to blur sometimes and trying to recognize one--in the normal course of business, one is looking for that outlier, bad instances. I would love you both to expand on that. What this Task Force has looked a lot at is the next level of Government performance geekiness, which we would all like but most folks' eyes roll over, which is performance metrics. And we have talked here a little bit about how do we have transparency, how do we get the contracting right. I would like you each to talk a little bit about, let us take DOD as an area. How do we get some common consensus on those performance metrics and what they ought to be? My personal bias is--and I would like you to both comment on this, particularly Dr. Stanger. I think Dr. Carafano has a point that we are--we want to do our oversight job well, but at times what we do is simply layer on more requirements, layer on more reporting, without taking anything away. And I think sometimes the work force was caught with this 20 years of accumulated reporting requirements, and nobody sorts through what is important and what is not important. And then when we get to the question of how do we present that information in a website that is user friendly and understandable by somebody other than distinguished professors with incredible backgrounds, we do not get it right. So I would like your comment on, in this move toward more transparency, would you be willing to say we ought to audit a little bit of what all the reporting requirements are already out there and see what we can actually remove and prioritize so that the work force can do a better job of recognizing what is really important for us to know to do our job right. Broad-based throwing in questions, and recognizing that at the front end will be my only question. Then we are going to move to Senator Whitehouse because the roll call vote has just started, so we are going to have to probably slip out in about 10 or 12 minutes. Ms. Stanger. Well, the point I would make is I am not an expert on auditing requirements, but I know that there has been this layering of requirement upon requirement, and when you get accumulated regulations over time, it tends to operate in irrational ways. So I definitely think that would be something for review. But my point about transparency is just a simple one. It is not allowing everybody to understand ordinary citizens to understand the requirements. It is simply letting citizens know where the money is going. That is the part that concerns me, is that if you have these enormous percentages of business, the business of Government, in private hands and it is flowing through contracts to subcontracts and we cannot see where it is going, that to me is at odds with the principle of self- government and needs to be corrected. So I am a keen advocate of transparency for those reasons. I think we would all agree that the acquisition work force needs to be increased and better trained. I am wondering whether you might want to consider linking appropriate training--increased funds for building up the work force to appropriate training. I will stop there. Mr. Carafano. I think there is a real lesson to learn here from GPRA, the Government Performance and Review Act, which, again, interestingly, is another product of the legislation in the 1990's in a time when we were facing a similar fiscal situation that are today. We wanted to reduce Federal spending. We were trying to grow the economy, and so we wanted to make Government more efficient and more effective. So we introduced GPRA, which is by and large borrowing concepts from the private sector and applying them to Government, without clearly recognizing that Government business processes are different than private sector business processes because we have a Congress and we have rules and we have the foreign--the private sector does not. And if you actually look at the implementation of GPRA over time, what has increasingly happened is we have seen an increasing proliferation of metrics which are increasingly outputs as opposed to outcomes. So what we have actually been doing is, again, driving a bunch of behaviors which do not necessarily lead to the key things that we are interested in, which is getting the best value and the best services for the taxpayer. So, clearly, I think from Congress' perspective, fewer, more truly meaningful metrics that are truly outcome-based are something that is worth striving for. So I commend your notion and your idea of where it is really worth going and delving into, because I think there is some real ``there'' there. Senator Warner. I personally believe we have gone from GPRA to PART to now the Obama administration's efforts as well. It seems like we reinvent the wheel. Part of the challenge and part of what this--it seems to me the administration has come in and, in a flurry in the first year, talk about transparency and performance metrics, and that quickly gets very tedious to people other than folks like us who get excited about it, and that process recedes, and then a new administration comes in and we reinvent the wheel. Part of the goal--and I appreciate Senator Conrad and Senator Gregg giving us this task force--is to try to get an ongoing legislative entity that beyond a particular administration will keep that focus in place. I would ask you to--Dr. Carafano, you took on the issue around metrics performance. Dr. Stanger, you came back to transparency again. I would like you to reverse role each other and, Dr. Stanger, if you could talk a little bit about how do we get those performance metrics right. And, Dr. Carafano, I assume--I would like you to say Dr. Stanger's point, which is we at least ought to know where all the dollars are going. It seems to me like pretty common sense. I would take a little bit of an exception maybe to the notion that there are differences, but as somebody who has spent a career in the private sector and now some in the public sector the notion that they are totally apples and oranges, that there ought to be some ability to measure in a better way the outcomes, as you said, because it should not be outputs. So if you could address more the performance piece, Dr. Stanger, and, Dr. Carafano, if you could get more into the transparency issue, I would be curious. Ms. Stanger. I think with respect to performance metrics, we can all agree that enhanced competition is key to both lowering costs and also encouraging innovation and the energy on which our economy's growth depends. So I think actually transparency is linked to putting in place the right incentives for the private sector, because if we really do want to, as we heard on the last panel, increase the involvement of small business, if we want to be sure that every contract is properly competed, then transparency is key, because if you want small business involvement--and we see this in the development realm in particular--you know, having the information out there on what is possible and what has taken place in the past is absolutely critical. So I see a definite link between my transparency theme and getting better Government performance in that realm. Senator Warner. Let me just ask, before we go to Dr. Carafano, the point I made and the point that I think Dr. Carafano made, which was sometimes under the guise of transparency we add on more and more requirements, I do think he has a point in terms of at some level in oversight a 535- member board, which in effect the Federal Government has with both the House and the Senate, each trying to ask specific items, can get into a level of micromanagement. How would you as an advocate for transparency sort through those? You know, should we be doing an audit of all the reporting requirements and all the management requirements that are out there to hone that list down so that we could focus on more important items, or the most important items? Ms. Stanger. It sound to me like that would make a lot of sense, but I would just add to that that--I have lost my train of thought. Senator Warner. It happens to me all the time. Because we are seeing--what we are focusing on here is I hear from Federal employees all the time. Every administration comes in with a new set of reporting requirements. The Congress adds in every piece of legislation new reports requirements. It is hard to be against any new reporting requirement that sounds when you are arguing and there is an amendment that this is in the guise of transparency and to get us to greater effectiveness and better value. But at times I have seen the GPRA reports and PART reports. They are so voluminous that, again, perhaps with very few experts around there there is not a focus to them. Ms. Stanger. My thought came back to me. Can I speak again? Sorry about that. I think it makes sense to perhaps redefine how we think of transparency, because in the way you are discussing it, transparency is very much a question of what Government is requiring what needs to be provided in terms of reporting to satisfy Government. I would suggest that we instead think of transparency as being something that is in the eyes of the beholder in the sense that it is not what Government thinks needs to be required or put out there but, rather, that we ask people who are providing the services what they would like to see publicly available or not publicly available and that transparency exists when the people who are depending on open sources agree that it is there. In other words, Government does not define transparency; the people do. And so I would encourage thinking about transparency in that sort of way with respect to regulations as well. Senator Warner. The only question I would have with that is I am not sure in this case more is always better and that at some point limitations--you could have--whether it is your contracting officials, whether it is your senior management, spending a disproportionate amount of time on simply reporting rather than doing their job. Dr. Carafano? Mr. Carafano. I would just like to jump back to the point on metrics, if I may for a second. Competition in small and medium businesses is actually a really good example, so defining--for example, small and medium businesses truly are the backbone in this country, enormous amount of innovation and a great resource for Government, absolutely. The question is: As a metric, is defining small business contracts as a percentage, is that a really useful metric, or is that just another output? And in driving to get to that metric, will you drive inefficient and poor behaviors as opposed to--I mean, and we really looked at why do small and medium businesses not do a lot of Government contracting, and it is usually because of the Tower of Babel of regulations and everything they have to go through to even find out about contracts and get them. So if we remove the barriers to entry level in the Government contracting, wouldn't that be maybe more effective than just establishing a percentage? So that is just a thought. On the transparency side this is an enormous issue for Government, and I think one of the problems is when we try to address the field of contracting we try to come up with a silver bullet to solve every problem for everything. And Government contracting is incredibly complex. It is a lot of different vehicles doing a lot of different things. You should look at them all differently. So if you are looking for a place to start, looking, again, at the IT support for the acquisition work force and the resources they have available and the adequacy of them I think is a very good place. You know, the notion that giving us a lot of information is burdensome, that was true in the 19th century, and it was true in the 20th century, but I am not so sure it is true in the 21st century. We are creating new network tools, new social network tools so that places an enormous amounts of data incredibly quickly and allow you to slice and dice every way you do that. So I can go buy a piece of social ware, and I can tell you everything on the Web everybody is saying about Senator Warner today and who likes him and who does not like him, and I can give you all that data in about 5 minutes. And if I went to an acquisition work force and I asked you where are all the subcontractors working on this contract, he would say, ``I will get back to you in 3 or 4 months.'' So the IT is out there to give us a lot of information to solve a lot of these transparency problems, and if you work that piece at the start, at the acquisition start, it is not going to solve the transparency problem for all of Government and all of Federal contracting. But it sure gives you a good start point to look at things. Senator Warner. Your point being that getting that--again, back to that initial sizing of the requirements right, at least on the IT piece, that--and I think you are saying then you have unlimited access to the data and how you slice and dice may not be as burdensome as in the past. Mr. Carafano. Right. Senator Warner. I am going to turn it over to Senator Whitehouse to close out this part of the hearing, and I appreciate both of your testimonies and answers to questions. In terms of a written response I would love both of your thoughts as this administration takes on this conversation about what is an inherently governmental function, that whole broad-based philosophical basis of how we are going to sort through this. It is something I think we are going to have to be engaged in as well and would love at least your thoughts about how we ought to at least even approach that debate, and I would look forward to those written responses. [The information referred to follows:] Senator Warner. I will turn the balance of the hearing over to my colleague Senator Whitehouse. Thank you. Senator Whitehouse [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Warner, and thank you both for your testimony. As much as we have joked a bit back and forth about the dispute that often comes between majority and minority witnesses, what struck me was that the areas of overlap between your testimony were far, far greater than your areas of disagreement. Even when you go to the more thorough written testimony, you guys are very much in synch about the need for better management of this contracting practice and the tools for doing that. A couple of things struck me. The first is that you seem both to agree that the practice of contracting has to a very significant extent run ahead of the policy about how we should be doing it. I noticed in Dr. Stanger's book, ``One Nation Under Contract: The Outsourcing of American Power and the Future of Foreign Policy,'' two quotes that seemed to illustrate this a bit. Susan Yarwood, Deputy Director of Enterprise Services in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, in June of 2007 said, ``We do not even know how many contracts we have now.'' And General Zinni, Anthony Zinni, the former commander-in-chief of the U.S. Central Command, said, ``If I had to revamp how we do things, I would start with what should be contracted and what should not.'' So we are at a fairly basic level to start with where the questions are what should be contracted and what should not and how many contracts do we have. Do you agree that we are--that the practice of contracting has run ahead of the policy as to how and when we should do it and how it should be overseen and there is a gap there? Mr. Carafano. Maybe I will just start. Yes, I think that is very true. A great example of that is the A-76 process that was developed to determine whether some things should be inherently governmental or outsourced. So the A-76 process was a peacetime process, and it was designed for a very different military. And when you go back--and I discussed this example at length in my book. When you go back and you look at the tragedy of Walter Reed, the tragedy of Walter Reed was everybody was just doing their job, they were just clunking through on the A-76 process as it existed and doing what it said, and the result of that is we have tragically failed to take care of our soldiers because the A-76 process did not recognize the notion that there would be a war tomorrow and all of a sudden you have to surge capacity and then you need to stop and go in a different direction. So I think the answer to the question and where I would disagree with General Zinni is there is--and General Zinni knows this, and I am sure that is not what he said. You know, when they say how do you fight a war, the answer is, well, if you have seen one war, you have seen one war. You know, what should you contract? And the answer is, well, it depends. Technology is going to evolve. Governance is going to evolve. People's needs are going to evolve. So what is incredibly appropriate to contract today might not be a good idea to contract tomorrow. What we tend to do is to use always economies and dollar as the key determination about whether something should or should not be contracted out or not. Oftentimes, that is not good. And, again, to my mind, no contracting vehicle is perfect, and nothing is more virtuous than others. A fixed contract is not more virtuous than a sole-source contract because it is all developed in a context. But certainly in situations where, you know---- Senator Whitehouse. Certainly some are a little bit more risky than others, though, and would need strong oversight. Mr. Carafano. It depends on context, absolutely. Certainly where national security is involved and people's lives are on the line, such as a contingency theory, contingency situations best value, I think--that is in the FAR for a reason, because that allows you to do the risk assessments that you need. So get the system and the people right, and then the decision about should I buy this or should I hire--you know, should I do this in the Pentagon, I think that will fall out more rationally. Senator Whitehouse. Yes, so you are behind the perspective that you presented. You accept the presumption that our policy as to how we should do this is not adequately settled for the extent of the practice we are engaged in. Mr. Carafano. Absolutely, and if I just may very quickly, one of the reasons why I was a big fan of Secretary Gansler's report that he did for the Army was because they focused on exactly the right thing, which is how to build a system that is flexible and agile and accommodate the Army's changing needs as they change over time to in a sense get the policy and the structure ahead of the problem, not to wait for the war to figure out how we contract for it, but to have the things that we can adapt to the war and the needs we have. And I thought the philosophy and the structure behind the Gansler report was a good step in the right direction. Senator Whitehouse. Dr. Stanger. Ms. Stanger. I think you are absolutely right that our policy has lagged practice, that we are only just beginning to think strategically about this issue, and much of it is due to what Secretary Gates has aptly called willy nilly contracting, that we wanted to pursue two wars simultaneously and to do so without a draft, and I think it is pretty clear that contractors have filled that gap, have enabled us to fight both wars without a draft. And with a draft, of course, we would have a very different political situation. But there have been some negative consequences of that. One of the big ones--and I think you pointed to it--is that accounting systems have really lagged reality. So the FFATA can ask for certain information, and the reality is that agencies simply were not collecting it. Even though billions of dollars were going out the door in contracts and grants, there were simply not systems in place to track that explosion in spending that everybody has identified and talked about. So part of the reason I am insisting that the spirit and the letter of FFATA be upheld is I think it is going to keep the pressure on to get those accounting systems in place and be sure that the information that should be in the public domain is indeed there. I think there is one thing where we might differ. I am not sure. I am not---- Mr. Carafano. I do not like a draft. Ms. Stanger. Yes. That was not the point I was going to make. It might be on---- Senator Whitehouse. Going to my next question, it is actually more helpful to me to single out that places where you do agree---- Ms. Stanger. Sure. Senator Whitehouse [continuing]. Because that gives us the foundation for moving forward and taking action, which is the ultimate purpose of the hearing. The second place where you both seem to agree is that, in addition to the policy gap, there is also an accountability gap. Dr. Stanger, you document this in your book with a note that there are over 300 reported cases contracting mistakes or abuses in Iraq from 2003 to 2007, and the Government Accountability Office testified that there was not a single instance of anyone being fired or denied promotion in connection with those cases. That is sort of just one example, and it is really secondary. It has more to do with the oversight function. But do you both agree that there is a very substantial accountability gap both in terms of oversight of the contractors and oversight of the oversight function, who is watching the watchman? Ms. Stanger. Absolutely. I would totally agree with that. Senator Whitehouse. Dr. Carafano? Mr. Carafano. Yes, my concern is how in our effort to strive for greater accountability is we have actually accomplished the opposite because we have put more requirements, more requirements on, and what that has done is create a risk-averse acquisition work force that does not make decisions. So we see the train wreck coming, but a lot---- Senator Whitehouse. I would actually add that what it also does is it creates a sufficiently complex contracting process, that it gives strategic advantage to larger and professional contractors who can leverage their ability to negotiate the process; whereas, the new company, the small company, the company with the bright idea that is not an institutionalized Government contractors, finds that forbidding and in many cases gets trapped in its snares and may not actually work its way through the process, even though they have a better, cheaper product. So it actually, I think, hurts at both ends. It hurts at the oversight end in terms of the way the accounting folks work, the oversight folks work in the Government, and it is a deterrent or at least--a deterrent or an advantage in a way that is not relevant to the quality of the product and creates an artificial distinction between different contractors. Mr. Carafano. I would argue that excessive regulatory requirements are the single greatest barrier to entry of small and medium businesses in Government contract competition. Senator Whitehouse. People get hired into the big contractors because they are expert at negotiating the snares and mines of the process. So we have the policy gap. We have an accountability gap. It also strikes me that we have a transparency gap. You both have mentioned that also. And in that context, one of the things that interests me is that if you are a Government employee and if you have a Government program, that is subject to considerable amounts of public scrutiny and the boundaries of what is amenable to public scrutiny and what is not is usually determined by national security concerns and the classification process, which has a sort of regimented nature of its own. And we can argue about how wise that is, but it is what it is. Once you step out into the world of private Government contractors, the question of corporate proprietary interests rears its head, and that brings in a whole other level of non- transparency and non-disclosure that does not necessarily match with what should be classified or not. And I would submit that there are probably a great number of activities that if the Government engaged in them and then tried to claim that it was proprietary, the roof would fall in on whoever made the claim, and it would probably not withstand legal scrutiny; whereas, by having outsourced it, now suddenly you have raised this new barrier to public transparency in our democracy. So you have to--I think we have to recognize that there is an inherent transparency problem with private contracting where proprietary protections are honored; on the other hand, you do not want to force people to give up trade secrets. Any thoughts on how we could improve in our contracting the way--what we demand that a private corporation should disclose when it is executing a governmental initiative? Mr. Carafano. You know, as a general principle, I think it is a difficult question to answer. It is much like do you want security or liberty, and the answer is yes, right? And democracy is set up to create a natural tension so you seek to maximize both qualities simultaneously. So it would be hard for me to propose an overarching principle to address that. So I think there are some one eaches that we could start with in looking at some of these issues, and a related issue I would raise, for example, is the Defense Cooperation Act with Australia and Great Britain, which are treaties which are now pending before Congress, both designed to open up governments to having more knowledge about what contractors are doing and allowing contractors to have more knowledge of each other. So large companies in the United States which have, for example, subcontract--have divisions in Australia and one of the part of the company cannot even talk to the other part of the company because of proprietary restrictions and ITAR and all the rest. So those treaties are some good examples of the kinds of baby steps, but I think this is particularly an issue where it would have to be work on the eaches rather than trying to implement a general principle across the Federal enterprise. Senator Whitehouse. Now, one of the--Dr. Stanger, did you want to answer that, also? Ms. Stanger. I would just add to that that I think just as we need to rethink what transparency means in the information age, we may need to rethink this as proprietary and how it relates to work done for Government. I think there has to be a higher standard of openness if it is done for Government, precisely because such a large percentage of the work is in private sector hands. Senator Whitehouse. Yes, and not to mention that we are well over half a trillion dollars a year going down this pipe, so it is worth making sure we can track it to the end. In that context we are charged on the Budget Committee with trying to put a budget together every year. I am hoping that the process that we undertake through this task force will ultimately lead to having some confidence to add a savings number into the budget when we go through the process in future years. We obviously have to develop some ground work for that because you do not want to be willy nilly about throwing a number in the budget any more than you want to be willy nilly about your contracting practices. But in terms of our enthusiasm to pursue this question of contracting, it will relate to results, and so I am going to ask each of you for a real ballpark-range number. If we are doing $560 billion a year in contracting and if we were to by your standards get it right, what order of magnitude savings would you guess we might expect? Are we talking about 1 percent and nibbling at the edges and, therefore, probably not worth devoting a lot of time and energy from this task force to the problem? Are we talking about 5 to 10 percent, 20 percent, maybe 50 percent, maybe 80 percent? Where is your range of comfort as to where those numbers might lie? And, again, I am not trying to pin you down, but this is a new effort, and we need to deploy our resources wisely as well. And if it comes back with everybody saying at best you will be able to knock $560 billion down to $555 billion, well, frankly, we should probably go look somewhere else then. Mr. Carafano. I am going to give you a very unsatisfactory answer to that question, which is it is the wrong question, because we know for a fact that we do not really understand fully Government business processes. So anybody that comes to you and says, well, you can save X amount of money, they are just guessing, right? There are no analytics behind that. I have been very critical of Secretary Gates who said we are going to save $100 billion in defense practices, and then they turn right around and issue out a letter, a request to people saying, ``Give us some ideas.'' So they have defined a number which has no rigor behind it whatsoever. What the number is is the gap between what they have and what they need, right? So, again, driving to get $100 billion savings in the end may cost us how many trillions of dollars of inefficiencies, we do not know. So driving to get to a number that we do not know if it is the right--how it got there, where it makes sense, I am very opposed against. I am very laudable of your effort, and I am all for fiscal conservativism, and I think you are on exactly the right intellectual track. But I think you are not ready to ask that question. Ms. Stanger. I think you are ready to ask that question, but there is an inherent problem here that needs to be acknowledged, and it is what makes this so difficult, your job so difficult; namely, that everybody is talking about we need to buildup the acquisition work force because we cannot have oversight without some threshold level of employees to do it, to have them properly trained to be able to manage contracts in this new world. Yet obviously building up a work force is going to cost money in the short term, and you are doing it in the short term in order to get long-term savings. But on its face, it looks like you are adding to the budget rather than getting savings. But you need to do that in order to realize the long- term cost savings and restore oversight to Government. So just one example to illustrate, I know that your Committee proposed cuts to the operating expenses budget of USAID. USAID is probably the hardest-hit Government agency. It has really become a contract clearinghouse. Senator Whitehouse. Contracting service, yes. Mr. Carafano. It is all contractors. Ms. Stanger. It is all contractors, and they want to restore that oversight function. Yet they cannot do it without an increase in the operating expenses budget, yet it looks like a good place to actually get immediate savings. So to me, that is the real conundrum, and it is a difficult one politically. Senator Whitehouse. But, I mean, encourage us a little bit. Assuming that we did this right, are we talking about potentially saving the American taxpayer a couple of million dollars here and there? Are we talking about potentially saving the American taxpayer a billion dollars here and there? Are we potentially talking about savings in the tens of billions of dollars if we got this right? Ms. Stanger. Senator Whitehouse, I think we would be saving lots of money, probably billions of dollars, but I think more importantly we would be saving self-government. That to me is the central issue here. Mr. Carafano. You know, I actually very much agree with that. I think we are shortsighted when we look at this in dollars and cents. We have a Government---- Senator Whitehouse. Bearing in mind that you are in the Budget Committee. There are some obligations in that regard. [Laughter.] Mr. Carafano. And we have a budget for a purpose, right? And the purpose is to have a Government that serves the people. So the virtue of your effort, regardless of whether at the end of the day the Federal budget is bigger or smaller--and I could just say we could deal with entitlements growth and that would solve the whole problem. But you know what? Even if we solve the problem of Social Security, Medicaid, welfare, and all the other Federal programs tomorrow, I would still say that this is an incredibly virtuous effort, because what is at risk here, as you well stated, is Government is supposed to serve us. If Government is not contracting correctly, if they are not doing the people's business, then democracy is at risk. And as I said in my opening statement, this is a huge competitive advantage for America. Tapping in to the most vibrant, exciting, capable private sector in the history of the planet is an enormous source of power. It is better than oil. And we cannot do that if we cannot do this right. So if you never could credit saving a Federal nickel but you made a Government that served the people, I would add a statue for you out there. Senator Whitehouse. Final question. Was President Eisenhower right to worry about the military-industrial complex? Mr. Carafano. No. Senator Whitehouse. We finally have disagreement because Dr. Stanger was nodding her head. [Laughter.] Mr. Carafano. Read the introduction in my book. Senator Whitehouse. All right. So at least we ended with some disagreement, although through a great deal of it there was much agreement, and as I said, the agreement between witnesses who come from different perspectives and points of view is a very helpful place for us to move forward from. So I thank you both for your areas of agreement and disagreement, and thank you for your testimony and all the hard work that you have put in in this area, and I encourage you to continue, because we depend on people like you who are willing to look hard and persistently at these important questions. The hearing will remain open until the end of the day today. Sometimes the hearing record stays open a week. Sometimes it stays open 2 weeks. We are on a short leash, so the hearing record will close at the end of the day today. So if anybody wants to get anything in to add to the record, they have to do it today. But the hearing is adjourned, and I thank both witnesses for their testimony. [Whereupon, at 11:41 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8155.084 Response from Daniel I. Gordon, Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy Questions for the Record Senate Budget Committee QFR's from Senator Warner 1) Can you describe some of the success agencies have experienced in using strategic sourcing to date, and also identify any future plans for strategic sourcing in other areas of procurement? As noted in my written statement, agencies are using strategic sourcing to help them achieve savings and efficiency goals. Agencies use enterprise-wide initiatives, such as VA's efforts to leverage the buying power of its own medical cengers through an integrated network of national and regional contracts, and also participate in government-wide Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiatives (FSSI). The current FSSI efforts for express delivery services and office supplies are available government-wide and further leverage the government's buying power. In the case of office supplies, for example, GSA projects government-wide savings of nearly $50 million annually. Additionally, the Strategic Sourching Working Group (SSWG) of the Chief Acquisition Officers Council is pursuing FSSI opportunities for wireless services, software licensing, and a variety of IT equipment and servcices. 2) Do you have plans to evaluate more strategic sourcing opportunities with government-wide technology? As mentioned above, we plan to evaluate government-wide strategic sourcing opportunities for a variety of IT equipment and services. To support this evaluation, we have expanded the leadership of the Strategi Sourcing Working Group, the senior governance body for FSSI, to include as Co-Chair OMB's Deputy Administrator for E-Gov and IT. The SWWG is working closely with GSA to identify new opportunities in wireless services, software licensing, and other areas.