[Senate Hearing 111-838]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-838
NOMINATIONS OF HON. TARA J. O'TOOLE AND JEFFREY D. ZIENTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
of the
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOMINATIONS OF HON. TARA J. O'TOOLE TO BE UNDER SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; AND JEFFREY D.
ZIENTS TO BE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET
JUNE 10, 2009
__________
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
51-784 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
JON TESTER, Montana
ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois
MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado
Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director
Lawrence B. Novey, Senior Counsel
F. James McGee, Professional Staff Member
Kristine V. Lam, Professional Staff Member
Brandon L. Milhorn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Robert L. Strayer, Minority Director for Homeland Security Affairs
Amanda Wood, Minority Director for Governmental Affairs
Jennifer L. Tarr, Minority Counsel
Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk
Patricia R. Hogan, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee
Laura W. Kilbride, Hearing Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Lieberman............................................ 1
Senator Levin................................................ 1
Senator Collins.............................................. 3
Senator Tester............................................... 12
Senator Carper............................................... 14
Senator Bennet............................................... 15
Senator Akaka................................................ 25
Prepared statements:
Senator Lieberman.......................................... 29, 144
Senator Collins............................................ 30, 144
Senator Bennet............................................... 145
WITNESSES
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Hon. Tara J. O'Toole to be Under Secretary for Science and
Technology, U.S. Department of Homeland Security............... 5
Jeffrey D. Zients to be Deputy Director for Management, Office of
Management and Budget.......................................... 19
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
O'Toole, Hon. Tara J.:
Testimony.................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Biographical and financial information....................... 36
Responses to pre-hearing questions........................... 56
Letter from the Office of Government Ethics.................. 104
Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record........... 105
Letters of Support........................................... 117
Zients, Jeffrey D.:
Testimony.................................................... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 146
Biographical and financial information....................... 148
Responses to pre-hearing questions........................... 159
Letter from the Office of Government Ethics.................. 197
Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record........... 198
Letter of Support............................................ 204
NOMINATIONS OF HON. TARA J. O'TOOLE AND JEFFREY D. ZIENTS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph I.
Lieberman, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Lieberman, Levin, Akaka, Carper, Tester,
Bennet, and Collins.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LIEBERMAN
Chairman Lieberman. The hearing will come to order.
We have just been having a debate about--we know you are an
honorable person--why the title ``Hon.'' is in front of your
name, Dr. O'Toole. And I know it is not your choice, and I have
been told that you were confirmed for a position during the
Clinton Administration. Am I right?
Dr. O'Toole. That is correct.
Chairman Lieberman. So perhaps that is why you are not only
honorable but officially ``Honorable.'' [Laughter.]
Welcome to the hearing.
Senator Levin has to leave urgently to go to a meeting that
he has, and he wanted to make a brief statement before we
proceed. So I will call on him at this time.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN
Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate it.
There have been a number of critics who have raised
questions about Dr. O'Toole's writings in the past, and with
the permission of the Chairman, I would like to submit for
prompt response questions to those critics, and then give Dr.
O'Toole, of course, an opportunity to respond to any comments
that they might make.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Levin. Without
objection, we will do that.
Senator Levin. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you.
Dr. O'Toole. I would be happy to.
Chairman Lieberman. Today we are going to consider the
nominations of Dr. Tara O'Toole to be Under Secretary for
Science and Technology (S&T) at the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) and Jeffrey Zients to be the Deputy Director for
Management at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
We are going to begin with Dr. O'Toole, who has appeared
previously before our Committee as a very constructive and
helpful witness on various matters that we have been following
and who I am delighted to welcome back as the nominee for this
important position.
The Science and Technology Directorate at DHS is charged
with managing our Nation's investments in homeland security
research and development (R&D) projects. The fact is that
Senator Collins and I, when this Committee was working on the
legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security after
September 11, 2001, were very impressed by the work that the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has done over
the years at the Department of Defense (DOD) and wanted very
much to create a similar center for public investments in
research in science and technology that could enable our
country to take much more effective and rapid leaps ahead in
protecting homeland security.
And the truth is, it is hard to think of a threat to our
homeland security that is not already being better defended
against or could not be better defended against with the
innovative and sensible application of science and technology.
So this is a very important part of our overall homeland
security effort.
The fact is that the Science and Technology Directorate had
what I will diplomatically call ``a difficult launch'' in its
early years, and it struggled to clarify and, in fact, at times
execute its primary mission. As a result, unfortunately, the
fiscal year 2007 Appropriations Act cut the Directorate's then
$1.4 billion budget by 40 percent.
In wake of that jolt, former Under Secretary Jay Cohen, who
held the position that you have been nominated for now,
resolved to build a leaner and more tightly managed
organization that focused on serving its primary customers--the
various agencies within DHS--and also on being fully
transparent with Congress.
Under Secretary Cohen, I think, did very effective work
implementing internal controls to monitor S&T finances and
track the progress of S&T investments. He established a
structured strategic planning process that is designed to
produce specific objectives and annual performance measures.
And the good news is that there have been recent increases in
the Directorate's budget, which are about the most tangible way
Congress can express its growing confidence in the work that
the Directorate has done, though I will say it is not yet back
to where it was before that cut.
But, obviously, a number of complex challenges remain and
the threat to our homeland in various ways from Islamist
terrorists, particularly, willing to strike at human targets
and undefended targets, which will present you, of course, if
confirmed, Dr. O'Toole, with challenges and will call upon your
leadership to continue to build and improve this agency that is
so vital to the Department's overall mission.
Among the challenges that I think you will face are
expanding investments in innovative R&D for homeland security
and ensuring the reliability of the testing and evaluation that
is done on large acquisition programs.
Second is strengthening relationships between the Science
and Technology Directorate and agencies within DHS. To these
and the other challenges you face, Dr. O'Toole, you bring a
wealth of experience that will serve you well in this job, if
you are confirmed.
For the record, I will simply say that probably as an act
of humility by my staff on my behalf, they have left out--and I
know Senator Collins always likes to note this--my pleasure
that you spent time in your medical education at Yale
University in New Haven, Connecticut.
After practicing medicine in Baltimore for several years,
Dr. O'Toole earned a Master of Public Health from Johns Hopkins
University, spent 5 years as a senior analyst and project
director with the Congressional Office of Technology
Assessment, and from 1993 to 1997, served as the Assistant
Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health--in a most
honorable fashion, I might add--at the Department of Energy.
From 1999 to 2003, she managed the Johns Hopkins Center for
Civilian Biodefense Strategies. For the last 6 years, Dr.
O'Toole has served as the Director and Chief Executive Officer
at the Center for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh.
Dr. O'Toole is known as a nationally recognized expert on
biodefense and the actions that we must take to detect, deter,
and react to either a biological terrorist attack or a pandemic
event.
She is a former chair of the board of the American
Federation of American Scientists and has participated in major
studies or advisory panels at the National Science Foundation,
the Department of Defense, the Department of Health and Human
Services, and the Department of Homeland Security.
This is a most impressive background that you bring as a
nominee, and I welcome your selection. Of course, all this does
not say that you are beyond question, and therefore, I look
forward to the question-and-answer period.
Dr. O'Toole. Thank you.
Chairman Lieberman. Senator Collins.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I join the Chairman in welcoming Tara O'Toole to the
Committee today. As the Chairman has pointed out, Dr. O'Toole
has testified before us previously and has also lent her
expertise to us when we have called her informally for advice.
The Chairman has already illustrated that Dr. O'Toole has
an extensive medical, public health, and biodefense career. I
would point out that she was one of the original members of the
Johns Hopkins Center for Civilian Biodefense Strategies and
served as its director from 2001 to 2003.
When the Department of Homeland Security was established,
Congress recognized the important role that technology must
play in securing our Nation; therefore, we created a Science
and Technology Directorate to undertake research and
development activities. As the Chairman has indicated, the
Directorate got off to a rough start, but in recent years has
made some real progress. Today, the Department is developing
technologies on a variety of fronts, including biological,
chemical and explosives detection, communications
interoperability, and passenger and cargo screening.
Technological advances at the ports of entry are already
helping to identify individuals who are using fraudulent travel
documents. This technology allows the Department to better
perform its mission of protecting the American people while
still facilitating the legitimate flow of people and commerce.
Our goal is always to let our friends in while keeping our
enemies out.
The Department's relationship with the University of Maine
and other research universities is helping to improve our
homeland security. An example of the great promise of advanced
technology is the composite-material cargo container prototype
under development at the University of Maine. A composite
shipping container with embedded sensors could improve the
security and integrity of the supply chain while offering
shippers a lighter and longer-lasting alternative to
traditional steel containers. I mention this as an example of
the promise of technology.
Research and development of new technologies at the
Department carry an annual multi-billion-dollar price tag. To
ensure that these dollars are well spent, the Science and
Technology Directorate must rigorously test and evaluate
technologies before procurement decisions are made. Better
engagement by the Directorate's testing and evaluation office
in the Department's acquisition programs could help avoid
problems such as those that have been experienced in the SBInet
program.
The next Under Secretary for Science and Technology will
also need to align DHS research and development priorities with
the greatest security vulnerabilities that our Nation faces and
ensure close coordination with DHS operational components and
other Federal, State, and local partners. I look forward to
hearing how Dr. O'Toole would address these challenges, if
confirmed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Collins.
Let me now say for the record that Dr. O'Toole has filed
responses to a biographical and financial questionnaire,
answered pre-hearing questions submitted by the Committee, and
had her financial statements reviewed by the Office of
Government Ethics. Without objection, this information will be
made part of the hearing record, with the exception of the
financial data, which are on file and available for public
inspection in the Committee offices.
Dr. O'Toole, as I think you know, our Committee rules
require that all witnesses at nomination hearings give their
testimony under oath, so I would ask you to please stand and
raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony that you
are about to give this Committee is the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
Dr. O'Toole. I do.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you very much. Please be seated.
We would now welcome your opening statement and
introduction, if you choose, of any family and friends that are
with you today.
TESTIMONY OF HON. TARA J. O'TOOLE \1\ TO BE UNDER SECRETARY FOR
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Dr. O'Toole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Collins, and
distinguished Members of the Committee. It is a great honor to
appear before you today as President Obama's nominee for the
position of Under Secretary of Homeland Security. I am greatly
humbled by this privilege of being chosen by the President and
by Secretary Napolitano to be nominated for this important
post. I am also honored to appear before this Committee, which
has done so much for so long to provide distinguished
leadership in the complicated, ongoing efforts to address the
Nation's many homeland security challenges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Dr. O'Toole appears in the Appendix
on page 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At this point, I would like to recognize my partner, Dr.
Liza Solomon, for her unstinting support; and my niece, Sarah
Hallonquist, who is just beginning her government career. I
would also like to thank the many friends and colleagues who
are here today for all they have done to enrich my life.
Mr. Chairman, as you noted in your opening remarks, when
this Committee wrote the Homeland Security Act of 2002, you
recognized that the application of science and technology would
be fundamental to the success of the Department. The history of
the Committee since then shows that you have repeatedly
returned to this topic of how science and technology might be
used to advance the goals of the Department as well as national
homeland security priorities.
Similarly, Secretary Napolitano has identified the pursuit
of science and technology in service to the Department of
Homeland Security missions as being among her top priorities.
She noted in congressional testimony, perhaps echoing you, Mr.
Chairman, or you, Senator Collins, she said, ``It is difficult
to think of an area of DHS operations where a greater use of
cutting-edge technology would not improve capabilities.''
And, indeed, mobilizing science and invention to solve
practical problems has been an American hallmark since Ben
Franklin flew his kite in a lightning storm. And I am very
excited and grateful for the opportunity to continue this
tradition.
As you noted, I am trained as a physician. I have practiced
medicine, and I have served in government in the Office of
Technology Assessment and as an Assistant Secretary of Energy
for Environment, Safety and Health. And for the past decade, I
have helped found and led two university-based think tanks
devoted to biosecurity.
Over the course of my career in universities, government,
and non-governmental organizations, my work has encompassed the
study and management of a broad range of ``threats'' and
focused particularly on risks associated with nuclear and
biological weapons, radiation, and toxic chemicals, and on what
could go wrong in complex, human-built systems.
As this Committee knows well, the responsibilities of the
DHS Directorate of Science and Technology cover a broad
spectrum of technical and operational problems. While I do not
claim to have deep expertise in all of these areas, I am
confident that my background and experience equip me to lead
the Directorate and to serve the research and development needs
of the Department and of the country.
Through my own work on biodefense and nuclear safety, I am
convinced that the skills, expertise, and willing collaboration
of State, local, and tribal governments, first responders, and
the private sector are essential to the Federal Government's
capacity to execute a coordinated, fully functioning homeland
security strategy. This is, I realize, a view which this
Committee has long championed. And if confirmed, I commit to
working closely with the Committee to identify, answer, and
manage the science and technology needs of the Department and
to serve the strategic homeland security R&D priorities of the
country as a whole.
Should I have the privilege of being confirmed to this
position, I would pursue four priorities.
First, I will continue to strengthen the relationships
between the Science and Technology Directorate and the
Department's operational components, including first
responders. It has been said, actually by the DARPA, that
transitioning technology--that is, moving technology from
research into use--is a contact sport. It is done by personal
contacts between people.
As you noted, under the leadership of the former Under
Secretary, Admiral Jay Cohen, the S&T Directorate established
the Integrated Project Team process to create these essential
connections. If confirmed, I will work to expand and deepen the
contacts and the working relationships between the actual users
of technology and the operation components of DHS and the R&D
professionals, and to integrate a disciplined process of
technology development into the Department's acquisition
process.
Second, if confirmed, I would modestly increase the portion
of the S&T budget devoted to longer-term, highly innovative
projects which, if successful, could change the playing field
or provide solutions to particularly difficult high-priority
problems.
While I believe that DHS's immediate operational needs
continue to demand significant investments in near-term
technology development, I believe that some of the problems
confronting the Department may require fundamental discoveries
and technical achievements.
Third, if confirmed, I will work with this Committee and
with my colleagues in DHS to forge a strategic 5-year approach
to homeland security R&D, both within the Directorate and
across the Department. I believe the ongoing Quadrennial
Homeland Security Review (QHSR), which the Secretary has
underway, will provide an essential foundation for such a
strategy, and I hope to become actively engaged in the QHSR, if
confirmed.
Fourth, should I be confirmed, I would seek to focus more
resources on how we might make the American people and our
communities more resilient to disasters, whether natural or
man-made. I believe we can use science and technology to assist
the American people as individuals, as employers, or as
employees, as volunteers, and as community members to help
prevent and better prepare for the unexpected and to construct
more robust public-private sector collaborations and foster
more rapid recoveries from calamities.
The consequences of path-breaking science and of new
technologies are famously unpredictable. I am here today in
part because of the surprise launch of the Soviet satellite
Sputnik in 1957. The shock of Sputnik spurred U.S. investments
in science education, which brought teachers, science fairs,
and advanced placement science courses to my small public high
school in Massachusetts--New England--and essentially launched
me into college and medical school.
In the end, Sputnik catalyzed the U.S. triumphs in space
and a new era of achievement in American science and
technology. It is and has long been my conviction that science
and technology wedded to American ingenuity can be applied to
help us better understand, prevent, and if necessary, respond
to terrorist attacks and natural disasters. I would be honored
to be a part of such an effort as Under Secretary for Science
and Technology.
If confirmed, I am committed to working with this Committee
to help create a strong and successful Department of Homeland
Security and to serve the interests of the United States and
its people.
I am, of course, happy to answer any questions you might
have.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks very much, Dr. O'Toole. That was
really an excellent, very thoughtful opening statement, and I
will come back and begin my questioning by asking you about a
few of the things you said, which are thought provoking. But
let me begin with the standard questions we ask of all
nominees.
Is there anything you are aware of in your background that
might present a conflict of interest with the duties of the
office to which you have been nominated?
Dr. O'Toole. No, sir.
Chairman Lieberman. Do you know of anything, personal or
otherwise, that would in any way prevent you from fully and
honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to
which you have been nominated?
Dr. O'Toole. No, I do not.
Chairman Lieberman. And, finally, do you agree without
reservation to respond to any reasonable summons to appear and
testify before any duly constituted Committee of Congress if
you are confirmed?
Dr. O'Toole. Yes, I do.
Chairman Lieberman. I appreciate that. Let us proceed now
with the first round of questions that are limited to 7 minutes
each.
I am going to depart from what I was going to begin to ask
you because your opening statement sort of led me to refine it
a little bit. I am very interested in drawing you out on two of
your four priorities. The second one was to consider
investments in long-term innovative projects that may assist in
our efforts to defend against, to prevent, or to respond to
high-priority problems. Talk a little more about what you have
in mind and what kinds of models there are that you have in
mind for previous governmental involvement of this kind.
Dr. O'Toole. Well, the model I have in mind is DARPA's,
quite frankly. They have been extremely successful in taking on
very formidable challenges and working away at them over a
period of years long before their customers--that would be the
military services--have identified a particular technology,
such as stealth aircraft, as something they need to fight the
wars of today or tomorrow.
I think there are many such challenges in the Department of
Homeland Security, and indeed, the problem may be selecting one
or two that we could afford to pursue. Let me give you one
example.
I was visiting with Mr. Ahern, the head of Customs and
Border Protection, and we were talking about the threat of
these unmanned submersibles bringing large quantities of drugs
into the shores of Mexico. If we could detect and interdict
those vehicles, which are getting increasingly sophisticated
and numerous, we could turn off the drug trade before these
drugs are distributed to many people who are a lot harder to
track down and before these drugs get to the Mexican shores, so
we could actually aid in the stability of Mexico in addition to
getting rid of a big problem and securing our own borders.
I think that is a huge technological challenge, but it is a
challenge which, if met, would take that problem off the table.
So if you can take the problem off the table as opposed to
getting better and better at incrementally diminishing the
problem, that would be very attractive to me.
Chairman Lieberman. Good example. Very hopeful. And the
fourth one was more resources to assist the American people and
our government to achieve resiliency. That brought to mind--I
recently met with John Brennan, the Assistant to the President
for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. And on the chart of
the National Security Council, there is now a box, among
several boxes, that is called ``Resiliency.'' So what are you
thinking of?
Dr. O'Toole. Well, I think social science has actually been
very useful in helping us to design strategies and technologies
that could, for example, help human agents detect wrongdoers or
people who are acting suspiciously. I think we can also use
social science to help us better understand how to improve
resilience. I think there are endless examples in the context
of past disasters, including September 11, 2001, including
Hurricane Katrina, of individuals and groups of individuals and
of organizations, including businesses, doing great things,
sometimes spontaneously, sometimes with prior planning. I think
that truly protecting homeland security is going to require
that we take a much more strategic, thoughtful, and purposeful
approach to organizing that kind of ingenuity and collaboration
and enabling it in new ways.
So, for example, how could we form more robust public-
private partnerships between businesses and State or city
government to get better prepared?
Chairman Lieberman. So here you are thinking really
primarily of social science research.
Dr. O'Toole. Yes.
Chairman Lieberman. Very interesting and, again, hopeful.
Let me give you an opportunity to respond on the record to
the matter that I believe Senator Levin was referring to. I
have heard and seen some of the criticism, which to me seems, I
will indicate a bias here, like an academic debate. I say that
with respect. [Laughter.]
But, in other words, you have had some pretty aggressive
critics, particularly of the two exercises you played an
important role in organizing--Dark Winter and Atlantic Storm--
which explored, generally speaking, our country's preparedness
to respond to a biological attack, specifically a smallpox
attack, as I recall. And there has been some criticism here
that--I am going to do it generally, and maybe not do it
justice--you were offering too severe a portrayal of the
disease outcome and spread and in some sense that your science
was not sound; and if I can really express what I think is the
sort of policy approach behind it, that you were drawing the
country through these exercises into too strong a response to
the threat of biological attack and, therefore, money was being
allocated to those purposes as opposed to other public health
purposes where it was more needed.
Give us a response to that in general, if you would.
Dr. O'Toole. Well, first of all, thank you for the
opportunity to do so, Senator. As you say, Dark Winter and
Atlantic Storm were both scenarios positing a smallpox attack
on the American people, a covert attack. I believe the question
that Senator Levin is concerned with and, indeed, the question
that the critics--there is actually one critic, very
persistent--have fastened on is the secondary transmission rate
that we assumed in the scenario.
Chairman Lieberman. And just define it for us. What is the
secondary transmission rate?
Dr. O'Toole. OK. That is the number--once you have an
attack and you have infected a certain number of victims, how
many subsequent infections will those initial unfortunates
cause? And we chose the number 10.
Now, the transmission rate of a disease is very contextual.
It is not a biological factor. It has a lot to do with the
context in which the disease occurs--the number of people
exposed, the number of people in the population who are
susceptible, the number of contacts the exposed had with other
people, the time of the year, etc.
What we did in Dark Winter is we looked at the available
empirical data of the number of people who got secondary
smallpox in the context of those importations of smallpox that
occurred in Europe in the 1960s just before smallpox was
eradicated. Even though it was mostly gone from Europe, you
would still have occasions where people would come back from
other countries and bring smallpox into the country.
We looked at instances where, first of all, there was some
transmission, because at that point in time doctors were pretty
good at recognizing smallpox, isolating people, and it never
went anywhere. We looked only at winter events because we
thought a thinking enemy would pick the season in which
smallpox is most contagious. That virus lives longer and more
robustly in cool, dry weather. And that left us with six
instances of transmission of smallpox after importation. And
the data--these are not assumptions; these are empirical data
from those cases--showed that the secondary transmission rate
was between 9.3 and 17.3, with a confidence interval of 95
percent.
Now, in the Dark Winter story, it was happening in June
2001, at a time when 42 percent of the American population had
never been vaccinated, and at a time when most doctors have
never seen a case of smallpox. And, of course, prior to
September 11, 2001, we were not thinking about smallpox and
their differential diagnosis.
So we chose what we thought was a very reasonable and
conservative transmission rate of 10, and we were not alone in
this. There was another article in Nature, another peer-
reviewed magazine, in 2001 which thought that the secondary
transmission rate would be somewhere between 4 to 12 because of
the difficulty of recognizing these cases before they had gone
on to contact and infect others.
So I do stand by the assumptions. They are assumptions, but
as I said, they are based on empirical data. And as you say,
this is something of an academic debate. The transmission rate
one way or another does not change the scenario in any way.
And, furthermore, I make no apologies for my advocacy of the
need for a stronger biodefense. I do not agree that we have
done too much in biodefense. As you know, I think there is much
left to be done.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks. That was an excellent response.
Of course, I agree with you, and I would just say
parenthetically, because I am way over my time, the Graham-
Talent Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass
Destruction (WMD) Proliferation and Terrorism actually
focused--this was last year--on the threat of biological attack
as the one that we need to urgently raise our defenses against
because it is more likely for various reasons than the other
forms of a potential WMD attack. Thank you.
Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me pick up
where you left off.
Dr. O'Toole, as you know, this Committee has done a great
deal of work on bioterrorism, holding several hearings, and you
have contributed greatly to those. Last year, we did look at
the safety of biological labs, and we heard testimony from the
Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and
Terrorism, which specifically recommended that we take action
to improve the security of biological labs.
In addition, the Government Accountability Ofice (GAO)
testified that, in response to the global spread of emerging
infectious diseases and the threat of bioterrorism, high-
containment biosafety laboratories have been proliferating in
the United States and that more needs to be done to ensure
their safety.
Given your expertise, I am alarmed then at a statement that
you wrote last year in a scientific journal in which you said,
``The notion that we can somehow prevent a bioattack by locking
up pathogens in research laboratories is ridiculous.''
Could you explain what you meant and if you disagree with
the Commission and the GAO's assessment that we do need to
tighten security of labs?
Dr. O'Toole. Well, first of all, Senator, thank you for the
opportunity to clarify the record and explain my rather
inartful single-sentence quote in what was a long conversation
with that reporter. And thank you, too, for your support and
pursuit of the WMD Commission recommendations, which I regard
as very important. I am actually very proud to have letters of
support from both of the Senators of that Commission.
I strongly support improved and more formal biosafety and
biosecurity approaches, particularly for high-containment labs,
and, indeed, for those BSL4 labs, the highest level of
containment, I think it would make sense to have a
certification and training program in addition to a stronger
regime.
I have advocated stronger biosafety since the early 1990s
when I was overseeing safety at the Department of Energy
laboratories. The journal, which I co-edit, was one of the very
first to require a security review from all reviewers of the
authors to make sure that there was not dual-use information in
the articles that we published. And we also at the center held
what I think was the first workshop on safety and security, and
we called in most of the directors from the BSL4 labs in the
United States to that workshop.
So I very much support stronger biosafety, and I agree
completely with the Commission's recommendation that the
current regime of dealing with select agents and safety ought
to be reviewed. I also agree with the statement of the
Commission that we need to proceed while taking care that we do
not impede or otherwise unnecessarily burden legitimate
research.
You may know that during the H1N1 outbreak, Mexico
initially sent samples to Canada, not to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), because of the difficulty
of transporting these legitimate research samples into the
United States due to the Select Agent rule. So I do worry about
that. I think biology is going to be not only critical for
biodefense but for economics. So that is my concern.
Senator Collins. There are a considerable number of
privately funded BSL3 labs in this country that are permitted
to work on a number of dangerous pathogens that could result in
a serious biological event, yet these labs are not required to
inform any Federal agency of their activities.
What is your view of the need to at least require
laboratories operating at the BSL3 level to identify themselves
through a Federal registration process so that we at least know
where these pathogens are?
Dr. O'Toole. Well, I think that is something worth
considering, and I would be pleased to work with you on that.
There are many BSL3 labs, not just in private hands but at
hospitals and universities and so on and so forth. So the
practicality of doing that and the benefit of doing that would
be worth examining. But it is not unreasonable.
Senator Collins. You had a controversy in your previous
confirmation that, just for the record because it is likely to
come up at some point again, I would just like to give you an
opportunity to respond to. At that time questions were raised
regarding your involvement in an academic group that once had
been called the ``Marxist Feminist Group 1.'' Could you
explain, since that obviously is a very loaded title for this
group, your involvement with this group?
Dr. O'Toole. Thank you again for the opportunity, Senator,
to clarify the record. I belonged to this reading group, which
was called ``Northeast Feminist Scholars'' in my time, which
was a group of academics, again, many of whom were economists,
and they met three times a year for a weekend, and we discussed
topics such as aging parents, math phobia among women, books
that we read, international events, and so forth. It did not do
any political advocacy. It was not Marxist in any way, shape,
or form. But that had been the title back in--this is actually
a very longstanding group--the 1960s and 1970s. And during my
last nomination, in 1993, when that came to light, some of the
Senators became concerned. There was a full Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) investigation. The White House took
affidavits from Members of the Committee, and I was passed out
of the Committee with only two people voting no and confirmed,
as you know.
Senator Collins. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you. We have not had mention of
Karl Marx here in this Committee for quite a long time.
[Laughter.]
Senator Collins. Just trying to keep things interesting,
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lieberman. That was very interesting. Thank you.
Senator Tester.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
thank you, Dr. O'Toole, for putting yourself up for public
service again. I appreciate that very much.
I am going to talk a little less globally, more
specifically, as I talked to you before the hearing, and I do
not have any quotes. I would give you the opportunity to make
one today. This deals with the Plum Island Animal Disease
Center located in Plum Island, off Long Island, New York. You
are probably intimately familiar with it, but it does research
with contagious diseases that are applicable to animals,
including foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), which is a very
contagious disease among animals.
I would state that a new facility has to be built. There
are no ifs, ands, or buts about that. There is talk about
building the new facility, not talk about the new facility but
actually, I believe, the decision has been made to build a new
facility at Kansas State University in Manhattan, Kansas, and I
have got nothing against Kansas State. I am sure it is a great
university.
But the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on this
national bio and agro defense facility that was done, states
this--and there were five sites chosen, and it applies to all
five except for Plum Island. The EIS states this: ``The
Manhattan campus site provides a significant opportunity for
the spread of virus vectors and infected wildlife.'' It also
said, ``For this site, as with all the other sites, except Plum
Island, there was a potential for viral pathogens to be
transported significant distances by the wind.'' It went on to
say that the location of the Plum Island provides a barrier
against spread of these viruses.
Now, I understand that there are some advantages of being
connected with the university. I think there are some
advantages of being in the center of the United States. I think
it is probably easier to get to in Manhattan, Kansas, than it
would be on Plum Island.
From a common-sense perspective, if we are talking about a
transmission rate of highly contagious diseases as it applies
to our animal industry, would it not make better sense, would
it not make more common sense just to rebuild that facility on
Plum Island because it does not have the potential to spread as
it would somewhere in the center of the United States?
Dr. O'Toole. Thank you, Senator. This is obviously a very
important question, as you point out, and as is my
understanding, the current facility is too old to continue, and
we have to build a modern facility equipped with modern
bioengineering capabilities.
I believe, first of all, that we can build such a facility
in a way that contains anything with which the scientists work
with very high confidence. There should be no releases from
these facilities. As Senator Collins has pointed out, there are
many high-containment labs already working, not just here but
around the world. So that is the first thing. Wherever it is
built, it has to be secure.
Second, it is my understanding that the site selection
criteria included very prominently the nearby location of
veterinary and agricultural schools so that the research and,
indeed, the people power available to the facility would be
very robust and that Kansas State came out ahead on that score.
I understand there is a GAO report looking into the very
issue that you identified regarding the FMD problem, and I will
be examining that very closely.
It is my understanding that, according to the World
Organization for Animal Health (OIE), regardless of whether
there was a FMD release--which I do not think should happen--
from Plum Island or from the mainland, all of the United States
would lose its FMD status. So in terms of the economic
implications, which is not what you are asking, I realize, it
would be the same regardless of whether it was a release from
Plum Island or from the mainland sites.
Senator Tester. Just to follow up on that, I would say that
I understand the loss of FMD status, if it was a release,
regardless of where it happened in the United States. I am
talking about the actual spread of it. And I can tell you that
we may be living in a new age, but humans still can err. There
were releases as recent as 2007 from the United Kingdom. I do
not know if that facility was rated at the level this one is
going to be or not. I think it is great to be affiliated with
the university. That is where the action is--the agricultural
school, the veterinary medicine school, all that stuff. But
this is 2009. Distances are not that big of a deal when we are
dealing with petri dishes, mainly, I would guess. We are not
dealing with live animals walking around for the most part.
I understand that it was your own EIS from your agency, I
believe, that pointed out the problems with Manhattan, or any
other place, versus Plum Island. Plum Island has been around
forever. I just think that we need to look at it from not the
best-case scenario but from a worst-case scenario if this were
to get out in the center of the United States. That is all. It
could literally do some real bad things to our food supply, the
livestock industry, and the list goes on.
So, with that, I ask you to take a hard look at it, use the
best common sense you have before we move forward. And like I
said before, I know this is probably a lot of money for Kansas,
but if this thing ever gets out, we have major problems.
Dr. O'Toole. Senator, I will definitely take a hard look at
that and get back to you.
Senator Tester. Thank you.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks very much, Senator Tester.
Senator Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Senator Carper. Thanks very much. Dr. O'Toole, welcome. It
is good to see you.
Dr. O'Toole. Thank you.
Senator Carper. Thank you for your service to our country
and for your willingness to serve in this capacity as well.
Like much of the rest of our country, Delaware, where I am
from, has many critical infrastructure sites that require a
variety of security protocols to safeguard those facilities.
And it seems to me that resiliency plays a very important role
in securing sensitive sites from harm and in assisting with our
ability to prepare for and to recover from a disaster of really
any type or scale.
What I would like to ask you about here today is what your
thoughts are in integrating resiliency into the Science and
Technology Directorate's critical infrastructure protection
mission? And if you agree with this importance, how would you
integrate it?
Dr. O'Toole. I agree with you, Senator. I think resiliency
is extremely important, and I noted in my opening remarks that
one of the four priorities that I would pursue would be more of
a focus on how we can build resiliency among individuals,
communities, and between the public and the private sector.
It may be that one place to start would be to begin with
critical infrastructures and to take them as a model and to
study how you could take a critical infrastructure and make it
more resilient so that if it went down, it could recover very
quickly. I can think of a couple of infrastructures in your
State where that might make a lot of sense. And I do think that
a more intense focus on recovery and on preparedness so that we
are further along when catastrophe hits is warranted at this
point.
Senator Carper. All right. Let me ask a question I should
have asked you right at the top, but why would you like to have
the opportunity to serve in this position? You may have said
that already in your statement, but I missed it.
Dr. O'Toole. I believe in public service. I think it is
both a privilege and a duty. I think I have the background and
the experience that at least gives me a good chance of being
able to perform these duties adequately. And, frankly, I think
it sounds like an enormously fascinating set of tasks that I
eagerly look forward to. And I am very impressed with Secretary
Napolitano and the President and very much appreciate the honor
of having the opportunity to work for the country.
Senator Carper. All right. Good.
Speaking of the President, the President recently announced
the consolidation of the National Security Council and the
Homeland Security Council into one organizational structure.
Some of the critics of the Homeland Security Council said that
its functions were duplicative, suggested that it contributed
to a significant amount of bureaucracy within the interagency
process, especially when it came to policymaking. And some of
those critics said that combining these two entities will
dilute the homeland mission--and you may or may not be familiar
with this, but if you are, I would appreciate your response. If
you have any thoughts, what are your thoughts on these
critiques? And while it might be too early to tell, what
benefits might you see coming from this new streamlining? And
if it is not a question that you are prepared to answer here
today, if you can answer on the record, I would appreciate it.
Dr. O'Toole. Well, Senator, I have been concentrating on
Homeland Security and the S&T Directorate for the past few
weeks. I am not familiar with what Mr. Brennan has in mind. I
believe that the President is very committed to homeland
security and that Mr. Brennan is, too, but I would be happy to
comment further for the record. I just do not have much more to
say.
Senator Carper. If you would do that, that would be great.
Thanks so much.
Dr. O'Toole. Thank you.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks very much, Senator Carper. Thank
you, Dr. O'Toole. I think we are actually going to go on to the
next nominee because a vote has been called for later this
morning, and we want to complete this hearing. I think we have
covered the important questions. You have survived the
exhaustive pre-hearing inquiries of this Committee. And if
there are any additional questions, including the ones that
Senator Levin mentioned, we are going to ask that they be
submitted by the close of business tomorrow. And then we will
proceed to consider your nomination in the Committee as soon as
you are able to answer those questions.
But with that, we thank you very much. Do you have anything
you would like to say in conclusion?
Dr. O'Toole. Just thank you very much.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you. All the best.
Dr. O'Toole. Thank you.
Chairman Lieberman. This part of the hearing is concluded,
and now we will call on Mr. Zients.
Why don't we begin this second part of the hearing as soon
as Senator Carper gets through extending the greetings of the
Committee.
Senator Collins. He is hoping there is some Delaware voters
there.
Chairman Lieberman. I know that Senator Bennet is coming to
introduce you, which we appreciate, but to expedite, we will go
ahead with our opening statements, and we will call on him.
We are going to consider President Obama's nomination of
Jeffrey Zients to be Deputy Director for the Office of
Management and Budget.
Senator Bennet, I know you are a new Senator, but you are a
busy Senator, and your response time in getting here was so
rapid that I am going to honor it by allowing you to introduce
the nominee and then proceed back to your normal business.
OPENING STATEMENT SENATOR BENNET
Senator Bennet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for
being late. I thought I was going to be early because I was so
excited to have the chance to introduce Jeff Zients to you and
to the Ranking Member.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Collins, thank you for giving me the
opportunity to introduce Mr. Zients to serve as the Deputy
Director for Management at OMB. He will also serve as our
Nation's first ever Chief Performance Officer. I would like to
take this opportunity to welcome him and his family to the
hearing.
If confirmed, Mr. Zients will coordinate the President's
efforts to make our government more efficient and accountable
by identifying wasteful spending and eliminating initiatives
that do not provide sufficient benefit to the American taxpayer
for the amount we are investing in them. He will also work to
improve how we measure the effectiveness of government
programs.
It will not be easy. Just the sheer size and complexity of
the Federal Government and the entrenched interests that often
fight to protect certain programs make this kind of work
treacherous and too often thankless. But I commend the
President for prioritizing better governance, and I fully agree
that somebody needs to be tasked with performing this role.
Given the enormity of this task, the President could not
have found someone better suited for the job than Mr. Zients.
As an expert in financial management and business strategy, he
has the intellect, creativity, and tenacity to examine complex
problems, implement solutions, and produce real results for the
American people.
As my friend for nearly 30 years, I know he has the ability
to exercise sound judgment and the character and integrity to
do what is right.
In his mid-twenties, he joined the Advisory Board where he
worked closely with America's top companies to become more
innovative and efficient. Within 3 years, he became a partner
in the company. He also helped create the Corporate Executive
Board, which assists companies across various industries in
financial management and business re-engineering. He played an
instrumental role in taking both of these companies public, all
the while creating hundreds of jobs in the Washington, DC,
area.
Mr. Zients currently serves as the managing partner of
Portfolio Logic, an investment firm that he founded several
years ago. He is also the Chairman of Pediatric Services of
America, the Nation's largest provider of pediatric nurse care.
Outside of the corporate world, he has worked to create
better opportunities for young adults throughout Washington,
DC, and Baltimore. He established and currently oversees a
nonprofit organization that works with local companies to
provide paid internships, mentoring opportunities, and job-
training initiatives.
As we all know, he will be joining the President's team
during the worst economic crisis in generations. At the same
time, our deficits and long-term debt are on an unsustainable
course. If we want to lay the framework for long-term economic
growth, we need to ensure that every penny of Federal spending
is necessary and targeted. His years of experience in financial
management and his ability to think way outside the box will be
instrumental to the President's efforts to make our government
more accountable and efficient. His private sector business
savvy will provide the perfect lens through which to examine
the effectiveness of many public sector initiatives. By making
our Federal agencies more efficient and accountable, he will
play an important role in helping restore the American people's
faith in our government. I look forward to working with my old
friend as he begins this important job.
Mr. Chairman, I gladly introduce and recommend with the
strongest recommendation I can, Mr. Zients, to the Committee
for this new and important role. Thank you very much for
allowing me to introduce my friend.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Bennet. That was an
excellent statement and obviously heartfelt. It means a lot to
the Committee, so we thank you for coming over, and you are
excused.
Senator Bennet. Thank you.
Chairman Lieberman. If you would like to be excused.
Senator Bennet. Good luck.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you.
Senator Bennet's introduction was so strong that it enables
me to abbreviate my opening statement, but I will say this:
Since its creation, a common criticism of the Office of
Management Budget is that its leadership, no matter what party
is in charge of the White House, too often has focused on the
``B'' at the expense of the ``M''--on budget as opposed to
management. And that should not be the case. The two obviously
go hand in hand. If a program is not doing well with the ``M,''
it is likely to have problems with the ``B'' as well, and that
means the taxpayers are not getting their money's worth.
I am very pleased that President Obama has made the drive
toward management excellence a priority across the government
and, as Senator Bennet just indicated, has stated that the
Deputy Director for Management at OMB--that is, the position
for which Jeffrey Zients has been nominated--will also serve as
the first Chief Performance Officer of the Government of the
United States.
Mr. Zients will have oversight of four statutory offices
with far-reaching and very important mandates: The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, which will give you the
enviable task of overseeing Cass Sunstein; the Office of
Federal Procurement Policy; the Office of E-Government and
Information Technology; and the Office of Federal Financial
Management.
I am going to put the rest of my statement in the record
because I am going to raise some questions along the lines of
the matters that I was next going to reference in my opening
statement.\1\ Bottom line, as Senator Bennet has indicated, Mr.
Zients has 20 years of business experience as a chief executive
officer (CEO), management consultant, and entrepreneur. He has
spent most of his career devising ways to improve governance,
organization, management, efficiencies, financial systems of
companies, all of which we will now look to him, if confirmed,
to bring to the Government of the United States of America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Chairman Lieberman appears in the
Appendix on page 144.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So again, I welcome you, Mr. Zients, and I look forward to
your statement and to the question-and-answer period.
Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to
follow your lead and insert my statement for the record as well
since we have only a short time before the vote begins.\1\ Let
me, however, just highlight one issue that I think is extremely
important.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Collins appears in the
Appendix on page 144.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A major OMB responsibility is the oversight of
approximately $71 billion in spending on information technology
(IT) investments. It is simply unacceptable that the Federal
agencies have identified approximately 450 IT projects,
totaling more than $26 billion, as poorly planned, poorly
performing, or both.
Senator Carper and I have introduced a bill, which this
Committee has favorably reported, that would improve agency
performance and oversight of Federal IT projects, and that is
going to be a key responsibility for Mr. Zients, if he is
confirmed, to work to prevent these kinds of enormous cost
overruns, schedule problems, and performance difficulties that
have plagued IT projects all across the government. And this is
an area where I think that the OMB has not been aggressive
enough.
Finally, I just want to reinforce the Chairman's point that
OMB has a two-pronged mission. It is not just budget. It is
management as well, and that is equally important.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Collins. Good
points.
I will say for the record that Jeff Zients has filed
responses to the questionnaires, answered pre-hearing
questions, and had his financial statements reviewed by the
Office of Government Ethics. Without objection, this
information will be made part of the record, with the exception
of the financial data, which are available for public
inspection in the Committee offices.
Mr. Zients, I would ask you now, as the Committee rules
require, to please stand and raise your right hand. Do you
swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
Mr. Zients. I do.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, and please be seated. We
would welcome your opening statement and, if it does not take
too long, an introduction of the many family members. You are
welcome to introduce anyone you want.
Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, before Mr. Zients proceeds, I
must leave. And normally, others do not make statements, but
could I just make a statement for maybe a minute?
Chairman Lieberman. Go right ahead, please.
Senator Carper. I would just like to say how much I
appreciated the opportunity to meet with Mr. Zients this last
week and to have an opportunity to discuss a number of the
priorities, some that Senator Collins has already mentioned,
that the three of us share. We are also very much interested in
continuing the work. The foundation has been made on improper
payments. A lot of money, tens of billions of dollars actually
each year, is being inappropriately spent, in many cases
overspent. And I welcome the opportunity to talk with you about
that and also to figure out how, when we have overpaid money,
we can get that money back.
Mr. Zients. Absolutely.
Senator Carper. And we are interested in surplus property
and what to do about it so we do not end up carrying all this
property on our books and have to pay for the maintenance
costs, the utility costs, the security costs for buildings and
land we are never going to use again.
There are a whole lot of opportunities here for us, and I
think it is important for us to show that we can help transform
our economy to more of a green energy economy. It is important
that we get health care reform done. It is important that we
raise student achievement in our schools across this country.
It is also important that we show that we can spend money
responsibly, and facing a budget deficit of $1.8 trillion this
year and red ink for as far as the eye can see, we have our
work cut out for us. And we see you and the folks that will be
working with you very much as partners to those of us who serve
on this Committee.
I was pleased to have a chance to meet your wife, Mary, and
to meet your four children, and to meet your Dad, and I would
just say to especially your father, thank you for helping raise
this guy and instill the values in him that lead him to this
table here today, and special thanks to your wife and to your
children for their willingness to share you with all of us.
Thanks.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you very much, Senator Carper,
for that statement.
Mr. Zients.
TESTIMONY OF JEFFREY D. ZIENTS \1\ TO BE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR
MANAGEMENT, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Mr. Zients. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Collins, and Senator Carper, for the very kind comments. I am
honored and humbled to be here today as President Obama's
nominee for Deputy Director for Management at the Office of
Management and Budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Zients appears in the Appendix on
page 146.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am grateful to my family who is here with me today: My
wife, Mary, of 17 years; my four children, in descending order
of age, Sasha, Matthew, Josh, and Jonny. And my Mom and Dad,
Debbie and Alan, are here today. I thank all of them for their
love and their support.
Senator Carper. If I can interrupt, I did not realize your
Mom was here. Would you raise your hand? Nice work, Mom.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Zients. Mom and Dad actually raised me here in
Washington, so I have been here for many years, and I have had
the opportunity to watch many people who have worked in
government and always hoped that at some point I would have the
opportunity to serve and give back. I want to thank the
President and OMB Director Orszag for their confidence in me,
and I hope to help them achieve and all of you achieve one of
the Administration's top priorities--improving the efficiency
and effectiveness of government.
I believe my background helps prepare me for this role. I
have spent 20 years in the private sector as a CEO, a
management consultant, and as an investor. For 15 of those
years, I helped lead the Advisory Board Company and the
Corporate Executive Board Company. Both firms are leading
providers of best practices and benchmarking to over 5,000
organizations, including over 400 of the Fortune 500 companies.
They work closely with the senior management teams at these
organizations to measure performance, increase productivity,
and improve service quality.
I very much recognize and appreciate that government is
different from the private sector. I have much to learn from
the people who have dedicated their lives to public service and
much to learn from the many programs that operate efficiently
and effectively and deliver good results.
If confirmed, I hope to help spread these government best
practices across agencies while at the same time drawing on my
private sector experience, bringing forward models and
approaches that may benefit government performance. I very much
agree with both of your comments about the need to integrate
management and budget rather than separate divisions, if you
will, everyone wearing both hats, both a management hat and a
budget hat, at OMB.
As a CEO, I have always focused on three areas: Leadership,
measurement, and a motivated workforce. I believe leadership
starts with putting the right team together and articulating
the right goals for the organization. Measurement means
translating these goals into operating plans with clear
metrics. A motivated workforce requires creating a culture to
attract, retain, and develop the best talent. Together, I
believe these three areas are the key to strong performance.
I have very much enjoyed my early interactions with the
staff and with you, and I look forward to working closely with
Members of this Committee, others in Congress, and leaders
across government to improve the efficiency and effectiveness
of our government.
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I would welcome any
comments or questions.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you very much. Let me start with
the standard questions, three in number. First, is there
anything you are aware of in your background that might present
a conflict of interest with the duties of the office to which
you have been nominated?
Mr. Zients. No.
Chairman Lieberman. Second, do you know of anything,
personal or otherwise, that would in any way prevent you from
fully and honorably discharging the responsibilities of the
office to which you have been nominated?
Mr. Zients. No.
Chairman Lieberman. And, third, do you agree without
reservation to respond to any reasonable summons to appear and
testify before any duly constituted committee of Congress if
you are confirmed?
Mr. Zients. Yes.
Chairman Lieberman. You are doing very well so far.
[Laughter.]
Let me pick up on something you said, perhaps a question
that seems to have an obvious answer, but I would be
interested, which is two things we often hear: One, government
ought to operate more like a business; and, two, government is
different from business.
As you come into this position, if confirmed, with quite
impressive experience in the private sector, what do you mean
when you say that government is different from business?
Mr. Zients. In business, there is one very clear, most
important metric, and that is profitability. There are lots of
other metrics that matter, including service, quality, and
other metrics around performance. But at the end of the day, I
think that while business is complex, there is a bottom line.
Here, in the public service, one is balancing in government
different metrics, depending on programs, and some of those
metrics actually are not even program specific. They really
need to run across programs.
Chairman Lieberman. Give us an example. I do not mean of a
particular program, but what are the metrics that government
should measure itself by?
Mr. Zients. I think delivering the services that individual
programs or agencies are set out to deliver in a cost-effective
and meaningful way, so metrics in the Department of Education
are very different than metrics in DOD. Then there are issues--
homelessness being an example--where the issue does not reside
in a single program, but instead goes across program and even
across agency. So I think it is very important, when we think
about metrics in government, that it is not one size fits all.
There is no single bottom-line profit equivalent like we have
in the private sector. And instead we have a flexible system
that really looks at the unique purpose of a program and
develops the outcomes-based metrics, where appropriate, to
measure against. Some programs probably are not conducive or as
conducive to metric-based tracking across time and also,
therefore, require longer-term studies around effectiveness and
efficiency.
Chairman Lieberman. That was well said, thoughtfully said.
Let me go on to a question about the Federal workforce. In your
pre-hearing discussions with the Committee staff, you noted, as
you have repeated here, that advising companies on best
practices, and particularly improving strategies for human
resource management, was a major focus of the two consulting
firms that you led. Because this Committee has oversight
responsibilities and legislative responsibilities for the
Federal civil service, recruiting, training, and retaining a
skilled Federal workforce are priority concerns of ours.
So I wanted to ask you what your initial coming-through-
the-door or approaching-the-door thoughts are about ways in
which you can help us strengthen the Federal workforce.
Mr. Zients. Here is a similarity, I believe, with the
private sector. Human capital is the most important component
of improving performance, so in my private sector days, I did
spend a lot of time on human capital strategies as a result of
how important it was to the clients of the firm.
My initial reaction is that there is a recruiting issue in
that we have a large retirement bubble in the system, and at
the same time, we have remarkably long lead times in order to
bring a new individual into the workforce. So I have been
struck by how long those lead times are and the need to
decrease those.
I think it is an important time to be doing so and that we
have an opportunity somewhat related to the economy and also to
a renewed or even heightened interest in public service to take
advantage of an opportunity. But we need to make sure that we
streamline the hiring process in order to take advantage of
this opportunity and start doing the right kind of planning for
the retirement bubble.
Succession planning becomes very important, understanding
overall the workforce needs by agency, when people are likely
to be retiring, and how we ensure that we have the right
succession plans in place. I think, furthermore, we do need to
look at training programs. Training programs oftentimes in both
the private sector and now I understand the public sector come
under pressure as one of the first things to go in budget cuts.
That can tend to be short-sighted, and enhancing our training
programs at all levels throughout government I believe is an
important priority--all of this in the context of taking a step
back and making sure that we have an employment proposition
that works to attract, retain, and develop talent across the
Federal Government.
Chairman Lieberman. Let me follow with another question
related to personnel. There has been a trend, as you know, a
very significant trend, toward contracting out government
services. A lot of us are concerned that it has gone too far,
though obviously there are cases in which it makes a lot of
sense.
In your pre-hearing responses to the questions, you have
emphasized that inherently governmental functions should be
performed by Federal employees and that agencies must have the
internal capability to maintain control over their operations.
I agree wholeheartedly that those are fundamental
considerations. So I wanted to ask you this question, going
back again to your private sector experience.
In the private sector, what approach did you recommend to
your clients for deciding what skills they should retain in-
house? And what, if any, different considerations do you think
a government agency should make in deciding what work is
appropriate for contractors and what should be kept inside?
Mr. Zients. In the private sector, I would say there are
two primary considerations: One, is it a core competency of the
organization? Does the organization, the for-profit company,
need that competency in-house in order to differentiate itself
in the marketplace and win against the competition?
The other consideration is: Is the function something that
is conducive to scale? So certain things, certain activities,
as you build scale and do more and more of it, you become much
better at it and more efficient. Other things are less
conducive to scale. And so if something is a scale activity and
in an organization you are not going to achieve that scale but
an outsourcer by collecting, or a contractor by creating their
own scale, could do that much more efficiently, that would be
the other consideration.
So two considerations: First, is it a core competency to
differentiate in the marketplace? And, second, is it something
that if you were bundling your activities with someone else's,
would you achieve higher quality and lower cost?
I think those same principles do apply in government once
we decide that something should be competed. I think, however,
this test of inherently governmental, i.e., that all inherently
governmental work--hiring personnel, managing contractors,
setting policy--should all be done by Federal workers. That is
different from the private sector, if you will, this inherently
governmental and the link to the larger purpose of government.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you. Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I mentioned in my opening statement my concern about the
Federal Government's failures when it comes to IT projects.
This year alone, the Federal Government will spend more than
$70 billion on IT projects, and yet OMB every year, through its
tracking system, identifies billions of dollars of wasted
spending on IT.
What do you think OMB should do to get troubled IT
investments back on track and to ensure that they are on track
in the first place?
Mr. Zients. Thank you for that question. I believe that
this is a management issue more than a technology issue, so it
comes down to good management, having the right people
accountable, sharing best practices, and ensuring that the
processes, particularly the program management processes, are
robust and experienced people are in charge.
There are a few efforts underway, which I think are a good
start, led by the new Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO),
Vivek Kundra. One is to make sure that the CIO is at the senior
management table. I think too often we approach IT projects as
a silo when, in fact, a large IT project has to have the senior
team, starting with the head of the agency, at the table
understanding the resources that are required and making the
necessary commitment. So ensuring that the CIO is at the table
as a senior executive is, I think, very important.
Second, I think too often we find out about problems too
late, when things are off track, on an annual cycle, if you
will; whereas, an IT project needs to be managed daily, weekly,
monthly, not annually. And there is an effort underway to
create a dashboard, which will allow us, with transparency, to
see where projects are, spot problems early, and get them back
on track.
Last, I think we need to make sure that someone is
accountable here, and certainly the CIO and, I believe, the
head of the agency have to be held accountable in a transparent
way for the success of these projects.
Senator Collins. OMB has developed a system known as the
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), and it is a performance
results system that is intended to evaluate the effectiveness
of Federal programs. Are you familiar with PART?
Mr. Zients. Yes, I am.
Senator Collins. What we have found, however--and GAO has
determined also--is despite the existence of the PART ratings,
managers across the Federal Government do not use the
assessments when it comes to allocating resources. So all this
energy goes into this complex evaluation system, and then,
frankly, no one uses it. The individual agencies do not use it
in deciding what their budget request should be for the most
part, and Congress does not use it either. The Appropriations
Committees tend to discount the PART ratings.
In the previous Administration, OMB tried to use low PART
ratings as a justification for terminating or reducing funding
for various programs, and I am at a loss to think of even one
where they were successful.
What can we do to develop a performance assessment program
that is going to guide resource allocations and budget
decisions in an effective way?
Mr. Zients. Thank you. I think you hit the nail on the
head. The test of a performance management system is: Is it
being used to make important resource allocation, budgeting,
and capital decisions by all stakeholders? And I think the way
that you go down the path of achieving that goal is with a
collaborative approach, working with the stakeholders at the
senior-most level to understand what matters, what are the
overall goals, how are they being translated into operating
plans, and then what are the best handful of outcomes-based
metrics to track progress across time; and that you have the
flexibility in the system, going back a little bit earlier in
the conversation, to look at problems not just by program--or
issues or opportunities--but across agencies.
So I am wary of anything that is one size fits all, and at
the same time, I think the ultimate test is right where you
started, which is: Is the system being used by senior managers,
senior leaders, and senior stakeholders to make decisions? So,
if confirmed, I look forward to working with the Committee and
others in Congress and across agencies to collaboratively
develop a system that is used to make important decisions.
Senator Collins. I think you have identified the key issue.
If it is a collaborative system that agencies buy into and if
you establish performance metrics that are cross-cutting, I
think there will be more support for using the results of the
assessments. And I know this is an area where you have had a
great deal of experience, and I am really pleased that you are
going to be bringing that experience as the first Chief
Performance Officer.
The President has committed to making this Administration
more transparent, and that is something that I completely
support. And one of the best ways to do that is to expand,
update, and improve the use of government websites.
But if you look at the Federal websites versus the private
sector and, in some cases, State and local websites, you will
find that there are a lot of frustrations and that they are not
as good as they could be. And a great example that this
Committee has been focusing on are the websites for the
stimulus spending.
People are very interested in tracking that spending, of
making sure that it is achieving the results that all of us
hope that it will, and yet the Recovery.gov website is not
nearly as good as a website developed by the private sector
that I believe is Recovery.org. It is a very similar name.
In the private sector website, you are able to track money
down to the contractor level. With the Federal website, we are
not able to do that effectively.
Mr. Zients. Yes.
Senator Collins. Why can we not get our act together when
it comes to websites for tracking spending?
Mr. Zients. Good question, and I totally agree with you
that it is a high priority for this Administration, one of the
highest priorities, to increase the transparency and thereby
the accountability of government.
My understanding is that there is a lot of effort right now
being put into Recovery.gov with focus at OMB and, obviously,
the leadership of the oversight board to working
collaboratively, and we are headed toward, in October, launch
of a lot more information on the website.
I think we will see very good things in October, and I
think as we get that out there, we have to have a continual
process to improve and add more and more data, as you said, all
the way through the sub-recipient level, both on the grant side
and the contract side.
I think the root cause problem is the legacy systems that
we have and the fact that we have not been able, going back to
IT management, to update a lot of our IT systems. So we have
outdated systems. We saw this in the pressure that was on
Grants.gov through the added dollars in the Recovery Act. So I
think updating these systems going back to IT management and
making sure that we have robust systems that we can draw data
out of is very important. Recovery.gov, I think, will offer
unprecedented transparency and will set a standard to which we
will then move USASpending.gov and Grants.gov across time.
I agree with your premise, though, that we are not where we
should be in terms of the base foundation to pull the data off
of.
Senator Collins. In a way--just one final comment, if the
Chairman will indulge me.
Chairman Lieberman. Sure. Go ahead.
Senator Collins. In a way, you have identified my
frustration, though. You are saying by October there should be
a significant upgrade, and yet here we have this private sector
website that is tracking the money more effectively right now,
and presumably it was a lot harder for the private company to
identify the funding streams and track them. They do not have
these companies, these State and local governments reporting
the way the Federal Government does.
So it is frustrating to me to hear that it is going to take
that many more months for us to try to catch up with what the
private sector has already done. That indicates a problem.
Mr. Zients. I agree.
Senator Collins. Fortunately, that is not your watch.
Mr. Zients. We will hopefully leap-frog in October, but I
share your concern.
Senator Collins. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Collins. Senator Akaka,
welcome.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA
Senator Akaka. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I do want to
add my welcome to Mr. Zients and, of course, to your lovely
family and your children and friends and even your supporters
who are here at this hearing.
As you know, the amount of acquisition spending by the
Federal Government has grown dramatically over the past decade
while the size and expertise of the Federal acquisition
workforce has not kept pace, and that has been a huge problem.
This has affected agencies' ability to acquire and oversee
mission-critical contracts and has cost taxpayers through
increased waste, fraud, and abuse.
If confirmed, what role will you play in identifying and
addressing the needs of the Federal acquisition workforce?
Mr. Zients. Thank you. There has been a doubling, as you
said, across the last 8 years in contracting. At the same time,
I believe the total size of the Federal acquisition workforce
has actually stayed the same size or even decreased a little
bit. So there is clearly a need to do comprehensive workforce
planning around the acquisition workforce because it also is
subject to something we talked about earlier, Senator, which is
the pending retirement wave. It will hit that workforce also.
So we have the need to hire a lot of new people and the need to
train and ensure that we are increasing the size and the
capabilities of that workforce as we ask them to take on more
and more complex contracts.
So I think it is an area that needs a lot of attention.
Working closely with the General Services Administration, DOD,
the Federal Acquisition Institute, and the Defense Acquisition
University, we need to coordinate those efforts and work with
you and others on the Committee to ensure that we get ahead of
the problem. I think we are behind it right now. So we need to
catch up and then get ahead of the problem and have an
acquisition workforce that is the right size and has the right
set of capabilities to oversee our contracting.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Zients, you have mentioned a desire to
find the right mix of Federal and private contractor employees
for performing government services. What steps will you take
and whom do you expect to coordinate to achieve this?
Mr. Zients. President Obama in his March 4, 2009, memo on
contracting talked about a blurring of the line around
inherently governmental, and I think it is very important that
we clarify what is inherently governmental and ensure that only
Federal workers are performing these functions.
Second, I think it is important that we have the critical
capabilities at each agency to do their work, to maintain
control over their operations. So there are some areas,
technical areas, professional service areas, where it might be
right to have a mix of Federal workers and contractors, but at
all times the agency has to maintain a core set of capabilities
to maintain control over their operations.
So once we clear through, if you will, those two standards,
there could be work that is eligible for a competitive process.
I think it is very important that we have the acquisition
workforce, per your earlier question, in place to oversee that
type of contracting, if indeed we decide to do it, and that we
have a fair and transparent and economically based
decisionmaking process where Federal employees are given a fair
choice to compete.
Senator Akaka. There are concerns also from Federal
employees as well. In particular, I would mention the unions.
Like you, I believe government transparency and accountability
are essential in all levels of management. However, in recent
initiatives intended to hold Federal employees more accountable
for their performance, there has been significant concern over
fairness and consistency in evaluations.
What are your views on crafting performance management
systems that can be implemented fairly, consistently, and
transparently enough that Federal employees and managers alike
will embrace them?
Mr. Zients. I think that performance appraisal systems are
critical. They are the basis for a lot of the performance
efforts that we have been discussing, writ large. I think that
we need to make sure that anything we do respects and is
consistent with the merit-based system and protects employees
from any prohibited personnel practices. So I believe that we
all are supportive of transparency; at the same time, we need
to balance that with other considerations when we are talking
about our Federal employees.
Senator Akaka. One concern that we have had over a period
of time is that of security clearances, and this Committee has
held hearings on that issue. Since 2004, Mr. Zients, our
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal
Workforce, and the District of Columbia, under both the
leadership of myself and Senator Voinovich, has worked closely
with the Office of Management and Budget in reforming the
current security clearance process, which remains on the
Government Accountability Office's high-risk list. Until
recently, the backlog for obtaining a security clearance was
unacceptably long. While some progress has been made, I am
concerned that the new Administration may not yet be focused on
moving forward with security clearance reforms.
Will you commit to have your team work with our
Subcommittee on this important issue?
Mr. Zients. I agree very much with the issue. There has
been some progress, as you have noted, under your leadership
and others. At the same time, we are not where we need to be,
and OMB plays a role here with the Office of Personnel
Management, DOD, and the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence. And I very much commit that, if confirmed, it
will be a very important priority for me to review the work to
date and to make sure that we make continued progress and work
closely with you.
Senator Akaka. Well, thank you very much. I want to wish
your lovely family well, and you also. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Akaka. Mr. Zients,
thanks very much. Your answers have been excellent. You are
obviously well prepared for this position. The Administration
and all of us need you there as quickly as possible.
So, without objection, we are going to keep the record of
the hearing open until noon tomorrow for the submission of
additional questions or statements, and then we will move as
quickly as we can, assuming nothing unexpected occurs, to
confirm you by the Committee and send you out to the full
Senate.
Do you have anything else you would like to say?
Mr. Zients. No. Thank you. I really appreciate it.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you very much. The hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:44 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LIEBERMAN FOR TARA O'TOOLE
Good morning. Today this Committee will consider the nominations of
Dr. Tara O'Toole to be Undersecretary of Science and Technology, at the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and Jeffrey Zients to be the
Director for Management at the Office of Management and Budget (OPM).
We will begin with Dr. O'Toole, who has appeared previously before
our Committee as a witness and who I'm delighted to welcome back as the
nominee for this important position.
The Science and Technology Directorate is charged with managing our
Nation's investments in homeland security research and development
projects.
It is hard to think of a threat to America's homeland security that
cannot be better defended against with an innovative application of
science and technology.
S&T had a difficult launch and in its early years struggled to
clarify and execute its primary mission. As a result, the FY 2007
Appropriations Act reduced the Directorate's $1.4 billion budget by 40
percent.
In wake of this dose of tough-love, former Undersecretary Cohen
resolved to build a leaner and more tightly-managed organization that
focused on serving its primary customers--DHS agencies--and being
transparent with Congress.
Undersecretary Cohen implemented internal controls to monitor S&T
finances and track the progress of S&T investments. He established a
structured strategic planning process that is designed to produce
specific objectives and annual performance measures.
In my view, the recent increases in the Directorate's budget
indicates that S&T's career staff has succeeded in regaining the trust
of the oversight and appropriations committees in the House and Senate.
But a number of complex challenges remain, and we would look to
you, Dr. O'Toole, for the leadership to continue to build and improve
this agency that is vital to DHS's overall mission to protect our
homeland.
These challenges include expanding investments in innovative R&D
for homeland security and insuring the reliability of the testing and
evaluation that DHS relies on for large acquisition programs.
You also must strengthen relationships between S&T and agencies
within DHS. Dr. O'Toole brings a wealth of experience that will serve
her well in this new job.
After practicing medicine in Baltimore for several years, Dr.
O'Toole earned a Masters in Public Health from Johns Hopkins
University, spent 5 years as a senior analyst and project director with
the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and, from 1993 to
1997, served as the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and
Health at the Department of Energy.
From 1999 to 2003, she managed the Johns Hopkins Center for
Civilian Biodefense Strategies. For the last 6 years, she has served as
the Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Center for Biosecurity
at the University of Pittsburgh.
Today she is best known as a nationally recognized expert on
biodefense and the actions what we must take to detect, deter and react
to either a biological terrorist attack or a ruinous pandemic.
An important measure of her fitness for this post is the respect
she has garnered in the scientific community and across the U.S.
Government.
A former chair of the board of the American Federation of American
Scientist, she has participated in major studies or advisory panels at
the request of the National Science Foundation, the Department of
Defense, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the
Department of Homeland Security.
I believe her nomination is an inspired choice.
__________
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS FOR TARA O'TOOLE
I join the Chairman in welcoming Tara O'Toole, the nominee to head
the Science and Technology Directorate at the Department of Homeland
Security.
Dr. O'Toole has had an extensive medical, public health, and
biodefense career and currently serves as CEO and director of the
Center for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
and as a professor of medicine and of public health at the University
of Pittsburgh. She was one of the original members of the Johns Hopkins
Center for Civilian Biodefense Strategies and served as its director
from 2001 to 2003.
When the Department of Homeland Security was established, Congress
recognized the important role that technology must play in securing our
Nation and created a Science and Technology Directorate to undertake
research and development activities. Today, the Department is
developing technologies on a variety of fronts, including biological,
chemical and explosives detection, communications interoperability, and
passenger and cargo screening.
Technological advances at the ports of entry are already helping to
identify people using fraudulent travel documents. This technology
allows the Department to better perform its mission of protecting the
American people while still facilitating the legitimate flow of people
and commerce--letting our friends in, while keeping our enemies out.
The Department's relationship with the University of Maine and
other research universities is helping to improve our homeland
security. An example of the great promise of advanced technology is the
composite-material cargo-container prototype under development at the
University of Maine. A composite shipping container with embedded
sensors could improve the security and integrity of the supply chain
while offering shippers a lighter and longer-lasting alternative to
traditional steel containers.
Research and development of new technologies at the Department
carry an annual multi-billion dollar price tag. To ensure that these
dollars are spent wisely, the Science and Technology Directorate must
rigorously test and evaluate technologies before procurement decisions
are made. Better engagement by the Directorate's testing and evaluation
office in Department acquisition programs could help avoid problems
such as those experienced in the troubled SBInet program.
The next Under Secretary for Science and Technology will also need
to align DHS research and development priorities with the greatest
security vulnerabilities that our Nation faces and ensure close
coordination with DHS operational components and other Federal, State,
and local partners. I look forward to hearing how Dr. O'Toole would
address these challenges if confirmed.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LIEBERMAN FOR JEFFREY ZIENTS
And now we will consider President Obama's nomination of Jeffrey
Zients to be Deputy Director for the Office of Management and Budget.
Since its creation, a common criticism of OMB is that its
leadership, no matter what party is in charge, too often has focused on
the ``B'' at the expense of the ``M''--on budget as opposed to
management. That should not be the case. The two go hand in hand and if
a program is not doing well with the ``M'', it is likely to have
problems with the ``B'' as well and that means the taxpayers are not
getting their money's worth.
I'm pleased that President Obama has made the drive toward
management excellence a top priority across the government and has
stated that the Deputy Director for Management at OMB will also serve
as the first ``Chief Performance Officer'' of the Federal Government.
Mr. Zients will have oversight of four statutory offices with far-
reaching mandates: The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs;
the Office of Federal Procurement Policy; the Office of E-Government
and Information Technology; and the Office of Federal Financial
Management.
I would like to take a moment to outline just a few of the
challenges I believe Mr. Zients will face if confirmed.
In the area of performance metrics, the ratings system created by
the previous Administration--the Program Assessment Rating Tool
(PART)--was viewed skeptically by many as a biased system that
generated poor ratings for programs that the Administration wanted to
eliminate for ideological reasons.
I hope, Mr. Zients, that you can help create objective performance
rating metrics for programs, and one that takes into account that a
``one-size-fits-all'' approach is inappropriate given the diversity of
government programs.
Improving contracting practices is another priority for the
President, and rightfully so, as total spending on goods and services
has skyrocketed from $189 billion in 1999 to $532 billion in 2008.
Another concern is properly managing the Information Technology
investments of the Federal Government--estimated to be over $70 billion
in this fiscal year. We must be assured these funds are spent
effectively while also meeting the President's goals of using
technology to make the government more transparent, participatory, and
collaborative.
In a related concern, OMB will continue to play a key role--along
with DHS--in protecting our Federal networks against the malicious
actors that seek to do us harm. In recent years this has been a real
challenge.
And finally, I'd like to mention how important transparency
initiatives can be to improving accountability in government programs.
President Obama is passionate about this issue as well.
But many current efforts to provide data to the public on Federal
spending, including USAspending.gov, have fallen short of original
expectations and now the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board
is grappling with how to provide the public comprehensive information
on stimulus spending.
I'm optimistic that, with strong leadership, we'll be able to solve
these problems so the public can track spending and provide their own
oversight if they spot wasteful spending.
Mr. Zients has 20 years of business experience as a CEO, management
consultant, and entrepreneur. He has served as CEO and Chairman of The
Advisory Board Company and as Chairman of the Corporate Executive
Board--two firms that are leading providers of performance benchmarking
and best practices across a wide range of industries. He has spent most
of his career devising ways to improve governance, organization,
management, efficiencies, financial systems of companies, and now we
will look to him to bring those best practices to government agencies.
So again, welcome Mr. Zients. I look forward to your statement and
your answers to our questions.
__________
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS FOR JEFFREY ZIENTS
For our second panel, the Committee welcomes Jeffrey Zients,
President Obama's nominee to serve as the next Deputy Director for
Management at the Office of Management and Budget. If confirmed, Mr.
Zients will also serve as the government's first Chief Performance
Officer.
Although OMB is better known for its budget responsibilities, it
has a two-pronged mission. In addition to overseeing the preparation
and implementation of the Federal budget, OMB oversees Federal
procurement, financial management, information technology, and
regulatory policies across the Executive Branch.
The management challenges that OMB faces are extremely important.
Effective management can help to ensure that agencies are carrying out
their responsibilities in the most cost-effective manner. Good
management can save tax dollars and lead to better results. A major OMB
responsibility is the oversight of approximately $71 billion in
spending on information technology investments. It is unacceptable that
Federal agencies have identified approximately 450 IT projects,
totaling more than $26 billion for fiscal year 2009, as poorly planned,
poorly performing, or both.
Senator Carper and I have introduced a bill, which this Committee
reported favorably, that would improve agency performance and oversight
of Federal IT projects. I look forward to hearing how Mr. Zients would
work to prevent future cost, schedule, and performance problems.
I also look forward to hearing Mr. Zients's views on how OMB can
continue to provide effective oversight and implementation of Recovery
Act spending.
Mr. Zients comes before the Committee with 20 years of business
experience as a CEO, management consultant, and entrepreneur. He will
need to call on all this experience if he is to serve effectively as
the Deputy Director for OMB and Chief Performance Officer.
__________
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR BENNET FOR JEFFREY ZIENTS
Mr. Chairman, Senator Collins, thank you for giving me the
opportunity to introduce Jeff Zients to serve as the Deputy Director
for Management at the OMB. He will also serve as our Nation's first-
ever Chief Performance Officer. I'd like to take this opportunity to
welcome Jeff and his family to this hearing.
If confirmed, Jeff will coordinate the President's efforts to make
our government more efficient and accountable by identifying wasteful
spending and eliminating initiatives that do not provide sufficient
benefit to the American taxpayer for the amount we are investing in
them. He'll also work to improve how we measure the effectiveness of
government programs.
It won't be easy. Just the sheer size and complexity of the Federal
Government and the entrenched interests that often fight to protect
certain programs--make this kind of work treacherous and too often
thankless. But I commend the President for prioritizing better
governance and I fully agree that somebody needs to be tasked with
performing this role.
Given the enormity of this task, the President could not have found
someone better suited for the job than Jeff Zients. As an expert in
financial management and business strategy, Jeff has the intellect,
creativity and tenacity to examine complex problems, implement
solutions, and produce real results for the American people. As my
friend for nearly 30 years, I know he has the ability to exercise sound
judgment and the character and integrity to do what's right.
In his mid-twenties, Jeff joined the Advisory Board where he worked
closely with America's top companies to become more innovative and
efficient. Within 3 years, he became a partner in the company. He also
helped create the Corporate Executive Board, which assists companies
across various industries in financial management and business re-
engineering. He played an instrumental role in taking both of these
companies public, all the while creating hundreds of jobs in the
Washington, D.C. area.
Jeff currently serves as the Managing Partner of Portfolio Logic,
an investment firm that he founded several years ago. He is also the
Chairman of Pediatric Services of America, the Nation's largest
provider of pediatric nurse care. Outside of the corporate world, Jeff
has worked to create better opportunities for young adults throughout
Washington, D.C. and Baltimore. He established and currently oversees a
non-profit organization that works with local companies to provide paid
internships, mentoring opportunities, and job training initiatives.
As we all know, Jeff will be joining the President's team during
the worst economic crisis in generations. At the same time, our
deficits and long term debt are on an unsustainable course. If we want
to lay the framework for long-term economic growth, we need to ensure
that every penny of Federal spending is necessary and targeted. Jeff's
years of experience in financial management and his ability to think
``outside of the box'' will be instrumental to the President's efforts
to make our government more accountable and efficient. His private-
sector business savvy will provide the perfect lens through which to
examine the effectiveness of many public-sector initiatives. By making
our Federal agencies more efficient and accountable, Jeff will play an
important role in helping restore the American people's faith in our
government.
I look forward to working with my old friend as he begins this
important job. Mr. Chairman, I gladly introduce and recommend Jeff
Zeints to the Committee for this new and important role.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
