Thank you Mr. Chairman. As you noted, today’s hearing will review GAO’s High Risk List with the Comptroller General and the OMB Deputy Director for Management. I cannot think of two more fitting witnesses to discuss how we can strengthen critical federal programs.

The oversight of government programs is the legacy of this subcommittee, and as such, we have tremendous latitude to investigate a wide range of issues relating to government efficiency and the accountability of taxpayer dollars.

Since 1990, the Government Accountability Office has identified high-risk programs in need of urgent attention either through transformation, as with the U.S. Postal Service, or significant modernization, such as the business systems at the Department of Defense.

For me, transparency and accountability are the underpinnings of good government. Too often, the focus is on funding levels and policy decisions without considering the internal structure of an agency. The attention by GAO on high risk areas sharpens the debate by highlighting fundamental management weakness such as inadequate financial and contract management.

It has become routine for agencies to make decisions without having sound business cases for change or without taking into account agency mission. I believe the High Risk List provides all agencies with an opportunity to undertake a critical review of their operations and implement best practices.

I am disappointed that so many areas within the Department of Defense remain on the updated High Risk List. As the ranking member and former chairman of the Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee, I have worked hard to improve the efficiency of DOD programs and operations.

We built on our past efforts to require improved management of the $50 billion DOD spends annually on services by establishing specific goals for the use of competitive contracts and performance-based contracting. We also have required DOD to develop a comprehensive financial management enterprise architecture because DOD has been unable to produce reliable financial information or clean financial statements. However, as the GAO update shows, there continues to be fundamental deficiencies within DOD despite our longstanding efforts.

Take, for example, human capital management within the Department of Defense. It is hard to think of any one function that cuts across all of DOD more than human capital management. Despite the issuance of proposed regulations for its new personnel system, DOD does not have in place a strategic human capital plan. No document identifies DOD’s recruitment and retention strategy or goals for its future workforce.

For some time, the Comptroller General has recommended that DOD have a chief management officer who would be accountable for agency-wide management just as the deputy director for management at OMB is responsible for government-wide management. I plan to use my position as ranking member on the Readiness Subcommittee to work toward this objective.

Chairman Voinovich, your willingness to take on some of the very same issues that we confront on the Armed Services Committee is welcomed, and I look forward to this effort.

The bottom line is we need sound management practices in place so that federal agencies can spend taxpayer money wisely.

We need sound financial systems in place so that taxpayer dollars can be tracked. And we need the right people with the right skills in place so that agencies can carry out their missions successfully.

I look forward to the testimony of our distinguished panelists, Comptroller General Walker and OMB Deputy Director Johnson, and Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you in tackling the inefficiencies spotlighted by GAO. Thank you.