Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer amendment No. 509 to the underlying bill, S. 679, which is the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011. I am pleased to have Senator Tom Udall and other cosponsors of this bipartisan amendment.

The aim of the amendment is very simple and straightforward. It would preserve the Senate-confirmed status of our Nation's major chief financial officers. I appreciate very much the thoughtful efforts behind the underlying legislation that is before us today. I want to particularly commend my colleague, Senator Collins, who is on the Senate floor, Senator Lieberman, as well as Senator Alexander and Senator Schumer, for their hard work in being sure the nomination process is streamlined. Having been through the process twice myself, it could use some streamlining, and I know they will continue in their efforts to reduce even more some of the barriers to public service so many people feel, and I look forward to working with them.

Having said that, in terms of the specific issue of the chief financial officers, I think it would be a mistake to take them out of the confirmation process and a very unwise thing to do at this point in our Nation's history when we are facing such serious financial challenges. These are, after all, the chief financial management people and the chief budget people in our agencies and departments. We need them right now to be at the highest level possible.

Some of my colleagues will recall the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 created or consolidated the financial or executive positions across 23 Federal agencies. It specifically requires Senate confirmation for the 16 most important departmental CFO positions, as well as for the Controller of the Office of Federal Financial Management in the Office of Management and Budget. As Director of the Office of Management and Budget, I worked closely with that individual. It also, by separate law, requires Senate confirmation of the Assistant Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force who serve as Comptrollers for those military services.

In its current form, the legislation before us today would eliminate the statutory requirement that those positions be Senate confirmed. The basic principle behind the CFO Act of 1990 is that an agency's top financial officer should be a key influential figure in the agency's top management. I believe that principle is more true and urgent today than ever.

With our Federal deficits expected to reach over $1.4 trillion this year, diligent and skillful stewardship of taxpayer dollars is more critical than ever, and these CFOs are at the front lines of that effort. The nominations reform bill now pending would weaken the institutional accountability that is currently in law by denying the Senate a say and by lowering the stature of these individuals in their departments. The practical importance of Senate confirmation is that it gives individuals the stature and credibility they often need to do their jobs effectively.

I don't believe we want to have a situation in which, for example, the Energy Department's Assistant Secretary for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability is a Senate-confirmed appointee. Yet the CFO down the hall--who is supposed to be working with this person on his budget, and, frankly, directing this person in terms of financial management--is not a Senate-confirmed individual or the Interior Assistant Secretary for Water and Science would be a Senate-confirmed appointee but not the Interior CFO down the hall.

When I served as the Director of OMB, I made it a point to meet regularly and personally with the CFOs of our major Cabinet departments. Their roles are critical, and we should be empowering those individuals and giving them not less but more responsibility. These officials do one of the most important jobs in our government. They are responsible for ensuring the integrity of multibillion-dollar agency budgets.

I have spoken to CFOs about this amendment, and they make some very good points. In fact, earlier today I spoke to the CFO of one of the major Cabinet agencies, and he was passionate and very articulate in talking about this issue. As he told me, by law, CFOs oversee the financial management activities relating to all the programs and operations of their agencies, but they also play a lead role in preparing the agency budgets and presenting and explaining those budgets to the Congress. Often this is a more political or strategic role than many realize. During program execution, they are responsible for cost management and auditing to detect and eliminate wasteful spending, and they are closely involved in determining which programs are effective and which programs should be terminated--a tough decision in an agency. You want to be sure that person has the stature to make that argument and to be heard.

These duties are at the heart of sound financial management but also budget policy and strategy, and I believe we should seek to strengthen these positions not weaken them, particularly given the situation we are in with our fiscal problems.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which simply preserves the stature of chief financial officers within Federal agencies and the accountability that is made possible through Senate advice and consent.

Mr. President, I see one of my colleagues on the Senate floor, and so I yield the floor and again urge support of this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source