Office of Management and Budget
Executive Office of the President
  Site Search     
About OMB  
- Organization Chart
- Contact OMB
President's Budget
- Budget Documents
- Supplementals, Budget Amendments, and Releases
Federal Management
- President's Management Agenda
- Office of Federal Financial
-- Agency Audits
- Office of Federal Procurement
  -- CAS Board
-- FAIR Act Inventory
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
- OIRA Administrator
- Regulatory Matters
- Paperwork Requirements
- Statistical Programs & Standards
- Information Policy, IT & E-Gov
Communications & Media
- News Releases
- Speeches
Legislative Information
- Statements of Administration Policy (SAPs)
- Testimony
- Reports to Congress
Information for Agencies
- Circulars
- Memoranda
- Bulletins
- Pivacy Guidance
- Grants Management
- Reports
Site Map
First Gov  










MARCH 20, 2002

Mr. Chairman, Senator Campbell, Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here this morning to discuss the President’s FY 2003 Budget request for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).


Let me start by noting that my colleagues at OMB and throughout the Executive Branch have worked hard to present this Congress and our fellow citizens with a very different budget for Fiscal Year 2003. I would like to bring to the Committee’s attention some new features which I hope will now become part of your annual expectations and deliberations.

This budget takes seriously the assessment of government performance, and its relationship to future spending. Activities where effectiveness can be proven are maintained and often reinforced; those that demonstrably fail, or can make no showing of effectiveness, in many cases are looked to as sources of funding. The days when programs float along year after year, spending taxpayer dollars with never a showing of reasonable results or return, must give way to an era of accountable government. This and all future budgets must no longer be permitted to answer only "How much?" They must also answer the question "How well?"

This innovation responds to decades of calls by good government advocates. While long overdue, it is essential at a time when the physical safety of Americans requires that the federal government take on many additional, expensive tasks. It would be unconscionable to fund poorly performing programs given the realities of our economy and homeland security needs.

A Two-front War Against Terrorism

Mr. Chairman, we presented a budget for a two-front war. It proposes substantial increases, those the President believes necessary to deliver on the paramount duty of the federal government, to secure the safety of the American people.

Last year’s budget began the reconstruction of a neglected national defense base, and that project continues now with new urgency. Funding for the category of activities we now term "Homeland Security" will double under the President’s plan: airline security, first responders, bioterrorism, border security and preventive law enforcement, are all scheduled for major increases as recommended to the President by Governor Tom Ridge.

We have worked closely with the Office of Homeland Security to define and budget for these activities. We will guard against and oppose efforts to divert funds from Homeland Security requirements or to misclassify unrelated funding under Homeland Security’s priority status.

Winning our two-front war is not optional, and will be expensive. As in other times of national conflict, tradeoffs will be required. We propose a very reasonable level that allows spending not related to the war or homeland defense to grow by around 2%. Within this "Rest of Government" category the President proposes $355 billion in spending. It must be noted that the activities it encompasses have enjoyed rapid funding increases during recent years, growing by an average annual rate of more than 8% since 1998.

Within this enormous sum, it is both possible and desirable to increase high priority programs of proven effectiveness. Dozens of programs across the government are scheduled for growth based on demonstrated results.

Measuring Performance and Delivering Results

For decades, good government advocates have called for systematic measurement of government’s performance, and its reflection in the allocation of resources. In 1993, Congress passed the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), which was intended to implement this reform, but the potential of GPRA has been only partially realized. The President’s budget for 2003 responds to Congress’ instruction, differentiating where the facts are available between programs that work and those that do not. Many programs of proven effectiveness are strengthened by shifting funds from those which can make no proof of performance.

A serious attitude toward performance is long overdue. It takes on special urgency at a time when the demands of national security assert a heavy claim on our resources. We hope the findings of this budget will trigger interest in performance assessment, and bring forth much new information about that large majority of programs for which we have no useful data at all.

Full Funding for Federal Retiree Costs

In the interest of both accuracy and sound management, the President’s FY 2003 Budget takes a major step toward full cost accounting of programs and departments by recording the costs of health and retirement benefits at the time and in the accounts where the costs are borne. At long last, the true cost of these programs will be visible, and managers will have full incentive to control the costs of additional personnel.

This budget corrects a long-standing understatement of the true cost of literally thousands of government programs. For some time, the accruing costs of the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) and the Military Retirement System (MRS) have been charged to the affected salary and expense accounts, but agencies have only paid a portion of the costs for Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) employees and a few other small retirement systems. A large portion of the liability has been unfunded and the remainder hidden in OPM’s mandatory accounts. The full cost of accruing benefits should be charged to the affected salary and expense accounts, so that choices for program managers and budget decision-makers are not distorted by inaccurate cost information.

To state the obvious, if Congress chooses to reject this reform, the Administration will strongly oppose the $9 billion in requested discretionary appropriations from being seized and spent on other programs. These resources need to be available for Federal employee retirements one way or another, but obviously we do not intend for them to be spent twice.

OMB Budget

For FY 2003, the Office of Management and Budget requests budget authority of $73.5 million. This request is the same as the FY 2002 enacted level, adjusted for the Administration’s proposal to fully fund accruing federal retiree costs. The OMB budget request will provide 510 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions, 17 below the FY 2002 FTE level of 527.

The Office of Management and Budget assists the President in the development and implementation of government-wide budget, fiscal, and management policies. As the chief management and budget office of the Executive Branch, we have a special obligation to adhere to budgetary discipline and maximize productivity. As you can see from our budget request for FY 2003, OMB is committed to maintaining budgetary restraint while funding new initiatives including emphasis on government-wide information technology and E-Government.

As it has for agencies across government, OMB has compared its management capabilities and organization against the standards for success of the President’s Management Agenda. The baseline evaluation as of September 30, 2001 indicated that there is work to be done at OMB in each of the five areas targeted by the President for government-wide improvement. Our particular focus will be to better manage OMB’s human capital and effectively harness information technology.

Consolidated Executive Office of the President Appropriation

As you know, the Executive Office of the President (EOP), despite the name, has never been budgeted for as a single entity and is not currently covered under a single appropriation. As part of the FY 2003 Budget, the Administration is again requesting a consolidation and financial realignment for the EOP. The initiative would consolidate 15 EOP components and fund them with a single appropriation for a total of $336.2 million.

This will give the President maximum flexibility in allocating resources and staff in support of his office and is intended to: permit a more rapid response to changing needs and priorities; allow the President to address emergent national needs; produce greater economies of scale and other efficiencies in procuring goods and services; and, enhance accountability for performance. This initiative will allow the President to align EOP resources to meet changing national priorities -- something he cannot do now under the current account structure.

Electronic Government (E-Gov)

I’d like to spend a little time discussing an item that is important to the President and is under the purview of this subcommittee -- "The E-Gov Fund." Let me start by highlighting the recent Council for Excellence in Government Survey that found 70% of Americans favor investing in E-Government to make government simpler and more accessible. The President is committed to addressing this and has proposed to accelerate efforts to implement electronic government through his Management Agenda and E-Government Strategy.

The Vice President recently launched the newly designed FirstGov web site and the Administration released its E-Government strategy. There are four target audiences for this endeavor, each providing opportunities to transform delivery of services: individuals, businesses, other governments, and federal employees.

This strategy is primarily being implemented through 24 multi-agency E-Government initiatives that will lead to significant improvements in productivity. These initiatives will transform government operations by making citizen’s needs paramount. Each of these initiatives will result in the elimination of duplicative agency IT programs and savings could reach several billion dollars. For example, FEMA is leading an initiative to create a one-stop portal with information applicable to public and private organizations involved in disaster preparedness and response. Accurate and timely data from this project may result in saved lives and reduction of property damage; it may also save millions of dollars by eliminating redundant programs and agency costs.

The FY 2003 Budget seeks $45 million for the second installment of this fund, totaling $100 million over the next three years. OMB would manage allocations from the fund housed in an account in the General Services Administration. Projects will be selected that create savings by replacing redundant efforts, and that have viable business cases and implementation plans.

We appreciated this subcommittee’s support of this initiative last year and hope it will continue to place a high priority on funding innovative interagency projects that would deliver services directly to the public, or create the infrastructure to support such delivery. We look forward to continuing to work with you and your staff in this important initiative.


The OMB budget request for FY 2003 reflects the President’s commitment to hold down spending levels in light of our Nation’s new priorities in the war against terrorism at home and abroad.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to meet with you today to discuss the OMB budget request. I look forward to working with the Committee. I would be happy to address any questions the Committee may have on the OMB budget or other budgetary issues.


Federal Register  | Job at OMB  | FOIA  | OMB Locator  | Graphic Version
Accessibility  | Privacy Statement  | Site Search  | Help