5. 6. B. We are not aware of any abuse where contributions for transition planning Do you have any concerns about access to the records supporting private We would not want to do anything that would discourage people from giving contributions to support transition expenses. However, without knowing what records we are speaking of it is difficult to answer the question. As you know, we have included in H.R. 3932 a requirement that the names, most recent employment, and funding sources of all transition personnel be disclosed. I gather from your statement that you do not believe this provision is necessary. A. B. C. D. What do you believe is objectionable about the disclosure requirement? It is not that we believe that the disclosure is objectionable. We are How do you propose that the information available to individuals who How do you suggest that we define "sensitive" information? Sensitive information is information not available under the Freedom of What process do you propose be devised for temporarily appointing an We are not proposing any new process in this area. Should there be a It is my understanding that GSA is responsible for verifying the costs incurred in connection with Presidential transitions to determine the appropriateness of the expenditures. A. How would you characterize your findings over the years? B. We have found no improper use of funds. Transition teams work closely with Based on your experience, do you have any other suggestions for the Thank you for this opportunity, but I have no other suggestions at this Mr. HORTON. It's my understanding that GSA is responsible for verifying the costs incurred in connection with these transitions, to determine the appropriateness of the expenditures. How would you characterize your findings over the years? Mr. HORTON. Where did you get all the sun, Ray? Mr. FONTAINE. A week in Mexico. Mr. HORTON. A week in Mexico. Sounds nice. Mr. FONTAINE. I'm the certifying officer for both the incoming and outgoing administrations on all the billings and expenditures, and generally there have never been any problems. The people are reasonable. They know what the rules and the regulations are. And I'd say generally it's been very easy to deal with them and basically there have been no problems. Mr. HORTON. Other than the proposed increase for the outgoing administration, are there any other suggestions for the subcommittee with regard to the transition? Mr. FONTAINE. Yes. I have a number of them. Mr. GOLDEN. And I would like to make one pitch, and that is for the outgoing President, that the number be raised. I think the reality is that we've had a lot of cost increases in the interim. The reality also is that we did, in fact, spend almost the entire $1 million with President Carter leaving at that time. I might add that the former transition involved several cost components that will be different with this President. They were moving to Plains, GA, a very low cost area, and, in fact, the President was moving into some Federal space for which there were no direct costs attributed. For the outgoing President, clearly we have a significant amount of inflation that has occurred that would raise the figure substantially above $12 million. The transition is probably going to occur in non-Federal space, and the costs associated with a trip across country into a high-cost area such as Los Angeles offers plenty of reason to make what I think is a reasonable adjustment in that. Mr. HORTON. Thank you. Mr. GOLDEN. Ray, you might have some other comments as well. Mr. HORTON. Do you have others? Mr. FONTAINE. I have a whole number of them. Mr. HORTON. Is that in your statement? Mr. FONTAINE. Yes, that I hope to address. Mr. HORTON. Thank you. Mr. BROOKS. Thank you very much, Mr. Horton. Mr. Fontaine, would you add a statement to this of your comments, any comments you'd like to make on this? Mr. FONTAINE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to submit a formal statement for the record. Mr. BROOKS. Without objection, so ordered. OPENING STATEMENT OF RAYMOND A. FONTAINE LEGISLATION AND NATIONAL SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS March 16, 1988 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am pleased to appear before this Committee today to discuss the Presidential Transitions Effectiveness Act, H.R. 3932. Although the inflationary impact on entitlements is well covered for the transition in H.R. 3932, a similar need exists to address the inflationary impact on entitlements under the Former Presidents Act of 1958. For example, although the pension for a former President is indexed to the rate of basic pay for an agency head, the pension for a widow of a former President has remained fixed at $20,000 since 1971. After the first thirty months following leaving office, the total amount authorized for annual compensation of a former President's office staff has remained fixed at $96,000 since 1970. There is a growing disparity between the levels of entitlements intended by the Act and the level that is actually realized in today's economic climate. The General Services Administration (GSA) administers the provisions of the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, as amended, as well as provisions of the Former Presidents Act of 1958, as amended. This includes providing suitably equipped office space, supplies, communications, and other services to the incoming and outgoing administrations. Estimates of amounts required for entitlements under these laws are included in the GSA Budget presented to the Office of Management and. Budget and to the Congress. The Presidential Transition Act was enacted by Congress to promote the orderly transfer of power when general elections result in a change in the Presidency. Previously, there was no provision for the formal transfer of power, nor were any Federal funds available to pay for expenses of the transition. During the period between a November election and a January inauguration, an incoming President frequently had to meet large expenses out of his own pocket or through private contributions. The Act authorized the Administrator of General Services to provide the President-elect with suitable office space, to compensate office staffs, and to pay for travel, subsistence, and other necessary expenses. It also authorized providing for six months after expiration of their terms of office, services, facilities, and personnel needed for the outgoing administration to wind up its affairs. $900,000 was initially authorized by the Act, and the first transition under its provisions followed President Nixon's election in 1968. At the time, Congress expressed the intent that availability should be equally divided between incoming and outgoing administrations, and President Nixon was provided $450,000. In a November 16, 1970 report to the Congress, however, 3 the General Accounting Office found that President Nixon had actually incurred costs of $1.5 million, and recommended in a later report that the ceiling be removed or revised to a more realistic limitation. In October, 1976, Public Law 94-499 raised the limit for any one Presidential transition from $900,000 to $3,000,000. It also provided that not more than $2 million may be appropriated for services and facilities to support the President and Vice President-elect, and not more than $1 million for similar support to the outgoing officials. Notwithstanding inflation, the same However, a limits apply today, eleven years later. Therefore, it is believed that the proposed transition level of $3.5 million for the incoming President and Vice President is appropriate. commensurate increase should also be provided for the outgoing President and Vice President for a total of at least $1.5 million. These sums, indexed for inflation under the terms of H.R. 3932, should be adequate for years to come. The proposed amendment to section 4 of the Transition Act to provide the outgoing administration thirty days lead time in the transition process before the expiration of the term in office on January 20 is most helpful in assuring a smooth transition at a time when the full hiatus period is commencing. In this regard, the reference in section 4 should be for a period not to exceed seven months, instead of six months. This would be consistent with the last provision in section 4 providing that the Former |