Washington – U.S. Rep. John Tanner, chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee, joined with colleagues in thanking federal agencies for improving service to wounded warriors who are eligible for Social Security disability benefits. These improvements were cited in a new report released by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Tanner also urged the agencies to make additional improvements recommended by GAO.

“The Subcommittee on Social Security is committed to ensuring that those who have made great sacrifices in service to our country receive prompt and fair treatment when they apply for Social Security disability benefits,” stated Chairman Tanner, a veteran of the United States Navy and the Tennessee Army National Guard. “I applaud the Social Security Administration for the success of its efforts to improve outreach and service delivery to wounded warriors, and I am confident the agency will work hard to address the remaining barriers identified by the Government Accountability Office.”

“We owe a debt of gratitude to all who have worn the uniform,” added Congressman Sam Johnson, an Air Force veteran, former Prisoner of War and Ranking Member on the Social Security Subcommittee. “One of my top priorities is helping current and former military men and women get the care they deserve and the benefits they merit. While I am pleased to learn from the GAO that Social Security, Veterans Affairs, and the DOD are making progress when it comes to educating our wounded warriors about Social Security disability benefits and expediting their claims, there is more work to do. Specifically, we must improve outreach in veterans’ hospitals and expedite the transfer of DOD medical records to Social Security so younger combat wounded veterans will have better, faster access to the benefits they have earned. America’s servicemen and women are the cornerstone of our democracy and they should expect nothing less.”

Service members who have been seriously wounded may be eligible for Social Security disability insurance (DI) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) disability benefits from SSA, in addition to possible disability benefits from VA and DOD. In 2007, advocates began reporting that wounded warriors – service members wounded since 2001 in Iraq or Afghanistan – often did not know about SSA’s disability benefits or were encountering barriers when they attempted to apply.

The Social Security Subcommittee has urged SSA to make improving service delivery to wounded warriors a top priority. In addition, the Subcommittee asked GAO to conduct a study to determine what challenges wounded warriors face in accessing SSA’s disability benefits and what SSA, DOD, and VA have done to address these problems.

GAO’s report, released October 15, found that SSA, DOD and VA have worked together since 2007 to significantly expand outreach to wounded warriors to inform them about SSA’s disability benefits. GAO also found that SSA has successfully taken measures to expedite these disability claims, with help from DOD and VA.

Not all service delivery problems have been fixed, however. GAO found that some wounded warriors still face delays in receiving benefits from SSA because DOD does not transfer their medical records to SSA quickly enough. GAO recommended that DOD and SSA work together to address this problem. In addition, GAO recommended that SSA and VA work together to expand outreach to already-discharged veterans to make sure that they are aware of SSA’s disability benefits. The report identified several groups in particular need of outreach, including those suffering from traumatic brain injury or post-traumatic stress disorder.

Chairman Tanner and Ranking Member Johnson joined colleagues from other House subcommittees to urge Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki and SSA Commissioner Michael Astrue to promptly carry out GAO’s further recommendations.

“Again, we commend you on the success of your efforts to improve service delivery for wounded warriors who may be eligible for Social Security or SSI disability benefits, and look forward to working with you to ensure that they are fully informed about these benefits,” they wrote in letters to the agencies.

About Congressman John Tanner

John Tanner represents the 8th Congressional District in West and Middle Tennessee. Co-founder of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats, Tanner serves on the Ways and Means Committee, where he chairs the Social Security Subcommittee, and on the Foreign Affairs Committee. A veteran of the U.S. Navy and the Tennessee Army National Guard, Tanner chairs the U.S. delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and is serving a two-year term as NATO PA President.

With the help of grassroots supporters, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans for America Action fund is running this ad to break through the clutter. If you’re interested in getting involved, whether you’re a veteran or a concerned civilian visit their web site.

As a recent report from the Government Accountability Office reveals, seven months have passed since the Walter Reed crisis and serious problems in veterans’ care remain.

Click here to view the embedded video.

As of October 1, the veterans’ budget is late. Until it is approved, the VA will be forced to ration care.

Now, it’s up to the President and Congress to approve the budget. Add your name to the statement, and demand they take action.

The VA Budget

Last year, the VA provided benefits to 3.5 million veterans and their families and health care for 5.5 million patients.

Unlike programs such as Medicaid and Medicare, which require mandatory funding, allocations for the VA are discretionary. Only once in the past 13 years has the veterans’ budget been passed on time.

As a result of the stalled VA budget, the VA is forced to operate at last year’s funding levels. Hospitals must ration care and postpone new programs and construction and repair projects.

This year, Congress authorized the highest increase in the veterans’ budget in over 77 years, for a total of approximately $88 billion. This is significant progress, but unfortunately, while the funding waits in conference, wounded veterans are again kept in waiting.

Care and Benefits for Wounded Veterans

Since 2001, more than 26,000 troops have been wounded in action, and almost 45,000 veterans have been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

Many of these servicemembers face delays when they seek treatment from the VA.

A significant cause of the delays is the maze of paperwork troops and veterans must navigate to get care or benefits. The VA disability benefits system is so severely backlogged that there are over 378,000 pending disability claims, including 83,000 that have been waiting an average of 177 days or more, according to a recent GAO report.

Some veterans with serious mental health problems have committed suicide while waiting for emergency counseling, and others have fallen into debt awaiting government compensation for their injuries.

Also according to the GAO report, there are plans to train case managers and psychiatric nurses about PTSD and traumatic brain injury (TBI) but only 6 of the 32 Warrior Transition Units have completed training for all staff.

About Annette L. McLeod

Annette L. McLeod is the wife of Army Specialist Wendell W. McLeod, Jr. On July 6, 2005, at the end of a ten-month deployment, Spc. McLeod sustained multiple injuries while serving near the Iraqi border in Kuwait.

On August 8, 2005, Wendell arrived at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. During his stay, Spc. McLeod experienced sporadic appointments, was often denied the necessary tests and treatment, and had his identity stolen. Furthermore, though Wendell suffered from traumatic brain injury, the doctors concluded that his cognitive impairments were the result of a pre-existing learning disability.

In hopes of sparing other military families from having to go through a similar ordeal, Mrs. McLeod testified before the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee on March 5, 2007. In her testimony, Mrs. McLeod called attention to the bureaucratic hurdles and poor care that her husband and other soldiers faced at Walter Reed. Her full testimony can be found here.

Today, Wendell continues to suffer from migraines, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and chronic pain. He also has behavioral and short-term memory problems. As a result, Annette has assumed the role of almost full-time caretaker for her husband.

About Staff Sgt. John Daniel Shannon

Staff Sgt. John Daniel Shannon was wounded in Iraq on Nov. 13, 2004, during a gunfight in the town of Habaniya. He suffered a gunshot wound to the head that resulted in the loss of his left eye and a traumatic brain injury.

At Walter Reed Army Medical Center, SSG Shannon endured bureaucratic neglect and was continually denied proper benefits. Largely as a result of lost paperwork and delayed treatment, it took Shannon over two years to secure medical retirement through the Medical Evaluation Board and Physical Evaluation Board.

On March 5, 2007, SSG Shannon spoke out about the problems at Walter Reed during his testimony before the Government Reform and Oversight Committee. His testimony revealed that injured troops encountering obstacles to receiving their proper treatment often give up their benefits in order to move on with their lives. His full testimony can be found here.

About IAVA

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) is the nation’s first and largest group for veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  A non-profit and nonpartisan organization, IAVA represents more than 60,000 veteran members and civilian supporters in all 50 states.

That’s what unfolded this afternoon on the Senate floor before the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as General David Petraeus made a case for keeping the war in Iraq alive even as he concedes the next nine months of war will cost America “60 soldiers a day” and “nine billion dollars a month.”

Petraus tried to sell the prospect of drawdown in US troop levels that were in fact a pulling of troops who are part of the President’s highly touted 2007 “surge,” and would not likely affect the base number of troops — 130,000 — for another 9-12 months.

The hearings, scheduled to play out against the backdrop of September 11 memorial services and overshadowed by taunting new messages from Osama Bin Laden, seemed designed to maximize the memory of terror, a strategic move that uses fear to possibly strengthen the weakening position of President Bush and play to the fears of a public voicing increasing discontent with the state of the Iraq War. Although the tough questions flew from both sides of the political aisle, and Democrats were distinctly supportive of troops but not policy, the Republican Senators seemed particularly intense, an indicator that many are shying away from Bush policies and paying more attention to an ever more discontent public on this issue.

Petraeus’ assessment that violence in Iraq has fallen since the U.S. buildup was questioned last week in a report by the Government Accountability Office, which found the average number of daily attacks against civilians had remained about the same during the past six months.

Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker have been presenting testimony and fielding questions for two days, presenting their views of the war and the state of Iraq, which Crocker says continues to have a “dysfunctional” government but the good news is that the Iraqi government “knows it is dysfunctional.” That’s reassuring.

“A secure, stable, democratic Iraq at peace with its neighbors is, in my view, attainable,” There will be no single moment at which we can claim victory. Any turning point will likely be recognized only in retrospect.”

– Ambassador Ryan Crocker

Petraeus admitted more than once that he would be “hard pressed to recommend continuation of the war” past March, 2008, if “significant” progress was not made in areas of governance and the ability of the Iraqi forces to “shoulder the weight of the load” in terms of security and the insurgency.

Petraeus said the “surge” on troop strength — 30,000 soldiers — has made a marginal difference and those troops could possibly be phased down and brought home by July, 2008, Petraeus suggested, leaving troop levels “reduced” to the pre-surge level of about 130,000.

Yes, it addressed the issues of pulling out troops, but this drawdown sounds more like a bait-and-switch sales pitch that would leave President Bush and company still firmly entrenched in Iraq with no end in sight, 130,000 troops still battling it out in the Middle East, and the American taxpayers picking up the tab and burying their dead just as the Iraqis will continue to do.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Tom Lantos, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, dismissed Petraeus’ proposed withdrawal as “token” and said U.S. troops must get out now.

What would happen in July 2008 if progress doesn’t meet expectations? In a burst of candor, without a smile, and with a somber look in his eyes, Petraeus said he would be hard pressed to push for a ’stay the course’ option without clear cut evidence of progress. Probably not what the President wants to hear.

Sen. Robert Menedez (D-New Jersey) asked:

“General, of what you know today, if the commander in chief said to you, ‘Gen. Petraeus, how many more years do American soldiers have to continue in Iraq,’ what would your answer to him be?”

Petraeus replied:

“I cannot predict that.”

To give him credit, Petraeus seemed unflappable under fire and blunt in his assessment — the good, bad and ugly — of the Iraq war as he fielded an endless flow of tough question after tough question. His biggest concerns about future progress in Iraq related less to troops and the Iraq people and more on issues of leadership of this fledgling Democracy. Diplomacy, and issues rewarding the establishment and sustenance of an effective Iraqi government as the biggest priority.

Sen. Russ Feingold ( -Wisconsin) pressured the general to estimate when a significant drop in American deaths in Iraq could be expected. Petraeus answered:

“Senator, we are on the offensive, and when you go on the offensive, you have tough fighting.”

He asked Petraeus and Crocker whether Pakistan or Iraq is more important to the fight against al Qaeda but neither responded, instead sitting in uncomfortable silence.

For its part, Senators of both parties held tightly to their eight minute limit for statements and questions, with one senator after another punching out requests for very specific information and many trying to not repeat questions already asked and answered.

Barrack Obama waxed eloquent and succinct as he said the war “continues to be a disastrous policy mistake.”

“We’ve heard from the Administration and from many of our Senate colleagues this summer that we need to give the President’s surge strategy more time before we can make a decision to redeploy our troops. However, two reports issued over the past week paint a bleak picture of the prospects of the current strategy. These reports reinforce the conclusion that there is no military solution in Iraq, that we need to get our troops out of the middle of Iraq’s civil war, and that this war must be brought to a responsible conclusion.”

– Barrack Obama (D-Illinois)

Click here to view the embedded video.

Republican senators tossed out some of the toughest questions, easily rivaling those asked by Democratic presidential hopefuls on the panel. Here’s what some of them had to say:

“It is not enough for the administration to counsel patience until the next milestone or report. Even as the administration defines its current strategy, it is vital that it plan for a range of post-September contingencies,” “The surge must not be an excuse for failing to prepare for the next phase of our involvement in Iraq, whether that is partial withdrawal, a gradual redeployment or some other option. We saw in 2003, after the initial invasion of Iraq, the disastrous results of failing to plan adequately for contingencies.”

– Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Indiana)

Lugar was concerned about the strain imposed on the American military by extended deployments, which have been increased from 12 to 15 months while stateside time has not changed, and in some cases has been reduced.

“Are we going to continue to invest blood and treasure at the same rate we’re doing now? For what?”

– Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska

“Americans want to see light at the end of the tunnel. America’s commitment, while long-term, is not open-ended.”

– Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minnesota

Republican support for the Iraq war remains on shaky ground in Congress, epitomized by Lugar’s opening statement Tuesday and Hagel’s heated questioning of the general’s recommendations. But that support wasn’t lost.

Joe Lieberman (D-Connecticut) introduced the other “I” word to the Q&A: Iran. Lieberman pressed for information on insurgency supports that might be funneled through Iran and Syria, probing, it seemed, for a reason to justify and expansion of the Iraq war into one or both of those countries. Petraeus didn’t bite, and said he was concerned only with what was happening in Iraq. The question felt like a “testing of the waters” on expansion of Middle Eastern conflicts and the response was one of the few that actually felt evasive. Pay attention, people.

Click here to view the embedded video.

As I listened to two days of hearings, I was particularly impressed with the statement presented by BarackObama (D-Illinios), and decided to add his statement in full as a conclusion to this article, since it is the most comprehensive summation of the day and sums up the issues and concerns voiced by all other congressional Representatives and Senators.

Below is Senator Obama’s statement as prepared for delivery at the Senate Hearing today:

“Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing and for giving us an opportunity to gather more information about the situation in Iraq. I also appreciate the willingness of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker to provide an update on the situation from their perspectives. I look forward to their assessment of the situation on the ground in Iraq, a situation that can only be described as grave.

“We’ve heard from the Administration and from many of our Senate colleagues this summer that we need to give the President’s surge strategy more time before we can make a decision to redeploy our troops. However, two reports issued over the past week paint a bleak picture of the prospects of the current strategy. These reports reinforce the conclusion that there is no military solution in Iraq, that we need to get our troops out of the middle of Iraq’s civil war, and that this war must be brought to a responsible conclusion.

“The U.S. Government Accountability Office concluded that the Iraqi government has failed to meet 11 of its 18 benchmarks. Another 4 benchmarks have been only partially met. In particular, GAO cited the failure of the Iraqi government to enact legislation on de-Baathification, oil revenue sharing, provincial elections, amnesty, and militia disarmament. Moreover, according to GAO, the Iraqi government has not eliminated militia control of local security, it has not eliminated political intervention in military operations, it has not ensured even-handed enforcement of the law, and it has not increased the number of army units capable of independent operations. The effect of this failure to act has been a high level of sectarian violence that can only be seen as having abated when it is measured against the explosion of violence late last year and early this year.

“And last week, an independent commission chaired by General James Jones offered a similarly bleak assessment. The Jones Commission found that the Iraqi Security Forces will not be able to carry out their essential security responsibilities without assistance for at least 12 to 18 months. The Commission also found that the Iraqi Police Service is incapable of providing adequate security to protect Iraqis from insurgents and sectarian violence and that the National Police is so infiltrated by sectarian militias that it should be disbanded and reorganized.

“These independent assessments – and the stunningly bleak NIE released at the end of last month – make clear that there has been zero national political progress. The consensus from the NIE, GAO, and General Jones is that the Iraqi Security Forces have made little progress.

“Rather than identify the very limited tactical gains that have been made at great cost and using them to justify the maintenance of a failing strategy, I believe it is time to change course. Over 3,700 American servicemen and women have died in this war and over 27,000 have been seriously wounded. Each month, this misguided war costs us a staggering $10 billion, and when all is said and done, this will have cost us $1 trillion.

“Changing the definition of success to stay the course with the wrong policy is the wrong course for our troops and our national security. The time to end the surge and to start bringing our troops home is now – not six months from now. The Iraqi government is not achieving the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge, and in key areas has gone backwards.

“Our military cannot sustain its current deployments without crippling our ability to respond to contingencies around the world. It’s time for a change of direction that brings our troops home, applies real pressure on the Iraqis to act, surges our diplomacy, and addresses Iraq’s urgent humanitarian crisis. I can only support a policy that begins an immediate removal of our troops from Iraq’s civil war, and initiates a sustained drawdown of our military presence.

“It is long past time to turn the page in Iraq, where each day we see the consequences of fighting a war that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged. We in Congress must take action to change the President’s failed policy.”

Click here to view the embedded video.

Thank you, Mr Valiulis, for that kind introduction.

I’m sure I don’t need to tell any of you that the world has changed significantly in the past 20 years. But the truth is, we’re going to see even greater changes in the next 20 or 30 years. To avoid irrelevancy, businesses, nonprofit entities, and federal agencies will all need to adapt to this accelerating pace of change. Stated differently, we can’t just be concerned with today; we need to focus on the future.

To capitalize on our opportunities and minimize related risks, all organizations must be mindful of the big picture and the long view. Organizations that endure tend to periodically rethink their missions and operations. World-class organizations understand that innovation requires change. One must change in order to continuously improve. The simple truth is an organization that stands still today is going to get passed by and, ultimately, it may not survive.

It’s useful to remember at the end of the 19th century, the original Dow Jones Industrial Average consisted of 12 stocks. These were all powerful companies, the leaders in their fields. Names like National Lead, U.S. Rubber, and Tennessee Coal and Iron were the Microsofts and Wal-Marts of their day. It’s sobering to realize only 1 of the original 12 Dow Jones companies survives today, and that’s GE. The rest couldn’t adapt to changing conditions and either merged with competitors or went out of business.

Throughout history, many great nations have also failed to survive. I should point out that the longest-standing republic and the major superpower of its day no longer exists, and that’s the Roman Republic. More on the Roman Republic later.

This morning, I’m going to focus on the long-term challenges facing our nation and the federal government, though many of these issues are relevant to other sectors of society. I’m going to talk about the need for federal agencies to adopt a long-term perspective and transform their organizations and operations to better meet the needs of today and tomorrow.

The Federal Executive Boards (FEB) could be an important part of that transformation effort. As GAO’s own work has shown, FEBs are uniquely positioned to bring government agencies together to work on common challenges. Increasingly, government is being called upon to address issues that require federal agencies to work closely together-responding to natural or manmade disasters, for example. And increasingly, the federal government has to work closely with states and communities, and with the private and not-for-profit sectors to meet these challenges. Because FEBs bring together all these players in your communities, you can provide linkages that the rest of government is going to have to work hard to create.

I’m also going to talk about the transformation efforts at my agency, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). GAO is in the vanguard of adapting innovative approaches and best practices. And many of our efforts are, in fact, transferable to other organizations inside and outside of government.

At the start of the 21st century, our country faces a range of sustainability challenges: fiscal, health care, energy, education, the environment, Iraq, aging infrastructure, and immigration policy, to name a few. These challenges are complex and of critical importance.

Some younger people here today may have no first-hand memory of the Cold War or the Iron Curtain. Your world has been defined by more recent developments, such as the invention of the microcomputer, the spread of the AIDS virus, and the mapping of the human genome. The challenge before us is to maintain a government that is effective and relevant to your generation and to future generations.

Unfortunately, our government’s track record in adapting to new conditions and meeting new challenges isn’t very good. Much of the federal government remains overly bureaucratic, myopic, narrowly focused, and based on the past. There’s a tendency to cling to outmoded organizational structures and strategies.

Many agencies have been slow to adopt best practices. While a few agencies have begun to rethink their missions and operations, many federal policies, programs, processes, and procedures are hopelessly out of date. Furthermore, all too often, it takes an immediate crisis for government to act. After all, history has shown that Washington is a lag indicator!

Efficient and effective government matters. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita brought that point home in a painful way. The damage these storms inflicted on the Gulf Coast put all levels of government to the test. While a few agencies, like the Coast Guard, did a great job, many agencies, particularly the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), fell far short of expectations. Public confidence in the ability of government to meet basic needs was severely shaken-and understandably so. If our government can’t handle known threats like natural disasters, it’s only fair to wonder what other public services may be at risk.

Transforming government and aligning it with modern needs is even more urgent because of our nation’s large and growing fiscal imbalance. Simply stated, America is on a path toward an explosion of debt. And that indebtedness threatens our country’s, our children’s, and our grandchildren’s futures. With the looming retirement of the baby boomers, spiraling health care costs, plummeting savings rates, and increasing reliance on foreign lenders, we face unprecedented fiscal risks.

Long-range simulations from my agency are chilling. If we continue as we have, policy makers will eventually have to raise taxes dramatically and/or slash government services the American people depend on and take for granted. Just pick a program-student loans, the interstate highway system, national parks, federal law enforcement, and even our armed forces.

Lately, I’ve been speaking out publicly about our nation’s worsening financial condition. Beginning in 2005, I started going on the road with a broad-based coalition that includes representatives from the Concord Coalition, the Brookings Institution, and the Heritage Foundation. We’re called the “Fiscal Wake-Up Tour” and so far we’ve made appearances in 25 cities and 21 states across the country.

Perhaps you saw the profile that 60 Minutes did of us back in the spring, which was repeated this summer. Or perhaps you saw me on The Colbert Report or heard me on The Diane Rehm Show.

Importantly, our nation’s financial problems are undermining our flexibility to address a range of emerging challenges. For example, America’s population is aging. Tens of millions of baby boomers, and I’m one of them, are on the brink of retirement. Many of these retirees will live far longer than their parents and grandparents. The problem is that in the coming decades, there simply aren’t going to be enough full-time workers to promote strong economic growth or to sustain existing entitlement programs. Like most industrialized nations, the United States will have fewer full-time workers paying taxes and contributing to federal social insurance programs. At the same time, growing numbers of retirees will be claiming their Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits.

Another ominous trend: American companies are cutting back the retirement benefits they’re offering to workers. This means all of us are going to have to plan better, save more, invest more wisely, and resist the temptation to spend those funds before we retire.

Beyond fiscal imbalances, the United States confronts a range of other challenges. Globalization is at the top of that list. Markets, technologies, and businesses in various countries and in various parts of the world are increasingly linked, and communication across continents and oceans is now instantaneous. This new reality was made clear by the recent drop in stock markets around the world.

Clearly, U.S. consumers have reaped many benefits from globalization. From clothing to computers, you and I can buy a range of foreign-made goods that are cheaper than ever. But there’s a catch. In many cases, lower prices have been accompanied by losses in U.S. jobs.

Globalization is also having an impact in areas like the environment and public health. The truth is that air and water pollution don’t stop at the border. And with today’s international air travel, infectious diseases can spread from one continent to another literally overnight.

With the end of the Cold War, we face new security threats, including transnational terrorist networks and rogue nations armed with weapons of mass destruction. September 11 brought this reality home in a painful way. Stronger multinational partnerships will be essential to counter these diverse and diffuse threats.

Challenges also come from technology. In the past 100 years, but especially the last 25 years, spectacular advances in technology have transformed everything from how we do business to how we communicate, to how we treat and cure diseases. Our society has moved from the industrial age to the knowledge age, where specialized knowledge and skills are two keys to success. Unfortunately, the United States-which gave the world Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Edison, and Bill Gates-now lags behind many other developed nations on high school math and science test scores.

In many respects, our quality of life has never been better. We’re living longer, we’re better educated, and we’re more likely to own our own homes. But as many of you already know from your own families, we also face a range of quality-of-life concerns. These include poor public schools, gridlocked city streets, inadequate health care coverage, and the stresses of caring for aging parents and possibly our own children at the same time.

We also face a range of serious challenges when it comes to health care, education, energy, the environment, foreign policy, immigration, infrastructure, Iraq, and other issues. Current U.S. policy in all these key areas is on an unsustainable path over the long term. Tough choices must be made, and the sooner the better.

Our very prosperity is placing greater demands on our physical infrastructure. Billions of dollars will be needed to modernize everything from highways and airports to water and sewage systems. The recent bridge collapse in Minneapolis was a sobering wake-up call. The demands for such new investment will increasingly compete with other national priorities.

To preserve its ability to address these and other emerging trends, America needs to return to fiscal discipline and focus on the future. At both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue and on both sides of the political aisle, we need leaders who will face these facts, speak the truth, partner for progress, and make tough choices. We also need leadership from our state capitols and city halls and from businesses, colleges and universities, charities, think tanks, the military, and the media. So far, there have been too few calls for fundamental change and shared sacrifice.

A Way Forward

By now, you’re probably wondering how we can turn things around. By nature, I’m an optimist and a person of action. I don’t believe in simply stating a problem. I also think it’s important to state a possible way forward.

Obviously, a return to fiscal discipline is essential. We need to impose meaningful budget controls on both the tax and the spending sides of the ledger. Members of Congress also need more explicit information on the long-term costs of spending and tax bills-before they vote on them. For example, the Medicare prescription drug bill came with an $8 trillion price tag. But that fact wasn’t disclosed until after the bill had been passed and signed into law.

But if our government is to successfully address the range of challenges I mentioned earlier, government transformation is also essential. Every federal agency and every federal program is going to have to rethink its missions and operations.

The problem is that much of government today is on autopilot, based on social conditions and spending priorities that date back decades. I’m talking about when Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, and John Kennedy were in the White House. The fact is, the Cold War is over, the baby boomers are about to retire, and globalization is affecting everything from foreign policy to international trade to public health.

Unfortunately, once federal programs or agencies are created, the tendency is to fund them in perpetuity. This is what I mean when I say our government is on autopilot. Washington rarely seems to question the wisdom of its existing commitments. Instead, it simply adds new programs and initiatives on top of the old ones. As President Ronald Reagan once quipped, a government program is “the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” This is a key reason our government has grown so large and so expensive.

American families regularly clean out their closets and attics. Surplus items are either sold at yard sales or given to charity. Unfortunately, when it comes to federal programs and policies, our government has never undertaken an equivalent spring cleaning.

We need nothing less than a top-to-bottom review of federal programs, policies, and operations. Congress and the President need to decide which of these activities remain priorities, which should be overhauled, and which have simply outlived their usefulness.

Entitlement reform is especially urgent. Unless we reform Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, these programs will eventually crowd out all other federal spending. Otherwise, by 2040 our government could be doing little more than sending out Social Security checks and paying interest on our massive national debt.

GAO has been doing its best to bring attention to the problem. To get policy makers thinking, we published an unprecedented report that asks more than 200 probing questions about mandatory and discretionary spending, federal regulations, tax policy, and agency operations. The report was published in February 2005 and is called “21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal Government.” I recommend it to everyone here today. The report is available free on GAO’s Web site at www.gao.gov .

Last November, I sent a letter to congressional leaders suggesting 36 areas for closer oversight. We also recently updated GAO’s list of government areas at high risk of waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement.

Our hope is that policy makers and the public will think more strategically about where we are, where we’re headed, and what we need to do to get on a more prudent and sustainable path. Fortunately, concern seems to be growing. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have started asking some pointed questions about where we are and where we’re headed. Even the Administration now acknowledges that deficits matter. In recent statements, the President has pledged not just to balance the budget but also to start tackling our large and growing entitlement promises.

The American people need to become more informed and involved when it comes to the problems facing our country. They also need to become more vocal in demanding change. Younger Americans like you need to speak up because you and your children will ultimately pay the price and bear the burden if today’s leaders fail to act.

The good news is younger Americans turned out in large numbers for November’s midterm election. From Iraq to immigration, from ethical lapses to fiscal irresponsibility, the public’s dissatisfaction with the status quo was abundantly clear. But looking toward 2008, it’s essential that the public and the press hold candidates of both parties accountable for their position on our large and growing fiscal challenge.

Transforming government won’t happen overnight. Success depends on sustained leadership that transcends the efforts of a single person or a single administration. Public officials will also need to partner with other federal agencies, businesses, universities, and nonprofit groups, both domestically and internationally. The bottom line: We can succeed with enlightened and sustained leadership. And unlike with global warming, we can solve our fiscal challenge on our own! Our future in this area is in our hands if we have the courage to act…

…A Call to Public Service

As I mentioned earlier, government transformation won’t happen overnight. Elected, appointed, and career officials will need to work together closely for a sustained period of time-perhaps a generation or longer. And politicians will need to focus more on what’s right for our country rather than what’s right for their party. It’s going to take patience, persistence, perseverance, and even pain before we prevail in transforming government. But prevail we must.

At the same time, government transformation isn’t possible without a first-rate federal workforce. In my view, whatever your career, everyone should consider giving at least a couple of years to public service. I also strongly believe we should consider some mandatory public service requirement for able-bodied Americans.

Public service can take several forms: military or civilian government service, faith-based or other charitable organizations, or in community and other public interest groups. Lots of jobs in various sectors, from nursing to teaching to social work, also provide wonderful opportunities to serve others.

As someone who has divided his career between government and the private sector, I can tell you that my experience at federal agencies has been challenging, enlightening, and rewarding. Before coming to GAO in 1998, I was a senior executive in several private sector firms, including Price Waterhouse and Arthur Andersen. I also served as a trustee of Social Security and Medicare, as an Assistant Secretary of Labor, and as head of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
One person clearly can make a difference in today’s world. My favorite 20th century president, Theodore Roosevelt, is proof of that. TR, as he’s often called, was someone with character, conscience, and conviction.

As our 26th and youngest president, he was an optimist who firmly believed in the potential of government to improve the life of every citizen. As a trustbuster, TR took on some of the nation’s more powerful and ethically challenged corporate interests. And he won. As an environmentalist, TR left us with a legacy of great national parks like Yosemite. As an internationalist, he led peace talks to end the Russo-Japanese War. In fact, TR is the only American to have won both the Congressional Medal of Honor and the Nobel Peace Prize.

TR firmly believed that it was every American’s responsibility to be active in our civic life, and so do I. Democracy is hard work but it’s work worth doing. And that’s really at the heart of my message this morning. How America looks in the future is largely up to us. “We the people” are ultimately responsible for what does or does not happen in Washington.

Other countries with similar challenges have already acted. The two best examples are Australia and New Zealand. Like the United States, they have aging populations. Unlike the United States, these two countries have stepped up to the plate and dealt with some of their serious long-term challenges. Among other steps, they’ve reformed their overburdened public pension and health care systems. The efforts by policy makers in Australia and New Zealand show it’s politically possible to make difficult decisions that require short-term pain in the interest of long-term gain.

America is a great nation, probably the greatest in history. But if we want to keep America great, we have to recognize reality and make needed changes. As I mentioned earlier, there are striking similarities between America’s current situation and that of another great power from the past: Rome. The Roman Empire lasted 1,000 years, but only about half that time as a republic. The Roman Republic fell for many reasons, but three reasons are worth remembering: declining moral values and political civility at home, an overconfident and overextended military in foreign lands, and fiscal irresponsibility by the central government. Sound familiar? In my view, it’s time to learn from history and take steps to ensure the American Republic is the first to stand the test of time.

Please don’t misunderstand my message today. Things are far from hopeless. Yes, it’s going to take some difficult choices on a range of issues. But I’m convinced America will rise to the challenge, just as we did during World War II and other difficult times.

What’s needed now is leadership. The kind of leadership that leads to meaningful and lasting change has to be bipartisan and broad-based. Character also counts. We need men and women with courage, integrity, and creativity. Leaders who can partner for progress and are committed to truly and properly discharging their stewardship responsibilities.

But leadership can’t just come from Capitol Hill or the White House. Leadership also needs to come from Main Street.

It’s time for the three most powerful words in our Constitution-”We the people”-to come alive. As I said earlier, the American people are going to have to become better informed and involved as we head toward the 2008 elections. And the next President, whoever he or she may be, and whichever party he or she represents, should be prepared to use the bully pulpit of the Oval Office to push needed reforms. If these things happen, we have a real chance to turn things around and better position ourselves for the future.

My hope is when you leave here today, you’ll spread the word among your friends and family about the challenges we face. By facing the facts and making sound policy choices, I’m confident we can fulfill our stewardship responsibilities to your generation and to future generation of Americans. As TR said, “fighting for the right [cause] is the noblest sport the world affords.” I would encourage each of you to pick your cause, and do your best to make a real and lasting difference.
I appreciate your attention this afternoon, and I’d be happy to take any questions you might have.

* This article is based on US Government presentation and publication, and as such has been used without  permissiom.

About David M. Walker

David M. Walker became the seventh Comptroller General of the United States and began his 15-year term when he took his oath of office on November 9, 1998. As Comptroller General, Mr. Walker is the nation’s chief accountability officer and head of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), a legislative branch agency founded in 1921. GAO’s mission is to help improve the performance and assure the accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the American people. Over the years, GAO has earned a reputation for professional, objective, fact-based, and nonpartisan reviews of government issues and operations.