Why do eight different agencies scattered throughout the Government play a role in environmental stewardship? Why do over 70 agencies gather and disseminate statistics? Is it necessary that four Departments, the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, Transportation, all offer similar subsidies to high-tech start-ups? Is it right that trade promotion, one of our most critical activities, be spread among 14 agencies? These are important questions, but Commerce is only our starting point. We must expand our inquiry in the days ahead to develop an organization for the Federal Government of the 21st century. American citizens are concerned about their Government, a Government that costs too much and does not deliver the kind of performance that it should. They have demanded a Government that costs less but works better. It is this Committee's responsibility and intention to give them one. I will ask that my full statement be included as if read. [The prepared statement of Chairman Roth follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ROTH Today, the Committee on Governmental Affairs will consider restructuring of the missions and functions of the Department of Commerce. Likewise, we will address the Department of Commerce Dismantling Act, introduced by Senator Abraham. There is no better place to start restructuring our government. The Commerce Department administers scores of unrelated programs in sixteen operating units. It is such a mixed bag of odds and ends that it has been described by a former Secretary as "the hall closet where you stick everything that doesn't fit anywhere else.” According to a recent Business Week poll, two out of three business executives support its elimination. In 1977 I first introduced a bill to eliminate the Department of Commerce. This was long before Bill Clinton became President, and long before Ron Brown became Secretary. This is not a new idea, but it is an idea whose time has come. This Administration came to power declaring itself to be an agent of change. From press reports of the Secretary's prediction yesterday that the President would veto any bill to restructure the Department, we can only conclude that the Administration is now a defender of the status quo. The Department is a tangled web of bureaucracy, even by Washington standards. Commerce has more layers than a Vidalia onion. Its legions of political appointees sport more fancy titles than British royalty. The myriad missions addressed by the Department-trade, natural resources, science, technology, and economics—are areas in which, according to GAO, at least eighteen other Federal agencies also have roles. This amounts to wholesale duplication and fragmentation across the government. And it leads us to ask some fundamental questions. Why do eight different agencies scattered throughout the government play a role in environmental stewardship? Why do over seventy agencies gather and disseminate statistics? Is it necessary that four departments-the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, and Transportation all offer similar subsidies to high tech start-ups? Is it right that trade promotion-one of our most critical activities—be spread among fourteen agencies? These are important questions. But Commerce is only our starting point. We must expand our inquiry in the days ahead to develop an organization for the Federal Government of the 21st Century. American citizens are concerned about their government a government that costs too much and doesn't deliver the kind of performance that it should. They have demanded a government that costs less and works better. It is this committee's responsibility and intention to give them one. Today's government was designed according to the management theories and needs of the mid-20th century. In the last decade, while the private sector has been restructuring for survival, government has been stuck in a time warp. It has systematically failed to take advantage of new ideas and emerging technologies of the information age to better meet the needs of citizens, businesses, and the government itself. Consequently, nothing less than a top-to-bottom restructuring of our entire government will meet the public's mandate for change. One advantage of our late start is that there is now a wealth of experience from which we can learn-both successes to emulate and pitfalls to avoid-from the private sector and foreign governments who are years ahead us. One lesson is that restructuring must be guided by a sound blueprint for the future, a coherent set of management principles, and comprehensive planning. Developing such a framework will be our highest priority in the months ahead. Another lesson is that we must be smart about where we look for pay-offs. Our principal focus should be on identifying similar activities across the government. These will yield two types of opportunities: savings to be gained from eliminating unnecessary functions throughout the government; and service improvements, from consolidating, integrating, and automating similar functions in different operating units. There is no substitute for the painstaking analysis that will be required. Simply consolidating today's thirteen departments into a smaller cabinet, as some have proposed, might risk missing these opportunities and creating even more unmanageable mega-bureaucracies. In a world in which top performing organizations are being "smart-sized" into leaner, flatter, more agile structures, this would be a colossal mistake, and a gigantic step backwards. We must also avoid a “divide and conquer" approach in which agencies are eliminated by simply transferring their functions to other agencies. Such an approach risks missing opportunities for deeper cuts and broader consolidations, and could result in even worse service. If it is not certain that transfers will improve services, we should keep functions intact in "holding patterns" until the bigger picture becomes clear as to where, in the long run, they will best fit. We have much to learn from the British, Australian, and New Zealand experience with "executive agencies." As we look for ways of restructuring our sub-cabinet agencies to make them leaner, smarter, and more agile, we should consider borrowing from this promising approach. We must also keep an open mind to fast response, one-stop-shopping, and other high tech innovations of the private sector. These are a few of the issues we will begin raising today, and will develop further in the months ahead as we develop a framework for examining other missions and agencies. Chairman ROTH. I believe we have the distinguished majority leader. I know other members may have statements, but we are going to ask Senator Dole to please come forward and proceed with his statement. er. Senator COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I will yield to the majority lead Chairman ROTH. I thank you for your courtesy. Senator DOLE. It is the first time. [Laughter.] Chairman ROTH. It is nice to have you here, Senator Dole. TESTIMONY OF HON. ROBERT DOLE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS Senator DOLE. Mr. Chairman, we have the debate on Bosnia on the floor and I will just take a minute or two, if it is all right with the Chairman, and ask that my statement be a part of the record. Chairman ROTH. Without objection. Senator DOLE. I want to just highlight a couple of areas. Everybody has some idea on how we can reduce the size of Government and how we can reduce the cost, but it is always, do not do it here or do not do it here or do not do it here. It seems to many of us, I hope Republicans and Democrats, that we are headed in the right direction when we talk about elimination of departments. I have talked about eliminating four departments. Maybe it can. be done, maybe it cannot be done, but it seems to me that the Commerce Department is certainly one we ought to start looking at for the very reasons that the Chairman suggests, but also to reduce the deficit, to reduce spending, and what we do with our money. I do not think that the decision to eliminate the Department of Commerce was a very difficult one. That was the first target and it was not a hard one. It has been around since 1903. It has become the basement of the Federal bureaucracy, a storage room for forgotten and misbegotten programs. That is not just the verdict of this Senator but it is shared by its own Inspector General, who called Commerce a "loose collection of more than 100 programs," and the General Accounting Office, which said that it shared its mission with at least 71 Federal departments, agencies, and offices. Worse than keeping its own house in disorder, it forms a barrier to putting our fiscal house in order. In 1966, the Department of Commerce spent $396 million. Thirty years later, in 1996, the present budget estimates are about $4.1 billion. So over those 30some years, it will have spent about $64 billion. With a budget deficit of $200 billion and our national debt approaching $5 trillion, the clutter and expense of the Commerce Department is something we can no longer afford. I will conclude, but there are a lot of things we can look at. Some people do not want to change anything. Some may want to expand the Government. I think we all understand we have a problem, and if this is not the right way to go, and I am certain we will find others who disagree, maybe they can lead us in the right direction. But it seems to me that if we are going to kick the habit, we ought to start now. Having said that, I will go back to Bosnia and leave you with the Commerce Department. I ask that my entire statement be put into the record. [The prepared statement of Senator Dole follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR DOLE Mr. Chairman, a few months ago I said there are "entire Cabinet departments where the best thing we could do is turn out the lights, lock the doors, and send the workers home." Today, I am pleased to update you on that effort, and testify in strong support of S. 929 to eliminate the Department of Commerce. The proposal for elimination of Commerce has been included in the Budget Resolution conference report. The bill before this Committee today is a joint product of the Senate and the House. I believe both these actions demonstrate the wide support for the Department of Commerce's elimination. Mr. Chairman, you, along with Senators Abraham and Faircloth are leading a Senate task force that produced this legislation and I want to thank you for your help in this important effort. In the House, Representative Chrysler (MI) and Representative Brownback (KS) have led the effort. Together, you have done a great job. My intention to eliminate four cabinet agencies, and this bill to eliminate the Commerce Department, are the product of one basic understanding: Reducing the size of the deficit and reducing the scope of the Federal Government are the two most important jobs facing this country and therefore this Congress. We must strive to do both. To reduce the deficit, we must reduce the spending, and to reduce the spending we must reduce what does the spending the Federal Government. The decision to make the Department of Commerce the first target was not a hard one. The Department of Commerce has been around since 1903. Since that time it has become the basement of the federal bureaucracy—a storage room for forgotten and misbegotten programs. This is not just my verdict but is shared by its own Inspector General, who called Commerce a "loose collection of more than 100 programs," and the General Accounting Office which said that it shares its "mission with at least 71 federal departments, agencies, and offices." Worse than keeping its own house in disorder, it forms a barrier to putting our fiscal house in order. In 1966, the Department of Commerce spent $396 million. Thirty years later, in 1996 the president's budget estimates that Commerce will spend $4.1 billion. Over those 30 years it will have spent $64 billion. With a budget deficit of $200 billion and a national debt approaching $5 trillion, the clutter and expense of the Commerce Department is something we can no longer afford. In general, this legislation eliminates entirely all duplicative and non-essential functions now done by the Commerce Department. For the functions that are important and still need to be done, this bill transfers them to where they will be done better, thus minimizing overhead and streamlining government. Finally, the bill requires_privatization to be explored and user fees to be implemented wherever possible. By so doing, it not only achieves current savings, but future ones as well. Significantly, it does not create a single new agency-that is a habit that we are just going to have to try and kick. With regard to some of the specifics, the Department's unnecessary and downright wasteful functions are eliminated-functions such as its administrative overhead, the United States Travel and Tourism Administration (USTTA) and the Economic Development Administration (EDA). Its economic statistic functions are moved to the Federal Reserve so that their integrity is insured. The Census Bureau is moved to the Treasury Department with the stipulation that the General Accounting Office's recommendations be implemented and $1 billion be saved. The Technology Administration is largely eliminated. The government should not be in the business of "picking winners and losers." In the case of the Advanced Technology Program, having the government instruct the private sector is like a turtle telling a horse how to run. The Patent and Trademark Office is transferred to the Department of Justice as proposed earlier by President Reagan. I realize that there is a lot of concern about NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and the National Weather Service. Let me reassure you that this bill not only protects the essential functions, but improves them by putting them where they should have been in the first place. The National Marine Fisheries service is split up among the Coast Guard, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the USDA. The National Ocean Service is transferred to the U.S. Geological Survey and Interior. Most importantly, the National Weather Service is not only transferred to the Department of the Interior, but is strengthened. Regarding Commerce's trade functions, in which you have a special interest, Mr. Chairman, these are mostly moved to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. I know you have a longstanding interest in consolidating the government's widelyscattered trade functions. I know the business community has expressed concern about these provisions, lest functions in the trade area be dispersed when they should be kept together. This bill does not disperse the trade functions. They are kept together, consolidated at the Office of the USTR. There may be a few additional changes that need to be made, with a view toward truly streamlining the trade and trade promotion functions of the Federal Government. I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and members of this Committee, and the business community, to refine further this part of the bill. Overall, I believe that what this bill does in the area of trade consolidation is a major step forward. In general, I believe the most important step we must take in reviewing what the government does is to isolate and shut down what it should not do. It has been all too easy for Washington in the past to promise cuts that never materialize, but to deliver spending that never fails to increase. Washington has been a town for too long of "buy now and pay later." We were given a mission to cut government. Not by me as Republican Leader, but by the American people as taxpayers. It is vital that we not only tell America that we are listening, but that we show them that we heard. I know that you will hear from all kinds of groups representing all kinds of interests, each telling you that its favorite program cannot be eliminated and cannot be cut. All these groups will claim to speak for the American people. I would just remind you that the American people have already spoken for themselves. While eliminating the Department of Commerce was not a hard decision, it will be a hard job. It will take a lot of hard work, but it has been made easier because the Senate and House task forces have been working together. Together we have produced a plan that will save the American taxpayer billions of dollars and make the government better at the same time. I congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, on your leadership on this important legislation and look forward to working with you and this committee through its enactment into law. UNITED STATES SENATE Washington, DC, May 31, 1995 THE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT DISMANTLING ACT OF 1995 DEAR COLLEAGUE: The recently-passed Senate Budget Resolution calls for the elimination of the Commerce Department. We are writing to invite you to become an original cosponsor of legislation that would implement the budget resolution's recommendation. The "Commerce Department Dismantling Act of 1995" was drafted by the Senate Task Force on Elimination of Government Agencies and a similar House GOP Freshman Task Force. The Commerce Department has evolved into "a loose collection of more than 100 programs" according to the agency's own Inspector General. The General Accounting Office goes further, reporting that the Department "faces the most complex web of divided authorities" sharing its "missions with at least 71 federal departments, agencies, and offices." Its bureaucracy is bloated, its infrastructure is in disrepair, and more than 60 percent of its budget is dedicated to activities completely unrelated to its mission. We must eliminate unnecessary and duplicative departments and agencies like Commerce if we are to truly restrain the Federal Government's growth and balance the budget. Under the "Commerce Department Dismantling Act of 1995," those programs and functions that are deemed unnecessary, duplicative, and wasteful are terminated entirely. The remaining programs are either consolidated and reassigned to other appropriate departments, or transferred to the private sector. Attached is a brief agency-by-agency description of the legislation. The terminations, transfers and consolidations are to be completed over a thirty-6 month period under the direction of a temporary Commerce Programs Resolution Agency. According to preliminary estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, this legislation would produce budget savings of $7.765 billion over 5 years. If you would like to become an original cosponsor of this legislation, please contact Brian Reardon or Cesar Conda in the office of Senator Abraham (4-4822). Sincerely, ROBERT DOLE, SPENCER ABRAHAM, LAUCH FAIRCLOTH, Task Force Co-chair. S. 929 THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE DISMANTLING ACT LEGISLATIVE SUMMARY Former Commerce Secretary Robert Mosbacher recently called the Department, "nothing more than a hall closet where you throw in everything that you don't know what to do with." The Department of Commerce has evolved into "a loose collection of more than 100 programs" according to the agency's own Inspector General. The General Accounting Office goes further, reporting that the Department “faces the most complex web of divided authorities" sharing its "missions with at least 71 federal departments, agencies, and offices." Its bureaucracy is bloated, its infrastructure is in disrepair, and more than 60 percent of its resources are dedicated to activities completely unrelated to its mission. Former Commerce Department officials recently testified before the House Budget Committee that the few unique functions contained in Commerce suffer under the multiple tiers of bureaucracy and its 263 political appointees. Today's Department of Commerce cannot be "reinvented." Its problems can only be solved if it is dismantled. The Department of Commerce Dismantling Act was drafted by the Dole Task Force to Eliminate Government Agencies, in consultation with the House Freshmen Task Force and outside experts. The bill was designed with the following four principles as a guide: Those programs deemed unnecessary or wasteful are terminated. |