[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 39 (Wednesday, April 13, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                 MAKING GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS WORK BETTER

                                 ______


                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 13, 1994

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert my Washington 
Report for Wednesday, April 13, 1994, into the Congressional Record:

                 Making Government Programs Work Better

       Voters have viewed the federal government in recent years 
     with great skepticism, and often hostility. In a sense the 
     institution of government is under siege. It is very 
     difficult after years of growing cynicism about the federal 
     government to convince people that it can competently tackle 
     difficult and complex jobs. Not too many years ago people 
     thought government was able to come up with solutions. Today 
     I find skepticism about government at every turn: at public 
     meetings, radio call-in shows, and frequent comments from 
     Hoosiers. Most people simply feel that the country is not 
     being governed well--not in the sense of any particular 
     president or Congress but as an overall perception about the 
     performance of government.
       Many citizens are concerned that government programs simply 
     do not work. Americans historically have had an anti-
     government bias, and the intense media interest in things 
     that go wrong tends to feed that sentiment. Strong criticism 
     of government is a basic fact of today's political debates; 
     we all join in it. In a government as large and pervasive as 
     ours, everybody can find something to criticize. But I am 
     still amazed at the large number of people who think that 
     government does not do anything right, when the evidence is 
     all around--from highway construction to airport traffic 
     control to national defense to social security--that it does.
       Clearly government programs should be viewed with 
     skepticism and care. However, the failings of some programs 
     should not blind us to successes or to the need for a degree 
     of government involvement in many areas. Government's purpose 
     is to act in ways that improve the lives of people and their 
     security in the world. Given the present antigovernment 
     climate, it may be unpopular to point out some good things 
     about government, but it really ought to be done. Recognizing 
     successes helps us get a better sense of what we need to do 
     to make government work better.
       Successful Programs: One example of a beneficial federal 
     program is also the biggest: social security. It has had an 
     enormous impact on the lives of older Americans. Without it, 
     their poverty rate would jump from 14% to 50%. And social 
     security's administrative costs are less than 1% of benefit 
     payments. WIC--the supplemental food program for women, 
     infants, and children--has significantly improved child 
     nutrition and health while reducing federal medicaid costs. 
     The Head Start program is widely praised for preparing 
     disadvantaged preschoolers to enter school ready to learn. 
     The federal student loan program has helped make higher 
     education accessible to the middle class.
       Another federal program that works is the interstate 
     highway system. Covering 42,000 miles, it has been invaluable 
     to the economic and social well-being of the nation. 
     Agricultural research and extension programs have gotten the 
     results of university research out to the farmers in the 
     field, and have been a major reason why the U.S. is the 
     leading agricultural producer. The federal Clean Water and 
     Safe Drinking Water Acts have helped to reduce water 
     pollution and contaminants in drinking water. The National 
     Institutes of Health is one of the world's foremost 
     biomedical research centers, conducting research in areas 
     such as cancer, AIDS, and heart disease.
       Some important federal programs are often taken for 
     granted. The National Weather Service, for example, provides 
     continual forecasting for the nation, and its warnings of 
     severe weather save lives and reduce property damage. The 
     federal air traffic control system helps ensure the safety of 
     air travel for millions of Americans. The Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation is probably the most respected law enforcement 
     organization in the world. A variety of other federal 
     agencies are also well respected--the Federal Reserve Board, 
     the National Security Council, the Office of the Secretary of 
     Treasury.
       Some defense programs have been criticized as too expensive 
     or unnecessary, but the overall effectiveness of our national 
     defense--particularly apparent during the Desert Storm 
     conflict--has been demonstrated. Clearly our armed forces are 
     the best equipped and best trained in the world.
       Importance of Vigilance: None of these government programs 
     is perfect, and all can be improved. Still, they are examples 
     of federal initiatives that have produced major policy 
     benefits for the American people--and there are many others. 
     But what distinguishes these and other successful programs 
     from those that do not work well is vigilance--the extent to 
     which the President, Members of Congress, and the public pay 
     attention to how a program is actually implemented.
       Congress monitors how well programs work through a process 
     known as congressional oversight, and my sense is that more 
     needs to be done. Few things would improve the operations of 
     the federal government more than vigorous oversight of its 
     performance. The Joint Committee on the Organization of 
     Congress--a reform panel that I co-chaired--has provided 
     specific recommendations to improve congressional oversight.
       First, the Joint Committee has proposed that the federal 
     government switch from an annual to a two-year budget 
     process. Currently, too much time is taken up debating 
     budget-related legislation every year, and not enough time is 
     devoted to examining whether government programs are cost-
     efficient and working as intended. Under this proposal, key 
     budget and spending decisions would be made during the first 
     year of the federal budget cycle, while the second year would 
     focus on oversight and long-term planning.
       The Joint Committee has also proposed new oversight 
     requirements for Congress. At the start of a new Congress, 
     each House committee would be required to prepare an 
     oversight agenda, laying out specific plans to review all 
     significant laws, agencies, and programs under the 
     committee's jurisdiction. To give this requirement teeth, the 
     thoroughness of a committee's oversight agenda would help 
     determine the committee's funding. At the end of a Congress, 
     the committees would report back on the results of their 
     oversight efforts, including recommendations for making 
     particular government programs work better.
       Congressional oversight is no panacea for dealing with 
     inefficient government. But a key ingredient to improving the 
     quality of federal programs is sustained vigilance by 
     citizens and their elected representatives. Government 
     programs work best when they are effectively monitored.

                          ____________________