[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 65 (Friday, April 7, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5531-S5532]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      GUIDE TO SMALLER GOVERNMENT

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I have several matters I would like to 
call to the attention of the Senate.
  First, in this morning's Wall Street Journal, we have ``A 
Bureaucrat's Guide to Smaller Government.''

       The following was sent in by a Federal employee who asked 
     to remain anonymous so she can keep her cushy Government job.

  She describes the way in which she talked to her other Federal 
employees or fellow Federal employees, asking them, ``How will you know 
that the Government is truly shrinking?'' They came up with their top 
10 list.
  These are the top 10 ways we can know that the Government is truly 
shrinking:

       (10) When the Equal Employment Opportunity [EEO] office has 
     a layoff.

  She says:

       Our EEO chief gets paid more than $70,000 a year to 
     coordinate ``diversity'' events and spout aphorisms at 
     meetings. When that sacred cow gets a real job, I'll know the 
     change has come. Which brings me to * * *
       (9) No more paid time off for diversity or charity events.

  She says employees can get away with murder because of the Federal 
culture. It lacks an urgency to produce.
  A lazy but savvy employee can spend most of his or her workweek 
attending such vital events as Earth Week, Women's Equality Day, AIDS 
Awareness Day, or helping in the annual United Way shakedown.
  She says:

       I'll know the cuts have had an impact when agencies like 
     mine no longer can afford to have an $80,000-a-year employee 
     take ``a few months off'' to work on the United Way fund 
     drive.
       (8) When upper management is replaced for not making cuts 
     fast enough.
       (7) When the entourage for agency heads disappears.

  She says:

       My agency has about 600 people--small by Federal standards. 
     Even so, the guy who runs the place has a scheduler who's 
     paid $70,000 a year, a public relations staff to write his 
     speeches and press releases, and a clutch of assistants and 
     advisers * * *. A Congressman or Senator can get by with 
     fewer helpers. Why not a bureaucrat?
       (6) When the newspaper subscriptions stop. Scientific or 
     trade journals are one thing, but why does the Federal 
     Government need to buy thousands of subscriptions to The 
     Washington Post or the New York Times?
       (5) When somebody gets canned--and quickly--for running a 
     business from his desk.

  This one struck me, interestingly. She says:

       I saw my first answering machine in 1979 on the desk of a 
     Federal employee who was running a real estate business ``on 
     the side.'' Moonlighting on the job is still lucrative, as 
     the chance of being punished, let alone fired, is very small. 
     If the White House caves in to union pressure and won't push 
     for streamlined firing procedures, then the Hill should do it 
     and get these thieves off the payroll.
        [[Page S5532]] (4) When top management takes cuts, too.

  She talks about the hiring freezes at lower levels, but not at the 
top.

       (3) When nobody says ``because we've always published this 
     report.''

  ``Hundreds of Federal documents,'' she says, ``are published out of 
habit, not need.''
  No. 2, Madam President, as to how we will know the Government is 
being cut back:

       When they take ``solitaire'' off the computer.
       And (drum roll) the No. 1 way Federal workers will be able 
     to tell when big Government is being cut: When there's nobody 
     in the cafeteria at 2 p.m.

  She says:

       I believe the Federal culture can change. But does the GOP 
     Congress have the guts to give the Federal bureaucracy a 
     long-overdue kick in the pants? Some of us will be watching 
     for the signs.

  I found that amusing, and having served in the executive branch 
myself, somewhat familiar, Madam President.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the entire article printed at this 
point in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               A Bureaucrat's Guide to Smaller Government

       The following was sent in by a federal employee who asked 
     to remain anonymous so she can keep her cushy government job:
       Does tough, bureaucracy-busting talk from the new Congress 
     and the White House scare the average federal worker? I'm a 
     federal employee and have yet to see any signs of fear among 
     my colleagues. Perhaps that's because I have yet to see any 
     signs of real change in the federal government.
       Yes, there are some grumblings about pensions. But we've 
     seen administrations and Congresses come and go, with their 
     blue-ribbon commissions on cutting budgets, pay and jobs. 
     Yet, budgets always continue to grow, hiring expands, and 
     people get paid more for doing less.
       I recently asked a few of my federal-worker friends, ``How 
     will you know that the government is truly shrinking?'' 
     Here's our top 10 list:
       (10) When the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) office has 
     a layoff. Our EEO chief gets paid more than $70,000 a year to 
     coordinate ``diversity'' events and spout aphorisms at 
     meetings. When that sacred cow gets a real job. I'll know the 
     change has come. Which brings me to . . .
       (9) No more paid time of for diversity or charity events. 
     Today, the lazy but savvy employee can spend most of his or 
     her workweek attending such vital events as Earth Week, 
     Women's Equality Day, AIDS Awareness Day, or helping in the 
     annual United Way shakedown.
       Employees can get away with this because the federal 
     culture, in general, lacks an urgency to produce, I'll know 
     the cuts have had an impact when agencies like mine no longer 
     can afford to have an $80,000-a-year employee take ``a few 
     months off'' to work on the United Way fund drive.
       (8) When upper management is replaced for not making cuts 
     fast enough. Politically appointed managers serve at the 
     pleasure of the president. If he's displeased by an 
     appointee's not being willing to cut, the appointee should 
     go. Likewise, the appointee should threaten transfers or 
     demotions to senior civil servants who don't or won't hustle.
       (7) When the entourage for agency heads disappears. My 
     agency has about 600 people--small by federal standards. Even 
     so, the guy who runs the place has a scheduler who's paid 
     $70,000 a year, a public-relations staff to write his 
     speeches and press releases, and a clutch of assistants and 
     advisers. These people are mostly civil servants, and they 
     represent a bloat at the top as they pamper and package
      their boss. A congressman or senator can get by with fewer 
     helpers. Why not a bureaucrat?
       (6) When the newspaper subscriptions stop. Scientific or 
     trade journals are one thing, but why does the federal 
     government need to buy thousands of subscriptions to the 
     Washington Post or the New York Times?
       (5) When somebody gets canned--and quickly--for running a 
     business from his desk. I saw my first answering machine in 
     1979 on the desk of a federal employee who was running a real 
     estate business ``on the side.'' Moonlighting on the job is 
     still lucrative, as the chance of being punished, let alone 
     fired, is very small. If the White House caves in to union 
     pressure and won't push for streamlined firing procedures, 
     then the Hill should do it and get these thieves off the 
     payroll.
       (4) When top management takes cuts too. Hiring freezes and 
     ``reductions-in-force'' are two tricks politicians and upper-
     level civil servants use, probably because lower-level 
     employees get shuffled around while the top-heavy structure 
     remains intact. Corporate America has known for years that a 
     flatter management structure is more efficient. A smaller 
     budget coupled with a results-oriented Congress might do the 
     trick for the federal sector.
       (3) When nobody says ``because we've always published this 
     report.'' I heard Mike Espy did something right at the 
     Agriculture Department. He stopped publishing the agency's 
     yearbook because nobody read it. Hundreds of federal 
     documents are published out of habit, not need.
       The original need for all this paper came from the days 
     when the federal government was one of the few reliable 
     sources of information--and when the kind of information it 
     provided was difficult to get otherwise. Economists call that 
     ``market failure,'' since the market couldn't give the 
     service. Today, there is no market failure in information, 
     thanks to modems and the Internet. Except for the Census 
     (which is constitutionally mandated), the feds should stop 
     handing out information for free, cut the staffs, and let the 
     market take over.
       (2) When they take ``solitaire'' off the computer. Gov. 
     George Allen of Virginia did it to his state's computers, and 
     he was right. He didn't think Virginia could afford to have 
     such addictive time-wasters on people's desks, and the same 
     goes for the federal government.
       And (drum roll) the No. 1 way federal workers will be able 
     to tell when big government is being cut: When there's nobody 
     in the cafeteria at 2 p.m.
       There's a story that now-Supreme Court Justice Clarence 
     Thomas was hated when he was a commissioner at the Equal 
     Employment Opportunity commission, because he would scour the 
     coffee shops in the afternoons and order people back to work. 
     Someday, I hope a manager will find an empty cafeteria at 2 
     p.m. because his employees can't afford to goof off.
       I believe the federal culture can change. But does the GOP 
     Congress have the guts to give the federal bureaucracy a 
     long-overdue kick in the pants? Some of us will be watching 
     for the signs.
     

                          ____________________