[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 73 (Thursday, May 4, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6142-S6143]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION HEARINGS

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, in early January I announced my intention to 
have the Governmental Affairs Committee develop this year a blueprint 
for the reorganization of executive branch departments and agencies. I 
would like to take this opportunity to indicate that this effort will 
begin with hearings on May 17 and 18. That first day will be devoted to 
an overview of the general principles relating to the structuring of 
the Government. The second day will focus on specific proposals that 
have made regarding the elimination and consolidation of executive 
departments and agencies.
  A number of such proposals have been made recently. In March, for 
example, our majority leader suggested the elimination of four 
departments--Commerce, Education, Energy, and HUD. Similar proposals 
have been made by other Members, both in the House and the Senate. In 
early January, I said that we might be able to reduce the number of 
departments by up to one-half of the present 14.
  But more is involved in such an effort than simply outright 
elimination of departments and agencies. We may need to retain certain 
existing programmatic responsibilities of an agency that is itself to 
be terminated. We need to think about where to put these programs. And 
to really do this right--to begin to move us toward a Federal 
Government that is appropriate for the 21st century--we ought to be 
thinking in terms of a fundamental reorganization of the executive 
branch.
  In other words, rather than trying to restructure the Federal 
Government piecemeal--eliminating a couple of departments this year, 
consolidating a couple of more next year, and leaving everything else 
untouched--we need to take a more comprehensive approach.
  And this is what I intend to have Government Affairs Committee do. As 
the committee with the jurisdiction over the reorganization of the 
executive branch, including the creation and elimination of Cabinet 
departments, the Governmental Affairs Committee is ideally suited to 
look at the big picture, and to ensure that all the pieces of a 
reorganization fit together. Doing this may require a fundamental 
rethinking of what the executive branch ought to look like in the 
future.
  To illustrate what this might mean, I would point to a proposal made 
by the Ash Commission during the Nixon administration. It was then 
proposed that four existing departments be retained-- 
[[Page S6143]] State, Treasury, Defense, and Justice--and that all the 
others be folded into four new departments with very broad 
jurisdiction--Natural Resources, Human Resources, Economic
 Development, and Community Development. In 1991, then-Congressman Leon 
Panetta proposed that the executive branch be reorganized into just six 
departments--State, Defense, Justice, Human Services, Natural 
Resources, and Economic Policy. And just last month the Heritage 
Foundation proposed that there be only five cabinet departments--State, 
Defense, Justice, Treasury, and Health and Human Services.

  But before launching into a full-scale examination of Federal 
departments, agencies, and programs--to see what should be eliminated, 
consolidated, or reorganized--I think we need a better understanding of 
how to approach this task.
  This is why I intend first to begin with an overview hearing. The 
purpose will be to get a better understanding of the principles and 
criteria that Congress should apply as it looks to specific aspects of 
governmental organization and operation. For example, is it best to 
centralize responsibility into fewer departments, so as to focus 
accountability and enhance policy coordination? Or is it best to 
decentralize responsibility, in order to eliminate layers of 
bureaucracy and improve responsiveness? Are there innovative ways to 
achieve the advantages to both approaches--such as through semi-
independent agencies located within larger departments?
  If the Federal Government is going to retain a certain programmatic 
responsibility--even after reorganization and streamlining--are there 
better ways of doing so? When, for example, should a program be part of 
an independent agency? When should it be part of a cabinet department? 
And when is it best to use some sort of autonomous government 
corporation?
  We will also ask about privatization. What does it mean, when should 
it be used, and how should it be implemented? Are there alternative 
forms that might be appropriate, sometimes referred to as 
commercialization or marketization. And what about contracting out?
  As I have stated, I intend that the hearing on the following day, May 
18, will address specific proposals for agency consolidation and 
elimination, and program privatization. I would invite Members of 
Congress who have offered such proposals to contact the committee if 
they would like to testify on their ideas.
  I should add that I also intend to have the Governmental Affairs 
Committee begin an examination of governmental operational issues. We 
need to improve the performance of government, as we reduce its size 
and complexity. This means a serious effort at civil service reform, as 
well as looking at budget system reform, program performance 
measurement, and financial accountability. We also need to ask which 
responsibilities might most appropriately be devolved to the State and 
local governments.
  I strongly agree with the demands for cutting the size and costs of 
the Federal Government by eliminating obsolete and ineffective programs 
and agencies. I think the right way to do this is to approach the task 
thoughtfully and carefully--but with a clear intention to develop a 
plan that is both bold and comprehensive.
  Of course, another way to do this would be to appoint a commission--
modeled on the Military Base Closing Commission--to develop the plan, 
and require Congress to approve or disapprove the plan. I have in past 
congresses introduced legislation that would create just such a 
commission, and I am still willing to consider it as an alternative 
approach.
  But regardless of what mechanism we use to develop it, we need a 
blueprint for the organization of the Federal Government that reflects 
today's priorities and fiscal realities, and that prepares us for the 
21st century. The Governmental Affairs Committee will soon begin work 
on this task.


                          ____________________