[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 14445-14446]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        REFORM OF OUR GOVERNMENT

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I will make a couple of comments that are 
a little different than the subject we have been talking about. It is 
something that I do not have the recommendation as to how we resolve it 
particularly, but I am persuaded we need to spend a little more time on 
it, which I intend to, and that is government activities we are 
involved in. Of course, the many government activities we are involved 
in are probably the largest combined organizational thing we do in this 
country. It would be interesting to know, and I intend to see if there 
is not a way for all of us to do so, to get a look at all the kinds of 
programs and different activities the Federal Government is involved 
in. It is massive, of course.
  We spend trillions of dollars on activities in the Federal 
Government. I do not suggest that is not legitimate. The Federal 
Government has a job to do and we need to do it. What I do believe is 
that because of the nature of it and because of the nature of this 
body, frankly, we do not really work very hard at ensuring that the 
delivery of these services is done as efficiently as it could be. We 
are a little different, of course, than the private sector in that 
there are some inherent barriers in the private sector. If one is not 
very efficient, they are not able to continue to compete with others 
and they are not able to go on. That is not true in the Government, of 
course. There is not that kind of limitation.
  So it seems to me we ought to give a little more thought to how we do 
things. It is quite natural that when there is a need somewhere, 
through the political process we bring up some resolution to the need, 
some way to work on the need, and it usually creates a new agency or 
creates a new department within an agency or a new function, and there 
is no real way to ensure that that blends in to what is already being 
done in an efficient way.
  There certainly must be lots of opportunities within this huge 
organization we have to be able to blend one thing in to another to do 
it more efficiently, to deliver it more efficiently. I think clearly 
there is reason to believe that activities that were begun 30 years ago 
may need to be reviewed to see if they still are needed, and if they 
are needed that they are done in a way that is most effective and 
efficient.
  I am really not critical of the people who are doing these things. I 
am critical, I guess, or at least inquisitive about the system, because 
the system is set up in such a way that it does not have a way to even 
consider change very often. As I say, in the private sector, people are 
forced to change from time to time in order to continue to be effective 
and to continue to modernize. I do not think it is reasonable to think 
that a program that started in the 1950s, and it is now 2003, that that 
program is being done as efficiently as it might be. I frankly 
sometimes think it would be a good idea if the various things we pass 
that go into some kind of services, some kind of activity, should 
expire and we should have to go through the process of reexamining what 
that operation is doing and if it is still needed--and it may or may 
not be--then see if it is being done in the most efficient way 
possible.
  There are operations in the Government, of course, that are designed 
to do that, such as OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, but it is 
very difficult.
  I am pleased that President Bush has a modernization program going, 
but there is all kinds of resistance. The resistance can be political: 
If it does not happen to suit one's particular community as a 
politician, why, they are opposed to that. I think it is fair to say 
clearly that the labor union leaders who are involved with Government 
unions are overreacting to the idea

[[Page 14446]]

that some things ought to be made available to be done in the private 
sector, which I think is a very reasonable thing to do.
  We now have sort of an overstatement of things that are trying to be 
done in the National Park Service. Well, there should be a few things 
that are competitive with the private sector, but the whole Park 
Service is not going to be turned over to the private sector. No one 
has suggested that, but that is the kind of thing we get.
  I do think we ought to pay a little more attention to how we could 
make the delivery of services more efficient and how we could review 
the services that are being delivered to see if indeed they are in 
keeping with the times. That has to be done in a special way because it 
just does not happen automatically. Politics keeps it from happening. 
The complexity keeps it from happening. Sometimes labor unions are 
resistant to any change. I think it is our responsibility, and I intend 
to continue to look for opportunities, to examine, evaluate, and try to 
move forward in making the delivery of essential services more 
efficient whenever possible.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I understand we are to resume debate on S. 
14 at 10?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. CRAIG. The chairman of the committee who is managing the bill is 
not yet on the floor. Until he comes, I ask unanimous consent to speak 
as in morning business for no more than 10 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I wonder if 
the bill should be reported and then go into morning business.
  Mr. CRAIG. I am going to talk on energy, anyway, so we could do that. 
I would withdraw my UC.

                          ____________________