[House Report 104-434]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Union Calendar No. 209
104th Congress, 1st Session - - - - - - - - - - House
Report 104-434
CREATING A 21st CENTURY GOVERNMENT
__________
SECOND REPORT
by the
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT
REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
December 21, 1995.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
WILLIAM F. CLINGER, Jr.,
Pennsylvania, Chairman
CARDISS COLLINS, Illinois BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California DAN BURTON, Indiana
TOM LANTOS, California J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland
MAJOR R. OWENS, New York CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico
JOHN M. SPRATT, Jr., South Carolina ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
LOUISE McINTOSH SLAUGHTER, New York WILLIAM H. ZELIFF, Jr., New
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania Hampshire
GARY A. CONDIT, California JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota STEPHEN HORN, California
KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida JOHN L. MICA, Florida
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York PETER BLUTE, Massachusetts
THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana
BARBARA-ROSE COLLINS, Michigan JON D. FOX, Pennsylvania
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of ColumbiaTATE, Washington
JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia DICK CHRYSLER, Michigan
GENE GREEN, Texas GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota
CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania WILLIAM J. MARTINI, New Jersey
BILL BREWSTER, Oklahoma JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
------ MICHAEL PATRICK FLANAGAN, Illinois
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont (Independent)HARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South
Carolina
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland
James L. Clarke, Staff Director
Kevin Sabo, General Counsel
Judith McCoy, Chief Clerk
Kristie Simmons, Professional
Staff
Kimberly Cummings, Professional
Staff
Bud Myers, Minority Staff Director
Denise Wilson, Minority
Professional Staff
(ii)
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
----------
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, December 21, 1995.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: By direction of the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight, I submit herewith the
committee's second report to the 104th Congress.
William F. Clinger, Jr.,
Chairman.
(iii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
I. Purpose, Background and Objectives............................ 1
A. Purpose of the Hearings................................... 1
B. Background................................................ 2
C. Committee Objectives...................................... 2
II. Findings..................................................... 3
III. Recommendations............................................. 4
IV. Introduction and Review of Testimony......................... 6
A. Introduction.............................................. 6
B. Review of Testimony....................................... 6
1. Common Reorganization Principles...................... 6
2. Additional Suggestions and Findings................... 16
V. Conclusion.................................................... 20
VIEWS
Additional views of Hon. Cardiss Collins......................... 22
Additional views of Hon. Gene Green.............................. 22
APPENDIXES
Appendix I--Charts............................................... 25
Appendix II--List of Hearing Locations, Dates and Witnesses...... 28
(v)
Union Calendar No. 209
104th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 104-434
_______________________________________________________________________
CREATING A 21st CENTURY GOVERNMENT
_______
December 21, 1995.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Clinger, from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
submitted the following
SECOND REPORT
On December 14, 1995, the Committee on Government Reform
and Oversight approved and adopted a report entitled ``Creating
a 21st Century Government.'' The chairman was directed to
transmit a copy to the Speaker of the House.
I. PURPOSE, BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
A. Purpose of the Hearings
The purpose of the Government Reform and Oversight
Committee field hearings on ``Creating a 21st Century
Government'' was to learn from the American public, State and
local government officials and the private sector their
suggestions and experiences on creating innovative,
streamlined, and cost effective organizations. The committee
intends that Congress learn from and adopt some of these
successful strategies in an effort to restructure the executive
branch to better meet the needs of Americans today and in the
21st century.
In its effort to hear from people outside Washington, D.C.,
the committee invited witnesses from State and local
government, the private sector, and the American public to
testify or participate in an open forum in which Members could
hear their experiences and ideas with regard to organizational
downsizing. Members of the committee traveled to Parma Heights,
Ohio; Upper Montclair, New Jersey; Federal Way, Washington;
Long Beach, California; Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Charlotte,
North Carolina. Each one of these cities has recently
challenged inefficient government by revitalizing its main
functions in order to survive, compete, prosper and provide for
the needs of its citizens. Identifying what has worked, what
has hindered their reorganization efforts and how best to
implement a plan will aid Congressional initiatives to
revitalize government at the Federal level.
B. Background
As the United States approaches the 21st century, it is
shedding the vestiges of the Industrial Revolution in favor of
an economy driven by information and technology. Government
must keep up with this changing society. At the same time,
however, the American electorate is demonstrating support for a
government smaller in size, scope and cost--yet more efficient
and effective in those activities it must perform. The
challenge for Congress is to determine the appropriate role of
the Federal Government in our evolving society and to identify
the structure and practices that will enable the government to
fulfill its missions now and in the next century.
Today, the Federal Government is performing too many
functions to deliver them all efficiently and cost effectively.
It is critical to refocus government on those essential
functions that it must perform and consider whether government
should be involved in an activity if it cannot do it well. In
fact, in the effort to do things better, it seems government
has only gotten bigger. In 1985, there were 1013 Federal
programs; today, there are 1390 Federal programs administered
by 53 departments and establishments of the Federal
Government.\1\ To support these programs and the bureaucracy
that runs them, Federal income tax receipts today have grown to
an amount 13 times the amount they were in 1960.\2\ Today a
person must work 126 days to pay off his or her share of all
Federal, State and local taxes, compared with 44 days required
to pay them off in 1930. The Cost of Government Day--that is,
the day in 1995 on which the American taxpayer finally paid off
his or her share of the financial burden of government--was on
July 9th, more than halfway through the year.\3\
\1\ Office of Management and Budget, Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance. Chart 1, Appendix I.
\2\ Office of Management and Budget. Chart 2, Appendix I.
\3\ Tax Foundation. Chart 3, Appendix I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite numerous reports and studies conducted on the
effectiveness and efficiency of the Federal Government, little
has been accomplished to make government more streamlined and
effective. The most recent effort at comprehensive
``reinvention,'' Vice President Gore's National Performance
Review (NPR), was initiated in 1993. NPR included an exhaustive
study and review of the executive branch, yet few concrete
proposals were implemented as a result. Indeed, only modest
reorganizations have resulted from the major reorganization
initiatives of the last fifty years, including the First Hoover
Commission (1947-49), the Second Hoover Commission (1953-55),
the Ash Council (1969-71), and the Grace Commission (1982-84).
C. Committee Objectives
Pursuant to its jurisdiction under Rule X of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the committee is empowered to
lead government-wide reorganization efforts. It identified
seven steps toward achieving the goal of smaller, more cost
effective government, which guided the committee in its series
of field hearings on ``Creating a 21st Century Government''
across the country.
The first step is to consider government reorganization
from a broad perspective that goes beyond any single department
or agency. Because any changes in the Federal Government will
have a ripple effect, the committee believes the most effective
strategy is to restructure the Federal Government in a
comprehensive way, rather than through a fragmented approach.
The second step is to identify principles to drive and
shape government reorganization, and apply those principles
across the functions and institutions of the Federal
Government. Throughout the field hearings, witnesses testified
on the principles which have guided their reorganization
efforts, some of which may be applicable on the Federal level.
The third step is to identify barriers to streamlining and
reorganization, and create a path to clear those barriers. One
of the most prevalent barriers to any reorganization effort is
internal resistance to change. Federal bureaucracies will be
faced with the difficult task of replacing outdated practices
with innovative approaches to delivering agency services.
The fourth step is to engage in a dialogue with the
American people to ensure their participation in creating their
21st century government. Input from the American public is a
vital component of the restructuring process. As the
beneficiaries and consumers of a vast majority of Federal
Government programs, the American public knows first-hand how
programs affect them, what programs have a positive impact and
what programs are simply ineffective.
Steps five and six involve consulting with experts in an
array of disciplines to identify and apply effective and
successful reorganization strategies to the Federal Government.
The field hearings served as a forum where these witnesses
brought their own unique perspectives to each hearing and
shared their success stories. Calling on these witnesses and
borrowing the most creative ideas of corporate, State, and
local government entities will enhance Federal reorganization
efforts.
Step seven requires an attention to workforce, information
technology, management, and performance standards. A largely
expanded workforce, inefficient management, outdated
technology, and a lack of clear performance standards have
contributed to the inefficient bureaucratic structure that
exists today. Outdated technology has left many Federal
agencies and departments unable to communicate on sophisticated
information networks. Updating the technology and management of
Federal departments and agencies can help create a government
that is more responsive to the needs of the American people.
II. FINDINGS
State and local government witnesses, business
representatives, and the public all advocate looking at each
Federal department and agency to determine which of the
functions it provides are vital to the service delivery needs
of Americans and which can be better carried out by State or
local governments or the private sector. The widely shared view
was that the Federal Government is not meeting the needs of its
customers, the American public, and is less effective, less
efficient and more costly than it should be. It must be fixed.
Six fundamental points, or practices, were raised at all
six field hearings, each to promote the efficiency,
effectiveness, high quality and low cost of service delivery.
The first three of these common reorganization principles in
particular affect the culture of an organization, while the
other three are more practical in application. The committee
finds--
1) Clear missions and a solid organization mission
statement are necessary for establishing priorities and goals
and maintaining focus on established objectives.
2) Open and honest communication with employees about each
step of the reorganization process is vital to maintaining
employee morale, as is affording employees an opportunity to
convey their views on downsizing and reorganization.
3) Innovative management techniques are enabling States,
localities and businesses to empower employees and to strip
layers of bureaucratic management in favor of more streamlined
structures. The result has been more efficient, more responsive
organizations with high morale and greater productivity.
4) Privatization is clearly one of the most advocated means
of taking government out of functions which are not inherently
governmental and which can be performed more efficiently and
cost-effectively by the private sector.
5) Competitive bidding will improve service while saving
money. The government should be forced to compete with private
business for effective, efficient service delivery.
6) The Federal Government must replace old and outdated
computer systems with advanced technology that allows open
communication both internally and with the public. Using such
technology will facilitate ``one-stop shopping'' and other
innovations in service delivery.
III. RECOMMENDATIONS
The committee makes the following recommendations as a
result of its oversight findings:
1) Establish a citizens commission on 21st century government.
Congress should establish a commission to determine the
appropriate role of the Federal Government in the next century,
and to recommend a structure, size and scope for the executive
branch that will best enable the government to fill that role.
The American public should be afforded an active role in this
commission to ensure it reflects their priorities and
expectations.
2) Identify and remove statutory and regulatory barriers to
reorganization and innovation.
Congress and Federal departments and agencies should
identify statutes or regulations that prevent or frustrate
department and agency efforts to privatize functions, introduce
competitive bidding practices, reorganize or eliminate
functions, and institute other innovations in the way the
government does business. Congress and Federal departments and
agencies should remove those barriers where appropriate.
3) Increase privatization and competitive bidding.
Congress and Federal departments and agencies should
endeavor to privatize or invite competitive bidding for Federal
activities and functions which are not inherently governmental
when such privatization would result in better service and
greater cost savings to the taxpayer.
4) Enlist the aid of the private sector in reorganization and
innovation efforts.
Congress and Federal departments and agencies should invite
experienced individuals from the private sector to form a
partnership with Federal officials in executive branch
reorganization, innovation and downsizing.
5) Restore responsibilities to the States and local governments without
imposing unfunded mandates.
Congress should work with State and local governments to
identify those Federal programs or activities that can be
administered with greater success on the State or local level,
and should provide greater State and local flexibility in
administering Federal programs wherever possible. Congress
should impose no new unfunded mandates on States or localities,
and should identify existing mandates which can be altered or
eliminated in order to ease the burden on State and local
governments.
6) Establish, communicate and adhere to a clear mission for Federal
agencies.
Every Federal department and agency must ensure that its
mission is clear to all employees and to the public. A solid
mission statement that is unambiguous and understood will allow
the department or agency to establish priorities and remain
focused on its core function or functions.
7) Maintain open lines of communication with agency employees.
Federal departments and agencies should make employees a
part of any reorganization process. Sharing information with
employees and listening to employees will make it easier to
maintain morale and productivity. Communication also may result
in new ideas and approaches that will improve service and save
money.
8) Promote innovation by managers and employees.
Congress and Federal departments and agencies should
encourage innovative management techniques in order to increase
productivity, service quality and employee morale, and should
explore ways to reward employees for suggesting changes that
result in cost savings, better service and greater efficiency.
9) Use technology to improve service and increase efficiency.
Congress and Federal departments and agencies should
identify barriers to the use of advanced technology. Congress
and Federal departments and agencies should remove those
barriers and take full advantage of technology to fulfill the
missions of Federal Government.
10) Ensure full implementation of the Government Performance and
Results Act.
Federal departments and agencies should work actively with
the Office of Management and Budget and Congress to fully
implement the provisions of the Government Performance and
Results Act (P.L. 103-62). This law requires Federal
departments and agencies to measure program performance and tie
their performance goals to annual budget requests.
IV. INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF TESTIMONY
A. Introduction
The primary legislative jurisdiction of the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight as reflected in Rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives includes matters relating
to the overall economy, efficiency and management of government
operations and activities, the relationship of the Federal
Government to the States and municipalities, and
reorganizations in the executive branch of the Government. Rule
X also affords the committee primary oversight responsibility
to ``review and study, on a continuing basis, the operation of
Government activities at all levels with a view to determining
their economy and efficiency.''
Pursuant to this authority, the committee held a series of
field hearings across the country in an attempt to help
Congress answer important questions about the size, scope and
functions of Government. The field hearings served two main
purposes: (1) to identify the strategies and principles used by
corporate, State and local government organizations in
restructuring their entities, and to learn which of their most
successful and creative ideas can be applied to Federal
reorganization plans; and, (2) to learn from the American
people their thoughts and ideas for a more responsive, limited
government designed to meet their needs.
B. Review of Testimony
1. Common Reorganization Principles
a. Every organization must have a clear mission.
The reliance upon clear mission statements was strongly
encouraged by witnesses from all types of organizations.
Defining mission is the first step in any reorganization
effort. Mission is the organization's guide to identifying
those functions for which it is responsible, and an
organization can be evaluated based on how well it fulfills
that mission.
Mr. Wendell White, Charlotte City Manager, testified that
everyone has to identify with the mission of an organization
before the organization can turn itself around.\4\
\4\ North Carolina original transcript, p. 40, in full committee
files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thomas Moore, Chairman and CEO of Cleveland Cliffs,
Inc., testified that one of the main principles of management
used at his company is to challenge and sharpen the mission of
each unit within the organization.\5\ Mr. Moore noted that this
exercise is applicable to levels of government as well.
\5\ Ohio original transcript, p. 177, in full committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Heather Wilson, Secretary of New Mexico
Department of Children, Youth and Families, testified that the
first thing she did upon taking office was refine the
department's mission statement with the help of her employees.
She added:
When I first read the mission statement I read it
over and over again and still could not understand
exactly what this agency did. And it seems to me if a
mission statement is not clear, employees and the
people we serve will have no idea what we do. So we
clarified that mission statement of common values of
what we expect of ourselves and what our employees and
the public may expect of us.\6\
\6\ New Mexico original transcript, p. 34, in full committee files.
A clear mission is an important component of any
organizational structure because it sets a defined parameter
and guideline on what the vital functions of an organization
are. Many bureaucratic institutions within the Federal
Government have lost sight of their missions. Congress must
reevaluate the mission of each Federal department and agency to
determine whether those missions are still valid. Based on that
analysis, Congress can better determine what functions the
Federal Government should administer and what functions would
be better delivered by States and localities or the private
sector.
b. Communicate with employees and the public.
Open communication is necessary to keep employees as well
as customers informed of and involved in every step in the
reorganization process. It has been a vital component of many
State, local government, and business downsizing strategies.
Communication has led to sustained employee morale at a time of
great instability, broader involvement in restructuring the
organization, and most importantly, a greater openness to
change.
Internal resistance to change is normal and expected.
Keeping employees informed at each step in the process helps
overcome opposition to change and increases the chance that
reorganization objectives are met. The following witnesses
stressed the vital role that communication played in their own
revitalization efforts.
Mr. Frank Altimore, Vice President of Business Process
Design at LTV Steel Company, testified on his company's urgent
need to downsize in order to survive in a highly competitive
marketplace, and acknowledged the important role that
communication played in promoting partnerships. Mr. Altimore
stated, for example, that when shift changes occurred in the
plants, workers were to report to work 45 minutes prior to
their shifts in order to be briefed on what happened during the
previous shift. This type of communication created openness,
employee involvement, commitment, and most importantly a team
spirit among employees.\7\
\7\ Altimore, prepared written statement, pp. 8-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Roger Sustar, President of the Fredon Corporation in
Ohio, emphasized a similar success with communication in his
organization. He advised it is easy to share information and it
is easy to get better together. All that is necessary is to
communicate with employees and encourage them to share their
ideas.\8\
\8\ Ohio original transcript, p. 193, in full committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secretary Wilson announced a massive reorganization
strategy just 18 days after being appointed to office.
Communication was a key asset in making this reorganization
successful. She explained:
Initially the Department employees developed a sense
of common values of what we expected from each other
and what the public expected from us. This allowed for
open communication between employees, management, and
the customers. The single most important factors when
considering any restructuring initiative are
communication with your employees and the public, on
where you are going and why, and involvement of line
employees to encourage a bottom-up answer to your
organization's problems.\9\
\9\ New Mexico original transcript, pp. 56-60, in full committee
files.
Mr. Henry Taboada, Assistant City Manager of the City of
Long Beach, noted the success that the Long Beach City Police
Force had when communicating with area residents to determine
which services were most important to them. He explained that
the Long Beach Police Department, suffering from low morale,
initiated an effort to develop a strategic plan to meet the
needs of their customers through the use of surveys and
questionnaires. A series of public meetings were held where the
community voiced its concerns. As a result of communication
between the police department and the local citizens there was
a clearer picture of how safe the police department's customers
felt, which services were important to them, and how they rated
the police department's performance.\10\
\10\ California original transcript, p. 13, in full committee
files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Robert Murphy, Senior Vice President for Organization
and Human Resources at Rockwell International, testified on the
important communication lessons Rockwell learned through its
downsizing initiatives. He suggested:
Be up-front with your employees regarding your
organization's downsizing plans. Communicate to them
way ahead of time what you are doing and why. We found
that if you do this and you're up front with people and
give them time, they can handle that kind of news.\11\
\11\ California original transcript, p. 139, in full committee
files.
Federal Government employees, Federal officials, and the
American public all have a joint investment and responsibility
in ensuring that government services are of the highest
possible quality. It is the responsibility of Federal officials
and employees to suggest new ways to achieve that quality while
saving money and increasing efficiency. Maintaining an open
dialogue with the American public is necessary to learn which
services the people demand and monitor the quality of those
services.
c. Apply innovative management techniques.
Effective management skills are necessary to sustain the
gains made through downsizing and reorganizing. Employees who
have competent and trustworthy leadership will be more willing
to accept the changes that accompany the downsizing of an
organization. The witnesses who testified before the committee
have implemented a number of unique management policies,
including ``no appointment necessary'' meetings with the boss,
a policy forgoing government cars, and a ``productivity bank''
which uses dollars saved to fund additional innovations in the
way the entity conducts its business. These State, local and
business leaders have good advice on management styles that get
the job done while promoting strong internal communication and
employee involvement.
The Mayor of Philadelphia, Edward Rendell, testified that
the city is working on innovative management techniques to put
incentive back into government. He explained:
I would love to see a system in my city and in the
Federal Government where we give bonuses to individual
Federal workers who are extremely productive. Where we
give a percentage of cash savings of any cost savings
suggestion that an employee comes up with. Here in the
City we have successfully implemented a Productivity
Bank, which consists of a small amount of money, $25
million out of our budget. And we make it available for
loans to our own departments to invest in innovation
and the only rule is that they have to pay it back in
three years with whatever the interest rate was at the
time of their loan.\12\
\12\ Ohio original transcript, p. 55, in full committee files.
Mr. William Lawrence, Executive Vice President for
Planning, Technology and Government Affairs at TRW, Inc.,
testified about TRW's effort to eliminate layers of management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
He offered the following example:
Where we formerly had, both at our space and defense
automotive businesses, a staff at the sector level, we
have since eliminated those functions and those tasks
have either been combined at the company headquarters
or in our operating groups, and we reduced our staff
from 600 employees to about 450 while doubling our
revenues.\13\
\13\ Ohio original transcript, p. 171, in full committee files.
Mr. Murphy discussed the importance of an innovative
management style when his organization was in a renewal
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
process. He explained:
In past decades, we had a somewhat centralized
command and control management style. But today, our
business units make a majority of the decisions. We
operate with a much less bureaucratic, more
entrepreneurial management style. We abhor bureaucracy
because it puts control and turfdom ahead of
shareholders' and our customers' best interests.\14\
\14\ California original transcript, p. 120, in full committee
files.
Secretary Wilson took a unique approach to fixing her
problem-plagued department by starting with her own office. She
eliminated some symbolic items from the budget such as the gold
seal on the letterhead, and she gave up her government car. She
also moved from her large office into a more moderate one and
transformed the larger office into work space for four workers.
She implemented a set of office visits where anyone could
schedule a meeting with her, on any subject, and have 15
minutes of her time. Brown bag lunches were also set up in an
attempt to get employees and management talking and coming up
with collective solutions.\15\
\15\ New Mexico original transcript, p. 34-36, in full committee
files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Innovative management techniques have made tremendous
impacts on fiscal health as well as employee morale in all the
organizations represented at the field hearings. Public
servants displayed a willingness to give up some of the
``perks'' of being appointed or elected to office in favor of
saving resources. Managers who communicate with employees,
invite their participation, and lead by example can expect to
sustain reorganization successes.
d. Public/private partnerships and privatization can save
money and improve service.
Many witnesses advocated privatization of government
services as an effective way to save taxpayer dollars, improve
service, and remove government from those activities it does
not perform well. Privatization is the act of reducing the role
of government, or increasing the role of the private sector, in
an activity or in the ownership of assets.\16\
\16\ E.S. Savas, Privatization, the Key to Better Government,
Chatham House Publishers, Inc., New Jersey, 1987, Pg. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States and localities across the country have also been
successfully implementing partnerships, commissions and
contracts involving the private and public sector for many
years. Public-private partnerships and task forces encourage
collaborative solutions and enable a coordinated use of
resources to address problems.
In the State of Ohio, the Mayor of Cleveland, Michael
White, testified in regard to his city's success in creating
public/private partnerships. The city of Cleveland created
``Cleveland Competes,'' which included myriad strategies to
meet the city's downsizing objectives. Mayor White explained
one ``Cleveland Competes'' success story:
Already, we have evidence of how the Cleveland
Competes concept has improved the lives of Cleveland
families. The McCafferty Metro Health Center was in
deplorable condition, physically and medically, and the
services were woefully inadequate. In August of 1992,
the city of Cleveland struck a landmark partnership
with the Metro Health Medical Center and we began to
see tremendous improvements in our ability to serve
those in need of medical services. Pediatric visits
alone increased from 3028 in 1991 to 13,278 in 1994, an
overwhelming increase of 249 percent. Additionally, the
total number of patient visits increased from 11,170
visits in 1991 to 25,092 visits in 1994. Today, three
of the city's four health centers have joined in
partnership with Metro Health.\17\
\17\ Ohio original transcript, pp. 40-41, in full committee files.
Mayor Rendell of Philadelphia explained that upon his
election he inherited a billion-dollar deficit. He created a
task force to help him alleviate the city's financial burdens.
The Mayor explained that the creation of the Mayor's private
sector task force was an attempt to modernize the city
government with the innovation, accountability and
entrepreneurship of the private sector. The task force was
composed of 41 local CEO's and approximately 300 loaned
executives from 130 organizations, all chosen for their
professional knowledge and experience. Through this commitment
of volunteer resources, the task force thoroughly analyzed city
operations and made specific recommendations for improving
service quality, cutting cost, increasing revenues, and
streamlining operations. From its inception in January of 1992
to the completion of its work in December 1993, the task force
completed 17 management reviews of 26 departments and 7
citywide issues.\18\
\18\ Rendell, prepared written statement, pp. 4-5, in full
committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A similar strategy was implemented by the Governor of the
State of Ohio, George Voinovich. Testifying on the Governor's
behalf was Mr. James Conrad, the Director of the Ohio
Department of Administrative Services (DAS). Mr. Conrad
reported:
Shortly after taking office, Governor Voinovich
established the Operations Improvement Task Force (OIT)
to find ways the State could provide more efficient
services to Ohio's citizens. The Governor designed the
OIT as a public/private partnership, gaining the
support of more than 100 companies in the process.
These companies donated more than $500,000 and 300
individuals to the effort and spent an enormous amount
of time reviewing nearly every aspect of State
government. The result of these intense efforts was
approximately 1600 recommendations on improving
efficiency in State government. To date, more than 80%
of the recommendations have been completed and the
Governor remains committed to seeing this effort
continued.\19\
\19\ Conrad, prepared written statement, pp. 1-2, in full committee
files.
Mr. Robert Gardner, Commissioner of Lake County, Ohio,
utilized both public/private partnerships and privatization of
public services, such as the prisoner transport program and
solid waste management, to save Lake County resources. He
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
explained:
We have entered into a partnership with GTE Mobilenet
and we have shared resources for the past three years,
thereby eliminating the need for additional radio
towers and for the purchase of land for new towers. By
sharing the same towers, the county has saved
approximately half a million dollars.\20\
\20\ Ohio original transcript, pp. 122-123, in full committee
files.
The Honorable William Pascrell, Mayor of Paterson, New
Jersey, testified that one of his first initiatives as mayor
was to audit all city functions. A number of partnerships were
formed as a result of these audits. Paterson's Health
Department forged partnerships with two large hospitals in an
attempt to provide preventative medical care and reduce
duplication of services. Paterson's Department of Community
Development forged ties with State agencies, private lending
institutions, and private developers to make Paterson
attractive for new business prospects.\21\
\21\ New Jersey original transcript, pp. 36-37, in full committee
files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lieutenant Governor of the State of New Mexico, Walter
Bradley, spoke of Governor Johnson's successful restructuring
plans for New Mexico which include many privatization
initiatives. Mr. Bradley explained:
Governor Johnson intentionally sought out private
sector-oriented cabinet secretaries, staying away from
the entrenched bureaucrats, and gave them the charge of
running their departments like they would run their own
business. Through employee input in these agencies an
initiative was brought up that would do away with three
layers of bureaucracy that made obtaining a lease for
the private sector on a State building too burdensome.
The entire leasing section was privatized eliminating
these layers of bureaucracy.
In an attempt to involve the business community in
public sector decisions the Governor formed a public/
private group called Small Business Advocacy Group. The
group met through a series of hearings and was designed
for the citizens and the business representatives of
New Mexico to tell us what was in the way and what we
in State government could do to make it work for
them.\22\
\22\ New Mexico original transcript, pp. 15-22, in full committee
files.
Forgoing public/private partnerships in favor of
privatization takes government out of service delivery
altogether and still yields savings for the taxpayers. The
Governor of the State of New Jersey, Christine Todd Whitman,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
testified on some of her State's privatization initiatives:
New Jersey privatized eleven State-run day care
centers over the past two years. We anticipate that
will save taxpayers $1.9 million this year. Seventeen
day activity centers for the developmentally disabled
were privatized with a cost savings of $2.3 million.
Privatizing the final 10% of custodial services in the
Capitol Complex saved $1 million and we anticipate that
the privatizing of 23 motor vehicle departments will
save the taxpayers $4.4 million.\23\
\23\ Whitman, prepared written statement, p. 2, in full committee
files.
The Honorable James Treffinger, Essex County Executive, New
Jersey, spoke of the similar cost savings that his county
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
experienced when privatizing government services. He testified:
In our attempt to downsize, we have privatized the
County cleaning and janitorial services at a net
savings of $1,026,000. We privatized security for the
court buildings that resulted in a net savings of
$1,080,000. We utilized private contractors for snow
plowing and are currently exploring privatization and
the sale of a county-run geriatric center.\24\
\24\ New Jersey original transcript, p. 30, in full committee
files.
Gwen Fraser, the owner of Fraser Inc., a small business in
Washington, represented the small business community and its
willingness to be involved in the privatization process. She
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
testified:
I know that I can speak for thousands of small
business owners that generally stand ready to help you
help us. We can get it done. So call on us. Tap on our
willingness. We can make a difference together.\25\
\25\ Washington original transcript, p. 140, in full committee
files.
The city of Charlotte, North Carolina is at the forefront
of privatization. Mayor Richard Vinroot spoke of the important
role that privatization played in the city's streamlining
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
efforts. He explained:
We are attempting to bring privatization to every
element of city government. I believe we are regarded,
by the Reason Foundation, as one of the three most
committed cities to privatization in America. We
created a privatization task force to look at how we
could bring competition into city hall. And as a result
we have gone to a performance pay system, and we
reduced our structure from 26 departments of city hall
to 13 departments.\26\
\26\ North Carolina original transcript, pp. 15-16, in full
committee files.
Mayor Vinroot charged the Charlotte Privatization/
Competition Advisory Committee with studying the ways in which
Charlotte could benefit from privatization. Mr. Bill James,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
chairman of that Committee, testified:
Since the (Privatization) Committee's formation in
March of 1994 they have accomplished the following
goals:
1) They have written and implemented guidelines for
determining how privatization and competition should
occur;
2) They selected about $30 million in excess real
estate and placed it on the market; and
3) They privatized 25% of our residential garbage
pickup at substantial savings.
The reason that privatization has been so successful
in Charlotte is a commitment on the part of our elected
leaders to find a better way to perform government
services; a commitment on the part of city management
to see to it that privatization and competition of
government services is a priority; and lastly, a strong
oversight process that asks tough questions.\27\
\27\ James, prepared written statement, pp. 1-2, in full committee
files.
Charlotte's business sector has been strongly behind Mayor
Vinroot's privatization initiatives. Mr. Christopher Rolfe,
Vice President of Organization Effectiveness at Duke Power
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company, expressed his support for privatization:
When you privatize you bring discipline of the market
place to bear, which of course drives cost out and
services up. We encourage that. It is a rigorous,
disciplined process where government has to decide what
businesses it needs to be in and which ones not to be
involved in.\28\
\28\ North Carolina original transcript, p. 143, in full committee
files.
Based on State and local experience, privatization is a
successful and viable option for saving the public sector, and
consequently the taxpayers, millions of dollars without
sacrificing the quality of services. Privatization not only
provides better service delivery for lower cost to the
taxpayer, but in many cases it creates ties between the public
and private sectors and leads to long lasting partnerships
between government entities and private businesses. Communities
that encourage public and private sector collaboration benefit
from cost savings to the taxpayer and produce local, civic and
business leaders who are committed and dedicated to the
citizens and the success of their community.
e. Competition and competitive bidding improves service
quality and saves money.
Competitive bidding is the process by which a State or
locality invites bids for the performance of services normally
delivered by the public sector. The concept closely parallels
privatization in that it allows a government entity to provide
the best possible service to its constituency at the lowest
possible price. The difference is that competitive bidding
allows government entities that normally deliver a service to
compete with the private sector as well as other government
entities for the contract to deliver that service in the
future. Many witnesses advocated this practice and praised the
effect of competition on service delivery.
Mayor White suggested all government entities must embrace
the notion of competition. He explained:
One way to enhance competition is through competitive
bidding. It embraces a fundamental philosophy, that we
ought to spend our citizens money the way we would
spend our own money. Competitive bidding allows us to
provide equal or better service at a lower price,
increase efficiency, and compare cost and quantity of
government services to the private sector. In our city,
local unions won the bid for waste collection and saved
the taxpayers $600,000.\29\
\29\ Ohio original transcript, pp. 37-43, in full committee files.
Commissioner Gardner had similar success with his county's
competitive bidding process. They used bidding to purchase
liability and auto insurance and saved the county $33 million
between 1989 and 1994.\30\
\30\ Ohio original transcript, p. 120, in full committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Vinroot testified that competition is healthy. He
believes the government workforce should compete for the right
to pave streets, build sewers, and provide services. Often the
mayor is asked why government should have to compete with the
private sector; he responds:
Because we are providing services for our customers
who really don't care who does it for them, they want
to be sure it gets done at the most effective price
possible. You cannot do that if you don't ask yourself
(1) are we competitive, and (2) are we providing the
best service at the most competitive price? \31\
\31\ North Carolina original transcript, p. 19, in full committee
files.
Mayor Vinroot was asked how he worked with employees to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
help them accept the change, and he replied:
I have had people come to me and say ``Gosh, you are
going to take my job and you are going to contract it
out.'' And my answer is, no, we are going to put you in
competition with somebody outside the city, and why
should you lose, you have been delivering the service
for years. You know how to do it. If you lose, you are
losing because you are not doing it as well as somebody
else who has got some disadvantage you do not have.\32\
\32\ North Carolina original transcript, pp. 28-29, in full
committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
f. Investing in advanced technology will improve
efficiency, quality, and savings.
Innovative technology played an important role in the
successful reorganizations implemented by many States,
communities and businesses. Greater use of computer technology
was recommended to the Federal Government as a means of
communication and to aid in the fight against waste, fraud and
abuse. The most persuasive aspect of using technology is the
tremendous potential for increased efficiency in government
functions, which in turn may yield significant cost savings.
The city of Cleveland enjoyed cost savings when it embraced
new computer technology and discarded inefficient, outdated
systems. Mayor White explained:
Embracing technology in city departments should be
the call of the day. In the area of technology, we are
one of the largest cities to have outsourced its
payroll system, saving the city $2 million in the first
year in hardware costs and over $600,000 in employee
costs, not to mention the increased efficiency that new
technology brings to any organization.\33\
\33\ Ohio original transcript, p. 37, in full committee files.
Commissioner Gardner reported similar cost savings when
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lake County renovated its computer systems. He explained:
Computerization and improved technology have resulted
in smaller and more efficient government in Lake
County. In 1985, the Lake County Data Center had a
single computer and 20 employees. Today the Data Center
has four computer installations, a local area network,
a digital equipment mini-computer system, but only 10
employees. Operation expenses decreased from $657,000 a
year to $286,000 in 1994.\34\
\34\ Ohio original transcript, p. 121, in full committee files.
Mr. Len Lauer, Vice President of Sales at Bell Atlantic-New
Jersey, stressed the importance of information technology, and
the ability to leverage technology and acquire and process
information to improve customer service and gain market share.
He named information management as the single skill most
critical to productivity and adaptability. He then went on to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
explain:
Although the motivations of business and government
may be distinctly different, our goals are similar. We
both need to manage information and large
organizations. We both need to leverage technology to
help manage our organization and to deal with the
following three fundamental changes in business and
government:
First, the growing impact of information; second, the
impact of digitizing information; and third, the
convergence of technologies, which will create new
distribution channels of information.\35\
\35\ New Jersey original transcript, p. 156, in full committee
files.
Mr. Paul Sommers, Executive Director of the Northwest
Policy Center at the University of Washington, suggested that
all levels of government get involved with the sharing of
services through the use of a web site, which is an Internet
page that can be accessed by computers with Internet
communication capabilities. By linking together through a web
site or other means, organizations can share information and
access specialized services.\36\
\36\ Washington original transcript, p. 64, in full committee
files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Steve Kuykendall, California State
assemblyman, echoed Mr. Sommers' views when he testified:
It's time for the government, at all levels, to
realize there is nothing wrong with using high
technology techniques to transmit information from your
constituents, whether it's an E-Mail system or a page
on the Internet that people can call up and see what
your doing.\37\
\37\ California original transcript, p. 92, in full committee
files.
Mr. D. Sherrill Clements, Executive Marketing Director of
the Oracle Corporation, testified that technology is a
judicious investment that can truly advance the ability of the
government to provide service to the citizen and still look to
economies of cost and operation. He suggested the use of open
and scalable architecture, which allows computers to
communicate with one another, is essential to taking full
advantage of the technology available.\38\
\38\ California original transcript, p. 126, in full committee
files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Innovative technology has been a distinct asset in the
reorganization strategies of States, localities and businesses.
Their experiences have shown an investment in technology can
yield both immediate and long term improvements in service,
quality and cost.
2. Additional Findings and Suggestions
In traveling across the country, it became clear that most
State and local government leaders, business leaders, and
private citizens support an effort to reevaluate the size,
scope and functions of the Federal Government. The committee
learned valuable reorganization strategies from distinguished
private and public sector witnesses. They shared many
innovative ideas and success stories in addition to the common
reorganization principles discussed in the previous section.
Their suggestions will assist the Federal Government in
revitalizing Federal departments and agencies.
a. Parma Heights, Ohio Hearing
Mr. Lawrence, representing TRW, Inc., suggested the United
States needs to determine those activities that should or
should not be administered on a national level. Second, the
country should compare the capabilities and competencies of
government and the private sector regarding the ability to
provide high priority needs. Finally, the Federal Government
must set realistic limits on the financial burden people are
expected to bear to fund national priorities.\39\
\39\ Lawrence, prepared written statement, p. 6, in full committee
files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. William Marshall, a Professor of Law at Case Western
Reserve University, offered similar suggestions for drawing the
distinction between Federal, State and local authority. He
advised that the following criteria should be used in making
this distinction: (1) whether a phenomenon is intrastate or
whether it exists between States; (2) whether there is a need
for uniformity; (3) whether decentralizing power increases the
cost; (4) where State governments may not act appropriately;
and (5) where economies of scale demand the kind of resources
only the Federal Government can provide.\40\
\40\ Ohio original transcript, pp. 223-225, in full committee
files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Upper Montclair, New Jersey Hearing
Mr. Dwayne Warehime, a private citizen, participated in the
committee's open mic session and made several suggestions,
including:
1) Redefine the limits of government responsibility;
2) Impose a moratorium on new legislation;
3) Don't tinker, make real cuts; and
4) Create a strike force against waste, with
authority to investigate, expose, terminate, and arrest
individuals who intentionally waste public funds.\41\
\41\ New Jersey original transcript, pp. 102-103, in full committee
files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Pascrell proposed that every government examine its
functions to identify opportunities for improved efficiency,
candidates for privatization, and functions which should not be
performed by government.\42\
\42\ New Jersey original transcript, p. 39, in full committee
files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Federal Way, Washington Hearing
Mr. Lawrence Riggs, President of the Services Group of
America, testified that his organization strongly supports
Congressional efforts to reduce the size of the Federal
Government:
Our experience proves that you can reduce the size
while increasing efficiency and productivity. The key
to success here is focus. You need to decide where
government can provide real value and focus on those
areas. Where government fails to produce results that
justify their cost, it should end the activity.\43\
\43\ Washington original transcript, p. 141, in full committee
files.
Witnesses from State and local governments shared a view
that States and localities should be trusted to govern their
own affairs without excessive Federal involvement. The
Honorable Mary Ann Mitchell, a Washington State Representative,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
urged Congress to support block grants:
We are delighted with the block grant idea. We have
no problem with that. We have long wanted to make those
decisions locally. We feel that we know what is needed
in our community, better than the Federal Government
does. So to have that opportunity to make those
decisions locally is very important to us.\44\
\44\ Washington original transcript, pp. 52-53, in full committee
files.
The Honorable Chris Vance, a member of the Metropolitan
King County Council, echoed Representative Mitchell's request
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
for greater State and local authority. He suggested:
Trust us to be competent in our local decision
making. We know best what the people back home think
and we have large expensive staffs as you do and we can
make the decisions at the local level.\45\
\45\ Washington original transcript, p. 30, in full committee
files.
Mr. Thomas Vander Ark, Superintendent of the Federal Way
School District, expressed concern over the state of the
American educational system today and offered suggestions to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
improve it. He said:
We need to dramatically streamline educational
funding. Our funding comes from local tax collections
and the money that we send to Washington comes back to
us in the form of myriad programs with very specific
program requirements that makes it very, very difficult
for us to operate. I believe strongly in local control;
that the teachers and parents of this school are very
capable of making sound educational decisions for the
students at this school.\46\
\46\ Washington original transcript, p. 59, in full committee
files.
Mr. Paul TeGantvoort, owner of Seattle Automotive
Distributing, agrees that the educational system needs repair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
He said:
I think our educational system really needs a major
overhaul. I do not think there is any reason for the
Federal Government to be involved in education. I think
the money must come back to the local school districts
and be administered here and allow schools to do the
job that they have been hired to do by the public, and
not to have to operate under Federal mandates all the
time.\47\
\47\ Washington original transcript, p. 148, in full committee
files.
Mr. Mitchell Melars participated in the open mic segment at
which members of the audience were invited to share their
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
views. He suggested:
With all the brilliant organizational minds we have
in the private sector, I favor recruiting a small army
of a-dollar-a-year men and women to take over the
reorganization of the Federal Government without
political interference.\48\
\48\ Washington original transcript, p. 114, in full committee
files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Long Beach, California Hearing
The Honorable Michael Stoker, Chairman of the California
Agriculture Labor Relations Board, offered general
recommendations to the committee as it explores executive
branch reorganization. He suggested:
1) Provide any given service through one level of
government;
2) Eliminate duplication of programs and between
levels of government;
3) Utilize groups like the National Association of
Counties and the League of Cities, who would welcome
the opportunity to work with Congress; and
4) Provide local governments greater flexibility in
implementing Federal mandates.\49\
\49\ California original transcript, p. 53, in full committee
files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Albuquerque, New Mexico Hearing
Secretary Wilson offered the committee a list of things for
Congress to consider when refocusing a government agency:
1) The job is not to row the boat, the job is to
steer it.
2) Hire creative, nonconformists.
3) Bold moves are easier than minor corrections.
4) Clarify the vision of the organization.
5) Words and symbols do matter.
6) Enlist the help of line employees.
7) Encourage disagreement until the point of
discussion.
8) Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what
to do and let them use their ingenuity.
9) What gets measured gets done.
10) Expect excellence.\50\
\50\ New Mexico original transcript, p. 38, in full committee
files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Barbara Seward, a Bernalillo County
Commissioner, testified in favor of returning programs back to
the localities. She testified:
The local government can most assuredly administer.
The local government is very hands-on. We know our
constituents personally and they certainly know how to
get us on the telephone and tell us what they approve
of and what they disapprove of.\51\
\51\ New Mexico original transcript, p. 96, in full committee
files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
f. Charlotte, North Carolina Hearing
Mr. White, Charlotte City Manager, suggested that the
Federal Government take inventory of those activities in which
it is involved, identify the priorities, and discontinue those
activities that are not vital. Turn responsibility for these
non-vital activities over to State and local governments, he
recommended, so the States and communities can prioritize them
based upon the local needs.\52\
\52\ North Carolina original transcript, p. 21, in full committee
files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bill James, Chairman of the Charlotte Privatization/
Competition Advisory Committee, offered his thoughts on how
best to approach privatizing Federal activities:
1) Write rules that define the ultimate goal of
privatization.
2) Avoid mixing goals.
3) Establish a Federal oversight committee with one
person responsible to look into all areas of
government.
4) Give this Federal oversight committee authority to
bring back legislation to a house committee.
5) Require all areas of the Federal Government to be
subject to this committee.
6) Inventory all government assets and allow this
committee to bring back plans for disposing of those
assets deemed excess.\53\
\53\ James, prepared written statement, pp. 1-4, in full committee
files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, Mr. Barney Lawson, owner of Modern Management
Inc., suggested that effective leadership by a chief executive
can motivate bureaucrats, unions, and citizens to join together
for the common good.\54\
\54\ Lawson, prepared written statement, p. 4, in full committee
files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. CONCLUSION
As a new century approaches, the Federal Government must
keep pace with the changing needs of its citizens. Federal
institutions that do not evolve with the rest of society will
become ineffective and irrelevant. The Government Reform and
Oversight Committee field hearings revealed that the American
public believes there is a role for government, but that this
role must be limited. Further, people want the Federal
Government to be responsive, cost effective and less
bureaucratic. The testimony offered at the committee's field
hearings provided several principles that should be part of the
downsizing, streamlining, and reorganization process. By
learning which approaches have worked in the State, local and
private sectors, Congress and the executive branch can
revitalize Government without ``reinventing the wheel.''
Mr. Eisenhower, a private citizen who testified during the
open mic segment in Long Beach, California, expressed his
support for a more limited Federal Government. He said:
I think it's an immoral presumption to say, from on
high, whatever the level is, that we know best what to
do and you (the local level) are not able to govern
yourselves. We ultimately are the ones that have to
live with the decision, and if we aren't going to be
responsible enough to participate, then I guess we
deserve what we end up with.\55\
\55\ California original transcript, p. 101, in full committee
files.
Mr. Leroy Pittman, a participant in our Charlotte open mic
segment, offered his support for ``Creating a 21st Century
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government'' when he said:
I congratulate you for what you have done so far. We
are standing shoulder to shoulder in our belief that
the least government is the best government, and the
closer to the people the better.\56\
\56\ North Carolina original transcript, p. 122-123, in full
committee files.
Former Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor, Lynn
Martin, also encouraged a revitalization of government for the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
next century when she said:
Creating a 21st century government, in my view, is a
subject that is long overdue. For too many years we
have blindly maintained many outdated and ineffective
programs and policies. We cannot close our eyes to the
fact that a large part of today's government was
designed for an America and a world that has long
passed into history.\57\
\57\ Ohio original transcript, p. 17, in full committee files.
Ms. Sandra Reckseit, the Executive Director of United We
Stand America in Ohio, toured the country with her
organization. She said in the open mic segment that, based on
her tour experiences, she believes people are ready for reform.
They know it is going to take sacrifice and that it has to be
fair, both inside and outside the beltway. Many of today's
programs are from the 1930's and do not work anymore. The
nation needs programs that are dynamic to meet the needs of
today, and to start tomorrow with some flexibility. They are
ready to reform, they will stand behind (Congress) if it's
fair.\58\
\58\ Ohio original transcript, p. 162, in full committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Fraser commended Congress for its intent to pursue
executive branch reorganization. She said:
In complying with your efforts to hear about success
stories from the private sector, let me state that the
greatest success story that I can point to is the fact
that the new Congress of the United States of America
is seeking the input from business and private
individuals as they reshape the government of this
great land.\59\
\59\ Fraser, prepared written statement, p.1, in full committee
files.
Finally, Mr. Tom Rogers, a private citizen, encouraged the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee's efforts and said:
I am here to commend you, to encourage you, to hope
that you become a success story, because to the extent
that you downsize there is a greater than even chance
that we will get toward eliminating the deficit.\60\
\60\ North Carolina original transcript, p. 115, in full committee
files.
The public believes in a limited, responsive government
that is designed with their needs in mind. Downsizing and
reorganization, when approached correctly, has resulted in more
efficient, effective entities in State and local government and
the private sector. The Government Reform and Oversight
Committee finds that the same success can be realized on the
Federal level. The committee field hearings were the first step
in creating the ``21st century government'' the American people
expect and deserve.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. CARDISS COLLINS
The Report's Background comments on the need to restructure
the Executive branch unfairly criticizes the National
Performance Review (NPR). Instead of properly acknowledging
recent efforts to make government more streamlined and
effective, the Committee has incorrectly and unfortunately
chosen to slight and ignore the important contributions the NPR
has made in the 20th Century. Let me now set the record
straight.
In February of 1992, President Clinton and Vice-President
Gore initiated the National Performance Review--Creating a
Government that Works Better and Costs Less. The NPR was
initiated to radically change the way government operates. The
first step of the ``review'' was to look at what the government
does and how it does it. The next step was to fix those things
that do not work. Next, the ``review'' went to the American
public to determine what works and what does not. Thousands of
citizens were contacted directly at town hall meetings,
national conferences and local neighborhoods. More than 30,000
letters and phone calls from citizens across the country were
received. (Almost an identical process undertaken by this
Committee.)
In the past two and a half years, the NPR has been
responsible for a number of changes in how government addresses
its basic functions. Since President Clinton took office there
are nearly 200,000 fewer federal employees. Today, the federal
government is smaller and more streamlined than it has been in
30 years. President Clinton has committed to cutting 16,000
pages from federal regulations. We have passed and implemented
the Government Performance and Results Act and instituted
procurement reform. As a final irony, House Speaker Newt
Gingrich, speaking about the NPR on ABC News earlier this year,
characterized its results: ``The Vice President's effort is a
total success.''
Cardiss Collins.
------
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. GENE GREEN
Member of the Minority of the Government Reform and
Oversight Committee
The reports approved by this Committee traditionally have
been issue driven and non-partisan. However, the charts placed
in the Appendix of the report offer a slanted and incomplete
version of the costs of government. For example, Appendix I,
Chart 2, entitled ``Taxes Have Multiplied'' states that federal
receipts from individual income taxes are more than 13 times
the size they were in 1960. The chart does state whether
inflation was taken into account for these calculations. We do
not dispute that income taxes have increased significantly over
the past 35 years, however, the absence of clarifying
information in this chart is apt to confuse the reader and
discount the usefulness of the chart.
Appendix I, Chart 3 suffers similar problems. Entitled
``Cost of Government Day'' the chart is supposed to tell the
reader how long it takes Americans to work to pay off the
yearly costs of government. The chart, provided by the
Americans For Tax Reform Foundation, states that ``regulatory
costs'' are taken into account in determining overall
governmental costs. However, the chart does not define how
regulatory costs were calculated. Would the costs of a $500/
hour lawyer who has to stand in line to renew his driver's
license be counted for this chart? Attempts to quantify
regulatory costs, which could be defined quite broadly, should
be accompanied by a brief statement of assumptions. Otherwise,
the chart ends up raising more questions than it answers.
Gene Green.
APPENDIX II--LIST OF HEARING LOCATIONS, DATES AND WITNESSES
Parma Heights, Ohio--July 14, 1995
WITNESSES:
Lynn Martin, Former Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor.
Elizabeth Baron, Graduate Student, Northwestern University.
Michael White, Mayor of Cleveland, Ohio.
Edward Rendell, Mayor of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
J. Kenneth Blackwell, Treasurer, State of Ohio.
James Conrad, Director, Department of Administrative
Services, Ohio.
Keith Rasey, Director of Federal Government Relations,
Greater Cleveland Growth Association.
Claire Freeman, Executive Director, Cuyahoga Metropolitan
Housing Authority.
Daniel Whitmire, Austinburg Township Trustee, Ohio.
Robert A. Gardner, Commissioner, Lake County, Ohio.
William B. Lawrence, Executive Vice President for Planning,
Technology and Government Affairs, TRW, Inc.
M. Thomas Moore, Chairman and CEO, Cleveland Cliffs, Inc.
Frank Altimore, Vice President for Business Process Design,
LTV Steel Company, Inc.
Karen R. Kleinhenz, Regional President, Society National
Bank, Akron, Ohio.
Roger Sustar, President and Owner, Fredon Corporation.
Michael Horowitz, Senior Fellow, the Hudson Institute.
William Marshall, Professor, Case Western Reserve
University School of Law.
OPEN MIC PARTICIPANTS:
Keith Simmons, Private Citizen.
Kathleen Nadall, Private Citizen.
David Vandall, Private Citizen.
Joseph Facolt, Private Citizen.
Doris Deniger, Private Citizen.
Bernard Kromer, Vice President of Manufacturing, Hybco
Products, Lake County, Ohio.
Donald Luziak, Private Citizen.
Lowell Lefebvre, Private Citizen.
Sandra Reckseit, Executive Director, United We Stand
America, Ohio.
Eileen Fitzgerald, Private Citizen.
Patricia Coksey, Private Citizen.
Upper Montclair, New Jersey--September 9, 1995
WITNESSES:
Christine Todd Whitman, Governor, State of New Jersey.
Bret Schundler, Mayor, City of Jersey City, New Jersey.
James Treffinger, County Executive, Essex County, New
Jersey.
William Pascrell, Jr., Mayor, Paterson, New Jersey.
Michael Berkin, Senior Vice President of Performance and
Service Quality, Dun & Bradstreet.
Frank Sweeney, Vice President and Controller, ITT Avionics.
Irvin D. Reid, President, Montclair State University.
Len Lauer, Vice President, Sales, Bell Atlantic-New Jersey.
John E. Anderson, Director of Procurement, Public Service
Electric & Gas Company.
OPEN MIC PARTICIPANTS:
Stuart Ginsberg, Member, Concord Coalition.
Mr. Jankowski, Private Citizen.
Sherwin Raymond, Private Citizen.
Michelle Shapiro, Private Citizen.
Bob Hogan, Private Citizen.
Dwayne Warehime, Former Chairman, United We Stand America,
New Jersey.
Rosary Morelli, Private Citizen.
Kelly Conklin, Private Citizen.
Federal Way, Washington--October 6, 1995
WITNESSES:
Chris Vance, Member, Metropolitan King County Council,
Washington.
Mary Ann Mitchell, Washington State Representative.
Thomas J. Vander Ark, Superintendent, Federal Way School
District, Washington.
Paul Sommers, Executive Director, Northwest Policy Center,
University of Washington.
Richard Zimmerman, President, Washington Performance
Partnership.
John Carlson, Chairman, Washington Institute for Policy
Studies.
Jack Larsen, Vice President of Energy and Environment,
Weyerhaeuser Company.
Gwen Fraser, CEO and Owner, Fraser, Inc.
Lawrence Riggs, President, Services Group of America.
Paul TeGantvoort, Owner, Seattle Automotive Distributing.
OPEN MIC PARTICIPANTS:
Terrell Alan Minarsen, Private Citizen.
Don Casper, Private Citizen.
Ann Barney, Private Citizen.
Randy Robbins, Private Citizen.
Mitchell Melars, Private Citizen.
Ed Pina, Vice President of High Line School, Washington.
Randy Moon, Private Citizen.
Deborah Carson, Private Citizen.
Tom Campbell, Washington State Representative.
Miriam Halgolin, Private Citizen.
Treasure Shoemaker, Private Citizen.
Bud Fleisch, Chairman, East King County United We Stand.
Lana Miller, Private Citizen.
Curt Anderson, Associated Builders and Contractors.
Jody Deon, Member, United We Stand, Sixth Congressional
District, Washington.
Richard Kennedy, Mayor, Des Moines, Washington.
Long Beach, California--October 7, 1995
WITNESSES:
Douglas Drummond, Vice Mayor, Long Beach, California.
Henry Taboada, Assistant City Manager, Long Beach,
California.
Michael Stoker, Chairman, California Agricultural Labor
Relations Board.
Richard Terzian, Chairman, Commission for California State
Government Organization and Economy.
Fred Silva, Executive Secretary, California Constitution
Revision Committee.
Robert H. Murphy, Senior Vice President for Organization
and Human Resources, Rockwell International.
D. Sherrill Clements, Sr., Executive Marketing Director,
Oracle Corporation.
OPEN MIC PARTICIPANTS:
Thomas Clark, Member, Long Beach City Council, 4th
District.
Steve Kuykendall, California State Assemblyman.
Susan Brooks, Councilwoman, Rancho Palos Verdes.
Steve Eisenhower, Private Citizen.
Roger Rosie, Libertarian Party.
Roger Hughes, Private Citizen.
John Valentine, Private Citizen.
Rodney Guarneri, GOPAC Member.
Ronald Branson, Judicial Misconduct Review.
Jim Kopp, Retired Executive, General Electric Company.
Ruby Pyers, Chairwoman of the Board, Southeast Los Angeles
County Private Industry Council.
Herb Peters, Private Citizen.
Patrick Von Mout, Chairman of the Board, National Health
Federation.
Kent Gale, Private Citizen.
Bob Weber, Chairman, Libertarian Party of L.A. County.
Ernie Castano, Member, Californians for Disability Rates.
Rod Briggs, Private Citizen.
Albuquerque, New Mexico--October 9, 1995
WITNESSES:
Walter Bradley, Lieutenant Governor, New Mexico.
Stephanie Gonzales, Secretary of State, New Mexico.
Heather Wilson, Secretary, New Mexico Department of
Children Youth and Families.
Lawrence Rael, Chief Administrative Officer, Albuquerque,
New Mexico.
Barbara Seward, Member, Bernalillo County Commission, New
Mexico.
George W. Rhodes, Vice President and Technical Director,
Quatro Corporation.
Mary Molina Mescall, Hispanic Roundtable.
Steve Strunk, Chief Administrative Officer, Boatmen's
Sunwest, Inc.
OPEN MIC PARTICIPANTS:
Richard Peck, President, University of New Mexico.
James Red, Union Steward, American Federation of Government
Employees, Local 4041.
Joe Bowdich, Sheriff, Bernalillo County, New Mexico.
General Mel Montano, New Mexico Adjutant General.
Roberta Cooper Ramo, President, American Bar Association.
Mark Henderson, President, New Mexico Branch of Associated
General Contractors.
Ted Hobbs, State Representative, Bernalillo County, New
Mexico.
Jay Sorenson, Sierra Club.
Joe Rose, Concord Coalition.
Tony Olmi, President, New Mexico Christian Coalition.
Frank Clinard, Libertarian Party of New Mexico.
Charlotte, North Carolina--October 20, 1995
WITNESSES:
Richard Vinroot, Mayor, Charlotte, North Carolina.
Wendell White, City Manager, Charlotte, North Carolina.
Bill James, Chairman, Charlotte Privatization/Competition
Advisory Committee.
Pat Garrett, President, Charlotte/Mecklenburg Housing
Partnership.
Barney Lawson, Owner, Modern Management, Inc., North
Carolina.
Christopher Rolfe, Vice President of Organization
Effectiveness, Duke Power Company.
OPEN MIC PARTICIPANTS:
Gerald Fox, Mecklenburg County Manager.
Conrad Pogorzelski, Private Citizen.
Mark Seiler, Private Citizen.
Tom Rogers, Concord Coalition Citizen Council, North
Carolina.
Leroy Pittman, Small Business Owner, Union County, North
Carolina.
Chris Spruyt, Private Citizen.
Frank Gilreath, Private Citizen.
Pat McCrory, Mayor Pro Tempore, Charlotte, North Carolina.
Tom Bailey, Private Citizen.
Cheryl Cottingham, Private Citizen.
Earnest Johnson, Private Citizen.
Elizabeth Bohl, Private Citizen.
Joe Miller, Private Citizen.
-