This is from my school's resource system in their library. the website needs a login so all i could do was cut and paste. If anyone knows how to
upload text in pdf format let me know.
Title: GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION
Authors: TOM SCHATZ
CITIZENS AGAINST GOVERNMENT WASTE
Source: FDCH Congressional Testimony; 09/27/2005
Committee Name: HOUSE GOVERNMENT REFORM
Accession Number: 32Y1386375815
Persistent link to this record: search.ebscohost.com.ez.lib.jjay.cuny.edu...
Cut and Paste: GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION
Database: Military & Government Collection
Statement of Tom Schatz President, Citizens Against Government Waste
Committee on House Government Reform Subcommittee on Federal Workforce and Agency Organization
September 27, 2005
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the more than one million members and
supporters of Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW). We hope that this hearing will begin the process of approval for two important commissions
that will act to reign in long-standing government inefficiency, ineffectiveness, and waste.
CAGW was created 21 years ago after J. Peter Grace presented to President Ronald Reagan the 2,478 findings and recommendations of the Grace Commission
(formally known as the President`s Private Sector Survey on Cost Control). These recommendations provided a blueprint for a more efficient, effective,
and smaller government.
Since 1984, the implementation of Grace Commission and other waste-cutting recommendations has helped save taxpayers more than $825 billion. CAGW is
the nation's largest nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government.
CAGW is classified as a Section 501(c)(3) organization under the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. The organization has not received any federal money
and does not plan to receive any federal funds in the future.
Mr. Chairman, as we are all well aware, the nation has seen an alarming spending growth rate over the last 11 years. Total outlays are more than 60
percent higher in 2005 than in 1994. Without much-needed restraint, the spending spree will only continue as several financially daunting issues loom,
including Social Security, Medicare, disaster relief, and military conflicts.
Despite these liabilities, Congress is still passing legislation loaded with pork. The 2005 highway transportation bill is a prime example: it
contained more than 6,300 earmarks totaling more than $24 billion over the next five years. The fiscal year 2005 appropriations bills included a
record 13,997 projects costing an unprecedented $27.3 billion. CAGW has already identified more than $16 billion in pork in the fiscal 2006
In a time when members of Congress should be searching for offsets for major federal obligations, they are not taking the necessary steps to get
spending under control.
There are many programs that lack oversight or coordination, have outlived their effectiveness, duplicate other programs, or are simply pet projects
that never served any meaningful purpose. These programs are funded even though they are ineffective and wasteful. They remain in existence in part
because members of Congress have many short-term interests, while important long- term decisions are bogged down or ignored. However, there is an
opportunity to change this with the proposed bills: H.R. 3276, the Government Reorganization and Improvement of Performance Act; and H.R. 3277, the
Federal Agency Performance Review and Sunset Act.
The Results Commissions would form at the request of the President to investigate a specific program or programs that the President may feel is
redundant, ineffective, or inefficient. Seven members would be selected by the President after consultation with congressional leaders. The Commission
would then compile and analyze information concerning that program or programs and conclude by sending recommendations to the President. If the
President disapproves the recommendations, the Commission would have the opportunity to respond by changing or not changing its recommendations. The
Commission`s recommendations would then be sent to Congress for expedited consideration. The process is similar to the Base Realignment and Closure
Commission, or BRAC.
This type of commission was established in South Carolina in 2002. Governor Mark Sanford (R) created the Governor`s Commission on Management,
Accountability and Performance. That commission enlisted 12 bipartisan business leaders and more than 300 private volunteers to identify ineffective,
inefficient, or redundant programs that could have saved South Carolina $255 million initially and $300 million every year thereafter.
The manner in which members are appointed and recommendations are made by a Sunset Commission would be nearly identical to the Results Commissions.
The major difference is executive branch programs would be set to terminate at least once every 10 years and face mandatory review before that time,
on a schedule determined by the President. The Commission would pass its recommendations on to the President who would submit legislation to
Sunset Commissions have been used by many states. States that currently use some form of a Sunset Commission include: Alaska, Arizona, California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,
Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. In Texas, strong legislative support has
meant 90 percent of the Sunset Commission`s recommendations have been passed into law.
The concept of identifying effective and ineffective programs already exists at the federal level. The Performance and Assessment Ratings Tool (PART),
according to the Office of Management and Budget, ``was developed to assess the effectiveness of federal programs and help inform management actions,
budget requests, and legislative proposals directed at achieving results.