| Welcome to Virtual America. We hope you enjoy your visit. If you're looking to join and sign up for the first time, register here! You'll want to familiarize yourself with the rules of Virtual America which you can find here. And you'll want to read up on how to sign in and create your character here. After all than you can sign in and get to playing! We're all friends here and we're certain you'll enjoy it here at Virtual America! |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| HR 45 Efficient Government Act | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: 5 Jun 2013, 10:58 AM (200 Views) | |
| Heather Holson | 5 Jun 2013, 10:58 AM Post #1 |
![]()
|
48 hours for debate.
|
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| Daniel Hernandez | 6 Jun 2013, 01:49 PM Post #21 |
![]()
Wielder of the Gavel
|
Rick Thomas Madame Speaker, I request permission to revise and extend my remarks. I would like to take a few moments to respond to the gentleman from Michigan. Before I do, I would like to thank him for being the one member of this chamber to actually engage in reasoned dialogue. While the other members of his party shout at the moon, declaring things to be simply because they said so, my friend from Michigan demonstrates the way that debate even between those who disagree ought to operate. Now, with regards to Section 2 and the amalgamation of the Departments of Treasury and Commerce, our approach would, in fact, make these operations more efficient because economic functions will be housed out of a single office, reducing unnecessary repetition and spending by numerous agencies on similar functions. My friend from Michigan suggests that, since these two departments function separately now, that this should always be the case. We are making the argument, and it is an argument supported by a vast array of academic data, that the vital functions of both departments can be more effectively and efficiently administered by combining them into a single department. According to the Heritage Foundation, the Commerce Department's efficiency can be more effectively administered by more than half with Treasury managing these functions. Simply put, we believe that combining these two functions will result in a more efficient operation while guaranteeing that the functions of both departments are more effectively administered. With regard to Section 3, moving the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration to the Department of the Interior would expand that Department's agenda to include not only Federal lands, but also scientific data and research. Now, on this point, there is room for some level of common ground to be found. If the gentleman from Michigan feels particularly strongly on this point, then we should look towards introducing an amendment which would make more sense and which would allow for members of the minority to support this legislation. With regards to Section 4, I respectfully challenge the assertion that additional funds must be required if programs are to be eliminated. If one department is adequately meeting the function for which it was created, why are other programs needed to meet this same function? The argument the gentleman seems to be making is that we should never end any government program. To that, I would say that if a program, bureau or agency is not working or is not needed to meet a certain function, then it should be curtailed or eliminated. That represents the kind of prioritizing that American families must do each and every day, and it is time to force this government to live by the same rules which govern working families all across America. With regard to Section 5, the plain and simple answer is that government agencies must learn to follow the same rules as those which govern families throughout America. Simply put, government agencies must learn to live with reduced funding. Now, if the funding level of $500 million is unacceptable to the majority, then I would hope that my friend from Michigan or other members of his party would propose some sort of amendment to address the funding level to a more acceptable level. However, the reality is that we cannot keep spending the amount of money we have been spending. When Washington keeps spending money while working families have to make cutbacks, we lose credibility with working men and women who see their own budgets shrinking while Washington continues spending as we always have. It is wrong to live by a different set of rules than our fellow citizens, and that is the argument for taking this important step. Turning to section 6, I reject the suggestion that the combining of various statistical agencies is somehow never going to work on a management basis. Members of the House, this new bureau would have one person in charge of it with wide and varied experience in a number of different statistical models. That would allow them to oversee various statistics being gathered. This same model works in academic programs, for example, where a department head oversees a number of different disciplines. Further, one department can employ various sorts of experts as easily, if not more so, than can two or three different departments. To suggest this is not the case is to demonstrate a lack of understanding about options which are achieving successful management of such varied departments in the world outside of Washington, D.C. With regard to Section 7, my friend from Michigan hits the nail right on the head. This office was originally created with a specific function, and it has steadily expanded in size and influence. The original functions of this office can be handled more effectively through other offices in a combined department. However, if the gentleman from Michigan were to be open to an amendment on this front, I believe enough members of the minority would be willing to consider such an amendment that would allow for it to pass. We want a better bill to be passed, and I hope that the suggestion of positive alternatives will not fall on deaf ears. My friend from Michigan suggests that this bill would make government less efficient. We believe that not only will it not do that, but the effect would be exactly the opposite. Before I close, Madame Speaker, let me turn for a moment to the suggestion made by the gentleman from Colorado, who has suggested that no nation in the industrialized world has proposed combining these functions until now. Ladies and gentlemen, we do not adopt or fail to adopt a policy because nobody has ever done it before. I would remind my friends in the majority that in the years after World War II, Great Britain adopted nationalization of businesses and whole sections of industry, as did other nations across the globe. We did not follow suit. Instead, we demonstrated how a free market could meet the needs of our people more effective than could nationalized industry. Adopting such an approach would demonstrate to other nations that it can work and save taxpayer money in the process. In short, we suggest that America leads the world instead of following someone else's lead. Simply put, this nation does not play follow the leader. Instead, we are the leader, and this legislation flows from that central idea. I yield the balance of my time. |
![]() |
|
| Terrus | 7 Jun 2013, 12:55 AM Post #22 |
![]()
|
Madame Speaker, I request permission to revise and extend my remarks, so as to respond to the reasoned claims made by Senator Thomas. Senator Thomas certainly makes a persuasive argument in favor of this legislation, but I must maintain my view that many of its provisions are likely to reduce not increase efficiency. The Treasury and Commerce Departments. The Treasury Department and Commerce Department do not in fact service similar economic functions. The Treasury Department handles federal finance policy while the Commerce Department handles federal business policy, two areas that are entirely different. The Treasury Department's work largely relates to the internal operations of the federal government -- the collection of revenue, the expenditure of funds, the management of the debt. The Commerce Department's work largely relates to business -- the stimulus of economic growth, the regulation of business functions, etcetera. Treasury and Commerce are kept separate because these two portfolios do not at all relate to each other. Congressman Thomas suggests there is empirical evidence supporting the merger of the Treasury and Commerce Departments, yet I can find none besides a report by the wildly conservative Heritage Foundation. While I certainly respect those that work for Heritage, I simply cannot regard as reliable the reports of a group that's issued so many factually deficient reports. Source work aside, the proposal to merge Treasury with Commerce seems to yield from a belief that these two departments handle similar "economic," matters, but I must stress again that this is not the case. Treasury handles finance; Commerce handles business. The two are as different as agriculture and defense. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Congressman Thomas argues that transferring the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to the Interior Department would "expand that Department's agenda to include not only Federal lands, but also scientific data and research." I take issue with this statement, and this proposal, for two reasons. First, I see no reason to expand the Department of the Interior to manage the numerous functions performed by the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration. The Interior Department performs work completely different from the NOAA; transferring the NOAA to Interior makes little sense as such. By contrast, the NOAA performs work very similar to the rest of the Commerce Department as it promotes commerce by providing important information to pilots, mariners, and government agencies. Second, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration manages a portfolio that includes scientific research, but that also includes a number of other functions. Those arguing to shift the NOAA out of Commerce might think that makes sense based off the incorrect belief that the NOAA is primarily a research group. But in reality, the NOAA performs scientific research for a specific purpose: to enable commerce. We're not talking about theoretical inquiries here -- we're talking about tracking storms, currents, and other issues very relevant to the doing of business. The Commerce Department's mission is to promote commerce; the NOAA's mission is to promote commerce. The NOAA's placement under Commerce seems highly rational to me as such. Program Eliminations. Congressman Thomas turns to the "straw man," here when he argues against a non-existant claim that federal agencies ought never be eliminated. I never made any such suggestion, nor made any argument at all similar to such a suggestion, and I fail to see how the Congressman's argument relates to my comments as such. Yet the Congressman's greatest error comes in his assumption that every "department is adequately meeting the function for which it was created." In reality, many agencies lack the resources to achieve the goals laid out for them, thanks to the commitment to budget-cutting here in Washington. I certainly support combining duplicative agencies, and cutting their budgets to make up for administrative savings, but just because there are two agencies trying to solve the same problem doesn't mean the problem is being solved two times over. Cutting Funding for Trade Development. Congressman Thomas suggests that funding for federal trade programs needs to be halved simply because the nation is facing tough economic times, yet this logic is incredibly flawed. Federal trade programs increase trade, which increases economic growth, so by cutting these programs, we are not actually helping anyone, but rather, we are hurting the American people by deterring economic growth. More to the point, the existence of funding does not justify reductions in funding, and the Congressman fails to make any reasoned argument for cutting funding to these agencies. Additionally, the Congressman fails to address my other criticism, which is that many of these agencies perform very different functions and should be separate for a reason. Merging Statistical Agencies. Congressman Thomas argues that merging statistical agencies will yield greater efficiency, yet he fails to address my key counter-argument, that the various statistical agencies of the federal government perform incredibly different work. Combining these agencies will just force a single director to attempt to manage incredibly different portfolios -- in fact, it'd likely only increase waste because at the end of the day, the overall director would just be an unnecessary bureaucrat overseeing subsidiary units that continue to operate as they did before the merger. Congress Thomas suggests that this proposed merger is taken from academia, which I find humorous, given how much Republicans like to attack academia. Politics aside, as an academic, I can tell you that's completely untrue. The Public Policy Department where I worked was not under the same roof as the Engineering Department, which was not under the same roof as the English Department, because our University's President recognized that our departments performed incredibly different work. Combining us all into one unit wouldn't have made sense -- and neither does combining all of these statistical agencies. Office of Technical Assistance. Congressman Thomas finally argues that the Office of Technical Assistance ought to be eliminated because the various functions it performs now are completely different than the various functions it was designed to perform. Yet he makes no provision for whom should perform the functions presently performed by the Office of Technical Assistance, and he does not discuss the fact that the OTA still performs the work it was originally designed to perform. Agencies evolve at times to take on new missions. The CIA today operates drones and special operations teams, something it wasn't conceived to do. I don't think that justifies eliminating it -- and I don't think the arguments presented today justify the elimination of the OTA. I yield. |
![]() |
|
| tal | 7 Jun 2013, 04:19 PM Post #23 |
![]()
Old Man In The Mountain
|
Madam Speaker, The gentleman from Michigan makes a great deal of sense in his responses to this legislation. I myself would tend to agree that this legislation would not in fact realize its very good intentions. We need to make government more efficient, more open, more accountable. However, I do not believe that merging or slashing programs should be done without very careful consideration and planning. Despite the justifications offered by my colleagues for these changes I do not see enough merit in this legislation to have it gain my support at this time. I yield the balance of my time. |
![]() |
|
| Damien Andrews | 8 Jun 2013, 05:11 PM Post #24 |
|
Madame Speaker, I applaud the Gentleman from New Hampshire's comments because they are correct. The good intentions of this legislation are true. All legislation has good intentions. But the actual legislation does nothing to meet those good intentions, instead it will just put more strain on our unemployment system and it will be the fault of the members of this body. I yield |
![]() |
|
| Melissa Sanchez | 8 Jun 2013, 09:55 PM Post #25 |
|
Madam Speaker, I also rise to support the remarks by the Gentleman from Michigan, as well as to add a historic context. The Department of Commerce was created in 1913 out of the Department of Commerce and Labor. Its stated purpose is to "promote job creation and improved living standards for all Americans by creating an infrastructure that promotes economic growth, technological competitiveness, and sustainable development". None of this falls within the prevue of the Department of the Treasury. While I am supportive of bringing the government's income sheet into balance, I would ask the author of the bill to return with it to his desk and make some major revisions, beginning with where the various departments move to, and why they exist. I yield the balance of my time. |
![]() |
|
| Heather Holson | 9 Jun 2013, 06:09 PM Post #26 |
![]()
|
Debate has ended. Bill shall be moved to a vote. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · House Debate Archives · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
4:19 PM Jul 11
|
Theme by Sith of the ZBTZ








4:19 PM Jul 11