NEW BOARD LINK, GO TO THIS LINK FOR THE CURRENT GAME: http://virtualamerica.ipbhost.com
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!

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
HR 45 Efficient Government Act
Topic Started: 5 Jun 2013, 10:58 AM (200 Views)
Heather Holson
Member Avatar

48 hours for debate.

Quote:
 
Congressman Peter J. Lucas and Senator Andrea Martinez, for themselves, Congressman Richard Williams, Congressman Patrick Callaghan, Congressman Carson Luke, Congressman Patrick Callaghan, Congressman Jacob Miller, Senator Sarah Brushbeck and the Republican Party, submits

A BILL to consolidate the functions of the Federal Government by merging departments, abolishing duplicative programs, tackle fraud of federal programs, and for other and connected purposes

BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled as Follows

Section 1 Findings

(1) Wildlife is regulated at present by the Department of the Interior, except in the sea where it is regulated by the Department of Commerce. This leads to unnecessary duplication of effort.

(2) Responsibility for weather and geological satellite programs is split at present between NASA and NOAA, causing inefficiency and a lack of coordination of activities.

(3) Disaster relief is largely administered by FEMA, except for fisheries disaster relief which is handled by the Department of Commerce.

(4) The Government is presently funding both the commissioning of additional fishing vessels and a reduction in the size of America’s fishing fleet.

(5) Government programs including the Capital Construction Fund Program and the Fisheries Finance Program have contributed to an over-capitalization of America’s fishing fleet.

(6) Funds appropriated under the Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program have been largely misused in recent years to supplement NOAA’s general spending.

(7) The National Marine Aquaculture Initiative Sea Grants Program duplicates the USDA‘s Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), as well as NOAA Habitat Conservation Grants, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife‘s National Fish Hatchery System and other programs.

(8) A 2007 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that there is “little need” for the Technology Innovation Program, which is largely spent on subsidizing fortune 500 companies.

(9) The Economic Development Administration duplicates efforts of at least 80 other federal programs and has repeatedly been criticized by the GAO for poor oversight of grant spending and a lack of management of outcomes.

(10) The Minority Business Development Agency duplicates the efforts of a number of other Government agencies, is inefficient with just one third of its budget spent on grant funding and has been repeatedly unable to demonstrate successful outcomes.

(11) Numerous statistical and trade agencies are maintained throughout the Federal Government, costing some $700 million a year more than a single trade and a single statistical agency would cost. Amalgamations would also lead to better integration of functions and thus an improved, focused approach by the combined agencies.

(12) The overall integration of the Department of Commerce into the U.S. Treasury will result in vast efficiencies, greater integration of functions and elimination of duplication.

Section 2 Amalgamation

(1) On the appointed day, the Department of Commerce shall become a part of the U.S. Treasury. All related agencies of the Department of Commerce (except if otherwise noted in this Act) shall become agencies of the U.S. Treasury.

(2) The whole Department shall be oversee by the Secretary of the Treasury. The position of Secretary of Commerce shall on the appointed day be abolished and struck from the list of persons able to succeed to the presidency.

(3) On the date this Act is signed into law, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Commerce shall form a temporary committee consisting of themselves, up to 2 relevant under secretaries from each department and up to 3 other appropriate persons employed by each department.

(4) The committee shall formulate plans for the merger, accounting for
(i) staffing requirements and transitional arrangements
(ii) proposals for the elimination of duplicative programs between the two departments, to be submitted to an appropriate congressional committee
(iii) amalgamation of backroom and administrative efforts
(iv) consolidation of office space
(v) and such other factors as seem appropriate.
And shall report on the same to the Secretaries within 12 months of this Act being signed into law.

(5) Upon the report being received, the Secretaries shall arrange for its implementation, to be completed within a further 6 months.

(6) Upon being satisfied that all appropriate arrangements have been made, the Secretary of the Treasury shall designate a day between 7 and 30 days hence as the “appointed day”, on which day sub sections (1) and (2) of this Section have effect.

Section 3 Transfer of Agencies: Exceptions

(1) Responsibility for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) is hereby transferred to the Department of the Interior.

(2) Responsibility for the National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System and the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-R Series are hereby transferred from NOAA to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”).

(3) Responsibility for fisheries disaster relief is transferred from NOAA to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”). Consequently, the NOAA Fisheries Disaster Assistance Program is hereby eliminated.

Section 4 Elimination of Certain Programs existing at the Department of Commerce

(1) The Fisheries Finance Program is hereby eliminated ($69 million a year saving).

(2) The Capital Construction Fund Program is hereby eliminated.

(3) The National Marine Aquaculture Initiative Sea Grants Program is hereby eliminated ($10.8 million a year saving).

(4) The Fishing Capacity Reduction Program is hereby eliminated.

(5) The Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program is hereby eliminated ($104.6 million a year saving).

(6) The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program is hereby eliminated ($125 million a year saving).

(7) The Technology Innovation Program is hereby eliminated ($69.9 million a year saving).

(8) The Economic Development Administration is hereby abolished ($293 million a year saving).

(9) The Minority Business Development Agency is hereby abolished ($31.5 million a year saving).

Section 5 Amalgamation of Trade Related Agencies

(1) The following agencies are hereby amalgamated

(i) The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (Budget $50 million a year)
(ii) The International Trade Administration (Budget $447 million a year)
(iii) The USDA‘s Foreign Agricultural Service (Budget $180 million a year)
(iv) The USDA‘s Market Access Program (Budget $200 million a year)
(v) The Small Business Administration’s Office of International Trade and State Trade and Export Promotion (STEP) Grant Program (Combined Budget $30 million a year)
(vi) The United States Trade and Development Agency (Budget $55.2 million a year)
(vii) The Bureau of Industry and Security (Budget $100 million a year).

(2) Government assistance for the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the Export-Import Bank is terminated.

(3) The new agency shall be known as the “Office for Trade Assistance”. It shall receive a budget of $500 million a year and shall have a Director appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury with the approval of the U.S. Senate.

(4) This Section saves $562.2 million a year.

Section 6 Amalgamation of Statistics Related Agencies

(1) All Federal Government offices devoted to statistics together with the Bureau of the Census shall be amalgamated into the Economic and Statistics Administration.

(2) The new Administration shall have one Director appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury with the approval of the U.S. Senate.

(3) The savings under this Section are $199.4 million per year.

Section 7 Elimination of Programs within the United States Treasury

(1) The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund is hereby abolished ($246.7 million a year saving).

(2) The Office of Technical Assistance is hereby abolished ($25 million a year saving).

Section 8 Treasury Efficiency Measures

(1) The Internal Revenue Service shall implement the recommendations of the Treasury Inspector General’s Office for Tax Administration (“TIGTA”) “Implementing Best Practices and Additional Controls Can Improve Data Center Energy Efficiency and the Environmental and Energy Program”, Reference Number 2010-20-044, May 7, 2010 ($10 million a year saving).

(2) The Bureau of Public Debt and the Financial Management Service shall amalgamate their five IT systems into one system in line with OMB recommendations ($19.2 million a year saving).

Section 9 Savings

The total savings under this Act derived from agency and program amalgamation and elimination and specific efficiency measures is $1,766,300,000.

Section 10 Enactment

This Act shall come into force as follows

(1) Section 2 shall have effect in the manner detailed in that Section.

(2) Sections 3, 5 and 6 shall have effect 6 months after this Act is signed into law.

(3) The remainder of this Act shall have effect 3 months after this Act is signed into law.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Replies:
Daniel Hernandez
Member Avatar
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.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Terrus


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.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
tal
Member Avatar
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.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Damien Andrews
Member Avatar

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
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Melissa Sanchez
Member Avatar

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.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Heather Holson
Member Avatar

Debate has ended. Bill shall be moved to a vote.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · House Debate Archives · Next Topic »
Locked Topic
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2


Theme by Sith of the ZBTZ