Should a balanced budget give the President or
Congress a license to waste tax dollars as long as the budget stays
in balance? Not if they want to heed the intent of the 103rd
Congress, which passed the Government Performance and Results Act
in 1993 to make all federal agencies more responsive and
accountable to the American people. The Results Act requires
federal agencies to submit strategic plans to Congress that clearly
specify their missions and goals. As House Majority Leader Richard
Armey (R-TX) observed, it enables Congress to ask the right
questions: "What's working, what's wasted, what makes any
difference, what's duplicative?"
These now-completed agency plans only
serve to reinforce the concerns of Congress and many Americans that
led to passage of the Results Act. The debut of the federal
agencies' plans so far has been an embarrassing disaster
characterized by a torrent of questionable missions, goals, and
objectives; faulty tools to measure performance; and clear signs of
waste and duplication. Ironically, the plans the agencies
themselves produce for Congress highlight much of their own
mismanagement, waste, and duplication--problems that the
government's own watchdogs, the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) and agency inspectors general (IGs), have been reporting for
years.
A
particularly egregious example of an agency whose own plan
highlights how little it is needed is the Department of Commerce.
On September 30, 1997, the Commerce Department submitted a
five-year strategic plan to Congress. In February 1998, it also
submitted its fiscal year (FY) 1999 performance plan linking
specific performance measures to elements of its FY 1999 budget
request. Representative Armey has
led the congressional effort to grade the quality of these
plans. The Department of
Commerce's final strategic plan was the culmination of four years
of planning, drafts, and revisions; it also ranked dead last,
receiving the worst grade of all the plans--a deplorable 28 out of
100. Its FY 1999 annual performance plan did not do much better; it
scored a miserable 33 out of 100.
Fortunately, at least some Members of
Congress seem willing to question why an agency that clearly is
failing to accomplish any clear purpose or stated mission should
exist at all, let alone receive a funding increase as Commerce
would under the President's budget. Representative John Kasich
(R-OH), Chairman of the House Budget Committee, for example, has
proposed that the Commerce Department be eliminated in FY 1999.
Given the pattern of negative evaluations by the government's own
watchdogs, Congress would be wise to heed Kasich's proposal and
close down the Department of Commerce.
Why the Departement of Commerce Should Be
Eliminated
In
FY 1998, Congress gave the Department of Commerce a 10 percent
budget increase over FY 1997, raising its budget to $4.2 billion
and its staff level to include 35,000 full-time employees. In
return, the Department submitted to Congress a strategic plan that
ranked dead last and an FY 1999 performance plan that ranked 18th
out of 24 plans graded. Yet, in FY 1999, the Commerce Department is
asking Congress to reward its dismal Results Act showing with a
16.7 percent budget hike.
The
Department's unacceptable strategic plan and a succession of
negative GAO and IG reports all clearly indicate that Congress will
simply waste more taxpayer money by continuing to fund this agency.
In 1992, the GAO reported that, according to its own inspector
general, the Department of Commerce had evolved into "a loose
collection of more than 100 programs delivering services to about
1,000 customer bases."
Six years later, nothing has changed. The Results Act reports now
underscore more clearly than ever that the Department of Commerce
suffers from five basic problems: mission creep, wasteful spending,
an inability to design appropriate methods to measure performance,
major management deficiencies, and many expired authorizing
statutes.
REASON #1: Mission Creep and
Program Duplication
In its strategic plan, the Department of Commerce says
that its mission is to "build for the future and promote U.S.
competitiveness"; "keep America competitive with cutting edge
science and technology"; and "provide effective management and
stewardship of our nation's resources."
This broad mission is not unique to Commerce; it applies to many
other government agencies. Indeed, a 1997 GAO report to Congress on
Commerce's draft plan pointed out that the Department shares
"responsibility for major budget functions with 14 other
departments and agencies."
Yet Commerce barely acknowledges that many of its programs
duplicate those of other agencies. Examples of its departmental
mission creep and program duplication include the following:
-
The International Trade
Administration (ITA) is one of at least 19 Cabinet
departments and independent federal agencies responsible for export
promotion and management. In FY 1996, these 19 programs cost
taxpayers some $2.8 billion. ITA's Environmental Technologies
Exports office and the Office of International Programs in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) both aid exporters of
environmental equipment and technology. The efforts of ITA's Energy
Division are duplicated by three agencies within the Department of
Energy. Vice President Albert
Gore's National Performance Review noted that "the duplication and
fragmentation found within the entire federal export bureaucracy is
mirrored within the Commerce Department itself."
-
The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) now wants to address
"societal questions that the U.S. and the world face in air
quality, ozone depletion, greenhouse warming, and climate change"
and "to provide both the science needed for policy decisions and
the information on emerging scientific issues that have policy
relevance." The Administration
requested $7 million in new funding for Commerce in FY 1999, tied
to implementation of its Climate Change Technology
Initiative. In addition, Commerce's
strategic plan includes the mission of managing America's "natural
resources to ensure that the economic benefits of these resources
are available, on a sustainable basis, to the Nation as a
whole." The EPA, the
Departments of the Interior and Energy, and dozens of other
programs have the same objective.
-
The Economic Development
Administration (EDA) is one of at least 62 community and
economic development programs throughout the government. "Because
of the competitive nature of EDA grants," notes the Congressional
Budget Office, "local governments do not incorporate that type of
aid into their budget plans; hence, eliminating future EDA funding
would not impose unexpected hardships on communities." The EDA, in classic
mission creep, now seeks to help the Administration advance its
environmental agenda. One of its objectives is to assist the EPA in
implementing the Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative,
even though it has no distinct functions of its own in this
area.
-
The National Telecommunications
and Information Administration (NTIA) costs over $50
million per year and largely duplicates the work of the Federal
Communications Commission in managing the broadcast spectrum and
the work of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in subsidizing
children's educational programming. NTIA operates a grant program
to promote the use of advanced telecommunications in the public and
nonprofit sectors. Other federal agencies supporting
telecommunications projects for similar constituencies include the
Department of Agriculture, the Department of Education, the
Department of Health and Human Services, and the National Science
Foundation.
-
The Bureau of Export
Administration (BEA) has as its mission the safeguarding
of national security interests by managing and enforcing U.S.
export controls over potentially dangerous "dual use" technologies.
A major 1993 internal report issued jointly by the Inspectors
General of the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, and State
concluded that the duplication of export controls within Commerce
was unnecessary and that the dissipation of responsibility serves
to undermine the management and enforcement of these safeguards.
Currently, at least 13 other federal agencies are charged with
export control responsibilities.
The
GAO review of Commerce's draft strategic plan noted that Commerce
could have done better in addressing program activities that cut
across other agencies and departments. In addition to the examples
listed above, Commerce shares education, training, employment, and
social services responsibilities with the Departments of Education,
Health and Human Services, Interior, and Labor; the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration; the Library of Congress; and
20 independent agencies.
The Department's final strategic plan was no better at addressing
or justifying the rampant duplication that characterizes the
agency.
REASON #2: Wasteful Spending
The Department of Commerce continues to house programs
that are often wasteful, mismanaged, or simply blatant aid to
special interests, including major corporations. For example:
- The Economic Development
Administration's objective of assisting economically
distressed areas under the Public Works and Economic Development
Act of 1965 has evolved into classic budget pork, often targeted to
districts with healthy economies that do not need federal
assistance. According a 1996 Congressional Research Service report,
"when EDA was created, approximately 12% of the Nation was eligible
for aid; estimates now run as high as 90%."
Recent examples of such EDA funding, according to the FY 1995
Federal Assistance Award Data System, include:
-
$45,000 to Spooner, Wisconsin, to
"address the impacts of wood supply disruption during times of
unusual circumstances such as floods";
-
$76,000 to Dallas, Texas, for
"infrastructure improvements in the Farmers Market Area";
-
$2.6 million to the Los Angeles Chamber
of Commerce for "LA trade telecommuting for exports"; and
-
$321,122 to the Economic Development
Consortium in Boston to prepare "12 evaluative research papers that
examine: US economic development policy; public and private sector
involvement; and degrees of responsibility."
-
The Minority Business
Development Agency's main function is to show minority
business how to apply for and receive federal set-aside contracts
under the Small Business Administration's Section 8(a) program. Yet
a 1994 audit found that 70 percent of 8(a) award recipients were
millionaires.
-
The National Marine Fisheries
Service, a $325 million per year agency within NOAA, has
contradictory responsibilities: protecting marine resources and
promoting commercial fishing interests. It spends about $28 million
per year on industry-oriented programs, including $500,000 for the
Hawaii Stock Management Plan, $410,000 for the Fisheries
Cooperative Institute, and $8.5 million for the Washington Crab
License Buy-Back Program.
-
The Advanced Technology
Program spends $200 million per year funding commercial
research and development projects. Many of the largest
beneficiaries of this spending--either as individual recipients or
as partners in joint ventures--are some of America's largest
corporations. According to an MSNBC study of data provided by the
ATP, these corporations and their grants include IBM
($111,279,738); General Motors ($82,134, 245); General Electric
($75,449,636); and Sun Microsystems ($50,113,692). An April 1998
GAO report revealed that 40 percent of the recipients received
funding for projects that would have continued without funding.
Many of those that did not receive funding financed their projects
using only private funds.
REASON #3: Inability to Measure
Performance
When asked to tell Congress how it plans to determine how
well a program is achieving its goals, Commerce, like most other
agencies, seems unable to suggest a suitable method. In Congress's
evaluation of agency FY 1999 performance plans, the Department of
Commerce was given a score of 3 out of a possible 30 points for the
quality of its performance measures. Only the Department of State
and the Social Security Administration received worse scores.
Examples of Commerce's poorly graded objectives and recommended
performance measures include the following:
-
To "[m]atch minority-owned businesses
with domestic and international opportunities," Commerce will
measure "increased numbers and dollar values of contracts awarded
to assisted companies."
It is not clear whether this funding will be directed to minority
millionaires as it has been in the past.
-
To "[p]romote cooperative R&D
ventures to encourage the rapid diffusion of new, enabling
technologies throughout industry sectors," Commerce will measure
"the amount of industry cost sharing commitments." But industries have
bottom-line incentives to diffuse new and enabling technology
rapidly and do not need government enticement.
-
To "[c]haracterize the agents and
processes that force decadal to centennial climate change,"
Commerce will measure "improved understanding of trends and forcing
of greenhouse gases." It is unclear how
"improved understanding" will be defined and measured.
-
To "[o]versee domestic implementation
of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) by the business
community," Commerce will measure the number of "chemical
industrial inspections conducted."
The number of inspections reveals only the level of intrusiveness
needed to enforce the treaty.
-
To "[e]xpand trade law enforcement and
compliance monitoring," Commerce will measure "the dollar value of
collections made by the U. S. Customs Service." Like IRS quotas, the
emphasis will be on imposing more and larger penalties, not problem
solving.
Reason #4: Major Management
Deficiencies
The Department of Commerce Inspector General's report
highlighted a number of serious management problems. For example,
the IG noted that the Department does "a poor job planning,
acquiring, and managing its systems. As a result, there are serious
problems in many of Commerce's major system modernization programs,
and pervasive inefficiency and mismanagement in planning and
purchasing commercial systems and equipment." In addition, the GAO
noted that the agency's draft strategic plan did not account for
the need to "implement a sound financial management system to
ensure that programs are managed efficiently and effectively....
[T]he Department's financial management weaknesses undermine its
ability to generate needed information about program performance
and costs." Other management
problems that go unaddressed in Commerce's plan include:
-
National Weather Service (NWS)
Modernization Efforts
Today, there are more than 300 private companies in the
United States preparing and disseminating weather forecasts to
businesses and the public on a commercial basis. The Department's
IG repeatedly has warned of management problems in NWS's $4.5
billion modernization program.
The IG also identified a number of ways by which the NWS could
streamline operations without diminishing its ability to accomplish
its mission of data collection and emergency warning efforts,
including consolidating and downsizing field structure and
headquarters staff.
-
Modernization of NOAA's
Fleet
Since 1992, NOAA has been implementing a 15-year, $1.9
billion program to modernize its fleet of research vessels and
ships. NOAA's Inspector General has urged repeatedly that it
decommission the fleet and "explore alternatives to agency owned
and operated ships for acquiring marine data for agency
researchers." The IG reported that
NOAA's fleet is clearly more expensive than the available
alternatives, and that its decisions have been based on faulty
assumptions and inaccurate cost data.
REASON #5: Expired Authorizing
Statutes
Commerce's budget proposal for FY 1999 includes
information on "Authorizing Legislation Required for FY
1999." A review of this list
reveals that at least ten laws authorizing various programs have
expired. For example:
-
The Economic Development
Administration's Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965
expired on September 30, 1982;
-
The Bureau of Export Administration's
Export Administration Act of 1979 expired on August 20, 1994;
-
The Office of Technology Policy and the
National Institute of Standards and Technology's American
Technology Preeminence Act of 1991 expired on September 30,
1993;
-
The International Trade
Administration's Export Program Act
expired in 1996; and
-
The Endangered Species Act Amendments
of 1988, Patent and Trademark Authorization Act of 1993, and
Telecommunications Authorization Act of 1992 have all expired.
If
congressional authorizing committees cannot find sufficient
justification for reauthorizing many of the programs in the
Department of Commerce, federal appropriators should not continue
to appropriate taxpayers' money for these programs.
Conclusion
A
Cabinet department reporting directly to the President of the
United States should have a clearly defined mission and should not
function simply as an organizational chart, tying together a loose
collection of agencies. No case has been made that such functions
cannot be performed in the private sector or elsewhere in
government, or that they are more valuable than the budgetary
resources consumed.
The
truth is that if the Department of Commerce was closed down
tomorrow, most Americans would not even notice that it was gone.
Even though some programs now under the Commerce umbrella may be
justifiable, there is no reason to maintain the umbrella itself.
Duplicative program functions could be consolidated with those of
other agencies. The Results Act was intended to trigger decisions
to reshape the federal government. Congress should do so by
eliminating this unnecessary agency.
Angela Antonelli
is former Director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic
Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.