propriations, and we have about 35,000 full-time equivalent employees. It is not a lot of money in the total Federal budget, but it is a lot of money in many respects; and it is a lot of employees. But the more important thing is that we represent on this subcommittee one-third of the branches of Government the legislative branch. And that one-third is a very, very significant responsibility. I won't get into the details of the figures that we will be dealing with. Perhaps simply to say that about one-half of the $2.4 billion is in the operation of the Congress itself, the House and the Senate, and the other one-half is for the support agencies that work with the Congress. It is those support agencies that we are going to hear about today to try to get additional information to help as we begin the process of reviewing the budgets of each of those support agencies.

We have several witnesses that will be with us today, participating in our hearing, and they include the former member of President Reagan's Cabinet who served as the Director and Deputy Director of OMB. He will be our first witness, Mr. Joseph R. Wright, a man of great experience and one of great insight and we look forward to his testimony.

We have two former Public Printers, one is now a publisher and television executive, the Honorable Danford Sawyer, the other is the Honorable John J. Boyle, who has also had extensive experience in electronic printing technology, a technology that we certainly are going to consider moving on toward.

The professor of science and technology at the Institute of Public Policy at George Mason University, Dr. Chris Hill. A former head of the Federal Building Service and now a business executive and consultant, Mr. Dick Haase. Then we have the senior facilities management official at the Pentagon who is in charge of the National Capital Region, Mr. L.W. Freeman; and three scholars at local private think tanks who have researched and written extensively in the field that we are dealing with, Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, Thomas Schatz from Citizens Against Government Waste, and David Mason of the Heritage Foundation.

Also we have an information industry consultant and former senior policy analyst for the Office of Management and Budget, Dr. Tim Sprehe. We have divided these witnesses into four panels. Our first panel will be Mr. Wright himself.

We are extremely grateful to have you with us, Mr. Wright. We look forward to hearing your testimony and then we will open things up for questions afterward.

Incidentally, I should mention to all of the witnesses that are here, we have received your written testimony. We either have or will be reading it carefully, and it will be in the record. We would appreciate perhaps no more than 5 minutes of verbal testimony that would help reinforce what you have given us in writing. So with that, Mr. Wright, we would be pleased to hear from you.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH R. WRIGHT, JR.

Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Packard and Chairman Mack, I appreciate this opportunity and I will submit

my testimony for the record. And I will hold my comments to 5 minutes.

I must say that this is a unique experience for me because while Deputy Director and Director of OMB, I was never asked before to testify to the Congress on its budget. As a matter of fact, if I would have, it probably would have been a career shortener. And so, therefore, even though I have more gray hair right now, I appreciate the opportunity.

Let me reinforce a little bit about what some of the members of the committee have already stated.

I believe that this committee is taking an extremely important step, not only from the prospect of saving money for the taxpayers, but also from the prospect of setting an example to the entire rest of the Government as you go through your downsizing and your restructuring exercise. It is vital that this be done.

I would consider the exercise you are going through to be similar to that of a board of directors of a corporation who is asking the corporation to make substantial cuts in all of its operations and then it just purchased a couple of new airplanes for its own use. And so, therefore, the steps that you are taking to set the example, as I said in my testimony, I applaud and will be supportive in any way that I can.

Specifically, I believe that Senators Domenici and Mack put together a good package of recommendations, and to cut it short, I would just say that, Senator Mack, I go along with those recommendations, particularly those on the staffing at the administrative support agencies, and I will not get into any of the other parts, because as far as I am concerned, that really is the Congress' business and the way you conduct business.

I would like to add a few comments, and that is on page 4. I mention that you might also take a look at the recommendations from Congressmen Schaefer and Penny in 1994, and those of Congressman Penny and Kasich in 1993. There were some that they included, particularly, for example, on franking, on CBO and, on the Government Printing Office that were not included, Senator Mack, in your task force recommendations.

Beyond that, I notice that I did not include anything on the Government Printing Office on contracting and eliminating some of the services that they have got in privatization. Mr. Taylor, I think you mentioned this. I totally support that. The Library of Congress, I notice, was not included in there, and I would suggest that the committee do take a look at the Library from the standpoint of user fees and also the Copyright Office, being separated from the Patent and Trademark Office. I notice the Architect of the Capitol was also absent in any recommendations, and I see tremendous opportunities for privatization with the Architect.

Beyond that, I would say that I think there is going to be real savings that can be generated, not only in the Congress, but also from the entire rest of the Federal Government. But I believe it has been mentioned before, you have to change the way you to do business, not just work around the fringes, and you have an opportunity driven from the Congress rather than the executive branch to make some fundamental changes in this area.

I see no reason to make offices and committees that are not needed more efficient. I see absolutely no reason to make reports and studies that are not required faster and more accurate, and I see no reason to streamline duplication where duplication should be eliminated. I have a statement on page 5 where I was talking about the administration's reinventing Government exercise. I call it a redecorating effort. And the only reason I did that, Mr. Chairman, was because of the fact that we now in the Federal Government have a house that from a performance role and a cost point of view is falling down. It is not the time to start a repainting exercise.

PREPARED STATEMENT

And so, therefore, I think you have an opportunity to set the example for major structural changes. And I am happy to be a witness to start off your hearings. I wish you all the best of luck in this exercise. It is very important.

Thank you, sir.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH R. WRIGHT, JR.

Messrs. Chairmen and members of the Legislative Appropriations Subcommittee: I am pleased to be with you today to discuss reducing the size, and hopefully the scope, of those agencies that currently support the Legislative Branch of our Federal Government.

First of all, I applaud you for this effort. The "downsizing" of the Federal Government must start here, because if this new Congress is truly serious about reducing the size and role of the entire Federal Government, with its annual budget of $1.5 trillion, annual deficit of $180-200 billion and debt of $4.9 trillion then you are correct to begin by setting the example by getting your own "house in order." Several good steps have already been taken as the Congress begins passing the first proposals of the "Contract with America" package including congressional accountability, unfunded mandates and a balanced budget amendment. But now the appropriation process begins.

This new "leadership" from the Congress in reducing government and the Legislative Branch is long overdue. A New York Times article entitled the “Imperial Congress" last year stated that Congress has overstepped its proper size and authority and "legislated itself into a position of independent power ✦✦✦ creating enough committees and subcommittees (more than 100 in the Senate; almost 150 in the House) so that virtually every Senator and most Representatives can have a senior position * * * increased its work force from about 22,000 in 1960 to 37,000 today, giving each member plenty of jobs to fill. Personal staffs of House members have jumped from 2,500 in 1960 to more than 7,000 in 1992; in the Senate personal staffs have more than tripled, from 1,200 in 1960 to more than 4,000 in 1992." As a result legislative costs and budgets have escalated beyond those that are prudent and appropriate and Congress has probably taken on a list of powers and responsibilities that are properly those of the Executive Branch.

Funding (outlays) for the Legislative Branch in 1962 was $196 million and grew to almost $2.5 billion in 1995-an increase of 13 times in 33 years. And the President's budget (fiscal year 1995) proposals last year estimated that this number would increase to $2.7 billion by 1999. Congressman Cox stated the other day on the floor of the House that since 1947, legislative branch funding has grown at a rate that is six times inflation and he stated: "There is just no excuse." I agree.

Of the $2.5 billion budget for the entire Legislative Branch in 1995, $1.14 billion or almost 46 percent is spent on "legislative support agencies" which include the following: Office of Technology Assessment; Congressional Budget Office; Architect of the Capitol; Government Printing Office; Library of Congress-Excluding Congressional Research Service; and the General Accounting Office.

If all legislative support is included, I understand the spending level for the Legislative Branch is actually $2.9 billion in 1995 and is projected to grow to $3.4 billion by 1999!

There currently are actions that can, and should, be taken to substantially reduce these expenses as part of an overall cost reduction program in the Congress. As a start, I strongly support the recommendations that were proposed recently by the "Working Group on Congressional Reform" led by Senators Domenici and Mack. As you know, many of these proposals are two years old and were part of the recommendations made by the "Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress" cochaired by Senators Domenici and Boren in 1993. I attach a copy of the recent recommendations for reference.

While I will not comment directly on the proposals to streamline the committee structure, budget process, and floor procedures-I believe they all go in the right direction. My comments on the Staffing, Administration and Support Agencies are as follows:

-Recommendations 10-13:1 agree on the reductions in offices and committees but believe there should be a further review on actually eliminating or combining unnecessary offices-rather than simply reducing them 12.5-15 percent. -Recommendations 14-19:1 also agree but would suggest that the following recommendations made by Congressmen Schaefer and Penny in "The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1994" be considered:

Recommendation

Reduce congressional franking by 50 percent

Eliminate the Joint Committee on Printing and the Joint Economic
Committee....

Reduce CBO funding by 10 percent

Reduce Architect of the Capitol funding by 10 percent

Five-year savings

$100,000,000

26,000,000

11,000,000

50,000,000

I would further support many of the proposals included in "A Common Cents Plan" by Congressmen Penny and John Kasich in 1993. There is simply too much duplication in the legislative support agencies. Congressman Taylor stated recently on the House floor: "** *if one wants information in taxation and economic matters, one can go to the CRS that has 875 employees, one can go to the Congressional Budget Office that has hundreds of employees, one can go to the Government Accounting Office and ask for a study that has thousands of employees, one can go to the Joint Economic Committee and ask for a study, one can go to the staff on the Committee on the Budget and ask for that, one can go to the staff on the Committee on Ways and Means and ask for that one, one can go to the Senate Finance Committee for their staff and ask for that, one can go to the Committee on the Budget in the Senate and ask for that ***"

I agree with Mr. Taylor. This duplication of effort (which occurs in the Executive Branch on a much larger scale) has to be substantially reduced. It's grown out of control.

In addition, I believe that most, if not all, of the activities of the Government Printing Office which spent $122 million this year should be contracted out after a careful and critical review to reduce and eliminate any unnecessary publications. There is no reason for the Federal Government to conduct such an obvious private sector activity. I would further suggest that the Congress look for other "privatization" opportunities such as administrative processing (voucher, payroll, financial, etc.), banking, auditing, security services, facilities, etc., etc. Again, you could be setting a very important example for the Executive Branch that resists any privatization efforts. And as President Ronald Reagan said in his early career: “Government tends to grow; government programs take on weight and momentum * * * but the truth is that outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector * *.” I agree—but it's tough to get the government agencies to "let go."

In summary, the Administration has set, as a high priority, the "Reinventing Government" initiatives. While many of their efforts are well founded, they should first "De-invent the Government" back to its proper size and role before trying to make it work better. Why try to make a prehistoric, outmoded, overweight dinosaur run faster when you should have a smaller greyhound? Dramatic structural change is required-not simple rewiring, renovating, or redecorating.

So I again applaud the efforts and leadership of these two appropriations subcommittees and the Congress at this time in this area and will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE WORKING GROUP ON CONGRESSIONAL REFORM

A. Committee Structure

Recommendation No. 1.-Senators should serve on no more than two (2) "A" Committees and one (1) "B" Committee.

The Majority and Minority Leaders may make assignment adjustments to reflect party ratios, resignations, deaths, etc.

Recommendation No. 2.-Waivers granted for the 104th Congress should not be

affected.

Recommendation No. 3.-Each "A" Committee-with the exception of the Committee on Appropriations should be limited to no more than five (5) subcommittees in the 104th Congress. (The Majority Leader may grant a Committee's petition that it would seriously impair the petitioning committee's ability to perform its function with fewer than six (6) subcommittees.)

Recommendation No. 4.-Each "A" Committee-with the exception of the Committee on Appropriations should be limited to no more than four (4) subcommittees in the 105th Congress.

Recommendation No. 5.-Each "B" Committee should be limited to no more than two (2) subcommittees. Senators shall serve on no more than one (1) such subcommittee.

Recommendation No. 6.-A committee should be abolished and its jurisdiction transferred by the Rules Committee to other standing committees if, as a result of these assignment limitations, it falls to less than 50 percent of both its majority and minority membership as of the 102nd Congress.

Recommendation No. 7.-Effective this Congress, the Joint Committees on Printing, Library, Taxation, and the Joint Economic Committee should be abolished, with their respective responsibilities and appropriate resources transferred by the Rules Committee to the relevant Senate Committees and the Congressional Budget Office. Recommendation No. 8.-Senate committees, other than Appropriations and Budget, should develop schedules to meet only on certain days to avoid overlap. This rule should be waived only in extraordinary circumstances where time is of the es

sence.

Recommendation No. 9.-Proxy votes should not be permitted to affect the outcome of any vote in full committee.

B. Staffing, Administration and Support Agencies

Recommendation No. 10.-The 1995 Committee Funding Resolution should be reduced by 15 percent from the 1994 Committee Funding Resolution.

The Committee on Rules and Administration should allocate the appropriate resources to reflect the anticipated legislative committee workloads. Additionally, when examining areas of reduction, special consideration should be given to committees that have experienced disproportionate growth over the last decade. Conversely, consideration should also be given to those committees which have not experienced growth.

Recommendation No. 11.-There should be a 12.5 percent reduction in every Leadership, Officer, Conference, Policy and support office. These reductions will be achieved in the fiscal year 1996 Legislative branch appropriations legislation or on a similar vehicle.

Recommendation No. 12.-These offices and their committees of jurisdiction should review their structure and mission with the goal of continued delivery of critical services.

Recommendation No. 13.-The legislative support agencies and joint items constitute 50 percent of the legislative branch appropriation. The appropriate Senate committees and leadership should engage the House in a complete review of each agency with the goal of substantial reductions in staff and budgets while maintaining the delivery of core and statutory services.

Recommendation No. 14.-The Government Accounting Office (GAO) should be reduced by at least 25 percent.

Recommendation No. 15.-The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) should be

abolished.

Recommendation No. 16.-The permanent authorization for the GAO, GPO, CBO, and CRS ("instrumentalities") should be repealed; the Congress should instead enact authorizations of eight (8) years for each instrumentality.

Recommendation No. 17.-The instrumentalities should institute a cost accounting system to detail the cost of providing services to each Senator and Senate committee.

Recommendation No. 18.-The instrumentalities and the relevant committees of jurisdiction should examine the feasibility of establishing a voucher system for the committee's use of the services of such instrumentalities.

Recommendation No. 19.-Detailees for the instrumentalities to Senate committees and Senators offices should be on a reimbursable basis.