Current Shareware 1994 January/SHAR194.ISO/articles/wh93098b.zip/9-8Q.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-09-08 | 19KB

From [e-mail]  Wed Sep  8 15:36:27 1993
Received: by csd4.csd.uwm.edu; id AA05074; Wed, 8 Sep 93 15:36:27 -0500
Received: from LEX-LUTHOR.AI.MIT.EDU by life.ai.mit.edu (4.1/AI-4.10) for [e-mail] id AA09630; Wed, 8 Sep 93 13:16:14 EDT
Received: from CLINTON.AI.MIT.EDU by LEX-LUTHOR.AI.MIT.EDU via INTERNET with SMTP id 175943; 8 Sep 1993 13:14:04-0400
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Delivered-By-The-Graces-Of: The Clinton-Info Program
Precedence: Bulk
To: [e-mail],
        [e-mail],
        [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1993 13:14-0400
From: The White House <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Remarks by the President & VP at GSA Warehouse  9/8/93
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Status: OR





                           THE WHITE HOUSE

                    Office of the Press Secretary

______________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                          September 8, 1993


                       REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
                          AND VICE PRESIDENT
                            AT REGO EVENT

                            GSA Warehouse
                         Franconia, Virginia



9:28 A.M. EDT


         THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  Thank you very much.
(Applause.)  Thank you very much, Roger.  And I have to say before I
begin that it has been a tremendous pleasure to be able to work with
Roger Johnson in this whole effort.  President Clinton brought a lot
of new talent into the federal government.  And when he persuaded
Roger Johnson to step down as CEO of the Western Digital Corporation
in California and come in to run GSA, he made an outstanding choice.
And Roger has been one of my best, most faithful and valuable allies
in this whole National Performance Review.

         I want to acknowledge, Mr. President, three outstanding
members of Congress who have contributed tremendous ideas on how the
government can work better and cost less.  First of all, Senator
Chuck Robb, from here in Virginia who is with us; Congressman Jim
Moran, whose district we are now located; and Congresswoman Leslie
Byrne -- all three members of Congress who have done an outstanding
job at promoting a more effective and more efficient federal
government.

         Mr. President, I mentioned earlier that the employees at
GSA have come up with a lot of great ideas.  Here in this warehouse
there was one employee sometime back whose child noted that these
styrofoam pellets they were using for insulation in the packing were
not good for the environment and were costing the taxpayers money.
And said, "Hey, what about changing this?"  And this organization was
responsive enough to that child that they eliminated the styrofoam
pellet.  Now they're using used computer paper that works better and
saves the taxpayers money in the process while protecting the
environment. So I just wanted to acknowledge that.  And is the
employee here whose child did that?  They're twins.  Both of them
deserve credit.  What are their names?

         Q      They're twins.

         THE VICE PRESIDENT:  They're twins.  Both of them
deserve credit.

         What are their names?

         Q      Rider and Nicola.  And what's the last name?

         THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Rider and Nicola.  And what's the
last name?

         Q      Hill.

         THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Hill.  And they're sophomores.  So
I just wanted to acknowledge that.  I found so many examples like
that throughout the federal government.

         Mr. President, yesterday we started this effort to
reinvent the federal government to make it work better and cost less.
Today we're zeroing in on the first major target:  procurement.  The
taxpayers spend $200 billion per year purchasing goods and services.
The way these goods and services are purchased now is crazy.  It
doesn't make any sense.  There are 4,500 pages of detailed
regulations that hogtie federal employees and prevent them from using
plain old common sense to save the taxpayers money.  There are 900
different laws on the books that mandate some of those requirements.
There are 142,000 people who work full-time just complying with all
of these requirements and regulations and red tape.  No wonder we
need aspirin.  (Laughter.)

         So these examples that we have looked at are the kinds
of examples that prompted you, Mr. President, to order the National
Performance Review.  All of this is going to change.  And it's going
to change on the basis of ideas that have come from employees who
are, themselves, fed up with the procurement process.  That's the
reason for the National Performance Review.  We've produced a report
that has told us how to create a government that works better and
costs less.  We're going to cut waste, cut red tape, change personnel
rules, end duplication and, of course, streamline procurement.

         I talked about these 4,500 pages of regulations.  We
looked at what some other governments around the world are doing.
Mr. President, in Australia, one of the few places in the world where
reinventing government has been taken seriously, in the place of
those 4,500 pages they have 93 pages in 12 separate easy-to-read
pamphlets that give the employees flexibility and established very
clear, simple guidelines.  That's what we're going to do.  We'll
outline values and goals, we'll encourage innovation and flexibility,
and we'll hold people strictly accountable for the results and for
the money and how it's spent.  Why not do it that way?

         Secondly, we're going to get the bureaucracy out of the
way.  Well over half of our purchases are for relatively small items.
We're going to change the way we buy small items.  And where managers
in the federal government purchase items that are currently wrapped
up in this red tape, we're going to give them the freedom and
flexibility.  We're proposing that when government offices buy items
for under $100,000, that a lot of the current requirements that
mandate this voluminous amount of paperwork that drive bidders out of
the process and raise the price to the taxpayers, that we exempt them
from those requirements.  This will simplify 60 percent of all
procurements and save a great deal of money in the process.

         To give one example, we're going to buy computers before
they're obsolete.  I mentioned a minute ago that the procurement
cycle for computers in the private sector is about 13 months.  It's
49 months in the federal government.  That is ridiculous.  And when
the agencies and offices get their computers, they're already
obsolete.  They're not only obsolete, they're out of date by at least
two generations of products.  They're paying much more, or the
taxpayers are paying much more, and getting much less in return.

         If we make the changes just in the procurement section
of our report alone, we will save the taxpayers $22.5 billion.  And,
Mr. President, some people may not believe this, but the experts on
procurement who have examined these recommendations say this is a
very conservative estimate, and that private sector organizations
that have made similar changes in their procurement practices have
saved much more than the percentage that we are projecting as a
result of these recommendations.

         Now, of course, that's just part of the battle.  We're
going to get rid of outdated subsidies, consolidate duplicate
programs, scrap that 10,000-page personnel code, treat people as
customers for a change, and you know that we have got lots and lots
of hard work ahead.

         But, Mr. President, I want to thank you again for
charting our course, for coming up with the proposal to reinvent
government and for chartering the National Performance Review.  So,
now, I'd like to step back and listen to you on a day when we've
heard about the problems of buying aspirin, exactly how we're going
to cure the headaches of government as it currently operates.

         Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United
States.  (Applause.)

         THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much.  (Applause.)  Mr.
Vice President, Roger, Senator Robb and Congressman Moran,
Congresswoman Byrne, and, most important, to all of you who have
worked so hard here at this center to give the people the government
they deserve.  I want to begin by, once again, thanking the Vice
President for the incredible amount of work that was done by the Vice
President, by his staff, by hundreds and hundreds of volunteers, and
by people like you who gave us the ideas that went into the National
Performance Review report.

         I also want to say to all of you something that you all
know, because you are both public employees and private citizens.  If
we can reform these procurement practices, we can probably do more
there than in any other area of our national life in the short run to
restore the confidence of the American people in their government.
Every taxpaying citizen who goes out in the summertime has bought
insect repellent.  And no rational person could possibly believe that
federal employees need specially designed insect repellent.
Everybody's bought aspirin, everybody's filled out a form they wished
they hadn't filled out, everybody's bought things like folders and
computer tapes.  And at a time when we are now 20 years -- 20 years
into a period in our history where most American wage earners are
working longer work weeks for stagnant wages, it is outrageous for
the government to have rules and regulations which take those
people's money from them and spend it on things that cannot be
justified.  (Applause.)

         You heard the Vice President say some of these things.
But our government employs 142,000 people in the procurement system
alone.  We know we have 900 detailed procurement laws, and we're
going to ask the Congress to change a lot of that.  I've asked myself
many times, as I've heard these stories from coast to coast, how this
occurred.  And I think there are many reasons.

         I was out the other day in a particularly wrenching
encounter in Alameda, California at the naval station there, which is
one of the military facilities that's going to be closed in the base
closings.  And I talked to this man who had been an enlisted person
in the Navy for 19 years, raised a family as a Navy enlisted person.
He said, "Look, I hope I can stay.  But," he said, "I'll tell you one
thing.  I just tried to buy a personal computer for our operations,"
and he said, "thank the Lord we had some sort of waiver, because," he
said, "under the rules and regulations, I was going to spend $4,500
on a computer that had half of the capacity that I got for $2,200 at
the local store where people buy their computers."  And he said, "You
know, if you're going to ask people like me to leave the Armed
Services because we have to cut back the defense budget, people who
are willing to serve and willing to put their lives on the line, it
is wrong to do that and keep spending twice as much for computers
with half the capacity."  (Applause.)  The American people know this.

         I think there are a lot of reasons why this happens over
time.  Number one, government rule writers never made a distinction
between a very specialized product that was made only for the
government, like a bomber, for example, and insect repellant.  You
have to have rules for both.  Number two, the distribution system in
America has changed dramatically so that ordinary Americans can now
access economies of scale because of discount distribution centers
for items small- and medium-sized.  That was not true 10 years ago.
Number three, there's no way rule-making can keep up with technology
cycles.  The Vice President mentioned that as it relates to
computers.

         And, finally -- and this is the most important thing of
all, I think, because this pervades everything we're trying to do --
we spend too much time in government, in my judgment, trying to keep
bad things from happening with rules and regulations that eventually
prohibit sensible public employees from making good things happen.
If you spend all your time trying to keep something bad from
happening -- (applause) -- now, I want to make it clear what we're
talking about here.  I'm not talking about a system with no
accountability.  I'm not talking about what happens when we change
all the financial rules affecting S&Ls and then had no
accountability, so we got what was predictable.

         There was a middle ground.  We didn't have to
overregulate them to death.  We don't want to overlearn the lessons
of that.  We're not talking about what happened in the scandals in
the Housing and Urban Development Department where there was no
oversight and accountability of what was actually being done, but
that is different from trying to micromanage and superregulate every
decision that you and every other public employee makes before he or
she makes it.

         And one of the things that I hope very much that the
Vice President and I will be able to communicate through the national
media to the American people is that we're going to have to give our
public employees some more elbow room to make sensible decisions to
save people money, and yet, hold them accountable so that if errors
are made, they're pointed out.  If somebody does something dishonest,
it's found out.  But we are now paying far more for the system of
protecting ourselves from things than we ever would by the occasional
mistake that will be made by an honest, creative public employee.
         There are all kinds of accountability systems that can
be built in out there that still don't strangle people when they go
to work every day.  That is what we are committed to.  I think it
will make it more fun to work for the federal government. I think it
will be more exciting for people to get up and go to work every day
knowing that they have the capacity to treat the dollars within their
control, given to them by hardworking taxpayers, the same way the
taxpayers would their own money in their own purchases in their own
homes and businesses.  That is our objective, and we are determined
to achieve it.  (Applause.)

         The other thing I want to say to you is that this rule-
making problem is not just a problem in procurement.  For example,
you know that diabetics can have trouble with circulation and
sometimes that can result in an amputation of the limb.  It's
shocking, but a veteran with diabetes in some cases can't qualify for
a special shoe that would help the circulation and maybe even save
his foot from an amputation, but he would qualify for an artificial
limb; and, by the way, the cost of the surgery.  Now, which costs
more?  What makes more sense?  Nobody ever did this on purpose.  But
the failure to analyze this, the fact that our government has
basically been unexamined for so long, has led to thousands and
thousands of examples which cannot be defended.  We just want to make
sense out of this.  We want to modernize this system so that you can
take advantage of the best products, the best technology, the best
pricing.  We want you to be able to decide to buy Off so you won't go
buggy when you need insect repellant.  (Laughter.)

         I also want to say that I'm very grateful to those of
you who helped us get this far, and I'd like to ask you to help us
one more step.  I'd like -- in the appropriate way, Mr. Johnson will
be testifying before committees of Congress.  But I think, as
citizens, anything any of you can do, just write and say, "Look, this
is our life.  We know how this works.  And we want to change it.  And
we can be trusted to make a lot of these decisions.  And there are
also easily-establishable accountability systems so that if we make a
mistake it can be corrected."

         When I was in the campaign last year, I often quoted a
line my wife read to me from a psychology book, which is that
insanity was doing the same thing over and over and over again and
expecting a different result.  (Laughter.)  Well, we're trying to
stop doing the same thing over and over again.  We believe we can do
better by our people.  We believe we can do better by our public
employees.  Our responsibility, I know, is to take the knowledge that
you have given to the Vice President and to the National Performance
Review and change the way government works.  In the process, change
the way we spend the taxpayers' money, and change the way we impact
on people.

         I will end where I began.  The central tenet of every
democracy in the end is trust.  It's trust.  When people elect
members of Congress and presidents and empower them to establish
institutions like the GSA, what they are basically saying is, there
is no way in the world I can do all this for myself.  And I certainly
can't make all these decisions, so just for the privilege of having a
check at election time, I trust you to make these decisions in the
meanwhile.

         That's what this is all about.  And I've said more and
more, we have all kinds of deficits in our country.  We've got a
budget deficit; we've got an investment deficit; we have a
performance deficit and that has led to a trust deficit.  The
profound sense of alienation so many people feel in our country has
got to be healed, because we've got to do a lot of things to get
America into the 21st century, to restore a sense of opportunity, to
be able to create jobs and to be able to support incomes again that
justify the hard work people do.  And that no society will be able to
do it unless there is a real partnership  between government and
people in their private lives.  And a partnership, whether it's a
marriage, a business, or a government-private partnership requires
trust.

         So in the end, this is about more than dollars, it's
about more than the pain of filling out those forms.  It's even about
more than making you happier and more productive on the job.  It is
about whether together we can restore the trust of the American
people in their government so that we can move on to these large
tasks that we have to embrace to make the changes that are going on
in the world friendly rather than dangerous for the American people.

         I do not think you can underestimate the importance of
the work that you and I are engaged in.  Because if we can
reestablish that trust, we can regenerate opportunity, we can restore
a sense of community in this country, we can make other people
willing to take responsibility for their own actions because we are
doing it and we are setting an example.  This is a big, big thing.
We must do it together.

         And I thank you for your contribution to this important
effort.  Thank you very much.  (Applause.)


                                 END9:48 A.M. EDT