Judy Miller: 
From Washington, D.C., National Public Radio now presents another program in our continuing series of national town meetings. I'm Judy Miller at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, where today's topic is reorganizing the federal government. The guest speakers are Bert Lance, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Robert Dole, Republican Senator from Kansas. And now, here is the moderator for today's national town meeting, Ann Compton of ABC News. 

Ann Compton: 
Welcome to National Town Meeting. The new administration has just passed its 100 days mark, so perhaps it's appropriate that today is the 100th national town meeting, and today we will be tackling a subject that would be complicated enough at a small town meeting. But reorganization of the federal government is something that is staggering at the national level. There's probably no other campaign promise that President Carter made that is as well remembered or as formidable as his pledge to streamline the federal bureaucracy. It won't be simple to simplify a form of government which for 200 years has been growing by quantum leaps. We could not have any two finer guests than we do today. When Jimmy Carter promised to tame the bureaucracy in Washington, just as he did in Atlanta, he imported a unique Georgia commodity, Thomas Bertram Lance. He was the official in Governor Carter's state cabinet, who managed the reorganization there. Here in Washington, he is doing that responsibility and shouldering the burden of managing the President's Office of Budget. Along with his other duties, he has become known, his reputation among reporters at least, has been one of openness, accessibility, candor, and as an aside, a delightful person as well. I will use those identical adjectives to describe Senator Robert Dole of Kansas out of honesty, not out of fairness. I traveled with him briefly last year and during the 1976 campaign when he was the Republican nominee for vice president. I can't think of a better man to cover. He's been in Congress since 1961, the House for four terms, He's now into his second term as Senator. His biography reflects the diverse interests he has in Congress, including election reform, small businesses, revenue sharing, consumer protection, food stamps, and the handicapped. It is your turn to ask questions of these panelists, as soon as each one makes an opening statement, and we’d like to start with Mr. Lance. 

Bert Lance: 
Thank you very much, Ann. First of all, I'm delighted to have this opportunity to appear with Senator Dole and talk about briefly the question of reorganization of the executive branch of government. As Ann has already said, this was a major campaign commitment of President Carter. It's something, in my opinion, and certainly in his opinion, whose time has come from a standpoint of really doing something about the problem. He asked the Congress for the same sort of legislation authority that had been given to every president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to reorganize the executive branch of government. The Congress was very quick in giving that sort of authority to the President, and we have been at work since that time, really getting mobilized to begin the awesome task of reorganizing the executive branch of government. It's a big job; it's one that will be difficult in many instances because we will take a look at all aspects of the government. In many instances, we will recommend very drastic changes. We're going to make sure that nobody loses their job as a result of reorganization, but that in the end, after all is said and done, and the Congress exerts its will, which we have to supply the plans of reorganization back to them for their action, then we will hopefully have an executive branch of government that is more effective, more responsive, more efficient. And certainly will be able to take care of the needs of the American people. This is what government is all about, and as I said a minute ago, I think this is something that we now have to deal with and deal with very straightforwardly, very candidly, and make sure that we are able to successfully reorganize the executive branch of government. [applause]

Ann Compton: 
Senator Dole. 

Senator Bob Dole: 
Thank you very much, Ann. I first want to thank the national town meeting for this opportunity to discuss with a good friend, a short-term friend; we hope to become better acquainted in the next, I hope, four years, you may have other plans. [audience laughter]. The topic, of course, is government reorganization and we could, we were saying just a moment ago we could spend an hour on energy alone and never even touch it. We could talk about the need for government reorganization and never really explain it. And so, in the limited time we have, I think we have to focus on one or two or three items. Are we talking about managerial efficiency where we don't reduce the size of government, or are we talking about reorganization that would bring down the size and the cost of government? Now that's how I understood the campaign statements of candidate Carter last year and hopefully that's how they'll be interpreted in the legislation sent to the Congress. And I have to say, as a member of Congress, we have to accept a large share of the blame for the problems we have now in government. We keep layering one program on top of another, as Mr. Lance well knows, and I know he must be frustrated by the efforts of Congress sometime. In fact, I just left a Committee on Agriculture meeting where we finished the farm bill, and the last amendment offered on a farm bill was a $20 million authorization to study solar energy. Now, if we're going to fragment the energy program into every committee, and of course we're talking about solar energy as it deals with agriculture, so we can justify it. And I only raise that because it indicates the difficult problem we have in reorganization. So, I would guess that it's going to be painful. Try to tame government and reduce government, make it more responsive, more efficient, but hopefully at less cost. If it's just shifting around boxes and throwing out advisory committees that never meet in any event, that isn't reorganization. And I just, I have confidence in President Carter and certainly have confidence in Mr. Lance who will be responsible for re-organization, and in the Congress I have some confidence. [audience laughter]. And hopefully, we'll get the job done. [applause]

Ann Compton: 
All right, now it's your turn. They've made their opening statements; they are fair game. And taking a reporter’s prerogative, I get to ask the first question, while all of you line up at the microphones and pass your questions forward. I'd like to address my question to Mr. Lance, whom I've covered now since I first met him down in Atlanta and Plains a few months ago and first discovered that he would be the master game planner for government reorganization for President Carter. Mr. Lance, is it realistic to think that within a four-year term as President the American people can see tangible differences in the federal bureaucracy and feel those differences, streamlining differences, at the local level?

Bert Lance: 
Yes, I think very definitely in a four-year term that we can show tangible evidence in the area of reorganization and making some very, very much needed changes. It takes a long time to be able to plan about reorganization, and I'm sure that under the process that we're going to see much discussion. There is a need for real public awareness and public input, and that's one reason I'm so delighted to have this opportunity this morning, as I'm sure Senator Dole is, to have the reaction of a group of the American people to say to us, ‘this is what we're concerned about in government, this is something we'd like for you to take a look at’ so we can do it and we are going to do it. And I'm sure that the Congress feels that way also, that they feel this need for reorganization and they're going to be a good partner in the process. And I think that's extremely important. 

Ann Compton: 
I'm going to start now with some of that citizen input from the stage right microphone. Could you give us your name and address your question to one of the specific panelists? 

Ward Stewart: 
My name is Ward Stewart. I live in Washington, D.C. and my question is directed to Mr. Lance. One of President Carter's major campaign promises, to which widespread publicity was given throughout the campaign, was for a separate Cabinet Department of Education, apart from the present HEW [Health, Education, and Welfare] complex. My question, and I ask it with all due respect, is when is President Carter going to carry out candidate Carter's campaign promise for a Cabinet Department of Education?

Bert Lance: 
In the overall look at reorganization, we will be looking at all the various cabinet offices and agencies and I do not want to presuppose how to structure an Office of Education or what ought to be done in the overall area of HEW. I think that this is something that we have to take a look at. I understood that his statement was that he would seriously consider the establishment of an Office of Education, that it wasn't a foregone conclusion. If that's not correct, then of course that puts a different sense to it. But in the overall structure of reorganization, we'll be looking at HEW. There's a great deal of thrust that I have seen from comments made by people that we ought to have a separate Office of Education. I'm totally open-minded about the process and think that we ought to let reorganization take its own course in trying to make definite decisions about what we really need to do and what we don't need to do and that's the way we intend to pursue that. 

Ann Compton: 
Senator Dole, do you want to add anything to that? 

Bob Dole:
I don't think so. I didn't make that promise. [laughter]. I do think we all got an education on the last campaign. [laughter].

Ann Compton:
We'll go to our next question now at the stage left microphone, your name? 

Woman:
My name’s [inaudible, Robin Schaffer?], I’m from Chevy Chase, Maryland, and I'd like to ask Senator Dole if it's possible to reduce the size of government at any quicker rate than the natural rate of attrition, since most of the federal government employees are civil service employees that cannot be fired. 

Bob Dole:
No, I don't believe so. I think if you're going to do it, it's going to have to come through attrition. But I think we can, in the long run, reduce the cost and the size of government. And I think perhaps that's where it's going to have to fall. We're going to have to consolidate some agencies and then not try to – every time someone is retires or leave service to replace that person with two others. And I think there is a real feeling in, and I would hope in this group, that right now in the Department of Agriculture, they're about- almost reached a portion of about one-on-one with farmers and federal servants. And I certainly have high regard for the federal employees, but we're going to have to take a look at it. 

Bert Lance:
If I might just make an addition to that comment by the senator. I think that it's important to recognize the fact that when you talk about the attrition problem, that's something that you always have. It runs about 10% of the total number of employees in the executive branch of government on an annual basis. But one of the things that we've already done and we're working on in OMB, the president issued an order to all the cabinet officers and agency heads that they could only fill 3 or 4 vacancies as they occurred after February the 28th, so that imposes a very severe discipline in the ability of the officers and agency heads to employ additional people so that discipline now has taken place. 

Bob Dole:
That, in essence, is a freeze, then, on anything above that?

Bert Lance:
Well, in effect it becomes a ceiling or a freeze, depending on what you want to – what terminology you want to give to it. We are also at the present time, in fact, sometime today or tomorrow I'll be talking with the people in OMB about the new ceiling levels of employees in the executive branch of government, and then we will go ahead and continue. 

Bob Dole:
I don't want to belabor that, but I think just to illustrate to those who may not live here and deal with the bureaucracy, and I know Mr. Lance, of course, has these figures on the tip of his tongue. But I just brought along a – let's just take- community development health illustrates some of the problems and some of the reasons we need reorganization. We have, among the 186 programs which can provide funds for these services for community development, we have 47 are for planning, 23 are for construction, 9 are for historic preservation. The list goes on and on and on. And so I want to support the effort of the President and Mr. Lance and others. It's not a partisan thing we're about to become involved in, it's going to have to be a nonpartisan or bipartisan effort to reshape and restructure government to make it more responsive. And I don't know, you could cite other horrible examples where we have 55 different health programs and you must fill out tons and tons of applications. And so we really have a problem. 

Bert Lance:
Not only is it bipartisan, it's very, very important for us to get the feel of the American people as we go forward because one thing that I'm sure Senator Dole has already learned and it didn't take me but 100 days to learn it, that all the knowledge is not domicile here in Washington, DC, that there are a lot of people out in this country who have good ideas and good thoughts and good suggestions about the way that things ought to be structured. [applause].

Ann Compton:
From stage right, let us take another citizen question, be it partisan or bipartisan. Yes, sir. 

Joseph Condon:
My name is Joseph Condon from Bethesda, Maryland. I'd like to direct my question to Mr. Lance. With respect to zero-based budgeting. About 15 years ago, the management-itis bug hit the dark depths of the Pentagon. Very bad. Ever since then, Parkinson's law has fertilized and nurtured the germ, until now, when we have tier upon tier of management for each facet of each operation. Confronted with zero-based budgeting, no government official will freely constrain or dismember his organization. No government official will tear down a self-aggrandizing monument, which he has built by his blood, sweat, and tears over the years just because he has to re justify it. He can always dream up a good reason why he should have his organization.

Ann Compton:
Do we have a question?

Joseph Condon:
As Newsweek and Readers Digest asked recently,

Ann Compton:
I'm going to interrupt you for just a minute. Excuse me, can I interrupt? [applause].

Joseph Condon:
What will Carter do? 

Ann Compton:
We do need to get to a question. We got a great many people standing behind you, waiting to ask questions.

Joseph Condon:
What will Carter do to repeal Parkinson's law? [laughter].

Ann Compton:
Thank you. 

Bert Lance:
Obviously, zero based budgeting will play a great role in reorganization. I think that you have to have the two of them and one of the things about zero based budgeting, on a very simple basis, is that it causes people throughout government to have to make priority choices and set rankings about functions that they're carrying out. This has not been the case previously. We've had a layering on, as the senator mentioned a minute ago, and we have not had a process where you could really make hard priority choice decisions. And that's one of the ways that we'll deal with the problem of Parkinson's law. 

Ann Compton:
Senator?

Bob Dole:
Well, I think it's going to be very difficult with zero based budgeting. I think you may want to combine it with so-called sunset laws, which in a very hazy way just means that the program- the sun sets on programs every five years. Now somebody's going to come up with a sunrise group of laws one of these days, where they're going to come up every five years, but I think sunset and zero based budgeting working together, and I'm not here to promote Mr. Lance, but I say to his credit that he did appear before Senator Muskies’ committee with Senator Muskie and Senator Roth and discuss some of the problems with zero based budgeting and of course some of the problems with sunset laws. But it- we hope it's just not another name or another slogan. That's the point I want to make. Or it's going to be difficult to accomplish.

Ann Compton: 
From stage left, another question. 

Phil Oakes:
Hello, my name is Phil Oakes. I'm with the Jewish Center Youth. In your personal opinions, is there any agency or program that could be abolished, lock, stock and barrel?

Ann Compton:
Do you want to direct that to either of these gentlemen in particular?

Phil Oakes:
Well, both. 

Ann Compton:
Let's start with Mr. Lance. 

Bert Lance:
Well, again, I am sure that there are some agencies or functions of government that need to be looked at and changed. When you talk about being abolished in their entirety, I think that would be pre-judging the process and I don't want to be in a position of trying to do that. So I wouldn't try to say to you this morning that we could dispose of X, Y, or Z. But I'm sure in the process we will be given that choice and be able to make that sort of decision. 

Bob Dole:
Well, without giving you a laundry list, I think there certainly are some that could be abolished. But I must caution you that the Congress, of course, would like- as far as I'm concerned, we ought to abolish some of those programs that don't come before my committees. [laughter]. And that's the problem that Bert Lance is going to have in the Congress. We've had a lot of temporary programs throughout history, and I only know of two that were abolished. 1 was the breeding of cavalry horses that finally ended [laughter], and the other one I don't even know what it was.

Bert Lance:
I can tell you what that one was, because I've used the same example. No longer make room in the Virgin Islands. [laughter].

Bob Dole:
Right. So there- we've already abolished two programs. We're abolishing some of the advisory committees when we've learned that they've never met. And I say it seriously because it indicates sort of a disease in government. When you can't solve the problem, you appoint a task force and when the task force can't solve it, you appoint a committee to check on the task force. And we've had examples. In fact, President Nixon, who will be on this later [laughter], President Nixon was going to create 6 super agencies and one of the agencies would have abolished the Department of Agriculture. And without reading the fine print, I introduced that legislation and then I got back to Kansas, where I discovered- and I knew that agriculture was important and people don't want to lose their identity with that department. And so it's going to be very difficult, but we can do it. We did it in the Senate this year. We abolished some of the committees, though we didn't go as far as we probably should have. 

Bert Lance:
I think that's an interesting point right there by the way, because the Senate took a real step toward reorganization of its structure and some very tough decisions that that you had to make early on this year.

Bob Dole:
Right, we- I think we did- Much of the credit goes to Senator Stevenson and former Senator Brock, but we backed away again from some of the tough decisions. We got the Committee on Aging, a lot of us looked at our birth certificates and decided we ought to keep the aging committee [laughter]. And when you get into others, the Veterans Committee, every veteran in the country wrote ‘We can't abolish the Veterans Committee.’ And so we caved in on a couple of them, but we didn't do too badly.

Ann Compton:
I have two follow up questions here on paper that I'd like to throw in before we go back down to the aisle microphones. One is to Mr. Lance, one is to Senator Dole. Mr. Lance, I would like to know why the number of White House staff has been increased rather than decreased under President Carter. Senator Dole, shouldn't members of Congress cut down on the size of their Staffs and their own expenses, along with the executive branch? Let's start with Senator Dole. 
[audience applause]

Bob Dole:
Well, I think that's probably a good observation [laughter]. And I think it's a good place to start and it's difficult. Now, we did reduce our employees on the Senate side when we abolished some of the committees. There provided certain termination pay and other allowances, and a very liberal allowance at that. So, we’ve started to make the effort, though I must confess that there are many committees that are probably overstaffed. And there may even be some that are overpaid and maybe some of us in the Congress are of course, overpaid but it seems- [applause]. I'll report that when I get back. But I think, if we're really going to start, the point I want to make is it's going to take groups like this to put the pressure on. It's not going to come from some lobbyist, whether he's in business, labor, agriculture, knocking on our door. It's gonna come from the grassroots. And if you really want to restructure the Congress and restructure the government, you're going to have the input, and we really look at the input. And I know that President Carter says he does, and that's why he has more employees, because they're answering the input. [laughter]. They say. But I really believe it. And if you put enough heat on the Congress and enough heat on the Executive Branch, you're going to get the changes you want.

Bert Lance:
Could I follow up on that just for a minute, Ann, before I try to answer your question? And I'm not trying to avoid it and put it off, but if you understand, I just think that something that Senator Dole said really is very, very important. He said something a minute ago about the fact that many times when you have something that comes before the Congress that every committee wants it done to some other committee and not to their own committee. But you know, that's sort of the nature of the American people every once in a while, when we have these problems that have to be dealt with. And we want a federal building in Atlanta, Georgia, we really don't care about one being built somewhere else, but if it becomes necessary to cut or change, we don't want that changed. And I think when you talk about reorganization and look at the whole of it and the broad amount of public awareness that has to be dealt with in that sort of project, it's going to take the wholehearted effort and cooperation of all the American people in order to enable us to accomplish what you want to have accomplished. And that means that some things you're not going to be happy about. And some things you're going to be less than happy about. You know you're going to be really sort of upset about it, but this is an overall project, that all of us are going to have to make a very basic decision that if we are going to be successful, all of us have to participate and we're going to have to cut across our own special interest sometimes in the process and I think that's important to be said. Now, talking specifically about the White House staff and the pledge that was made by the president to reduce the White House staff by 30% during the campaign. Obviously there has been an increase in the numbers and it boils down to two basic reasons. One has been the tremendous influx of mail where the American people have felt a real sense of being able to communicate with the President and those in the executive branch of government, the mail load has been running about 80,000 letters a week, which is really a huge volume of mail. 120 people were hired to deal with that, that since has been reduced, I think to around 62 or 65, and progress is being made in, in that regard. In the energy area, Doctor Schlesinger has a staff of some 45 or 50 people that have been involved in talking about the creation of a Department of Energy, and as that comes into being through the Congress, then of course those people will be moved out of the White House staff. Now what we're doing in the first effort at reorganization is dealing overall with the Executive Office of the President. That will be the first plan that we’ll submit to the Congress in June. And at that time we’ll take a long hard look at what the Executive Office of the President ought to consist of, what the function ought to be, what really ought to be involved, and then we'll be very candid and frank and direct with the American people about where we started from, what numbers were involved, how we're going to get to where we want to go and under what process. So that has to be dealt with, I think over a longer period of time than 100 days. I don't think that ought to be judged in just the light of the 1st.

Ann Compton:
From the stage right microphone, let's take another question from the audience. 

Harry Davis:
My name is Harry Davis. I'm from New York City and I'd like to ask both of our panelists what about a sunset law? You mentioned it, Senator Dole, I'd like to know what the administration thinks of a federal sunset law. 

Bert Lance:
I'll respond first. The administration favors sunset legislation. I happen to think that it's of vital importance and one of the ways that we would have in the future of dealing with the problem of growing federal bureaucracy. I think that it's awfully important. I think it's something that has some specifics about it that have to be looked at. From the standpoint of what you're talking about, we can't build in uncertainty in many instances of government regulation simply because of the sunset legislation. The tax expenditure situation is a good example of that, I think. But basically, sunset legislation is very vital, and as Senator Dole said earlier, when you combine zero based budgeting, when you combine reorganization and sunset legislation, then I think you have three very valuable tools with which to work. 

Bob Dole:
Well, I think in the Congress I can speak for the Senate side. There are at least 54 co-sponsors who agree with the general concept. In other words, 54 senators and probably more, who agree with the general concept of sunset legislation, that there ought to be a review of programs. Now the problems are, and I'm one of the co-sponsors, the problems are, how many programs are we talking about? How many can we identify? Now, Senator Muskie's committee says, well, there are 1,250. Others have estimated at as high as 50,000. Now just how many programs can a committee look at? How well prepared are our staffs? How can we do the job? And are we going to add to the cost or decrease the cost? But I really believe that if we're talking about, as someone asked earlier, about programs being abolished, we’re not going to know if they should be abolished or reduced or even upgraded unless we look at them. And I can just say as one member that there's too much focus in the Congress on new legislation and not enough focus on looking at legislation we passed a year ago or five years ago or 10 years ago to see if it's working. [applause]. And again, we share the same view. I think we're learning, and I'm a member of the Budget Committee, we're learning through the budget process that we don't solve your problem by necessarily throwing out more money. That may be good at campaign time to promise that, but I think we've learned in the budget process and certainly as you look at the federal deficit and our national debt and other areas, we've got to start tightening up and we've got to make some sacrifices and they've got to be starting at the top down, whether it's the White House staff or the congressional staff. We have to set the pace and we have to do it through realistic things, not symbolic things. 

Ann Compton:
Gentlemen, let's take a question from the aisle left microphone. 

Michael Turner:
My name is Michael Turner, I’m with the Washington Semester program of the State University of New York. Senator Dole, when you were a candidate last year for the Vice Presidency, you made a gorgeous quip that the job didn't involve any heavy lifting. Can we reorganize the vice presidency to build in some heavy lifting, and if reorganization isn’t the answer, should we abolish the office of Vice President? [laughter]

Bob Dole:
Well, I guess we could do it on a temporary basis. [laughter]

Bert Lance:
I wondered how long it would take you to make that comment. [laughter]

Bob Dole:
Well I did say last year, and I think it was accurate, that it's indoor work and no heavy lifting, but I want to commend President Carter and my colleague and now Vice President Mondale, for the good working relationship they have, and I think the efforts to make the Vice Presidency a more meaningful role. It just seems to me that when you have the second highest office of the land occupied, you ought to be bringing that person in on decisions. So, I don't suggest we abolish the office. I suggest we upgrade its importance, and I believe from what I read and I must say that you’re never certain after having read it, but I believe from what I read that it's happening and I'm certain Mr. Lance would know more of the things that Vice President Mondale is doing and they are significant and they are important. And I wish him well, for a limited time. [laughter and applause].

Ann Compton: Do you want to-?

Bert Lance:
If I might just add a comment to that, I think it has been an unusual relationship. The President and the Vice President do have a very fine working relationship. The Vice President’s involved in the same briefings that the President receives, he's involved in the decision-making process. He is playing a very, very major role and doing it extremely well, in my opinion. [applause]

Ann Compton:
From stage right? From stage right? Another question? 

Van Lear:
Yes, to Bert Lance and Senator Dole. Van Lear, a Grey Panther senior activist. I clip out about 1000 newspaper items a year, including a memorable Saturday item of Cyrus Vance, “We must always keep in mind the limits of our wisdom”. In view of this and the tough reorganization problems we face, can you folks help us open more effective lines of communication between the government and grassroots oldsters? We are beggared and battered by inflation, and we vote. Can you give us specifics on how to get in touch with you, more effectively than getting a White House busy signal or a statement from somebody in Midge’s office, there are 6 calls already on hold. Blip. [laughter and applause]

Ann Compton:
Let's start with Mr. Lance on that one. 

Bert Lance:
One thing I might add, and I'm sure Senator Dole agrees with this, the limits of our wisdom are pointed out to us every day in no uncertain terms, and I think that's a part of the process and I'm glad that it is. Again, one of the problems that we've had is the real feel that the American people have about their ability to communicate, and the White House is getting around 20,000 calls a day now. If you have some items that you're interested in, if you will write me in the Office of Management and Budget, I'm glad to respond to it and I encourage that sort of thing. I think it's important to get the feel of the American people, and especially in the area of reorganization, because you're out where government actually is and you see the delivery of service every day and you can make comments and have ideas about how effective it is and how responsive it may be are- and more importantly, how wasteful and inefficient it may be, and I think that's the kind of thing that we're interested in. 

Bob Dole: Well, I-

Ann Compton:
Any thoughts from you, Senator? 

Bob Dole:
You haven't called me, so I don't know- I don't have any response, but I think generally it's – as Mr. Lance has pointed out, I think we must be more responsive and say it in a realistic sense. ‘How we do that’ is always a question for anyone in public life. How do you communicate and really feel that you're having good input? It's always easy to get the views of the special interest groups, whether it's labor or business or agriculture or whatever, because they've got it down to a science. And I don't suggest they shouldn't be heard. They should be heard. But what about the vast majority of this audience, I don't know how many of you have talked to – how many of you have talked to your senator or congressman on a face-to-face basis? 

Ann Compton:
There are a few hands.

Bob Dole:
A few- You know, you may have been better off for not having talked with them [laughter]. But it indicates that we're really not communicating on the one-to-one basis. So, I just suggest, to the question, you keep calling Midge and hopefully she'll return the call. 

Ann Compton:
Let's take a call from the aisle of the Stage left microphone. 

Kurt Buckler:
My name is Kurt Buckler. I'm from York, Pennsylvania, with the Jewish Center youth group here. I'd like to direct this question to Senator Dole. The government is in red, we all know that. And yet with our taxes going up, the Congress has just voted themselves a pay raise last year, I believe. Now- now they go and give President Carter $120 billion for one of his projects. This, inevitably, is going to raise our taxes and make a lot of middle-class people lower class, and I'd like to know how the Congress justifies this and when all this tax stuff is going to stop. 

Bob Dole:
What? What was the $120 billion project? 

Kurt Buckler:
For the- I believe I was reading in the energy program. They voted—

Bob Dole:
Oh. 

Kurt Buckler:
But still, $120 billion, I mean- 

Bert Lance:
I think your number is a little bit off from the standpoint of what is involved there. I don't think that that is in relationship to what has been proposed, but I'll let Senator Dole go ahead with his response to this question. [laughter]

Bob Dole:
Well, the only project that I know that Carter's eliminated has been one in my state, but-[laughter]

Bert Lance:
We eliminated one in Georgia too. [audience laughter]

Bob Dole:
Right. But they've all been put back in now except 1 little lone project out in Kansas. I guess that's a monument to my success last November, [laughter] but I'd say realistically that, you know, you raise a good point that it's not enough to sit here and say, well, I voted against the pay raise, because I still receive it. I think there's a mood in the country and I think we misread it sometimes and I think perhaps President Carter is maybe reading it properly now that we're sort of fed up to our ears with all the spending and spending because when you spend, somebody has to pay the tax. We're just passing, and did last night, some tax relief for certain individuals and we're going to have a big tax reform bill later on this year. So I don't know, again, I think it goes back to the point I made earlier. You got to take a look at voting records of people you send to the Congress and what they advocate while they're here, what they say when they're home and how they vote when they're in Washington. And it just seems to me that, whether it's my voting record or anyone's voting record, we ought to be looked at objectively. And you make the judgment. After all, you're the final source of power in this country, and it hasn't been exercised for a long time. I think many people have slept through several years and that we're now having this reawakening in America about politics and how do we have input? I don't know of a better way. I mean, I disagree with certain parts of the energy package which we might get into later, but- I don't have a simple answer. 

Ann Compton:
Let's take a question from the stage right microphone. 

Paul Coolidge:
My name is Paul Coolidge of Bethesda, Maryland. The question is addressed to either one or both of our panelists. A number of years ago, in one of our fine local media papers on a Sunday, there appeared an article outlining and covering the then 25 or 26 weather services operating within our federal government. Would you care to comment on the current situation and how it relates to the reorganization? 

Bert Lance:
Again, that's something that I think will have to be seriously looked at. I think it's a very serious question and deserves a very serious response. I think nearly every department in government’s got a weather bureau, except maybe the Department of Agriculture. [laughter]. I'm not sure that they – and then they really need one, I think. [laughter]. But you have a growth. Again, and I think it's important for me to say this, as one who has just come into government, and on the executive side of it, and I think it's really important. None of these things that we're talking about, from the standpoint of programs, from the viewpoint of need, this sort of thing, were starting out of a sense of malice. The people in the Congress, as they looked at need and necessity as it related to their constituents, have made determinations that there are certain things that need to be done. And nobody was being evil in trying to solve a problem that was out in this country, but we have seen because of that fact a great growth and a great duplication and a great layering on of programs to deal with problems. Now the time has come for us to go back and say, ‘how effective are we really being?’ We know how much money we spend in the federal government and it's an awful lot of money, $1,250,000,000, a day, which is a lot of money by anybody's standard. But we really don't know how effectively we spend it. And I think one of the things that we need to do in reorganization is be able to tell the American people how effective we are in our expenditures. Are we really dealing with the problems of the poor? Are we really dealing with the problems of the unemployed black teenager? Are we really dealing with the problems of the mentally ill? What is the net result of what we're trying to do in government? And we've got to be able to measure that. One final thing that I know Senator Dole will agree with, one of the other things that we've got to see as a result of reorganization is the ability to fix responsibility on specific people in the executive branch of government for carrying out whatever their duties or functions really are. [applause]

Bob Dole: That’s right.

Ann Compton:
We have a lot of questioners waiting. We'll try to get to as many as possible. Again at the state left microphone. 

Doug Griffin:
Yes, my name is Doug Griffin. I'm from Juneau, Alaska, and my question is directed to both men. Because of the great increase in the grants and aid programs over the last few decades, the state and local governments have become more dependent, I think, on Big Brother federal government. My question is, is the reorganization at the federal level going to affect the state and local governments? Are they going to have to reorganize also? 

Bert Lance:
If I might kick that off, I would hope that many states would take a long look at reorganization of their own governmental structure. This is not in any way to be intended as criticism of existing state structures. We went through reorganization in Georgia, and I truly believe, having been a part of that and having seen the process, that the people of Georgia in the future will be great beneficiaries of the fact that we did reorganize. And I think it's imperative that every once in a while, we just stop and take a look and do some self-analysis and self-examination and say where are we and where do we want to go? What do the people really want? And so, for that reason, I think it's very important that each state explore this and I think you'll see many states going through reorganization. Some are now. And I think it's of vital importance. 

Bob Dole:
Well, I share that view, and there's one other. We've been working a lot on the food stamp program, which some people support and some people do not. But we found that when the federal government puts up most or all of the money, there's very little incentive on the part of a state to worry about any fraud or abuse or overreaction to the program because it's money from Washington. Well, it's your money and it just seems to me that we're going to have to have a little tighter partnership between the federal and state governments and local governments if we're going to make programs responsive to the people who need the programs. And one reason for the great distaste by some for the food stamp program are some of the horror stories you've heard about abuses. Essentially, it's a good program if we could get it administered in the right way and get states to cooperate to make certain that those who abuse the program are taken off and those who have high incomes or are above the poverty level, so to speak, would not participate. I think in addition, President Ford tried to consolidate some programs, nutrition and health and education, with a block grant to states which I think is a good approach. You let the state have the responsibility on the theory that it's closer to the people, that they're more responsive to the people than we are 2000 miles away or more in Washington, insulated and isolated, in some bureaucracy. And I have great respect for the bureaucracy, but it seems to me that the closer the program is to the people, the more effective it's going to be, and the sooner we're going to hear about the bad features of it.

Ann Compton:
Let's take a question from the stage right microphone. 

Eric Menke:
My name is Eric Menke. I am a retiree of the civil service after 35 years in federal government service. I’d like to ask the question from the two panelists: will the Army civil works projects be considered in the reorganization so that it will be more meaningful to be under authority of people who have an interest in conservation and preservation for our natural resources?

Ann Compton:
Mr. Lance?

Bert Lance:
I'm not sure I understand fully the thrust of the question, but as it relates to the Corps of Engineers and the whole of the Department of Defense, then of course we will be taking a look at that in reorganization. 

Ann Compton:
Many of the questions that I have in front of me are on specific questions, specific areas, and whether you're going to reorganize those. It was my understanding that you don't have a lot of answers for specifics yet. Are there any that you would like to volunteer at this time? We have a question about veterans, agriculture…

Bert Lance:
No other than simply to say that in the whole of the reorganization process, which is a long-term project that we'll be taking a look at the whole of the executive branch of government. Now under our reorganization authority given to the President by the Congress, we will submit plans of reorganization involving those departments and agencies. We can’t abolish or create in reorganization. We can transfer. But we can't either abolish or create. Now in the area of regulatory agencies, which is a great source of concern to the American people, where there's a great reporting burden and some of it doesn't appear to be very wisely put forth and this sort of thing, we also will be taking a look at those functions. That will be a separate sort of circumstance in the fact that we will have to give specific legislation to the Congress, such as we have done with the Department of Energy. That will- Those agencies will not be considered under the normal reorganization process. 

Bob Dole:
The only comment I would make, I think it's as Mr. Lance has indicated, of course Congress has the last word on reorganization. We have a right to disapprove a reorganization plan. The one of this new authority for the first time, the president has a right to amend the reorganization plan within a certain time frame. And so it could be very exciting. But I want to point up again if you're in the audience, and if you're concerned about agriculture and they start abolishing, I don't mean abolish, but to transfer everything at the title, you may be concerned about that, or if you're concerned about Social Security, you want to watch that aspect of it. And there are certain areas that Congress may not want to yield on, and they may be right. I don't suggest that we're going to take everything that President Carter sends to us. I think we have some misgivings about some of the energy program, but at least we've got the mechanism working and it's worked well. I think over the past 30 or 40 years under different presidents, about 80% of the reorganization plan sent to the Congress were approved. Now some may have worked in the best interest, some may have turned out bad, but at least the motive is good on both sides. But again, we're going to need public input. It's my understanding you intend to go to the public and have the input before you send it to Congress. 

Bert Lance:
That's right. That is of vital importance because one, if we don't have that input and two, if we don't have the awareness of the American people, then we're not going to do the things that really need to be done in the area of reorganization and making government more responsive and more effective to what your needs are. So, that's the reason that you need to be able to express yourself, and I sure hope that you will. 

Ann Compton:
Let's take some more input from the stage left microphone. 

Anna Adams:
Anna Adams at Present Washington. Well, all the reorganization that say in the making a rich – a commercial TV. And put a brake on both commentators and advertising. Hundreds, some of them are very highly paid, think they not only have to repeat or repeat news, repeat it and explain it and as a matter of fact, spoon feed everybody. 

Bert Lance:
Nobody does any finer job at that than Ann. [laughter]

Ann Compton:
Is this a question for them or for me? 

Anna Adams:
Everybody. I ask you – they organize the streets of TV. There's no, there seems to be no breaks on either the commercials or the commentators. And they're more, they're paid higher than even the president himself.

Ann Adams:
Well, I will dispute that. I'm not paid higher than the President of the United States. [laughter] I wouldn't even accept that much money for my job. It's too much fun and I'm not even gonna let the panel take that one. 

Bob Dole:
You get into the 1st Amendment there and I think there's a point there and I think we can't reorganize television, but we can at least not focus on it here. But I think there is a tendency of whether it's reporting or interpreting and whether it's clearly designated as such. At times it does frustrate the intent of someone who just wants the facts. You can almost tell by the way their eyebrows are raised or their voice, whether they're for or against the project or the person. And I don't know of anybody, I don't have any in mind, but just saying that I think it's a valid concern that some of us worry about. 

Ann Compton:
Well, we're getting a long way from federal government reorganization. [laughter]. And in defense of my own medium, I'm going to move to the stage right microphone for another question. Yes, ma'am. 

Sunshine Watson:
Sunshine Watson, a month resident of Washington, DC, and I would like to ask a general question to both gentlemen. In The Federalist Papers, written either by Hamilton or Madison, is one sentence. It says “if men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal security on government would be necessary. But in framing the government, which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed. In the second case, you must enable it to control itself.” What, in general terms, does it mean to this country if we are not able to control the government? 

Ann Compton:
Start with Mr. Lance on that.

Bert Lance:
All right. Well, I think it goes really to the heart of what we're trying to talk about in this sort of forum and everything else as we talk about the problems involved in government. You share a concern about big government, about big spending, about big deficits, about all the problems that we've heard articulated already here this morning. But I think it's a very simple thing that all of us want to see about in government, and that is a return to the posture where government is your servant instead of your master. And I think that's what we're all about and I think that's the kind of attitude that we've got to have about government, that government is designed to serve. To serve your needs and the needs of the people of this country. And it's important that we be able to do that. And I think through the efforts that we are making, in cooperation with the Congress of the United States, that we're beginning to get a hold of this sort of situation that we can put government back into its proper posture. Reorganization is a great part of that. [applause]

Bob Dole:
And I would only add one comment. And I- There is some indication that we're becoming more responsive and responsible in government. I go back to the Budget Act, which was passed a few years ago, and the budget process, where finally the Congress is taking a look at overall spending and that's been one of the big problems. We would pass a bill and we'd keep passing bills, and the bills that came up late in the session generally had to take the cut, or at least they were scrutinized more because we had reached the ceiling. But now we do that in advance. In fact, we're debating today in the Senate the budget resolution. We're trying to fix the spending levels and determine what the revenue levels are and then figure out what the deficit may be. But Congress, for the first time, is doing that. And it fits the very statement you made. We're trying to get a handle on government. We're trying to be responsible. It's not enough for members of Congress to run out and fuss at any president for all the increased costs and inflation, when we've been a party to it and been adding fuel to the fire and adding programs, Well-intentioned as Mr. Lance said, motivated by good thoughts, but sometimes not having the impact we'd hoped. 

Ann Compton:
We have a few minutes left. Let's try to take one more question, at least from each microphone, starting with stage left. 

Marsh Marshall:
My name is Marsh Marshall. I'm from Washington. My question is addressed to both panelists. As both of you know, I'm sure, in the private sector the object is to maximize profit by reducing costs if possible, and if that means cutting the size of the staff, that's an excellent way of reducing cost. If you have a manager coming in with a new management technique and he can eliminate 30% of the staff, you’ll be better off. Now, in government I simply don't understand why the same operation can't work. Why can't a new, let's say a sub-cabinet member assistant secretary, going to the Department of Agriculture, if he's got some new management techniques, determine that you've got a surplus of people and start cutting staff in order to be more efficient and deliver better service?

Ann Compton:
This is a question we’ve gotten several times up here too. [applause]. Can you, adding to that, one person writes, simply, “why shouldn't people lose their jobs if they're not needed? Shouldn’t the taxpayers be considered?” Senator Dole? 

Bob Dole:
Well, I don't quarrel with the statement. I think it's the question of how you're going to get it done. And it gets back to the basic statement made last year by now President Carter about making government leaner and more effective. And you can't make it leaner if you don't take care of the bulge. I think you can do it the way we did it in the Senate. Our little reorganization was, you know, after somebody's worked for 15 or 20 years, whether it's private sector or government, you can't just throw them out in the street. But you can have some method of easing the transition and maybe reduce it in that way. But I think if we're having a 10% annual attrition rate, that will take care of itself in most cases, just by not filling all the spots again. And I agree with Mr. Lance and the program you've instituted now. 

Bert Lance:
Very, very difficult to deal with because of civil service rules and regulations.

Marsh Marshall:
[inaudible] Why do you have a tenure system? [inaudible]

Bert Lance:
But I hope that they can, and I hope that they can, and I think it's important for us to be able to change them. As I said earlier, I think one of the important aspects of that is the ability to begin to fix accountability and responsibility for the kind of job that's being done. We haven't had that ability in government, to really be able to say you're responsible and you have got to perform. Now we've got to be able to do that. At the same time, we've got to be able to change some of the rules and regulations that relate to mediocrity being rewarded.

Bob Dole:
But on the other hand, you know, in the private sector, if that person is fired or laid off, then there's a rush to the federal government to pass some program to help that person. And so it's a never ending cycle. And so let's get it going in the right direction now where we slow the growth in the federal government in four or five or six or ten years from now, you'll be standing there, maybe sitting up here saying it worked. And I'd rather just go out and say, well, lop off 100,000. That makes a good headline. And it would please a lot of taxpayers. I think what they're really concerned about is an effective government where we make reductions in an orderly way where we're not trying to punish anyone. [applause]

Bert Lance:
That's right. 

Ann Compton:
A question from the stage right microphone. 

Mike Divorzak:
My name is Mike Divorzak, I’m from Dale City, Virginia, and I want to direct my question to Mr. Lance. What is the overall plan for the- and priority for the reorganization of the federal law enforcement function and number 2, when it's reorganized, how are we going to measure whether or not it's more or less effective than it was previously? 

Bert Lance:
Let me take the second part of that question first. In case you didn't hear it, how are we going to be able to measure the effectiveness of reorganization? I think that has to be done over a long period of time. Reorganization is not a short-term solution to long-term problems. It's a long-term solution to long-term problems and it has to be viewed in that light. So you're going to be seeing, as we move forward in the area of reorganization, you're going to see it be judged and examined over a longer period of time because it simply takes that sort of process. And I think that's something that needs to be said and it needs to be said often. If you try to measure the effectiveness of reorganization in simply how many dollars you save or how many programs you cut out, then I think you're missing the real thrust of what reorganization actually ought to be. It's how many dollars you would have spent to provide the same level of service if you hadn't had it, and you have to examine it from that viewpoint. The first part of the question, related to law enforcement agencies, and again that will be looked at in the overall context of where we are now. How many different law enforcement agencies do we have? How should they be considered from a combination standpoint, from a functional standpoint in the future, and that has yet to be decided.

Ann Compton:
Gentlemen, quickly. Let's take a couple more questions. The left aisle microphone. 

Brick Seidack:
My name is Brick Seidack, I'm an economics student at Stanford University. I'd like to ask Mr. Lance, what are the specific career backgrounds of the sort of people in the executive branch that are masterminding reorganization? It would seem to me that people who had spent their lives in the private sector would know a lot more about managerial efficiency and cost reduction than people who would work in the public sector.

Bert Lance:
Well, it takes a combination. It takes people who have had governmental experience as well as people who have had experience in the private sector and that's what we're trying to bring about in the advisory committee set up. We'll have people from government, we'll have people from outside government in the project teams. We'll have people from inside specific departments and people from outside departments. So, I think that it does take a combination to be able to look at the whole, but you have to have people who have some knowledge about the workings of the federal structure, so that you don't waste a lot of time trying to determine what really is going on. And I think that's very important, but you need a combination. 

Bob Dole:
Can I just add to that, coming from the legislative branch, think there's another facet and that is it also takes some understanding of the legislative branch since they have the last word on reorganization and the best laid plan might not pass the Congress because of some well-intentioned objections, and they might be correct. I mean, the Congress, a lot of people have a lot of ability in the Congress of the United States and they're close to their constituents. They're a step closer than the executive branch and they have that input. And I think that's another factor that can't be overlooked by any administration. 

Ann Compton:
One more question from the stage right microphone.

Linda Dunham:
I'm Linda Dunham from Chantilly, Virginia. Mr. Lance and Mr. Dole both keep stating that input of the people is important. This nation, with its low voter turnout, seems to feel that its single vote doesn't count. How can we convince individuals that their votes do count? 

Bob Dole:
You convinced me. [audience laughter/applause].

Bert Lance:
There's certainly no need to amplify on that statement at all. [laughter/applause]

Ann Compton:
Gentlemen, let me hit you with one more question to wind this up. A question that was handed to me from the audience from Scranton, Pennsylvania. Talking a little bit about this flow of communication, not only from the government to the people, but vice versa, we've seen President Carter go up to Clinton, Massachusetts and to a town meeting. We have seen the volume of mail coming not only to the White House, but I'm sure that the Congress gets a hefty share as well. This person writes, “why not facilitate the flow of communication from the people to the Congress – and I will add to this to the Executive Branch – by cutting the postage rate from thirteen cents to three cents for letters directed to Congress and to the White House?” [applause]

Bert Lance:
Well, that's a very difficult question to answer, and needless to say, the post office has been trying to do it on volume for a long time now and they haven't been able to do it. So I don't think that's the way to proceed. 

Bob Dole:
Well, I sponsored an amendment last year called the Aunt Minnie amendment, which, when Aunt Minnie wrote a letter, she could do it for $0.10. We tried to freeze her rate at $0.10 and I had a lot of support, but not many votes. [laughter]. So again, we're faced with the postal deficit. I didn't think the Aunt Minnie amendment would cost all that much. And of course, it also gets, and then as you start talking about greeting card companies and others who have a special interest, and the higher the rates go, the less the volume is and the fewer letters people write, the less stationery they use. But I think that President Carter has generated a lot of mail. We're getting a lot of mail as a result of some of his proposals, and we're going to answer it too. [laughter]

Ann Compton:
Ladies and gentlemen, it's in a forum like this that we all get a chance to communicate a little bit better. You've been very patient. You've had good questions. I want to thank, I want to remind you that next week the National Town Meeting is an unusual one. It's called One Woman's Viewpoint. Lady Bird Johnson will be here to answer questions with the moderator, Bonnie Angelo of Time Magazine, here in the Eisenhower Theater. I want you to join me in thanking two excellent panel members. Now, you know what a joy it is to cover them both. [applause]

Judy Miller:
From Washington, DC, National Public Radio has presented another program in our continuing series of National Town Meetings from Washington. Today's guest speakers included Bert Lance, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Republican Senator from Kansas, Robert Dole. Next time the National Town Meeting’s guest will be Lady Bird Johnson and we hope you'll join us then. Funds for this program were provided by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Technical Director for this broadcast was Gary Henderson. Thank you, Gary. I'm Judy Miller at the Kennedy Center, and this is NPR, National Public Radio.