December 18, 1975
Page 41564
SPENDING THE TAXPAYERS' DOLLARS WISELY
Mr. STEVENSON. Mr. President, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator MUSKIE made an important speech to the Council on National Priorities and Resources which I call to the attention of my colleagues. In his remarks, Senator MUSKIE rightly reminds us that efficient, well managed, cost effective, equitable, and responsive government must be recognized as an essential national priority. Throwing more money after pressing social problems is not the answer. Spending our moneys more wisely is. Senator MUSKIE suggests that Congress subject all Federal programs to continuous review to determine how effectively we are spending the taxpayers' dollars. The Budget Reform Act is rightly seen as only the first step in Congress exercising its historic duty to control the purse strings of Government.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator MUSKIE's speech be printed in the RECORD, and I urge all my colleagues to read and heed his words.
There being no objection, the speech was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
REMARKS BY SENATOR EDMUND S. MUSKIE
After this first year, there is little doubt that congressional budget reform is a giant step forward.
We've established the precedent that Congress will see overall spending and revenue targets.
We've established that these targets mean something. Time and again on the floor of the Senate, we've demonstrated that forcefully.
And we've established the resources and process needed to bring Federal spending more into line with public spending priorities.
Obviously, we're still learning and refining the budget process. We don't start playing hardball until next year. But we can take a great deal of satisfaction in the success already accomplished.
In the conference program, I was asked to speak on the "Five Year Action Agenda"for the budget committees.
That's a tall order.
And the best way to fill it is to outline briefly the major initiatives already begun:
We're continuing to pursue forcefully a spending program that meets our number one need — jobs. We're not going to be stampeded by the Presidential spending cut proposal that would meat-axe both effective and ineffective programs alike.
Next, we're using the process to determine where the Federal dollar is being spent — by function, rather than agency. This is the only way to see the total picture of Federal services — the costs, the services, who delivers the services, and who benefits.
Along that line, we're using the process to determine the economic impact of tax and regulatory policies.
And finally, we'll use the information to readjust spending priorities more in line with real needs.
Already, we've reduced Presidential budget figures for defense and foreign military aid, despite heavy lobbying that would have been more successful without the process. And in turn, we increased the figures for health care, social security and other human services.
With those major initiatives underway in the next five years, I foresee a dramatic change in Federal spending patterns.
But the budget process is just one step in a broader effort that I want.
More spending for human services won't automatically mean better human services.
For every one in this room has seen well-intentioned, badly needed programs ruined by a Federal bureaucracy that is too expensive, too inefficient and too unresponsive.
We have seen too often a cruel hoax played on people who expect and need help, but are still waiting.
We have seen too often a system develop that benefits those in it more than those who need it.
And we are now reaping the whirlwind of public acrimony with politicians who can see no farther than the same, shop-worn, old answers that got us the mess we have now.
I noted that this was a major theme of the National Democratic Issues Convention in Louisville last month. John Gilligan, in fact, was a major spokesman for that theme.
Plainly, they voiced a theme that has rarely been so widely accepted by the American people.
For the people just don't trust government to do the simple, day-to-day tasks that need to be done. Simple tasks like processing claims, investigating complaints, mailing checks, collecting on accounts, or just being sympathetic to someone are not being done.
As Bill Moyers said recently, "I find a growing number of people who question whether anything matters, whether anything works, whether anyone listens, whether anyone cares."
And until the American people see hard evidence — real results — they won't support willingly any major new Federal programs.
Perhaps we can sneak some programs by, as we did when we passed ones without knowing or telling what would be the ultimate costs. We might be able to congratulate ourselves for our parliamentary skills.
But we'd just be going down that same path that led us to where we are now — with little public confidence that government really cares how taxes are spent.
Our intentions were good, mind you. Our intentions were to help solve deep social problems. In the process, we helped many millions of people who otherwise would not have been helped.
But now this inattention to performance is holding us back. If we really want to gain on these growing problems, we've got to make government work better.
For that reason, I will soon introduce a spending reform to find how effectively, as well as how much Federal money we spend.
Here's how it would work:
Related programs — no matter what agency has them — would come up for review every four years. And if they aren't doing their job or duplicate better-run programs, they could be put out of business.
By the end of every four years, all programs would have been reviewed
This would apply not just to grant programs. Many already are limited by time. It would apply to virtually every department and independent agency, as well as so-called "uncontrollable" programs.
During the process, we would question the most basic assumptions about agencies and programs.
To help with that, we would subject all programs and agencies to zero-based budgeting. We would not assume that appropriations are deserved next year, just because there were appropriations made this year.
Rather, Congress could consider the impact of cutting budgets or eliminating them entirely — as well as expanding them.
The act would expand the use of the General Accounting Office, the Congressional Budget Office, and congressional committees to find programs which can be consolidated right now.
And finally, the act would require a list of all authorized programs without appropriations. Right now, scores of "dead" programs exist without staff, without money, just cluttering up the place. Most of these should be terminated immediately.
The purpose of the act, however, is not to propose a grand design for a new government structure. We know the present one is inadequate. But there's no magic organizational chart around now to solve all our problems.
The major congressional problem is that we need a review process — that builds on the budget process — that focuses where to draw organizational lines — and to keep redrawing them.
We need a process that can periodically shake up our government structure — to improve and expand programs, as well as eliminate some.
In doing this, we must discard the old assumptions and fears of the unknown — the fears that somehow we have more to lose than gain through change.
For I know that many of you are probably suspicious of any effort to review the current system. We've all got a lot of years of hard work invested in the system.
In recent years, we've seen consolidation and effectiveness become code words for deep cuts — for shutting down good programs — for neglecting people, rather than helping them.
Yet we heard the same suspicions and fears from liberals when budget reform was considered. And we now see the opportunities that good budget work has presented.
In the same way, we can add to new spending priorities, new effectiveness. We can insure that we get what we pay for.
We can begin to achieve a health program that provides decent and affordable care for everyone. The Federal health care budget is already $40 billion. State and local governments spend billions more. In fact, as a nation, we already spend more per capita on health care than any other nation.
We just don't spend it well enough.
We can begin to achieve a welfare system that gives direct aid to people, rather than passing through a bureaucratic filter.
Too much of it goes for administrators, contractors, and other middle-men.
This year, the Federal Government will spend over $150 billion for income security programs.
It's obvious that we don't spend it well enough.
We can begin to achieve better assistance to State and local governments. We can help reduce the oppressive paperwork that results from the over 1,000 aid programs that now exist. We need to make sure that money goes for services and not for grantsmanship.
We already spend over $50 billion in aid to State and local governments.
We just don't spend it well enough.
Coupled with the new budget process, this spending reform would bring new opportunities to confront directly the problem of government performance.
For I see efficient government as an end in itself. Well-managed, cost-effective, equitable and responsive government is in itself a social good.
Franklin Roosevelt said 39 years ago, "a government without good management is a house built on sand."
He realized then that the less overhead — the less fragmentation — the more even distribution of services — the less paperwork and delay — the more each citizen can benefit from government.
We must recognize this problem as a national priority just as important as the problems of poverty, inequality and joblessness.
And when we talk about reordering national priorities, we must make clear that we also mean better government.
We must realize that this undramatic but imperative task must be accomplished — especially for the sake of those who depend on government.
Last month in Maine, I talked with several elderly people, whose only support comes from Social Security checks. They are now paying the price of our mismanagement. Their resources — their lifelines are fixed and dwindling.
And while we neglect the real problems, their lives are slipping away from them.
We won't help them by simple solutions or empty promises or by ignoring the mismanagement that victimizes them. We can help them only by facing up to waste, bureaucratic inertia and unresponsiveness.
It is an undramatic and not very exciting call.
But it is imperative. And it is the only way that we can again make government the great organizer of our resources.
It's up to us to make government work again. Only we can restore performance that will generate a new confidence in government.
Only then can we again tap the great moral potential of the American people for common sacrifice for the goal of dignity for all citizens.