June 3, 1976
Page 16436
SENATOR MUSKIE ADDRESSES THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM COMMITTEE
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, a few days ago Senator ED MUSKIE made a statement before the Democratic Party Platform Committee which is worthy of note to a much wider audience. In that statement, Senator MUSKIE addressed the mounting public concern regarding attitudes toward Government. He noted the programs and policies of the 1960's, social programs of human concerns which were many and far-reaching, programs which demonstrated not Government callousness or disinterest but to the contrary programs of a Government of compassion with tremendous concern for those least able to make it in our complicated society.
Eliminating those programs with a meat-axe approach is not the answer to the current disenchantment with Government, but there is a tremendous need to simplify the programs and make them more efficient.
In particular, Senator MUSKIE addressed the great need for what has been termed the "Sunset Bill," legislation which I have been privileged to introduce with Senator MUSKIE, along with Senators ROTH and BELLMON. This bill would require review of all Federal programs at not beyond 5-year intervals, with a view toward eliminating some and revamping others to a more efficient size. I have added to that legislation a tax expenditure — or tax incentive — amendment which would require the same type of review of tax revenue now lost each year via the tax incentive route.
Mr. President, I am very glad that Senator MUSKIE stressed the need for this legislation in his statement, for I firmly believe this can be one of the most far-reaching pieces of legislation now being considered by Congress.
Senator MUSKIE closed his statement before the Platform Committee with a challenge, a vision of promises that we as a Nation have not yet kept. The "Sunset" idea, if enacted and properly implemented, could move us significantly in the direction of that vision.
I recommend this statement to my colleagues and ask unanimous consent that the statement be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
REMARKS BY SENATOR EDMUND S. MUSKIE
BEFORE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM COMMITTEE, WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 20, 1976
The Democratic Party has rarely entered an election year stronger and more assured of victory.
We are, after all, the majority party of this nation.
In State after State, in Congress, in the entire public arena, we hold an overwhelming edge over our opposition party.
In the forthcoming presidential campaign, we can capitalize easily on the past seven years of Republican failure and betrayal.
We can probably win the White House with such a campaign.
But I have a broader concern today than simply winning an election. I think that you share that concern.
I am talking about the deep skepticism and lack of confidence of Americans about government — especially the Federal government.
In 1972, only half the registered voters bothered to vote. In 1974, only two out of five voted.
And if we win this election with such a turnout — if we win simply because we are the least unpopular choice — it will be a hollow victory, indeed.
Yet such a hollow victory is possible if we continue politics as usual — if we continue to make easy promises — and if we rely just on the old party and ideological appeals.
For Americans today want action — action toward a radically improved government that can deliver on its promises.
And while the 1976 Democratic Platform should — and must — propose to revitalize our cities, to care for the elderly and poor, and to reorder our economy — we must also propose the kind of government that can again reassure, unite and inspire the people of America.
When we write this Platform, we must avoid the trap that snared us in 1972.
For in those 15,000 words, we cataloged virtually every problem that we thought bothers Americans. We showed that we knew all about government — and precisely what programs needed change.
We knew about the Longshoremen and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, the Protocol on Chemical Warfare, ethnic studies, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, nutritional unit pricing, the Comprehensive Child Development Act, and hundreds of other areas of government.
Yet the election results showed that our platform was irrelevant, for all practical purposes.
Despite our good intentions — despite our grasp of problems — despite the details we mastered — our platform ignored the deep misgivings that Americans felt about their government, their society, and themselves.
For every new program we promised, Americans wondered about the ones we already had — and felt cheated that we ignored the waste and inefficiency of existing programs.
And rather than going away, those misgivings are even greater and more dangerous today.
This forms our most immediate, important task. For we have little hope to solve problems of human need — as long as the government to solve them bears this burden of no confidence.
I am not suggesting that we join in the Republican chorus that government has been the cause of American's problems, and that everyone — weak and strong — must solve their own problems.
Nor will I suggest that the Democratic policies of the 1960's were failures.
Let us remember instead — and be proud — that during the 1960's we cut nearly in half the number of poverty stricken in America.
That we dismantled the centuries-old legal barriers to open housing, schools, voting, public accommodations, and employment for all.
That we made life better for our aged with medicare and improved social security.
That we provided food for millions of families who once knew only hunger.
That we built hundreds of thousands of decent homes for needy Americans.
Let us remember, in other words, that the 1960's was a truly extraordinary period of social progress. And that this party can take credit for that progress.
Let us also remember that today's lack of confidence comes not from government attempting to solve human problems, but rather in not solving them well enough.
The great majority of Americans share our aspirations — they just want to achieve human progress without needless waste and mismanagement.
They see today over 1,000 Federal programs — that touch virtually every aspect of daily life — with nobody in Washington who knows how well most of those programs work.
They see a government grown needlessly complex, expensive, and ineffective — suffocating too many of the programs we worked for.
And they see too many political leaders, who either ignore or pay lip service to government reform.
We have reached the point where government reform — using each tax dollar more effectively — is a social good in itself.
For every dollar that is wasted — whether for health care or fighter bombers — that much less is there to meet human needs.
We have also reached the point where government reform will be accomplished. Americans demand it. They will get it. The only question is, who will carry it out?
I'm betting that it will be the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Congress has already begun this reform.
Two years ago, we passed a budget reform that for the first time consolidated into one decision where and how much Federal spending will be.
In the course of this the congressional budget provided the dollars needed to get our economy back on the long road to recovery.
And for the first time in decades, Congress has taken control of the budget, and set spending priorities that more closely match human needs.
Now we are going beyond that. Congress is now considering spending reforms to pinpoint wasteful programs.
I'm pushing for it in the Senate. In the House, the freshman Democrats are pushing for it, under the leadership of Jim Blanchard.
Some people call it the "sunset bill."
It would mean just that — sunset for Federal programs that overlap better ones, that have outlived their usefulness, or just don't work anymore.
It would make virtually all Federal programs and agencies — including tax expenditures — rejustify themselves every five years — subject to zero base review.
If they don't make a strong enough case, they go out of business.
And for once, the burden of proof to justify spending tax dollars will be on the agencies, and not the taxpayers.
Now, these are modest reforms. But they go to the heart of public discontent with government.
And they present the Democratic Party the opportunity to do something about it.
We have the opportunity to write a platform that takes seriously that public discontent — that recognizes the urgent need for government reform.
I have drafted and submitted separately suggested language for your consideration.
I strongly urge that we adopt this as a major Democratic program — and that we overcome the reluctance I detect of some Democrats even to discuss government efficiency.
For some Democrats seem to accept waste and inefficiency as a cost of helping people — a commission we pay for a Faustian bargain to protect what little we have gained — and that attacking waste somehow amounts to a repudiation of the New Deal.
Well, all I can say is, what's so damn liberal about wasting money?
And what do waste and inefficiency have to do with the New Deal?
I never heard Franklin Roosevelt tell us that government had to stifle competition and innovation to protect consumers.
I never heard Franklin Roosevelt say that waste and inefficiency are unavoidable if we want to help poor people.
And I never heard Franklin Roosevelt say we had to reject reform ideas because we had more to lose than to gain.
Instead, I heard him call for "bold, persistent experimentation,"and say in 1936 that "A government without good management is a house built on sand."
And at the same time, Franklin Roosevelt established the Brownlow Commission to restructure government and improve its effectiveness.
A government that spends money wisely — that fights problems realistically — that discards unworkable solutions to seek better ones — that respects the individuality of its citizens — that is exactly the kind of government that Franklin Roosevelt and we have worked for all these years.
That is the kind of government my good friend Hubert Humphrey described when he said recently that "we do not need to defend blindly everything government has done in the last 40 years. There have been mistakes, and there is a special obligation on those who believe in positive and strong government to understand and correct these shortcomings."
That is exactly the kind of government we talk of in our vision of a nation strong, confident and compassionate.
And by working hard for that kind of government we can make bright again that vision of America.
It is a vision of equality for the black, brown, red and other Americans who still wait for their full rights.
A vision of dignity for our poor, our elderly, our young, and our working citizens.
A vision of reborn cities, full of life and the spirit of community.
A vision of decent health care, housing and education for all.
A vision of open access to political institutions, a just legal system, fair taxation, and economic justice.
A vision of clean air and water, an environment that blooms and flourishes again.
A vision that America will once again lead other nations from their deprivation, their hatreds and conflicts.
So when we talk about effective government, it means seizing the initiative from those who scorn that vision — who would use the issue of government reform to turn back the clock — who want government to ignore deep human problems — who would let the powerful and selfish once again dominate this nation.
They have no interest in a truly effective government — and every year of neglect and waste simply plays into their hands.
The people of this country have already spoken. They want government to put its house in order — to get ready for the enormous challenges ahead.
I think that the Democratic Party can listen pretty well. I think that we got the message.
So let's give the people our answer.
Let's show them that this party can make government work better — that we know how to make this economy work again — that we know how to bend government back to the vision of economic and social justice in America.