February 3, 1976
Page 2130
GOVERNMENT ECONOMY AND SPENDING REFORM ACT OF 1976 — S. 2925
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, today on behalf of Senators ROTH, GLENN, BELLMON, and myself, I am introducing a bill which I hope will accomplish for all Federal programs individually what budget reform has begun to do for the Federal budget as a whole, that is, to lend a new element of discipline and cohesiveness to the way the Federal Government handles the American taxpayer's money.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add the names of Senators HUDDLESTON and NUNN to the list of cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. A variety of factors have brought me to this point today.
First and foremost, I suppose, are the regular public opinion polls telling us that the American people have lost faith in their Government. People do not think they are getting their money's worth out of Government; people believe that the Government does not care what they think any more; the only Government worker getting high marks from the public is the local trash collector, because at least people know whether he is doing his job
Mr. MUSKIE.A second factor has been my experience this year; on the Budget Committee. If there is one point that has been brought home to me during my brief tenure as chairman of that committee it is that during a given year, we have only a limited amount of resources to commit to solving serious national problems. There may have been a time when we could afford nearly a thousand different legislative solutions to a few dozen national problems — when we did not
have to worry which programs were working and which ones were not, because we knew there was enough in the till for everyone.
Today, we no longer have those options.
Let me illustrate with an example from a General Accounting study of neighborhood health care clinics in the District of Columbia. In that study, GAO investigators found eight clinics in one neighborhood in the District, funded under several different Federal programs whose administrators were obviously unaware of what each other was doing. In several of these clinics, doctors were seeing only a handful of patients a day, while in many parts of the country the shortage of health care is critical.
I do not know whether this story is typical or not. What I do know is that as one who has strongly supported an increased Federal role in improving the quality of health care available to Americans, I am outraged by the waste this example demonstrates. I also know that the budget realities of today and tomorrow do not leave room for wasting scarce resources in this way. We cannot — and we should not — continue to keep paying for a system where one hand does not know what the other is doing.
The third factor which has led me to introduce this legislation is also related to my experiences with the Budget Committee — more specifically, to the tremendous successes we have had in our first year of operation.
Through the new budget process, congress is finally beginning to regain control over the Federal budget — the most important statement of national priorities that we have. Yet it becomes clearer to me every day that even if the process works better than any of us had dreamed, that statement of priorities will not be complete unless we have control over the services which the budget is intended to buy.
Budget reform by itself is an essential element in regaining this control. Nevertheless, I have come to see the budget process not as an end in itself, but as first step in a broader effort we need.
Budget reform gave us a badly needed method for looking at the picture as a whole. The legislation I am introducing today will make us take a closer look at all the component parts of that picture, to insure that we are getting the most for the money we spend. It is a logical second step.
Why is such a second step necessary? One way to answer that question would be to have a dramatic reading from the catalog of Federal domestic assistance. I think most of us would be astonished at what we heard: That we have 228 health programs, l56 income security and social service programs, 83 housing programs, et cetera, et cetera — that all in all, we have nearly 1,000 Federal programs, touching on virtually every aspect of life in these United States.
Or we could turn to the Federal Government manual, where we would discover that in addition to the 11 Cabinet departments, we require 44 independent agencies and 1,240 advisory boards committees, commissions, and councils to run the Federal Government. In 1974 alone, 85 separate governmental bodies were created, of which only 3 were subsequently abolished.
Or we could look outside Washington, where we would find over 4,000 geographic program areas recognized under 24 different Federal programs — quasi-governmental units such as law enforcement planning regions — 481— comprehensive areawide health planning agencies — 195 — air quality regions — 247 — and many more.
Or we could turn to the dozens of GAO reports and audits done every year, detailing the administrative chaos in Federal aid to vocational education or to the handicapped for example — or explaining how this Federal agency had no information on what it was spending on administrative costs as opposed to actual services.
We could do what I did in November, which was to hold a hearing in my home State on problems the people there have in dealing with the Federal government. With only a few days advance notice, 100 people turned out to talk about what was bothering them — how they had to wait a year and a half to get a ruling on their claim for disability compensation, or how it has taken their town 3 years to obtain Federal approval for a new sewer system they were required to build by Federal law.
What any of these exercises would tell us is that Government has become out of touch and out of control. And clearly this is a finding with which an increasing number of Americans would agree.
Almost 10 years ago, my Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations opened a series of hearings on our federal system. In my opening remarks, I posed a number of questions about the future of a "burgeoning governmental system," which had grown to over 170 Federal aid programs at a total cost of almost $15 billion. Among the questions I raised were:
What happens to a Federal program after it leaves the Congress?
Where is Congress going with the grant-in-aid programs? Will there be more proliferation of separate programs?
How well are Federal departments coordinating their programs and services both within their agencies and with other departments?
Today, hundreds of well-intentioned new programs and billions of dollars later, we still do not have satisfactory answers to those questions.
Even worst, we have not solved the basic problems which prompted us to enact all these programs in the first place.
We have spent billions on health care, and enacted hundreds of health-oriented programs, yet we still have not cracked the fundamental problem — providing high quality care at a price people can afford.
We have spent billions on education, only to find that our high school graduates are not learning even the basic reading and writing skills.
And we have spent billions on the problems of our cities, yet the root cause of those problems, defined so eloquently by the Kerner commission several years ago, still remains.
Solutions to these problems elude us not becuse we have not tried. But in too many cases we in Congress have satisfied ourselves with the rhetoric of legislation, leaving the hard work of implementation — from rulemaking to evaluation — to the executive branch. To put it another way, we in Congress have not paid enough attention to how well the programs we adopted were working — at least not beyond a cursory review every few years.
And now these years of inattention to performance are taking their toll, as we reap a bumper crop of public disenchantment with a Government so unresponsive that it cannot even perform the simple day-to-day tasks that need to be done.
To be sure, Government inefficiency is becoming today's No. 1 villain. Horror stories about bureaucratic bungling make good copy, and I am sure that all of us, at one time or another, have been guilty of taking a ride on some well-intentioned Government worker's mistake.
But I think the time has passed when the American people will be satisfied with such press release exclamations of outrage. They are ready for hard evidence and real results that we are serious about making Government more productive.
The legislation I am introducing today is intended to produce these kinds of results. It will not do so overnight, nor in a very exciting way. Like budget reform, it focuses on the nuts and bolts operations that we in Congress are concerned with every day.
I offer this not as a suggestion that we abandon our commitment to solving the Nation's problems.
On the contrary, I offer this legislation in recognition of the fact that until we bring what programs we now have under control, we simply may not have the reserves we need — either in the budget or the public's trust — to pursue new legislative solutions to pressing national problems.
Out of my considerable concern that Government in Washington has become so big and unresponsive that it is dragging down many of the good programs I and others have worked for over the years, I introduce this bill.
The legislation I am proposing would do the following things:
First, it would put all Government programs and activities on a 4year reauthorization schedule. All would have to be reauthorized every 4 years, or be terminated.
The sole exceptions to this mandatory termination provision would be payment of interest on the national debt, and programs under which individuals make payments to the Federal Government in expectation of later compensation, that is, railroad retirement, social security, civil service retirement, and medicare.
Second, the bill would establish a schedule for reauthorization of Government programs and activities on the basis of groupings by budget function. Programs within the same function would terminate simultaneously, so that Congress would have an opportunity to examine and compare Federal programs in that functional area in its entirety, rather than in bits and pieces. The schedule would be set up so that all of the functional areas would be dealt with within one 4-year cycle.
Third, the bill would reverse the assumption that old programs and agencies deserve to be continued just because they existed the year before, by incorporating a zero-base review into the reauthorization process.
Fourth, the bill would make maximum use of the timetable for authorization bills already required by the congressional Budget Act, and it would encourage Congress to make better use of the program review already undertaken by the General Accounting Office.
Finally, the bill would set up a onetime procedure under which the GAO would identify duplicative and inactive programs so that congressional committees would be encouraged to eliminate or consolidate them as soon as possible.
These provisions are explained in greater detail in a summary of the legislation following my introductory remarks.
I ask unanimous consent that that summary be printed at the end of my statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, in offering this proposal, I am very much aware that as now written, it would dramatically alter the way we do business here in the Senate and that therefore it will be the subject of considerable debate. So I would like to say at the outset that I am not wedded to all the particulars in this bill. Consider it a first draft, a starting point for consideration of what I think is one of the most important items of the congressional agenda this year.
We in Congress have, unfortunately, not escaped public's discontent with its Government. The bill I am introducing today offers a way for Congress to respond rationally and constructively to the criticism that we are not in control of our own house.
It cannot and should not offer the promise of instant efficiency. But it does offer a stronger congressional voice in setting national priorities — out from under a suffocating bureaucracy which now has the upper hand in the fate of programs we enact.
And it offers us one of the few chances we have to clear out some deadwood and make room for a legislative agenda that is changing with the Nation.
EXHIBIT 1
SUMMARY AND EXPLANATION OF THE GOVERNMENT ECONOMY AND SPENDING REFORM ACT OF 1976
The Government Economy and Spending Reform Act of 1976 is designed to improve the degree of control which Congress exercises over the actual delivery of services to the American people, by requiring regular review and reauthorization of Federal programs and activities. It is designed to expand the budgetary options available to the Congress by redefining or eliminating ineffective and duplicative programs and permitting more creative and flexible planning of Federal efforts.
It would put government programs and activities on a four-year reauthorization schedule. All government programs and activities — permanent and otherwise — would have to be reauthorized every four years. Programs not so reauthorized would be terminated.
The only exceptions to mandatory reauthorization or termination are provided for programs under which individuals make payments to the Federal government in expectation of later compensation (Social Security, Railroad Retirement, Civil Service retirement, Medicare, etc.) arid interest payments on the national debt.
Those programs and activities exempted from the reauthorization or termination provisions of the bill would still have to be reviewed every fourth year, with the exception of debt interest payments.
The schedule established by the bill for reauthorization of Federal programs and activities would follow groupings according to budget function. Programs within the same function would be reconsidered simultaneously, so that the Congress would have an opportunity to examine and compare federal programs for a particular functional area in their entirety, rather than in bits and pieces. The schedule would be set up so that all of the functional areas would be dealt with within one four-year cycle.
This measure reverses the assumption that old programs and agencies deserve to be continued just because they existed the year before, by incorporating the concept of zero base review into the reauthorization process.
It would make maximum use of the timetable for authorization bills already required by the Congressional Budget Act, and it would encourage Congress to make better use of the program review already undertaken by the General Accounting Office.
And the bill would set up a onetime procedure under which the General Accounting Office would identify duplicative and inactive programs so that congressional committees would be encouraged to eliminate or consolidate them.
SCHEDULED TERMINATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS
The requirement that all government programs terminate at least once every four years, with the exceptions listed above, is designed to give Congress a procedure for conducting a working oversight of all Federal programs and activities.
Even programs costing comparatively little would be subject to this process. It is especially important that programs such as entitlements be covered because those programs often escape thorough review of their effectiveness.
The four-year limitation on authorizations should allow a sufficient accumulation of experience for testing the results and effectiveness of government programs. However, it is short enough to allow Congress to examine programs before they get out of control.
While the thrust of this legislation is to encourage congressional committees to review and reauthorize all of their programs on a four-year cycle, committees would have the option of authorizing programs for less than four years.
SCHEDULING OF PROGRAM TERMINATION
The legislation would change the date of authorization of all but a very few Federal programs, by limiting reauthorization to a maximum of four years. It would schedule termination, review and reauthorization of programs by budget function or subfunction. Beginning September 30, 1979, and over the subsequent four-year period, all programs and activities would be scheduled for reauthorization or termination, with those budget functions entailing the lightest work load scheduled first, and the more difficult ones scheduled toward the end of the four-year period. (See the schedule attached to this summary.)
The purpose of establishing the schedule by budget function would be to allow the Congress to take a close look at what the Federal government is doing in an entire policy area, rather than in bits and pieces as is the norm now. Programs and functions which overlap not only Executive agencies but also congressional committees would therefore be reviewed as a whole, instead of individually as Congress now reauthorizes most programs and activities.
To account for the possibility that certain legislative committees may be unable to meet the reauthorization deadlines because of the workload involved in particular functional areas, the legislation would authorize the Budget Committee of either house to report legislation providing for adjustments of the scheduled deadlines.
PROVISIONS FOR PERMANENT AUTHORIZATIONS
Under the bill all existing government programs and activities with permanent authorizations — excluding the exceptions mentioned above — would terminate according to the schedule of budget functions and subfunctions between September 30, 1979 and September 30, 1983 unless reauthorized, and would then be subject to the four-year limitation on authorizations.
The legislation does recognize that in some cases it may be difficult to identify permanent authorizations, and in others the four-year limitation on authorizations may be impractical. As a result, the legislation would require that by April 1, 1977, the General Accounting Office submit to the House of Representatives and the Senate a list of all provisions of law which establish permanent authorization for government expenditures.
That list should break permanent authorizations down by committee of jurisdiction, and for those funded in the appropriations process, by appropriations bills in which they are included. To the extent practicable, the GAO should also determine the amount appropriated for each permanently authorized program or activity over the preceding four fiscal years.
ZERO BASE REVIEW OF ALL PROGRAMS BEFORE REAUTHORIZATION
This legislation requires that the standing committees of the Senate and the House conduct a zero base review and evaluation of all programs and activities within their jurisdiction every fourth year. The zero base review and evaluation must be conducted during the 12-month, period ending on March 15 of the year in which that program is scheduled for reauthorization.
Unlike the practice which often governs present budget planning, the zero base review and evaluation would not assume that programs are to be funded in the next budget merely because they were included this year. As part of the zero base review, congressional committees would first make an assessment of the impact of having no new expenditures for a particular program, and then make an assessment of what level of program, quality and quantity could be purchased at particular incremental levels of expenditures. For example the, evaluation may include an assessment of what level of program activity.could be purchased at 75 percent of this year's expenditures as well as what level of program activity could be purchased at each additional 10 percent increment of expenditure.
In addition, in a zero base evaluation, congressional Committees would be required to include:
1 An identification of other government programs and activities having the same or similar objectives, along with the comparison of the cost and effectiveness of such programs or activities and any duplication of the program or activity under review.
2. An examination of the extent to which the objectives of the program or activity have been achieved in comparison with the objectives initially set forth by the legislation establishing the program or activity and an analysis of any significant variance between the projected and actual performance.
3. A specification to the extent feasible in quantitative terms of the objectives of such program or activity during the next four fiscal years.
4. An examination of the impact of the program or activity on the national economy.
Each standing committee must submit a report to its House detailing the results of its zero base review and evaluation of a program on or before March 15 of the year in which the review occurs. Whenever a committee recommends authorization of a program similar to others it has identified, its report must include a detailed justification for the program it is authorizing and explain how it avoids duplication with other existing programs.
To assist the authorizing committees in conducting their zero base review and evaluations the General Accounting Office would be required by December 31 of the year preceding to send those committees the results of audits and reviews and evaluations the GAO has conducted on the program to be reviewed. In addition, the committees could call upon the GAO or the CBO for whatever assistance they may render in the conduct of the zero base evaluation.
ENFORCEMENT OF ZERO BASE REVIEW REQUIREMENT
This legislation would require that congressional committees conduct a zero base evaluation of all government programs and activities scheduled for termination in a given year prior to reporting out legislation to reauthorize them.
To enforce that requirement any bill which authorizes expenditures for any government program or activity would not be in order in either House unless the committee reporting it had submitted its zero base review and evaluation report on that program or activity.
The only exception to this rule would be in those cases in which a committee chooses to authorize a program or activity for less than four years. In those cases, every authorization bill would not have to be accompanied by a zero base evaluation. But the committee would still be required to undertake a zero base evaluation every four years at the time of the program’s scheduled termination and review, and must report a reauthorization bill in the year it completes that review.
EXECUTIVE ZERO BASE BUDGETING
The legislation requires that prior to submission of the President's budget message, the Executive Branch must conduct a zero base review and evaluation of all Federal programs and activities scheduled for termination in the upcoming year. The President would be required to submit the results of this review and evaluation along with his regular budget message.
TIMETABLE FOR ZERO BASE REVUE AND EVALUATION
The timetable for the zero base review and evaluation of a government program or activity would be as follows:
December 31 of preceding year — GAO reports results its previous audits and evaluations as well as requested information and analyses to standing committees.
15th day after Congress meets in the year — President submits budget message, accompanied by results of zero base review and evaluation by Executive departments of programs scheduled for termination during upcoming fiscal year.
March 15 of the year — Standing committees complete zero base review and evaluation of program or activity and report to House or Senate.
May 15 of the year — Standing committee, under Congressional Budget Act, must report authorization legislation to its House.
CONTINUING REVIEW AND EVALUATION
The legislation would require the Comptroller General to make followup evaluations at least once every six months of any program that the General Accounting Office has reviewed and had found to have fallen short of its objective. Those followup reports must be submitted to the Appropriations Committees of both Houses and to the standing committee of each House which has jurisdiction over the program.
In addition, the legislation would require that the Comptroller General furnish both Appropriations Committees and the appropriate standing committees of each House summaries of any audits or evaluations the General Accounting Office has conducted involving programs or activities under their jurisdiction.
Finally, the legislation will require the President to include in his annual budget specific objectives for each program or activity and an analysis of how that program or activity achieved the objectives set out for it in previous budgets.
EARLY ELIMINATION OF INACTIVE OR DUPLICATIVE PROGRAMS ,
The legislation directs the Comptroller General to submit a report to Congress before July 1, 1977, identifying those government programs and activities for which no outlays have been made for the last two completed fiscal years and those programs and activities which have duplicative objectives.
The legislation further requires each standing committee of the House or Senate to follow up on that report on or before May 15, 1978 with a view toward eliminating inactive programs and activities and eliminating programs and activities which duplicate other programs and activities or to consolidating duplicate programs and activities.
SCHEDULE FOR TERMINATION AND REVIEW OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS .
CATEGORY NUMBER, FUNCTIONAL OR SUBFUNCTIONAL CATEGORY
Termination dates Sept., 30, 1979
050. National Defense.
150. International Affairs.
250. General Sciences, Space, and Technology.
750. Law Enforcement and Justice.
Termination date, Sept. 30, 1980
350. Agriculture.
400.Commerce and Transportation.
450. Community and Regional Development
501. Elementary, secondary, and vocational education.
502. Higher education.
503. Research and general, education aid
604. Public assistance and other income supplements. (Public housing only).
Termination date, Sept. 30, 1981.
300. National Resources, Environment, and Energy.
550. Health
600. Income Security (Except public housing in subcategory 604).
700.Veterans' Benefits and Services
Termination date, Sept. 30, 1982
504. Training and employment.
505. Other labor services.
506. Social services.
800. General Government.
850. Revenue Sharing and General Purpose Fiscal Assistance.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I express my appreciation to my colleagues who have joined me in fathering this legislation and introducing it today. I welcome to their ranks the distinguished Presiding Officer at the moment, who has listened to the case and been persuaded by its merits, rather than by me. I am delighted to ask that Mr. GOLDWATER be added as a cosponsor to the pending legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
MUSKIE. I yield to my good friend from Delaware, who is the ranking Republican cosponsor of the bill.
ROTH. Mr. President, during my travels throughout the State of Delaware I find that people are confident and expectant about the future of our country, but are frustrated and concerned about present course of Government. For many, the promise of Government has been broken — either unfulfilled or not to be trusted. I believe we in Congress have a continuing responsibility to reexamine the quality of Government services and strive to deliver dependability and value rather than inflation and empty rhetoric.
I am introducing legislation today with Senator EDMUND MUSKIE which will provide a means to improve the budget process and assure that the American taxpayer will get improved services equal to the high price each pays.
This bill provides for a complete review in Congress of each Government spending program every fourth year. It requires that each dollar of spending be examined so that money is not wasted on programs which are ineffective or are of low priority. This legislation is important for Congress because it will provide Congress the means to reform spending, but it is even more important for the American people because it answers to their demand for fiscal responsibility in Government.
Public confidence will remain low as long as our Government makes no visible progress in trimming duplication, inefficiency, waste, and red tape from its multibillion dollar budget. Nothing is more upsetting to the people than to see inflation and joblessness grow at the hands of Government spenders who fail to cure even the most obvious defects.
The growth of Federal spending has been so rapid during the past decade that the impact of the Federal budget on the economy has measurably increased. In 1967, the Federal budget was $158.2 billion. Only 10 years later, we have a proposed budget totaling $394.2 billion, nearly 2½ times larger. In the last 3 years alone, spending has increased by as much as it did in the 176 years from 1789 to 1965.
Congress has made great improvement in its handling of the national budget in recent years. In 1974 the historic Budget and Impoundment Control Act was passed to allow Congress a procedure toset a spending ceiling and to require all committees to remain within that ceiling during the appropriations process.
I worked hard in support of these budget reforms and I am equally committed to the goal of new spending reforms.
The budget reform has been instrumental in keeping the annual budget within specific limits. However, it creates no process to serve as a check on growth in the size of the budget. Nor does it provide a means for Congress to evaluate its spending patterns and eliminate duplication or ineffective programs.
Congress must face the spending issue head on. It is all too easy to agree on a rubbery spending ceiling which can later be amended to allow higher spending levels.
It is commonsense that where two programs serve one objective, combining them would reduce administrative costs and red tape. Yet throughout the Federal service, many programs and agencies overlap.
Today there are nearly 1000 categorical programs administered by 54 Federal agencies. Ten agencies administer some 230 different health programs, including 23 for planning and building health facilities and 22 to deal with drug and narcotics addiction.
There are seven Federal programs that provide health services for outpatient health centers in one city — the District of Columbia. Or, consider that there are 14 separate units within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare which administer programs for educating the handicapped. Similarly, in the area of Federal water pollution research and development there are at least 25 bureaus and offices in 12 separate departments or independent agencies which serve the same objective.
This duplication of effort only succeeds in impeding productivity and reducing the effectiveness of Government services. Yet, year after year, funding is renewed for most Federal programs without concern for wasteful overlap or poor program effectiveness. This practice becomes a fruitless exercise indeed of throwing money at a problem without regard for value or cost effectiveness.
There is always room to make government more efficient and more effective. This proposal which I am submitting with Senator MUSKIE today will provide that no spending is automatically renewed until it is shown to be worthwhile.
Throughout my career I have demonstrated a strong commitment to better government not bigger government. In 1969, I completed a 1,000-page report which identified for the first time the full range of Government spending programs for domestic assistance. One of my earliest experiences in Government was as a member of a Hoover Commission investigation whose recommendations to streamline Government were substantially adopted.
Each level of government must practice fiscal responsibility as well as preach it. State and local governments must be equipped to deliver services financed from their respective tax bases. Likewise the Federal Government cannot continually add new spending without facing up to the fiscal reality of a strained tax base.
The legislation which we are offering today, Mr. President, would make several simple but basic changes in the way Congress approaches the annual budget. It would end the unspoken rule that money spent on a program this year must be continued or increased in next year's budget. The permanent authority for program budgeting had led the Federal Government into the fool's trap of throwing good money after bad for a wasted enterprise. This legislation offers a procedure for quadrennial renewal of all budget authority. The new assumption will be that no new budget authority is necessary until a program is proven worthwhile and cost effective. This is a familiar and sound practice of zero base program review and evaluation. It offers a comprehensive yet critical review of all Federal spending before new money is committed to old programs.
This stricter process for review will bring many other important reforms to Government spending. It will help Congress get a handle on uncontrollable growth in spending. Since budget authority must be renewed, higher costs will be repeatedly reassessed against program goals. If a program expense outweighs its benefits to the economy or to the health or social well being of the people then the program could be terminated. At a minimum an opportunity for decision making by the Congress will be built into the budget procedure.
The periodic renewal of all program authority in accordance with a zero base review will promote control over backdoor spending. Cost estimates for programs during succeeding budgets would be required by standing committees in order to evaluate each program before advising Congress to reauthorize it.
The authorization process will be restructured to provide for a regular and meaningful review of all existing programs. Programs will be assigned a renewal date with other programs in the same broad area. The establishment of a fixed renewal date would end the practice of providing permanent program budget authority. It would establish regular intervals for program review by congressional committees and a fixed year for program renewal.
The first of four quadrennial renewal periods would commence on October 1, 1981. All programs, unless otherwise exempted, would be reviewed once every 4 years. Thus, a program which is reviewed and renewed beginning October 1, 1981, would automatically come before the appropriate committee for review in 1985 and renewal on or before October 1, 1985.
In addition to a restructuring of the authorization process this legislation provides for regular program evaluation during each quadrennial review.
The President would submit legislation to Congress for a proposed reauthorization and Congress would have until March 15 of the following year to report renewal legislation from the committee of jurisdiction. During that period evaluation and review of each program would occur.
The President would also submit a comprehensive evaluation of the program with evidence on the cost of the program, its accomplishments, and cost effectiveness. This would give each standing committee an opportunity to review each program.
At the request of any standing committee, the General Accounting Office would also review programs. GAO would submit to Congress a comparison of all programs with similar objectives and a summary of findings of its prior audits and program evaluations.
Also, at the request of a committee with jurisdiction, the Congressional Budget Office would make an independent zero base review and evaluation of the program. This would be provided to the committee of jurisdiction well in advance of its March 15 deadline for its recommendation and report.
In January the President would submit a budget containing estimates based on zero base review for those programs to be renewed during the next year.
Thus each legislative committee would be equipped to evaluate a program's overall worth. The legislative committee would be able to decide whether the resources necessary to meet objectives in a given program are being used effectively.
Programs which have not met goals established by Congress would not be renewed. Programs which overlap or serve similar objectives could be consolidated. Programs which receive a poor evaluation or that were rated as not cost effective could be terminated. Thus, scarce resources could be allocated within a functional area so as to maximize program effectiveness. Each committee would explain in its report to Congress which programs serve similar objectives and should be consolidated. Alternatively, if similar programs should not be consolidated the report will explain why not.
A summary of the timetable for program review and reauthorization follows:
By December 31 of the year preceding review, GAO reports to standing committees of Congress information and analyses on programs as required to assist with the committee's zero base evaluation of programs submitted for renewal.
By December 31 of the year preceding review, the Congressional Budget Office reports information and a zero base analysis requested by the standing committees.
In January of the year of review the President submits to Congress a budget with zero base request for programs to be renewed.
By March 15 of the year of review each standing committee completes review and evaluation of program and makes recommendations to its respective House.
By October 1 of that year each House acts on the proposed program authorizations and differences are reconciled.
This legislation will give Congress an important handle on Federal spending, The Budget Reform Act challenged the assumption that Congress could add to the national expenditure total year after year without specifying limits and yet not seriously undermine Federal fiscal and monetary policy. The disturbing consequences of double digit inflation and 8 percent unemployment have proved this assumption wrong.
This legislation now goes a step further and challenges the assumption that spending for a worthwhile program must continue year after year without review in the context of changing national priorities. The often expressed goal of establishing a set of national priorities has never been married to the fiscal reality of finite national resources. This legislation provides Congress with a realistic process for maximizing the effectiveness of the spending by the Federal Government and minimizing the unproductive use of the people's tax money.
Unless such a procedure is adopted Congress can scarcely hope to gain control over growth in budget expenditures and rapidly expanding public debt. If Congress is to retain a measure of choice in setting a legislative program for the Nation, then it must have a handle on competing claims for our limited tax resources.
I urge my colleagues to consider this procedure as necessary to the preservation of legislative choice and to the improvement of delivery in Government services. The alternative is to allow unproductive, wasteful, or low priority spending to continue to burden the economy. The public's demand for fiscal responsibility deserves full attention by this Congress.
The goal of improving the services of Government is one I have continually sought to promote. When I first came to Congress I discovered we had almost no information on what programs existed in the area of Federal domestic assistance. There were virtually no controls over the distribution of Federal grants and even less information on whether these programs were effective in meeting goals established by the Congress.
Congress should not shrink from the job of continual evaluation of existing programs and reexamination of legislative priorities. This legislation, I believe, will aid Congress in carrying out this responsibility,
But it is really the American people who stand to gain from this reform. If it fails we will all bear the cost of higher inflation and continued unemployment. If it succeeds, then we will get more effective Government service at less cost.
Mr. President, at this time I am happy to yield for another principal sponsor of this legislation, the junior Senator from Ohio (Mr. GLENN).
GOVERNMENT ECONOMY AND SPENDING REFORM ACT OF 1976
Mr: GLENN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator MUSKIE and Senator ROTH and Senator BELLMON in introducing "The Government Economy and Spending Reform Act of 1976."
This is a major piece of legislation that addresses one of the primary areas of concern of the American people, namely, the control of Federal spending and the improvement in performance of their Government. As Senator MUSKIE stated. in his reply to the President's state of the Union message, Americans do not want to see their Government dismantled as some have already suggested in this year of overheated political rhetoric. What our citizens are demanding is an efficient, responsive, and competent Government, one that delivers what it promises, one that makes its decisions humanely, clearly, and understandably, and that does not proliferate and continually grow minus any rational scheme.
I believe that the Government Economy and Spending Reform Act of 1973 has the potential of coupling itself with the Congressional Budget Act to serve as a thoroughly effective mechanism by which the Congress may get a better handle on money spent by the Federal Government.
The once ever-expanding pie of Federal expenditure has begun to reach its limits. Within that limitation, competition for program priority and preference will be severe. That competition must be rational, sane, and substantive. The Government Economy and Spending Reform Act of 1976 provides a framework for serious evaluation of our programs and our spending. Basically and fundamentally, the bill requires that congressional committees take a hard look at programs under their jurisdiction and report, among other things:
First, whether they are, indeed, working as Congress intended;
Second, whether the program is duplicative of others; and
Third, the impact the program has on the national economy.
In other words, we are asking that congressional committees assume their oversight function with increased vigor and vitality and with more quantitative stringency. With the exception of programs to which individuals make payments to the Federal Government in expectation of later compensation — social security, railroad retirement, civil service retirement, medicare, et cetera, all Government programs would have to be reauthorized after stringent review every 4 years.
Additionally, the bill requires an intensive executive branch review and evaluation of Federal programs and activities scheduled for termination in the coming year. This review would be required in the President's budget message and would act as a check against arbitrary and ill-considered budget slashing or excessive padding on the part of the executive branch.
Mr. President, this bill is not fixed in iron. There will be serious, justifiable questions raised about its operation. Why begin with virtually every program, no matter how small? Are all types of programs subject to this type of mandated review? Personally, I think of the various civil rights provisions possibly subject to our bill. I would not want to see vital Civil rights protections subject to short term emotional and political considerations. Are civil rights properly subject to quantitative review? Can this type analysis apply to the Department of Defense?
All of these questions and many more must be dealt with at the upcoming hearings of the Government Operations Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations. I. look forward to these hearings and to finding answers to these questions and others and to improving our bill where necessary.
But overall, and in principle, I strongly support this bill and I am happy to be a principal cosponsor of it. I know that we must clean up and improve our Government. Only by eliminating dead weight, inoperative, wasteful and inefficient programs can we make available the resources needed to adopt fresh, innovative, and exciting new solutions to our pressing problems of poverty, discrimination, urban decay, pollution and so on. This bill is perhaps a small procedural step that will free us from so much built in failure, that will help restore our people's confidence in Government and will help us along the road to really moving to cure the ills of the Nation.
I am very pleased to join my distinguished colleagues from Maine, Delaware, and Oklahoma in their cosponsorship. I look forward to an active role in hearings on this bill.