October 11, 1978
Page 35513
Mr. MUSKIE. May I interrupt just to thank the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island? He ascended to the chairmanship of the Rules Committee in February and found himself overwhelmed by the accumulated work of that committee as well as the necessities of an election year. Notwithstanding those pressures, he did cooperate to work on this legislation and bring it to the floor.
I should like to say "thank you," for the record.
Mr. PELL. In behalf of my fellow Members, we are delighted at those words. I thank the Senator very much. We all thank him.
Mr. President, the argument for passage of sunset legislation is simple and compelling. We in Congress must do a better job of controlling Government spending. We must do a better job of making certain that every dollar taken from the taxpayers is spent wisely, prudently, and with maximum effectiveness.
We cannot tolerate continuation of Government programs that are nonessential or of low priority. We cannot tolerate continuation of Government programs that sputter along on three cylinders instead of running smoothly on all six, or even all eight.
We cannot tolerate such programs, because of the absolute necessity to restrain Government spending, to reduce the Federal Government deficit, and to combat inflation. If we are going to achieve those objectives, we must reexamine every Government program and ask whether it is necessary, effective, and efficient, or low-priority, duplicative, and wasteful.
The sunset legislation simply gives Congress the ability to do the job that it should in examining all of these Government programs.
Mr. President, there are a number of objections raised by those who oppose passage of sunset legislation. One objection is that all of this reexamination of Government programs imposes a heavy workload on Congress and that it will be very difficult to do. It does, but it is our job to measure up to it.
Another objection is that the bill is unnecessary, because the Congress already carefully reexamines most Federal Government spending programs through periodic reauthorization bills.
Obviously, these objections are contradictory. But let us treat them individually on their merits. I agree that, in many cases, Congress does an excellent job of reviewing existing Government programs. In this regard, I am most familiar, as chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Education, with the work that we do to periodically review Federal Government education programs. In that subcommittee, we limit authorizations of programs, as a matter of policy, to 5 years at the most, and during reauthorization, we make a concerted effort to reexamine each program.
I think it is clear that we can do a better job of examining Government programs for efficiency, effectiveness, and relative need.
I agree that making a really thorough periodic examination of Government programs will mean more work, harder work for Congress. But it is a job that should be done, and I, for one, do not intend to tell the people of my State that this job is one that should be done, but we will not do it, because it is too difficult. The work must be done to bring Government programs under effective control.
I recognize, Mr. President, that there have been strong concerns expressed over the specific requirements of this legislation — concerns over the impact on Senate committees and their ability to function effectively within the framework of the proposed sunset legislation.
Those concerns have been thoroughly heard and examined, and I believe changes made in the legislation adequately address those concerns while preserving the essential features of sunset procedures.
This legislation was first considered and reported by the Committee on Governmental Affairs. The legislation was then referred, last year, to the Committee on Rules and Administration, where an initial hearing was held last fall under the able chairmanship of Senator CANNON. As a result of that hearing, Senator CANNON established a staff working group, with representatives from each of the Senate committees, to find workable solutions to those concerns.
This year, after I had assumed the chairmanship, the committee continued its work on the bill. More hearings were held and at my request, a compromise bill was drafted with the cooperation of the General Accounting Office, and the staffs of the Rules Committee and the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Legislation, in essentially that form, was reported to the Senate by the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Subsequently, to further accommodate Senators who continue to have concerns about specific provisions Senator MUSKIE offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute. That is the proposal we are considering today. So this is not hastily drafted legislation. It has been very carefully considered, and I think it fair to say that every effort has been made to meet the concerns expressed on the impact of the legislation on the working procedures of the Senate.
In conclusion, I strongly support this legislation. I believe it is a necessary and important step that must be taken to assure prudent use of taxpayers' dollars.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I think we have concluded, for all practical purposes, discussion of the bill. All Senators, so far as I know, who wished to speak on it have had that opportunity. As I understand it now, we shall vote on the bill, with a roll call vote at 6 o'clock.
I should like to express my appreciation to all Senators who have spoken. I want to pay particular tribute to my colleague (Mr. ROTH) and express my thanks for the privilege it has been to work with him over these 3 years on this bill. As I recall some of the discouraging moments, it is rather amusing to note the popularity that has accumulated behind this idea. I hope that popularity is fully expressed in the roll call vote that we shall have at 6 o'clock this afternoon.
I thank my good friend.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I join the distinguished Senator from Maine in hoping that we have a historic vote at 6 o'clock on this monumental piece of legislation. I want to thank him for the leadership role he has played.
I also pay my respects to the staff of the Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee, both on the majority and minority side, who have played a key role in developing this legislation.
I should say, as I listened to the hope and promise that this legislation is to bring about, I hope that we do not find, ourselves, as happens in some cases, that the program falls short of its goal so that, 10 years later, we decide the only thing to do with sunset is to sunset it. In contrast, I hope that, as Senator GLENN said, it is the beginning of sunrise.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, may I move third reading of the bill at this point?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
Mr. ROTH. Before that, before I yield back my time, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, the message is clear to all of us. Our constituents are angry. They are angry about the unnecessary growth of Government, they are angry about Government waste, and they are angry about Government programs that are costly, conflicting, and ineffective. The programs go on, because there is no constituency in this country to get rid of any Government programs, good or bad. The effect is very simple. We have seen it in this Congress — our ability to institute any new programs — no matter how good is severely limited by legitimate budgetary considerations. We must find a way to get rid of what does not work if we are ever to have a chance to try what does work.
The bill that we have before us today goes a long way toward giving us this ability. Sunset legislation offers a significant and positive response to the public's concern about inadequate Government performance and crippling Government waste. It establishes a 10-year timetable for review of virtually all Government programs unless they are periodically evaluated and reestablished by Congress. The amendment introduced by a colleague from Illinois gives us a workable system for evaluating these programs. This legislation will tie the politicians' rhetoric to the discipline of competitive reality.
Why not a report card for Government programs? What could be simpler than asking the executive branch to rank all programs in order of effectiveness — from best to worst. Those programs which consistently rank as the worst will be the prime candidate for cutting. They should be — if they do not work let us get rid of them. But, let us give ourselves the tools with which to do this fairly and effectively. This bill as amended does exactly that and I for one am delighted to support it wholeheartedly.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and was read the third time.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, has the order been entered for—
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered, but the vote is not to come until after 6 o'clock.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote, which will be a roll call vote, on this bill occur at the hour of 6:15 p.m., with paragraph 3 of Rule XII waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HODGES) . Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, furthermore, that no further debate, motions, points of order, et cetera, be in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield back all time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has already been yielded back.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the roll call vote on the sunset bill begin at 6:05 p.m., that it be a 20-minute roll call vote, and that the warning bells be sounded after the first twelve one-half minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.