October 11, 1978
Page 35503
Mr. CRANSTON. I congratulate the three Senators now on the floor and Senator JOHN GLENN for their work on this very important measure.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator for his support and his hope — which we hope will be more than a hope — that a strong vote this afternoon may carry this bill even further in. the session.
Mr. President, Senator GLENN had to leave the floor, but wishes to make a statement on this bill. So, if there are no other Senators seeking recognition at this time, 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. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD). Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I know that the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, who is a supporter of this legislation, has a question he wishes to put at this time. I shall be glad to entertain it and shall be glad to respond to it.
Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Maine.
As I interpret this bill, it would not apply to the electric power system of the Tennessee Valley Authority. The bill would, of course, clearly apply to those TVA programs which are supported through Federal funds.
The reason I raise this question is that I am concerned about the effect of this bill on the cost and availability of electricity to Tennessee citizens and businesses, many of whom rely on TVA for electricity. Before voting in favor of this bill, which I intend to do, I want to assure myself and my constituents that they will not be adversely affected.
As the Senator knows, for the past 19 years, the TVA electric power system has been entirely self-supporting financially. All of TVA's power funds come from consumers who buy its electricity, either directly through electric rates or indirectly through its sale of bonds, which are ultimately secured by the electricity consumers themselves. The TVA power system receives no Federal funds, and, in fact, each year the power system pays back to the Treasury, with interest, part of the congressional appropriations it got in earlier years before enactment of its self- financing authority.
I think it is important to make sure that this bill does not apply to TVA's electric power system because even the mere threat of termination or any uncertainty about TVA's ability to sell bonds or to enter into economical long-term contracts could seriously harm consumers in my area. Any uncertainty caused by S.2 could mean that TVA would have to purchase power system material through less economical short-term contracts or would have to include costly early-cancellation provisions in its contracts. In any case, electricity consumers in my area would pay for the uncertainty.
Therefore, Mr. President, I simply restate my interpretation of this bill to be that the TVA electric power system is not covered by this legislation.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I concur in the Senator's interpretations of the bill. It would not apply to the TVA power system or to any borrowing or contracting authority used in connection with that program. It would apply to those TVA programs that receive Federal funds, and only to those.
Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished sponsor of the bill. I am a strong supporter of S. 2, the "sunset" bill.
This legislation has been carefully considered by the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs in the last two sessions of Congress, and it is time for Congress to take favorable action on it. It is an idea whose time has indeed come.
I wish to praise the distinguished sponsor of S. 2 (Mr. MUSKIE) for his tireless efforts to insure this bill's passage. As chairman of the Subcommittee of Intergovernmental Relations, on which I serve, Senator MUSKIE chaired the hearings and the markups and used his considerable powers of persuasion to overcome the differences of opinion among Senators. He worked with the Committee on Rules and with the Senate leadership to fashion the substitute amendment we have before us today.
Mr. President, the Muskie substitute, in my judgment, preserves all of the sunset principles we have worked in committee to keep in the bill. Specifically, the legislation insures that there will be an automatic termination mechanism for programs which do not receive congressional reapproval. That termination will take place only after systematic reviews by Congress with the assistance of other support agencies.
Mr. President, the sunset legislation is especially important and timely today. We find, in State after State, that people are tired of their tax money being used to support programs that do not work. Many of these programs just continue on, year after year, at great expense to the taxpayers of the country.
I personally believe that voters are not expressing their dissatisfaction with legitimate public programs — they are angry about wasteful expenditures that drive up taxes without providing services. In my judgment, voters do not prefer the meat-axe approach to cutting Government spending; they would rather see careful review of each program, with automatic termination of those that do not meet the test.
We know that if Congress does not act responsibly to curb wasteful spending, the taxpayers will take matters into their own hands. That is why sunset legislation is so crucial today. If we are ever going to get the budget under control, and if we are ever going to be responsive to the citizens who are tired of Government waste, we must enact this sunset legislation.
Again, I commend the distinguished Senator from Maine for his tireless efforts in fashioning and shaping this legislation and bringing it to the floor today.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank my good friend from Tennessee, not only for what he has said today, but for the support he has given us in his service on the Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee. The vigor that younger Senators can bring to our work is of great support to those of us who are running out of energy.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator JAVITS be added as a cosponsor to the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PAUL G. HATFIELD). Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield to my good friend, who I hope is still my good friend, the Senator from Alaska (Mr. STEVENS) , who descends from a long line of Scotsmen.
Mr. STEVENS. It is the Scots blood and not Scotch blood.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I do want to join those who are commending the Senator from Maine for his aggressive action with regard to the sunset legislation. I am pleased to be one of the cosponsors of this legislation.
I think it will be known in the future as sort of the Muskie rule, that we have to look over what we have done and be certain that the Government can justify continuing to spend taxpayers' money before further reauthorization for Federal programs.
It is a most salutary approach to government, in my opinion. I am pleased to be associated with him. I am delighted that, for once, we could be totally in agreement, along with my good friend from Delaware who has worked with the Senator from Maine for so long on this proposition.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank my good friend.
May I say, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, it is always a much greater pleasure to be associated with him, on the same side of an issue, than on the other side.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE.I yield to my good friend from Hawaii.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. President, I wish to join with my other colleagues in congratulating and commending the Senator from Maine for having succeeded in bringing before the Senate the so-called sunset bill. In the past 2 weeks, he has made enormous efforts and this, I believe, is the culmination of that effort and its success, indeed.
I am a member of the Finance Committee. Although because of my position on the Finance Committee I had to vote against the Senator in some cases relative to germaneness, relative to cloture, on the sunset bill, as it was applied to the tax measure, as a cosponsor of the measure introduced by the Senator from Maine I am delighted to join in support of the measure.
I wish to associate myself with the statement made by the Senator from Maine. This will, indeed, be a living memorial to the Senator — of course, even while he is alive, and I hope he stays alive a long time and serves in this body a long time yet to come — but this will, indeed, be a monument to the Senator from Maine.
I am sure that as time goes on, this one measure will prove to be a measure which brought economy to the Federal Government.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank my good friend from Hawaii.
I understood fully the other votes, to which he referred. I never doubted for a moment his commitment to this bill and its principle and objectives, and for that I am most appreciative.
Mr. President, at this point I ask unanimous consent that Mr. STEVENS, who is listed as a cosponsor on original versions of this bill, be made a cosponsor of this bill. Through inadvertence, he is not listed on the sponsorship list, and I want to be sure he is because he has been a cosponsor for some time.
Mr. STEVENS. I would like to be listed as a cosponsor. I am on the one introduced January 10, 1977. Are there others who have been left out on the second version?
Mr. MUSKIE. I will check.
But I ask unanimous consent that all Senators who have been cosponsors of this legislation in any form be included as cosponsors on this one, and my staff will make certain to insure their inclusion.
I think there are at least 52 at this point, and there may be more.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. If the Senator from Maine will yield again, I do hope I am listed as a cosponsor.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the so-called "termination" provision has been the central issue of controversy since we began discussing sunset legislation 3 years ago.
The termination provision is the mechanism in the bill that would bring a program to an end unless Congress acted positively to keep it going.
At present, many Federal programs contain their own termination provisions. These are programs which have short-term authorizations. As of the date their authorization runs out, these programs would terminate unless Congress reauthorized them.
However, many other Federal programs do not have their own termination provisions. These are programs which are permanently authorized or permanently appropriated. It is on these programs that the termination provision in sunset will have the greatest impact — by terminating them unless Congress specifically acts to continue them.
As the sunset concept has evolved, we have explored a number of termination mechanisms to force Congress to act affirmatively on every program it chooses to continue.
Under S. 2925 — 94th Congress — the sunset bill terminated all provisions of law that authorized the enactment of appropriations unless they were reenacted by their reauthorization date in the sunset schedule. To enforce that termination provision, S. 2925 also provided that consideration of an appropriation for any program was not in order in either House unless it was specifically authorized. Thus, an appropriation to continue a program not reauthorized would have been blocked from being considered unless the rules of both Houses were suspended.
The S. 2925 termination provision was discarded because it created an extremely serious problem. That is that it did not make clear which provisions of law it actually terminated. It was unclear whether it terminated just the section of law which actually read "there is hereby authorized" or entire statutes authorizing programs. That problem was particularly troublesome in the case of older programs which did not have specific authorization sections in their authorizing legislation.
As a result, the S. 2925 termination provision threatened to terminate not only authorization provisions but also a large body of underlying Federal law. The only way to prevent that from happening was to list every section of law to which the termination provision was to apply in the sunset bill. And that would have been impossible.
Under S. 2, the termination provision was revamped. The S. 2 termination provision prohibited the President from obligating or expending funds for a program which was not specifically reauthorized by its sunset reauthorization date. To enforce that termination provision, S. 2 relied on a provision in the rules identical to that in S. 2925 making it out of order for either House to consider an appropriation for a program not authorized.
The S. 2 termination provision solved the problem in S. 2925. Since it terminated no law, it could not terminate the law underlying any program. While that termination provision was an improvement over the provision in S. 2925, to some degree, it had the liability of over- promising. That was because the enactment of a subsequent appropriation for a program not reauthorized would continue that program. As a result, the effectiveness of the S. 2 termination provision depended on the enforcement of the rules in both Houses.
In the substitute amendment, we once again modified the termination provision. The substitute amendment has, in effect, two termination mechanisms — one for permanent appropriations and the other for permanent authorizations. For programs funded by permanent appropriations, the substitute amendment provides that unless the program is reauthorized by its scheduled reauthorization date, the permanent appropriation ceases to have effect for the purpose of providing funds. That is the cleanest and simplest way to terminate such a program.
For programs funded by permanent authorizations, the termination provision in the substitute amendment is somewhat of a cross between the provisions in S. 2925 and S. 2. Like S. 2, it depends heavily on the rules of the two Houses, but those rules have been written much more tightly than in any of the previous versions of the bill. And like in S. 2925, the termination provision in the substitute has the effect of voiding the authorization provision for any program not reauthorized in accordance with the sunset procedures.
The substitute amendment establishes a new category of authorizations — "required authorizations." A required authorization is an authorization enacted in accordance with sunset procedures. That means it must be enacted in the Congress during which the program is scheduled for reauthorization under sunset, must be for less than 10 years and must not extend past the next reauthorization date for that program.
The substitute further provides that an appropriation for any program for which there is no required authorization would not be in order in either House. As a result, a program with a permanent authorization that is not reauthorized in accordance with sunset procedures would not have a required authorization — and an appropriation for it would be out of order. From a practical perspective, that has the same effect as terminating the section of law authorizing the program.
In order to assist the Senate in enforcing that rule, the substitute amendment also provides that an appropriations measure is out of order in both Houses unless it or the report accompanying it cites the required authorization for every program it proposes to fund.
As a fail-safe mechanism, the substitute also includes a bar against obligating or expending funds for any program not specifically re-enacted — by reauthorlzation or appropriation — at any time during a sunset reauthorization cycle. That bar would go into effect at the end of the cycle.
In my view, as a practical matter, there is no difference between the way the termination provision in the substitute and that in S. 2 would work. In either case, the process would depend on the willingness of Congress to live by and enforce its rules. To give you a better idea of why I feel that way, lets take the example of medicaid. Medicaid is permanently authorized but is funded by an annual appropriation. For purposes of this discussion, let’s assume that the re-authorization date for medicaid is 1984. In addition, let’s assume that Congress did not reauthorize medicaid in 1984.
Under S. 2, the President could not spend any money for medicaid after September 30, 1984 and an appropriation for medicaid after that date would be out of order. Assuming Congress abides by its own rules and does not appropriate funds for the medicaid program, the program would terminate. If Congress, on the other hand, decides to discard its rules and to appropriate funds anyway, the program would continue because the appropriation would be an action of Congress subsequent to the enactment of sunset.
Under the substitute amendment, if medicaid were not reauthorized by September 30, 1984, it would be out of order to consider an appropriation to fund it further because the medicaid law would not longer be a required authorization for the purpose of appropriating against. Again, assuming that Congress abides by its rules and does not appropriate further for medicaid, the program would terminate, just as under S. 2. If, however, Congress chooses to disregard its rules and appropriate funds for medicaid any-way, that program would continue just as it would under S. 2 under the same circumstances.
Under either version, in order to continue the medicaid program, Congress would either have to reauthorize it or willingly disregard its rules to appropriate for it. And if Congress chooses to take the latter course there is really nothing under either version to be done to stop the program from continuing.
The weakness in the termination provision in the substitute is the same as the weakness in that provision in every version of sunset — that the provision can be overridden by any subsequent act of the Congress, even if that subsequent act is a regular appropriation. Thus, a program can be continued, even without reauthorization, if the Congress continues to appropriate for it. That was the case in S. 2925 and S. 2, and it is the case with the substitute amendment.
The advantage of the substitute on that score is that better than any of the previous versions, it highlights the failure to reauthorize a program.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a statement by the President a couple of weeks ago in support of sunset be printed in the RECORD. He also indicates support of the sunset review for tax expenditures which, of course, is irrelevant to our debate today, but I have no objection to having that part of the statement in the RECORD, as well.
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
The Senate is expected to vote this week on sunset legislation. I have long supported the sunset idea, and I urge favorable action on this bill.
The bill will assure that we take a hard look at most Federal programs at least once a decade. Based on those reviews, inefficient and outmoded programs will be changed or eliminated. To assure that the process works, programs will be terminated unless affirmatively reenacted.
Too many Federal programs have been enacted and then allowed to continue indefinitely, without further thought. The country's needs and priorities change, and we must assure that government programs change with them. Zero-based budgeting is one mechanism to force such changes. Sunset is a vital complement to ZBB — it assures that reviews go beyond the budget to the underlying laws that establish the programs. Sunset will help hold down government spending and increase government effectiveness.
In addition to the overall bill, the Senate will vote on an amendment to provide sunset review for tax expenditures. I support such reviews. In effect, tax expenditures involve spending public money for social and economic purposes, and they need regular review just as much as other programs.
I congratulate Senator Muskie and other Senate leaders for bringing this important legislation to a vote.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, at this point I am delighted to yield to another Senator who has been a cosponsor of this bill since he came to the Senate, but before that, I yield to my good friend from Kansas (Mr. DOLE), who is also a supporter.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, as everyone else has done, very properly, I commend the distinguished chairman, Senator ROTH, and others, who have reached this point. I hope it goes even further before we adjourn Saturday. I know the distinguished Senator from Maine hopes the same.
Mr. President, the Senator from Kansas has been a longtime supporter of sunset legislation — as author of my own sunset bill, as cosponsor of the Muskie bill, and as cosponsor of the compromise substitute which we are considering to-day.
Those of us who support sunset have been looking forward to the consideration of this measure by the full Senate for some time. It has taken a long time to work out this compromise because, while the principle behind sunset is simple, the concrete plans for implementation are, by necessity, rather complicated.
For a long time I have felt that the sunset principle had great promise. I hope that his compromise will deliver on that promise.
THE SENATE MANDATE
The sunset principle mandates that programs shall cease unless reauthorized, and it implies that Congress will eliminate some of the wasteful and low priority Federal spending at reauthorization time.
By requiring reauthorization of similar programs at the same time, Congress will be encouraged to compare similar programs and eliminate those that suffer by comparison. Certainly, it is obvious that the Federal Government continues to fund programs which have little reason for continuing other than inertia. Until now, inertia has often been the most important driving force behind waste and inefficiency in the Federal Government. Hopefully, this bill will help remedy that.
The American taxpayer labors to support hundreds of programs, many of which would not survive under the scrutiny of periodic analysis. Hopefully this bill will help remedy the burden.
FISCAL ORDER OUT OF BUREAUCRATIC CHAOS
In addition to the many simply wasteful programs, the Federal Government has many programs which are intended to accomplish nationally recognized objectives with which few of us would disagree. However, many of these programs operate in a fragmented and disorderly way because they are not considered in concert with similar programs which may overlap or even interfere. By encouraging roughly simultaneous consideration of different programs dedicated to the same purpose, this legislation can serve to bring fiscal order out of bureaucratic chaos.
S. 2515, a sunset bill which I introduced on October 9, 1975 included provisions requiring uniform analysis of various programs. It was felt that such a requirement would facilitate the comparison of various programs and the elimination of the less effective ones. Likewise, early versions of S. 2 included requirements that the committee analysis be done in parallel fashion — on a more or less uniform basis.
I recognize that these provisions have been deleted from this compromise in favor of much looser reporting requirements. However, I hope that committees will still feel that they have a mandate to thoroughly study programs as a part of the sunset process.
THE LIMITS OF SUNSET
Of course, it is important that we recognize the limits of sunset. Even with the strictest requirements and standards, this legislation would be no substitute for frugality on the part of legislators.
This legislation will not bring back fiscal responsibility by itself. The Senate can make as many structural changes as we wish, but the only thing that will really curb Federal spending is to start voting against increases in the cost of Government, and start voting in favor of cuts in areas where cuts are needed — to eliminate poorly conceived, poorly administered, or plainly outmoded programs. Structural changes and changes in the process will not cause the bullet to be bitten, we must bite the bullet ourselves.
Passing this bill, but refusing to cut out waste in Government will not satisfy the public spirit of proposition 13, nor should it.
Nevertheless, the procedural changes mandated by S. 2 will give us a tool for cutting back on the size of Government if we wish to. I hope that the Senate will use that tool effectively in the future and I am pleased to support the legislation.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator from Kansas, who has been a supporter for a long time.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Secretary of the Senate be authorized to make technical and clerical corrections in the engrossment of S. 2.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CHILES. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. I promised to yield to Senator GLENN, who was out looking for his spectacles. But I yield to my good friend from Florida at this time, who has been such a staunch supporter of the budget process, as a member of the Budget Committee, as a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, and a cosponsor, he has contributed to the development of sunset as well.
I am grateful for that, and I yield to him at this point.
Mr. CHILES. I thank the distinguished Senator from Maine.
I want to associate myself with the remarks he has made on this bill and to compliment him for the work he has been doing, the yeoman's work over the past 3 years, and it probably goes back even longer than that in the development and the genesis of this legislation.
Mr. President, I have long been a supporter of sunset. I think it is sort of a natural follow-on to sunshine. If we are going to have sunshine, then we need to have sunset. I think that the American people are strongly for this.
I have found since I have come to the Senate, that if there has been a weakness in our legislative responsibility, it has been in our oversight responsibility.
It is easy to understand how that happens. It is easy to understand that we have sort of become geared to a function in which we address ourselves to a new problem and we put all of our time and attention, we put all of our expertise, in trying to address a problem that faces the people, and we come up with a legislative solution many times for that problem and we assign that to an agency. Then it is time for us to focus on the next new problem and we go through the same cycle again.
That has been happening for a number of years. I guess, clearly, since World War II as the technological age has hit the world. Certainly, in this country, those problems seem to have come faster and faster and have involved more and more of Congress time.
Therefore, with our attention continually focused on the future, we have had very little time to look back to see how those agencies were handling those problems, that assignment we had given them.
I think all one would have to do would be to look at the role that is being played by an agency we created in past years, and see what powers they have assumed by virtue of their rule- and regulation-making power, to understand the growth there has been in the bureaucracy, how they go into many areas that Congress never contemplated they would go into. In many instances, the real need for that function that we created has long since passed, but we never got around to finding that out or pruning off that function. Continually, we are talking about Government that grows and grows and how much we need it to grow, but we would have room for some new programs and room for new growth if we could prune those that are ineffective and inefficient or that long since have outlived their usefulness.
This particular view has been my reason for supporting sunset for a long time. Recently, a much stronger focus or an additional reason has come to my mind, and that is the situation involving the GSA frauds. We find in this area that this has been going on for 25 years. We find that there are these self-service stores in GSA, some of them created to try to help the Government in its purchasing. Some of them had not been audited in up to 12 years.
Why in the world did this happen? That is what everybody asks me, and I asked myself that when I first saw it. How could this go on for 25 years without its coming to someone's attention. I think Congress has to share in that, because certainly had we been going through the kind of oversight process we would be required to go through in sunsetting GSA and the functions of GSA, we would have picked this up.
There is no way we could not have picked it up. Not only would we have picked it up, but also the GSA management would have picked it up, as they started preparing for these hearings.
So it appears to me that in addition to those programs that are outright ineffective, in addition to those areas in which some executive agencies have gone far beyond their charter by virtue of their rule- and regulation-making power, we have the further impetus where there is outright fraud and tremendous waste and corruption going on in that agency.
The General Accounting Office has issued a very interesting report — I hope every Member of Congress reads it — in which they say that the very scandal we are now having in GSA, the practices of fraud that are going on in GSA, are going on in every agency of Government. The difference is that they have not been discovered as yet, because the management and the thinking of management over the years has become that of, "I'm responsible for just carrying out my No. 1function. If I am to give out grants, I am to give them out as fast as I can. If I am to purchase, I am to purchase as fast as I can. If I am to repair buildings, I am to repair them at any cost."
No one in that management level is thinking about trying to design a program that protects against fraud, that has the ability to discover fraud when it occurs; nor will they go out and prosecute after it is discovered.
We can say the same for waste and inefficiency, because the same mentality is there. That manager does not feel that he really has to be concerned with having a very effective and efficient program.
The reward system has been based on getting the job done, not getting it done in an efficient manner, not getting it done in a fraud-free manner. What is the reward for the whistle blowers who talked about the fraud that was happening in GSA? The reward was that they got fired or they got demoted, or perhaps they were just shipped out to Timbuktu and were given some very insignificant post until they withered on the vine. What is the reward for those people who were sort of a part of the scheme? They were promoted. So it went up the ladder. The same is true for waste and inefficiency.
I see sunset putting the gun to the head of Congress, requiring us to do the kind of oversight job that is central to our being a complete legislative body.
Somehow, all our thrust and attention go to handling the new problem on the block, but we never get around to handling the oversight. This certainly makes us have to do that.
Many people will say we do not have enough time. That is like people saying in the budget process we do not have enough money. Somehow we have to allocate the resources we have, and right now we probably do not have enough time. None of us feels that we have enough hours in the day to try to handle all the problems that face us, but we are not allocating even those hours that we have to do any kind of job on oversight, and this bill would require us to do that.
When we consider the confidence that people have in this Government, we see it continually go down, especially as it regards Congress. This bill really will strike a blow at that.
In 1970, when I was campaigning for the U.S. Senate, I heard a constant theme. When I crossed my State, I started on the Alabama-Florida. line, and I went down to the Keys. As you go across my State, you find a mix of people, and they come from all over the country. I can cite the area where there are people who come from Ohio, people who come from Michigan, people who come from the Northeast.
One theme that was sort of central as I walked across the State was the feeling that there is no way to get Government's attention any more. No one in Government will listen to me, a citizen. There was the feeling that I do not get a chance to vote for the person who governs my life. My life is governed by someone who does not change, whether the parties change. The major force is this bureaucracy. They are there. They are going to continue. I have tried to listen to this fellow and to the problems of the other, and nothing changes. That is because, we put this force out there and give them the right to issue these rules and regulations.
We in Congress know how hard it is — almost impossible — for us to get any attention of the bureaucracy. If you happen to have his budget at a particular time, he will answer your phone call. Otherwise, you can say what you want as a Member of Congress, but you do not get much attention from this agency, because they are going to continue. They really have legislative authority by their rule- and regulation-making power.
Sunset certainly is going to help us to have some kind of control over these agencies that we created.
In a way, it is like Dr. Frankenstein's monster. We have created it, but we do not know how to stop it. We do not know how to slow it down. We do not know how to change the path. At least, we are going to get a chance to start looking at its arms ,and legs when we review these functions, to see what needs to be pruned, what needs to be watered, what needs to be fertilized, or what needs budding, and have an opportunity to do something about it.
I think this bill can speak very strongly — if we can pass it and get it into effect — to the disenchanted populace out there who have the feeling that there is no one in control, that Congress cannot do anything about these agencies which are never terminated. They see thousands started, and they read the stories about people who sit in their offices and listen to a Victrola play because they no longer have something to do, but they continue to draw their checks all the time. This bill speaks to that, and I think it speaks very strongly.
For those and many of the other reasons that have been cited by many other Members, I hope we can pass this bill. I am delighted that we have an opportunity to get it before the Senate. If it does not become law this year, I assure the Senator from Maine that I will stand with him next year, to start it very early, very quickly, and to see that we can get it out of this body and to the other body as quickly as possible next year.
I say to the Senator from Maine that the one concern I have with this bill now is that it deals with-a 10-year period of time for the cycle to run. That disturbs me, because, by virtue of the time it is going to take to look at it, we are not going to have sufficient opportunity. Does the Senator from Maine have any feeling in that regard?
Mr. MUSKIE. I think the principal reason that the time frame was stretched out, from the original 5 years, is the feeling that we might be overloading ourselves and our committees to the point where the review process might become less meaningful, because it would be under such pressure.
I have the feeling that as we learn to live under it, we will find ways to allocate our time, to use the Senator's expression, more effectively, and that we can pick up momentum and conceivably even shorten the time frame.
As we acquire expertise in handling the workload, I have an idea that committees will develop perhaps even enthusiasm for doing the work more expeditiously and more rapidly; to speed up the schedule. This gives us a beginning. He and I, and others who believe in this process, can keep the prod on as we go along to try to accelerate the review process. I have a feeling that will happen.
Mr. CHILES. Granted that, and I know some people share real concern about the fact that we would overload the circuits and they would break down if we tried to make the time frame too short, would there be some merit as we are looking at this bill in the future in saying maybe the time frame, in the first go-round, needs to be longer but after that it should be shortened? In other words, once we go through the first pass we should be able to prune out an awful lot of dead wood and we should be able to consolidate or see some programs consolidated and terminated so that it would be easier and we would be more geared as to how to go through the process after that. I just kind of hate to see us have legislation that says we are only going to look at a program every 10 years.
Mr. MUSKIE. I agree that is worthwhile.
I will say to the Senator after you have been here 20 years, as I have, 10 years is not as long a time as it appeared to be the first year that I was here.
Mr. CHILES. Not having been here that long—
Mr. MUSKIE. That is not to discourage the Senator's objective, but time has a way of catching up with you pretty fast around here: It may be we can get this bill enacted this year in both Houses. I still have not relinquished that possibility.
Mr. CHILES. I compliment the Senator from Maine for his initiative and his tenacity. He stays on the floor and he stays behind this bill, certainly in the closing days to get this bill up, and I am delighted to be a cosponsor with him.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator.
At this point I have almost run out of time, but I think between us, Senator Roth and I can provide the time for another principal cosponsor, Senator GLENN, whose particular interest has been the tax expenditure side. That interest is not before us this afternoon. I would be surprised if he did not refer to it, but in any case whatever he wants to say I am happy to yield time to him at this point.
I might say that the majority leader asked me to see if. we could conclude this business as soon as possible because he has other business he wishes to take up this afternoon. I say that not to inhibit the Senator from Ohio, but I would hope that to accommodate the majority leader we might conclude discussion at a reasonably early time. With that in mind, and with his own sense of restraint as a guide, I yield to my good friend from Ohio.
Mr. GLENN. I thank the distinguished floor manager of the bill very much, and as he has indicated my previous interest, it would be my natural bent today to rise and perhaps send to the desk an amendment including a tax expenditure provision on this bill, but in light of having been up that mountain and down that mountain several times over the past few legislative days, I will certainly not do that today.
I think we have had emphasis on Government in the sunshine. We now have emphasis on Government sunset legislation. I think had we had that tax expenditure provision included and enacted into law, perhaps we might even have reviewed taxes with regard to moonshine. And I. say that with passage of this particular legislation I think we will even include a sunrise, because we will have a new day, as I see it, in Government responsibility and in our efforts to control what many people regard as a runaway Federal bureaucracy.
I wish to compliment the authors of the bill, those with whom I have worked very closely over the past 3 years, Senator MUSKIE, Senator ROTH, and the others who have worked on this legislation because it has gone through a lot of changes over the past several years in making it more acceptable.
We had some 50 witnesses appear before the committee when we were considering this legislation in the first instance. These considerations of this legislation have gone on over a 3-year period.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Maine has expired.
Mr. ROTH. How much time does the Senator from Ohio wish to have yielded to him?
Mr. GLENN. Ten minutes. How much time does the Senator have available?
Mr. ROTH. I am happy to yield 10 minutes or such time as he may desire.
Mr. GLENN. Make it 15 minutes.
Mr. ROTH. I yield 15 minutes.
In yielding I wish to pay my respects to the role the Senator from Ohio has played in bringing about this legislation. He has been a strong forceful advocate of this act.
I have not always agreed with all his proposals, but I think we can all agree that this legislation would not be here today had it not been for his valued contributions.
I yield him 15 minutes.