October 11, 1978
Page 35484
PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION AND EVALUATION ACT OF 1978
The Senate continued with the consideration of S. 2.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. S. 2.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the will of the Senate?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I am well aware of the many demands on our legislative schedule this week, but we seem to have a most appropriate window in the schedule today for the purpose of considering the proposed legislation, which has been the subject of comment and reference and controversy, especially on the tax expenditure side, for at least 1 or 2 weeks. So I am not sure that I can say anything at this point that would further enlighten either Senators or the press or the public as to what this bill is all about.
Nevertheless, I think it is appropriate that we make a record in the context of this afternoon, when we hope we will act finally on the bill — when Senators will have an opportunity to vote for or against it on the record — when we finally reach a determination as to whether or not the Senate supports this concept so I will now include a discussion of the bill, so that there will be continuity between the vote and the rationale for the bill.
As I have said several times, I can think of few more important acts that this body can take in the waning days of the 95th Congress than to demonstrate solid commitment to curbing inflation by bringing Federal spending under control, and to respond in a thoughtful, reasoned way to the public concern that Government today is not working as well as it should.
That, as I see it, is what sunset is all about. It is a most important idea, with great potential for change. It is not new to public debate. Indeed, we have been talking about sunset for nearly 3 years.
Mr. President, I have introduced this measure in several forms over the years with Senator ROTH, who is the ranking Republican on the Senate Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs, as an original and continuing cosponsor; with Senator GLENN, whose particular interest has been the tax expenditure amendment, which is not part of the proposed legislation, which we will consider today; with the distinguished majority leader, the distinguished majority whip, and 49 other of my colleagues.
It often has been said in jest that when a bill has that many cosponsors in the Senate, its prospects for passage are pretty dim. I hope in this case that the number of cosponsors, together with the unsolicited support I have received on every hand in the Senate during the past 2 weeks, augurs an overwhelming support of the Senate this afternoon.
This amendment represents the latest of many refinements in this sunset legislation, as we attempt to fashion the best and most workable bill possible to bring to the Senate floor.
The sunset legislation has gone through 13 days of hearings in the Governmental Affairs Committee, with more than 50 witnesses commenting on its every provision. It has twice been favorably reported by that committee. It has twice been considered by the Rules Committee, and just 2 months ago was favorably reported by that committee as well. Virtually every committee of the Senate has been consulted as this bill has moved along.
Subsequent to that action by the Rules Committee 2 months ago, there have been informal discussions designed to deal with other questions raised by other Senators in connection with this legislation.
I cannot think of another piece of legislation over which I have had any jurisdiction in the 20 years I have been in the Senate, that has been refined and polished and rerefined and repolished as this one has been for 3 years. So if ever a piece of legislation has been the product of deliberate, rational, thoughtful, comprehensive consideration, this bill is it.
From the very beginning, the sunset bill has been well received. It is cosponsored by more than half the members of this body, and by well over a hundred members of the House. Groups as diverse as Common Cause and the Chamber of Commerce support it as an essential step in further strengthening congressional spending control.
After almost 3 years of debate, I believe the public now deserves a decision on this promising idea, and the Senate needs to make that decision without any further delay.
I am delighted that we are now going to have a chance to give my colleagues an opportunity to vote on the bill. I hope my colleagues will decide to give sunset a try. The reasons for doing so are numerous and sound.
When I first introduced sunset legislation almost 3 years ago, I was moved by three principal concerns.
First, as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, I was concerned that budget reform notwithstanding, the Federal budget was increasingly beyond firm congressional control. Indeed, in 1975, we had a much smaller portion of the budget at our discretion than we did a decade before. In 1965, almost half of all Federal spending was controllable, through the regular reauthorization and appropriations processes. By 1975, that figure had shrunk to only 25 percent.
Second, I was troubled by growing evidence that we would create an array of programs so complex they were unable to do the job. GAO report after GAO report documented waste of the taxpayers' money, simply because one arm of the Government did not know what all the others were doing, and with fragmented agency and committee jurisdiction; Congress had no established mechanism for addressing the kinds of problems the GAO reports highlighted so well.
Third, I was concerned that poll after poll showed public confidence in Government going steadily down. More and more Americans seemed to feel that Government was not working well.
Three years ago, sunset seemed a reasonable and imaginative response to these concerns.
In its provision for the regular reauthorization of virtually all Federal programs, sunset offered a way to bring the Federal budget back under systematic congressional control.
By requiring the review of similar programs at the same time, sunset provided an opportunity to consider all of Federal policy in one area at once — with an eye toward eliminating wasted resources which could be put to better use.
And by demonstrating a firm commitment to the difficult task of making government more effective, sunset seemed an excellent way to demonstrate to the public that we in Congress are doing our job.
Today, these arguments for sunset are stronger than ever.
In 1978, although the proportion of uncontrollable spending in the budget has stabilized, it has not declined. We seriously debate national priorities each year, with only a fraction of the budget at our command. Three-quarters of Federal spending decisions are made whether Congress acts or not.
In 1978, we have made little, if any, progress in streamlining and simplifying the many programs on the books. Committee reform helped. But we still have overlapping programs scattered all over downtown and Capitol Hill.
State and local governments continue to cite excessive program fragmentation and red tape as a major obstacle to effective policy. And the GAO continues to churn out evidence of wasted dollars because of a program structure which has grown needlessly complex.
And in 1978, public concern over ineffective government reached a new high,with proposition 13 in California and its offspring in other States.
Three years ago, I was convinced that these conditions argued persuasively for the kind of change sunset would entail. I am even more convinced today.
But Mr. President, today, there is an additional argument for sunset, more compelling than all the rest. That argument is the resurgence of inflation — public enemy No. 1 — viewed by 80 percent of the public as the most serious problem our Nation faces.
What has sunset to do with inflation?
In the public's view, clearly a great deal. According to the latest Harris survey, 76 percent of the American people view Federal spending as the principal cause of inflation. And a look at the projections for future budgets argues the case for the public's concern.
As part of its 5-year projections for the first budget resolution for fiscal year 1979, the Budget Committee calculated the potential cost of 31 new programmatic initiatives likely to come before the Congress between now and 1983. The list was by no means exhaustive. But it did include such major items as national health insurance and additional defense expenditures which would result from a failure of the SALT talks, and many, many more.
The committee found that between 1980 and 1983, these 31 initiatives could cost as much as $416 billion in new spending. The committee also found, as did CBO. that with a moderate rate of growth between now and then, we could expect only about $120 billion in additional revenues to pay for these new demands, if they are considered and enacted into law.
These numbers pose a very sobering problem, Mr. President.
Some of those initiatives may well be justified, and the public may support them, and there will undoubtedly be others before the next decade is out. After all, the agenda for our country is a continuing one as new and unanticipated needs arise to compete with the established programs and resource allocation.
Yet with the economy approaching full capacity, as it is, with inflation on the rise, spending increases of the magnitude projected by these numbers are clearly out of the question.
Under today's economic conditions, massive Federal deficits like we have known in recent years will succeed only in making inflation worse.
The numbers tell us we can afford new programs only if we can justify them in one of four ways: By running massive deficits and sending inflation through the roof; by raising taxes substantially to pay for new demands; by across-the-board cuts in spending, as many have proposed; or by selective cuts in programs we now have but which we may not need.
The first two of these options would be both economic and political suicide.
The third option would make room in the budget — but in an irresponsible and indiscriminate way.
The final option would be difficult, but doable. And, in my view, it is the most responsible of the four.
It would require a commitment from every one of us in Congress and outside Congress to put our favorite programs to the test — to see if they are still needed, or if they are working well. This is not a prospect likely to warm a politician's heart. But given our other options, I suggest we have no choice.
And whether we like it or not, the initiative must come first from us.
It is Congress which sets national policy, through the programs we enact. If those programs have grown unresponsive and ineffective, it is we who must bear much of the blame, for it is our job not just to initiate new programs, but also to insure that the old programs are working as well as they should and that they are still needed.
More importantly, it is Congress which has ultimate control over Federal spending, through our power of the purse. If that power is substantially eroded by decisions made in the past, we have an obligation to reassess those decisions so that new initiatives can be pursued.
Today, I think we are failing to meet our responsibility on both counts. And that is why an idea like sunset is so important at this time.
Mr. President, I want there to be no misunderstanding of my motives on this matter. I take a back seat to no one in support of the many worthy goals we have sought to achieve through Federal initiatives in recent years. And I believe that Congress must continue to play an active role in shaping government as a positive force in our society.
But I am concerned that we in Congress are increasingly unable to do an effective job of legislating for the future because our hands are so bound by the past.
As a result, we are limiting both present and future budgets — and the priorities they define.
We are denying our constitutents an effective return on the tax dollars they pay.
And, in 1978, we are inviting the specter of Government spending driving inflation out of sight.
For all these reasons, I have been pushing sunset legislation for the last 3 years. For all these reasons, I urge Senate passage of sunset now.
Sunset offers us a unique opportunity to provide the extra spending discipline that we need.
It will not do so overnight, nor in a very exciting way.
But over the long haul, it is the only responsible vehicle I see which can help free up scarce resources to direct to new problems as they arise and to give the taxpayer needed relief.
And given the dwindling budget options available to us, I can think of few more positive steps we can take.
Mr. President, at the outset of my remarks, I noted that sunset, although untried, is not new to public debate. Nevertheless, there remains much confusion as to precisely what it is.
In its most general sense, a sunset law is one which states that certain specified activities of government will come to an end — the sun will set — unless specifically continued by the legislative branch of Government. Within this broad definition, however, the term "sunset" can take many different shapes. Sunset laws have been adopted in several States to date, in widely differing forms.
The sunset bill I have proposed is keyed very specifically to the way Congress works. It seeks to remedy a congressional problem by building upon existing congressional processes and to use those processes more fully to help usdo a better job. The approach taken is very simple indeed.
Title I sets out a 10-year, 5-Congress schedule for the review and reauthorization of all Federal programs, with only a few exceptions. Within this schedule, programs are grouped by budget function and subfunction, in order to encourage review of programs with related purposes during the same period of time.
The bill requires that all programs, save the few exceptions — including those now permanent — be specifically reauthorized in accordance with the schedule. To enforce this requirement, title I also provides that a point of order will lie against consideration of an appropriation for any program not so reauthorized.
These two provisions — the reauthorization requirement and the schedule for review — are, taken together, the essence of the sunset bill. Either provision without the other would leave the process incomplete. Reauthorization without a schedule of orderly groupings of programs would require Congress to make a decision — but offers no guarantee that such decision will be made with a view of the forest as a whole. Without the reauthorization requirement, there is no guarantee that the decision will be made at all.
Mr. President, there is obviously a great deal more in this bill than the two provisions I have just described. But by and large, the rest of the bill is aimed at supporting Congress and its committees in meeting the procedures of title I. The program inventory in title II, for example, is intended to give Congress the best possible information on what all the programs are. The waiver provision in title V is provided to insure that the reauthorization requirements of sunset are not used to frustrate the majority will.
In formulating this legislation, Mr. President, we had two very simple goals in mind. We wanted to force a regular congressional decision on all programs on the books. And we wanted those decisions to be made in a broader context than that in which they are made today.
To promote these goals, we sought a process as flexible as possible — a framework in which Congress could continue to do what it does best — to make political judgments and decisions about public policy.
We worked from the assumption that no reform, no matter how well intentioned or conceived, will work unless Congress wants it to — that better decision making cannot be legislated, it can only be encouraged and facilitated.
In the amendment now before us, we have a bill which meets this test. It establishes a limited, explicit process. But beyond a minimal threshold it does not dictate how that process should be carried out.
I stress this point, Mr. President, because of concerns I have heard that sunset is too heavy handed an approach. Many people seem to think that sunset seeks to accomplish many things which it, in fact, does not.
For example, sunset does not suggest that future spending priorities be changed. It is completely neutral where specific areas of spending are concerned.
Nor is sunset a disguised version of the old meat-axe approach. Program termination is not a stated goal. The so-called termination mechanism — the reauthorization requirement — is a means to an end, not an end itself. Its sole purpose is to force a decision on the continuation of each program, at least once every 10 years.
On this point, I would like to emphasize, Mr. President, that the sunset mechanism is not radical or new. It is nothing more than the reauthorization process we now use every day of our legislative lives.
Precisely because this mechanism is not new, the sponsors of sunset have rejected the idea of a sunset pilot test. Congress does not need to test the reauthorization process — we already know how it works. What we do need is to apply that process more comprehensively. And that is what sunset would do.
Finally, this bill does not dictate how programs should be reviewed. Contrary to widespread opinion, this is not an evaluation bill. To be sure, title III is specifically concerned with the comprehensive reexamination of a few programs every year. This provision is an important complement to the basic reauthorization requirements of title I. But it is, in my view, largely incidental to the basic sunset process.
Mr. President, there is probably more confusion on this one issue than on any other aspect of the legislation. I ask that a lengthy but enlightening quote from the Governmental Affairs Committee report on S. 2 be printed in the RECORD at this point in my remarks.
The basic purpose of sunset is to compel Congress to reconsider its past program enactments. All that sunset requires is that Congress take positive action to reauthorize the programs which it wishes to continue. The thrust in sunset is reconsideration, not reevaluation. Nothing in the sunset concept would require Congress to embark on a wholesale evaluation of all programs scheduled for termination. When it reconsiders an expiring program, Congress can decide on the most appropriate course of action.
Sometimes it will decide to extend a program without any change whatsoever. It will be satisfied that the program is doing the job for which it was established. Sometimes, however, Congress will want to consider major changes in an existing program. In its search for program improvements, Congress will take its cues and clues from a variety of sources. It might look to the ballot box and its constituency for political guidance. It might examine budgetary data for information on the cost of the program. It might conduct hearings to enable those affected by the program to tell their side of the story. It might commission a large-scale evaluation by its own staff or by outside experts. But Congress alone will decide on the scope and type of review to be undertaken. Sunset thus opens to Congress a full range of options, only one of which is the formal evaluation of programs.
Evaluation ought never to be more than one of a number of methods available to Congress when it reconsiders programs. . Letters from back home, newspaper editorials, testimony at hearings, on-site visits, and cost-benefits analyses — all are grist for the legislative mill.
Even when it applies evaluative findings toprograms under review, Congress is much more the consumer than the doer of evaluations. In the division of labor between the legislative and executive branches, most program evaluations are conducted by the executive. Evaluation has become a billion-dollar industry in the United States, with thousands of evaluations completed each year by government agencies, think tanks, and private organizations.
When it reconsiders programs, Congress can dip into the pool of available evaluations and apply the findings to the authorization decisions it must make. Congress does not have to evaluate de novo, as if nothing of value has been done by others. Sometimes, however, Congress will take a fresh look, either because other evaluations are not available or because it wants to apply different criteria to the decision at hand. In such circumstances, title III of the bill provides for Congress to formally select some programs for evaluation.
This is a lengthy quote, but it makes an important point — relevant not just to the evaluation question but to the entire tone of this bill.
It is not the purpose of sunset to impose an arbitrary discipline to tell Congress what to do.
It is very much the intent of sunset that Congress and its committees be in charge — but at the same time, have greater opportunities to do a better job.
Under the bill now before us, opportunities would be available which I think we badly need. A chance to look back at all the baggage we have accumulated through the years; a chance to renew and strengthen our commitment to those past efforts which continue to fill a need; and a chance to shift resources and energy away from those which have lost their usefulness, in order to free up resources for needs which lie ahead.
These opportunities exist today — but only where one quarter of the budget is concerned. If nothing else, sunset promises to close that gap, and make our options more complete.
Mr. President, there is one other issue in the sunset debate which has prompted widespread concern. That issue is the additional workload which sunset would entail.
The workload issue is the most persistent and difficult we have faced in working on this bill. The legislation has been revised and refined in countless ways to respond to this very real concern.
Among other changes, we lengthened the review cycle from 4 years in the original proposal to 10 in the current amendment. We dropped the cumbersome program review guidelines, and left virtually all decisions about the scope and depth of review to the authorizing committees themselves.
In the context of the workload debate, it is important to keep in mind a point I made earlier — that sunset is not a program evaluation bill. To require Congress to evaluate, in depth, one-fifth of all programs every 2 years would clearly be an undoable task. But that task is not even contemplated in the provisions of this bill.
This is not to say that the requirements of sunset will not add to our work. Obviously, they will. For example, programs which are now permanent would have to be reviewed and reauthorized at least once every 10 years. On the other hand, programs now reauthorized at more frequent intervals may be stretched out to a longer life span.
On the whole, sunset, in its present form, would involve what I believe is a manageable workload. But for those who would like a precise answer to this question, there is no way I can oblige.
Trying to project workload is a very difficult thing to do. What one committee considers a single program, another committee considers only a part.
Moreover, we have no way of knowing how future Congresses will act. For example, there is evidence of a growing trend toward omnibus authorization bills. Whether this trend will continue, we have no idea today.
My own response to the workload argument is that a great many people have labored on this bill to make it as workable as we could. Having done so, I would argue that whatever the workload demands of sunset, there is a job that needs to be done. To suggest that we cannot review the entire Federal budget in a space of 10 years is to say that a process like sunset is long overdue.
Mr. President, many other questions have been raised about sunset over the course of the bill's 3-year life. I have commented on those which I feel are most important. I urge my colleagues to raise any other concerns they may have, so that we can discuss them here today.
Before going on to discuss the specific provisions of the bill, I would like to make one remaining point.
The legislation now before us has come a long way in the past 3 years. Those of us who have worked on it have learned a great deal about the nature of the Federal program structure. Through this learning process, many who were once skeptical have been convinced that the need for sunset is real.
In an important way, this increased awareness is what sunset is all about — having at our disposal the knowledge to make informed decisions concerning legislation we enact.
This is no mean accomplishment, as we know from budget reform. Whatever specific fiscal impact the budget process has had, its greatest contribution has been in increased awareness of how the daily decisions we make affect the budget as a whole.
Sunset offers us the same kind of opportunity. It is an opportunity we dare not let slip away.
Mr. President, sunset is a complex piece of legislation. I would not be in the position to offer this amendment today had it not been for the hard work of a number of Senators and their staff.
I particularly want to note the contribution of the senior Senator from Delaware (Mr. ROTH), who has joined me in introducing this legislation for the past 3 years. As the ranking Republican member of the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations, which cooriginated sunset legislation, Senator ROTH has not only made his mark on the sunset measure but he has also labored with me to guide this legislation through two committees and onto the Senate floor.
I want to thank two other members of the Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee, Senator GLENN and Senator CHILES, for their persistent efforts on behalf of sunset and the enormous contributions they have made to the legislation.
Though he is not a member of my subcommittee, the junior Senator from Delaware (Mr. BIDEN) has played a major role in the sunset debate. Senator BIDEN has introduced his own sunset bill during the past two Congresses. He was our first witness in support of sunset in this Congress. And many of the ideas in his bill have been incorporated into the amendment I am offering today.
Mr. President, as I indicated earlier, sunset has been considered by two committees. And I would be remiss in not mentioning the efforts of Senator RIBICOFF, the chairman of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, and Senator PERCY, the ranking Republican on that committee, Senator PELL, chairman of the Committee on Rules and Administration, Senator MARK O. HATFIELD, ranking Republican on that committee, and Senator CLARK, a member of the Rules Committee, in helping sunset through those two committees.
In addition, I want to thank the distinguished majority leader (Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD), and the distinguished majority whip (Mr. CRANSTON) , for the personal time they devoted to the sunset bill.
Mr. President, I would also like to thank the members of the staff representing all of the Senators I have mentioned for their work on this measure. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the efforts of Al From, Jim Davidson, David Johnson, and Lee Lockwood of the staff of the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations, who have spent long hours working on this legislation. And I would like to thank Joan McEntee of Senator ROTH's staff, Ron Hicks of the Rules Committee staff, Dick Andrews with Senator BIDEN, Jonathan Steinberg with Senator CRANSTON, Dennis Thelen with Senator BYRD, and Mike Stern and Joe Humphreys of the Finance Committee staff, all of whom contributed to this legislation.
Finally, Mr. President, I would like to pay special tribute to Dr. Allen Schick, a senior specialist at the Congressional Research Service. Dr. Schick has advised me and my subcommittee on sunset legislation from the very beginning. His wise counsel has been invaluable throughout — just as it was, I might add, during our consideration of the Congressional Budget Act in the 93d Congress.
Mr. President, inasmuch as our time is limited I yield at this point to my good friend and distinguished cosponsor,an original cosponsor of this bill, the Senator from Delaware (Mr. ROTH) , so that he may make his opening statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield just a moment?
Mr. ROTH. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. I ask unanimous consent that Al From of the Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee staff have the privilege of the floor during the consideration of this measure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, this is in many ways the most important initiative that the Senate can take in the direction of bringing more efficiency into Government. I congratulate our distinguished colleague from Maine. We are finally having the opportunity to discuss sunset legislation on its merits, and have the opportunity for the Senate to vote it up or down.
There is no question in my mind, but that this legislation will be adopted by an overwhelming majority, because it results from a bipartisan effort, particularly of the distinguished senior Senator from Maine as well as myself, to adopt procedures that will have the effect of providing better services for the taxpayers and constituents at home, at less cost.
I would say, Mr. President, that in many ways this legislation has become even more important than 2 days ago, because the Senate has made a number of commitments to the American people. Recently in the Senate a coalition amendment to the tax cut measure was adopted by a vote of 3 to 1 that made a commitment, that we were going to cut taxes over a period of years for the American people, provided that we lower the percentage of gross national product that was spent in the public sector.
In my judgment, the only way we can achieve these goals in an intelligent manner is by a systematic overview of all programs already on the books. Although the adoption of this legislation today would not mean that all hundreds of programs would be reviewed by 1983, we would be taking the right first step in that direction.
I think the reason that this legislation has garnered such support on both sides of the political aisle, from those who are liberal and from those who are conservative, is that we can all agree that the purpose of a program is to solve a problem and that we have not devoted enough attention to how our programs are working.
It is a fact of life that in recent years no program was ever done away with, irrespective of its need and irrespective of its effectiveness. What we are proposing today is that, all programs, with a few exceptions, will be periodically reviewedon a systematic basis, to determine whether or not they are serving a national need.
Certainly this is something that conservatives, liberals, and moderates can agree upon as an approach. I would hope that if the Senate is successful in adopting this legislation today, as I believe it will be, we can get the House to take similar action. We cannot afford to delay the first step in putting this program to work.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. ROTH. I am happy to yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is my hope, out of today's action. The prospect that this bill itself can move to the House and get action on the House side may be quite remote, although I have reason to believethere is strong support for it in the House. But if we can get an overwhelming vote for sunset this afternoon here in the Senate, it may well be that we might find another legislative vehicle, one that must be acted upon in the House and to which we could attach this bill as a rider, to give the House a chance to express itself.
I would be amazed if a substantial majority of House members, most of whom are running for reelection this year, and seeking votes from an electorate increasingly upset about Government spending did not vote overwhelmingly for this bill.
Since we are up to bat, we hope our Senate colleagues will stay with us. This is something that Congress ought to approve this year.