October 11, 1978
Page 35495
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Illinois has described well and accurately the purpose and the mechanism of his amendment.
I was privileged to preside over the initial hearings on both sunset and S. 600. At that time, it was considered that the two kinds of review should be handled in separate legislation, so they were handled in separate legislation in committee. However, it has been found possible, after considerable discussion at the staff level, to mold the two, to put them together. The essential purpose is the same; and even though the mechanisms may differ slightly, they are consistent, and we have decided to marry the two. I hope it will be a happy marriage. In any case, I am delighted to accept the amendment.
I yield at this point to my good friend the Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I congratulate the ranking minority member of the Governmental Affairs Committee for the leadership he has shown in providing what I call sunset provisions to the regulatory agencies.
There is no question that one of the serious problems faced by our economy today is the negative effect that these regulatory agencies have been having due to their lack of effectiveness.
As the senior Senator from Illinois has properly pointed out in many cases these agencies are not serving the interests that they were intended to serve when they were organized. I think by the adoption of this legislation we will take a very major step forward in making certain that these regulatory agencies do begin functioning in the way that was intended by their original sponsors.
I congratulate the Senator from Illinois not only for his interest and leadership in this amendment, but also in the help and assistance he has given in the basic sunset legislation.
I am happy to agree to the amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, Senator CANNON has indicated his opposition to :his amendment.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I am opposed to this amendment for several reasons. In the first place, we are undertaking here a new set of procedures for congressional activities: We are requiring ourselves to consider various programs according to a fixed timetable; we are obligating committees to undertake reviews and to publish those reviews; and we are requiring the reauthorization of many programs which are now not being reauthorized. These are new concepts for the Congress, and it will be some years before their full results can be evaluated.
Simultaneous with these changes, to impose on the Congress a procedure similar to that proposed by Senator PERCY's amendment is just too much. We already have been stunned by estimates that a 10-percent increase in staff would be required by S. 2's adoption. Now, we are asked to add to that increase a still larger number of staff people on the Hill and possibly in the executive branch simply to deal with the analysis and reviews which are coming up from downtown regarding the regulatory activities of Federal agencies.
In point of fact, Mr. President, the committees of the Congress are already charged with, and performing, oversight of regulatory agencies. The Commerce Committee, of which I am chairman, has direct responsibilities for eight of those regulatory agencies specifically named in Senator PERCY's amendment. We do review the activities of these agencies during our oversight hearings. Our staff is constantly reviewing the regulations which are promulgated by these agencies, to insure that the agencies are fulfilling their congressional mandates. This is the function of oversight: To look over what is going on pursuant to our enactments.
The greatest irony in this amendment, Mr. President, is that the executive agency will be doing an analysis of its own activities. Surely, the President's own office in the White House cannot be evaluating the activities of all Federal regulatory entities; rather, it will be the agencies themselves which will be submitting analyses of their activities to the President, who will then review them and pass them on to us. I believe that we are in a much better position to obtain a review of agency performance through oversight than we would be through the procedures outlined in this amendment.
We should receive the information which we desire and determine necessary to successful oversight, not merely that which is formulated and passed on to us. While it is true that our oversight hearings could always be improved, we should not delegate our responsibilities to the executive branch, or we may find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of having only that information which the agencies desire us to have. That would be very dangerous, and would negate what I understand are the Senator's intentions in his amendment. We may end up with more waste, more mismanagement, more paperwork, as agencies attempt to justify their activities — whether those activities are praiseworthy or not — in order that the plans which are submitted to us reflect most favorably on the agency.
It is only human nature to present the most favorable impression of oneself; Congress exercises its oversight functions in part to pierce that exterior appearance and investigate deficiencies which someone might not have noticed, or might not have wanted to notice. I would be skeptical of any analysis of its own activities submitted by an executive agency, and consequently, I am afraid that this would be just another burden on our executive branch, leading to more staff increases and more paperwork.
The President can at any time suggest changes in the functioning of an executive branch agency or regulations which either the agency itself or citizens believe should be changed. I think the normal ebb-and-flow between the executive and legislative branches, with their clear divisions of responsibilities, is valuable. It is a misconception to believe that, just because something is on a timely schedule, it will be effectively evaluated. Some things just do not work according to a nice, neat plan. We should allow ourselves enough flexibility so that we do not cut off necessary changes simply because they are not scheduled. We already initiate and receive from the executive agencies recommendations regarding necessary changes. We ourselves suggest changes in regulations where we believe that they do not carry out congressional intent. I am wary of disturbing the current give-and-take between the executive and legislative branches.
Section 302(d) and section 504 of the substitute text of S. 2 provide that executive agencies will assist the Congress in providing information regarding their activities. Such assistance could, conceivably, include — where requested — a self-critique of an agency's activities, which the committee could then use in conducting its review and in formulating its recommendations regarding a program. I believe that these provisions are sufficient to insure that Congress has access to the necessary information from regulatory agencies.
I strongly oppose this amendment. It is difficult to conceive that it would be effective. It is burdensome at the least. It is serious in its scope, because it runs the potential of altering both the authorizing committee's responsibilities and the entire interaction of executive and legislative branch entities.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield back my time on the amendment.
Mr. ROTH. I yield back my time.
Mr. PERCY. The Senator from Illinois sees no necessity for a roll call vote.
I wish to express my deep appreciation to the floor managers of the bill, and I think we are ready for a vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Illinois.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. ROTH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.