October 7, 1978
Page 34507
Mr. PERCY. The Senator from Illinois joins with his distinguished colleagues, Senator MUSKIE and Senator ROTH, in believing the time is now here to act, and I intend to do everything I can to see that we do move forward.
I would be very happy to yield to my distinguished colleague. Senator MUSKIE has yielded to the Senator from Illinois, and the Senator from Illinois has completed his comments, and I really prefer to turn it back to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, may I make sure that the Senator from Illinois may yield to the Senator from Nebraska without my losing my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. CURTIS. I thank the distinguished Senator. I support the sunset principle. I would like to see it applied to as many programs as possible. My question is this: Here we have a proposal that is backed by the most powerful committee in the Senate. Why is not the sunset bill brought in as a separate measure rather than placing it on a tax bill where it will go to conference, if it is enacted, and it will have to be handled by committees that have not worked on it at all, and it will just be one more thing to handle in a very complex and complicated piece of legislation?
Why is it that this sunset bill with so much virtue is not brought in by the committee that fathered it as a piece of legislation for the Senate to consider? That is my question.
Mr. MUSKIE. I would be glad to answer the question.
Mr. PERCY. I would be pleased to answer it, but I think the author of the legislation — perhaps both Senator MUSKIE and Senator ROTH — should answer it.
Mr. MUSKIE. It is a fair and legitimate question. May I say to the Senator that is the course I would prefer. That is the course we have sought for 3 years. The year before last in the previous Congress the Committee on Governmental Affairs, after almost 2 years of consideration, reported the bill to the floor. It was put on the calendar, and then because it involved some changes in the Senate rules, it was referred to the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee was bogged down with other legislation and was not able to act on it until the last week or two of that session, and the bill was squeezed out by the passage of time.
Last year the Governmental Affairs Committee, in a new Congress, began reconsideration of the bill. We refined it to meet objections that had been raised. It was reported from the Governmental Affairs Committee to the floor of the Senate last year early in the session. It was referred to the Rules Committee again. The Rules Committee argued that they did not have the opportunity to consider it fully enough to satisfy its members before time ran out last year.
It was then agreed that the Rules Committee would hold hearings during this Congress and report the bill out before the Lincoln Day recess. Well, in the meantime the chairmanship of the Rules Committee changed. The new chairman had found himself under pressure to get a handle on his new job — he is also running for reelection — so the Rules Committee could not report it out by then, and they did not report it out until July of this year. They reported it out favorably, and we have been looking and searching ever since for a window in the schedule of this Senate which would permit us to take it up on its merits in time to go to the House for action there.
Well, we have not been given that opportunity.
Mr. CURTIS. Who has denied that opportunity?
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not know how you find a scapegoat in this body. Every one of the 100 Members is constantly seeking to pursue his own legislative objectives. I have sought to be the good guy and stand by while other legislative priorities came to the floor.
Well, finally, out of desperation, I sought to put it on the Eximbank legislation last week, as the Senator knows. Because there was a committee amendment pending there which I was not permitted to set aside, even though I was involved in it, we could not deal with it there. We wasted a whole afternoon early this week because of the objections of the chairman of the Finance Committee for setting aside the committee amendment to the Eximbank. We wasted a whole afternoon discussing something else when we might have been discussing this.
So finally time is running out.
May I say with respect to this legislation, the pending tax legislation, that it is not the ideal place from my point of view, but it is certainly relevant. Here I have been listening to talk in connection with the Kemp-Roth tax cut proposal which, if we adopt Kemp-Roth, we in effect will reduce Government spending.
Well, I am very skeptical about that. But tax raising is obviously related to the spending of tax revenues, and if we are considering tax cuts, and if there are those who would like even larger tax cuts, then we ought to be willing to consider a measure attached to the tax bill which would have the effect of reducing Government spending so that the tax cuts would not result in unacceptably large deficits.
So I think there is as much relevance to a program to control Government spending as some of the direct spending proposals that are contained in this bill.
So I think there is a connection, there is a relevance. But I would have preferred, if I could have gotten it, the route suggested by the distinguished Senator from Nebraska. But at this point I have no choice.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one more question?
Mr. MUSKIE. One more question without losing my right to the floor.
Mr. CURTIS. This is very meritorious legislation. It has been favorably acted upon by two committees and ready to go since July.
I do not understand why the leadership did not schedule it as a separate bill a long time ago. The Committee on Finance has to wait on the House of Representatives under the Constitution because we cannot initiate a tax bill. So we have to wait until the bill comes over here.
We have to hurry, and we should not do it. It is very unfair to the professionals on our staff on the speed we require of them. I have known many of them to work 84 hours a week and keep it up. We have to hurry with that tax bill. I am not critical of my colleagues, but we have a field day here. No one wants to miss a chance to vote against every tax in the book or to use his theory to reorganize the Internal Revenue Code.
Well, after all, we have an obligation to the sound running of our economy and the individual taxpayers, and I wish that the distinguished chairman would confer with the leadership running things and schedule this as a separate bill, and withdraw it here. I think he would be doing a favor to everybody concerned, and get a clear shot at it.
Also, you would make it a little more possible to write an understandable tax law that is less confusing. You cannot write tax law by mob action.
I thank the Senator.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield to the Senator from Illinois for just a brief comment?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, without losing my right to the floor.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I would like very much to address myself to this pertinent question that has been asked.
For the reasons the Senator has outlined, the members of the staff of the Governmental Affairs Committee are here, right through the weekend, to work with the staff of the Finance Committee.
Mr. CURTIS. Why do you not write your own bill?
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, there is no concept better understood by the people of this country than this concept. The Senator from Illinois has tested this all throughout his State, and I have found no one who misunderstands it.
In fact, when talking to people about too many Government programs, I have had people initiate the subject, and say, "What you ought to do is sunset some of them, and let them die."
I repeat, this is not a difficult concept. Furthermore, the Finance Committee should be the ones who would welcome this addition to this tax reduction bill, because there is always a little uncertainly as to whether or not tax reductions will adequately and quickly stimulate the economic recovery of this country, and keep the revenues flowing.
If at the same time that we reduce taxes to stimulate the economy, we give a major shot in the arm to the whole economy by saying "We intend to get this budget under control by ending ineffective, overlapping, duplicative programs that are not really working and which we have no mechanism now to end." This, I think, would couple in very effectively.
But one further thing. This is why the managers of S. 2, the sunset legislation, have worked closely with the Senator from Illinois on a measure that he, Senator BYRD, and Senator RIBICOFF jointly introduced, with the support of our colleagues: S. 600, dealing with regulatory reform.
It couples in perfectly to say, "Let us start to end some of this Government regulation." The distinguished Senator from the Commerce Committee (Mr. MAGNUSON) knows what has happened as we have begun to work, now, on airline deregulation.
It did not take a year or 2, or 3, or 4 years. It took 3 months for that industry to start to say, "We are going to get rid of regulations; we are going to get rid of controls."
And what has happened? Airline passenger service has taken off like a meteor. You cannot get a reservation on a flight. I could not get out of here last night. You used to be able to go on any flight any time; planes were half empty, and airline profits were half what they should have been.
In this period of time alone, airline profits have gone up 80 percent against last year. Planes are full. The airlines are becoming efficient, and more revenue is developing at the Federal level from that one industry alone.
Let us do it to the rest of American industry, and we are going to see this economy really begin to work again, if we can just get rid of the heavy hand of regulation.
That is why an amendment that will embody the provisions of S. 600 will be coupled in and offered as a package. It is an easily understood bill. With it, we are finally, after a period of 10 years, going to start deregulating and get the heavy hand of Government off the backs of the consumers, because regulation costs the consumers of this country $600 billion a year.
So, Mr. President, I am interested in seeing us move rapidly ahead with this very important bill.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Texas?
Mr. MUSKIE. If I may make one brief comment first.
Mr. HANSEN. Will the distinguished Senator from Maine use his microphone?
Mr. MUSKIE. I thought I had it on. I guess it dropped off. I am sorry. I appreciate the Senator's interest in what I have to say.
The political answer to Senator CURTIS' question is that if we pass a tax reduction, it would be welcomed by the voters as we contemplate going back home this election year to talk to them.
But that welcome will be more than doubled if we can also say to them, "We have passed sunset." I cannot agree more with the Senator from Illinois. People out in the country know what sunset is. They want to see it enacted into law, and they would welcome us with open arms if we are able to tell them we have done so. The two matters go hand in hand, and I would like to see us do them.
I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Texas, without losing my right to the floor.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I would like to say to the distinguished Senator from Illinois that I, too, was trying to get out of here last night, but just to go home to my wife and dinner. That was difficult to accomplish.
I congratulate the Senator from Maine on the excellent job he has done on sunset legislation, which I am pleased to cosponsor with him.
I find that old Government programs never die, they just get renamed. I believe the time has come, that the mood of the country is not for a great number of new programs, but that we try to make more effective those programs that are now in place.
One thing I learned about in business long before coming here was that you can expect what you inspect. That ought to apply to these programs.
I think sunset legislation would make an effective contribution to the efficient use of the taxpayers' money in this country, and I believe that is what they are looking for. I do not believe they are looking for an end to a lot of things that have been done, but they want to be sure what is being done is being done efficiently, and that their money is not wasted in the process. So, Mr. President, I am pleased to speak of my long term support for sunset legislation. After years of congressional consideration, we have produced a workable reform that will allow the sun to set on outmoded and wasteful Government programs. It will end the cycle of self-perpetuating bureaucracies.
This sunset provision will change the focus of congressional activity. Instead of constantly creating new programs, new legislation, larger Government bureaucracies, the Congress will redirect itself to evaluate what it has already produced. We need to assess where we are, what programs are no longer needed, what programs duplicate each other, what programs are wasteful. The best way to insure that Congress will address these issues is to establish a structure for review. This sunset plan will provide for an orderly, 10-year cycle for the review and evaluation of all programs in general umbrella categories. Thus all health programs will be considered at the same time, all housing programs, all education programs will be reviewed at the same time. Duplications will be easily detected, waste will be uncovered.
But, what makes sunset work is the provision. that without the specific act of reauthorization, a program will simply die. The notion that old Government programs never go away, they are just renamed, will be challenged by sunset. The Congress will be forced to consider all the various programs, side by side, assess their usefulness, and then decide which programs should continue.
Through an orderly consideration and reauthorization procedure, the Congress will be able to have the flexibility to adjust to changing national needs and economic conditions. We will be able to terminate outdated programs and thus make budgetary room for new initiatives.
The systematic review will also give structure to the work of the Congress. The committees will organize their agenda around the reauthorization schedule. Staff resources will be used to evaluate existing programs rather than dreaming up new, and possibly unneeded legislation.
The sunset procedures will also focus the President's and the administration's review of executive branch programs. This sunset legislation will require the President to recommend to the Congress programs for in-depth review. The President is also required to submit his own evaluation on these programs. Congressional committees may, in addition, request agencies to submit their budget requests and supporting materials following the President's budget recommendation to the Congress in January in each year. Thus, in this way the congressional and the executive branch will be able to work together to evaluate existing programs.
Mr. President, I want to thank Senator MUSKIE for his hard work in bringing this legislation to reality, for his determination to see it through to completion. I also want to thank both the Senate Governmental Affairs and Rules Committees for their excellent cooperation in producing a well crafted piece of legislation.
I have high hopes for sunset. I believe it is an imaginative and workable procedure to help us fulfill our legislative responsibilities. I believe it will invigorate the Congress. It will strengthen the institution. It will give us a way to clamp down on useless Government programs. As I have said many times in the past, I believe that this approach is the best way I know of to cut Government down to size.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank my friend from Texas. He has been a strong supporter of this sunset idea for a long time. He has been kind enough to say so, and his willingness to do that has been most reassuring and helpful.
Mr. President, while we are focusing on comments of various Senators, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at this point a statement by my distinguished junior colleague from Maine (Mr. HATHAWAY) , who has had an interest in sunset from the beginning, as well as a statement by the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. HUDDLESTON) , who has given like support over a long period.
There being no objection, the statements were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT OF SENATOR HATHAWAY
In discussing the Sunset Act of 1978, I must begin by paying tribute to the foresighted and persistent leadership of its sponsor, my good friend and colleague from Maine, Senator Ed Muskie. He has played the leading role in the Senate in the effort to establish reasonable, responsible limits on Federal spending, first through the Budget Act and his chairmanship of the Budget Committee and now through the Sunset Act.
Inflation is our primary national problem. All of us have heard the concerns of our constituents about the inroads that inflation has made on their own budgets. As elected officials in a democratic society, we have a duty to be responsive to the concerns of the people. However, as elected officials, we also have a duty to use our own best judgment and to respond to these concerns in a sound and responsible manner.
The urge to respond to the mood expressed in the vote in California on Proposition 13 has led to a number of simplistic, even irresponsible proposals. We have seen efforts to impose across-the- board indiscriminate funding cuts, which could have the effect of gutting worthwhile programs and permitting wasteful ones to continue. The Roth-Kemp tax cut proposal has been another response to that public mood. However, virtually every respected economist in the country believes that the result of the enactment of this bill would be even higher inflation.
I think that we are all agreed that a tighter, more disciplined Federal budget must be a major component of any program to combat inflation. That goal cannot be achieved easily. We must commit ourselves to reexamining everything we now spend, to make such that the taxpayers' money is used as efficiently and effectively as possible. This will be a long and difficult process, but the Sunset Act will give us the tools to do the job.
We have begun the process with the Budget Act. We have learned to establish priorities through the budget process, and we have my colleague from Maine constantly ready to remind us of the priorities that we have chosen.
The logical extension of the budget process is the Sunset Act. The core of the Sunset concept is the mandatory periodic and orderly review of Government programs.
Sunset will help us to free ourselves from the priorities and the programs established by past Congresses. And it will free us to respond to further needs without fear that we will be locked in by whatever new programs we may create.
The Sunset Act would establish a procedure for dislodging special interests. One of the first lessons each of us learned in this body is that it is much easier to deal with new legislation that will set up new interest groups. Yet the Sunset Act will give us a mechanism to achieve that end.
We must not forget, however, that the Sunset Act will not achieve its goals automatically. It will be a major improvement in our decision making procedures. We will be forced to make more hard decisions than we have ever had to face.
The requirement of periodic review will compel us to perform the kind of oversight we have always been intended to do. That will be difficult and it will probably cause some difficult adjustments. We will have to guard against the tendency to avoid the hard work and to let Sunset become merely another automatic procedure without real significance. We must not fall into the trap of superficial review and automatic renewal f most programs.
If we do pass the Sunset Act and truly devote ourselves to the work that we shall be imposing on ourselves, then we shall have made major strides in controlling spending and inflation.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR HUDDLESTON
I support Senator MUSKIE's substitute amendment to S. 2. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this amendment: it has been possible to refine the original concept of sunset legislation in order to produce a practical method of reviewing and evaluating the growing number of Federal programs. With a few necessary exceptions, Federal programs would be automatically terminated under the provisions of this legislation, unless specifically reauthorized by Congress.
Such legislation is long overdue. Congress is hearing these days from more — and angrier — taxpayers who feel that Government is expanding much too fast and is costing far too much. The movement against the growth of Government and the taxes necessary to support it has been growing over the past few years. It seems very unlikely that the people will relent in their demands for lower taxes and reduced Federal spending even with the tax cut legislation planned for this year.
Part of the problem is that new projects become part of the growing bureaucracy almost immediately. The budget is increased by a series of add-ons, one program at a time, one agency at a time, one commission at a time, often with little relation to other programs. Every Government program or agency develops its own constituency, its own bureaucracy and its own built-in spending increases, making it difficult to eliminate or even alter any program once it gets started. As existing Government becomes larger and more unwieldy, requiring greater and greater allocations of scarce Federal funds, Congress becomes progressively less able to respond to the changing needs of the people.
Larger spending cuts now take the form of across-the-board cuts in authorizations bills. These cuts are essential in order to bring down spending, but because they establish no priorities they do not necessarily do anything at all to reduce waste — that "fat" we have all heard so much about. We have probably all been exposed to our constituents' anger and frustration at high taxes and rising inflation. But taxpayers really feel their trust has been betrayed by the creation of what they perceive as "big government": a complicated, nearly incomprehensible conglomeration of Federal programs which defies rational analysis and whose most significant function is to absorb vast quantities of tax dollars. The people do not want to eliminate government or government services; but they do want — and deserve — efficient, effective, responsive Government.
Congress must begin to exercise the same discipline with respect to individual programs as it now does with respect to the budget as a whole. Legislation providing for periodic review and reauthorization would give Congress the opportunity to consolidate, revise, eliminate or add new programs through a comprehensive and systematic review of related programs in a broad functional area. Congress could also assess overall goals, thus enabling us to see that essential services are maintained without waste, duplication, or overlap. The sheer complexity of a government which has grown by bits and pieces now makes such a review process necessary.
We must develop a balanced and rational approach to the problem of uncontrolled growth in Federal programs. We should not be swayed by extravagant, deceptively "simple" across-the- board tax-cutting or budget-cutting proposals. Government spending reform should favorably affect the efficiency of Government and the size of the budget deficit, while at the same time making larger tax cuts feasible. Procedures established by this amendment will give Congress an excellent opportunity to show that we can bring big government back under control and pass the benefits along to the taxpayers.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, shortly I am going to yield to the distinguished author of the Glenn amendment, who has not really had a chance to present his case. But before I do, does the Senator from Virginia wish me to yield at this point?
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Will the Senator yield briefly?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes; I ask unanimous consent to yield briefly to the distinguished Senator from Virginia without losing my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Maine for his hard and effective work in regard to the sunset legislation. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this measure. I think it is a very important piece of legislation.
I must say that I had hoped it would come up on its own, rather than as a potential part of the tax legislation; but I support the sunset legislation. I think it is good. I think it is important that steps be taken to get Government programs under control, to periodically review the multitude, some 10,000 or more, of different spending programs of the Government.
Hopefully, the sunset legislation developed by the able Senator from Maine will result in a reduction in Federal spending.
As the Senator from Illinois pointed out, the estimated cost to the American public of the vast amount of Government regulation is somewhere between $60 billion and $100 billion a year. No one knows exactly, but those figures presumably are in the ball park. It is somewhere between $60 billion and $100 billion of additional cost to the taxpayers because of the regulations of the Federal Government.
I think the sunset legislation, as it applies to spending programs and regulatory programs, is a very desirable piece of legislation.
I commend the Senator from Maine for his effective work in this regard.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator from Virginia, who has expressed that interest many times over the past 2 or 3 years. I appreciate that support. I must say that support for sunset is coming from every segment, from every philosophical point of view. It just seems to me that this is an idea whose time has come, to use an old cliche.
At this time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts without losing my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.