April 30, 1979
Page 8930
Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, I am opposed to the amendment by the Senator from California.
For one thing, it is unnecessary. Approximately 98 percent of the Department's programs already have a built-in sunset provision. These programs are subject to reauthorization every 3 to 5 years. When these programs are reauthorized they are subject to close scrutiny and often modified.
In addition, sunsetting programs, rather than organizational structure — as this amendment would do — is the approach that has been recommended by Senator MUSKIE and approved by the Senate last year. We would be working at cross purposes with comprehensive sunset legislation if we were to approve this amendment to sunset a department.
Similarly, provisions of this sort should not be adopted on a piecemeal basis, but should apply to all agencies. Right now, the Governmental Affairs Committee is working on S. 2, which would apply to all programs. We hope to hold early hearings on this legislation. These hearings are the proper forum in which to consider the issues raised by this amendment. S. 2 is the legislation in which a comprehensive and coordinated approach to education and other programs should be pursued.
Senator MUSKIE, chairman of the Budget Committee and the chief sponsor of S. 2, the sunset legislation, has communicated to me of his opposition to this amendment. I would like to read a few excerpts from his letter which states clearly the problems encountered by this type of proposal:
While I share the broad objectives of those who propose to sunset the Department of Education after a period of years, I am concerned that their amendments would fail to achieve the goals we have set out to accomplish under sunset legislation.
For example, one of the major goals of sunset legislation is to assure that Congress will reauthorize groups of related programs during a two-year Congressional term. The bill does this by requiring that all programs within the same subfunctional budget category be reauthorized during a Congress.
For example, the education subcommittees would have an opportunity to review and reauthorize all of the federal activities under subfunction 501 (elementary, secondary and vocational education) in one Congress. In a later Congress, they would take a look at subfunction 502 (higher education). Both subfunctions would be administered by the Department of Education.
The proposed sunset amendment would terminate the entire Department of Education at once. This would force the education subcommittees and the Congress as a whole to do a superficial job.
I do not believe that we should approach the issue of sunset in a piecemeal fashion.
One of the underlying tenets of the sunset bill is the commitment of the Congress to a ten-year schedule for the review and reauthorization of federal programs. That review and reauthorization would be conducted according to a carefully thought out and comprehensive schedule for the reauthorization of those federal programs.
I would urge the supporters of sunset to withhold support for amendments of limited focus and join with me and others in this body who want to see a broader sunset bill become a reality and work for its early adoption.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-sent that Senator MUSKIE's letter be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows :
U.S. SENATE,
Washington, D.C.,
April 26, 1979.
Hon. ABRAHAM RIBICOFF,
Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR ABE: I understand that during the consideration of S. 210, the legislation to establish a Department of Education, an amendment will be offered which would sunset this new department at some time in the future. I regret that a previous obligation will prevent me from participating in the debate on this legislation, but I want to take this opportunity to share my thoughts with you on the proposed sunset amendments.
As you well know, the Senate passed the Sunset Act of 1978 by a vote of 87 to 1 during the second session of the 95th Congress — an accomplishment that would not have been possible without your dedicated efforts and support for this legislation over the past four years. More importantly, that vote has given sunset legislation momentum in both the Senate and House of Representatives which, I believe, will ensure its enactment into law in this Congress.
While I share the broad objectives of those who propose to sunset the Department of Education after a period of years, I am concerned that their amendments would fail to achieve the goals we have set out to accomplish under sunset legislation.
For example, one of the major goals of sunset legislation is to assure that Congress will reauthorize groups of related programs during a two-year Congressional term. The bill does this by requiring that all programs within the same subfunctional budget category be reauthorized during a Congress.
For example, the education subcommittee would have an opportunity to review and reauthorize all of the federal activities under subfunction 501 (elementary, secondary and vocational education) in one Congress. In a later Congress, they would take a look at subfunction 502 (higher education) . Both subfunctions would be administered by the Department of Education.
The proposed sunset amendment would terminate the entire Department of Education at once.
This would force the education subcommittees and the Congress as a whole to do a superficial job of reauthorizing all of the educational programs under the Department — or it could require the Congress to decide whether the new Department had done a good job without examining how well it had administered the programs under its jurisdiction. That could result in a meaningless review and reauthorization process. This problem is compounded by a provision in one proposed amendment which assumes that if the new Department terminates, its programs would go forward. This makes little sense since it would require the President to transfer the functions of the Department to other departments or agencies without asking whether it was the Department which failed to work well or whether in fact the programs it was asked to administer should he changed or discarded.
I welcome any opportunity for the Senate to debate the merits of sunset legislation. I am firmly committed to seeing S. 2, the Sunset Act of 1979, enacted into law before the 96th Congress comes to an end. The more we debate the need for this legislation, the more I am convinced that members of Congress and the public will call for its early adoption.
I do not believe that we should approach the issue of sunset in a piecemeal fashion. One of the underlying tenets of the sunset bill is the commitment of the Congress to a ten-year schedule for the review and reauthorization of federal programs. That review and reauthorization would be conducted according to a carefully thought out and comprehensive schedule for the reauthorization of those federal programs. Last year, the Senate went on record firmly in support of this commitment. I expect that it will do so again this year. I would urge the supporters of sunset to withhold support for amendments of limited focus and join with me and others in this body who want to see a broader sunset bill become a reality and work for its early adoption.
Sincerely,
EDMUND S. MUSKIE.
Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.