December 15, 1975
Page 40548
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I have had further discussion with Senators, and I believe we can accommodate one another, as we oftentimes do, by a unanimous consent request.
With regard to what the Senator from Kansas is interested in doing, it seems to me that within the rules and within the unanimous consent request that was granted it was certainly my intention that more than one provision limiting spending could be offered as amendments from the minority side. I would ask if the unanimous consent request includes that?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The consent resolution of last Friday exempted the spending ceiling amendment from the germaneness requirement.
Mr. LONG. So spending ceiling limitations are exempted from the germaneness requirement?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. They are exempt from the germaneness requirement.
Mr. LONG. Right. So the Senator from Kansas would then be in a position rather than offering a motion to recommit to simply offer whatever spending limitation amendment he would like to offer as an amendment to the bill before the Senate. Is that not correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That would be correct, except for the provisions of section 306 of the budget bill which states that no bill or resolution and no amendment to any bill or resolution dealing with any matter which is in the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget of either House shall be considered by either House unless it is a bill or a resolution which has been reported by the Committee on the Budget of that House.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, as I understand it, we have agreed by unanimous consent that an amendment involving a spending limitation, which is to reflect the position of the President of the United States, could be offered on this bill. We agreed to that by unanimous consent on Friday, or at least prior to today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER The order only related to waiving the germaneness rule.
Mr. CURTIS. A parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. CURTIS. What else is involved?
Mr. DOLE. The law.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request on Friday was that amendments must be germane with the exception of a minority amendment to propose the President's program.
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST
Mr. LONG. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that amendments may be offered relating to the spending limitation on this bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I was not in the Chamber when the unanimous consent agreement was entered into. I was not aware of it until a few moments ago. I have no objection to offering the kind of language we were discussing last Friday without raising the point of order. What the Senator has now proposed is a direct undermining of the Budget Control Act. The Budget Act says that spending ceilings shall be set on or before May 15 in accordance with the procedures of the Budget Act.
I, for one, will not agree to shortcutting that whole procedure by admitting by unanimous consent some number not yet identified which is going to be offered in a binding way, if enacted, to undermine that whole budget process. I do object to any such unanimous consent request in that form.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, if the Senator would like me to be more specific, as I understand it the Senator from Kansas wants to offer a figure of $395 billion. I am going to vote against that, but that is the figure that the President has mentioned. He has mentioned a series of figures, one of which is $395 billion. They all add up to the same thing one way or the other.
My understanding of all of these proposals is that there is nothing about any of them that could not be changed between now and the time they go into effect, anyway. But I think we are just losing a lot of time by denying Senators the right to offer some kind of a legislative proposal, even if it be only a sense of the Senate resolution, on which they would like to vote, because until the Senate expresses itself, all we do on a matter of this sort is just play games with one another.
We charge up the hill and then charge back down; and in view of the fact that the President has taken the point of view that he is going to veto this bill unless we have a certain type of spending limitation attached to it, I would just like to let the Senate express itself.
I am confident I know how the Senate is going to express itself within reasonable limits, and I think we ought to be about that. To do otherwise, it seems to me, Mr. President, is just to make a lot of work for ourselves, spending days doing something we could dispose of in an hour or two.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, let me read section 306. This is also a part of the budget process.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, who has the floor?
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. It reads :
No bill or resolution, and no amendment to any bill or resolution, dealing with any matter—
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President—
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Louisiana?
Mr. MUSKIE. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. MUSKIE. I was trying to read the provision of the legislation. I do not understand the interruption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas has the floor.
Mr. LONG. The Senator from Kansas has the floor.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am sorry; I understood the Senator from Louisiana had it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas yielded to the Senator from Louisiana without relinquishing his right to the floor.
Mr. DOLE. Yes. Mr. President, I wish to propound a further parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. DOLE. As I understand it, the Parliamentarian is, in substance, ruling that section 306 is in effect notwithstanding the unanimous consent agreement of last Friday. Is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unanimous consent agreement of last Friday had no relationship to section 306.
Mr. DOLE. Can a Senator, by unanimous consent, make a motion to recommit or eliminate the reference to the spending ceiling? Can that be made notwithstanding section 306?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, it cannot.
Mr. DOLE. Not by unanimous consent?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, by unanimous consent.
Mr. DOLE. Then I would say to my good friend from Maine that I yield to the Senator from Maine without losing my right to the floor to explain section 306. Members of the minority, Senator CURTIS, Senator BELLMON, and others, are meeting at this time to see if some resolution cannot be reached on the controversy. If that can be reached, perhaps the Senator from Maine would withdraw his objection at this point, pending some effort to resolve the impasse.
I agree with the Senator from Louisiana that we could stand here all day, all night, and all day tomorrow, and talk about the different sections of the Budget Act, but it would certainly seem to me to be in the interest of moving along with this session of Congress to work out something.
Having said that, I yield to the Senator from Maine without relinquishing my right to the floor.
Mr. MUSKIE. Well, let me say in reference to the language that I have indicated my willingness to accommodate myself to that objective, but as I understand the unanimous consent request that was proposed by the Senator from Louisiana, he proposed a unanimous consent agreement to make any amendments with specific dollar ceilings admissible, notwithstanding the provisions of the act; and I would object to such a proposal for this reason: All I have to do is read section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act, which reads as follows:
No bill or resolution, and no amendment to any bill or resolution, dealing with any matter which is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget of either House shall be considered in that House unless it is a bill or resolution which has been reported by the Committee on the Budget of that House (or from the consideration of which such committee has been discharged) or unless it is an amendment to such a bill or resolution.
Under that provision, any resolution to set spending ceilings must be reported to the Senate by the Senate Committee on the Budget.
Mr: CURTIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I am not going to acquiesce in by-passing that requirement. I yield to the Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. CURTIS. Does the Senator from Maine contend that the tax bill before us has no standing because it was not considered and reported by the Committee on the Budget?
Mr. MUSKIE. No. The tax bill is in response to the mandate of the second budget resolution, and as such, the procedures for reporting it are also specified in the act.
Mr. CURTIS. Does the tax bill carry any language in any way modifying or amending the concurrent resolution, the first one or the second one, of the Budget Committee?
Mr. MUSKIE. Not to my knowledge. No.
Mr. CURTIS. Is it the Senator's contention, reading section—
Mr. MUSKIE. May I say if it did, it would be out of order.
Mr. CURTIS. Is it the Senator's contention that section 306 would make it impossible to consider a public works bill which had not been reported out of the Committee on the Budget? It deals with an expenditure.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President—
Mr. MUSKIE. Wait a minute; I was answering a question from the Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. CURTIS. Did not the Senator mention that section 306 would prohibit the Committee on Public Works from reporting out a public works bill?
Mr. MUSKIE. A public works bill is not a subject dealing with the budget. A public works bill is not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget. Let me reread the language to the Senator from Nebraska, if he is interested in hearing it:
No bill or resolution, and no amendment to any bill or resolution, dealing with any matter which is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget.
Public works legislation is not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget; it is within the jurisdiction of the Public Works Committee.
Mr. CURTIS. Is the tax bill within the Budget Committee's jurisdiction?
Mr. MUSKIE. The tax bill is within our jurisdiction to the extent that what it proposes by way of revenue reductions or increases runs afoul of the figures established in the budget resolution.
Mr. CURTIS. Then the Senator is saying that the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee is reduced to those changes in the tax law which neither add nor detract from revenue?
Mr. MUSKIE. You can have offsetting actions. I could conceive of a tax bill that would increase revenues in the form of tax reform by $10 billion to $15 billion, and would offset those increases in revenues by tax reductions. I mean, one can conceive of billions of dollars of jurisdiction of the Finance Committee that is outside the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee. Our committee deals with the target numbers, the ceiling numbers.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On whose time?
Mr. LONG. On my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that three amendments might be presented and might be voted on notwithstanding the germaneness rule: One by Mr. HARTKE dealing with the housing amendment, identified as amendment No. 1255; another to be presented by Mr. CURTIS, dealing with the $395 billion spending limitation; and another to be presented by Mr. ROTH dealing with the limitation on spending.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LONG. I ask unanimous consent that the debate on each amendment be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided.
Mr. CURTIS. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, may we have the understanding that the Curtis amendment precedes the one offered by Mr. ROTH and the members of the Committee on the Budget?
Mr. LONG. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, and I shall not object, I want to make it clear that agreement to this unanimous consent request should not be regarded as a precedent for waiving section 306 of the Budget Act. As I indicated earlier in the debate, section 306 provides that no bill or resolution and no amendment to any bill or resolution shall be considered unless it has been reported by the Committee on the Budget.
I am disposed to agree to this unanimous consent request because, in the course of discussions over this tax bill and the President's proposal to tie spending ceilings to it, certain understandings developed as to what legislative opportunities Senators would have on the floor to vote on the President's proposals or other proposals dealing with spending.
In order to accommodate those discussions and understandings that developed, I have no objection to the Senate's considering the specific spending ceiling which will be proposed, as I understand it, by either Senator DOLE or Senator CURTIS, or the two combined. I hope that the Senator, in doing so, will draw the Senate's attention to the fact that in the future, section 306 will be insisted upon by the Committee on the Budget. In our judgment, that is the only rational way to consider budget matters.
In connection with this one, I think we shall have an opportunity to fully discuss the budget implications: I can make my argument based on section 306 in the course of that debate and the Senate can take section 306 into account in voting on the Dole and/or Curtis amendment.
So with that understanding, may I suggest to the distinguished chairman, the floor manager of the bill, the Senator ought to include in his unanimous consent request section 306 specifically so that will be covered. With that, Mr. President, I will not object.
Mr. LONG. I so modify my request.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, suppose there is an amendment in the second degree to these three amendments. I wonder what the Senator from Louisiana contemplates in that situation. Do we have a time limit?
Mr. LONG. I would assume if an amendment is to be considered, amendments germane to it could also be considered.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Should we have a 20-minute time limit on amendments in the second degree?
Mr. LONG. I ask unanimous consent that any amendments to the amendment be limited to 20 minutes, equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object — and I shall not — with respect to whether this sets a precedent, I think attention ought to be focused on section 904(b) of the Budget Act which reads as follows:
Any provision of title III or IV—
306 is part of title III—
may be waived or suspended in the Senate by a majority vote of the Members voting, a quorum being present or by unanimous consent of the Senate.
So we are certainly taking action here that is contemplated within the provisions of the Budget Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Louisiana?
Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, reserving the right, to object, may I ask one question of the Senator from Maine?
Mr. MUSKIE. May I make a parliamentary inquiry? Does the unanimous consent agreement include 306? I suggested that to Senator LONG, and I do not know whether that suggestion was sufficient to incorporate 306 in the agreement or not. That ought to be clear
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator asking that section 306 be waived in that part of the unanimous consent request?
Mr. MUSKIE. Only for the purpose of this specific request.
Mr. LONG. Only insofar as these amendments are concerned.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would have to ask the Senator from Louisiana whether that is part of his unanimous consent request.
Mr. LONG. Yes, I ask it be waived only insofar as these three amendments and amendments thereto are concerned.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent request? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARTKE Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.